Tag: public health

AI in Mental Health Diagnostics

Digital cloud earth floating on neon data circle grid in cyberspace particle wave.
Image 1: Digital cloud earth floating on neon data circle grid in cyberspace particle wave. Adobe Express Stock Images. ZETHA_WORK. #425579329

In recent years, the promise of artificial intelligence (AI) in mental-health care has grown rapidly. AI systems now assist in screening for depression or anxiety, help design treatment plans, and analyze huge volumes of patient data. However, emerging evidence shows that these systems are not neutral: they can embed and amplify bias, threaten rights to equality and non‐discrimination, and have psychological consequences for individuals. We’ll be examining how and why bias arises in AI applications for mental health, the human rights implications, and what psychological effects these developments may carry.

The Rise of AI in Mental Health

AI’s application in mental health is appealing. Many people worldwide lack timely access to mental-health professionals, and AI systems promise scale, cost-efficiency, and new capabilities, like detecting subtle speech or behavioral patterns, that might identify issues earlier. For example, algorithms trained on speech patterns aim to flag depression or PTSD in users.

In principle, this could extend care to underserved populations and reduce the global burden of mental illness. But the technology is emerging in a context of longstanding disparities in mental health care; differences in who is diagnosed, who receives care, and who gets quality treatment.

How Bias Enters AI-based Mental Health Tools

Bias in AI systems does not begin with the algorithm alone; it often starts with the data. Historical and structural inequities, under-representation of certain demographic groups, and sensor or model limitations can all embed biased patterns that then get automated.

A recent systematic review notes major ethical issues in AI interventions for mental health and well‐being: “privacy and confidentiality, informed consent, bias and fairness, transparency and accountability, autonomy and human agency, and safety and efficacy.”

In the mental health screening context, a study from the University of Colorado found that tools screening speech for depression or anxiety performed less well for women and people of non‐white racial identity because of differences in speech patterns and model training bias. A separate study of four large language models (LLMs) found that for otherwise identical hypothetical psychiatric cases, treatment recommendations differed when the patient was identified (explicitly or implicitly) as African American, suggesting racial bias.

These disparities matter: if a diagnostic tool is less accurate for certain groups, those groups may receive delayed or improper care or be misdiagnosed. From a rights perspective, this raises issues of equality and non-discrimination. Every individual has a right to healthcare of acceptable quality, regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other status.

Human Rights Implications

Right to health and equitable access

Under human rights law, states have obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to health. That includes ensuring mental health services are available, accessible, acceptable and of quality. If AI tools become widespread but are biased against certain groups, the quality and accessibility of care will differ, and that violates the equality dimension of the right to health.

Right to non-discrimination

The principle of non-discrimination is foundational: individuals should not face less favorable treatment due to race, gender, language, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, or other prohibited grounds. If an AI mental health tool systematically under-detects problems among women or ethnic minorities or over-targets mental-health evaluation for other groups, discrimination is implicated. For instance, a study found LGBTQIA+ individuals were much more likely to be recommended mental health assessments by AI tools than was clinically indicated based on socioeconomic or demographic profile.

Right to privacy, autonomy and dignity

Mental health data is deeply personal. The use of AI to screen, predict or recommend treatment based on speech, text or behavior engages issues of privacy and autonomy. Individuals must be able to consent, understand how their data is used, challenge decisions, and access human oversight. The systematic review flagged “autonomy and human agency” as core ethical considerations.

Accountability and due process

When decisions about screening, diagnosis, or intervention are influenced by opaque algorithms, accountability becomes unclear. Who is responsible if an AI tool fails or produces biased recommendations? The software developer? The clinician? The institution? This ambiguity can undermine rights to remedy and oversight. The “Canada Protocol” checklist for AI in suicide prevention emphasized the need for clear lines of accountability in AI-driven mental health systems.

Differential labeling and stigma

When AI systems target certain groups disproportionately, for example, recommending mental health assessments for lower-income or LGBTQIA+ individuals when not clinically indicated, it may reinforce stigma. Being singled out for mental health screening based on demographic profile rather than actual need can produce feelings of being pathologized or surveilled.

Bias in therapeutic relationship

Mental health care depends heavily on the relationship between a person and their clinician. Trust, empathy, and feeling understood often determine how effective treatment will be. When someone believes their provider truly listens and treats them fairly, they’re more likely to engage and improve. But if technology or bias undermines that sense of understanding, people may withdraw from care or lose confidence in the system.

Reduced effectiveness or misdiagnosis

If an AI tool under-detects depression among certain groups, like women or ethnic minorities, and that leads to delayed treatment, then the psychological impact of possible longer suffering, increased severity, and reduced hope is real and harm-producing. One study found that AI treatment recommendations were inferior when race was indicated, particularly for schizophrenia cases.

These psychological effects show that bias in AI is not just a technical defect; it can ripple into lived experience, identity, mental health trajectories, and rights realization.

Chatbot conversation Ai Artificial Intelligence technology online customer service.
Image 2: Chatbot conversation with AI technology online customer service. Adobe Express Stock Images. khunkornStudio.
#567681994

Why AI Bias Persists and What Makes Mental Health AI Especially Vulnerable

Data limitations and under-representation

Training data often reflect historical care patterns, which may under-sample certain groups or encode socio-cultural norms that do not generalize. The University of Colorado study highlighted that speech-based AI tools failed to generalize across gender and racial variation.

Hidden variables and social determinants

One perspective argues that disparities in algorithmic performance arise not simply from race labels but also from un-modelled variables, such as racism-related stress, generational trauma, poverty, and language differences, all of which affect mental health profiles but may not be captured in datasets.

Psychology of diagnostic decision-making

Mental health diagnosis is not purely objective; it involves interpretation, cultural nuance, and relational trust. AI tools often cannot replicate that nuance and may misinterpret behaviors or speech patterns that differ culturally. That raises a psychological dimension: people from different backgrounds may present differently, and a one-size-fits-all tool may misclassify them.

Moving Toward Rights-Respecting AI in Mental Health

Given the stakes for rights and psychology, what should stakeholders do? Below are guiding principles anchored in human rights considerations and psychological realities:

  1. Inclusive and representative datasets
    AI developers should ensure that training and validation data reflect diverse populations across race, gender, language, culture, and socioeconomic status. Without this, bias will persist. Datasets should also capture social determinants of mental health, such as poverty, trauma, and discrimination, rather than assuming clinical presentations are uniform.
  2. Transparency, explainability, and human oversight
    Patients and clinicians should know if an AI tool is being used and how it functions, and they should remain able to challenge its outputs. Human clinicians must retain decision-making responsibility; AI should augment, not replace, human judgement, especially in mental-health care.
  3. Bias-testing and ongoing evaluation
    AI tools should be tested for fairness and performance across demographic groups before deployment, and, once deployed, they should be continuously monitored. One large study found that AI recommendations varied significantly by race, gender, and income.
    Also, mitigation techniques are emerging to reduce bias in speech- or behavior-based models.
  4. Rights to remedy and accountability
    When AI-driven systems produce harmful or discriminatory outcomes, individuals must have paths to redress. Clear accountability must be established among developers, providers, and institutions. Regulatory frameworks should reflect human rights standards: non-discrimination, equal treatment, and access to care of quality.
  5. Psychological safety and dignity
    Mental health tools must respect the dignity of individuals, allow for cultural nuance, and avoid pathologizing individuals based purely on demographic algorithms. The design of AI tools should consider psychological impacts: does this tool enhance trust, reduce stigma, and facilitate care, or does it increase anxiety, self-doubt, or disengagement?
  6. Translate rights into policy and practice
    States and professional bodies should integrate guidelines for AI in mental health into regulation, licensing, and accreditation structures. Civil society engagement, which includes patient voices, mental-health advocates, and rights organizations, is critical to shaping responsible implementation.

Looking Ahead: Opportunities and Risks

AI has enormous potential to improve access to mental health care, personalize care, and detect risks earlier than ever before. But, as with many new technologies, the impacts will not be equal by default. Without a proactive focus on bias, human rights, and psychological nuance, we risk a two-tier system: those who benefit versus those left behind or harmed.

In a favorable scenario, AI tools become transparent and inclusive, and they empower both clinicians and patients. They support, rather than supplant, human judgement; they recognize diversity of presentation; they strengthen trust and equity in mental health care.
In a less favorable scenario, AI solidifies existing disparities, misdiagnoses or omits vulnerable groups, and erodes trust in mental-health systems, compounding rights violations with psychological harm.

The path that materializes will depend on choices made today: how we design AI tools, how we regulate them, and how we embed rights and psychological insight into their use. For people seeking mental health support, equity and dignity must remain at the heart of innovation.

Conclusion

The use of AI in mental health diagnostics offers promise, but it also invites serious rights-based scrutiny. From equality of access and non-discrimination to privacy, dignity and psychological safety, the human rights stakes are real and urgent. Psychologists, technologists, clinicians, regulators and rights advocates must work together to ensure that AI supports mental health for all, not just for some. When bias is allowed to persist, the consequences are not only technical, but they’re also human.

Zambia Acid Spill: The Death of a River and the Ongoing Struggle of Local Communities to Recover

​This year in Zambia, Chambishi residents saw the Kafue River die before their eyes. Millions of liters of acidic, contaminated water containing toxic mining chemicals burst from a dam in February. Crops and animals died as residents suffered the effects of careless mining practices. This incident raises questions about environmental concerns regarding current mining practices in Zambia, as well as how to address cleanup and compensation for affected communities whose human rights were violated by this event.

Dam Failure and Toxic Water Spill

On February 18, a dam at the Sino-Metals Leach Zambia mining site collapsed, releasing a reported 50 million liters of contaminated water that flooded into the Chambishi Copper Belt region. Toxic spillage, containing heavy metals and high levels of acidity, flowed at least 60 miles down the Kafue River, a major river in Zambia used by many locals for fishing, irrigation, and water.

Image of the Kafue River in Zambia
Image of the Kafue River Source: Olympian Xeus, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

The immediate effects on the region were apparent in the devastation to local wildlife. The head of a Zambian monitoring group, Nsama Rusonda, reported the aftermath of the acid spill was shocking, saying, “It was a horror to see maize, bean crops that were green the night before, just turn brown. Tonnes of dead fish were floating in local riverways.” The environmental devastation was one of the first things to catch locals’ attention, but as time goes on, more and more effects of the toxic spill are becoming apparent.

Initial Reports and Health Concerns of Residents

The Kafue River is one of the largest rivers in Zambia, and many locals use it as a source of water for drinking, washing, and for their animals and crops. In the days after the spill, people ingested toxins through contaminated water and food, leading to “headaches, coughs, diarrhea, muscle cramps, and even sores on their legs.” Zambia’s reliance on the Kafue also exacerbates the seriousness of the crisis. 21 million people live in Zambia, and more than half rely on the river for water. For example, health concerns led to the water being turned off in the city of Kitwe, leaving 700,000 people without access to water. To drive home the magnitude of this catastrophe, Kitwe is Zambia’s second-largest city, and cutting off water to 700,000 people would be like cutting off the water to all of Washington, DC.

​Officials from the Sino-Metal mining company expressed their regret for the incident shortly after it occurred, stating their intent to assist both with environmental cleanup efforts and to re-establish the economic means of affected individuals. To determine the scope of the damage, Sino-Metals needed to conduct an ecological study. South African company Drizit found that 1.5 million tonnes of hazardous waste were released during the dam collapse, 30 times the 50,000 tonnes initially reported by Sino-Metal. The need for outside observers during environmental disasters is crucial. It’s necessary to provide an objective report on the damage that communities and nations, particularly developing ones, have suffered, so they can respond appropriately, warn their residents, and hold parties accountable for human rights violations.

Official Response

​In the days after the spill, the Zambian government worked to reverse the environmental damage. Hundreds of tons of lime were dumped into affected waterways in an effort to combat acidity from the spill. Zambian officials faced the challenge of finding an appropriate response that balanced harm to residents with environmental concerns, while also working with foreign powers and important infrastructure investments in their country. When Sino-Metals gave a $580,000 payout, Zambian Vice-President Nalumango remarked that this must be coupled with neutral environmental analysis to ensure proper reparations. Nalumango further said, “If the damage to the land and livelihoods proves to be more extensive or long-lasting than initially understood, then further compensation will be necessary and it will be pursued.” This approach will allow flexibility in Zambia’s approach, enabling it to assess whether additional negative effects arise for residents over time and then pursue more compensation accordingly.

Vice-President of Zambia Mutale Nalumango
Vice-President of Zambia Mutale Nalumango Source: Chellah Tukuta Rancen, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Despite the words promising accountability and help from Sino-Metal, Zambia’s ability to force them into meaningful action remains limited. In direct response to the acid spill, Zambia fined Sino-Metals $50,000. This fine is not enough for restoration efforts and is an insignificant amount compared to the widespread damage to Zambia and the harm done to communities. Differences in political and economic power between countries may create additional difficulties when a smaller country is seeking recourse against a larger one. This may especially true for Zambia, a country heavily dependent on copper production, which has received $3.5 billion in investments from China in the past two decades associated with mining and metal in Zambia. Such dependence on economic support from larger countries may dissuade countries from taking action against foreign players in order to continue receiving funding.

Recent Analysis

​While bureaucracy and legal proceedings may take months, residents face daily struggles in the aftermath of the disaster. Conditions from the spill persist in their toxicity to such a degree that Finland issued a travel advisory regarding high levels of toxic heavy metals in the water, and the US embassy issued an evacuation order for all officials from the area, citing health concerns related to the environmental state. In light of such serious concerns raised by other countries, Zambia was thrust into the international spotlight.

With global attention, Zambia seemed to dismiss concerns and assure that harms had been dealt with. A spokesperson from Zambia reported, “pH levels have returned to normal and concentrations of heavy metals are steadily decreasing, which means that the immediate danger to human, animal and plant life has been averted.”

Image of a conveyor belt with coal on it at a mine
Conveyor systems, often used in mining operations. Source: pkproject via Adobe Stock Images, Licensed for Educational Use

Residents affected by the pollution continue to complain of many physical ailments, including headaches and diarrhea, but the Zambian government’s dismissive attitudes towards concerns seems as though they are prioritizing their appearance and foreign investors over their citizens’ right to health.

While the mining sector is crucial for much of Zambia’s economic activity, it is, from a human rights standpoint, unacceptable for the government to not protect its citizens and to ignore or hide obvious and continued harms. A government’s duty to the wellbeing of its citizens should be foremost in its response during a crisis.

Chinese Influences and Zambia’s Future

​This is not the only time mining activities have concerned residents in Zambia. In the past, residents have contracted lead poisoning from pollution incidents and mining operations, while schools have been shut down due to noise and hazardous chemicals.

Balancing China’s interests in minerals with protecting Zambia’s environment and communities is a difficult task for Zambia, especially when they have received billions in funding from China and are over $4 billion in debt to China. These power imbalances can lead to struggles for accountability and justice at both the community and national levels.

This toxic spill is only one event in a disturbing pattern of environmental devastation in Zambia. Access to clean water, secure livelihoods, and environmental justice are crucial to the survival and well-being of many residents. The Zambian response to this latest disaster will set expectations for future interactions and shape the fate of thousands of Zambians, and it is to be hoped that Zambia prioritizes its citizens’ human rights over all other concerns.

Breaking the Huddle: How Domestic Violence Touches Every Alabama Classroom

Breaking the Huddle: How Domestic Violence Touches Every Alabama Classroom

Aggression in the family, man beating up his wife. Domestic violence concept.
Aggression in the family, man beating up his wife. Domestic violence concept.By: doidam10. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 229549647

Domestic violence is not simply a distant tragedy or a headline attached to famous names—it’s a daily crisis with real victims in every Alabama community. Shortly after Christmas 2024, former NFL star Marcell Dareus was arrested in Hoover after a violent altercation. This event of early 2025, underscores how quickly intimate relationships can turn dangerous. This incident isn’t exceptional; it reflects a pattern that plays out in neighborhoods across the state, affecting classmates, coworkers, and friends. Understanding this reality isn’t optional for college students; it’s essential for building safer campuses and futures.

Domestic violence is a human rights violation disguised as a “private matter.” International law and human rights frameworks are clear: everyone has the right to live free from violence, fear, and discrimination. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) guarantees, in Article 3, the right to “life, liberty and security of person.” Article 5 further prohibits “torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Survivors of domestic violence are entitled to protection, safety, and access to justice under both U.S. law and international treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

A Crisis Next Door: The Local Reality

For many, domestic violence may seem like a private matter that happens behind closed doors, far removed from campus life. But the truth is, it’s happening in your neighborhood—maybe even in your residence hall. The case of Marcell Dareus, a 34-year-old celebrity athlete, and the woman he harmed, is only one of thousands of incidents reported each year in Alabama. This incident is a sobering reminder that abuse can escalate from arguments to physical violence in mere moments.

Picture this: It’s 2 a.m., one week after Christmas. In a quiet Hoover subdivision, just minutes from UAB’s campus, a well-known athlete shoves his partner to the ground and smashes her car with a metal object. The victim could easily be your lab partner, a friend from your sorority, or the barista who knows your coffee order by heart. The physical injuries may heal, but the psychological trauma—fear, anxiety, distrust—can linger for years. And for every headline-grabbing case, countless more go unreported, leaving survivors to navigate their pain in silence.

When we ask, “Why does this matter to me?” the answer is simple: domestic violence is not limited by age, class, or background. If you think it could never touch your world, consider that four in ten women and one in four men will experience intimate partner violence in their lifetimes. The odds are overwhelming that someone you know—maybe even someone you love—is a survivor.

The Numbers Lawmakers Can’t Ignore

The statistics surrounding domestic violence in Alabama and the US are both staggering and deeply personal. Domestic violence is cited as a top cause of homelessness for women, and it costs billions of dollars nationwide, with one estimate saying that intimate partner violence costs $5.8 billion annually nationwide. This figure includes $4.2 billion for medical costs for physical assault and $1.75 billion in lost productivity. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research estimates the cost of domestic violence at $9.3 billion (2017 dollars), which includes intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and stalking, with medical and lost wages as core components of these costs. For Alabama, extrapolations from Youth Today’s national $3.6 trillion lifetime estimate suggest that state costs are in the low billions. That’s a staggering sum that drains resources from schools, hospitals, and public safety initiatives—money that could otherwise go toward scholarships, better facilities, or improved mental health services.

Every minute, 24 Americans become victims of intimate partner violence, amounting to over 12 million people every year. These aren’t just statistics; they are stories of dreams deferred, educations interrupted, and futures derailed. The consequences ripple outward: children witnessing violence at home are more likely to struggle academically, develop emotional disorders, and, in some cases, perpetuate the cycle of abuse as adults. The link between domestic violence and future criminal behavior is undeniable.

The country’s legal landscape has only made things worse for those at risk of domestic violence. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow states to ban abortion has, according to experts, raised the likelihood that women will be subjected to intimate partner violence. When women lose reproductive autonomy, abusers gain more power, trapping partners in dangerous, sometimes deadly relationships. Domestic violence can be considered a human rights violation, and Alabama’s numbers show just how entrenched the problem is.

Taking Action: Your Role in the Playbook

If you think there’s nothing you can do, think again. Staying silent keeps domestic violence alive; speaking up can end it. Students are uniquely positioned to notice the warning signs—changes in a friend’s mood, unexplained injuries, sudden withdrawal from activities—and offer support. The most important thing you can do is believe survivors, connect them with campus and community resources, and, if necessary, call for help.

There are also events happening throughout Alabama to raise awareness and provide support. On October 24th in Tuscaloosa, the Purple Purse Drive collected donations for survivors. And in September in Birmingham, Safe Bar training was offered at 20 bars to help staff recognize and respond to abuse. These events are more than just calendar entries—they’re opportunities to get involved and save lives.

Conclusion: Your 60-Second Play Call

Domestic violence is not “someone else’s problem.” It is the roommate who flinches at loud noises, the teammate hiding bruises, the future nurse who can’t study because home isn’t safe. Every student in Alabama has the power—and the responsibility—to break the silence.

  1. Post #RollAwayFromViolence on social media and tag @ALCADV to raise awareness.
  2. Vote – some candidates’ domestic violence prevention plans are available at Vote411.org
  3. The huddle is broken. Now make the tackle.

Need help now?

  • National DV Hotline: 1-800-799-7233
  • Alabama 24/7: 1-800-650-6522
  • Text “START” to 88788

Roll Tide—and roll away from violence.

Neurorights and Mental Privacy

Neurons cells concept, whitehoune, #170601825
Image 1: Conceptual illustration of neuron cells, whitehoune, Adobe Express Stock Images, #170601825

As neuroscience and commercial neurotechnology advance, a new human-rights conversation is emerging: who controls the contents of the mind? This question, framed as “neurorights,” aims to protect mental privacy, personal identity, and cognitive liberty as technologies that can read, interpret, or modulate brain activity move from labs into clinics and consumer markets.

Imagine a person using a sleek, wireless headband marketed to boost productivity. The device measures tiny electrical signals from their scalp, brainwaves that reflect attention, stress, and fatigue levels. This neural data is sent to a companion app that promises personalized “focus insights.” Yet behind the scenes, that same data can be stored, analyzed, and even shared with advertisers or insurers who want to predict behavioral patterns. Similar EEG-based devices are already used in classrooms, workplaces, and wellness programs, raising questions about who owns the data produced directly by our brains and how it might shape future decisions about employment, education, or mental health.

What are neurorights?

“Neurorights” is an umbrella term for proposed protections covering mental privacy (control over access to one’s neural data), cognitive liberty (the freedom to think without undue intrusion or manipulation), mental integrity (protection from harmful interference with brain function), and fair access to cognitive enhancements. Advocates argue these protections are needed because neural signals, unlike most data, are deeply tied to personal identity, emotion, and thought.

Why human rights framing matters

Framing these issues as human-rights questions does more than add vocabulary; it shifts the burden from optional ethics to enforceable obligations. Rights language foregrounds duties of states and powerful actors (companies, employers, security services) A rights framework also helps center vulnerability. People detained in criminal justice systems, psychiatric patients, low-income communities, and marginalized groups may face disproportionate risks of coercive or exploitative uses of neurotechnology.

The psychological stakes concerning selfhood

Psychology offers essential insights into why neural intrusions are psychologically distinct from other privacy breaches. Anticipated or actual access to one’s neural signals can change behavior, prompting self-censorship, anxiety about inner experiences, or altered identity narratives as people adapt to the possibility that their private mental states might be exposed, interpreted, or changed.

Moreover, interventions that modulate mood, memory, or decision-making, whether therapeutic or commercial, reach into capacities that underpin agency and moral responsibility. Psychology research shows that perceived loss of agency can undermine motivation, increase helplessness, and disrupt social relationships; applied at scale, these individual effects could reshape community life and civic participation.

Current technologies and real-world uses

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), invasive implants, noninvasive electroencephalography (EEG) headsets, and machine-learning models that decode neural patterns are no longer just speculative. Companies developing clinical implants aimed at restoring lost motor function and consumer devices marketed for wellness, focus, or gaming generate neural data that, if mishandled, could reveal health conditions, emotional states, or behavioral tendencies.

Reports and investigations have raised alarms about both safety and governance, questioning lab practices, clinical oversight, and whether companies adequately protect highly sensitive neural signals. Meanwhile, policymakers and researchers are documenting opaque data practices among consumer neurotech firms and urging regulators to treat neural data as especially sensitive.

Where governments and institutions are acting

Latin America has been a notable early mover on neurorights. Chile passed constitutional protections and subsequent legislation explicitly recognizing rights tied to mental privacy and brain integrity, signaling a precautionary approach to neurotechnology governance. Regional advocacy and legal scholarship have spread the debate through Mexico, Brazil, and other jurisdictions.

Outside Latin America, regulatory efforts differ. Subnational privacy laws in places like Colorado have moved to include neural or biological data under sensitive-data protections, and U.S. senators have urged federal scrutiny of how companies handle brain data. At the international level, UNESCO and other bodies are mapping ethical frameworks for neurotech and its impact on freedom of thought and personal identity.

Psychological harms and social inequality

Human-rights concern about neurotech is not simply theoretical. Psychological harms from intrusive neurotechnology can include sustained anxiety about mental privacy, identity disruption if neural signatures are used to label or stigmatize people, and coerced behavioral modification in institutional settings.

These harms are likely to be unequally distributed, with some groups facing fewer safeguards and greater exposure to surveillance or coercion. Rights-based governance should therefore combine privacy protections with equity measures, ensuring safeguards are accessible to those most at risk.

Human brain illustration, Adobe Express Stock Images, Hein Nouwens, #141669980
Image 2: Human brain illustration, Adobe Express Stock Images, Hein Nouwens, #141669980

Benefits and risks

After discussing so many potential risks of neurotech, it’s important to acknowledge that this technology also has legitimate benefits: neurotechnologies offer therapeutic promise for paralysis, severe depression, epilepsy, and other conditions where traditional treatments fall short. The human-rights approach is not about halting innovation; it’s about steering it so benefits don’t come at the cost of fundamental freedoms, dignity, or mental integrity.

Principles for rights-respecting governance

Based on human-rights norms and psychological science, several practical principles can help guide policy and practice:

  1. Mental-privacy-first data rules. Neural data should be treated as inherently sensitive, requiring explicit, revocable, and informed consent for collection, use, and sharing, plus clear limits on secondary uses.
  2. Strong procedural safeguards in clinical research. Trials for invasive devices must meet rigorous safety, animal-welfare, and informed-consent standards to protect participants’ welfare and dignity.
  3. Transparency and oversight for commercial neurotech. Companies should disclose data flows, model-training practices, and any commercial sharing of neural signals, and independent audits and enforceable penalties should deter misuse.
  4. Protection against coercion. Employment, school, or criminal-justice settings should be barred from coercively requiring neural monitoring or interventions without robust legal protections and judicial oversight.
  5. Equity and access. Policies should avoid creating two-tier systems where only affluent groups receive safe, beneficial neurotech while others suffer surveillance or low-quality interventions; public health pathways for safe therapeutic access are essential.
  6. Legal recognition of cognitive liberties. Where feasible, codifying protections for mental privacy and mental integrity, at least as part of sensitive-data regimes and health-privacy laws, creates enforceable rights rather than aspirational principles.

What psychology researchers can do

Psychologists and behavioral scientists are well placed to measure and communicate the human impacts of neurorights policy choices. Empirical studies can probe how perceived neural surveillance influences stress, self-concept, and social behavior; intervention trials can test consent processes and mental-privacy safeguards; and qualitative work can amplify vulnerable groups’ lived experiences.

What civil society and rights advocates should watch

Advocates should monitor corporate data practices and any opaque sharing of neural signals, laws that would allow state access to neural data for security or law-enforcement purposes without adequate safeguards, and the commercialization of consumer BCIs that escape medical regulation yet collect deeply personal neural information. Public interest litigation, public education campaigns, and multi-stakeholder policy forums can help shape accountable pathways.

A cautious optimism

The rise of neurorights shows that society can respond proactively to emerging technologies. Chile’s early steps and subnational privacy laws signal that legal systems can adapt to protect inner life, and UNESCO and scientific communities are actively debating ethical frameworks. But these steps are the beginning, not a solution. Meaningful protection requires global attention, interdisciplinary research, and enforceable rules that place human dignity and psychological well-being at the center.

Conclusion

Neurotechnology promises real benefits for health and human flourishing, but it also raises unprecedented questions about mental privacy and the boundaries of state and corporate power. A human-rights approach, guided by psychological evidence about identity, agency, and harm, offers a way to balance innovation with dignity. Protecting the privacy and integrity of our minds is not just technical policy; it’s a defense of what it means to be a person.

Proposed Southeastern Natural Gas Pipeline Raises Concerns

An expansion to a natural gas pipeline is slated to begin construction in the fourth quarter of 2026, a project that the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) has called a “fossil fuel superhighway.” The proposed South System Expansion 4 project is a $3.5 billion pipeline expansion that would span 291 miles across Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. It has been proposed to upgrade the Southeastern United States’ energy grid, providing an additional 1.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas capacity per day. Kinder Morgan, the company presiding over the project, touts the market-driven demand for natural gas and the sustainable growth that the expansion will bring to the region. The SELC cites environmental and economic concerns, urging the federal government to take careful consideration of the adverse impacts that this pipeline expansion could have on the communities through which it passes.

Aerial view of pipeline.

Image One: Aerial view of pipeline. By: MelissaMN. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 221316621

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Process

The project is currently under review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which must issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct any interstate natural gas pipeline. FERC accepted public comments that address potential hazards, externalities, alternatives, and relevant information regarding the project until October 6th. In a joint statement of protest, several organizations, including Alabama Rivers Alliance, Blackbelt Women Rising, and Energy Alabama, pointed out potential issues with the pipeline for FERC’s consideration. NYU Policy Integrity also urged FERC to consider environmental concerns in its decision.

ƒmodiSSE4 Environmental Impact Statement

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) outlining the potential externalities of any project under FERC’s jurisdiction is required. The joint protest issued by Alabama Rivers Alliance, Blackbelt Women Rising, Energy Alabama, and others urges FERC to fully consider the effects of 14 new natural gas pipeline loops on water quality, endangered species, air quality, and marginalized communities in its EIS. In an outline of the project, Kinder Morgan addressed environmental concerns; they claim that the project is “committed to protecting significant cultural sites and environmentally sensitive areas.” The overview explains the environmental considerations they will make before, during, and after the project’s conclusion. It states that the field surveys will be conducted to avoid sensitive areas, environmental inspectors will monitor the project as it progresses, and land will be re-seeded and restored after completion.

The joint protest raises additional concerns. Crossing rivers and streams using open-cut methods can increase the water’s total suspended solids and damage local ecosystems. Horizontal directional drilling causes erosion. The project would require 130 million gallons of water, which would require extraction that can cause “water-shed wide ecological stress.” It also mentions that “[o]ut of the 14 compressor stations being modified as part of this Project, only one compressor unit is slated to be electric.” These non-electric compressor stations produce harmful pollutants like nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds. The pipeline will also run across Alabama’s Blackbelt region, which already deals with toxic coal ash, industrial wastewater, and other environmental injustices.

Aerial shot of Alabama's Coosa River.
Image Two: Aerial shot of Alabama’s Coosa River. By: Donny Bozeman. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 494086723

Environmental Justice and Public Health

As NYU Policy Integrity mentions, under a recent memorandum released by the Council on Environmental Quality, FERC is not required to examine environmental justice issues when considering a project’s potential harm and impact. This memorandum is in accordance with the January 2025 executive order Unleashing American Energy, signed by President Trump, which directs federal agencies to “expedite permitting approvals.” The memorandum adds that agencies “must prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other policy objectives.” However, FERC is still required to examine potential harms to the public, and the effects of the pipeline construction cannot be divorced from the local situation of the pipeline’s immediate impact area. The pipeline will cross through areas with higher concentrations of particulate matter than the national average. According to data collected from County Health Rankings and Roadmaps, the eleven Alabama counties that the project is projected to cross have an average of 8.9 micrograms per cubic meter of fine particulate matter in the air; the US average is 7.3. The prevalence of asthma among adults was also higher than the national average in each of the Alabama counties, according to 2022 CDC PLACES data. NYU Policy Integrity also lists elevated economic indicators of social vulnerability, including higher rates of poverty, near planned compressor stations. Given that the local populations already face health challenges linked to the environment, FERC’s consideration of the potential harms from the pipeline expansion should include the compounding effects of the pipeline’s construction in an area already impacted by environmental degradation.

FERC and Procedural Rights

FERC’s upcoming Environmental Impact Statement on the effects of the pipeline expansion represents environmental rights in action. Procedural rights, or the rights of people to participate in processes, are a cornerstone of environmental rights. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) defines procedural rights as “access to information, public participation, and access to justice.” These rights are important for protecting the environment and upholding the rule of law. The UN’s 2019 Environmental Rule of Law report found that civic participation in environmental decisions in the US led to innovative, cost-effective solutions by adding information to analyses and reframing issues.  The basis for these rights in international law comes from the 1992 Rio Declaration and the 1998 Aarhus Convention. The US is not a signatory to the Aarhus Convention, but the National Environmental Policy Act enshrines some of the same ideals in US law. The Environmental Impact Statement promotes public access to information, while the Joint Protest statement and NYU Policy Integrity’s report are examples of public participation. Access to justice is upheld when agencies like FERC take into consideration environmental injustices and hold companies to account.

Deregulation

Procedural and environmental rights at large may be in danger, as recent developments in US policy are clearing the path for the oil and gas industry at any cost. President Trump has championed a deregulatory agenda, notably withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and attempting to overturn the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding. The Paris Agreement, adopted by 195 countries in 2015, set goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Methane, a greenhouse gas, has a much higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide, and a recent review of scientific literature suggests that natural gas pipelines’ emission impacts have been underestimated. The EPA’s endangerment finding, released in response to the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA ruling, found that under the Clean Air Act, the agency is required to place limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The endangerment finding treats greenhouse gases like other harmful chemical pollutants because they also endanger public health, though on a broader scale than localized pollutants.

Natural gas compressor station.
Image Three: Natural gas compressor statement. By: Olga. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 452024190

Conclusion

The Southern Environmental Law Center opposes the South System Expansion 4 project in part because of the immediate effects on the communities located in its path, but also because it expands the reliance on natural gas while increasing energy bills for regular people. Executive director of Energy Alabama Daniel Tait claims, “Alabamians will be stuck with the bill for decades while utilities invest in fossil fuels instead of cheaper, cleaner alternatives.” However, Kinder Morgan’s vice president of public affairs, Allen Fore, argues that Alabama Power and the Southeast will benefit from the additional natural gas capacity.

As with any project on this scale, the South System Expansion 4 pipeline is controversial. It raises questions about sustainable development, corporate responsibility, and the federal regulatory process. Central to all energy developments should be the right of impacted communities to their health and well-being. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlines the right to an adequate standard of living, which the SSE4 puts at risk by polluting the surrounding area. FERC should listen to public comments and ensure that the project proceeds with the best interests–and the human rights–of the communities and the environment in mind.

“Hidden in Plain Sight”: Child Sex Trafficking in Alabama

On a humid summer morning in 2025, investigators in Bibb County, Alabama, followed a tip to a property behind a small home in the city of Brent. They say they discovered an underground bunker that had been repurposed into a site of horrific abuse involving at least 10 children, ages 3 to 15. Seven individuals, some of them related to the victims, were arrested on charges that included human trafficking, rape, sexual torture, and kidnapping. The sheriff called it the worst case he had seen in three decades, and more arrests could still come as the investigation develops.

Adobe Stock. File #: 297986967; ‘Shadows in a dark black room.’ By Светлана Евграфова

Stories like this are shocking, but they are not isolated. Sex trafficking thrives in secrecy and shame, and it depends on community silence to survive. This post explains what sex trafficking is under federal and Alabama law, how recent state legislation increased penalties, what warning signs look like in everyday settings, and exactly how to report concerns safely.

What the Law Means by “Sex Trafficking”

Federal law (TVPA & 18 U.S.C. § 1591)

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) is the main federal law to fight human trafficking. It created programs to prevent trafficking, protect survivors, and prosecute traffickers. A key part of this law is 18 U.S.C. § 1591, which makes sex trafficking a serious federal crime. It says that anyone who recruits, transports, or profits from someone in sex trafficking, especially minors, or adults forced by fraud, threats, or coercion, can face very long prison sentences and hefty fines. The law focuses on both holding traffickers accountable and assisting survivors in rebuilding their lives. Importantly, force, fraud, or coercion does not need to be proven when the victim is under 18. That is the bright line of federal law: a child cannot consent to commercial sex.

Adobe Stock. File #: 298570791; ‘Stop child abuse. Human is not a product.’ By AtjananC.

Alabama makes human trafficking a serious crime under its criminal code.

  • First-degree trafficking (Ala. Code § 13A-6-152): This covers forcing someone into sexual servitude or exploiting a minor for sex.
  • Second-degree trafficking (Ala. Code § 13A-6-153): This includes recruiting, transporting, or making money from trafficking, even if the person isn’t directly exploiting the victim.

In April 2024, Alabama passed the “Sound of Freedom Act” (HB 42). This law increased penalties: if someone is convicted of first-degree trafficking involving a minor, they must receive a life sentence, making the punishment even stronger than the usual Class A felony.

Before HB 42, Alabama’s Class A felonies carried 10–99 years or life. The new law removes judicial discretion for minor-victim cases by requiring at least life imprisonment upon conviction for first-degree trafficking.

Adobe Stock; File #209721316; ‘Offender criminal locked in jail’. By methaphum

Why “Coercion” Isn’t Always What You Think

In the public imagination, trafficking looks like kidnapping by strangers. Sometimes it is. More often, it looks like grooming and manipulation by someone the child knows, an older “boyfriend,” a family member, a family acquaintance, someone who offers rides, cash, substances, or a place to crash. Under both federal and Alabama law, proof of force, fraud, or coercion is not required when the victim is under 18, because the law recognizes how easily minors can be exploited.

Where Sex Trafficking Hides—And the Red Flags

Trafficking can occur in short-term rentals, hotels, truck stops, private residences, and online (through social media, gaming platforms, and messaging apps). No community is immune – rural, suburban, and urban areas all see cases. You may notice a child who:

  • Is suddenly disengaged from school and activities
  • Has unexplained injuries
  • Has new “friends” and gifts
  • Has an adult who answers for them
  • Has restricted movement
  • Has signs of deprivation
  • Appears coached in what to say.
Adobe Stock: File #:176601576. Woman sitting on bed in room with light from window. By yupachingping

Educators, coaches, healthcare providers, youth pastors, and even neighbors are often the first to spot concerns. Alabama’s recent case in Bibb County proves that abuse networks can be family-linked and community-embedded, not organized by only outsiders. Trust your instincts; the law backs you up when you report in good faith.

If You See Something: How to Report in Alabama

  • Immediate danger? Call 911.
  • Children (under 18): In Alabama, make a report to your county Department of Human Resources (DHR) or local law enforcement. DHR maintains a county-by-county contact directory and guidance on how to report child abuse/neglect.
  • National Human Trafficking Hotline (24/7): 1-888-373-7888, text 233733 (BeFree), or chat online. Advocates provide confidential help and can connect callers to local services.

A note for mandated reporters:

Alabama’s mandated reporting law (Ala. Code § 26-14-3) requires many professionals, including teachers, healthcare workers, counselors, clergy, and others, to report suspected child abuse or neglect immediately. When in doubt, report; you do not have to prove trafficking to act.

What “Safe Harbor” Means for Children

Across the U.S., Safe Harbor policies aim to treat exploited minors as victims who need services, not as offenders. While states differ in how these protections are implemented, the core idea is consistent: a child who has been bought and sold should receive trauma-informed care and not face prosecution for acts stemming from exploitation. If you work with youth, be aware that Alabama’s human trafficking statutes align with this child-protection lens, and service providers can help navigate options.

A Real Case, Real Lessons

Return to Bibb County. According to reports, some victims in the alleged bunker case were kept underground, drugged, and “sold” to abusers; one suspect is accused of distributing child sexual abuse material. Community members later asked how this could have continued for years without intervention. The uncomfortable answer: it’s easy to miss what you’re not looking for, and it’s hard to report what you can’t imagine happening. That’s why awareness, clear reporting pathways, and strong laws all matter.

Adobe Stock: File #: 495335081 ‘Hidden in plain sight. Closeup shot of a beautiful young womans eye’. By Marco v.d Merwe/peopleimages.com

Practical Steps You Can Take This Week

  1. Save the Hotline: Put 1-888-373-7888 in your phone under “Human Trafficking Hotline.” Please share it with colleagues and students in age-appropriate ways.
  2. Know your local contact: Look up your county DHR reporting number and bookmark it. If you work in a school or clinic, post it in staff areas.
  3. Review indicators: Spend 10 minutes with DHS’s Blue Campaign indicators and guidance for identifying victims. Consider how these apply in your setting (classroom, clinic, church, etc.).
  4. Clarify your duty to report: If you’re a mandated reporter, review Alabama’s summary materials and your organization’s internal protocol to be prepared before a crisis.
  5. Combat myths: Remember, children cannot consent to commercial sex, and proof of force or violence is not required for a child sex trafficking case under federal law.

Bottom Line

Sex trafficking can surface anywhere—including small Alabama towns. Federal law treats any commercial sexual exploitation of a minor as trafficking, full stop; Alabama now backs that stance with one of the harshest penalties in the country when the victim is a child. Awareness is not enough unless it’s paired with action: see the signs, make the call, and let the system take care of the rest.

Adobe Express Stock Images. File #: 300469288; ‘IT’S TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT’. By New Africa

From Stigma to Strategy: Egypt’s Fight Against Cervical Cancer

Egypt, known as the mother of the world, has made headlines for its global health impact. From eradicating malaria to tackling hepatitis C, it has made strides to protect the health of its nation. However, women’s health seems to be on the back burner for the country. Egypt, a country rich in history and culture, remains a country that grapples with stigma and systemic inequality. The health issues still faced by the country are not just surrounding public health, but also human rights.

Photo 1: OAFLA Panel Discussion on Breast and Cervical Cancer in AfricaSource: Flickr
Photo 1: OAFLA Panel Discussion on Breast and Cervical Cancer in Africa
Source: Flickr

The Silent Crisis

Cervical cancer is rarely discussed. It is a preventable and treatable disease, primarily caused by infection with human papillomavirus (HPV). This burden is seen throughout the world, but especially the Middle East and North African region, which carries a unique incidence, being 24% in the Sub-Saharan region. Though there is variability through the region, Egypt faces large challenges to approaching HPV reduction. In Egypt, however, this is not frequently discussed, even though a population of 25.76 million women over the age of 15 are at risk of developing cervical cancer due to the lack of interventions that exist. The prevalence of HPV in Egypt in 2014 was 10.4%, with the highest rate occurring in women 45-54 years old. Beyond this, over 800 women die each year from cervical cancer in Egypt, with thousands more facing delayed diagnoses, impacting their ability to respond to treatment. A variety of factors contribute to the development of the illness in Egypt, ranging from knowledge gaps to a lack of vaccines accessible to marginalized communities. The number of infected individuals has been increasing steadily for various reasons, indicating the burden of illness in the country

The silence around cervical cancer is a product of overlapped gender stigma and medical discrimination. Some women have even reported feeling unsafe and scared about mentioning HPV and cervical cancer, due to the perception of external pressure. This results in women feeling less comfortable seeking out information and support before and during the onset of the illness, negatively impacting their outcomes.

Political Barriers

In Egypt, HPV and cervical cancer prevention is not just a medical issue; it is also deeply political. Policies have worked to make healthcare generally less accessible. An example of this was recent legislation passed in 2024. President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi signed legislation that allows private sector entities to operate and manage public health facilities on a for-profit basis. This is dangerous for the citizens of Egypt, especially those who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who rely on subsidized healthcare. The consequences of this in terms of HPV prevention are significant; laws like these limit the availability of accessible interventions that individuals can trust long-term, as there would be uncertainty regarding the long-term implications of their results. This mistrust could cause individuals not to seek vaccine opportunities and consequent treatment, if applicable, which would increase the burden of the disease in Egypt overall.

There are some humanitarian barriers that exist to helping reduce the onset of HPV and cervical cancer in Egypt. One is that of humanitarian support. With entities like the WHO and UN mobilizing care to millions across the world, their reach and impact is quite vast. With oncoming political crises, climate change, and more, many high-income countries are leveraging support for their low-income and middle-income peers. However, these programs, integral to global health security, are coupled with concerns about aid effectiveness and donor notices. Historically, donors have rewarded improved outcomes in governance and human rights; however, now, donors have worked to avoid “spillovers,” which is the impact of immigration policies in a country beyond the intended scope into their own country due to instability and migration flow. Though Egypt does not fall into this category as a state risky for aid support, it could be tangentially related. The country has faced many issues, ranging from security to freedom of speech attacks, resulting in lower spending on social protection, health, and education than would otherwise be possible, opening an outlet for the onset of disease in Egypt.

 

Social Barriers

Identity and culture also influence the onset of HPV as a precursor to cervical cancer. Those born female have an increased risk of developing HPV, a risk that is then compounded by class and socioeconomic status. In Egypt, there were around 1,300 new cases and 744 deaths from cervical cancer in 2023 alone. The incidence to death ratio is alarming considering that cervical cancer is preventable with a vaccine. 

A lot of entities have tried to work to see how adverse outcomes in communities can be reduced. Ranging from the Egyptian Society of Women’s Health to NGO sites, there have been some improvements in reducing the HPV and cervical cancer incidence in Egypt. However, these interventions are not being adjusted to support the need of rural communities, leaving them underserved. This results in additional barriers for these communities to gain the access to healthcare they deserve.

HPV and the Fight for Human Rights

The societal silencing of the HPV issue results in additional challenges to addressing the health inequities that are present in Egypt when it comes to cervical cancel. As many women stay quiet about their diagnosis, they are unable to live their best lives and advocate for themselves. Women’s healthcare is a tool to improve life outcomes, and human rights will be best served by working to not only increase access to interventions, but also ensure that they are equitable for all Egyptian women across the world.

Addressing the Global Water Crisis

My water bottle travels with me everywhere. It seems like something I cannot live without. When I was filling it up from the tap before heading to class, I couldn’t help but wonder what it is like to lack access to clean drinking water. That is the reality for many people around the world, especially as weather patterns change and industry use of water increases. Globally, water systems are failing, and people pay the price.  

A women pours water from a puddle into buckets.
Image 1: Woman collecting water from a puddle, India. Source: Adobe Stock.

The UN’s Perspective on Water: 

The UN General Assembly recognizes the right of individuals to “enough water for personal and domestic uses,” or 50 to 100 liters per day. The UN stresses water’s importance for health and well-being, stating that “water should be treated as a social and cultural good, and not primarily as an economic good.” 

Water’s Impact on People 

Despite the importance of water to daily life, a quarter of the world’s population lives in countries with inadequate water supply, and water shortages threaten to displace hundreds of millions by 2030. When water isn’t easily accessible, people have to walk miles to transport it. When this task falls to children, their physical health and education are threatened.   

It is paramount that access to water is expanded globally. What threatens our water supply? How can it be improved? The following are a few examples of water issues and how they have been handled worldwide. 

Sustainable Practices in Agriculture 

As climate change and industrial practices threaten the delicate balance of the hydrological cycle, which represents the flow of water across the planet, careful management of water is more important than ever. Conservationist groups have made proposals to both governments and private industry for implementing more sustainable water practices.  

One major area of potential improvement is agriculture, which accounts for around 70% of the world’s water usage.  Efficient and sustainable practices, such as drip irrigation and storing water, are recommended by environmental groups to reduce water usage. Some farmers are hesitant to update their methods due to the high up-front costs of installing these systems. In Mexico, drought is forcing farmers to reassess their traditional flood irrigation. Managing water use is difficult due to the economic demand for this precious resource. 

A vegetable field is flooded, illustrating a wasteful use of water.
Image 2: Flood irrigation of a vegetable plantation wasting water. Source: Adobe Stock.

Difficulty in Addressing Crises 

Iran is currently battling a water crisis due to the combined effects of decreased rainfall and chronic mismanagement. In Tehran, the nation’s capital, water pressure is so low that it cannot reach many of its residents. When confronted with a changing climate, Iran has funneled resources into water-intensive industries and drained groundwater for agriculture, rather than prioritizing access for individuals. 

Despite the way that water-intensive industries contribute to scarcity, addressing water shortages in Iran is not as simple as shutting down these water-intensive industries. Water conservation plans must account for sectors like steelmaking and agriculture, because they are major contributors to Iran’s economy. Some solutions, like groundwater recharge, which allows more rainwater to soak into the ground and replenish aquifers, don’t require sacrifices to industry. Climate-focused innovation can provide relief for water-strained areas, while other development projects put communities at risk. 

Costs of Development for Communities 

The development and expansion of infrastructure are important to sustaining the modern world. However, development comes at a cost to environmental stability. These issues affect ordinary people’s access to clean drinking water.  

In Lesotho, a small landlocked country, residents have submitted complaints to the African Development Bank, claiming that a water project, which will transport water from Lesotho to Johannesburg, South Africa, has damaged their homes and polluted their water. In trying to provide water for one population, incautious development has put another community at risk.   

Other development projects seemingly unrelated to water still place a strain on resources and pollute surrounding areas. Artificial intelligence data centers have become a flash point  for environmental and water issues. Meta’s data center in Newton County, GA. has limited nearby residents’ access to water. The construction of the data center, which uses 500,000 gallons of water daily, caused sediment build-up in pipes. It has cost homeowners thousands of dollars in repairs. 

AI data centers require water to cool their processor chips, and they also use electricity generated by steam-powered plants. Large data centers can use up to 5 million gallons of water per day. Some concerned citizens are seeking to block the construction of these plants because of the rising environmental costs associated with them. Environmental advocacy is one path toward equitable water access, as data center projects worth billions of dollars have been blocked or delayed by local communities in the US. Even so, other efforts are stalled by corporate lobbying. 

Corporate Influence on Environmental Legislation 

To implement water policy, governments must make choices about the practices for water extraction and the uses of water that they will allow. In the United States, private equity-owned companies like BlueTriton, whose products include Poland Springs, are rewriting environmental legislation. An amendment proposed by BlueTriton lobbyists in the Maine legislature struck an entire bill that would have placed limits on its contracts with the state.   

The bottled water industry uses significantly less water than agriculture and other sectors, but BlueTriton’s involvement in Maine’s legislation is just one of many cases involving corporations influencing environmental policy. In 2025, over $60 million has been spent on lobbying the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to roll back regulations on PFAS industries. This is money well spent for lobbyists, since the EPA has moved to vacate portions of its PFAS limits rules in drinking water. Governments are key players in water management, so their attention to vulnerabilities is paramount to managing water crises. 

What Happens When Governments Neglect Vulnerable Communities? 

In the Maldives, which faces unique challenges including rising sea levels and unpredictable weather patterns, a Human Rights Watch (HRW) investigation found that the government has struggled to communicate effectively with rural communities, thereby putting them at risk.  The investigation also found that the government left crucial water infrastructure, including desalination plants, in disrepair. An earlier HRW report concluded that the Maldives Environmental Protection Agency failed to enforce environmental regulations, which threatened access to freshwater.

The Maldives government has partnered with NGOs like the Green Climate Fund in recent years to improve its water systems, but some residents pointed out that the projects were “carried out hastily and remained only partially completed, years behind schedule.” This demonstrates the difficulty of restoring water infrastructure that has fallen behind. Along with recent efforts by the Maldives Government, the international community has stepped up to help alleviate the water shortage through grant funding of projects like building desalination plants. 

alt=
Image 3: Desalination plant. Source: Adobe Stock

International Cooperation 

These challenges transcend borders. Therefore, the international community, institutions like the United Nations Development Programme, NGOs like the Green Climate Fund, and individuals worldwide are working transnationally to ensure access to safe and secure water for all.  The UNDP has invested over $8 billion in sustainable water development, and it recently partnered with the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) to bring clean water to 150,000 Ethiopians.  

What Can We All Do? 

Sustainable development and equitable access to water are possible. To reach the UN’s sixth Sustainable Development Goal of safe and affordable drinking water for all, individuals, governments, and corporations must take action. Potential solutions include environmentally conscious infrastructure development, limiting waste, and investing in innovative green technologies. Individuals can join their local Waterkeeper Alliance chapter, support water conservation legislation locally and nationally, limit their personal water use, and donate to water organizations. 

Construction and Consequences: The Human Impacts of Artificial Intelligence Data Centers

This summer, I worked with a few different advocacy organizations during Louisiana’s 2025 Congressional Session. The amount of policy issues flying around was mind-spinning, but a constant murmur about the new Meta data center popping up in Richland Parish always seemed to pierce through the chaos. I couldn’t help but think, “Of all the state issues we could be debating, what could be so provocative about a data center?”

Data centers are nothing new; ever since the birth of the Internet, they have been used for the large-scale computing that comes with ever-advancing technology. With the rapid expansion of generative AI, our country is seeing more and more of these processing centers pop up, especially in rural areas. Governments, researchers, and communities alike have been forced to face the glaring reality that comes with the construction and maintenance of new AI data centers: where there are new data centers, there are human lives directly impacted by their creation. Debate on whether these effects are a net positive or negative to these communities has prompted closer examination on the human impact of data centers. Only through a thorough analysis of this ongoing research can we determine the nature and scope of these impacts and explore proper policy responses.

A large computing center surrounded by rural farmland.
Source: Adobe Express, Sepia100, #566722487

WATER

We rely on water; it’s as simple as that. We need water to drink, bathe, flush the toilet, wash our hands and dishes, and water our crops; it’s a necessity to life, and an officially recognized human right. As much as we need water, data centers are even thirstier. It takes a lot of water to cool down all of the computing that takes place in these buildings. In 2021, just one of Google’s data centers in Oregon used up 355 million gallons of water. In 2023, all of Meta’s data centers worldwide guzzled around 1.4 billion gallons of water. Where is this water coming from? Of Meta’s 1.4 billion gallons, about 672 million gallons came from local water sources. The extraction process is permanent, meaning data centers deplete millions of gallons of water from communities’ local water supply yearly, and with the industry’s rapid expansion, its water consumption will only grow. Some residents living nearby these new data centers, such as Beverley Morris in Mansfield, Georgia, believe that these centers are draining wells and aquifers, leaving locals without drinkable or fully functional running water in their homes. For communities in the Southwest, this could pose an especially pressing threat during droughts as the scarce water supply is divided between industrial and civilian use.

Landon Marston, a professor in environmental and water resources engineering at Virginia Tech University, points out that since companies like Meta and Google tend to choose areas outside of cities to construct these data centers, the surge in water demand could also necessitate water infrastructure updates, the costs of which could fall partly on local ratepayers.

ENERGY

AI data centers require tons of energy. We’re talking 200 trillion watts an hour, and that was only in 2016. The power usage of these data centers is projected to rise to nearly 2967 trillion watts an hour by 2030. The previously flatlined demand for electricity has been increasing nationally since 2023 partly due to the energy-intensive operations of growing data centers. The majority of data centers’ energy relies on fossil fuels and power plants, putting pressure on local energy grids. This increased pressure poses the threat of more frequent, long-lasting, and expensive blackouts for the communities surrounding these energy-hungry data centers.

More pressure on the grid naturally means more pressure to update the grid. Local belief and research alike contend that the cost of these grid updates, as well as the price tag of the extra energy demand, will show up in locals’ energy bills. A Harvard study provides evidence that under-the-table agreements between utilities and Big Tech consumers could be partly responsible for increased rates on everyday residents’ bills. Additionally, in places like Louisiana, the combination of prolonged need for air conditioning and damage to energy infrastructure due to storms drive energy bills up as it is; the intense energy demands of the new data center will serve only to exacerbate the steep cost of energy and amenities in nearby homes and businesses. Utilities are essential to decent quality of life and even employment, tying their accessibility directly to human rights.

A person with a calculator in one hand and a utility bill in the other attempts to calculate what they owe.
Source: Adobe Express, Anna, #529027855

PUBLIC HEALTH

Since AI data centers rely heavily on the fossil-fuel energy of power plants, they run the risk of increasing local pollution and threatening public health in already vulnerable rural locations. AI centers, on top of their energy use from the grid, also employ backup generators in case of grid failure; these diesel generators can release 200 to 600 times more nitrous oxides (NOx) than a natural gas plant while producing the same amount of energy. NOx pollution can cause irritation in the eyes, throat, and nose, as well as more severe cases of respiratory infection, reduced metabolism, and even death. According to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE, data centers caused about $6 billion in public health damages due to this type of air pollution in 2023. That being said, location matters. Often, these data centers choose rural areas, and in cases like that of Bessemer, Alabama, these areas are often home to a large Black population. Black Americans already suffer disproportionately from air pollution and other environmental injustices; in fact, low-income Black Americans have the highest mortality rate due to fine particulate matter air pollution. The emergence of data centers in rural Black communities only serves to exacerbate this phenomenon. This can be directly traced to industrial zoning policies, which often result in the sacrifice of poor, rural, often Black areas to attract business and wealth to cities. The result? Higher rates of asthma, respiratory issues, even pollution-related death, and a direct violation of the human right to clean air.

 

Smog plumes out of a large plant, polluting the sky.
Source: Adobe Express, Jaroslav Pachý Sr., #175217425

ECONOMY

While industrial zoning and property value are the most important location factors, choosing a lower income, rural area also poses possible economic advantage for the communities. The construction of processing centers can require thousands of workers, offering steady employment opportunities for locals. After construction, companies like Meta, Google, and Microsoft will have to hire employees to keep their data centers managed and running properly, another new job opening for those in the surrounding area. Some locals have expressed excitement over the new economic growth data centers will bring, especially in areas with dwindling industries like coal and timber. Working in data centers is an attractive alternative to the low-paying, dangerous agricultural jobs some of these areas rely on. Others have raised concerns that while many jobs will certainly appear during the construction period of the centers, employment opportunities from data centers seem to fall off afterwards. Depending on the size, each data center building could operate with as little as fifty employees, according to Microsoft. Larger ones like the one developing in Louisiana are required to employ 500 locals, but even that opportunity seems small to some residents in comparison to the harm the center could bring to their community. Members of communities impacted by the development of data centers have also expressed concerns about land usage, pointing out that the extensive land taken up by these new data centers had potential to be used for farming or other less health-damaging economic development. The right to employment good working conditions are outlined directly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and these economic impacts could very well jeopardize them for those living in surrounding areas.

What Now?

Artificial Intelligence isn’t going away; in fact, we can expect its rapid expansion in the coming years, including the construction of dozens of new data centers. Behind AI’s captivating technologies, there are human lives impacted by the processes it takes to power its functions. Considering the damage data centers can do to local resources, it certainly seems like measures need to be taken to ensure the escalating growth of AI doesn’t come at the expense of communities, especially those that already face disadvantage. First and foremost, companies establishing these centers should focus on using renewable energy for much of their power, thereby decreasing their environmental impact on local communities. In addition, companies should adopt initiatives to maintain the local water supply’s integrity, recycle water when possible, and ultimately, improve the efficiency of their computing to save resources like water and electricity. Local governments must ensure that the price of increased pressure on electricity and water infrastructure does not end up on ratepayers’ bills; this means more transparency from large companies and their agreements with local utility providers and governments regarding the construction and maintenance of these centers and the impacts on local residents’ well-being. These centers, if built sustainably and with people in mind, could ultimately have a positive impact on industry and economy within these communities. The development of data centers must not concentrate solely on maximum profit and computing power but also on the adverse effects the center has on utility bills, air quality, water demands, the power grid, and public health as a whole.

So, really, it’s no wonder advocates, lobbyists, and policymakers couldn’t stop talking about Richland Parish’s new data center. It’s nearly as big as Manhattan, and its effects on the surrounding community may end up being just as sizable.

Who Gets to Decide? Prescription Laws, Public Health, and the Ethics of Medical Gatekeeping

In a world where people are expected to take responsibility for their health, the systems meant to support them too often stand in the way. Around the globe, and especially in the United States, access to essential medications is tightly controlled by prescription laws. These laws are often justified on the grounds of safety, but they also raise a pressing human rights concern: What happens when gatekeeping itself becomes a barrier to health, autonomy, and dignity?

This blog argues that prescription drug laws, as they currently function, too often violate the core principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). These include the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being (Article 25), the right to autonomy and freedom from arbitrary interference (Article 3 and 12), and the right to equal access to public services and protection (Article 21). By rethinking how access to medications is regulated, we can move toward a more equitable and compassionate model of care.

Prescription Control as a Barrier to Rights

At their best, prescription requirements aim to protect people from misuse, medical harm, and exploitation. But in practice, these laws create systemic barriers, particularly for marginalized communities, by requiring time, money, and proximity to healthcare providers simply to access medications that are safe, well understood, and often urgently needed.

This structure assumes that people cannot be trusted to manage their own care without professional oversight. But that assumption is increasingly at odds with both ethics and evidence. Many people understand the medications they rely on. They know the risks. Studies show that patients with chronic conditions often develop a high level of medication literacy and risk awareness through long-term use and counseling. And yet, they are asked to justify their needs to clinicians who may not share their urgency, or even their values. Prescription laws, in these cases, do more than inconvenience. They function as a form of medical disenfranchisement, denying individuals the right to act in their own best interest simply because they are not deemed qualified to make decisions for themselves.

Pretty sparkly pills
Image 1: An assortment of pills. Source: Yahoo Images

In the United States, prescription requirements are enforced through a legal and regulatory structure that delegates authority over medication access to licensed healthcare providers. The system is primarily governed by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) of 1938, which granted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to require certain drugs to be dispensed only by prescription. In 1951, the Durham-Humphrey Amendment formally distinguished between “prescription” (legend) drugs and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, mandating that certain medications could only be obtained with the written authorization of a licensed practitioner.

Today, the FDA, along with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and state medical boards, determines which medications require prescriptions. These typically include:

  • Drugs with a high potential for abuse or dependence, such as opioids 
  • Medications with significant side effects or narrow therapeutic windows, like warfarin or lithium
    • A narrow therapeutic window (or therapeutic index) means there is a small range between a drug’s effective dose and its toxic dose, making precise dosing essential to avoid under-treatment or dangerous side effects
  • Substances that require monitoring or diagnostic oversight, such as antidepressants, antibiotics, and hormonal therapies 

For a medication to transition from prescription-only to OTC, the manufacturer must submit a New Drug Application (NDA) with evidence that average consumers can safely use the drug without a clinician’s supervision. This review process is lengthy, costly, and highly restrictive. Even well-established medications often remain prescription-only due to regulatory or political reasons, rather than clinical necessity. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has advocated since 2012 for over-the-counter access to hormonal contraception due to its safety profile, yet access remains restricted in many states due to political and regulatory inertia.

While intended as safeguards, these laws impose significant barriers, especially for people in rural areas, uninsured individuals, undocumented immigrants, and those with chronic conditions who need long-term medication access.

Access Denied: Real-World Consequences

To illustrate how this plays out, consider two examples: insulin and oral contraceptives.

Insulin, a century-old medication essential for people with diabetes, remains locked behind prescription requirements in the United States. The result is tragic: according to the American Diabetes Association, 1 in 4 Americans with diabetes has rationed insulin due to cost or access barriers. Delayed prescriptions, expired scripts, and unnecessary office visits put lives at risk—not because insulin is inherently dangerous, but because the system around it is.

Insulin and injection supplies
Image 2: Insulin and injection supplies. Source: Yahoo Images

Now consider oral contraceptives. Major medical bodies like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the World Health Organization have long advocated for over-the-counter access to birth control, citing overwhelming evidence of safety and efficacy. Yet millions must still navigate clinical appointments, insurance requirements, or geographic isolation just to avoid an unintended pregnancy.

In both cases, prescription requirements do not enhance public safety—they undermine the right to health and self-determination. They increase cost, delay care, and disproportionately burden people with the fewest resources. These are not minor inefficiencies. They are rights violations with life-altering consequences.

Monthly birth control pills
Image 3: Monthly birth control pills. Source: Yahoo Images

The UDHR states in Article 25 that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including medical care and necessary social services. But health is not merely about access to care; it also includes freedom and agency.

As the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasizes, the right to health includes:

  • Availability: functioning healthcare services and medications
  • Accessibility: free from discrimination and within financial/physical reach
  • Acceptability: respectful of autonomy, culture, and identity
  • Quality: scientifically appropriate and safe

Prescription laws often fail all four. When a person cannot afford or reach a provider to refill their birth control, their care is not accessible. When a person is denied insulin because their script has expired, their treatment is not available. When gatekeeping assumes incompetence instead of encouraging informed decision-making, care becomes unacceptable in a rights-based framework.

Rethinking Risk, Rethinking Responsibility

None of this means all drugs should be available without limits. Medications with high risks of misuse, like opioids or antibiotics, require thoughtful regulation. However, the current system treats risk as a universal, rather than a spectrum. It places the burden of proof on patients rather than regulators and too often assumes incompetence by default.

We trust people to make countless risky decisions every day: driving, drinking, even refusing life-saving treatment. So why does buying an oral contraceptive or refilling a long-used insulin prescription require a professional sign-off?

A better model by human rights standards would be tiered and rights-conscious:

  • Expand over-the-counter and pharmacist-prescribed access for lower-risk, widely used medications
  • Increase public health education and harm reduction tools
  • Preserve professional guidance as an option, not an obstacle

This model would treat people not just as patients, but as rights-bearing agents.

A person made of medicine, consuming a pill.
Image 4: A person made of medicine, consuming a pill. Source: Yahoo Images.

Conclusion: The Right to Decide

Prescription drug laws were built with good intentions. However, when these laws block access, restrict autonomy, and exacerbate inequality, the human rights point of view holds that they must be reevaluated. Health is not just about surviving illness; it is also about having the freedom and support to shape one’s life. Access to medication is not simply a medical issue. It is a matter of freedom, equality, and dignity. The right to health also includes the right to decide. We don’t need to eliminate medical expertise, but, from a human rights perspective, we do need to stop making it the price of entry to healthcare.