Michael Young, MD, MPhil

Implantable brain-computer interfaces (iBCIs) are devices aimed at restoring communication, movement and other aspects of agency to people with severe neurological disorders or injuries. While today iBCIs are mainly being tested in clinical trials, they are on the precipice of broader clinical use.

In a new article by Julian Sandbrink of Harvard Medical School and Michael Young, MD, MPhil, of the Center for Neurotechnology and Neurorecovery within the Mass General Brigham Neuroscience Institute, the researchers examine how important ethical, social and legal considerations surrounding brain data captured by iBCIs may be addressed as these frontier neurotechnologies transition from research settings to clinical practice.

After evaluating existing regulatory frameworks in the United States and Europe, such as HIPAA and GDPR, the pair identify five core areas where iBCI data may not be fully protected: overreliance on conventional approaches to de-identification, the scope of individual control and rights, potentially conflated consent practices, limited guardrails against misuse and underspecified ownership.

They propose approaches to help address these gaps and improve neurotechnology governance to foster continued responsible clinical development and deployment.

Overall, the authors demonstrate how by critically assessing what makes iBCIs and their data distinctive, stakeholders including researchers, clinicians, regulators and developers can effectively balance user privacy and autonomy with medical advancement as these technologies scale up.

Published in Communications Medicine on July 27, 2026 | Read the paper: “Advancing data protections for implantable brain-computer interfaces(opens in new tab)”

Summary reviewed by: Michael Young, MD, MPhil, senior author