DOI: 10.5064/f6j4josg
title: Fostering Ethical Neurotechnology Academia-Industry Partnerships: A Stakeholder Engagement and Toolkit Development Project

description: &lt;h3&gt;Project Overview&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Neurotechnology is a swiftly-advancing field that offers great potential for enhancing patient care for a variety of neurological and psychiatric disorders. Neurotechnology refers to invasive (e.g. deep brain stimulation) and non-invasive (e.g. transcranial magnetic stimulation) devices that support the diagnosis and treatment of conditions affecting the brain and spinal cord. Many of these innovations, like implantable brain devices, emerge from collaborations between academic researchers and private sector companies. These academia-industry partnerships are crucial for driving innovation and converting scientific findings into practical clinical tools. Nonetheless, these collaborations face ethical challenges arising from clashing institutional missions and values—such as the academic emphasis on transparency and data sharing versus industry’s need to safeguard trade secrets and intellectual property.
This project aims to bridge this gap by involving a variety of stakeholders to identify, understand, and create actionable guidance that assists stakeholders in navigating the ethical landscape of academia-industry neurotechnology partnerships.&lt;/p&gt;
description: &lt;h3&gt;Data and Data Collection Overview &lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Stakeholders and Sample Characteristics:
This project engaged four stakeholder groups located across the United States:
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Patients (PAT) (N=16): Adults who either used neurotechnology devices for a medical condition or participated in research involving a neurotechnology device. Participants were recruited through ResearchMatch and snowball sampling. Eligibility required firsthand experience with neurotechnology beyond diagnostic imaging (e.g., MRI).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Neuroethicists (NET) (N=15): Academic scholars with publications and/or NIH funding in neuroethics, neurotechnology, conflicts of interest, or medical device research.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Cultivation Institutional Officials (CIO) (N=15): University officials whose work supports IA partnerships, including those in technology transfer, licensing, and innovation offices.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Regulatory Institutional Officials (RIO) (N=15): University officials overseeing IA partnerships, including those managing conflicts of interest or research compliance.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Clinicians (CLN) (N=13): Medical professionals, such as physicians and surgeons, in the field of neurotechnology who practice in the United States, treating patients with neurotechnological interventions and maintaining professional relationships with neurotechnology industry partners. &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Researchers (SCI) (N=15): Scientists who perform studies or clinical trials focused on developing or assessing new neurotechnology, and have experience with academia-industry partnerships in the research and development of neurotechnology.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Industry representatives (IND) (N=15): Leaders of neurotechnology companies, such as C-suite executives, that develop or sell neurotechnologies and have experience in academia-industry partnerships.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Data Collection Procedures
All participants completed a screening and demographic survey via Qualtrics and participated in a one-hour interview conducted over Zoom. Prior to the interviews, the patient group received brief educational background on academia-industry partnerships to support informed discussion. Interviews were led by trained interviewers who obtained verbal consent and followed a semi-structured interview guide tailored to each stakeholder group. The interviews covered five main domains:
- Prior experiences with academia-industry partnerships,
- ethical and practical considerations, 
- policy and regulatory frameworks, 
- resources to support responsible partnerships, and 
- advice for future stakeholders. 
All interviews were audio-recorded, professionally transcribed, de-identified, and participants received a $60 gift card for participation. This study was approved by the Washington University in St. Louis Institutional Review Board (#202205141).
&lt;/p&gt;
description: &lt;h3&gt;Shared Data Organization &lt;/h3&gt;
The project data has been organized and deposited with the following de-identified materials:
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Survey Data: Responses to pre-interview screening and demographic surveys from PAT, NET, CIO, and RIO stakeholders.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Interview Transcripts: De-identified transcripts of one-hour stakeholder interviews.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Supporting documentation includes the interview guides used for each stakeholder group, survey questionnaires / codebooks, and qualitative codebooks used for initial thematic analysis. Also included are interview information slides and the consent forms used for the patients and neuroethicists groups. Additionally, this Data Narrative and an administrative README file are provided.&lt;/p&gt;