The study by the HumanTech Center at SWPS University in Warsaw maps attitudes toward what the authors call “cyborgisation.”
This umbrella term covers medical implants, monitoring devices, neurotechnology such as brain–computer interfaces (BCIs), and more speculative concepts such as “mind uploading,” described as transferring a person’s consciousness to a computer.
The authors argue that public debate often focuses on what is technologically possible, while respondents judged innovations mainly by purpose and by how invasive they felt.
Led by social psychologist Konrad Maj, the researchers surveyed 2,233 adults aged 18 and over in an online poll conducted in late July 2025, using a sample structured to reflect the population by gender, age and the size of respondents’ place of residence.
In public comments on the findings, Maj said the researchers were struck by the overall level of openness to body-related technology, though acceptance evidently depends heavily on the specific solution.
He argued that this openness makes regulation and public education urgent rather than optional.
The report draws a clear distinction between “repairing” and “enhancing.”
Technologies framed as improving health “from the inside” drew the strongest support, including hypothetical nanobots designed to repair cells, an implantable microchip monitoring health, and gene therapy intended to reduce disease risk before birth.
At the bottom of the ranking were decorative solutions such as LED or UV tattoos, alongside proposals most sensitive in terms of autonomy and identity, including direct connections between the brain and the internet and the idea of uploading the mind into a computer.
Acceptance generally falls with age, especially for decorative modifications and for “body-as-interface” or “mind-as-interface” concepts such as electronic tattoos and BCIs.
Medical technologies were a partial exception, remaining relatively more acceptable even among older respondents.
Women were consistently more sceptical than men across many of the technologies measured.
The report also notes that concern about “cyborgised” people rises modestly with age, with respondents expressing ambivalence more often than outright rejection.
The report suggests that high-tech modifications remain rare in everyday life. When asked about body modifications in the previous 12 months, respondents most often reported piercings and tattoos, while electronic implants were declared by only a small share.
The authors link greater acceptance of more invasive technologies to factors such as trust in science and prior experience with body modification.
On whether enhancement technologies should be allowed or banned, the most common position was conditional approval, often limited to medical purposes or strict supervision.
Full liberalisation was rare, while a sizeable group said they had not formed a settled view.
On who should decide what is permitted, respondents most often pointed to individuals and the scientific community, while support for a role for religious institutions was marginal.
The authors say the findings matter now because body-linked technologies raise questions that extend beyond safety, including privacy and sensitive biometric data, unequal access, and the risk of subtle pressure in education and the workplace, as new tools move from labs into consumer and professional settings.
(rt)