Neurotechnology: engaging local communities in its creation and use

In October, Time published its list of the best inventions of 2025. Many of the featured products were neurotechnological advances. Making the list were inventions like Cognixion Axon-R, a non-invasive headset that measures brain activity and uses assistive AI to give voice to those without speech; Sound Health Sonu, a decongestant headband that uses sound waves to counter a user’s sinus resonant frequencies; and Medtronic BrainSense aDBS, a deep brain stimulator that subdues Parkinson’s tremors.

These devices could bring significant public health benefits, and some subject matter experts are enthusiastic about the future of neurotechnology. Still, with so many new inventions emerging, it is easy to get swept up in the excitement. What exactly is neurotechnology, and what are we—as consumers and as a society—signing up for when we use it? Better yet, how can local communities get involved in its development and use?

UNESCO defines neurotechnology as the “devices, systems, and procedures– encompassing both hardware and software– that directly access, monitor, analyze, predict or modulate the nervous system to understand, influence, restore, or anticipate its structure, activity, function, or intentions.” Neurotechnology often takes the form of brain–computer interfaces (BCIs). Put simply, BCIs integrate the nervous system (the brain, spinal cord, neurons, and nerves) with technology. Cognixion Axon-R is one example: the headset reads brain activity to create an output. With advances in artificial intelligence, many new devices also use AI to improve output. For instance, in addition to measuring the user’s brain activity, Cognixion Axon-R implements assistive AI to complete speech output for the user (read more here).

Importantly, neurotech devices excel through the use of data, specifically, brain data. Devices like Cognixion Axon-R can only predict a user’s speech intentions accurately if they have access to a robust bank of brain data. The use of brain data by these companies is a serious concern for many technology ethicists. Dr. Nita Farahany, technology ethicist, Robinson O. Everett Distinguished Professor of Law & Philosophy at Duke Law School, and Founding Director of Duke Science & Society, explained this dilemma on her TED Radio Hour from NPR: “You see, the brain data that will be collected and generated by these devices won’t be collected in traditional laboratory environments or in clinical research studies run by physicians and scientists. Instead, it will be the sellers of these new devices, the very companies who’ve been commodifying our personal data for years.”

Many ethicists, including Dr. Farahany, argue for stronger safeguards on brain data through policy that governs the creation and implementation of neurotechnology. These safeguards would protect the individuality of users and ensure the safe use of their data.

Conversations about neurotechnology policy are inherently rooted in societal considerations. Amid the excitement and critique from subject matter experts, it is important that community voices—local users, administrators, and observers of the technology—are included. Discussions of community-engaged science are becoming more common across the scientific community, with many research labs and universities prioritizing community input. However, when it comes to neurotechnology, researchers and practitioners are not the only ones who need to consider communities. Multi-billion-dollar corporations also need to engage with them.

Despite the added complexity of corporate involvement, many organizations and universities continue to center society and ethics in their neuroscience and neurotechnology efforts. This year, Georgia Tech University launched its Institute for Neuroscience, Neurotechnology and Society, which places societal health and wellbeing at the center of its work. In 2023, the Implantable Brain-Computer Interface Collaborative Community (iBCI-CC) was established by experts in BCI technology.

The collaborative brings together “researchers, clinicians, medical device companies, ethicists, regulators, patient advocacy groups, individuals with lived experience, and care partners” to support the advancement and accessibility of BCIs. The Dana Foundation has also reaffirmed its commitment to supporting neurotechnology with society in mind, funding several organizations and universities focused on neurotechnology, neuroethics, and society, including the Neurotech Justice Accelerator at Mass General Brigham. This month, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization adopted an international standard for the development and ethics of neurotechnology. Containing more than 100 recommendations for developers and researchers, one of the standard’s goals is to encourage diverse participation: “to foster inclusive multi-stakeholder, multidisciplinary and pluralistic dialogue and consensus building about ethical issues relating to neurotechnology.”

The rise of ethical and community-based considerations among organizations working in neurotechnology is promising. The examples mentioned here likely represent a tiny part of what will likely be a rapidly expanding landscape of engagement initiatives. With rapid advances in the field, the need to surface and characterize these engagement efforts is becoming increasingly important. The importance of these initiatives is reflected in the words of Dana Foundation’s Dr. Caroline Montojo, who wrote in her April 2025 President’s Perspective: Initiatives like the iBCI-CC demonstrate what’s possible when technical expertise is paired with humility, transparency, and a willingness to work across disciplines.”

Some additional readings:

• Neuroscience is ready for neuroethics engagement
• Getting People Talking: Promoting Public Engagement with Neuroethics
• Neuroethics and Public Engagement: Why, How, and Best Practices
• Ethics of neurotechnology (UNESCO)

Bernadette Weigman

Bernadette Weigman is a neuroscience and society reporter for The Civic Science Observer.  She covers the civic dimensions of neuroscience, including its intersections with education, public engagement, and the broader societal implications of brain science. She engages with scholars and practitioners to learn about their public engagement work and how they navigate the ethical, cultural, and institutional challenges of bringing neuroscience into public life.