To What End? “Neurodata” Boundaries and Their Implications for Policy and Regulation

Data generated about the structure or function of the nervous system (“neurodata”), often using neurotechnology and/or AI, is viewed as revealing important, sensitive, and unique information about persons and their internal lives. Such discussions have resulted in a proliferation of hard and soft laws and standards around such “neurodata” (Canter, Brim, and Maas, 2025; Spivack, 2025). However, what constitutes neurodata is both under- and over-defined and widely disputed. We argue that neurodata, commonly recognized as a stable category of data, is unstable. We use “neural gravity”, akin to a black hole, as a metaphor for the epistemic force around the neural discourse that pulls related data into its domain to argue for authority and protection: everything from electrical activity, blood flow, voice data, and behaviour can be plausibly tied to “the neural”. Using the concepts of boundary objects and boundary work from social anthropology (Fisher, 1988; Star and Griesemer, 1989), we draw out the loci of tensions within the management of such AI/biotechnology-derived data and how these arise as a function of existing power structures rather than features of neurodata themselves. We propose instead to frame these conversations around an alternative boundary object to facilitate dialogue between actors and steer development of data standards and regulation toward protecting personhood, rather than data type or use. We argue this approach more precisely addresses the true collective concerns raised in discussions of neurodata and better respects individuals and communities as ends in and of themselves, rather than means to be used by others.