A growing suite of neurotechnologies that capture brain activity, ranging from wearables to implanted devices, is rapidly transforming practice and research in the clinical neurosciences. States such as Colorado and California have incorporated "neural data" into their privacy laws. In addition, in September 2025, two senators introduced federal legislation, the Management of Individuals' Neural Data (MIND) Act of 2025, which defined "neural data," addressed ethical concerns about its collection and use, and directed the Federal Trade Commission to study how to regulate it. Legislative actions such as these recognize that neural data can potentially reveal unusually sensitive details about identity, cognition, and capacities that ordinary health information does not. In practice, however, neural data are heterogeneous, requiring careful consideration of their varying forms, degrees of sensitivity, and the clinical or nonclinical contexts in which they are generated. We describe the difficulties of using common tools, including data privacy and intellectual property, to regulate neural data and examine how clinicians can complement these efforts through deliberate, ethically informed safeguards in clinical practice even before regulatory frameworks are finalized.
Young et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: