CC BY 4.0Robertson, Liam J.Liam J.RobertsonHiggins, NathanNathanHigginsMaier, Moritz JulianMoritz JulianMaierCarter, AdrianAdrianCarterGardner, John G.John G.Gardner2025-11-262025-11-262025https://publica.fraunhofer.de/handle/publica/499764https://doi.org/10.24406/publica-657210.1007/s11673-025-10440-910.24406/publica-65722-s2.0-105021429684Following the recent surge in neurotechnology innovation and commercial investment, numerous academic bodies, government bodies, multilateral organizations, and industry leaders have produced ethical guidelines to govern neurotechnology innovation. Many highlight the need for new regulations to protect the rights and welfare of vulnerable individuals, while others warn about unnecessarily impeding innovation that provides urgent treatments to intractable conditions. Consensus on appropriate governance of neurotechnological innovation remains elusive. To fill this gap, we conducted a scoping review of the academic literature concerning the governance of neurotechnology development, identifying the ethical issues addressed, highlighting gaps or underdeveloped areas of neurotechnology governance, and the country in which they were developed. Fifty-one academic articles from the peer-reviewed literature were extracted, selecting those that referred to neurotechnologies and presented normative ethical guidelines or frameworks for their governance. We identified six common ethical themes (justice, beneficence and nonmaleficence, privacy and brain data, autonomy and informed consent, and, identity, dignity, and moral status) and six governance strategies proposed to address these themes (social responsibility and accountability, interdisciplinary collaboration, public engagement, scientific integrity, epistemic humility, legislation and neurorights). Discussions surrounding these themes lacked adequate consideration of diverse viewpoints, such as from the Global South, and were often underdeveloped, lacking both practical specificity and guidance to help developers balance competing priorities. Specifically, animal ethics and binding governance approaches were not adequately addressed, while neurorights were given undue consideration. Future guidelines should engage with these areas to aid in the development of more comprehensive and specific governance documents.entrueEthicsFrameworkGovernanceGuidelinesNeurotechnologyResponsible innovationScoping reviewjournal article