Brain-computer interface (BCI) technology is advancing rapidly worldwide. Far more than just the innovative technology promoted by prominent advocates involved in its expansion, like Elon Musk, BCIs are being developed in countries including the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, Spain, and China.
Beyond their life-changing potential for treating neurological conditions, BCIs could fundamentally reshape what it means to be human, and soon. If that’s the case, is a global BCI coalition needed?
Before Elon Musk: Jacques Vidal and Thomas Oxley
A common misconception is that Elon Musk and his company, Neuralink, launched the BCI revolution we see today. In reality, the origins of the technology date back to the 1960s. Jacques Vidal published the first paper introducing the term “brain-computer interface” in 1973, demonstrating how electroencephalographic (EEG) signals could be used for direct communication. Vidal’s pioneering work laid the foundation for all modern BCI research.
Fast forward to 2012, when Australian-born physician, neuroscientist, and Synchron founder and CEO Thomas (Tom) Oxley entered the BCI conversation. Oxley was among the first physicians to bring BCI technology into clinical practice at Mount Sinai Hospital. With early funding from DARPA, he and his team began clinical trials in Australia in 2019. Oxley’s minimally invasive Stentrode device attracted significant business and media attention well before Neuralink’s highly publicized demonstrations in 2023.
What the BCI community can thank Elon Musk for is the unprecedented level of global investor attention he has brought to the field. Without that influx of funding, BCI technology might still be in its infancy, and fewer people would have access to devices capable of addressing life-changing healthcare needs.
China’s Rapid Advancement into BCI
Since 2010, China has moved aggressively to advance BCI technology while making clear that the field is a national priority—one viewed as nearly as important as breakthroughs in quantum computing.
Recently, the Chinese BCI company NEO announced approval for the country’s first commercial use of a coin-sized brain-computer interface for patients living with paralysis caused by spinal cord injuries.
Tsinghua University and Shanghai-based Neuracle Technology designed the brain chip to be less invasive than many competing technologies. Rather than penetrating deep into brain tissue, the NEO device is implanted beneath the skull, where its electrodes are attached to the dura mater—the protective membrane surrounding the brain.
The first Chinese-designed and developed brain chip was implanted last November in volunteer Dong Hui. Hui, 39, sustained a spinal cord injury in a car accident six years earlier that left him paralyzed. During a video interview with MIT Technology Review, Hui said excitedly, “I couldn’t believe I was able to write again. I was so excited, I even missed a stroke in my name.”
This past March, Hui became the first person in the world to receive an invasive brain-computer interface approved for use beyond a clinical trial. But what does “commercial” use actually mean?
The NEO device, developed by Neuracle Technology, was reportedly approved by Chinese regulators for use outside clinical trials in certain patients with spinal cord injuries. In practical terms, that means the technology has moved beyond the experimental stage and can now be offered in clinical settings to eligible patients. Hospitals may provide it as a treatment, Neuracle can manufacture and sell the system commercially, and qualifying patients may receive the implant as part of standard clinical care rather than solely through an experimental research program, representing a major milestone for BCI technology.
Another competitor in China’s BCI market is Gestalt, founded by Phoenix Peng. Surprisingly, the two companies are pursuing very different approaches. NEO’s system places sensors directly on the brain’s protective covering, allowing the electrodes to measure electrical activity generated by neurons. This approach can provide stronger and faster signals but requires neurosurgery.
Gestalt, by contrast, is attempting to eliminate the need for surgery. According to Peng, the company aims to use phased-array ultrasound to both read brain activity and stimulate specific neural pathways without requiring invasive procedures. If successful, this approach could make brain-computer interfaces safer, more accessible, and available to a much broader population.
In a recent podcast interview, Peng told The Debrief that this is why he and others in the industry have begun pursuing ultrasound-based BCIs. He noted that such systems are now being developed not only in China but also by several companies in the United States. “The whole technology is just rising up,” Peng said.
Competitors Chime In
With the Chinese government investing heavily in and prioritizing BCI technology, it is becoming increasingly clear that the country is positioning itself to set the “gold standard” for BCI development worldwide. Last July, the Chinese government announced its intention to establish a global standard, outlining plans to do so through new guidelines issued by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, along with the creation of a committee to oversee the development and implementation of those standards.
“China progresses fast and is likely to win the race,” said Dr. Martin Schüttler, the CTO, co-founder, and managing director of CorTec Neuro, in an email to The Debrief. “However, young Chinese implantable BCI companies might run into challenges when demonstrating long-term robustness and efficacy, which validations are difficult to accelerate.”
“From my perspective, the Chinese governmental orchestration of the BCI race provides a major advantage over Europe and the USA, where each BCI company struggles individually with similar challenges,” he adds. As an example, he notes China’s move to define reimbursement of implantable BCI, which occurred months before Neuracle received its market approval. “Therefore, the Chinese government also published a definition of a BCI and issued ethical guidelines for BCI technology,” Schüttler said.
“It also funds BCI initiatives and companies, leading to a boom of start-ups in the field,” he says, though noting that this is not strictly restricted to implants.
Florian Solzbacher, PhD, co-founder of Blackrock Neurotech, adds more context on BCI commercialization by telling The Debrief that “this is more than just a technology race. This is about which nations and values will lead the world and likely set standards in a completely new, strategically important field of technology.”
“There are several aspects of the current processes for translation and regulatory approval that could be adjusted to new technological capabilities without throwing safety overboard,” Solzbacher adds. “And with all the concern about China’s pace, speed to commercialization alone is not the right metric. The concern, in any market, is whether long-term safety and security, technological maturity, clinical evidence, regulatory oversight, and patient support can keep pace with deployment.”
“One can only hope that China’s pace wakes up our own nation and creates incentives and pressure for the US and EU to coordinate far more effectively and to support translational neurotechnology with far more conviction and focus, without jeopardizing patient safety,” he says.
High Volume in 2026?
This recent commercial BCI announcement from China comes on the heels of Elon Musk declaring that Neuralink will ramp up its efforts in a “high volume” attempt for 2026.
“This is a big deal,” Musk’s posting on X read.
But what does high volume really consist of? This past January, Barcelona, Spain-based BCI company and co-founder Carolina Aguilar, INBRAIN Neuroelectronics, one of Neuralink’s competitors, told The Debrief, “At this stage, we interpret ‘high-volume’ realistically as hundreds moving toward low thousands of implants per year.” She also notes that it could eventually reach “tens of thousands”.
Solzbacher said the challenges presented with scaling “usually come in all areas.”
“It starts with capability, the processes, and the capacity to actually make that many devices,” Solzbacher said in an email to The Debrief, adding that that number—should it reach “tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of devices” would require “well-qualified, validated processes.”
With China accelerating the commercial deployment of BCI technology, how do European and American BCI companies view the pace of its advancements, and what impact could this have on the global race for brain technology leadership?
Defense Applications
The commercialization of brain-computer interfaces is now at the forefront of the brain-chip revolution. Citizens around the world should be engaged in discussions about how this technology will be implemented within their countries. At the same time, the conversation should also acknowledge the role the military-industrial complex has played in funding BCI research through DARPA, as well as how the technology has been explored for potential defense, intelligence, and counterintelligence applications.
DARPA has been one of the leading funders of BCI research for decades. Programs (that we know of) such as Revolutionizing Prosthetics (LUKE Arm), NESD (Neural Engineering System Design), and N3 (Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology were created with the goals of restoring movement to wounded service members, enabling direct communication between the brain and computers, and developing high-bandwidth, minimally invasive, or noninvasive neural interfaces. Collectively, these efforts aim to improve decision-making, situational awareness, pilot workload management, and human-machine teaming.
It remains unclear how other nations are integrating BCI technology into their own military-industrial complexes or how these systems may ultimately be employed. That uncertainty underscores the growing need for international collaboration and the establishment of a global BCI framework sooner rather than later. Because of this, continued oversight and transparency are necessary to ensure future applications respect civil liberties and ethical standards, and many believe safeguards should be established to prevent any future civilian-targeted programs from emerging.
Ethics of BCI and Global Counsel
Humanity may be approaching a tipping point in its biological and technological evolution. Some would describe this as a “singularity”—a historic moment when technology and human development converge in a transformative way, fundamentally reshaping what it means to be human.
On October 8, a private Morgan Stanley report titled Neuralink: AI in Your BrAIn focused on Elon Musk’s Neuralink. The report argues that Musk and his BCI team are positioned at the forefront of a broader technological shift—one for which society may be unprepared. The implications could be profound, potentially changing the fabric of society itself.
The report warns that “the ability for human beings to ‘keep up’ and communicate with the AI apparatus may deteriorate at an exponential rate,” noting that “one of Elon Musk’s many goals in founding Neuralink is to ‘give humanity a chance’ to keep up with AGI.” It also suggests that Musk is using a “back door” into healthcare to enter the consumer market and, in turn, create a “Neuro Elite.”
Such a development could further widen existing wealth and educational gaps, particularly in emerging economies already struggling to keep pace with wealthier Western nations.
“Many countries, particularly those in the Global South, have limited involvement in BCI research and are understandably focused on more immediate public health, economic, and social priorities. As a result, they may have little incentive to invest in developing or enforcing BCI-specific regulations,” says Kerry Bowman, PhD, a bioethicist, environmentalist, and professor at the University of Toronto, in an email to The Debrief.
“At the same time, researchers seeking to avoid restrictive oversight may simply relocate their work to jurisdictions with few or no regulations, creating opportunities for regulatory arbitrage,” Bowman adds. “Furthermore, meaningful global consensus is complicated by profound cultural differences regarding individual autonomy, collective welfare, human enhancement, and the role of the state. Recognizing these challenges, it remains a good and positive step in the right direction.”
With these concerns on the horizon, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, along with Senators John Cornyn and Ron Wyden, introduced the Management of Individuals’ Neural Data Act of 2025, or MIND Act, on September 24. The proposed legislation seeks to establish safeguards for brain-computer interface technology by directing federal agencies to develop guidelines addressing ethical concerns, safety, and privacy risks associated with neural data.
As BCIs advance, concerns about their potential ability to influence thoughts, memories, and emotions have become increasingly central to policy discussions.
Without global safeguards and international agreements governing BCI development, scientists could potentially collaborate with foreign adversaries, black-market organizations, or extremist groups seeking to advance radical visions of human enhancement. Technologies developed through such collaborations could then be sold illegally or distributed commercially around the world.
For instance, former Harvard professor Charles Lieber, 67, who was convicted in the United States of concealing ties to a Chinese talent program, is now leading a state-funded brain-computer interface laboratory in Shenzhen, China. Lieber currently directs the Institute for Brain Research, Advanced Interfaces and Neurotechnologies, or i-BRAIN, raising renewed concerns about the geopolitical competition surrounding emerging technologies.
This may appear to be the work of a single controversial scientist, but it also illustrates how quickly advanced technologies, expertise, and intellectual property can move between nations and research communities. The question, therefore, remains: Where do we go from here if a “singularity” arrives, and what might it look like?
“Carbon-based lifestyles and silica-based lifestyles may merge,” Peng offered for this potential event in a podcast interview. “Artificial intelligence and neuroscience are two sides of the same coin. BCI will be the collector between these two shapes of life, probably because AI will have consciousness.”
A Global Coalition?
One proposed approach would be to create a global coalition of academics and experts representing a broad range of disciplines, including physics, philosophy, neurology, psychology, psychiatry, and other hard and social sciences. What might such a global BCI coalition look like, and how could it be structured to guide research, governance, ethics, and the responsible development of brain-computer interface technologies?
Schüttler suggests that if a global BCI coalition enabled technologies developed in China, the United States, and Europe to be shared and approved across regions, its impact would depend largely on who was involved.
For patients, such a framework could mean faster access to breakthrough treatments, particularly because, according to Schüttler, “Chinese approval processes can be substantially faster.”
For U.S. and European companies, however, it could disrupt existing business models. Companies that have invested heavily in Western clinical trials may face significant challenges if Chinese data becomes widely accepted, since he says “a coalition could risk their business model once they are already committed to costly approval studies.”
The shift could prove even more disruptive for clinical research organizations, since trials in China can often be “cheaper and faster to conduct,” Schüttler says. Ultimately, a global BCI partnership could provide substantial benefits or create major disruptions, depending on “who you are in the game, and at what stage you are.”
By contrast, Solzbacher believes a “coalition needs to be informed and driven by a deep understanding of patient and caregiver needs as well as the underlying technologies and their associated risks and opportunities. Practical and multi-stakeholder, with international representation.”
“Regulators, clinicians, engineers, neuroscientists, companies, ethicists, advocates, and, above all, patients and caregivers,” he says, would allow such a coalition to “work alongside national regulators and support their authority, setting shared expectations on trial design, safety reporting, post-market surveillance, cybersecurity, interoperability, patient access, and long-term device stewardship.”
“The center of gravity must stay on the patients. This field will carry strategic and economic weight regardless,” Solzbacher says. “We need to get this technology to the people who could benefit most, responsibly and with as much urgency as possible.”
The next phase of BCI advancement cannot be driven by speed alone. The ability to connect the human brain with machines raises profound questions: Who owns neural data? Who controls access to these technologies? And how can society ensure that tools designed to enhance human potential do not create new forms of inequality, coercion, or exploitation?
Countries around the world will need to work together to confront these questions before the technology advances beyond the safeguards intended to govern it.
Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and the founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com. To contact Chrissy with a story, please email chrissy @ thedebrief.org.