Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract

Chronic neural implant trials raise complex questions about how post-trial responsibilities are negotiated. Drawing on embedded research in an invasive BCI study, this paper analyzes exit as a socio-technical process and shows how STS engagement can intervene in designing responsible exit practices.

Paper long abstract

The development of chronic brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) is reshaping the landscape of translational neuroscience. While considerable attention has been devoted to questions of recruitment, consent, and risk management in early-stage implant trials, the moment when studies end, i.e., when research participation concludes and responsibility for implanted devices must be renegotiated, remains comparatively underexamined.

Drawing on two years of embedded empirical research in an invasive BCI study within the TUM Innovation Network for Neurotechnology in Mental Health (NEUROTECH), this paper examines how questions of exit emerge, are negotiated, and sometimes deferred in the everyday conduct of implant research. In doing so, we show how “exit” emerges not as a clear procedural endpoint but as a socio-technical problem distributed across relationships, institutions, and temporal infrastructures. Researchers must navigate tensions between experimental goals and care relationships, uncertainties around device maintenance and funding continuity, and the absence of institutional structures governing post-trial responsibilities.

Analyzing exit as an empirical site of coordination reveals how ethical and governance challenges in neurotechnology are not simply matters of normative principle but emerge through the practical alignment of people, devices, organizations, and timelines. At the same time, we demonstrate how STS engagement can function as a form of intervention by translating empirical insights into actionable design principles for responsible research practice. By focusing on the end of implant studies, the paper contributes to ongoing STS discussions about how scholars might critically engage with – and potentially shape – the governance of emerging neurotechnologies.