USA 
United Kingdom
A leading neurotechnology expert says brain monitoring technology could soon be in use in workplaces but warns that it may bring as many challenges as it does benefits.
Paul Brandt-Rauf, a leading biomedical engineer and occupational medicine expert at Drexel University, says the use of brain-monitoring devices in the workplace is a double-edged sword, promising significant productivity gains while raising ethical and legal challenges for employers and HR leaders.
“Neurotechnology has the potential to improve how humans perform their roles at work,” says Brandt-Rauf. He warns, however, that its implementation could create unintended risks for workers and employers alike.
Workplace Innovation
Neuroergonomics, the study of brain activity during tasks, is at the heart of the technological shift. Non-invasive, wearable devices like EEG (electroencephalography) and fNIRS (functional near-infrared spectroscopy) can monitor brain activity in real-time, offering insights into cognitive performance, stress, and fatigue.
Such tools could revolutionize high-stakes professions. For example, air traffic controllers and police officers - roles requiring sustained attention - could benefit from monitoring systems that flag when focus levels dip, allowing interventions to prevent errors.
Additionally, neuromodulation techniques like transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) could help improve learning and motor skills, potentially transforming training in fields such as surgery, military operations, and athletics.
“These technologies may enable a more seamless integration between workers’ brains and their work environments,” says Brandt-Rauf.
Risks for HR leaders
Despite its promise, neurotechnology carries substantial ethical and legal concerns. One of the biggest risks is the potential misuse of brain data. Currently, brain activity data isn’t classified as medical information under laws like HIPAA, leaving employees vulnerable to privacy breaches or misuse by employers.
“Employers may use neurotechnology to diagnose brain-related diseases, but this data could also be leveraged for discrimination or unfair employment decisions,” Brandt-Rauf warns.
HR leaders will need to advocate for robust protections, similar to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which safeguards employees against biases based on genetic data.
Consent is another thorny issue. Could employers make wearable neurotechnology mandatory? Without strong safeguards, workers refusing to participate could face repercussions, from job denials to insurance penalties.
Striking a balance
For HR departments, the challenge lies in balancing the potential benefits of neurotechnology with the risks. On the positive side, wearable devices could help design personalized training programs, reduce workplace stress, and create safer environments for employees.
Ensuring fairness, privacy, and trust will, however, require proactive policies and collaboration with legal, ethical, and regulatory bodies.
Brandt-Rauf believes that bringing all stakeholders - scientists, lawyers, HR leaders, and government officials - into the conversation is key.
“These technologies could bring profound changes in the coming decades, but addressing ethical concerns early is critical to creating safer, more equitable work environments.”
As neurotechnology becomes more widespread, HR leaders will need to navigate its complexities carefully, ensuring it serves as a tool for innovation rather than a source of inequality.
