Two Rival Blueprints for Governing Neuro-AI: Regulate the Infrastructure, or Invent New Human Rights?

Two distinct blueprints are emerging for governing neuro-AI: the EU's infrastructure-centric approach regulating data systems, and the 'NeuroRights' framework proposing new human rights for mental integrity. Understanding these rival models is crucial for navigating the future of brain-data technology policy.

Omar Haddad

April 1, 2026 · Updated November 10, 2026 · 4 min read

The race to merge artificial intelligence with neuroscience has produced two competing answers to the question of who controls our brain data. One, put forward in September 2026 by the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE), would regulate the underlying data infrastructures that power neuro-AI. The other, the "NeuroRights" framework proposed by the Morningside Group in 2017, would create entirely new human rights protecting mental privacy, personal identity and personal agency. Understanding the difference between these models is now essential for anyone following technology policy, because they point regulation at fundamentally different targets: systems versus individuals.

Specific Ethical Risks of Neuro-AI

The convergence is not hypothetical. Neurotechnology and AI are increasingly intertwined as neurodata can be collected, combined and reused to develop AI models and applications across different contexts, according to the EGE's statement, Governing Neuro-AI: Towards an Infrastructure Approach. That fusion creates opportunities for healthcare, rehabilitation and scientific research, but it also raises what the EGE calls important questions for fundamental rights, democratic accountability and the public interest.

The risks are concrete. The Morningside Group's proposal, as outlined by Rafael Yuste and colleagues, identifies direct threats to mental privacy, personal identity and personal agency as neurotechnologies mature. It also flags algorithmic bias as a specific harm requiring protection, alongside concerns about fair access to cognitive augmentation. The EGE adds a structural worry: individuals must be protected against disproportionate control where neurodata and neurodata-derived inferences are used in consequential contexts. In short, the danger is not a single dystopian device but a web of data flows that can profile, predict and potentially manipulate people at the level of their brain activity.

Comparing Neuro-AI Governance: Infrastructure vs. Human Rights

The clearest way to see the policy choice is side by side. The table below contrasts the two models across their foundational philosophy, regulatory target, protections and implementation mechanism.

Two proposed governance models for neuro-AI, compared
Dimension	EU's 'Infrastructure Approach' (EGE)	'NeuroRights' Human Rights Model
Core principle	Regulate the underlying data infrastructures and models, not just individual applications	Introduce new human rights to protect individuals from neurotechnology's ethical challenges
Primary focus	Collection, combination and reuse of neurodata to develop AI models across contexts	Fundamental rights safeguarding mental privacy, personal identity and personal agency
Key protections	Robust protection of neurodata and derived inferences under EU data protection law; responsible development of Brain Foundation Models	Guarantees of fair access to neurotechnology and protection from algorithmic bias
Proposed mechanism	Policy and legal frameworks within the EU, including a targeted regulatory fitness check	New rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a "Technocratic Oath," and national measures such as Chile's constitutional amendment

Two proposed governance models for neuro-AI, compared

Dimension

EU's 'Infrastructure Approach' (EGE)

'NeuroRights' Human Rights Model

Core principle

Regulate the underlying data infrastructures and models, not just individual applications

Introduce new human rights to protect individuals from neurotechnology's ethical challenges

Primary focus

Collection, combination and reuse of neurodata to develop AI models across contexts

Fundamental rights safeguarding mental privacy, personal identity and personal agency

Key protections

Robust protection of neurodata and derived inferences under EU data protection law; responsible development of Brain Foundation Models

Guarantees of fair access to neurotechnology and protection from algorithmic bias

Proposed mechanism

Policy and legal frameworks within the EU, including a targeted regulatory fitness check

New rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a "Technocratic Oath," and national measures such as Chile's constitutional amendment

The comparison reveals the essential distinction. The EGE prioritizes systemic, public-interest regulation of data infrastructures, working within and reinforcing existing EU law. The NeuroRights model seeks to establish new, inalienable human rights that would protect individuals wherever the technology travels. One is a governance upgrade for a specific jurisdiction's legal machinery; the other is a claim about what all humans are entitled to, regardless of borders.

Navigating the Future of Neuro-AI Governance

These models are rivals, but they are not mutually exclusive. The EGE's infrastructure approach addresses the systemic power of data pipelines and foundation models; NeuroRights addresses the individual's claim to mental self-determination. A regime that regulated infrastructures thoroughly but left individuals without recognized rights to mental privacy would be incomplete, and so would a declaration of rights without enforcement machinery. Policymakers and stakeholders must actively engage with both systemic infrastructure regulation and the establishment of new human rights to comprehensively address the ethical challenges of neuro-AI.

The two approaches also carry different risks. Infrastructure regulation depends on legislative follow-through—the EGE's fitness check and governance capacity are recommendations, not enacted law. Rights codification depends on international consensus, which Chile's constitutional amendment shows is possible but far from universal. Readers tracking this field should watch for the observable signal: the emergence of new legislative proposals or international agreements that explicitly integrate elements from either the 'infrastructure approach' or the 'NeuroRights' framework. When a bill names neurodata as a protected category, or a treaty text invokes mental privacy, the abstract competition between these two blueprints will have produced a concrete winner—or, more likely, a hybrid.