Reframing the Right to Education · Track 4

05.11.2026

Article 13 ICESCR · Neurotechnology

Neurotechnology and the Right to Education

Łukasz Szoszkiewicz¹ ² · Michał Klichowski¹

¹ Cognitive Neuroscience Center, AMU Poznań

² CyberLaw Lab, AMU Poznań

Neurotechnology & the right to education

02 / 08

Hugo Gernsback · 1925

The Isolator

A helmet against distraction

Never entered schools

Black-and-white photograph from 1925: Hugo Gernsback writing at his desk wearing the Isolator helmet, with an oxygen tank beside him

Fig. 1 · Science and Invention, July 1925

SOURCES · Science and Invention, July 1925 (Internet Archive) / The Isolator (Wikipedia)

Neurotechnology & the right to education

03 / 08

How education shapes minds

A · Teacher

Communication

The learner can interpret, negotiate, resist and revise

→

B · Device

Direct neural influence

The learner cannot understand, control or reverse

Limits under Article 13?

or

Part of high-quality education?

Primary school pupils in red neckerchiefs raising their hands in class, each wearing an EEG headband with a glowing light on the forehead

Jinhua, China · 2019

EEG headbands in a primary school classroom

Trial halted after parents raised privacy concerns

Source: The Guardian, 1 November 2019

Neurotechnology & the right to education

05 / 08

Article 13(1) ICESCR

“…education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity”

SOURCE · International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art. 13(1)

Neurotechnology & the right to education

06 / 08

Three answers

Precautionary protection

Prohibition

Council of Europe · 2021

Guidelines

Reactions to neurostimulation treated as biometric data, on a precautionary basis

No ban

UNESCO · 2025

Recommendation

No non-therapeutic optimization for healthy children

Soft limits

EU · AI Act

Article 5(1)(f)

No emotion inference in education, incl. interest and attention

Binding ban

SOURCES · CoE Guidelines on children’s data in education (2021) / UNESCO Recommendation (2025) / AI Act, Art. 5(1)(f) / Commission Guidelines on prohibited practices (2025)

Neurotechnology & the right to education

07 / 08

Three thresholds

Each step to the right requires more justification and stronger safeguards

01

Recording

EEG, fNIRS

tDCS, TMS

Influencing

02

Therapeutic use

Neurofeedback for ADHD

“Attention optimization”

Enhancement of healthy learners

03

Communicative

Neurofeedback

EEG monitoring

Stimulation below awareness

Non-communicative

Rule

Access to education never conditional on neurotechnology

SOURCE · Szoszkiewicz and Klichowski, Neurotechnology and the Right to Education, Elgar Research Handbook on the Right to Education (forthcoming)

Neurotechnology & the right to education

08 / 08

Slides

Reframing Article 13?

No amendment of Article 13 needed

Neurotechnology: both a subject of limits and part of high-quality education

01 · Short term

Joint statement

CESCR, CRC and CRPD Committees

→

02 · Longer term

Updated GC 13

Neurotechnology under acceptability

Łukasz Szoszkiewicz · l.szoszkiewicz@amu.edu.pl

DISCLOSURE · Ł. Szoszkiewicz is an Expert to the AI and Education Working Group, Council of Europe, and Director of European Affairs at The Neurorights Foundation. Views are his own.