The debate on neural data governance is gaining momentum. Last week, the OECD published a 49-page report calling for clearer rules on how neurodata is handled. The report comes as neurotechnology becomes increasingly integrated into clinical care, while wearable devices are introducing brain-monitoring to everyday consumers.

The OECD is not the first international body to call for clearer governance. In November 2025, UNESCO adopted its Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology, establishing a global framework for protecting human rights as the technology advances.

The OECD's new report, Neurodata Governance: Evidence from Innovators for Public Policy, builds on the broader policy discussion by examining existing regulations and industry practices. It outlines five areas for policy action, ranging from clearer classifications of neurodata to improved regulatory pathways and international cooperation.

Mapping the neurodata landscape

The report begins by outlining the privacy risks associated with neurotechnology. Neural data originally collected for healthcare, research, or wellness could later be used for secondary purposes such as targeted advertising or workplace monitoring. Brain signals can also reveal sensitive information about a person's health or cognitive state, details they might never have intended to share.

Read the full piece Can EEG data ever be truly anonymous? EEG data can contain identifiable brainprints after metadata is removed. Fraunhofer researchers are testing privacy methods that preserve research value.

Existing regulation already provides some protection. Neurotechnology falls under various frameworks covering data privacy, medical devices, consumer protection, and AI. However, these rules often overlap and are not always consistent. Even the definition of neurodata differs between regulatory bodies, making it difficult to determine which protections apply where.

In June 2025, the OECD organised an expert workshop to better understand the governance challenge of neural data. It subsequently surveyed and interviewed 16 neurotech companies across seven OECD countries. The researchers examined how these companies collect, process, and share neurodata, alongside their experiences navigating existing regulations.

The study found that neurotech companies handle much more data than just raw brain recordings. Neural signals are often combined with personal information, physiological data, behavioural measurements, and AI-derived metrics. These data occasionally pass between device manufacturers, hospitals, and research partners, raising questions about who controls the information and how it can be reused.

The companies report several practical challenges, including difficulties in anonymising neural recordings and uncertainty around the regulation of AI-enabled devices. Some also described the US regulatory process as more accessible than its European counterpart.

Five recommendations for neurodata governance

The OECD outlines five areas for policy action.

The first recommendation focuses on clarifying the neurodata policy framework. The OECD calls for clearer rules on what qualifies as neurodata and which organisations are responsible for protecting it. It also seeks guidance on how recordings can be reused for research or AI training. The report emphasizes that not all data carries the same privacy risks and that regulation should reflect those differences.

Read the full piece United Nations Sets a Global Baseline for Neurotechnology Ethics UNESCO has adopted the first global neurotechnology ethics standard, setting guardrails on neural data, mental privacy, and brain interfaces in workplaces, schools, and consumer products.

Next, the OECD calls for clearer regulatory pathways for medical devices and AI-enabled neurotechnologies. Existing approval processes can be difficult to navigate, particularly for systems that continuously adapt or receive software updates. The report recommends earlier engagement between developers and regulators, alongside clearer requirements for validating and updating these technologies.

The third recommendation addresses neurodata infrastructure and interoperability. Neurotech companies often struggle to access the large, high-quality datasets needed to develop and validate their systems. The OECD proposes common data standards and more sustainable infrastructure for sharing neural recordings. It also encourages privacy-first mechanisms that allow neurodata to be reused across borders.

Fourth, the report calls for greater cooperation between stakeholders and countries. The OECD recommends involving researchers, industry, regulators, and affected communities directly in policymaking. This could include creating dedicated working groups and regulatory sandboxes, where emerging tech can be evaluated under regulatory supervision.

The OECD argues that greater international coordination could also reduce differences between regulatory frameworks, particularly those in the US and EU.

Finally, the OECD proposes flexible regulation for platform-based and research-only neurotechnologies. Implantable devices that support multiple applications do not always fit existing approval pathways. Meanwhile, research-only systems can face disproportionate compliance requirements. The OECD recommends tailored regulatory pathways that support ongoing development while maintaining appropriate safety and privacy protections.