Neurotechnology devices are already being used in Cyprus, yet there is no complete picture of how many are in operation, where they are located, who is using them or under what regulatory framework they are being supervised.
The issue emerged during a session of the House Human Rights Committee, where the Health Ministry was asked directly whether there is any official record of neurotechnology applications and devices currently available and in use across the country.
No clear map of usage
A representative of the Health Ministry said she was not in a position to answer those questions immediately and undertook to provide a written response following an investigation into existing records, oversight mechanisms and safeguards, particularly concerning children and employees.
The lack of concrete information prompted committee chairman Christos Christofides to summarise the situation bluntly, saying the devices are “circulating and being used”, but nobody knows precisely “how many, where or by whom”.
The concern extends beyond the number of devices in circulation.
Questions were also raised about who is authorised to operate them. During the discussion, it was noted that some neurotechnology applications have approved or scientifically supported medical uses, while others may be used outside appropriate clinical settings or by individuals lacking the necessary medical qualifications.
As a result, calls were made for official records not only of the devices themselves but also of the interventions being carried out, by whom and for what purpose.
Online sales and unregulated services
Part of the problem, participants noted, lies in the market itself.
Devices can be purchased online and imported without authorities necessarily having a clear picture of their circulation or use.
While research applications may be subject to certification procedures for medical technology products, that does not mean every device available online carries equivalent approval or operates within a clearly defined regulatory framework.
Particular concern was expressed over reports of medical centres and other facilities offering related services without belonging to a professional body or official register.
Committee members heard that complaints have already been submitted by scientific organisations, while questions were raised about how such services are marketed to the public, including claims relating to health conditions and dementia.
One example discussed involved a registered psychologist who was reportedly advertising the use of a device to manage mental and psychological conditions.
Scientists urge caution
The discussion did not portray neurotechnology as inherently harmful.
Andreas Demetriou stressed that mapping specific brain functions is very different from the ability to “read” complex thoughts, noting that science remains far from achieving anything of that kind.
Fofi Constantinidou highlighted the significant therapeutic potential of neurotechnology for people with neurological conditions and accessibility challenges.
However, Nikos Constantinou of the Cyprus University of Technology drew attention to possible future risks.
He described a hypothetical election campaign scenario in which brain responses could be used to tailor political messages to individual voters in real time.
According to Constantinou, such possibilities demonstrate why rules governing mental privacy and the use of neurodata need to be established before technological capabilities move beyond current limits.
