I had the opportunity to share some legal and ethical reflections in The Debrief’s excellent feature on brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and Neuralink’s first human subject, Noland Arbaugh.

Reporter Chrissy Newton explores the implications of this emerging technology, from identity and autonomy to data ownership and regulatory gaps. Delighted to be featured alongside cognitive neuroscientist Julia Mossbridge, PhD, biomedical engineering professor Tom Chau, and primary care doctor Daniel Weaver.

Neural data exhibits properties of both biometric and medical data, but it also goes beyond them. Like biometric data, it can uniquely identify individuals. Like medical data, it may reveal sensitive information about mental health or neurological conditions. Neural data is also more intimate. It can reflect thoughts, intentions, emotions, or cognitive states. These are dimensions of personhood that existing legal categories do not fully capture.

It may be necessary to establish a new legal category specifically for neural data, one that integrates not only privacy and data protection norms, but also deeper concerns about mental autonomy, cognitive liberty, and freedom of thought. As neurotechnology advances, our legal frameworks must evolve in step. That means interdisciplinary, coordinated governance, beyond what any single agency can provide.

https://thedebrief.org/noland-arbaugh-neuralinks-first-brain-interface-recipient-reflects-on-neurotechnology-ethics-and-identity/

Penn State Dickinson Law