As devices that read and influence cognitive states enter the consumer market, traditional regulatory frameworks are falling short. Here is why policymakers must focus on impact — rather than the technology itself — to protect mental autonomy, writes Camila Pintarelli.
Neurotechnology is moving rapidly from laboratories into healthcare systems, workplaces and consumer markets. As these technologies begin to sense, infer or influence mental and cognitive states, they challenge some of the most fundamental assumptions of existing regulatory frameworks.
The question for policymakers is no longer whether neurotechnology should be governed, but how to design governance systems that protect mental autonomy while enabling responsible innovation.
We previously argued that regulatory approaches focused narrowly on categories such as “neural data” are insufficient. Sensitive inferences about mental states can be derived from many sources — not only neural signals — making technology-neutral, impact-based governance essential.
That principle now finds a practical blueprint in the Forum’s paper The Regulatory Frontier: Designing the Rules that Shape Innovation, a white paper published in January by its Global Regulatory Innovation Platform (GRIP), and is firmly grounded in the ethical framework of UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology. Together, they point toward a new regulatory paradigm for the intelligent age.
Regulation as innovation infrastructure
The Regulatory Frontier reframes regulation as infrastructure, not constraint. Well-designed regulatory systems create predictability, reduce uncertainty and build trust – conditions without which innovation cannot scale responsibly. This insight is particularly relevant for neurotechnology, where public confidence is fragile and the stakes extend beyond markets to democratic values and human dignity.
UNESCO echoes this view, emphasising that neurotechnologies may affect freedom of thought, autonomy and mental integrity, and therefore require anticipatory, human-centred governance, rather than reactive regulation after harm occurs.
Why boundaries matter for neurotechnology
At the heart of the Forum’s white paper is the concept of boundaries: clear, principled definitions of where governance must apply and why. For neurotechnology, boundaries cannot be drawn around devices alone. What matters is impact – specifically, whether a system can generate sensitive inferences about mental or cognitive states that may affect autonomy or agency.
This impact-based approach aligns with the technology-neutral logic advanced previously and with UNESCO’s emphasis on protecting mental integrity regardless of the technical pathway involved.
From principles to policy design
The Regulatory Frontier identifies five design domains for future-ready regulation – boundaries, learning systems, market access, shared infrastructure and adaptability. Applied to neurotechnology, these domains support:
- Graduated and risk-based market access, rather than blanket approvals or bans.
- Regulatory learning systems, such as sandboxes and pilots, to adapt rules as evidence evolves.
- Principle-based, technology-agnostic frameworks that remain relevant as science advances.
This design logic enables policymakers to move beyond binary debates toward governance systems that evolve alongside innovation.
Trust as a measurable policy outcome
Trust is a central policy objective – not as a rhetorical value, but as an institutional outcome. Trust is built through transparency, accountability, independent oversight and continuous evaluation.
This is where initiatives emerging from the Global Future Council on Neurotechnology play a critical role. Tools such as the NeuroTrust Index – an unprecedented initiative conceived by our Council and now nearing launch – are designed to operationalise trust by providing measurable, comparable indicators of responsible neurotechnology development. For policymakers, such instruments can complement formal regulation, support evidence-based decision-making and strengthen public confidence.
A policy agenda for governing neurotechnology
Taken together, GRIP’s white paper, UNESCO’s ethical guidance and ongoing work within the Global Future Council on Neurotechnology point to a clear agenda for policymakers:
- Regulate by impact, not by technology.
- Define clear boundaries around mental autonomy and integrity.
- Build adaptive, learning-oriented regulatory systems.
- Treat trust as core public infrastructure, supported by measurable tools like the NeuroTrust Index.
- Foster international alignment to avoid fragmentation and regulatory arbitrage.
Neurotechnology sits at the regulatory frontier of the intelligent age. Governing it effectively will require more than updating existing rules – it will require designing governance systems worthy of the human mind. By aligning regulatory innovation with ethical foundations and practical tools for trust, policymakers can ensure that neurotechnology advances human potential without compromising fundamental freedoms.
Ultimately, governing neurotechnology is not about slowing progress. It is about deciding what kind of progress we want. By aligning regulatory design with ethical foundations and measurable trust mechanisms, policymakers have a rare opportunity to ensure that neurotechnology strengthens human agency, expands consumer choice and delivers innovation that people are willing — and empowered — to trust.
- Camila Pintarelli is State Attorney before the Brazilian Supreme Courts, currently appointed to serve as Head of the National Homeland Security Fund at the Brazilian Ministry of Justice. This article was originally published by the World Economic Forum.
