Article
In a five-day futures simulation, participants experienced decision-making, societal debates and everyday choices in a future where neurotechnology has become mainstream and a Union-wide referendum on neurodata regulation is approaching.
Specialist, Foresight and Training
Published
10.4.2026
Imagine a future in the next decade where devices that read, interpret or stimulate brain activity gradually move from laboratories, hospitals and cutting-edge research into everyday life. As wireless, easy-to-use neuro-sensors develop, people’s interest in mental well-being and learning increases. However, with this comes growing concerns about work productivity. These devices are like smartwatches in the 2010s: initially an interesting but expensive curiosity, now a basic accessory for most. Many people use headphones, glasses or headbands that, among other functions, monitor brainwaves. The boldest have implanted a chip under their skin or even directly into their brain.
This kind of scenario served as the starting point for Sitra’s futures simulation, where participants spent a week experiencing decision-making, societal debates and everyday choices. Each day, participants received different reflection tasks on an online platform, responding to and discussing with others. The week-long simulation was set in 2038 and progressed toward a national advisory referendum on the regulation of neurotechnology and data.
The central questions of the simulation were about the participants’ personal experience of the future: what would I think, how would I act, and how would I react in such a situation? Experiential foresight starts by creating conditions for participants to imagine and immerse themselves in different futures.
The scenario underlying the simulation is not a prediction but based on weak signals related to neurotechnology – signs of possible changes that could become significant in the future. It is one possible future, involving many perspectives; challenges and opportunities, hopes and fears, and many contradictory developments.
The futures simulation was part of Sitra’s Weak Signals work, which presents surprising, non-obvious but possible future developments. The aim is to highlight assumptions about the future, challenge perceptions of what is possible and broaden the range of possible futures.
The simulation continued the ideas of Sitra’s IF* magazine set in the future and published in May 2025. The article “I Think, Therefore I Share” discusses one possible future for neurotechnology. The simulation included 811 participants. For some, the topic – the future of neurotechnology – was the reason to join while for others it was more about practicing future thinking and imagination.
Imagination and futures thinking help us prepare for change, find new opportunities and make better decisions in the future and about an uncertain future. By practicing these skills through simulation, we can broaden our perspectives on the future and strengthen our resilience.
Experiential, immersive and game-based methods have become increasingly popular in foresight in recent years. Many have realised that raw data alone is no longer enough. Something is needed that touches, shakes and evokes emotions so that people would change their actions, thinking and decision-making in the present. For example, the European Commission, NATO and Ikea have experimented with various experiential methods bringing alternative futures “to life” in different ways.
The pioneer of experiential foresight, futurist Stuart Candy, describes experiential foresight as “the design of situations and stuff from the future to catalyse insight and change.” Candy talks about the experiential gulf between how we usually talk about the future and what the future actually feels like. Experiential foresight aims to build bridges over this gulf, bringing different future scenarios tangibly into the present through future objects and artifacts, immersive scenarios and futures simulations, for example.
The goal is to focus on not just general reflection but on what a future would feel like for people, what they would think, what kinds of objects or services would exist and so on – in other words, what the experience of the world would be. The more vividly and concretely we can imagine possible futures, the more clearly we can grasp their effects on people and the world.
At Sitra, experiential methods have been tested over the years, for example in the Heureka’s Seven Sisters from the Future exhibition in 2017, weak signals story workshops in 2021, the What If? exhibition with the Design Museum in 2024, and a circular economy futures simulation at the WCEF event in 2024. The 2025 Weak Signals publication was published as a speculative magazine, taking the reader into a future where weak signals have become everyday reality.
In the futures simulation on the future of neurotechnology and data, the participants responded that the future felt hopeful and curiosity-provoking, but also raised concerns and doubts, and even anxiety. Emotions play a central role in experiential foresight. The goal is for the future not to remain just an abstract or analytical entity but to become experienced, felt and lived. When people sense the future rather than just analyse it, they often dare to think more openly and broadly. This, in turn, affects how widely and boldly people can consider different future possibilities or risks. Emotions also reveal hidden assumptions about the future, as first reactions say a lot – whether positive or negative. For example, what provokes resistance, what immediately feels right, what is perceived as threatening, and what perhaps inspires? According to futurist Jane McGonigal, a developer of various futures simulations, it is important to understand that “when we think about how the future might be different, we better understand how we might become different too.” At best, futures simulations can provide clues about these changes in thinking or behaviour. Emotional reactions help to make visible the starting points on which people often act, both now and likely in the future. In addition, a shared simulation, future artifact, role-play or spatial installation also creates shared understanding of the risks or opportunities associated with futures. At best, this can strengthen trust and make it easier to make difficult future decisions together. Evoking emotions often requires something more than just text. That is why Sitra’s futures simulation also offered the participants so-called immersive elements to bring the future to life. A CEO’s video, a 3D-modeled NeuroTrack headband, community web posts and campaign posters all illustrated the future of 2038 in their own way.
During five days the simulation progressed as follows:
Feedback from the participants was mostly positive. The simulation was seen as broadening thinking, opening new perspectives, challenging assumptions and generally strengthening future thinking.
The participants’ attitudes toward neurotechnology and the use of neurodata changed significantly during the week. In the first days, participants were enthusiastic: more than a half (55%) wrote positively about the topic in their reflections, and only 20% raised concerns. During the week critical reflection increased, and weighing benefits and risks, privacy, ethics and control became the key themes. On the last day, only 28% wrote positively about neurotechnology, while the proportion of negative comments rose to 45%. The feeling of enthusiasm carried on especially for uses that supported well-being, however concerns about data management and social impacts clearly grew toward the end.
Particular concerns included the privacy of neurodata, especially in commercial contexts and as a control tool in working life or political influence. There was also concern about the right to keep emotions private and fear that technology would replace human interaction. Additionally, participants feared that neurotechnology would increase social and economic divides, if only the wealthy could afford it or if the disadvantaged had to sell their neurodata.
Who owns neurodata? The individual, the state or companies? If power is concentrated in the hands of commercial actors, the risk of misuse increases.
Neurotechnology was also seen as offering many opportunities. Especially promising was the potential to use neurodata for predicting and treating mental health problems and neurological diseases. The idea of voluntary tools to support coping and motivation also sparked interest. Neurotechnology was seen as a way to expand creativity and learning and to bring new, multisensory experiences to everyday life.
Neurodata can be a powerful resource when it is under the individual’s control and its use is based on consent, understanding and transparency.
The discussed themes also changed during the simulation. Toward the end of the week, privacy and surveillance became much more important, while well-being and work-life benefits lost weight as the initial enthusiasm faded. Ethics and the right to control one’s own data became prominent themes, as well. Over five days, the participants’ comments extended from individual rights to societal structures, ideologies and power. The topics included cognitive freedom and neuro-rights, preserving creativity and humanity as technology advances, and the role of legislation and democracy in controlling technology.
To whom does my mind belong? Neurodata must not be commercial raw material – its use should be regulated from the perspective of individual rights.
Cognitive freedom is a fundamental right – without it, democracy crumbles.
On the last day of the simulation, participants could vote for or against the adoption of legislation. The goal was to define criteria and limits for the use of data collected from individuals’ brains. The adoption of neuro-legislation won by a landslide: 82% of respondents voted in favour.
Jane McGonigal: Imaginable (2022)
Stuart Candy: “Whatever it takes” – OECD Government Foresight Community Virtual Masterclass Seminar March 14, 2024