As brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) evolve from experimental medical tools to consumer and military-adjacent technologies, they introduce a new and complex security domain. This domain treats the human nervous system as a networked and contestable substrate, raising critical questions about neural signal integrity and cognitive sovereignty. Existing frameworks for cybersecurity, biomedical safety, and data protection were not designed to address these emerging threats, creating a governance gap characterized by systemic misclassification. This gap leaves critical neural infrastructure vulnerable to adversarial manipulation, a concern that has been highlighted by researchers like Hailee Carter in her recent study on neurosecurity governance.
Carter’s research situates cognition as a form of strategic infrastructure, caught between the market-driven diffusion of neurotechnology in the United States and the state-integrated fusion of artificial intelligence (AI) and brain science in China. The study uses Singapore as a critical case to stress-test these emerging challenges. Singapore, known for its robust regulatory frameworks in both cybersecurity and biomedical domains, remains vulnerable at the intersection of these fields. This vulnerability arises from a failure to classify the human mind as a critical infrastructure component, leaving it exposed to external modulation.
The concept of cognitive sovereignty, as introduced by Carter, refers to the strategic capacity to protect neural processes from external interference. The study argues that the human mind must be recognized as a distinct layer of critical national infrastructure. To address this gap, Carter proposes a cognitive operational technology framework designed to secure neural processes against adversarial threats. This framework aims to integrate cognitive security measures into existing governance structures, ensuring that neural signal integrity is safeguarded against emerging threats.
The research underscores the urgent need for a comprehensive approach to neurosecurity governance. As BCIs become more prevalent, the potential for adversarial threats to neural signal integrity grows. The failure to classify the human mind as infrastructure creates a critical vulnerability that must be addressed through targeted policy and regulatory measures. By adopting the concept of cognitive sovereignty and implementing a cognitive operational technology framework, nations can better protect their populations from the emerging threats posed by neurotechnology.
Carter’s study highlights the importance of proactive governance in the face of rapid technological advancement. The strategic capacity to protect neural processes from external modulation is essential for maintaining national security and individual autonomy in an increasingly interconnected world. As BCIs continue to transition from experimental systems to mainstream applications, the need for robust neurosecurity governance will only become more pressing. By addressing the governance gap and recognizing the human mind as a critical infrastructure component, policymakers can ensure that cognitive sovereignty is safeguarded for future generations. Read the original research paper here.