By Siya Patel, Nathan Smillie, Aarnavi Seeta | Illustrated by Ashvetha Santharuban | Fall 2025 Issue | Technology
Introduction
Once confined to labs and hospitals, neurotechnology is now entering everyday workplaces to track focus, stress, and even cognitive fatigue. The UK Parliament defines neurotech as a term that encompasses technologies that interact with the brain and nervous system, either analyzing information from them or acting as a stimulant. They are classified as non-invasive or invasive, with non-invasive devices like electroencephalogram (EEG) and wearables (smartwatches, smart jewellery, smart glasses etc.) being the most common implementation in workplaces.
Industry giants like Microsoft and startups alike are exploring the development of cognitive feedback systems in varying capacities, setting the scene for major advancements in the technology. In Microsoft's case, neurotechnology was used to adapt company products and practices to prevent meeting fatigue in employees. A study conducted by Microsoft's Human Factors Lab studied the brain activity of 14 employees using EEG equipment. The insights gained were used to redesign how teams structured their meetings, increasing overall productivity.
On the other hand, startups have had a more hands-on approach, and are developing more consumer-facing products for use both in and out of the office. For example, Neuralink develops brain-computer interfaces to assist individuals with paralysis and blindness, while Roga Life focuses on a wearable mental wellness device that acts as a stress relief option when therapy and medication are inaccessible. Businesses want to optimize how people work, and neurotechnology allows them to monitor employee efficiency, which accounts for the growing number of companies adopting it. Advancements aside, this rapid expansion raises a significant concern: does the promise of increased productivity justify the risks that come with intrusions on brain data?
The Good and the Bad
To understand the trade-off, it's crucial to take a look at both the potential risks and benefits this technology creates for employers and workers. On the employer side, companies like Lockheed Martin are developing services like CogC2 (Cognitive Command and Control) to provide businesses real-time neurophysiological workload assessments. Aside from managing workflow, this device is also intended to help companies map fatigue to improve employee health and well-being.
The process first begins with understanding the organization's needs, along with the cognitive systems employees use most and the challenges they face while doing so. For example, is management trying to avoid errors related to distraction, or are they considering whether a new tool or method will benefit their output? Then, the depth of their needs is considered. Assessment speed, precision, accuracy requirements, and physical considerations are evaluated to determine whether non-invasive measures like EEG equipment, or "wearables" tracking heart rate through optical and electrical sensors are needed. EEG works by placing electrode attachments to the scalp, measuring electrical activity, and telling the user what neural patterns are happening in the brain. This can be helpful with diagnosing several brain conditions in medical settings, but in the workplace this can instead be used to identify issues with inattention, chronic stress, and productivity among other behaviours.
Based on the data collected and the organization's needs, the CogC2 service is able to provide real-time feedback moment by moment or a one-time assessment that highlights solutions for key issues. This allows companies to work on points of concern and ensure both operations and their workforce are functioning sustainably.
On the employee side, it is more of a double-edged sword. On one end, the implementation of this technology can act as a whistleblower, alerting of any dangerous stress levels or indicators of poor health ahead of time. Ideally, this allows the employer to step in and provide the necessary support to avoid any further complications that may put an employee's work or well-being at risk. Alternatively, due to the limitations in current technology, more confusion could arise instead of clarity.
To understand why this is the case, Dr. Alison Smith, a neuroscientist and co-founder of Roga, explained what neurotech is capable of currently. Discussing the topic of EEG, she stated, "It gives us a good temporal signature of what's happening, but it doesn't give us a good localization of where this activity is coming from." This leaves finding conclusions up to inferences, which can be inaccurate, leading to validity issues in performance evaluations. There is also a psychological impact, as detailed by the journal article "Oversight of direct-to-consumer neurotechnologies." The authors, Anna Wexler and Peter B Reiner, discuss that if a consumer EEG device were to inaccurately show an individual is in a stressed state, it may prompt an unwarranted stress response, either through unnecessary management intervention or the employee's own reaction. This would be a form of confirmation bias, as pre-existing trust in the technology could reinforce the false positive, leading to behavioural changes that do more harm than good.
According to Dr. Smith, "The true way of understanding someone's unique neural signature is through deep brain stimulation, or recordings, which is highly invasive," and even then it cannot truly record all brain activity or frequencies. These risks can complicate the issue of consent, as not all employees may be comfortable with constant brain monitoring. In theory, employees should be able to choose whether they want to participate in these programs, but power imbalances and workplace relationships may make that decision a difficult one. Apart from these concerns, neurotechnology also introduces significant external privacy risks, as unlike traditional personal data, neural data captures cognitive states, emotions, and preferences. The sensitivity of the data means that unless there is appropriate governance, the threat of third-party data exploitation is critical and should be addressed.
Ethical and Legal Issues
For most situations in the workplace, there are labour laws in place to ensure employees are able to maintain their autonomy. For example, in Canada, the Privacy Act and PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act) protect individuals from unauthorized collection, use, or disclosure of personal information by the federal government and private sector organizations. According to the Federal Office of the Privacy Commissioner, while neural data will be protected under PIPEDA as a type of biometric information, frameworks are still in the process of being developed. Health Canada, on a similar wavelength, is in collaboration with experts to draft guidelines on what constitutes appropriate use of neurotech. These are necessary actions before the widespread use in workspaces.
In a 2024 report by the Neurorights Foundation, an organization created out of Columbia University, several key concerns were highlighted. For example, it was revealed that after analyzing the privacy policies and user agreements of 30 companies that offered consumer-grade neurotech, 29 companies were within their rights to access the data collected by their devices and distribute it to third-parties. Moreover, only three anonymized and encrypted the data they collected, with around 60% of companies providing virtually no information to consumers regarding how their neural data was handled, stored, and what their rights are. Paired with ambiguous and convoluted agreements, this places consumers at a significant disadvantage and undermines meaningful informed consent.
Therefore, in addition to operating within existing legal frameworks, more legislative intervention is necessary to ensure transparency. In another perspective, the sensitive nature of neural data and the information it can reveal about mental health conditions, attention disorders, and fatigue patterns exposes individuals to neurodiscrimination. According to a report by the UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), unusual neurological readings or misinterpretations of brain data could lead to bias, with individuals unfairly labelled "undesirable in the workplace." This could lead to a loss of employment or unfair treatment in the workplace, with no specific legislation in place preventing wrongful termination or treatment based on neurodata. Dr. Smith explains this further, saying there are no specific guidelines that neurotech companies must follow and "the onus is on the consumer (the employee in this case) to understand how the neurotechnology company is dealing with their data." Overall, a culture of mental surveillance is created, heightening stress and anxiety among employees.
This is an issue internationally with HIPAA (US) only protecting health data in medical settings, and GDPR (EU) which, while having stronger privacy protections, does not fully encompass neural data. A pioneer in the conversation is Chile, which is set to become the first country globally to create laws on neurotechnology and include neurorights in its constitution. In 2021, the Chilean Senate decided in a unanimous vote to amend their constitution to prevent the manipulation and buying/selling of brain data. This decision was prompted largely from expert concerns, like Pablo Lopez-Silva, a professor and psychologist at the University of Valparaiso. He notes that while the development of technologies is not problematic, unregulated advances could open the door to misuse. Without proper systems in place, neurotech can be hacked or embedded with "neuro-cookies" capable of first tracking, and then eventually influencing an individual's preferences. Only time will tell the extent neurotechnology is able to develop, but regardless, the legal vacuum that most countries operate within leaves individuals at risk. As a result, both UNESCO and the UN are pushing for global neurorights frameworks, though they are still in the early stages of discussion.
Limitations of Current Technology
Even with growing international attention and its swift advances, neurotechnology still faces significant limitations that complicate its workplace use. The primary risk lies in the fact that neurological activity is specific to each individual. As Dr. Smith notes, we have no method to create a personalized map of brain activity or respond based on unique neural signatures. In addition to this, there are a multitude of factors that could create variability in results, including things like physiology (age, sex, etc.), experiences, and neurodiversity. Within neurodiversity, several conditions like autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and dyspraxia exist. People who are considered neurodivergent may have different strengths and challenges from those considered neurotypical, and as a result could exhibit different brain patterns. According to ICO, when devices are not trialled and assessed on a variety of people, data collection can be skewed. As a result, systems and databases trained only on neuronormative patterns can lead to unfair conclusions on the neuropatterns of neurodivergent employees.
For example, when talking about the differences in neurotypical and neurodivergent brains, the Counselling Centre Group highlighted how neurodivergent individuals may have difficulties sustaining attention on a variety of tasks, and may hyperfocus on one. On a system that is trained on just neurotypical datasets, this may look like inattention or a lack of productivity, when it is simply a natural variation in cognitive style. Similarly, studies show that gifted individuals may have difficulty concentrating due to a multitude of ideas arising simultaneously, which could be detected by EEG devices. However, strong concentration does not necessarily render creative ideas or solutions.
Conclusion
With additional regulations surrounding employee rights and data protection, neurotechnology will play a vital role in the future. However, it is one that teeters between innovation and caution. In its current state, neurotech is limited in scope, with existing legislation lacking the framework necessary to regulate it. There are concerns about what is ethical, whether the technology is reliable, and what consequences widespread implementation might have. At the same time, the potential it has with its rapid evolution and ability to make the impossible possible cannot be denied. Clear laws, safety measures, and voluntary use must be top priorities when implementing neurotechnology in business, as it shows promising potential to improve employee well-being and efficiency. Neurotechnology offers unimaginable possibilities, but its greatest trial is its ability to innovate while remaining ethical.
