Ethical Governance of Neurotechnologies in Latin America
Keywords:
neurotechnologies, ethical governance, neuroprivacy, cognitive rights, Latin AmericaAbstract
Introduction The accelerated development of neurotechnologies has expanded the ability to record and interpret brain activity, but it has also generated ethical tensions linked to mental privacy, cognitive autonomy and inequity in access. In Latin America, these concerns are deepened by persistent regulatory gaps and uneven institutional capacities, which makes it difficult to guide the responsible deployment of technologies aimed at influencing, measuring, or modulating mental processes. Method A qualitative and exploratory review of 24 articles published in journals indexed in Scopus between 2008 and 2025 was carried out, applying the guidelines of the PRISMA model for the screening and selection of the final corpus. Priority was given to research related to neuroethics, governance, digital privacy and regulation of neurotechnologies. The references were systematized through an analysis matrix that organized the contributions into four dimensions: neurotechnological governance, neuroprivacy, emerging cognitive rights, and challenges for Latin America. Results The findings identify six thematic cores: democratic governance and legitimacy; brain health as an emerging right; cognitive surveillance risks derived from neurodata; opacity in digital privacy policies; persistent dilemmas in clinical confidentiality; and regulatory challenges for consumer neurotechnology devices. In a transversal way, there is evidence of weak regional articulation, dependence on external frameworks and absence of their own neuroprivacy standards. Conclusions The ethical governance of neurotechnologies in Latin America requires anticipatory frameworks, regional cooperation, and specialized capacity building, in order to balance innovation, social justice, and protection of mental integrity.
References
Alcántara-Santuario, A., & Marín-Fuentes, V. (2013). Gobernanza, democracia y ciudadanía: Sus implicaciones con la equidad y la cohesión social en América Latina. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación Superior, 4(10), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2007-2872(13)71926-7
Daly, T. (2025). Brain health is a human right: Implications for policy and research. Neuroscience, 569, 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2025.01.063
Díaz-Castro, L., Arredondo, A., Pelcastre-Villafuerte, B. E., & Hufty, M. (2017). Indicadores de gobernanza en políticas y programas de salud mental en México: Una perspectiva de actores clave. Gaceta Sanitaria, 31(4), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.08.001
Duffy, R. M., & Kelly, B. D. (2017). Privacy, confidentiality and carers: India’s harmonisation of national guidelines and international mental health law. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 3(1), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2017.02.018
Fukushi, T. (2024). East Asian perspective of responsible research and innovation in neurotechnology. IBRO Neuroscience Reports, 16, 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibneur.2024.04.009
Gelpi, A. (2021). Rethinking super-confidentiality in the age of disclosure: The ethical and social implications of privacy protections in mental health data. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 3(1), 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2017.02.025
Gulliver, A., Bennett, K., Bennett, A., Farrer, L. M., Reynolds, J., & Griffiths, K. M. (2015). Privacy issues in the development of a virtual mental health clinic for university students: A qualitative study. JMIR Mental Health, 2(1), e2. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.4294
Herrera-Ferrá, K. (2021). Bioculture and the global regulatory gap in neuroscience, neurotechnology, and neuroethics. In Developments in Neuroethics and Bioethics (Vol. 4, pp. 41–61). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.dnb.2021.08.001
Kelly, B. D. (2017). Confidentiality and privacy in the setting of involuntary mental health care: What standards should apply? Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 3(1), 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2017.02.020
Lin, X., Wu, X., Zhu, Z., Chen, D., Li, H., & Lin, R. (2025). Quality and privacy policy compliance of mental health care apps in China: Cross-sectional evaluation study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e66762. https://doi.org/10.2196/66762
Magee, P., Ienca, M., & Farahany, N. (2024). Beyond neural data: Cognitive biometrics and mental privacy. Neuron, 112(18), 3017–3028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2024.09.004
Mostajo-Radji, M. A. (2022). The emergence of neurodiplomacy. iScience, 25(6), 104370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.104370
Muñoz, J. M., & Borbón, D. (2023). Equal access to mental augmentation: Should it be a fundamental right? Brain Stimulation, 16(4), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2023.05.003
Parker, L., Halter, V., Karliychuk, T., & Grundy, Q. (2019). How private is your mental health app data? An empirical study of mental health app privacy policies and practices. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 64, 198–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.04.002
Pesqueira, A., de Bem Machado, A., Bolog, S., & Costa, C. (2025). EU privacy law and B2B digital manufacturing platforms in mental health. Innovation and Green Development, 4(1), 100196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.igd.2024.100196
Powell, A. C., Singh, P., & Torous, J. (2018). The complexity of mental health app privacy policies: A potential barrier to privacy. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6(7), e158. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.9871
Robillard, J. M., Feng, T. L., Sporn, A. B., Lai, J.-A., Lo, C., Ta, M., & Nadler, R. (2019). Availability, readability, and content of privacy policies and terms of agreements of mental health apps. Internet Interventions, 17, 100243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2019.100243
Shen, N., Sequeira, L., Silver, M. P., Carter-Langford, A., Strauss, J., & Wiljer, D. (2019). Patient privacy perspectives on health information exchange in a mental health context: Qualitative study. JMIR Mental Health, 6(11), e13306. https://doi.org/10.2196/13306
Siegel, A. W. (2008). Inequality, privacy, and mental health. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31(2), 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.02.008
Spichak, S. (2025). The controversial push for new brain and neurorights. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e72270. https://doi.org/10.2196/72270
Steindl, E. (2024). Consumer neuro devices within EU product safety law: Are we prepared for big tech ante portas? Computer Law & Security Review, 52, 105945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105945
Uvalle Berrones, R. (2014). La importancia de la ética en la formación de valor público. Estudios Políticos, 32, 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0185-1616(14)70581-5
Villarreal, D. A., Castello, M. E., Argueta de Sáenz, M. I., Brennan, E., De Salles Andrade, J. B., Jácome Guerrero, J. L., Mazzone, G. L., Monti, M. del M., Murillo, M. L., Pòrreca, R., Ramirez, M. R., Roman-Gonzalez, A., Russo, M., Sánchez Reyna, P. B., & Russo, M. (2025). Challenges and potential of science diplomacy in Latin America: A focus on neurosciences. Neuroscience, 572, 248–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2025.02.014
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ronie Martínez (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
