This article was originally published on The Conversation, an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. Disclosure information is available on the original site.
___
Authors: Judy Illes, Professor of Neurology and Director of Neuroethics Canada; Vice Chair, Bioethics Council for Canada, University of British Columbia; Bartha Knoppers, Professor, Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University; Jennifer Chandler, Professor of Law, L鈥橴niversit茅 d鈥橭ttawa/University of Ottawa; Ross Upshur, Professor, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto; and Vardit Ravitsky, Professor, Bioethics, Universit茅 de Montr茅al
With Canada鈥檚 federal election behind us, we can now focus on a renewed commitment to our values and to economic growth. Both entail a commitment to the health and well-being of Canadians.
Brain health in particular has taken on new meanings over the past years, and has garnered substantial recent attention from major international organizations such as UNESCO and the World Health Organization.
Once centred on finding treatments for conditions that affect the nervous system such as movement disorders and epilepsy, neurotechnology is evolving.
Advances involve implantable technologies, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS). Other examples include responsive neurostimulation and stimulation of the vagus nerve.
The market in non-invasive and wearable devices is also growing. These technologies aim to address mental health disorders and improve quality of life for people suffering from conditions like chronic depression and post-traumatic stress disorders.
Combined with AI, these brain technologies are also finding their way into the non-medical lives of Canadians for personal use, education, workplace and entertainment.
Recommendations for neurotechnology
The finalized version of the UNESCO ethics recommendation for neurotechnology will be negotiated during the week of May 12. This will prepare the way for its formal adoption this fall by the 194 member states.
The recommendation carefully considers how neurotechnology can respect human dignity and the human rights of privacy, freedom of thought, data authenticity and protection, and justice. Other concerns pertaining to Indigeneity, marginalization, disability and vulnerability are touched upon.
If Canada adopts the recommendation, it could have far-reaching implications for Canadian citizens. It will influence 鈥� if not directly affect 鈥� federal funding and resource priorities and relevant government ministries. These include Health Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Canadian principles
In 2024, drawing upon the work of both Health Canada and the Working Party on Biotechnology, Nanotechnology and Converging Technologies of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a group of Canadian experts from medicine, law and public health delivered guidance for responsible innovation in neurotechnology.
These experts 鈥� including two of the authors of this article 鈥� strategically revised the original nine principles offered by the OECD into five tailored for Canada. These were: physical and personal safety and trust; societal deliberation and stewardship; global collaboration; strong oversight; and inclusivity and Indigeneity.
In April 2025, Indigenous and non-Indigenous members of the original UNESCO expert group published considerations to further safeguard against the risk of neurotechnology becoming an instrument of colonialism. These considerations include access to neurotechnologies for the relief of neurological conditions, as well as for their adoption in research, industry and daily life guided by the values and rights of Indigenous Peoples about brain health and wellness.
They included strategies for informed consent processes that align with Indigenous perspectives, and transparency about the use, storage and collection of neural data. Recommendations were also made for investments in digital infrastructure and literacy, and paths to intellectual property protections suitable to holistic and collective knowledge.
Trust in science
The behind-the-scenes efforts that led to the UNESCO ethics recommendation must come to the forefront.
In October 2024, a Bioethics Council for Canada/Le Conseil canadien de bio茅thique (小蓝视频C-CCB) was legally constituted to provide independent advice to the Canadian government and public. Building on the lessons learned from 140 bioethics councils worldwide, Canada鈥檚 new 小蓝视频C-CCB is poised to ensure that the public鈥檚 trust in science is central to the federal government鈥檚 mission.
Trust must be a renewed theme in matters pertaining to brain health and brain data, alongside other advances that will affect future generations. This trust will mitigate the noise and confusion surrounding us in a time of rapid technological progress, and foster leadership that an informed Canada can provide.
___
Judy Illes served as a Member of the Ad Hoc Expert Advisory Group on the Ethics of Neurotechnology Recommendation at UNESCO.
Jennifer Chandler is an external advisory board member for InBrain Neuroelectronics.
Vardit Ravitsky is President and CEO of The Hastings Center for Bioethics, a research center based in NY, USA.
Bartha Knoppers and Ross Upshur do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
___
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Disclosure information is available on the original site. Read the original article: https://theconversation.com/new-recommendations-for-regulating-neurotechnology-in-canada-include-protecting-indigenous-rights-256197
Judy Illes, Professor of Neurology and Director of Neuroethics Canada; Vice Chair, Bioethics Council for Canada, University of British Columbia; Bartha Knoppers, Professor, Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University; Jennifer Chandler, Professor of Law, L鈥橴niversit茅 d鈥橭ttawa/University of Ottawa; Ross Upshur, Professor, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto; and Vardit Ravitsky, Professor, Bioethics, Universit茅 de Montr茅al, The Conversation
