The future is closer than you think

Neurotechnology is no longer just the stuff of futuristic novels or Black Mirror episodes. It’s here—offering groundbreaking ways to improve health, learning, and well-being. But with innovation comes risk: Who owns your brain data? Can your thoughts be hacked? Will some people get left behind?

That’s why the European Commission is turning to foresight—a strategic tool to anticipate and plan for future challenges. With it, EU policymakers aim to create smarter rules for managing the impact of neurotech before it gets out of hand.

What questions should policymakers be asking?

The foresight team identified eight policy areas where neurotechnology could have a significant impact. Each one highlights not only the potential applications of these technologies but also the risks that must be addressed in advance.

One of the first concerns is consumer protection. As neurotechnology increasingly blurs the line between medical and non-medical uses, where should we draw the boundaries? Should regulations be based on how the technology is used, or on the nature of the technology itself?

In the area of health, the question arises about the extent to which we should allow interventions in the human brain. Technologies that can influence memory or emotions may offer hope in treating neurological diseases, but they could also become tools for manipulation or exclusion.

Fundamental rights—especially children’s rights—represent another sensitive area. Neurotechnology may respond differently to signals influenced by physical characteristics such as hair thickness or skin color. Are public policies prepared to deal with the risk of replicating existing biases in the digital world?

The ownership of neural data is emerging as a contentious issue in employment contexts. For example, should a professional athlete switching teams take their brain activity data with them, or does that information belong to their former employer?

There is also concern about the potential use of neurotechnology by law enforcement or security services. Could data stored in neurodevices be accessed by authorities or third parties? Do we need new legal frameworks to protect citizens’ mental integrity?

Education and innovation seem like natural areas for applying neurotechnology, but they raise complex dilemmas. If neurointerfaces truly enhance students’ cognitive abilities, how can we ensure equal access to prevent further deepening of social inequalities?

Finally, the ecological impact must be considered. Neurotechnological devices often require critical raw materials and pose challenges for recycling and disposal. Will the circular economy embrace them as allies, or will they become yet another environmental burden?

From questions to action: how foresight works

The research team didn’t stop at identifying risks. They used a methodical approach to explore how neurotech might develop—and how to prepare for it:

  • Expert collaboration & horizon scanning: Mapping existing uses and possible future directions, beyond just trends.
  • Policy mapping: Matching specific challenges to policy areas to make sure no issue falls through the cracks.
  • Futures Wheel workshops: Exploring the chain reactions of one tech decision—how it could impact health, work, and more.

Backcasting: Defining a preferred future, then working backwards to figure out the steps we need to take today.

Neurotech as a Test Case for All Future Tech

This foresight initiative was presented at CPDP.ai in Brussels—an international conference focused on emerging tech and digital rights. The big takeaway? Neurotechnology isn’t just a single innovation—it’s a testing ground for how Europe could manage all disruptive technologies in the future.

By using foresight, the EU can move from reactive to proactive policymaking. That matters in a world where tech evolves faster than the laws that govern it.

The tools developed here—scenario planning, stakeholder workshops, backcasting—can also apply to AI, biotechnology, or quantum computing.

Managing the Future with the Right Questions

What makes this project stand out is its focus on questions, not answers. Instead of trying to write one-size-fits-all laws, it starts by exploring different future scenarios and asking: What might go wrong? Who might benefit—or be harmed? What values are at stake?

This shift in thinking could be the start of a new kind of policymaking—one that’s flexible, forward-thinking, and grounded in real-world complexity.

Neurotechnology doesn’t have to be a dystopian threat. It could be the moment Europe decides to govern innovation smarter, more fairly, and with an eye on the future we want to create—not just the one we stumble into.

Shape the conversation

Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.