The speeds of technological innovation and ethical regulation are out of sync. Scientists/entrepreneurs are gaining momentum before policymakers can fully anticipate the consequences of their actions. While some regulations are out there by UNESCO, the OECD, and other international stakeholders, they are not directly enforceable in the form of laws; entrepreneurs themselves have to decide to follow the guidelines for everyone’s collective benefit.

Read a study by neuroethics expert Karen Rommelfanger about how to reach entrepreneurs

Medical devices are stringently regulated by the FDA, and require years of robust clinical data before they are every put to use in medical settings. However, there is a huge potential for a direct consumer market for similarly impactful technology that leaves regulation up to the customers themselves, as government regulations do not reach the private sector in the same way. If companies don’t have to be transparent about how the product works and where it can go wrong, will the general public be able to catch the errors in time? 

Explore the FDA overview of device regulation

There are some methods of regulation that will reach entrepreneurs much more effectively than others. Too much restriction could dampen the field, or drive people to find destructive ways around the guidelines. Too little oversight, however, could leave some entrepreneurs to get carried away with the momentum of technological innovation.

Companies like Elon Musk’s "Neuralink" have faced backlash due to lack of transparency about the progress of their product. Experts feel communication comes casually on social media, rather than from reputable sources.

Musk is particularly unique in his high profile. According to Yasheng Huang from the MIT Sloan School of Management, “Musk has been able to leverage his political influence in ways that few other business leaders can. He has navigated regulatory challenges with agility.” It is therefore possible that regulators are hesitant to target Musk due to his immense social and political influence, showcasing the potential dangers and anxieties surrounding overregulation.

The problem of balance comes in here: there is danger in regulating an excited field, as well as in letting it gain too much power.

The term “techlash” refers to public backlash against existing technologies, usually due to concerns over ethics and well-being. This has been seen before, particularly with social media, where regulation was introduced only after its negative impacts on the public became apparent and, more significantly, after public protest.

Legislators have so far taken a hands-off approach to neurotechnology, which may produce a similar timeline. Things like the US BRAIN Initiative and the EU’s Human Brain Project encourage innovation; competition in the market could lead the private sector to ignore ethical concerns for the sake of “making it”. This would put regulation in the hands of the public (a hefty responsibility).

Read more from the Knight Foundation: “Techlash? America’s Growing Concern With Major Technology Companies”