Ethical risks and considerations of brain-controlled and neuromodulation technologies

Brain-controlled technology (BCT), centered on brain-computer interfaces (BCI), acquires and decodes neural signals to convert subjective intentions into control commands for external devices, establishing an intention output loop. In contrast, neuromodulation technology applies external physical stimuli to the central nervous system to regulate neuronal excitability and brain network states, achieving energy input for functional modulation and therapeutic purposes. The inherent differences in mechanisms and application goals determine that the ethical risk profiles and governance priorities of these two technologies cannot be conflated. Current public communication is characterized by terminology misuse and concept generalization, notably the misinterpretation of neuromodulation as controlling the brain. In response to the resulting ethical anxiety caused by capability extrapolation, this paper first clarifies the functional positioning of both technologies. Subsequently, a three-dimensional assessment model based on reality, reversibility, and technological dependence is constructed to map a stratified ethical risk landscape. The analysis reveals a significant asymmetry in risk distribution: risks of BCT are primarily concentrated on neural privacy leakage and responsibility attribution dilemmas within the intention decoding process, whereas risks of neuromodulation are deeply embedded in the potential erosion of personal identity and subject autonomy induced by external stimuli. To address institutional gaps in the current regulatory system regarding consumer-grade devices and long-term effects, this paper proposes a differentiated tiered governance strategy. It advocates establishing terminology demystification and conceptual rectification as the frontline defense for risk governance. On this basis, the strategy enforces physical defense mechanisms such as hardware fusing and parameter safety windows on the technical side, and strengthens data desensitization and algorithmic accountability on the data side. Ultimately, a multi-subject synergistic governance mechanism covering the full lifecycle from research and development and clinical trials to social application is constructed to provide institutional support for responsible innovation in neurotechnology.