Neurotechnology touches some of the most intimate dimensions of being human – cognition, behaviour, mental health, autonomy, identity. From brain implants restoring movement to consumer devices marketed for sleep and focus, it is reshaping healthcare and raising profound ethical questions at the same time.

Europe is already the world’s second-largest neurotechnology market. But despite its scientific strength and strategic relevance, the field remains largely absent from the EU’s political agenda – leaving innovators, patients and consumers exposed to regulatory uncertainty, while the United States and China move with growing ambition.

Hosted by the European Economic and Social Committee on 13 April 2026, the event “A European Strategy for Neurotechnology” brought together policymakers, researchers, clinicians and civil society to ask: How does Europe turn its existing momentum into a coherent strategy? One that strengthens competitiveness, closes governance gaps and ensures neurotechnology develops in line with European values.

Virginia Mahieu (Neurotechnology Director, Centre for Future Generations (CFG)) and Frédéric Destrebecq (Executive Director, European Brain Council (EBC)) opened the event by welcoming the collaboration between CFG and EBC. Maurizio Mensi (Member, European Economic and Social Committee) welcomed attendees to the EESC – the ideal forum for civil society voice in this debate – and situated Europe’s position as the world’s second neurotechnology market. Strong, but not guaranteed.

Mensi highlighted the dual-use nature of neurotechnology – spanning medical and non-medical applications – and pointed to two critical gaps in the current EU framework: the ambiguous legal status of brain data under the GDPR, and the regulatory grey zone between wellness and medicine. Closing these gaps, he argued, is not anti-innovation:

“The risk is twofold. First, Europe could fail to capitalise upon an area where it has real strength; and second, it could leave patients, consumers and innovators exposed to legal uncertainty and uneven protection. A European strategy would allow us to direct innovation towards unmet medical and societal needs, and embed ethics, fundamental rights and the public interest into design, deployment and oversight from the outset – not as an afterthought. If we succeed, Europe can show that leadership in new technology is not a race to the bottom on standards, but a race to the top. Combining excellence in science and industry with excellence in rights, ethics and democratic oversight – that is the European way. And it can be our advantage.”

The CFG Neurotechnology Team presented the state-of-the-art in neurotechnology and reviewed recent developments, highlighting three key research outputs: the Neurotech Market Atlas, the Neurotech Governance Map, and Wired for the Future.

Pawel Swieboda (Senior Fellow – Neurotechnology, CFG) drew on CFG’s ‘Wired for the Future’ report to make the case that neurotechnology is not optional infrastructure – it is essential for brain health. Approximately 165 million Europeans live with a brain condition; where circuits are broken, pharmacological approaches often cannot repair them, but neurotechnology increasingly can. He highlighted recent milestones including CorTec’s FDA Breakthrough Device Designation for its BCI system for stroke rehabilitation, and called for faster clinical trials, dedicated manufacturing platforms and greater investment in non-invasive devices:

“Neurotechnology is not a good-to-have. It’s a must-have in brain health. And this is because the brain functions as a network of adaptive circuits. And if circuits are broken, you need to try to repair them. This is what neurotechnology increasingly offers us a chance of doing.”

Europe has produced pioneering work in this field and must now invest strategically to maintain that edge.

Virginia Mahieu (Neurotechnology Director, CFG) based her presentation on CFG’s Neurotech Market Atlas – an analysis of nearly 300 dedicated neurotechnology companies worldwide. Consumer firms now represent approximately 60% of the global neurotechnology landscape, driven by miniaturisation, AI and integration into mainstream wearables. They reach market faster and generate comparable revenue with a fraction of the funding:

“Consumer companies have more than tripled in the last decade and actually represent 60% of all neurotechnology companies now. Consumer neurotechnology is cheaper to produce and has fewer regulatory steps to go through, so it reaches the market faster than medical neurotechnology.”

This creates a commercial pull that risks drawing investment away from medical innovation. And as consumer technologies become more powerful, the boundary between wellness and medicine blurs – a crucial question for legal frameworks that remains unresolved. The disclosure gap is striking:

“Half of the companies we analysed did not disclose that their products were not medically certified in their terms and conditions. This could lead to users delaying seeking proper medical treatment, and it could damage trust in the sector as a whole.”

Mehmet Onur Cevik (Project Lead – Tech Policy and Enforcement, CFG) presented CFG’s Neurotech Governance Map – covering 22 EU regulatory frameworks, international instruments and national examples. The EU toolkit is extensive and valuable, but it was not designed with neurotechnology in mind. As consumer devices proliferate beyond medical device regulation, the range of relevant legislation broadens while coordination between frameworks remains weak:

“The existing EU toolkit is very rich. But although these laws are great instruments for governance, they were not designed specifically for neurotechnology. So there are gaps… The regulatory scene is as fragmented as it is diverse. If neurotechnology becomes integrated into mainstream digital platforms – products that we already use every day, for instance AirPods – its reach could scale very, very quickly.”

Sameer Zuberi (President-Elect, European Brain Council) introduced the European Charter for the Responsible Development of Neurotechnologies – taking stock of its milestones and launching a new initiative: the Seal of Trust for Responsible Neurotechnologies.

Applying to both medical and non-medical devices, the Charter was developed through a multi-stakeholder process building on the 2019 OECD Recommendation on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology, aligning with the 2025 UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology, and grounded in the 2023 León Declaration on European Neurotechnology. Its core aim is not to restrict neurotechnological development, but to support it responsibly – translating shared values into practical guidance for companies, policymakers and investors alike.

“One of my patients was the youngest ever child to have a deep brain stimulator in the world, two years of age. That produced great benefit, but it also produced some complications for that child. Neurotechnology really provides us a very exciting hope for improved health, but with any new development comes uncertainty and risk we need to understand, communicate, disseminate. We have very clear regulation of medical devices but there is increasing anxiety about the ethical issues around non-medical applications, so this charter is going to cover both areas.”

Adopted in April 2025, the Charter is now entering a broader dissemination and implementation phase, with a planned publication in Nature Human Behaviour. The Seal of Trust for Neurotechnologies is being developed as a practical tool to help organisations demonstrate alignment with Charter principles in a verifiable way. A pilot is currently underway: stakeholders are invited to get involved and join the Brain Innovation Days to see early results.

“We are working on a seal of excellence to incentivise industry adoption and political support, so to turn this charter into real action. If we have a charter, and then a framework for a seal around this charter, then hopefully it can promote the development of neurotechnology in a responsible way, practically.”

From international recommendations and ethical guidelines to standards and charters, non-binding instruments increasingly shape how technologies are developed and governed across borders. How does soft law complement regulation, align diverse actors and help embed responsibility and trust within Europe’s evolving neurotechnology ecosystem?

Pascal Maigné (Expert, French Biomedicine Agency), Dafna Feinholz (Director a.i., Division of Research, Ethics and Inclusion, UNESCO) and Hervé Chneiweiss (Chair, EBRAINS Ethics and Society Committee) moderated by Frédéric Destrebecq (EBC) explored the distinctive role of soft law in neurotechnology governance.

Soft law’s distinctive strength is its ability to evolve quickly – both in design and implementation – at a pace that hard law cannot match. It can raise warnings, anticipate questions and build consensus without the administrative delays of the legislative process. The speakers agreed that soft and hard law are not in tension: they are complementary.

“A Charter has a bottom-up approach where a large representation of stakeholders agrees upon a set of shared values and uses those values to elaborate guidelines and principles to be respected in the development of neurotechnologies: this inclusive process will enforce its legitimacy. There is a need for mechanisms which are rapid and agile enough to take public opinion into account”, Pascal Maigné (French Biomedicine Agency)

“Governance is multilayered: it is not a one-shot process but something that needs to be continuously adapted and to include different actors at different stages. Responsible development must also include what happens if the device fails or if the company fails – we need to have a holistic view of the process”, Hervé Chneiweiss (EBRAINS)

“It is very important to engage the community and the users, including different actors and civil society: everything about our intimacy and identity are changing with these technologies”, Dafna Feinholz (UNESCO)

UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology was developed through expert consultation representing over 110 countries, covering education, labour, children, the elderly and people with disabilities. More than 70 countries are now engaged in UNESCO’s neurotechnology readiness assessment.

Further governance considerations raised included the impact of neurotechnology on developing brains, the need for inclusive design, the interplay between the GDPR and the AI Act – which Hervé Chneiweiss noted may be more significant for neurotech governance than the GDPR. Responsible development requires a holistic view of the full technology lifecycle.

Virginia Mahieu (CFG) presented the three pillars of CFG’s White Paper ‘Towards an EU Neurotechnology Strategy’, translating the event’s momentum into a concrete policy agenda. The goal, she emphasised, is not to reinvent the wheel:

“The goal is to think about the responsibility of the European Union as a stakeholder in this ecosystem: What is it up to the EU now to do and to act, based on the different initiatives, frameworks and recommendations that we have? Clearly there is a growing consensus from the charter, UNESCO, OECD around the principles that should guide neurotechnology; but neurotechnology is becoming a strategic domain at the intersection of health, AI and other areas, and other regions of the world are already starting to move more decisively when it comes to policy and legislation. The challenge for the European Union at this moment is to translate this momentum into a strategic economic, political and legislative approach.”

The three pillars of the White Paper reflect the three things the EU can most directly act on:

• Pillar 1: Funding Ethical Innovation. Neurotechnology falls between broad and undifferentiated EU funding streams. The White Paper recommends a Neurotechnology Funding Board to navigate and adapt existing instruments, support innovation hubs and pool reimbursement schemes across Member States – enabling companies to scale across the single market.
• Pillar 2: Regulatory Cohesion. The EU’s regulatory arsenal is fragmented and indirect. The White Paper recommends leveraging the Digital Omnibus to recognise brain data as sensitive data under the GDPR and calls for regulatory cohesion between medical and consumer device frameworks, regulatory sandboxes and improved early-dialogue pathways with regulators.
• Pillar 3: Public Engagement. Neurotechnology interacts with the most intimate aspects of human life. The White Paper calls for proactive lifecycle engagement with users and civil society, investment in interdisciplinary skills and common terminology, and a central role for soft law instruments including the EBC Charter.

This presentation opened the floor to a series of three roundtable discussions addressing challenges and opportunities across the EU neurotechnology ecosystem.

How can Europe strengthen its neurotechnology innovation ecosystem while embedding responsibility from the outset? What funding instruments, scaling pathways, public– private partnerships and research infrastructures are needed to support sustainable growth and global competitiveness?

Federica Zanca (EIC Programme Manager for Medical Technologies and AI in Healthcare, EISMEA) presented the EIC’s approach to breakthrough innovation in neurotechnology. The EIC funds projects through Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator instruments – the latter providing up to €10M per company in grants plus equity. Neurotechnology represents 14% of the EIC’s portfolio – the largest share of any disease area – with all funded projects leveraging AI. A notable innovation is the portfolio model: a €37M challenge was allocated across nine projects required to collaborate and build shared assets beyond individual science.

“We are really working very strongly with investors and we acknowledge investors are generalists – they don’t understand that healthcare is not energy: they should not expect a return on investment in five to seven years. At least 10 to 15: clinical trials are very long.”

The EIC is also working with the Commission to pilot new regulatory approaches for neurotech medical devices – including a non-profit institute to guide companies from concept to CE mark. A structural challenge remains: companies currently favour the FDA pathway for its clearer contact points, and the EU must improve how it communicates its regulatory landscape.

Mark Vlek de Coningh (Secretary General, NeurotechEU) presented NeurotechEU’s work to build Europe’s first interdisciplinary Master’s programme in neurotechnology, launching in 2028. The consortium brings together universities from across Member States, combining neuroscience, engineering, AI, medicine and policy. The challenge is institutional as much as educational:

“Now is the most important time to create an ecosystem in Europe. I think we run into many of the same problems that companies, startups and investors run, which is huge institutional barriers between the different Member States.”

Laura Kreiling (Policy Analyst, OECD) noted that a formal 2024 reporting process on the OECD’s 2019 Recommendations on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology found that implementation was proceeding primarily through policies rather than new laws, and that neurotech policy discussions have been consistently overshadowed by AI. Experience in the AI field shows that embedding high-level principles into practical toolkits and sandboxes is what actually drives implementation. The same model could work for neurotechnology. But translation remains Europe’s weak point:

“The newer technology conversations have been a bit overshadowed by the discussions on AI. The recommendation on AI has already been revised and there are now toolkits and more and more guidance being developed by the OECD itself, but also by partners and by member states. When it comes to keeping companies in Europe we need to work harder.”

Where do current EU regulatory frameworks fall short in addressing neurotechnology, particularly at the intersection of data protection, AI governance, medical devices and consumer protection? How can existing and forthcoming policy instruments be better aligned to provide legal clarity, safeguard fundamental rights and support innovation?

Vassilis Tzevelekos (Member, UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee) presented the Committee’s ongoing work to draft guidelines on how existing international human rights law should apply to neurotechnology. Neurotechnology is fundamentally different from other technologies: it provides direct access to, and potential interference with, the human brain – touching freedom of thought, mental integrity, the right to privacy and the right to health.

“The right to health is not only a right that is affected by neurotechnology, but also a right that can be protected through neurotechnology: if there is a risk to human rights, states must prevent it; but if rights can be enhanced through neurotechnology, states must also be in a position to provide it. We identified several social groups that are particularly affected, including persons with disabilities, children, older persons and individuals in situations of power imbalance, including workers, detainees and individuals in military or security domains. These populations have higher risks of coercive or non-consensual use of neurotechnology. The advisory committee has called for the application of the precautionary principle: priority should be given to medical uses because we are not yet in a position to properly assess what the impact on human rights would be.”

Elisabeth Steindl (Senior Researcher, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute Digital Health and Patient Safety) argued that the key legal gap in the GDPR is not about neurotechnology specifically – it is about inferences about the mind. Emotions, thoughts and intentions inferred by any technology, not just neurotech, leave individuals vulnerable to manipulation and fundamental rights violations. A technology-neutral, comprehensive approach to protecting such inferred data is needed:

“Why should your emotions be granted higher protection because they are processed through neurotechnology, but the very same emotion is not worth protecting if it is processed through a text-based technology? We need a much broader and more comprehensive approach.”

Ricardo Chavarriaga (Leader, Responsible AI Innovation, ZHAW Centre for Artificial Intelligence) noted that the regulatory landscape for neurotechnology is still being written – and is already too complex for most founders to navigate. The AI Act’s risk-based approach offers a useful model, but what will determine its actual impact is the process of translating written rules into operational standards. Governance must avoid creating parallel tracks that compound the burden on innovators:

“If we look at some of the existing instruments for governance that relate to neurotechnologies, the first thing that we realise is there are too many; and if it seems complex for legal scholars, imagine what it looks like for the founder that has never during their formative years heard the term regulatory roadmap. We should be aware of what are the existing mechanisms that already address these issues, instead of creating parallel tracks of governance that only feed into the confusion – the perceived or real regulatory burden that innovators have.”

How can public understanding of neurotechnology be strengthened, and whose voices are currently missing from policy and innovation discussions? What mechanisms can ensure meaningful, inclusive stakeholder engagement throughout the neurotechnology life cycle – from research and development to deployment and post-market oversight?

Orla Galvin (Board Member, EBC; Executive Director, European Federation of Neurological Associations (EFNA)) emphasised the importance of patient and clinical communities at every stage of neurotechnology development and governance. EFNA participates in patient and consumer working parties and HTA (i.e., Health Technology Assessment) working groups within the European Medicines Agency, bringing neurological patient communities into regulatory processes. Neurological conditions span the full population – from children to the elderly – and neurotechnology frameworks must be understood as tools for good. Sustained education and awareness-raising across all stakeholders, drawing lessons from other sectors’ experience with AI and digital health, is a foundational step.

“When it comes to stakeholder engagement, please do not think that you can dismiss or neglect patient insights: we often see a more strategic approach and an expedition of development when the patient community is included. Neurotechnology is not all about the head – it’s from your head to your toe. The neurotech charter and policy frameworks are assets for good, provided everyone at the table is aware of them and knows how to use them. Education of all stakeholders – even just awareness – will make a massive step, for people living with neurological conditions but for society as a whole.”

Alice Accorroni (Co-Chair, AI in Clinical Neurology Task Force, European Academy of Neurology) argued that patients and clinicians too often engage only as end users rather than co-designers. Early and structured engagement – from research through post-market surveillance – ensures tools are clinically useful, equitable and trusted. Cross-country and cross-system engagement are essential to account for diversity in clinical settings and patient populations. Domain-specific guidance for neurology, psychiatry and neurosurgery is required, both within and beyond clinical practice. Patient populations are heterogeneous, therefore information must be adapted accordingly with patient representatives and clinicians at the table throughout development. When this happens, neurotechnology generates real-world evidence that meaningfully informs policymakers.

“Patients and clinicians are engaged in the development of new technologies as end users – at the end of the development. It would actually be very important to have clinicians involved at the very beginning, in the design of these new technologies. When clinicians and patients are involved in multi-stakeholder engagement, we obtain amazing technologies that are able to revolutionise the way we do clinical practice. What is ‘good’ is quite relative to culture – and this is why it is important to have all the different complementary expertise and vision, so that we ensure that we go along together with society.”

Jim Dratwa (Policy Lead, Science for Policy, European Commission) raised fundamental questions about how citizens engage with decisions that will shape the future of the brain-tech interface. Society should not be determined by a few actors – all citizens have a stake. Governance must avoid a false choice between regulation and funding: both are needed and should reinforce each other. Drawing lessons from the AI regulatory experience, he argued for agile, adaptive governance that acknowledges the shortcomings of pioneering frameworks like the GDPR and the AI Act, without abandoning them. No dedicated ‘Neurotech Act’ is needed: what is needed is to broaden the diversity of stakeholders involved, build on existing foundations and foster genuine deliberation about the common good.

“Let’s avoid the trap of thinking that regulation is the problem and that less regulation is the solution. We shouldn’t fall into the trap of choosing between regulation and investment – we should be combining both. And we shouldn’t fall into perhaps the worst trap of all: the notion that it’s always too early – ‘What is there to regulate?’ – or too late – ‘The toothpaste is out of the tube.’ Maybe we’re having this conversation at the right time. Neurotechnology for good – but this is not the answer. It is the start of the question: what do we mean by the good, and how can we get together to deliberate on that?”

Paul Rübig (Member, European Economic and Social Committee) closed with reflections on a day of rich dialogue spanning risk-based governance, lifetime assessment of neurotechnology and the societal implications of brain-computer interaction. He highlighted the knowledge economy dimension: if knowledge brings revenues, how can the benefits flow back to those who create it? He drew a contrast with China’s state-centric approach to data ownership and underlined the importance of Europe’s values-based alternative.

“We have a lot of excellent silos – not only at the European level but globally –a lot of great thinkers who can really seize the challenges. But the truth is a silo-and-pipe strategy: how can we distribute the knowledge through the pipes? Knowledge as a public good is a very important strategy. But on the other hand, if knowledge brings revenues, how can we get the benefit back to the one who created it?”

Virginia Mahieu (CFG) thanked the European Brain Council for the collaboration, her team and all speakers for sharing their time and expertise, and participants for contributing to such a vivid and substantive exchange. She expressed hope that the CFG White Paper can help translate the momentum of the day into concrete policy action for a European Neurotechnology Strategy.

The European Brain Council (EBC) was proud to participate in the 34th European Congress of Psychiatry, organised by the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) and held at the Prague Congress Centre from 28 to 31 March 2026. Gathering thousands of mental health professionals, researchers, policymakers and patient advocates from across Europe and beyond, the Congress convened under the theme “Mental Health: Improving Care and Expanding Horizons” — a call to action that resonated deeply with EBC’s own mission to improve care pathways for people living with brain disorders, mental and neurological alike.

Throughout all four days of the congress, participants were engaged in interdisciplinary exchanges and the kind of collaborative spirit that only a gathering of this scale can generate. From cutting-edge research presentations to policy-focused roundtables, the programme offered something for every strand of the mental health community. The diversity of perspectives on display — clinicians, neuroscientists, lived-experience experts, carers, and advocates — made this congress especially rich and inspiring.

EBC contributed actively to this agenda through four key sessions and a dedicated exhibition booth, reinforcing its role as a bridge between neuroscience, clinical practice and European health policy.

The discussion was energetic and forward-looking, with strong consensus emerging around the idea that ‘expanding horizons’ in mental health must begin with dismantling the silos that still characterise too much of European health systems. The conversation furthermore emphasised that Europe is not lacking innovation, but rather implementation strategies. Frédéric Destrebecq announced that the newly launched European Partnership for Brain Health will included calls dedicated to exactly that – implementation of innovative research findings into real-world impact!

The session brought together clinicians, policy voices and patient representatives to explore mental and brain health across the lifespan, the intersection of physical health and multimorbidity, the role of lifestyle and social determinants, and the persistent challenge of reducing the mortality gap for people living with serious mental illness. The Policy Forum set a tone of ambition and collaboration that carried through the rest of the congress.

EBC President Suzanne Dickson’s presentation drew on the growing body of evidence linking early biological and psychological markers to psychosis onset, and challenged the audience to think about what it would mean to truly invest in prevention — not just in the clinical sense, but as a political and systemic commitment. Schizophrenia, she argued, is not simply a late-stage psychiatric syndrome — its most damaging consequences (cognitive impairment, loss of function, physical comorbidity, social exclusion) accumulate early, during a high-plasticity window in late adolescence and early adulthood when brain development is still ongoing. This biological reality, she emphasised, is both the challenge and the opportunity: “The brain is still malleable — but only if services can act before disability consolidates.” She spoke to the power of a brain health framing: by understanding schizophrenia and related conditions through the lens of brain development and neurobiology, clinicians, researchers and policymakers can make far more targeted, evidence-based decisions about where to intervene and when.

The auditorium was well-attended, and the exchange that followed the presentations was lively and substantive. The collaboration between FENS and EBC was itself a statement: neuroscience and psychiatry, for too long operating in parallel, have much to gain from working in close, structured alignment. This joint symposium embodied exactly the kind of ‘expanding horizons’ the congress theme called for.

The Rethinking Schizophrenia project — a joint initiative between EBC and the EPA — aims to assess the health and societal benefits of improved interventions compared to current or inadequate care, and to translate data into actionable policy recommendations. This phase of the project builds on extensive fieldwork across nine European countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom), drawing on insights gathered from over 200 health practitioners to map patient care pathways and identify systemic gaps.

The APA-WPA setting gave the project important visibility on a truly global stage. The results, which highlight the urgent need for more coordinated, multidisciplinary approaches to schizophrenia care, prompted a rich discussion about the challenges of translating research into reform — and about the role of international organisations such as EBC in bridging that gap. The conversation in the room confirmed what EBC has long argued: that schizophrenia remains a condition where the distance between what we know and what we do is far too wide, and where the human and economic cost of inaction is simply too high.

EPA2026-ABS-1962- DRAFT POSTER1_pm_vqFINAL

Recommendations clustered around three priorities: shortening delays to care through scalable early detection and rapid-access pathways; making functioning a core outcome rather than an afterthought, with routine assessment and targeted psychosocial support; and building reform readiness in health systems through sustainable financing, cross-sector governance, and the careful, equitable use of digital tools.

These exchanges reminded us precisely why multistakeholder dialogue is not a nice-to-have but a strategic necessity. Policy does not exist in a vacuum: the decisions made at European and national level about funding, care standards, workforce, and system design translate — directly and often rapidly — into the structures that clinicians work within and the options available to their patients. When a European directive shapes a national mental health strategy, when a reimbursement decision determines which treatments are accessible, when a policy recommendation pushes for integrated care pathways, the effects trickle down to every consultation room and every patient interaction. These conversations reinforced EBC’s conviction that one of its most important roles is to be that bridge: making the policy-to-practice chain visible and legible to clinicians, and in turn ensuring that clinical realities and patient needs remain audible at the policy level.

Beyond the formal programme, the congress offered countless informal opportunities for exchange — over coffee, in the corridors, at side meetings — and EBC’s team made the most of every one.

Introduction 

Following the recommendations set out in the Rethinking Schizophrenia Care Pathway in Europe study paper, the next phase of the project — Country Profiles: Beyond Mental Health – A Brain Health Approach to Schizophrenia Prevention and Care — focuses on analysing country-specific models of care and identifying opportunities to improve prevention, early detection and integrated care across Europe. After a roundtable meeting in Poland in June 2025 and a webinar exploring the Danish context in December 2025, the project continued with a dedicated Germany-focused webinar on 4 March 2026. The event was organised by the European Brain Council (EBC) and the German Brain Council, together with the Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy of the University of Munich and the Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy of the University of Lübeck. The webinar, titled "AI-supported prediction and intervention: A comprehensive approach to integrated biopsychosocial schizophrenia care", brought together clinicians, researchers, policymakers, patient advocates and representatives from mental health organisations to discuss current developments and challenges in schizophrenia prevention and care in Germany. The programme featured presentations covering AI-supported early detection, translational research linking genetics to brain function, innovative care delivery models such as inpatient-equivalent home treatment, lifestyle interventions, and the perspective of families and caregivers. These contributions were followed by a roundtable discussion on future directions for improving schizophrenia care within a broader European brain health framework. 

Opening address by Prof. Peter Falkai

In his opening remarks, Prof. Peter Falkai (Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Munich) welcomed participants and emphasised the importance of advancing schizophrenia care through a comprehensive brain health approach that integrates prevention, early detection and long-term recovery support. He highlighted that schizophrenia remains one of the most complex psychiatric disorders, often emerging in adolescence or early adulthood and requiring coordinated action across healthcare, social and community services. 

Prof. Falkai also stressed the importance of combining scientific innovation with system-level transformation, noting that advances in digital technologies, neuroscience and personalised medicine offer new opportunities to improve early identification and treatment outcomes. He underlined that initiatives such as the Rethinking Schizophrenia project provide a valuable platform to translate scientific progress into improved care pathways and policy development across Europe.

The Rethinking Schizophrenia Project – European perspective by Prof. Pavel Mohr

Prof. Mohr (National Institute of Mental Health, Prague) introduced the Rethinking Schizophrenia project, which evaluates schizophrenia care models across nine European countries. The initiative aims to identify systemic gaps, assess outcomes and propose strategies to strengthen integrated care pathways across Europe. 

The study involved a survey of more than 200 mental health professionals, assessing access to services, care continuity and recovery outcomes. The findings highlight significant challenges across Europe. More than half of respondents considered national schizophrenia care systems inadequate, while many reported limited access to community mental health services. Early detection services were available in less than half of the cases reported.  The study also highlighted barriers affecting recovery and long-term care, including lack of social support, negative symptoms and cognitive impairment. Fragmented services and delayed recognition of symptoms were identified as factors that prolong pathways to care. 

The project proposes eight strategic action areas, including strengthening early detection programmes, expanding psychosocial interventions, improving workforce capacity and investing in research and data-driven decision-making.

AI-supported early detection and intervention by Prof. Nikolaos Koutsouleris and Dr. Léon Franzen

Prof. Nikolaos Koutsouleris (Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich) presented advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence for early detection of psychosis. His research focuses on integrating large multimodal datasets, including clinical information, neuroimaging, genetic data and cognitive assessments, to improve the prediction of psychosis risk. AI-based models can identify patterns that are not detectable through traditional clinical assessment alone, enabling clinicians to stratify individuals according to risk levels and personalise preventive interventions. This approach has the potential to support earlier diagnosis and reduce the transition from high-risk states to full psychotic disorders. 

Prof. Koutsouleris emphasised that while these technologies show significant promise, their successful implementation requires robust validation, ethical oversight and careful integration into clinical decision-making processes. 

Dr Léon Franzen (University of Lübeck) presented the PASTA project (Preterm-to-Adolescent Specifically Tailored Assessment), which aims to identify risk markers for psychiatric disorders during adolescence. By analysing clinical, biological and behavioural data, AI tools can support clinicians in detecting patterns that indicate increased risk of psychosis much earlier. 

Such approaches have the potential to improve risk stratification and enable preventive interventions earlier in the disease trajectory. Early identification of individuals at high risk could reduce the likelihood of progression to full psychosis and improve long-term functional outcomes. 

However, both speakers emphasised that predictive models must be carefully validated and integrated into clinical workflows in ways that support clinicians and protect patient rights.

From genetics to animal models: understanding disease mechanisms by Prof. Sabine Hölter-Koch

Prof. Hölter-Koch (Helmholtz Munich) presented research exploring how genetic findings can be translated into insights about brain function and psychiatric disease mechanisms. 

Schizophrenia is a highly complex disorder with both common genetic variants and rare mutations contributing to risk. Recent genomic studies have identified hundreds of associated loci but understanding how these genetic factors influence brain function remains a major scientific challenge. In genetics, an associated locus (plural: loci) refers to a specific location on a chromosome that has been statistically linked to a disease or trait through genetic studies. In schizophrenia research, large genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified hundreds of loci associated with increased risk of the disorder. These loci do not represent single “schizophrenia genes”; rather, they indicate regions of the genome where genetic variations contribute to disease susceptibility. Many of these loci influence biological processes such as synaptic signalling, neuronal development and neurotransmitter systems, helping researchers understand the complex biological mechanisms underlying schizophrenia. 

By combining genomic data with brain transcriptome mapping and animal models, researchers can better understand how disease-related genes affect neural circuits. Mouse models and behavioural phenotypes such as prepulse inhibition (PPI) provide valuable tools to study mechanisms relevant to schizophrenia. 

These approaches enable researchers to identify candidate genes and pathways involved in synaptic function and glutamatergic signalling, helping to bridge the gap between genetic discoveries and clinical applications. 

Inpatient-equivalent psychiatric care (StäB) by Prof. Andreas Bechdolf

Prof. Bechdolf (Charité/Vivantes Berlin) presented evidence on inpatient-equivalent home treatment (StäB), a model introduced in Germany through legislation in 2018. 

This approach allows hospital-based multidisciplinary teams to deliver intensive psychiatric treatment directly in a patient’s home environment. Daily visits and structured treatment protocols ensure that patients receive care equivalent to inpatient services while remaining in their familiar surroundings. 

Evidence from a multicentre cohort study comparing home treatment with traditional inpatient care found similar clinical outcomes across several indicators, including symptom severity, quality of life and employment integration. 

However, the home treatment model demonstrated higher patient satisfaction, greater involvement in decision-making and reduced reliance on hospital services over time. The model is increasingly implemented in Germany and represents an important step towards more recovery-oriented mental health care.

Lifestyle and exercise interventions by Prof. Rebekka Lencer

Prof. Lencer (University of Münster/University of Lübeck) highlighted the role of lifestyle interventions in schizophrenia treatment, particularly the benefits of physical activity. 

Medication remains an essential component of treatment, but pharmacological approaches alone are often insufficient. Many patients experience metabolic side effects from antipsychotic medication, and treatment adherence can be challenging. 

Exercise and lifestyle interventions can help to improve metabolic health, cognitive functioning and overall wellbeing. Physical activity has also been associated with structural changes in the brain, including improvements in hippocampal volume. 

However, barriers such as low motivation, negative symptoms and self-stigma can limit participation. To overcome these challenges, programmes should focus on individualised fitness plans, motivational support and peer engagement. 

Perspective of families and caregivers by Gabriele Glocker

The webinar also included an important perspective from families and caregivers. 

Gabriele Glocker (Federal Association of Relatives of Mentally Ill People (BApK)) highlighted several major challenges faced by families supporting individuals with schizophrenia in Germany. These include persistent stigma, fragmented welfare systems, and shortages of mental health professionals. 

Families often experience significant stress when patients refuse treatment due to lack of insight into their condition. In addition, gaps in coordination between hospital services and community care can make it difficult to ensure continuity of support after discharge. 

The presentation emphasised the need for greater involvement of families in care planning, stronger support structures for caregivers and reductions in stigmatization from clinicians.

Roundtable Discussion

The webinar concluded with a roundtable discussion moderated by Prof. Peter Falkai (University of Munich, European Brain Council), bringing together perspectives from clinical research, policy and patient advocacy. Participants included Prof. Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg (German Brain Council), Prof. Christoph Correll (Charité University Medicine Berlin), Bernhard Seidenath (Member of the Bavarian State Parliament), and Gabrielle Glocker (Federal Association of Relatives of Mentally Ill People – BApK).  

Prof. Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg highlighted the importance of linking advances in neuroscience and genetics with improvements in clinical care pathways. He emphasised that schizophrenia should be increasingly addressed within a broader brain health framework, where early identification, prevention and long-term functional recovery are central objectives. Strengthening collaboration between research institutions and health systems was identified as a key priority to ensure that scientific discoveries translate into real improvements for patients. 

Prof. Christoph Correll stressed the importance of early intervention and integrated treatment approaches, particularly during the early stages of psychosis. He noted that combining pharmacological treatment with psychosocial interventions, lifestyle approaches and digital tools can significantly improve long-term outcomes. Prof. Correll also highlighted the potential of data-driven and personalised medicine approaches, including AI-supported risk prediction, to support more targeted and preventive care strategies. 

From a policy perspective, Bernhard Seidenath, Member of the Bavarian State Parliament, underlined the need to strengthen mental health services and ensure sustainable investment in prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. He emphasised that innovative care models—such as community-based services and home treatment approaches—should be further supported to improve accessibility and continuity of care. Mr. Seidenath also stressed the importance of reducing stigma and improving public awareness of schizophrenia. He pointed out that some German states have good care in place that other states could benefit from adopting. Representing the perspective of families and caregivers, Gabrielle Glocker reiterated the challenges faced by relatives supporting individuals living with schizophrenia. She highlighted the need for greater involvement of families in care planning, improved coordination between hospital and community services, and stronger support structures for caregivers. Addressing stigma and improving access to information and support were identified as key priorities for improving outcomes and quality of life for patients and their families. 

Overall, the roundtable discussion emphasised the need for greater integration across research, clinical practice, policy and lived experience. Participants agreed that strengthening early detection, improving continuity of care and promoting recovery-oriented services are essential steps toward a more comprehensive and effective approach to schizophrenia prevention and care in Germany and across Europe. 

The discussion reinforced the value of approaching schizophrenia within a broader brain health framework, which recognises the interconnected nature of neurological and psychiatric disorders and promotes prevention across the lifespan.

Conclusion and Next Steps

Prof. Peter Falkai and Frédéric Destrebecq (Executive Director, European Brain Council) closed the meeting. The Germany webinar represents an important milestone in the Country Profiles phase of the Rethinking Schizophrenia project. By bringing together diverse perspectives from research, clinical practice, policy and lived experience, the event provided valuable insights into the strengths and challenges of schizophrenia care in Germany. 

Key themes emerging from the discussions include the importance of early detection, integrated biopsychosocial care, innovative service models and stronger support for families and caregivers. 

The insights generated through the Germany webinar will contribute to the broader European analysis of schizophrenia care pathways and inform future policy recommendations aimed at improving prevention, treatment and recovery outcomes across Europe.