Neurotechnology in the UK

Within the United Kingdom we have a growing and pro innovation approach to Neurotechnology. 

Neurotechnology is currently being applied to fields of study that have been unimaginable to many, and still are. Influenced by more advanced nations advancements such as the United States. The UK takes a pro innovation approach with it ready to step in and change its view point if required, and if opinion or need dictates. The EU’s approach is to introduce in the AI Act where it states clearly outright bans on specific methods. Chileans approaches neurotechnology by changing its constitution, and introducing Neuro Rights as a foundational starting point for ethical innovation.

Some areas effected:

• Medical,
• Education, 
• Workplaces,
• Personal comms, (brain to brain communication),
• Wellbeing, 
• Sport and fitness, 
• Health and safety,
• Marketing (Neuromarketing),
• Gaming,
   

Typically, neurotechnology has been used mostly in medical settings.
 

The new era has brought with it a change that the UK embellishes with a can do, must do attitude, however, recognises it faces challenges. These challenges include but are not limited to:
 

Interpreting signals from the brain is incredibly complex and understanding is limited. Producing reliable, effective devices with minimal programming or surgery is a challenge to adoption, alongside cost-effectiveness and scaling manufacturing.

Progression of neurotechnology from research to clinical or commercial use remains slow. 

Privacy and discrimination. Recording and use of brain data raises questions of privacy, for data protection, and could enable new forms of discrimination. Experts highlighted the importance of good cybersecurity. 

Abandonment of individuals with implanted devices if a manufacturer withdraws support or ceases trading could have significant impact on users.

Like brain data you can take any of these headings and interpret them in a plethora of ways, that should remain unique to you.

The appeared fragmented, unsteady rapid pro innovation approach leaves gaps in knowledge and a weakened public discourse who do not know what these items are or what risks they carry, with some of the biggest issues being:

1. Safety, (physical and data), 

2. Uptake of the products due to mistrust and lack of understanding,

3. An uneducated public surrounding rights leading to potential human rights violations,

4. Insufficient specific data laws; brain or cognitive data is currently classed as “personal data” in most settings,

5. No clear governmental or regulatory overview for all types of devices and the use cases.

6. Unclear data rules surrounding these 17 questions:

1. In case of sale/mergers/acquisitions, does the company hand over the data to the new company?

2. Can the company sell data to third parties?

3. Can the company share data with law enforcement/governments?

4. Do the companies respond to outreach?

5. Does the company allow deletion of data at the consumer's request?

6. Does the company allow withdrawal of consent to process data?

7. Does the company de-identify data?

8. Does the company encrypt data?

9. Does the company notify consumers if there is a security breach?

10. Can the company share data with third parties?

11. Is there a data retention period defined?

12. Is there explicit mention of neural data in the policy documents?

13. Is there mention of data minimization in the policy documents?

14. Does the company notify consumers if there are changes to relevant policy documents?

15. Are there other policy documents on the website that relate to the neurotechnology device?

16. Is there a privacy policy on the website?

17. Does the company provide in its policy document(s) a way of contacting them with questions? 

Nevertheless, the hope is neurotechnology will bring with it a new way of life, and it well.
 

The 1 in 6 people with mental health conditions might be able to look at and own their own brain data, with “INFORMED" consent for ALL, something lacking the world over, and seek support in ways never imaged before by the human race. The mass public will be exposed to secretes that have been kept dormant for time, but with this exposue comes responsibility for all.

 The UK has robust frameworks of laws, and is currently utilising current frameworks for neural technology but with the vision to change. The MRHA is currently conducting a 3 year research programme to understand how to create a clear and safe pathway to understanding the complexity of the neurotechnology world, for innovators, and the safety of its users. The Nuromovement sees some issues with the current way in which the approval delineation of medical and non-medical devices is created and stipulated. 

The current method appears to allow the same type of device be that hardware or software, (SaMD, Software as a Medical Device) to be regulated in a different way, even if it uses the same technology, and the big picture data (neural data). It can be harvested now, stored now, and decoded later, 25 years from now later. This will allow innovation, but with the ability of data washing, 3rd party data vendor chains, and the ability to change the devices regulation examination by simply changing the way the device is marketed on websites, terms and conditions, and privacy policies. The devices which collect the same data get a different world of regulation, and potentially this risks the loss of human rights surrounding neural data. 

The big difficulty comes for innovators when the user uses the device for non-intended  purposes defined with clinical and none clinical terms. The MHRA asks the producers of the technology to be clear from the outset, but this does not stop the user using the devices for unintended means. Then systematically, the device fluctuates between medical and none medical causing confusion. Theoretically meaning, the device should undergo another round of deep regulation scrutiny claiming resources and ironically stopping innovation.

Coupled with the underregulated ability of data sharing the UK faces a huge question; what is more important, the safety of change or changing with safety in mind. We made our mistakes before, history has shown us this, and the UK knows all too well how innovation can change the lives of its citizens, but so can mistakes made with the fear of “missing out”. This time, the UK stands facing the clock, seeing the seconds encroaching by tick ticking or smoothly and silently passing when it comes to the public's discourse and understanding. When is the right time to change the way we look at things… when it comes to new things such as, neurotechnology, informing all of its change and it must be with the vision of all reason. 

The UK recognises it must innovate its way to the next level of safety, but finds itself stuck in previous eras of thinking as a whole, with a divide that could give you a headache if you concentrate on it too much.

It's important to note that the approach to AI regulation in the UK involves defining AI by its functional capabilities rather than rigid legal definitions. This allows the framework to be future-proofed against unanticipated new technologies that are autonomous and adaptive. The ability to adapt the approach to defining AI if necessary, alongside ongoing monitoring and iteration of the wider regulatory framework, is retained. 

The difficulty here is if you place a red tap on neural data, innovation could suffer. However, failing to protect the public's data only a few times and trust will be lost, meaning people will not adapt to the technology as envisioned leaving gaps and questions how do we factually get out of this one. 

Click find out more to see the UK's research and analysis.