Search for a command to run...
• Non-invasive brain stimulation for treating post-traumatic stress disorder and other neurological and psychiatric conditions (Farina & Lavazza 2022). This includes neurofeedback, which "can modulate brain activity via real-time monitoring and feedback of EEG or fMRI signals" (Chiba et al. 2019: 2; see also Taschereau-Dumouchel et al. 2021). • Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for preventing the reconsolidation of fear memories (Borgomaneri et al. 2020). • Reduction of fear responses (e.g., arachnophobia) by means of neuropharmaceuticals (Soeter & Kindt 2015).A cutting-edge neurotechnology that seems especially promising for memory modification is optogenetics, which consists of the convergence of genetic engineering and brain stimulation. As explained by (Adamczyk & Zawadzki 2020: 207-208),neurons of interest are genetically modified to be made responsive to light, which is done by means of inserting opsin genes (genes that express light-sensitive proteins).[…] Once opsin genes arrive at their determined destination, they cause neurons to express light-sensitive proteins. When illuminated with light, the channels of these proteins regulate the flow of electrically charged ions across membranes, exacerbating or inhibiting the neuron's firing of action potentials, thus facilitating or preventing its communication with other neurons (depending on which light-activated protein is used). Thanks to this procedure, specific neurons can be activated or deactivated "at will," making optogenetics a highly selective and precise technique for manipulating neural activity.Thus, by acting on target neural circuits that have been previously identified and genetically modified, optogenetics makes it possible to intervene selectively in the brain, which would in principle allow for memory modification with unprecedented precision and effectiveness. Despite this promise, optogenetic studies have so far been conducted mainly on rodents (e.g., Liu et al. 2014;Etter et al. 2019;Davis & Vanderheyden 2020) and nonhuman primates (e.g., Stauffer et al. 2016;Deng et al. 2018), with only isolated clinical cases in humans (Sahel et al. 2021), which calls for prudence at this time. Nonetheless, rodent memory can now be manipulated via optogenetics to treat post-traumatic memories (Davis & Vanderheyden 2020), retrieve spatial memory (Etter et al. 2019), and even create false memories (Liu et al. 2014). While the applicability of these findings to humans remains uncertain, their potential ethical, social, and legal implications can hardly be overlooked.Prima facie, memory modification may provide substantial clinical benefits-including the treatment of trauma, amnesia, and some forms of dementia-and might enhance the cooperation of victims and witnesses in criminal investigations. However, it also carries significant risks at the psychological mental level. 4 For example, since intervention with optogenetics requires the (irreversible) genetic manipulation of neurons, the integrity of neural circuits could be compromised. Moreover, as highlighted by Zawadzki & Adamczyk (2021: 897), "[r]emoval or emotional modification of difficult memories may result in diminishing a patient's sense of agency, that is, her feelings and beliefs about her ability to control herself, the world, and others, and to make her own decisions." These authors also emphasize the potential impact of memory modification on personal growth and narrative identity:[I]f an individual were to decide to remove (with the use of optogenetics) or to change or dampen the emotional component (with the use of optogenetics, propranolol, or PFC-rTMS) of negative memories, she might deprive herself of the opportunity to experience a redemption sequence. Thus, such interventions might deprive an individual of the potential for finding meaning in suffering and prevent her from reshaping emotionally negative events into positive outcomes such as selftransformation, or involvement in prosocial goals, for example, helping others.[…] The redemption sequence points to the broader adaptational problem of how humans make sense of suffering in their lives in narrative terms. (Zawadzki & Adamczyk 2021: 894-895) Thus, while memory manipulation via neurotechnologies has the potential to improve the quality of life for some individuals, it simultaneously entails significant challenges related to two key ethical principles: personal identity and mental integrity. Importantly, both principles have recently been proposed as components of a human rights framework of so-called neurorights, which are "the ethical, legal, social, or natural principles of freedom or entitlement related to a person's cerebral and mental domain" (Ienca 2021: 1).According to Muñoz (in press2025), "the concept of mental integrity (MI) -also known as 'psychological integrity' -[…] refers to a possible moral and/or legal right for the protection of the intactness of the mind" and, as explained by Ienca & Andorno (2017: 18), it "should not only guarantee the right of individuals with mental conditions to access mental health schemes and receive psychiatric treatment or support wherever needed," but also "the right of all individuals to protect their mental dimension from potential harm." Therefore, given that the insertion of opsin genes into neural circuits is irreversible, any optogenetic memory manipulation should be carefully examined to ensure it aligns with human rights, guaranteeing that the individual does not suffer harm to the intactness of their psychological mental sphere. Memory manipulation through other neurotechnologies (e.g., neurofeedback, TMS, neuropharmaceuticals) should also adhere to the same safeguard parameters to be respectful with the neuroright to mental integrity.Personal identity, in turn, has been proposed as a neuroright by the Neurorights Foundationfoot_1 and, under the designation of "psychological continuity," by Ienca & Andorno (2017: 20), who characterize it as "the crucial requirement of personal identity consisting in experiencing oneself as persisting through time as the same person." Again, for memory manipulation by means of neurotechnologies to align with a human rights framework, it must provide guarantees that it will not result in psychological discontinuity incompatible with the preservation of essential characteristics of the individual's identity-such as their personal growth or processes of redemption and selftransformation. In Ienca and Andorno's words, "memory engineering technologies may impact a person's identity by selectively removing, altering, adding or replacing individual memories that are relevant to their self-recognition as persons" (Ienca & Andorno 2017: 20).In the previous section, the consequences of memory manipulation via neurotechnologies that do not respect the integrity and identity of the person were considered primarily from a brain-centered perspective. Nonetheless, while the prominence of the brain in memory formation, consolidation, and retrieval cannot be denied nor underestimated, there is growing evidence that the body also plays a key role through mechanisms as diverse as gestures (Macedonia 2014;Cook et al. 2017), smiling (Arminjon et al. 2015), exercise (Snigdha et al. 2014) Schreiner et al. 2023). This evidence reinforces theories of embodied and enactive cognition.According to the former, "the body's neural and extraneural processes, as well as its mode of coupling with the environment, play important roles in cognition" (Gallagher 2023: 1), while the latter "emphasize the idea that perception is for action, and that this action orientation shapes most cognitive processes" (Gallagher 2023: 30).The importance of the body in memory has also been an important focus of the highly influential book Descartes' Error, in which Damasio (1994) emphasizes that considering the connection between the body and the mind is essential for understanding perception and information processing. He proposes that so-called somatic markers-bodily state changes associated with emotional experiences-are instrumental in decision-making and information processing (see also Muñoz 2017). These markers can be positive or negative and are stored as patterns of neural activity linked to past experiences, influencing how memories are encoded and retrieved. They also serve to evaluate alternatives and predict outcomes:In short, somatic markers are a special instance of feelings generated from secondary emotions. Those emotions and feelings have been connected, by learning, to predicted future outcomes of certain scenarios. When a negative somatic marker is juxtaposed to a particular future outcome the combination functions as an alarm bell. When a positive somatic marker is juxtaposed instead, it becomes a beacon of incentive. (Damasio 1994: 174) In another influential book called The Body Keeps the Score, van der Kolk (2014) argues that memory is not limited to the mental representation of past events. According to his approach, which is based on the study of traumatic experiences, so-called bodily memory allows the formation of memories in the form of movement patterns, posture, and muscle tension. In this way, memories are stored not only in the mind but also in the body, and they can be reactivated through sensory and motor experiences.foot_2 The connection between the body and the brain is bidirectional. As mentioned, the brain processes sensory and emotional information, while the body stores and expresses memories through patterns of movement and posture, as well as physiological and metabolic processes. Communication between the body and the brain is essential for memory; as explained by LeDoux (2000: 177) for the case of working memory:Although the amygdala does not have extensive connections with the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, it does communicate with the anterior cingulate and orbital cortex, two other components of the working memory network. But in addition, the amygdala projects to nonspecific systems involved in the regulation of cortical arousal and it controls bodily responses (behavioral, autonomic, endocrine), which then provide feedback that can influence cortical processing indirectly.Moreover, memory retrieval would not only require accessing cognitive information but also the bodily and emotional experience associated with the original event. This way of understanding memory, referred to by some researchers as the sensorimotor model of memory, "predicts that memory processes can be manipulated through manipulation of the body" (Ianì 2019(Ianì : 1747)).Currently, neurotechnologies are not yet at a stage of development that allows for advanced or highly precise memory modification. However, if they ever reach that point-and if the sensorimotor model of memory proves to be correct-it would become urgent to thoroughly examine the potential clinical risks arising from a possible decoupling between the brain and the body as a result of memory modification through the nervous system alone. MoreoverFor example, from a perspective not related to treatment but rather to memory enhancement in healthy individuals, so-called neuroenhancementwhich involves intervention exclusively in the nervous system (Clark & Parasuraman 2014)-would not necessarily lead to an improvement of the individual-in addition to other significant concerns (see Muñoz & Borbón 2023).The distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic interventions is normatively significant. The principle of proportionality applies differently in each case, since the potential benefits of therapeutic interventions can, in principle, justify a higher tolerance for risk. This normative difference affects the setting of regulatory thresholds that separate permissible from impermissible interventions and entails different designs for consent standards across the two types of intervention. An embodied view of mental integrity and personal identity has direct implications for how these ethical and regulatory principles and standards are designed and applied.From an ethical standpoint, it is both compatible and desirable to integrate the conception of memory as a brain-body mechanism into a normative framework that already, de facto, understands integrity and identity as principles applied to the whole individual. The right to mental/psychological integrity is a good example in this regard, as illustrated by Ienca and Andorno's description of the inseparability between mental and bodily integrity within the European legal framework:The right to personal physical and mental integrity is protected by the EU's Charter of fundamental rights (Article 3), stating that "everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity." Understandably, the Charter emphasizes the importance of this right in the fields of medicine and biology, because of the direct impact that biomedical technologies may have on people's physical and mental integrity. (Ienca & Andorno 2017: 18) The central role of the brain and the rest of the nervous system in the formation, consolidation, and retrieval of memories is undeniable. Nonetheless, research on memory modification must not overlook bodily role, interactions with the environment, and individual life history. Legal frameworks for the protection of rights related to the human brain and mind (i.e., neurorights) should avoid neuroessentialist (Reiner 2011) and brain-in-a-vat (Hickey n.d.) mindsets and be based on this holistic perspective to ensure comprehensive protection of the individual against potential misuse of neurotechnologies. A person is a complex being shaped by a wide range of biological (e.g., the brain), psychologicalmental, and social components, and it is the whole person who must be the object of legal protection. As beautifully put by Antonio Damasio (1994: xvii): "The soul breathes through the body, and suffering, whether it starts in the skin or in a mental image, happens in the flesh."