Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Should neurotechnologies go into the sandbox?

Nature Biotechnology (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Emerging neurotechnologies such as brain–computer interfaces bring together components of biotechnology and digital technology, creating a number of different policy issues. These challenges can range from the safety of medical products to privacy issues with collecting and processing data from the human brain. Such different issues may call for different policy responses. For example, in April 2024, the UK government sent mixed messages about using a new type of policy instrument, regulatory sandboxes, to manage the risks of neurotechnologies1. Regulators using sandboxes can allow small, short-term trials of new products and may modify typical rules to do so. British policymakers appeared to reject the idea of sandbox policies for medical devices involving neurotechnology, but left room for using privacy sandboxes for data collected by similar devices, including consumer-oriented neurotechnologies.

Regulatory sandboxes are a relatively new class of policy tool that aims to accelerate innovation by allowing technology developers to test their products or services in a small setting where regulators relax existing rules or provide special guidance2. In return, participating entities often must propose and adhere to their own internal system of risk management, which can involve testing new rules, best practices or management systems. Regulators must decide who can enter a sandbox and under what conditions, supervise all entities while they participate, and protect patients or consumers during these trials and as they wind down.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Department of Health and Social Care, Griffith, A. & Stephenson, A. Government response to the Regulatory Horizons Council report on neurotechnology. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-the-regulatory-horizons-council-report-on-neurotechnology (2024).

  2. Johnson, W. G. Regul. Gov. 17, 709–725 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Garden, H., Winickoff, D. E., Frahm, N. M. & Pfotenhauer, S. Responsible innovation in neurotechnology enterprises. https://doi.org/10.1787/9685e4fd-en (OECD, 2019).

  4. Greenfield, A., Tait, J. & Denniston, A. The regulation of neurotechnology. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-horizons-council-the-regulation-of-neurotechnology (Regulatory Horizons Council, 2022).

  5. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Novel neurotechnologies: intervening in the brain. https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publications/neurotechnology (2013).

  6. Wexler, A. & Reiner, P. B. Science 363, 234–235 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Strickland, E. & Harris, M. IEEE Spectrum https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete (2022).

  8. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. MHRA to launch the AI-Airlock, a new regulatory sandbox for AI developers. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-to-launch-the-ai-airlock-a-new-regulatory-sandbox-for-ai-developers (2023).

  9. ICO tech futures: neurotechnology. https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/research-reports-impact-and-evaluation/research-and-reports/technology-and-innovation/ico-tech-futures-neurotechnology/ (UK Information Commissioner’s Office, 2023).

  10. Rainey, S. et al. J. Law Biosci. 7, lsaa051 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Australian National University under the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. The author is grateful to Kathryn Henne for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet), Australian National University, Acton, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

    Walter G. Johnson

Authors
  1. Walter G. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Walter G. Johnson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johnson, W.G. Should neurotechnologies go into the sandbox?. Nat Biotechnol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02254-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02254-8

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research