At The Tech We Want for Our Brain Commons Online Summit (15 July 2026), researchers, developers, policymakers, journalists, civil society and industry representatives explored how openness can help shape a future in which neurotech is aligned with human rights.
Alternative links: Internet Archive | YouTube
Above, the slide presentations used during the panel are available for download.
This panel brought together Renata Ávila (Open Knowledge Foundation, moderator), Iness Ben Guirat (Université Libre de Bruxelles), Laura Cabrera (IEEE Brain and IEEE TechEthics), and Reinhold Scherer (BCI Society) to explore how openness plays into the governance of neurotechnology.
The panelists took an expansive view of governance beyond regulation to include additional governance mechanisms such as standards, procurement and community oversight.
Scherer emphasised that power lies in the hands of those who control the “cognitive infrastructure” that interprets neural data. In other words, the algorithms and platforms that transform signals into decisions. While personal data should be protected, performance claims should be open to scrutiny, he said.
Cabrera outlined existing governance mechanisms such as legislation, technical standards, ethical guidelines and professional bodies like IEEE’s P2794, while stressing the inherent tension between open data sharing and protection against misuse (e.g. insurance profiling from consumer neurotech data).
Ben Guirat discussed “privacy by design”, showing how differently the legal and technical communities define it (data minimisation versus trust minimisation) and argued that technical fixes alone cannot address flawed business models, power imbalances, and surveillance practices.
Panellists shared concerns about the proliferation of unregulated consumer neurotech wearables, the added risks in Global South countries that lack the enforcement infrastructure of EU/OECD countries, and the way in which patents and trade secrets concentrate power among a select few.
They also pointed to precedents such as TCP/IP and open internet standards, which demonstrate how core infrastructure can remain open while enabling commercial and public interest innovation.
Key Takeaways:
- Openness can extend to standards, procurement rules, professional communities, peer review, and public participation, all of which function as governance before formal regulation exists.
- Weaker enforcement outside the EU and OECD countries means safeguards can erode when technologies deploy globally, raising particular risks for the Global South.
- Low-bar patents concentrated among a few companies can block public-interest innovation, while trade secrets shield firms from the ethical and medical scrutiny.
- Building public and interdisciplinary understanding of what neurotechnology can and cannot do is a foundational step toward accountability.
➕ Find a summary of more panels and keynotes
💬 Join the conversation in the Open Knowledge Forum
The Tech We Want is a collective conversation about new practical ways to build software that is useful, simple, long-lasting and focused on solving people’s real problems.
Since 2023, OKFN has been advocating together with the community of developers working on public-interest technologies for climate-friendly, accessible and sustainable approaches to technology. Understanding the potential ecological and societal impacts of various development decisions is the first step towards another stack with different metrics, community practices and guidelines.
