Ethical considerations for implantable human brain–computer interfaces

Journal: Nature Neuroscience (Comment) · Published: 2026-09-07 · DOI: 10.1038/s41593-026-02447-1

Authors: Kai J. Miller (Departments of Neurosurgery and Physiology & Biomedical Engineering, Mayo Clinic, MN, USA); Davide Giampiccolo (UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology; National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK); Harith Akram (UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology; National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK); Gerwin Schalk (West China Xiamen Hospital and West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China).

Note on capture: Full text is subscription-only. This is an abstract-level record: the full published abstract, key metadata, funding, disclosures, and the reference list as displayed on nature.com. The detailed argument rests in the companion editorial by Miller & Abosch (2025), which this Comment is partially based on and which is openly available via PMC — captured at raw/papers/miller-abosch-2025-moment-of-reckoning-bci.md.

Abstract

Implanted brain–computer interfaces hold great promise for restoring communication and other functions and for revealing new aspects of human brain physiology. Yet as the number of implantations in humans expands, ethical clarity must keep pace with technical ambition. We propose that this should involve distinguishing research participation from patient care, ensuring long-term support for study participants, ensuring that research participants do not bear disproportionate risks for benefits realized mainly by others, and grounding research in meaningful clinical purpose.

Acknowledgements (as published)

This Comment is partially based on an editorial that was previously published in a clinical journal (Miller & Abosch, Neurosurgery 97, 277–280 (2025)). Commercial GPTs were used for assistance in text editing but not for content generation.

Funding (as published)

NIH BRAIN Initiative grant U01-NS12861 (K.J.M.); Tianqiao & Chrissy Chen Institute (K.J.M.); UK NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre (H.A.); Epilepsy Research Institute UK Emerging Leaders Fellowship F2403 (D.G.).

Competing interests (as published)

H.A. is the Chief Investigator for Neuralink’s GB-PRIME study. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review (as published)

Nature Neuroscience thanks Marcello Ienca and the other, anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

References (as published, 14 items)

1. United States Government Accountability Office. Brain–Computer Interfaces: Applications, Challenges, and Policy Options (GAO, 2024). https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-106952
2. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report (1979).
3. Adashi EY, Walters LB, Menikoff JA. Am. J. Public Health 108, 1345–1348 (2018).
4. Hendriks S, et al. JAMA Neurol. 76, 1506–1514 (2019).
5. Miller KJ, Abosch A. Neurosurgery 97, 277–280 (2025).
6. Vansteensel MJ, et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 391, 619–626 (2024).
7. James ND, et al. Lancet Neurol. 17, 905–917 (2018).
8. Schönweitz FB, et al. Brain Stimul. 17, 1145–1154 (2024).
9. Beck H, et al. Am. J. Cardiol. 106, 810–818 (2010).
10. Goering S, Brown AI, Klein E. Hastings Center Rep. 54, 24–33 (2024).
11. Kouvas G, et al. Nat. Med. 31, 2850–2853 (2025).
12. Schalk G, et al. Nat. Rev. Bioeng. 2, 637–652 (2024).
13. Young MJ, Simon D, Evans BJ. Neurology 106, e214942 (2026).
14. Card NS, et al. Nat. Med. 32, 2504–2510 (2026).

Subjects (as published)

Diseases of the nervous system; Policy.