Draft, not yet released. In stewardship review. Not indexed until the first approved release.

Risks and capability

Four neurotechnology risk objects open the portfolio. Order carries no rank. Each is read across driver, exposure, vulnerability, capacity, cascade and consequence.

6 min read0 figures1 table21 notesNR-XTECH-NEURO-GLOBAL-2026-BASELINE

Contents
  1. ·Edition home
  2. ·Executive summary
  3. 1Neurotechnology is clinical hardware and a new class of personal data
  4. 2Key findings
  5. 3Systems and sectors at baseline
  6. 4Risks and capability
    1. 4.1 Risk objects
    2. 4.2 Capability ladder
  7. 5Consumer neural data outside medical rules
  8. 6Readings from the other desks
  9. 7The 2027 agenda
  10. 8Systems in depth
  11. AMethodology
  12. BData appendix
  13. CReferences and record
  14. ·Complete edition, for print

4.1Risk objects

Each risk is read across the chain from hazard to consequence, with its status and evidence-quality level.

  1. InferredEQL 3RSK-XT20-DAT-001

    Neural data outside medical and privacy rules

    Driver
    consumer headsets and decoders that infer mental states518
    Exposure
    users of consumer devices; participants in speech trials
    Vulnerability
    inferred data fall in a grey zone in Chile18; US rules differ by state1412
    Capacity
    UNESCO Recommendation; state laws; a Senate study bill101411
    Cascade
    DAT → FIN, HLT, GOV
    Horizon
    1 to 5 years

  2. InferredEQL 3RSK-XT20-INF-002

    Long-term signal loss and device failure

    Driver
    neuron turnover, electrode biocompatibility and drift2224
    Exposure
    implanted participants who depend on a device
    Vulnerability
    no common failure reporting; company support may end
    Capacity
    drift-correction methods; one-year stability reports7822
    Cascade
    INF → HLT
    Horizon
    1 to 10 years

  3. InferredEQL 3RSK-XT20-GOV-003

    Fragmented rules and uneven access

    Driver
    different laws, devices cleared on different pathways, national industrial targets91516
    Exposure
    cross-border trials and consumer products
    Vulnerability
    consumer devices outside medical pathways18
    Capacity
    guidance, recommendations and standards91040
    Cascade
    GOV → INF, DAT
    Horizon
    1 to 5 years

  4. Expert inputEQL 2RSK-XT20-FIN-004

    Company claims ahead of peer-reviewed evidence

    Driver
    large rounds and company announcements202730
    Exposure
    patients, funders and public debate
    Vulnerability
    claims not yet peer reviewed1315
    Capacity
    peer review and registry entries13
    Cascade
    FIN → HLT, GOV
    Horizon
    1 to 5 years

4.2Capability ladder

Existence is not readiness. Each of the fifteen capability functions is placed on the ladder by the strongest public evidence for neurotechnology at the global level.

Table 4.1Capabilities on the ladder of evidence: listed, exists, demonstrated, tested
FunctionRungLevelStrongest public evidence at baseline
Prevention and mitigationEXISTSFDA guidance on testing implanted interfaces; UNESCO Recommendation910
Monitoring and observationLISTEDno common tracker of device failure or neural data practices
Early warningLISTEDno consolidated signal system
Preparedness and planningEXISTSregistry entries, policy targets and a Senate study bill111316
Redundancy and reservesLISTEDsupport continuity if a device company ceases is not documented
ResponseLISTEDno tested response to a data incident or device recall at scale
Continuity of critical servicesLISTEDlong-term follow-up and device support not reported
RecoveryLISTEDnot applicable at baseline
AdaptationEXISTSdecoder recalibration and drift-correction methods studied22
Social protectionLISTEDaccess to implants for those who need them is not documented
Finance and insuranceLISTEDreimbursement not reviewed; private rounds large20
Institutional coordinationEXISTSUNESCO, OECD and national policies101631
Technical infrastructureEXISTSclinical trial sites and a cleared cortical-surface array815
WorkforceLISTEDsurgeons and programming staff; no figure bound
Research capacityADEQUATEstrong peer-reviewed base1257
A capability listed in policy is not a tested one; each rung is the strongest public evidence at baseline.

Notes

Numbers are the edition’s reference numbers, so a note reads the same in every chapter. The full list, with every source and its licence, is in Annex C. Annex C, references

  1. 5Kunz, E.M. et al., Inner speech in motor cortex and implications for speech neuroprostheses, Cell 188(17), 4658 to 4673, published online 14 August 2025 (reference record read: four participants). Cell Press, Cambridge MA. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  2. 18Lee, B.H., Even Chile neurorights leave inferred mental data in a gray zone, Stanford Law School Law and Biosciences Blog, 27 April 2026 (blog page read; commentary, not a legal text). Stanford University, Stanford. Observation year 2026. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  3. 14Colorado General Assembly (ed.), HB24-1058 Protect Privacy of Biological Data (bill page read: signed 17 April 2024; effective 7 August 2024). Colorado General Assembly, Denver. Observation year 2024. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  4. 12US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (ed.), release on the introduction of the MIND Act, 24 September 2025 (release read: names Colorado, California, Montana and Connecticut as states with neural data laws). US Senate, Washington. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  5. 10UNESCO (ed.), Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology (page read: adopted November 2025 at the 43rd session of the General Conference; mandate entrusted by 194 Member States in 2023; the page states no neural data provisions). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  6. 11United States Senate (ed.), Management of Individuals Neural Data Act of 2025 (MIND Act), S. 2925, 119th Congress, introduced text (text read: FTC study and report within one year of enactment; USD 10 million authorised; referred to committee). US Government Publishing Office, Washington. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  7. 22Ma, X. et al., Using adversarial networks to extend brain computer interface decoding accuracy over time, eLife 12, e84296, 2023 (reference record read). eLife Sciences, Cambridge. Observation year 2023. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  8. 24Feng, Y. et al., Brain-computer interfaces: the dawn of a new era in disease treatment, Exploration 6(3), 2026 (reference record read: electrode biocompatibility and signal resolution named as challenges). Wiley, Beijing. Observation year 2026. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  9. 7Lorach, H. et al., Walking naturally after spinal cord injury using a brain-spine interface, Nature 618(7963), 126 to 133, published online 24 May 2023 (reference record read: fully implanted; stable for over one year; one man with chronic tetraplegia). Springer Nature, London. Observation year 2023. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  10. 8Chetty, N. et al., Signal properties and stability of a chronically implanted endovascular brain computer interface, medRxiv preprint, 25 September 2025 (preprint record read: five participants; 16-channel array; one year; not peer reviewed). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  11. 9US Food and Drug Administration (ed.), Implanted Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) Devices for Patients with Paralysis or Amputation: Non-clinical Testing and Clinical Considerations, final guidance, May 2021 (guidance page read). Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring. Observation year 2021. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  12. 15Precision Neuroscience (ed.), company release on FDA 510(k) clearance of the Layer 7 Cortical Interface, 17 April 2025 (release read; vendor announcement, weak evidence: up to 30 days of implantation; 37 patients tested). Precision Neuroscience, New York. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  13. 16Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and six other bodies (eds.), Implementation Opinions on Promoting the Innovation and Development of the Brain-Computer Interface Industry, MIIT (2025) No. 164, 23 July 2025, English translation by the Center for Security and Emerging Technology, 18 December 2025 (translation page read). Georgetown University, Washington. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  14. 40UNVERIFIED, not opened: ISO (ed.), ISO 14708-3, Implants for surgery: active implantable medical devices, part 3, implantable neurostimulators, cited from memory without figures. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. Observation year 2017. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  15. 20Zeff, M., Elon Musk Neuralink closes a USD 650 million Series E (trade report, 2 June 2025; page read; vendor statement as reported: five people implanted; valuation of about USD 9 billion pre-money from an earlier press report). TechCrunch, San Francisco. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  16. 27UNVERIFIED, not opened: Paradromics (ed.), company statements on an FDA investigational device exemption for the Connect-One early feasibility study (November 2025, two initial participants) and a first implant at a university hospital, taken from search-result summaries of vendor announcements; weak evidence. Paradromics, Austin. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  17. 30UNVERIFIED, not opened: trade reports of other company funding rounds in 2025 including a Series D for an endovascular interface company and a seed round for a new interface company, taken from search-result summaries; weak evidence and no figure used. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  18. 13ClinicalTrials.gov (ed.), PRIME: An Early Feasibility Study of a Precise Robotically Implanted Brain-Computer Interface for the Control of External Devices, NCT06429735 (record read: recruiting; start 9 January 2024; estimated enrolment 15; updated January 2026; sponsor-supplied entry). National Library of Medicine, Bethesda. Observation year 2026. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  19. 31UNVERIFIED, not opened: OECD (ed.), Recommendation of the Council on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology, 2019, cited from memory. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. Observation year 2019. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  20. 1Willett, F.R. et al., A high-performance speech neuroprosthesis, Nature 620(7976), 1031 to 1036, published online 23 August 2023 (reference record read: 62 words per minute; 23.8% word error rate on 125,000 words; 9.1% on 50 words). Springer Nature, London. Observation year 2023. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  21. 2Metzger, S.L. et al., A high-performance neuroprosthesis for speech decoding and avatar control, Nature 620(7976), 1037 to 1046, published online 23 August 2023 (reference record read: median 78 words per minute; median word error rate 25%). Springer Nature, London. Observation year 2023. Accessed 2026-11-03.back

Cite this chapter

Valadbaygi, S. (Ed.). (2026). Chapter 4: Risks and capability. In Exponential Technology Report 2026: Neurotechnology and Human–Machine Interfaces (Baseline Edition 2026, Report No. NR-XTECH-NEURO-GLOBAL-2026-BASELINE) [Draft under review]. The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI).

Every citation form of the whole report, BibTeX and RIS included, is on the edition home. Cite this report

ReportsContribute

Send evidence or a correction on Neurotechnology and Human–Machine Interfaces.

Reports is the Consortium’s quarterly publication, written by six desks. This page sits with the Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI) Systems Evidence desk. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work. Sent to the wrong desk, it is forwarded, not refused.

GCRI Systems Evidence deskExponential Technology

Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.

CC BY 4.0 Free to read. Text and figures: CC BY 4.0. Data: CC0 1.0. Authors keep copyright. Published by GCRI Canada.

The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation

Science · evidence · measurement

Not for profit

Our articles, maps and twins are free to read and free to republish. Readers and partners keep it that way.

Partner with us

Who funds us

GCRI is a not-for-profit institution. To ask who funds a piece of work, use the funding questions form.

Independence

Editors and the expert reviewers named on each article decide what we publish. Funders and partners do not review or approve articles before publication.

Corrections policy

Licence

Articles: CC BY 4.0. Figures, maps, twins and data: CC BY 4.0. Other uses: ask through the permissions form.

Privacy choices