Neurotechnology is already here: why Europe must act now

13-01-2026 - Following the adoption, on 5 November 2025, of the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology, Considerati’s Brussels team brings a new edition of EU Insights Lab, dedicated to one of the most forward-looking global governance standard setting instruments adopted in recent years.

In this episode, Anamaria Corca, Director of Public Affairs at Considerati, interviewed Dr. Dafna Feinholz Klip, Director ad-interim for Research, Ethics, and Inclusion Division at UNESCO, to explore why neurotechnology requires the urgent adoption of a normative instrument and how the European Union can position itself at the forefront of rights-based innovation.

Neurotechnology in everyday life

In a context where artificial intelligence and digitalisation increasingly promise efficiency and convenience, the constant use of connected devices has become normalised. From mindfulness applications and wellness wearables to smartwatches and smartphones, data flows continuously and is collected almost invisibly.

Yet, how exposed are individuals really, and are citizens fully aware of the implications of technologies that do not merely collect behavioural data, but interact directly with the brain and the nervous system?

These questions are particularly pressing as neurotechnology moves beyond clinical and research settings into education, labour environments, and direct-to-consumer markets.

Why neurotechnology, and why now?

Dr Feinholz explained during the interview that the uniqueness of neurotechnology lies in its direct interaction with the brain and the nervous system:

“What is important about neurotechnologies is that they have the possibility to read, register and modify the structure and the function of the brain and the nervous system, all that makes us humans and where the most important and more valuable to us — our thoughts, our ideas, our beliefs, our emotions — are there. As you can see, the power is immense.”

At the same time, neurotechnology offers transformative opportunities in healthcare. Brain-computer interfaces and neurostimulation devices already allow patients with severe neurological conditions to regain lost functions and autonomy. Dr Feinholz highlighted their impact in neurodegenerative diseases:

“They can communicate again because this machine, this interface, what they allow is to translate the neural activity into words. They can be, for example, projected on a screen and then they can communicate with family. Or for example, people with Parkinson are able and capable to regain the control over their body”.

These therapeutic applications demonstrate the immense societal value of neurotechnology when deployed within robust clinical, ethical, and regulatory frameworks.

From regulated medicine to wild west.

However, while medical uses of neurotechnology are subject to well-established safeguards, including ethics committees, clinical trials, and regulatory authorities, other uses remain largely unregulated.

As Dr Feinholz warned:

“The medical sphere, since a long time ago, is very well regulated. You have ethics, research committees, and technical committees. You have regulatory authorities that make sure that the safety and everything of the products are there. But what happens when you use these technologies in education, in labor, in direct-to-consumer? There's nothing.”

This regulatory gap is particularly concerning given the nature of the data involved. Neural data is not comparable to other forms of personal data, as it can reveal cognitive states, emotions, intentions, and potentially beliefs.

“And the data that you collect with these technologies is very particular, very sensitive. It needs to be considered personal and sensitive. And we know that legally this implies that they must have better protection, a different level of protection”.

Neural data, ownership, and mental privacy

Data governance is therefore at the core of the neurotechnology debate. While patients benefit from clear rights and safeguards in clinical settings, the same cannot be said for data generated by consumer neurotechnology or wellness devices.

Who owns this data, how is it stored, and for which purposes it is reused often remains opaque. As Dr Feinholz underlined:

“The data is collected by third parties, like private companies, for example, and then you don't know. They don't tell you clearly. Most companies, if not all, do not have privacy policies. Moreover, if you read  carefully, instead of accepting the use of the devices, they say that the they own the information gathered and  that dData can be sold. So, this is why we really need to regulate, but we need to regulate in a global way, which is why working at UNESCO is important”.

At stake is not only data protection, but the preservation of fundamental rights. The ability to infer or influence mental states raises profound questions about freedom of thought,  mental integrity, and mental privacy. As Dr Feinholz explained, the UNESCO Recommendation does not seek to create new rights, but agrees with the need to reinterpret existing ones in light of technological change:

“We don't necessarily need new rights, but we need new content to some rights to protect people’s rights from new challenges. Some of the challenges are the freedom of thought, mental integrity, and mental privacy. We have the right of privacy, but on mental privacy many were arguing that we already have it. Yes, but the challenges of mental privacy are very different because the kind of privacy that can be violated is different than only collecting data from your internet use, than collecting it directly from your brain and then interpreting it. The right to privacy is the same, but the challenge is different”.

A global framework, and a European responsibility

Adopted by 192 countries in November 2025, the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology establishes the first global normative framework for this emerging field. It sets out principles and safeguards to ensure that neurotechnology contributes to improving lives without undermining human rights, dignity, and autonomy.

As discussed in our previous article on neurotechnology, the European Union still faces significant regulatory challenges. Neurotechnology often sits at the intersection of medical devices and consumer products, exposing limitations in existing EU legislation.

While the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) provides a solid framework for clinical applications, other instruments, such as the GDPR, the AI Act, and consumer product safety legislation, must be considered to address data protection, risks, and non-medical uses.

At a time when the European Commission is revisiting key health and technology legislation, including the MDR, GDPR, and the AI Act, the foundations are in place to open a structured debate on the future governance of neurotechnology in Europe.

An international consensus now exists. The next step is for the European Union to translate ethical commitments into clear, binding, and enforceable rules.