Cognitive enhancement, individual freedom, and neurotechnology in Europe
David Orban — my full answers to the interview for Le Scienze MIND on the neurohacking of non-therapeutic prosthetics. The questions are by Teresa Giusti (Master in Science Communication, SISSA); a version was published in MIND.
To what extent can cognitive enhancement be a free individual choice, and when does it instead risk becoming a social pressure?
Society, by definition, influences and constrains its members through shared rules. In many domains — and inevitably, the moment we choose to live in a community — we have to be aware of this.
Yet social and technological conditions are not static: new opportunities, new needs, new tools constantly emerge. Faced with such changes, individuals and communities shape and redefine the terms of living together.
Already today we live with forms of cognitive enhancement that, once the fruit of individual passion or curiosity, have now become functional prerequisites for social participation. Digital literacy, for example, is by now a necessary condition for accessing fundamental rights: the State requires the use of electronic platforms to fulfill tax obligations, and those unable to use them must rely on the assistance of others.
In this scenario, it is plausible that future cognitive-enhancement tools, once proven effective and broadly applicable, will also become ordinary and expected. Those who will not, cannot, or must not adopt them will find themselves in tension with the new implicit norms of collective participation.
The specificity of the present moment lies in the power of these tools, in the depth of the transformations they can induce, and in the speed with which they spread. Writing took centuries to establish itself as a mass competence. Computing required a generation. Emerging cognitive-enhancement technologies, instead, could become pervasive within a few years, leaving insufficient time for gradual adaptation.
Already today one hears expressions like: “thank goodness I’m retiring, so I won’t have to learn to use artificial intelligence.” But with the new technologies on the way, this margin for opting out may no longer exist. The forced expansion of one’s own adaptability risks becoming unsustainable for part of the population. It will then be necessary to decide whether to accept the marginalization of these individuals, or to recognize and protect a new kind of right: the right to non-adoption, to cognitive disconnection, to biological continuity. Only in this way can a dignified life be guaranteed also to those who consciously choose not to enhance themselves.
What are the risks, for Europe, of holding back neurotechnological innovation too much compared to other geopolitical blocs? Is there a way forward?
Europe has long adopted a precautionary principle that effectively places the burden of proof on innovation: the most advanced technologies are asked to demonstrate, even before their diffusion, the absence of risks. This principle, however noble in intent, produces significant consequences in terms of competitiveness.
It appears inevitable that a similar approach will be applied to neurotechnological innovation too, slowing its development and confining its adoption. The paradox is evident: we are surprised by American or Chinese dominance in fields where Europe has deliberately curbed its own progress, ignoring that other global actors do not share the same level of caution.
If Europe recognized in neurotechnologies a strategic stake, capable of determining a new geopolitical equilibrium, it should then explore alternatives to the current paradigm. One possible path would be the establishment of experimental zones subject to flexible regulation, where innovation can proceed at speed, under public and transparent observation. In such contexts, the stringent rules in force elsewhere would be temporarily suspended, in order to foster the research, development, and validation of new technologies.
An inspiring model could be that of the special economic zones established in China in the 1980s, such as Shanghai and Shenzhen. In those territories, a regime of extraordinary entrepreneurial freedom enabled the birth of enterprises, technological development, and the achievement of global production and commercial records — all under constant monitoring by state authorities, but with ample operating latitude.
Today, Europe has the opportunity to reflect on its own model of an “ethical experimentation zone,” reconciling rigor and dynamism, precaution and progress. The debate, however, must begin immediately, if we want to avoid yet another renunciation of a crucial technological field. Neurotechnologies are not merely an area of research: they represent one of the next frontiers of cognitive and cultural power. Leaving them to others means not only losing economic ground, but also ceding control over the mental models that will shape the future.
A version of this interview was published in Le Scienze MIND (2026).