Abstract
Neurotechnologies and remote neuromodulation represent cutting-edge advancements with immense potential for medical, therapeutic, and cognitive enhancement applications. However, these emerging technologies also pose significant ethical, security, and privacy risks, especially considering the level of investment of the U.S. competitors in this field. Despite their dual-use nature, neurotechnologies remain underrepresented in existing national frameworks like the U.S. National Biodefense Strategy (NBS) 2022 and the U.S. Government’s DURC oversight policies. This work highlights the urgent need to update the NBS by recognizing neurotechnologies as a critical component of biodefense. The integration of neurosecurity and neurosafety as independent domains under the biosecurity framework is essential for addressing emerging risks while fostering innovation responsibly.
Introduction
Neurosecurity and neurosafety refer to safeguarding cognitive autonomy and neural integrity against misuse or unintended consequences of neurotechnologies on cognitive individual, as well as psychosocial and political levels, unauthorized possession, or diversion. These disciplines have become pivotal due to advancements in brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), neural stimulation technology, remote neuromodulation, etc. Many of them are classified and being in a state of operational readiness. Their applications range from treating neurological disorders to augmenting cognitive capabilities, yet their potential for exploitation remains a pressing concern, primarily due to underresearch and lack of regulatory foundation.
Key risks:
- Ethical dilemmas. Unauthorized manipulation of cognitive processes and violation of consent.
- Privacy violations. Vulnerabilities in neural data collection and misuse.
- Dual-use threats. Exploitation for surveillance, coercion, or psychological manipulation.
These risks, as per numerous reports, are exacerbated by the potential domestic misuse incidents of such technologies, raising constitutional, ethical, and societal concerns.
Policy gaps in the current framework:
- Limited scope of NBS 2022. Neurotechnologies are absent from its definition of emerging dual-use risks.
- Inadequate provisions in the Common Rule. Neural data privacy and neuromodulation risks remain unaddressed.
- Absence of neurotechnology-specific guidelines. No ethical or regulatory standards exist for overseeing remote neuromodulation or dual-use risks.
- Insufficient data protection. Existing laws do not adequately safeguard sensitive neural data.
To address these gaps, Neurosecurity must be introduced as one of the National Biodefense Priorities. Neurosecurity addresses the safeguarding of cognitive processes from external interference, while neurosafety ensures the ethical development and use of neurotechnologies. These fields must be incorporated into the National Biodefense Strategy as independent yet interconnected domains under biosecurity. Such an approach would serve at least three efficiency objectives:
- Reflect the convergence of neuroscience and biotechnology.
- Prevent redundancy or misalignment with existing measures.
- Advance specialized governance and research for neurotechnological risks.
Moving on to the specific recommendations to address the gaps it is important to:
• Explicitly recognizing neurotechnologies as dual-use risks.
• Allocating funds and resources to research safeguards for neurotechnologies within biodefense frameworks.
• Mandate independent ethical review for neurotechnology research, making emphasis on proactive risk assessment and societal impact evaluation.
• Enforce detailed consent processes to address neural data collection and manipulation risks.
• Establish neural data privacy protocols and advance cybersecurity standards - robust encryption, storage, and transparency protocols for neural data.
• As a dual-use risk mitigation mechanism, form a dedicated oversight body to evaluate dual-use applications of neurotechnologies, with guidelines to prevent misuse for coercion or surveillance.
• Remote neuromodulation technology research presents a unique category. As such it requires detailed methodologies, outcomes, and adverse effect reports to ensure responsible development.
• To address national security implications, expand the oversight authorities by broadening roles of NIH, HHS, and DoD. Collaborate with intelligence agencies such as the NSA and DARPA to address national security risks, particularly in the context of potential domestic uses for these technologies. Consider developing ethical and legal guidelines for implications of domestic use. The following two are highly suggested.
- Independent oversight. Creation of watchdog entities to monitor neurotechnology applications.
- Adherence to human rights standards. Aligning with OECD guidelines to ensure mental autonomy remains sacrosanct.
Neurotechnologies and remote neuromodulation represent a transformative yet perilous frontier. Integrating neurosecurity and neurosafety into the National Biodefense Strategy is essential for safeguarding nation’s well-being, public trust, ethical research practices, and national security. By addressing dual-use risks and establishing rigorous oversight, the U.S. can foster innovation responsibly while protecting fundamental rights. Transparency, vigilance, and adherence to constitutional protections must remain at the core of this effort.
