A/76/380 suicidal thoughts. 159 While the capability of neurotechnology to reveal thought might be impressive within tightly controlled laboratory conditions, the accuracy is far lower in the real-world, at present, and it is allegedly unable to passively “decode” thoughts that researchers have not predefined. 77. While neuroscience’s ability to reveal thought will likely increase in accuracy over time, experts are concerned that, irrespective of accuracy, technology can be used to sanction inferred thoughts. Neuroimaging is reportedly already deployed in some circumstances to detect whether a stimulus is familiar to a person, for determining one’s fitness to stand trial, or for so-called “lie detection”, despite the heavily contested accuracy of such technology. 160 An Indian court accepted a form of neuroimaging as evidence that a defendant lied about their memories regarding a murder, and subsequently handed down a life sentence. 161 In 2019, several forensic psychiatrists claimed neuroimaging data could “feasibly” help to determine the likelihood of recidivism. 162 78. The Special Rapporteur also highlights reports that neurotechnology can already modify or manipulate thoughts inside the brain. Magnetic stimulation of the brain may alter moral reasoning, while electrical stimulation is touted as a possible treatment for depression. 163 Optogenetics could one day allow for the modification, removal or recovery of memories: to date, researchers have reportedly created artificial memories in mice, which they could recall in a comparable manner to genuine memories. 164 Although these techniques have not been adapted to humans yet, the possibility that optogenetics or other technologies may one day achieve this level of control over our thoughts merits serious consideration. 165 79. Experts broadly agree that contemporary legal frameworks are unprepared for emerging predictive and neurotechnologies and their implications for freedom of thought, among other rights. 166 They advocate human rights compliance for such technologies and caution against knee-jerk legislation that prohibits all forms of thought alteration, which might stymie legitimate persuasion or medical innovation. F. Mental health 80. Several stakeholders suggested that some tools for “treating” people with intellectual, cognitive or psychosocial disabilities are abused in ways that may violate freedom of thought. For example, psychotherapies, shock treatments, lobotomies and forced medication – some of which the medical community has denounced – reportedly have been used to coercively alter the thoughts of individuals, forcibly reveal thoughts (beyond legitimate therapeutic purposes), punish “inferred” thoughts, or even physically modify brains, in separate or cumulative violations of the freedom. 167 According to a court in the United States, psychosurgery is a “drastic means of affecting human behaviour”, notably impairing one’s abstract reasoning __________________ 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 22/28 See https://nocklab.fas.harvard.edu/files/nocklab/files/just_2017_machlearn_suicide_emotion_ youth.pdf. See https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12152-020-09438-4. See https://lawandbiosciences.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/beosruling2.pdf , para. 105. See https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217127 . See https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/11/0914826107; https://www.frontiersin.org/ articles/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00355/full; and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ abs/pii/S0006322313001364. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7592289/. See https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncir.2020.00041/full#h9 . Consultation on technology. Consultation on efforts to change thoughts. 21-14191