Neurotechnology is coming to work, school and home – what does the public think?
How do people feel about devices that can read data from our brains, and about who gets to use the data they collect? Nesta's Centre for Collective Intelligence, commissioned by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), brought together a citizens' jury to find out.
Neurotechnologies are devices that record signals from, or send signals to, the brain and nervous system. For years, neurotechnology has mostly been limited to medical uses such as cochlear implants or EEGs. Neurotechnology devices are increasingly moving beyond healthcare into consumer products for wellbeing, the workplace and education.
As this happens, it raises difficult questions about how the data derived from our brains should be protected. Developers currently face an uncertain regulatory landscape, and without clear guidance there is a risk of controversial practices or public backlash that could undermine trust in the technology.
What we did
Over two weeks in March 2026, 20 members of the UK public met for three online sessions. Guided by expert facilitators, they watched short informational videos, heard from experts, and, most importantly, deliberated together. The sessions moved from jurors' first impressions to what they expect of regulators and developers, guided throughout by a single question: how do we make the most of the benefits of neurotechnology while managing the risks?
A citizens' jury is well suited to a topic that is both technically complex and ethically contested. By giving a diverse group the time, information and space to deliberate, it produces considered judgements.
The animation shown to jurors during the first session to introduce neurotechnology and neurodata
What the jury told us
- Early optimism, tempered by concern about commercial exploitation. Most jurors began with little awareness of neurotech but were quickly enthusiastic about its potential, particularly for medical uses such as treating Parkinson's, cochlear implants and managing conditions like ADHD or dementia. That optimism depended on robust security and privacy protections. From the start, jurors worried that highly sensitive brain data could be hacked or used for intrusive targeted marketing.
- Support for individual benefit, opposition to performance monitoring. Jurors were comfortable with devices where the user controls their own data, for example, wellbeing tools to improve sleep and mood, or fatigue-tracking to prevent workplace accidents. They opposed using neurodata to monitor employee focus or student productivity, fearing discrimination against older or neurodiverse people and the difficulty of withdrawing consent under workplace or classroom power dynamics.
- Clear regulatory standards, not blanket bans. Most jurors cautioned against banning neurotech outright, worried this would stifle innovation and disadvantage the UK. Instead, they wanted a high bar for approval: restrictions on collecting neurodata from children and others who need extra support; limits on using it for marketing or decisions about access to services such as insurance; stricter standards for 'read-write' devices (this is when devices collect and interpret electrical signals, and also send pulses back to the brain); and a new legal category recognising brain data as fundamentally different from other personal data.
- High expectations for trustworthy companies. Starting from low trust in tech firms, some jurors felt trust could be earned through 'privacy by design', greater accuracy, and a shift from dense terms and conditions towards simple, accessible 'opt-in' consent.
- A bigger role for the ICO. Jurors saw the ICO as a trusted champion of data rights over commercial interests, and wanted it to raise public understanding and coordinate with other regulators.
Where research could go next
This jury helped to establish a foundation of evidence on public views about near-term commercial neurotechnologies. It also surfaced a key question we didn't have time to answer: what should a future with neurotech woven into everyday life actually look like? Jurors pictured this very differently. Some, especially neurodivergent participants, imagined devices that could transform how people learn; others feared brain data used to discriminate at work or withhold access to services; some worried it could deskill people, widen social divides, or chip away at the privacy of our own thoughts.
These conversations ranged well beyond the ICO's remit, and jurors' appetite for them points to real value in a bigger public conversation about the neurotech future people actually want, particularly if these devices reach into other areas from home entertainment to policing and justice.
What next?
The ICO will draw on the results from the jury, its industry engagement and its wider research to develop formal guidance giving developers greater certainty when building brain-data services and products.
For us, this jury has opened up as many questions as it answered, and we'd love to keep exploring them. If you're working in this space, or curious about bringing public voices into decisions about other emerging technologies, we'd be delighted to hear from you.
