A European alliance connecting research, strategic foresight and education for AI in sport. Coordinated by Collective Innovation AS under Erasmus+. See more at https://sf4sport.com/

What will artificial intelligence require of people working in sport over the next five to ten years? Which opportunities should education prepare them for, and which challenges need attention now?

SF4Sport brings these questions to clubs and federations, technology businesses, educators and policy stakeholders. Their experience informs a structured foresight exercise across performance, fan engagement and sport management.

The project connects that evidence with future scenarios, cluster roadmaps and practical education. The aim is to help students and professionals develop the capabilities needed for a changing sport sector.

1) Strategic Foresigt

Research and scenario development help the sport sector explore opportunities, uncertainties and future skills needs.
- 164 stakeholder interviews planned
- Three thematic research clusters
- Cluster roadmaps with a five to ten year horizon

2) Education and Practice

Research findings and roadmaps will inform learning for higher education, vocational training and sport professionals.
- Four student courses planned
- Three professional development courses planned
- Course pilots targeting more than 200 learners

3) European Collaboration

Universities, sport organisations, training providers and technology partners work together across national and disciplinary boundaries.
- 17 organisations across 12 countries
- Collaborative workshops and hackathons
- Public communication and knowledge sharing

In our conference contribution we explore the idea of the generative ouroboros—the automated autophage—in application to foresight. Foresight is by definition a participatory activity and made by humans. In our futures exhibition we try out what happens if we make scenarios about AI with AI.

Together with the visitors to our exhibition, we want to find out how AI influences and changes foresight practice. Does AI increase the plausibility of future scenarios or decrease human expertise and participation?

Will AI render foresight practice irrelevant altogether—substituting for human expertise, imitating human intuition and making participation unnecessary? Or will AI help to improve foresight processes—through better design, more efficient organisation, or more creative future scenarios?

We invite you to visit our futures exhibition “Generative Ouroboros: A Futures Exhibition of AI-Generated Radical Alternatives of AI” taking place on 30th September, from 19:00 to 21:00 as a side event at the Futures4Europe conference and to explore not only AI generated future scenarios but to discuss together with us the role of AI in future foresight practice!

You can start by asking yourself whether this blog was written by a person or by an AI! And would you have interpreted it the same way, before asking yourself this question?

We look forward to seeing you at our AI futures exhibition and to discussing the automated autophage further with you! 

I am an evaluation consultant based in Cambridge, UK. My work straddles the field of evaluation methodologies and foresight practices, including both participatory and hybrid human-AI informed approaches. For more information on my own background see https://richardjdavies.wordpress.com/

What happens when 10 people encounter the same unfinished future, imagine what comes next, and then meet one another's interpretations?

At Futures4Europe 2026 in Rome, Recognizing the Future in the Room invites conference attendees to explore this question alongside the participants in an ongoing Emotional Foresight experiment. The workshop will bring short films based on individual continuations into a shared space for viewing, reflection and discussion. 

You do not need to have taken part in the earlier phase to contribute your perspective.

This article shares the thinking behind the experiment and its early observations. The next part happens together in Rome.

Name: Recognizing the Future in the Room, Emotional Foresight through a Group-Based Adaptation of the Resonant Future Self Framework - Iuliana Adina Apostol 

Where: Sala Marconi

Date: 30.09.2026

Time: 17:30

The same film provides a shared starting point. It does not guarantee a shared future.

What this experiment examines

The experiment asks what changes when a person moves from watching a future to imagining how it continues, and then encounters someone else's version. It connects three things: emotional response, interpretation and perceived possibility for action.

This is the specific role of Emotional Foresight here. Participants encounter a possible future, attend to what it evokes, and explore what happens to that response as they give the future meaning. The analysis follows both their emotional ratings and their explanations of what changed. Hope, fear, uncertainty and resistance all matter; becoming more optimistic is not the criterion for success.

The pilot develops the Resonant Future Self Framework presented in Vienna in 2025 into a group format. Participants supply the interpretations and continuations that make the collective experiment possible.

Why begin with a film?

An earlier pilot at AIMEDIA 2026 in Nice used guided imagination without a seed film. Five researchers took part in individual sessions, then joined fifteen others in a workshop. The twenty researchers spent eight minutes with their eyes closed, listening to meditation music and imagining how it felt to inhabit 2032.

In the five individual accounts, familiar rooms and work routines predominated. AI appeared explicitly in only one scene. In the workshop accounts, family, homes and personal experiences became more prominent, while AI remained peripheral despite its prominence at the conference. These exploratory observations raised a design question: how can we help people imagine beyond an extension of their present?

Rome introduces an unfamiliar shared starting point. The seed film’s themes were drawn from responses to a three-minute poll circulated to all conference participants, grounding the scenario in the futures and emotions respondents described. The 90-second seed film, "Profile Source: Unresolved", depicts a world in which people receive periodically updated Future Profiles. Mara discovers that an apparently personal future image is appearing in other people's profiles too. The film ends without explaining why.

Participants are asked:

“What do you believe is happening, and what happens next?”

The film was designed to leave both the explanation and the emotional response open. The anomaly might evoke curiosity, unease, hope or several feelings at once. Participants can question the system, reinterpret what they have seen or introduce a possibility the film leaves unstated. Its imagery and sound still influence interpretation: ambiguity does not make the stimulus neutral.

Give imagination somewhere unfamiliar to begin, while leaving the meaning open.

What participants have reported so far

One participant described a shift from feeling “depressed and scared” to “optimistic and more at ease.” Another reported feeling “more empowered and hopeful.” A third explained what made a different response possible:

“Before I was hopeless and scared, now I feel hopeful because I tried to find a (literal) backdoor to make futures plural and unpredictable again.”

The backdoor matters. In this account, renewed hope is connected to an imagined opening in a system that had initially felt closed. The participant had introduced a way to act within the scenario.

This gives the experiment a concrete question to pursue: does constructing a continuation change what a person believes is possible, and how does that relate to what they feel?

A change in feeling becomes more informative when we can trace the change in meaning behind it.

The individual trajectories also differ. Some ratings move relatively little; others shift substantially. A group average cannot show all of those differences, and a stable emotional rating does not necessarily mean that nothing changed in a person's interpretation. The maps therefore retain individual responses alongside participants' words.

The Ambivalence Map: how do hope and fear move?

The map follows each participant's hope and fear ratings, both on a 0–6 scale, across the three stages. It allows us to examine changes in each emotion separately, including whether hope increases while fear remains present.

Hope can rise without fear disappearing. A single positivity score would miss that distinction.

The quadrant labels are shorthand. Low hope and low fear, labelled “emotionally distant,” cannot establish distance by themselves: someone could still feel strong curiosity or another emotion.

The Parliament of Finland’s Committee for the Future has developed the Radical Technology Inquirer (RTI) methodology since 2012 to anticipate how technological transformation will reshape society over the next 20 years. The methodological development has been made through a series of commissioned projects, the most recent one ending in May 2026. The method is tailored to foresee how technological development will change the core functions of our society: what we eat, how we move, how we stay connected, how we work, how we acquire information, how we learn, how we make decisions, how we maintain our health, and how we entertain ourselves.

Report and other materials: https://www.eduskunta.fi/en/members-and-parliamentary-bodies/committees/committee-for-the-future/radical-technology-inquirer-rti

Link to RTI-GPT interface for interactive access to the project results: https://chatgpt.com/g/g-69f61028643c819194e7765805384657-radical-technology-inquirer-gpt-eng 

The RTI methodology is built around identifying 100 emerging radical technologies and anticipating their potential societal impacts on a 20-year timeframe. RTI was originally created in 2013 and reported in "100 Opportunities for Finland and the world: radical Technology Inquirer (RTI) for anticipation/evaluation of technological breakthroughs" (TuVJ 11/2014). This was followed by report "Technological change 2013–2016: preliminary investigation of the development of radical technologies after the 2013 review (TuVJ 2/2016)".

Second full report with improved methodology and updated results was published in 2018 under the name "Societal transformation 2018–2037: 100 anticipated radical technologies, 20 regimes, case Finland" (TuVJ 10/2018). The second full report was followed by a number of RTI application reports: ​Development of Genetic Engineering in Different Areas of Application 2018-2020 (TuVJ 3/2020), Towards a better future: technological opportunities and threats to the promotion of sustainable development (TuVJ 1/2021) and, in Finnish only, a report assessing the role of technologies in the Codiv-19 pandemic and the impact of the pandemic on the development of technology (TuVJ 4/2020).

A peer-review RTI methodology paper "Radical Technology Inquirer: a methodology for holistic, transparent and participatory technology foresight" came out in European Journal of Futures Research 10, 18 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-022-00206-6.

In 2024, a pilot project was launched to test generative AI as part of RTI methodology, especially in societal impact assessment. The pilot tested impact assessment only in the case of one radical technology, humanoid robots. The results are reported in Humanoid robots from now to 2040’s – AI assisted societal impact analysis using radical technology inquirer methodology (TuVJ 1/2025).

During the pilot project 2024-2025, generative AI had developed in a way that enabled its use (in deep research mode) also in systematic technology scanning according to RTI principles. The latest project in the RTI project series (carried out in 2025-2026) utilised generative AI in most steps of the RTI method in order to produce an updated assessment of the societal impacts of 100 most radical technologies. The results are reported in Societal transformations 2026 – 2045: 100 anticipated radical technologies, 20 regimes. The first AI-assisted Radical Technology Inquiry (TuVJ 2/2025). The report includes a 90-page summary and over 2000 pages of appendices, where the actual results can be found. The extensive report is readable for a human, but primarily intended to be read through AI queries. Therefore it is also published as zipped data package with a readme.file to help the reader to create ones own GPT interface to the results. This data package is on the project pages, together with a link to one ready-made RTI-GPT enabling the user to test whether it is useful to interactively access and discuss with the RTI results.

What will it mean to be a researcher in 2040 — and who will decide?
As part of the foresight study The Futures of Researchers' Careers: What Challenges for EU Policy?, funded by DG RTD, set of scenarios was developed to explore how research work in Europe could evolve over the next fifteen years. This summary presents the scenario component of the study: the world research is likely to operate in, and an aspirational alternative to it.

The context: Knowledge in Society 2040
By 2040, at global level research runs on a powerful, ever-present AI layer — an "intelligence infrastructure" that learns from research, industry and society and shapes how knowledge is created, shared and used. It drives three linked shifts: research speeds up as AI opens access to almost all human knowledge and shortens the path from idea to market; power concentrates, as a few "Super Big Tech" actors control the key AI platforms and states compete for strategic advantage; and contestation grows, as trust erodes under a flood of AI-generated output and the gap widens between those AI strengthens and those it leaves behind.

Left on this trajectory, and with current policy lagging behind, research careers come under pressure: a workforce split into tiers with no bridge between them, the value of public research captured by the owners of AI platforms, AI deciding what becomes visible and fundable, and slow recognition of hands-on empirical work and the new roles emerging around AI.

The response: Living Knowledge 2040
Living Knowledge 2040 is the study's aspirational alternative. It assumes the same dynamics as the context scenario — acceleration, concentration and contestation — but channels them toward public value. It is built on four layers:

The core — a Glass Engine, advanced AI that Europe builds and runs as civic infrastructure: transparent, publicly governed, auditable and contestable; and a Commons Authority that keeps it and the wider knowledge ecology in the public interest.
A trustworthy, plural knowledge ecology — where empirical and synthetic knowledge are equally valued, credibility rests on traceability rather than the journal a work appears in, dissenting views are actively surfaced, and collective and once-invisible work is recognised.
New forms of operating — from human–AI swarms and public "Action-Networks" to quest-based research, automated public research infrastructures, and AI-powered entrepreneurship — with careers moving fluidly among them.
An explicit ethos — wellbeing, collective work, public value, openness, meaning and full expression as the values the system is built to serve.

***

How the scenarios were developed

The scenarios are exploratory tools, not predictions: they set out plausible, internally consistent futures against which today's policies can be tested. Three were developed by the Institutul de Prospectiva team and progressively validated and enriched through consultation with the project's International Advisory Board, with one dedicated meeting per scenario type between May and June 2026. Together they trace a path from the world research will operate in, through the gaps in current policy, to an aspirational alternative.

The context scenario ("Knowledge in Society 2040") is global in scope and focuses on how knowledge — and its embodied forms of technologies, policies and norms — is produced, circulated and translated into societal impact. It was built by extrapolating a set of key drivers of change and exploring how they interact and amplify one another, with particular attention to the major actors — scientific communities, states, private-sector actors and society at large — and to the evolving interplay between their strategic, economic and normative interests.

The inertial scenario provides the bridge. It sets out thirteen current challenges facing Europe's research and innovation workforce, grouped into four categories: a fragmented research market; funding and employment structures; the training and socialisation model; and assessment and recognition systems. Each challenge is examined along three dimensions — its current state ("the Now"); its likely 2040 trajectory, assuming balanced optimism about current EU and national policies; and a "context push" that tests that trajectory against the global picture from the context scenario. This surfaces two kinds of tension: those where existing policies fall short of the projected dynamics, and entirely new ones that current frameworks do not yet recognise as problems and that would require genuinely new policy categories.

The aspirational scenario ("Living Knowledge 2040") was built in three steps, starting from the key tensions projected for 2040. These were put through a simplified Causal Layered Analysis that reopened some of the system's underlying premises — who owns the AI infrastructure, how contribution is recognised, how value is capitalised — producing twelve dimensions, each described as a current perspective and a potential shift by 2040. Clustering these dimensions gave the scenario its four-layer structure: the AI infrastructure and its public governance; the principles of the knowledge ecology around it; that ecology's forms of operating; and the overarching values of the ecosystem. Deliberately ambitious but not utopian, it assumes the same forces as the context scenario — pervasive AI, platformisation, concentration and contestation — but channels them toward public value.

We are living through a transition that feels, at once, like collapse and awakening. The crises surrounding us—ecological breakdown, technological acceleration, geopolitical fragmentation—are often treated as separate problems. But they are not. They are symptoms of a deeper rupture: a failure in how we perceive reality itself.

This is the beginning of the “Big Shift.” Not merely a historical turning point, but a transformation in consciousness. The dominant frameworks through which humanity has understood itself—nation, progress, even “humanity” as a unified moral subject—are no longer sufficient. They fragment under pressure because they were never grounded in the deeper fabric of existence. They abstracted us from the Earth, from each other, and ultimately from being itself.

Long before modern crises, ancient traditions understood something we have forgotten: the Earth is not an object. It is a living, sacred reality. Early liturgical texts and cosmologies did not separate matter from meaning. To speak of the Earth was already to speak of order, of balance, of participation in a larger whole. This was not “ecology” in the modern scientific sense—it was a lived metaphysics.

What has been lost is not knowledge in the narrow sense, but a way of knowing. The modern world, in its pursuit of control and clarity, reduced reality to what can be measured, extracted, and optimized. Technology is not the root problem; it is an extension of this perception. We did not simply build machines—we built a worldview that sees the world as machine.

And so we arrive at a strange paradox: we speak constantly of “saving humanity,” yet we do not even know what “humanity” means. It is an abstraction, a moral placeholder, often detached from real conditions and embedded inequalities. In trying to center humanity, we displaced the Earth. And in doing so, we undermined the very conditions that make human life possible.

A different orientation is needed. Not a rejection of humanity, but a re-centering within a larger field of existence. To love the Earth is not a poetic gesture—it is an ethical necessity. It means recognizing that harm to ecosystems is not external damage but a form of self-destruction. It means reframing ethics from human-centered to Earth-centered, from domination to participation.

This is where the future becomes most uncertain—and most significant. Artificial intelligence and emerging technologies are often framed in terms of capability and risk. But the deeper question is ontological: what kind of intelligence are we creating? If intelligence is participation, then ethical design requires more than safeguards—it requires alignment with the structures of reality itself.

We stand, then, at a threshold. The path forward is not a return to the past, nor a blind leap into technological futurism. It is a synthesis—a planetary civilization that draws from ancient wisdom while engaging modern knowledge. A civilization that recognizes the plurality of perspectives without losing sight of underlying unity.

This requires new forms of leadership, new frameworks of foresight, and a redefinition of progress. Not growth for its own sake, but alignment with the conditions that sustain life and meaning.

Ultimately, the future is not something we predict. It is something we participate in. Every action, every perception, contributes to the unfolding of reality. The question is not whether change is coming—it is whether we are capable of aligning with it.

To become planetary beings is not to transcend the Earth, but to belong to it fully. To act with awareness that we are not separate observers, but active participants in a living, dynamic cosmos.

The shift has already begun. The only question is whether we recognize it—and whether we are willing to follow it to its conclusion.

The study “Futures of AI: Implications for Europe’s R&I Ecosystem and EU Policy” explores
plausible trajectories of artificial intelligence (AI) development and assesses their implications
for Europe’s research and innovation ecosystem. It aims to inform EU R&I policy and contribute
to the development of an AI, recognising AI as a technology with transformative potential across
sectors and long-term structural consequences for investment, governance and strategic
direction.

Key Findings 

• AI development is characterised by uncertainty, path dependencies and competing trajectories
  rather than a single predictable pathway.  
• AI adoption in the EU remains uneven and relatively low, with higher uptake in digitally mature
  and data-intensive sectors such as ICT and professional services; sectors like manufacturing
  and construction lag behind. Where AI is deployed, it is primarily used in supportive roles rather
  than as a transformative force reshaping core business models. 
• Future adoption trajectories diverge across sectoral profiles, ranging from deep integration in
  innovation-led sectors to incremental optimisation in operational sectors and largely
  supplementary use in service-oriented sectors. 
• Several structural barriers constrain broader diffusion, including market fragmentation, the
  dominance of SMEs with limited resources, insufficient access to high-quality and interoperable
  data and shortages of skilled professionals, while investment levels remain fragmented and
  comparatively modest. On the other side, ethical, security and trust concerns continue to shape
  adoption decisions.  
• The EU’s regulatory leadership, particularly through the AI Act, creates both opportunities for
  trust-building and risks of administrative burden if implementation is not carefully managed.  

Facing uncertainty around climate change, AI, and job security, youth in Vietnam took part in two foresight workshops where they explored future trends, used strategic tools, and built skills to respond to challenges and shape long-term solutions. 

Why Futures Thinking Skills Matter for the Youth in Vietnam

Young people across Vietnam and Southeast Asia are navigating a future shaped by climate change, environmental degradation, and the rapid rise of automation and AI. Many are concerned about job security and feel uncertain about what lies ahead. There’s also a growing sense of mistrust toward institutions and doubts about whether a sustainable and just future is truly being safeguarded. In the face of these realities, learning how to think strategically about the future - and take action - is becoming an essential skillset for youth.

Exploring the Future Through Youth Collaboration & Foresight

With the support of the European Commission, the EU Delegation in Vietnam organised two online foresight workshops for the Vietnam Youth Advisory Board (VYAB). The sessions were held in September 2024 and each session lasted 1.5 hours, tailored to the participants’ availability across time zones.

The workshops brought together young people from VYAB and participants from neighboring countries to explore how futures thinking could help youth shape Southeast Asia’s future, especially around three EU priorities: the digital and circular economy, responsible entrepreneurship, and governance.

Using the Youth4Foresight toolkit, participants engaged in interactive sessions via Miro, an online collaboration tool that was well received. The energy was high, especially as youth connected across the region and from different professional backgrounds to share ideas and build new perspectives. 

Tools to Shift Mindsets and Spark Ideas

To kick off, participants explored three warm-up exercises: imagining the world in 2050, rating uncertainties about the future, and identifying trends likely to shape the region. These activities encouraged reflection and helped shift thinking from the present to long-term possibilities. The future holds many paths, but once we begin to recognize them and take action, we can shape those possibilities into something better. 

From Trends to Actions

The workshops introduced two main foresight tools: the Futures Wheel and 3 Horizons.

With the Futures Wheel, participants mapped the ripple effects of trends like digital transition, shifting global power dynamics, and resource scarcity. This helped them understand how one change could lead to another, revealing both risks and opportunities for regional action.

The 3 Horizons exercise invited participants to reflect on current realities, imagine more desirable futures, and propose ways to get there. Working in teams based on EU priorities, they turned broad visions into concrete ideas and short-term actions. 

Shared Futures, Shared Responsibility: A Key Takeaway

Futures thinking proved to be a powerful tool in times of uncertainty. It allowed participants to think more strategically, adaptively, and collaboratively. As they described: "It gave structure to our ideas. We felt more in control of shaping what’s next."

One of the strongest takeaways was the value of working together. By sharing ideas across the region and professional backgrounds, participants saw how collective thinking leads to more creative, inclusive, and actionable outcomes. It’s not just about imagining what’s coming - it’s about imagining it together.

Youth left the workshops with stronger skills, renewed motivation, and a clearer sense of how they can lead change in their communities and beyond.

Check out the toolkit and start building your future-thinking muscles! 

A new European Partnership is to be established as part of the European Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, 'Horizon Europe': the 'European Partnership on Social Transformations and Resilience' (STR). To define this partnership's specific research and innovation priorities, the DLR Project Management Agency conducted four strategic foresight cycles on Supporting the modernisation of social protection systems; Shaping the future of work; Fostering education and skills development; Contributing to a fair transition towards climate neutrality. On this basis, the DLR-PT team elaborated a first draft of the Partnership's strategy for 2027-2033. 

As part of the project, the DLR-PT convened around 40 European experts for a backcasting workshop in Bonn on 28 and 29 January 2026. This two-day event, held under the title of "Towards a Strategic Research & Innovation Agenda for the STR Partnership", aimed to translate four best-case scenarios from previous foresight cycles into concrete research and innovation priorities for the future STR partnership's Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA). In the workshop, the DLR-PT's strategic foresight team worked with the Humanities and Cultural Heritage Unit to use the backcasting method. Starting from a desirable target vision for 2040, participants identified key milestones (including those for 2033 and 2037), as well as necessary framework conditions, potential obstacles, and action steps, thinking backwards from the future to the present. Specifically, the participants first developed priority measures and then used these to define research and innovation priorities for the strategy. By the end of the workshop, the experts had developed up to six thematic priorities for each of the impact areas in the future Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda.

The European Partnership on Social Transformations and Resilience is currently being prepared and is expected to start in 2027. The Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda, with its implementation-oriented research priorities, will serve members of the partnership as a basis for future calls for proposals.

The DLR Project Management Agency (DLR-PT) coordinated a study on digital citizen participation on behalf of the European Parliament's STOA Panel. Together with IQIB and DemocracyX, 94 digital participation tools were analysed and concrete recommendations for action were developed for the EU policy cycle.

The decline in political participation, coupled with the widespread perception among citizens that they are distant from the decision-making processes in Brussels, poses a significant challenge to EU institutions. Could digital tools and Artificial Intelligence help bridge the gap between citizens and European politics? This question was addressed in a study coordinated by the DLR Project Management Agency and co-authored by IQIB and DemocracyX. Completed in January 2026, the study was presented to the European Parliament's STOA Panel – the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology – on 12 March.

94 digital tools and 11 case studies compared
In order to obtain a comprehensive picture of the available participation landscape, the research team first analysed 94 digital participation tools from Europe and around the world using a three-phase approach, categorising them according to their functionalities. Building on this, eleven representative use cases were examined in detail, including the European Citizens' Initiative, the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE) with the Decidim platform, and local participation processes in Austria, Denmark, and Canada. In a third phase, European experts validated the preliminary results in a foresight workshop and discussed possible development scenarios for the use of AI in democratic participation processes.

AI in citizen participation: potential with clear limits
The use of AI in digital participation tools is still in its infancy. The study shows that, so far, AI has primarily been used as a background technology, for example for the automatic transcription of deliberation processes, clustering contributions, and machine translation. The potential for multilingual participation processes at the EU level is promising. At the same time, however, the study highlights significant risks. A lack of transparency due to 'black box effects', algorithmic bias, and inadequate data protection could undermine the democratic legitimacy of participation processes. AI should therefore always be used as an accountable, supportive tool, with clearly assigned human responsibility at the institutional level.
A key finding of the study is that the success of digital participation tools depends more on the political and institutional framework conditions than on the technology itself. For citizen participation to be democratically effective, a clear mandate, transparent procedures and visible feedback are required: citizens must be able to understand how their contributions have been incorporated into political decisions. Without this feedback mechanism, digital participation risks being perceived as purely symbolic, which would further erode trust in EU institutions. The study recommends that the EU view digital citizen participation as a strategic building block for strengthening the democratic foundation of the Union, rather than as a technocratic tool.

The 2026 edition takes place in Copenhagen on 20 March 2026 (09:00–18:00 CET) at H. C. Andersens Blvd. 18, 1553 København - Industriens Hus. Themes include the AI-mediated workplace, leadership in the future, emerging technologies (including AI agents, simulations and humanoids), the future consumer, retail in transformation, and the futures of foresight.

The Summit is a Nordic gathering for leaders, innovators, and forward-thinking organisations exploring the futures of emerging technologies and their impact on business, society, and organisational readiness. Co-hosted by Danish Industry (DI) and curated by the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies (CIFS), the conference brings together keynotes, Nordic cases, and conversations on preparedness and responsible, meaningful action.

The Summit 2026 – Industriens Hus, Copenhagen – exploring the possible futures of emerging technologies.

Technology Foresight of Politecnico di Milano has conducted foresight activities to explore potential opportunities and challenges, preparing for a technological paradigm shift in personal health. The aim was to identify the most disruptive technologies in the realm of personal health and assess their impact on shaping future scenarios. The time frame extends from the present to 2040.

Consult the original source here.

Methodology:

• Mapping the landscape: Desk Research on the Future of Health: Selection, from foresight studies and scientific publications, the 50 most recurrent technologies and innovations expected to be transformative.  
• Experts’ preliminary analysis: identification of 28 core technologies.
• Extended and in-depth analysis to identify the most promising 10 technologies, engaging Politecnico di Milano’s community and a group of physicians through a dedicated survey. 
• Impact and Relevance Assessment to shape the final outcome.

The top 10 technologies are:

• Applied Artificial Intelligence (Applied AI)
• Biomedical imaging techniques
• Biosensors
• Data Science
• Digital Twin/Modelling
• Drug Delivery Smart Systems
• Genetic Editing
• Implantable devices
• Neurotechnology
• Next Generation Vaccines
  

Each technology description includes: examples of potential fields of application, the phase(s) in which the technology is relevant (prediction/prevention/diagnosis/treatment/rehabilitation), opportunities, requirements, risks, impacts.

The report continues with a series of insights, derived from the analysis of alternative visions of the future associated with health, with both positive and negative elements, aiming at understanding the opportunities and challenges posed by each context and at identifying the conditions that will allow moving in the preferred direction, without neglecting risks and possible barriers.

In 28 April 2025, the UK Government Office for Science published the AI 2030 Scenarios report as part of a broader series on Frontier AI: Capabilities and Risks -- see original source :

📌 Background and scope

• GO-Science havs developed five scenarios, exploring developments in AI up to 2030. Events at a global level are described, but the focus is on implications for the UK. 
• The scenarios focus on Frontier AI – the most capable and general models available in 2030. Frontier AI models have created a new, uncertain dynamic due to the pace of their improvement, their adaptability across multiple tasks, and their availability to anyone to interact with in natural language. These scenarios explore how this could play out to 2030.  
• The scenarios are designed to help policy makers, industry, and civil society test actions that might mitigate risks and navigate to a more favourable future
• The scenarios are informed by the latest evidence and expert judgements. In drafting this Foresight report, and the Future Risks of Frontier AI paper, GO-Science consulted over 70 experts from industry, academia and policy making to ensure the scenarios and key findings were as robust and evidence based as possible.
• These scenarios have some important limitations. Given the pace and unpredictable nature of AI development, some aspects of the scenarios may also soon become dated. Whilst they have been designed for use in different policy contexts, they may not be suitable in the form presented here for all AI policy questions. 

🔔The AI 2030 scenarios

The AI 2030 scenarios are built using five critical uncertainties, factors that are both important to the future of AI development, but also highly uncertain: 

The scenarios are described by a set of narratives. These cover outcomes across the critical uncertainties, and a range of implications across the economy, society and for peoples’ daily lives. Below are brief summaries of the scenarios alongside a ‘slider’ chart to illustrate the critical uncertainty outcomes in each case. 

We are a research-based advisory company providing applied research, evaluation and other consultancy services for the European Union institutions, international organisations and national governments.

Our vision is to be a standard of excellence and value in our sectors, a leading international company contributing to transforming the well-being of our society.

Our mission is to provide policy decision makers with knowledge for impact. We translate data and information into actionable, evidence-based knowledge for future-fit policies.

We are a values- and learning-driven company. Thus, we are committed to making a difference in the world, while at the same time creating a work culture that inspires and breeds constant learning and personal growth.

Future Impacts designs and implements foresight processes around questions on the
future of organisations and corporations. We carry out foresight projects to identify options
for future-oriented actions today. For this, we use or combine trend analysis, scenarios
and Delphi surveys, among other approaches. Aside from our focus on the development
and implementation of individualised foresight games, we also focus on foresight capacity
building. We support our clients to expand their foresight capabilities and skills through
training, toolkits and coaching.

This technology foresight brief documents the process and findings of a horizon scanning exercise, in the context of FUTURINNOV (FUTURe-oriented detection and assessment of emerging technologies and break-through INNOVation) a collaboration between the European Innovation Council (EIC) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC), aiming to support the EIC's strategic intelligence through foresight and other anticipatory methodologies.
The workshop, held online on 19 June 2025, had as its primary goal the evaluation and prioritisation of trends and signals related to emerging technologies and breakthrough innovations across all technology readiness levels (TRLs) within human-like AI systems. Signals for the workshop were gathered from experts, literature review, and text/data mining of patents, publications, and EU-funded projects.
These signals were then scrutinised for their significance to the field's future by a diverse group of sector experts, which led to the identification of twelve key topics: enhancing human-AI collaboration; trustworthy and explainable AI; neurosymbolic AI; general-purpose neuro-symbolic methods; personalised medicine; embodied intelligence; emotion-aware AI; multi-agent frameworks; human-AI collective cognition; brain-inspired AI; addressing AI’s energy demand; and next generation LLMs.
Several contextual factors that shape the development and uptake of AI are highlighted across social, technological, economical, environmental and political and regulatory domains, including: AI literacy; inter-disciplinary and inclusive development of models; benchmarking practices; and sustainability.
The outcomes of this exercise may be used to inform future funding topics for EIC Challenges and other EC calls. They can also provide input for EIC and EC reports, as well as supporting other EU policy initiatives.

The foresight workshop Emotion Ecosystems 2040 was conducted on 📅 24-25th of June 2025, as part of the project Eye of Europe . 

Over the course of the two-day workshop, the participants explored the theme of emotion ecosystems by working through a structured process in three facilitated groups, whose composition shifted at key moments. The work began by framing the concept of “emotion ecosystems” in terms of a curated set of societal tensions, each expressing the strain between a shared aspiration and its undesirable consequences: 🌀 Hyperconnection vs Isolation; 🌍Craving for unity vs Tribal polarization; 🩹 Healing collective traumas vs Solitary coping ...and more.

To delve into these tensions, participants applied the Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) framework twice: first, 🔍to examine the present by unpacking common narratives, systemic structures, shared worldviews, and deep cultural metaphors; and then again, in a creative key, 💡to imagine preferable futures. This second phase involved reconstructing alternative metaphors, beliefs, and systemic designs, supported by a short horizon scanning exercise based on a set of pre-existing and participant-generated key drivers of change. 

This briefing explores the potential of generative AI in supporting foresight analysis and strategic decision-making. Recent technological developments promise an increased role for large language models (LLMs) in policy research and analysis. From identifying trends and weak signals to fleshing out rich scenario narratives and bringing them to life in experiential and immersive ways, generative AI is empowering foresight analysts in their endeavour to anticipate uncertainties and support
policymakers in preparing better for the future. As generative agents powered by LLMs become more adept at mimicking human behaviour, they could offer foresight practitioners and policy analysts new ways to gain additional insights at greater speed and scale, supporting their work.

However, to effectively integrate generative AI and LLMs into foresight practice, it is crucial to critically evaluate their limitations and biases. Human oversight and expertise are essential for ensuring the reliability and validity of AI-generated outputs, as well as the need for transparency, accountability, and other ethical considerations. It is important to note that, while generative AI can augment human capabilities, it should not be seen as a replacement for human involvement and judgment.

By combining human expertise with generative AI capabilities, foresight analysts can uncover new opportunities to enhance strategic planning in policymaking. A proactive and informed approach to adopting generative AI in foresight analysis may lead to more informed, nuanced, and effective strategies when dealing with complex futures.

In this briefing: 📌Introduction; 📌Generative AI applications in foresight; 📌Overview of generative agents; 📌Ethical challenges and limitations; 📌Conclusions

What was the challenge?

The Research Council of Norway (RCN) identified five strategic areas in pursuit of ground-breaking research, radical innovation and sustainable development. RCN required a robust evidence base to help develop long-term, priority missions to help solve one or more societal challenges, as well as underpinning structural measures of the research environment in Norway. The five strategic areas include: Oceans; Green transition; Health and welfare; Cohesion and globalisation; and Technology and digitalisation.

How did we approach it?

We adopted a mixed method, participatory approach involving a variety of research tools such as trend analyses, literature reviews, stakeholder interviews, focus groups, crowdsourcing ideas from experts, a survey of the public, future scenario analyses and workshops.

The core foresight work allowed us to examine what might happen in the next ten years in the different strategic areas and wider R&I system in Norway. Scenarios of future states were used as the basis for workshop discussions to stress test potential missions and structural measures that the RCN could consider developing and implementing in the future.

What was the outcome or impact of the work?

Extensive findings from this research were published in a series of nine reports. The research was cited as evidence in the RCN’s input to the 2022 revision of the Long-Term Plan for Research and Higher Education 2019–2028, which specifies the Norwegian government’s ambitions, key objectives and priority areas for research and higher education.

The study also helped inform the RCN’s internal decision making, strategies and organisational activities. In addition, a summary of the findings and proposals was presented to the relevant Norwegian minister.

Project webpage: https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/2021/future-research-innovation-norway.html 

Research outputs:

• Summary report: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA900/RRA966-1/RAND_RRA966-1.pdf 
• Addressing future societal challenges in Norway: Detailed methodology report: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA900/RRA966-1/RAND_RRA966-2.pdf
• A summary of potential cross-cutting missions to address future societal challenges in Norway: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA900/RRA966-1/RAND_RRA966-3.pdf
  
  Structural measures to develop a resilient research and innovation environment in Norway: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA900/RRA966-1/RAND_RRA966-4.pdf
  
  Health and welfare: An analysis of trends, future directions and potential missions to address societal challenges in Norway: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA900/RRA966-1/RAND_RRA966-5.pdf
  
  Oceans: An analysis of trends, future directions and potential missions to address societal challenges in Norway: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA900/RRA966-1/RAND_RRA966-6.pdf
  
  Technology and digitalisation: An analysis of trends, future directions and potential missions to address societal challenges in Norway: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA900/RRA966-1/RAND_RRA966-7.pdf
  
  Cohesion and globalisation: An analysis of trends, future directions and potential missions to address societal challenges in Norway: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA900/RRA966-1/RAND_RRA966-8.pdf
  
  Green transition: An analysis of trends, future directions and potential missions to address societal challenges in Norway: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA900/RRA966-1/RAND_RRA966-9.pdf

What if we could test-drive our future selves?

Most scenario workshops stay in the head. The Resonant Future Self Framework flips that script by letting participants embody possible futures through immersive narrative experiences - while their brains and bodies react in real time. Peaks of coherence in EEG and heart-rate variability become “north-star signals” that guide purpose discovery. The method weaves together generative AI, emotional storytelling, and biometric sensing to open a new path toward deeply felt, personal foresight.

First public presentation – Vienna, May 2025
The framework was introduced at the Futures4Europe Conference 2025 – Exploring Future-Oriented Collective Intelligence (Vienna, 15–16 May), organised by the AIT Austrian Institute of Technology as part of the Eye of Europe flagship initiative. The presentation focused on the conceptual foundations of the method, shared results from the first single-participant pilot study, and outlined how emotional resonance - measured through real-time physiological signals - can enrich scenario work with an embodied, intuitive layer of decision-making.

Next stop – AIMEDIA, Venice, July 2025
From 6–10 July, the project will be featured in the AI in Immersive Media track at the First International Conference on AI-based Media Innovation (AIMEDIA 2025) in Venice.

The presentation will cover the generative narrative pipeline that produces the six personalised future-self videos, share expanded pilot-study findings (including EEG and HRV analysis), and preview ongoing efforts to partially automate the scripting, visual generation, and video assembly process using tailored AI workflows.

While human editing and quality control remain essential, these steps point toward a future in which the method becomes faster, more scalable, and easier to adapt across educational, coaching, and wellbeing contexts.

Read more
To explore more about the method, goals, and future plans, visit the dedicated project page (link below).

An experimental methodology that lets people feel alternative life-paths instead of merely thinking about them by combining AI-generated personal future narratives, immersive audio-visual simulation and real-time bio-feedback to spot “inner resonance”.

The Resonant Future Self Framework is an experimental methodology that merges strategic foresight, immersive narrative design, biometric sensing and applied neuroscience to help people feel their way into personally meaningful futures. Participants co-create six AI-generated “future-self” stories based on a deep self-inquiry, then step inside those stories. While they watch - and sometimes star in - the simulation, EEG, heart-rate variability, respiration, skin conductance and peripheral temperature are recorded in real time to detect moments of coherence or dissonance between the body and the imagined life path. These physiological “resonance markers” complement post-session journaling to reveal which futures evoke a profound sense of rightness and which trigger resistance or cognitive overload .

The practice unfolds in nine interconnected steps: 

1. Discover personal strengths, conflicts and aspirations; 

2. Reflect by generating diverse narrative futures with generative-AI support; 

3. Select the two scenarios that feel most alive; 

4. Embody them in immersive media while gathering biometric data; 

5. Review the combined subjective/objective signals; 

6. Activate the preferred future through weekly micro-practices in daily life; 

7. Backcast concrete milestones linking present and desired identity; 

8. Revisit the experience after six-to-eight weeks; 

9. Second Test under identical biometric conditions to measure shifts in alignment .

An April 2025 single-participant pilot demonstrated that personalised immersive future-self simulations can indeed generate rich, differentiated biometric signatures - and that those signatures align closely with felt meaning. During two iterations of an AI-generated, audio-visual journey into imagined future identities, EEG, heart-rate, respiration, skin conductance and peripheral temperature were recorded continuously. The aggregated signal showed alternating phases of elevated gamma activity and transient heart-rate acceleration (markers of emotional arousal) followed by stretches of sustained alpha rhythms and increased heart-rate variability (often linked to calm, integrative attention). Immediately after each immersion, the participant completed reflective journaling; the qualitative entries mapped almost point-for-point onto the physiological timeline, suggesting that this form of embodied resonance mapping can translate subjective alignment into measurable data.

The session also surfaced practical insights - such as the need to calibrate narrative intensity to avoid cognitive overload and to provide structured debrief protocols - that now inform the forthcoming group trials. Although limited to a single case, these early findings validate the technical pipeline and bolster the central hypothesis that combining AI-personalised storytelling with real-time biofeedback offers a powerful pathway to purpose discovery.

Building on that proof-of-concept, the research progresses through three phases: 

(1) Individual immersive foresight to refine protocols; 

(2) Group-based resonance testing to explore social amplification and shared insight; and 

(3) Scalability studies that port the method to mobile-friendly, light-weight XR so schools, universities and coaching programmes can adopt it at low cost.

Nearly 300 of the experts in this early 2025 study responded to a series of three quantitative questions, and nearly 200 wrote predictive essays in how the evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) systems and humans might affect essential qualities of being human in the next decade. Many are concerned that the deepening adoption of AI systems over the next decade will negatively alter how humans think, feel, act and relate to one another. They predicted whether change will be mostly for the better or for the worse in 12 categories:

• Capacity and willingness to think deeply about complex concepts
• Social and emotional intelligence
• Confidence in our own native abilities
• Trust in widely shared values and cultural norms
• Mental well-being
• Empathy and application of moral judgment
• Individual agency, the ability to act independently in the world
• Sense of self-identity, meaning and purpose in life
• Native metacognition, the ability to think analytically about thinking
• Native curiosity and capacity to learn
• Native decision-making and problem-solving abilities
• Native innovative thinking and creativity

Source: Imagining the Digital Future Center 

Summary

Core Themes
The book reimagines humanity’s future through planetary foresight, blending historical wisdom with planetary stewardship. It critiques linear Western progress narratives and advocates for a hybrid, cyclical vision of history, emphasizing pluralistic identities and reverence for life.

Structural Framework
Organized into thematic sections, the work begins with “The Mysterious Lord of Time,” challenging linear temporality and introducing non-linear, culturally diverse historical perspectives. “Evolving Belief Systems” contrasts Indo-Iranic, Mesopotamian, and Hellenic thought with Abrahamic traditions, highlighting ancient influences on modern pluralism.

Imagination and Futures
The “Histories of Imagination” section explores myth and storytelling as drivers of civilization, while “Scenarios of Future Worlds” applies foresight methodologies to geopolitical and technological evolution, emphasizing ecological consciousness. The final chapters expand to cosmic intelligence and ethics, framing humanity’s role within universal interconnectedness.

Ethical Vision
Central to the thesis is a call for planetary identity and stewardship, merging forgotten wisdom traditions with modern foresight to navigate ecological and technological uncertainties. The book positions itself as both a philosophical guide and practical framework for ethical transformation in an era of global crises.

Key Argument
Motti asserts that humanity is transitioning from a “Second Nomad Age” (characterized by fragmentation) toward a “Second Settlement Age” marked by planetary consciousness, requiring creative complexity and ethical vigilance.

The world is at a critical juncture, facing an array of interconnected global challenges. These challenges affect everyone, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, and range from the triple planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution, to pandemics, food and energy shortages, large-scale forced migration, rising domestic and global inequality, and escalating armed conflicts. In this context, there has been an alarming stagnation in progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The rise in public debt levels in many low- and middle-income countries is concerning. The United Nations (UN) Secretary-General's 2023 special edition report on SDG progress underscored that the next five years are critical, as failure to achieve the SDGs could lead to even greater poverty and inequalities, political instability, economic upheaval, and irreversible environmental damage.

Yet, many countries are facing challenges in ensuring that their governance systems are capable of addressing these complex and interconnected challenges. A need for better governance, effective policy integration, sustainable investment choices as well as effective use of public resources, including Official Development Assistance (ODA), - as well as better international governance of SDGs - to meet sustainable development needs has never been more urgent. Delivering these improvements will require unprecedented action and decisions from public institutions and political leaders, effective and inclusive multilateral cooperation, with the goal of uniting diverse stakeholders to deliver nothing short of a rescue plan for people and the planet, in line with the call to action made by the UN Secretary General.

As countries approach 2030, there is increasing recognition that the SDG commitments to “leave no one behind” and “reach those furthest behind first” need to extend beyond this timeline. In this context, the UN Summit of the Future presents a unique opportunity to tackle both current and future challenges, with a view to enhancing global collaboration on critical issues. The OECD’s policy work and active global engagement demonstrates its commitment to support all countries to individually and collectively achieve this objective.

This Report aims to provide OECD support to inform decision making ahead of the UN Summit of the Future and following high-level events. It leverages OECD knowledge, data, tools, instruments and good practices to support national and international actions to respond to future challenges and opportunities. This report addresses two major breakthroughs proposed in the UN Secretary General's Rescue Plan for People and Planet: equipping governance and institutions for sustainable and inclusive transformation, and prioritising policies and investments with multiplier effects for sustainable development. It also aligns with the bold actions outlined in the anticipated Pact for the Future, addressing three of the five key priorities: sustainable development and financing for development; science, technology, innovation, and digital co-operation; and youth and future generations.

Governance for equitable and sustainable transformation

Transforming governance systems for sustainable development requires overcoming sectoral silos and policy fragmentation, as well as setting practical, and where feasible, ambitious and coherent economic, social, and environmental objectives that extend beyond short-term political cycles. Establishing robust policy coherence mechanisms is therefore needed to harmonise policy priorities and promote collaboration where most effective, with a view to reducing policy fragmentation, ensuring mutually reinforcing policies across sectors and government levels, and minimising negative transboundary effects of domestic policies.

Sound governance for sustainable transformation also calls for the strategic use of various government tools - such as strategic foresight, people-centred public policy, mechanisms for stakeholder engagement, regulatory policy, public procurement and budgeting – in order to build resilient, sustainable and inclusive societies. It also calls for ensuring information integrity and providing access to justice for all, which are critical for the sound implementation of individual rights and government commitments.

Effective governance systems also require the alignment of public investments with the public interest and sustainability priorities, including through the use of existing planning tools, such as National Sustainable Development Strategies, National Development and Decarbonisation Plans, strategic public investment decisions to foster inclusive and sustainable futures, stimulating further investments from private and other sectors, and leveraging transition finance to build resilient infrastructure and other strategic sectors. Integrity and building trust are also core objectives, crucial for fighting corruption and illicit financial flows, essential for effective public service delivery and sustainability. There is also a need to develop and maintain regulatory frameworks that facilitate compliance with SDGs, including the integration of the SDGs across the regulatory cycle and enhancing regulatory co-operation. In addition, developing new measures of progress that focus on both people and the planet will be crucial to a more holistic understanding of global economic prosperity and progress beyond GDP. To this end, the newly established International Forum on Total Official Support for Sustainable Development (TOSSD) could play a pivotal role.

Finally, adopting a territorial approach to the SDGs is essential as cities and regions play a critical role in promoting a paradigm shift towards sustainability. At least 105 of the 169 SDGs targets will not be achieved without proper engagement and coordination with local and regional governments. The SDGs provide the appropriate framework to define and shape local and regional development visions, strategies, plans, and re-orient existing ones towards sustainable development.

Policies and investments for sustainable transformation

Sustainable transformation requires prioritising policies and investments that are mutually reinforcing and can catalyse progress across social, economic, and environmental dimensions, serving as multipliers to accelerate the achievement of the SDGs. This includes closing divides to leave no one behind, through strengthening policies and investments for social inclusion and identifying areas where social inclusion initiatives can be pursued in synergy with environmental protection. A key example of this is pursuing universal social protection, in light of its significant multiplier effects across different SDGs and incomparable potential for promoting just transitions. In addition, leveraging environment-human-well-being synergies is essential for coherent and effective SDG implementation. This requires enhancing transition finance credibility, strengthening domestic enabling conditions, addressing the labour and distributional impacts of climate policies, accelerating access to clean energy, and protecting biodiversity. In addition, there is a need to strengthen measures to protect lives in disaster situations by aligning disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation responses.

Additional financing for sustainable transformation

Delivering an SDG stimulus requires innovative and collaborative solutions to unlock and scale up all sources of financing – public and private, domestic and international – for sustainable development and to address interlinked global crises. These need to harness productive trade and tax revenues, as well as international flows, to support SDG financing, including through innovative financing mechanisms, ensuring that financial flows, trade, development co-operation and other policies align with SDGs and promote inclusive and equitable outcomes, as well as encouraging green budgeting, developing effective tax policies, and improving tax administration, including via digitalisation of tax processes. This may also include innovative forms of financing, such as targeting support to enhance co-operation between public and private financial institutions through blended finance instruments, green, social, and sustainability bonds, and local currency solutions. Once again, integrity, compliance, anti-corruption and the fight against illicit finance are crucial for effective domestic resource mobilisation and attracting additional external financing from both private and public sources.

Science, technology, and innovation (STI) for sustainable and inclusive transformation

It is essential to design and implement STI policies in a manner to address societal challenges and achieve sustainable transformation, as set out in the OECD Transformative Agenda for STI Policies. Promoting trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) is critical for digital transformation. AI is a powerful, versatile technology which has the potential to transform how we work, learn and interact, boosting productivity and economic growth and accelerating progress towards addressing global challenges, such as food security and climate change. However, we also need to address the risks raised by AI technology, including those related to privacy, safety, security, human rights and AI-generated disinformation and manipulated content. Beyond AI, policy efforts needed in the area of digital transformation also include enhancing broadband connectivity; achieving well-performing digital health systems through digital technologies; and, strengthening data governance frameworks while upholding human rights, including women’s and girls’ human rights, which face additional risks in the digital sphere. Strategic foresight should be used for anticipatory and innovative policy exploration about multiple futures, including by assessing emerging critical risks and opportunities in the face of various technological advancements and their implications on our economy and society. Strengthening data governance frameworks will be essential to ensure high standards of data protection, and facilitate data access and sharing across jurisdictions, including in the public sector.

Empowering youth for a more equitable and sustainable future

Addressing the needs and rights of youth and future generations is crucial to achieve sustainable development and intergenerational justice. This requires policies that promote formal job creation, high-quality employment services, and support for youth entrepreneurship, as well as social protection systems to meet the specific needs of youth, access to affordable housing, and outreach to vulnerable and disadvantaged young people. Promoting active, meaningful, and inclusive youth participation in decision-making processes at all levels will also help ensure that policies are reflective of their needs and aspirations.

Source: OECD - Publications  

This foresight study aims to support the design of a robust and adaptable digital competency framework that aligns with the long-term strategic priorities of the public administration in Romania. Additionally, it seeks to ensure the framework remains future-ready, enabling civil servants to navigate digital transformation, deliver citizen-centric services, and address complex policy challenges with agility and innovation.

The foresight methodology utilized horizon scanning and scenarios (both explorative and normative) as essential tools in strategic planning, helping organizations and policymakers navigate uncertainty by exploring various probable and/or desirable futures.

This study focuses on the year 2032, a timeframe suited for structural transformation in public administration, allowing for the development and maturity of complex digital systems.

The scenario-building process was based on inputs developed by the foresight team at Institutul de Prospectiva and was progressively refined through three online working sessions and a final in-person workshop.

The figure below provides a concise overview of the scenario-building steps, followed by a detailed explanation of the characteristics and objectives of each scenario type.

We help people and organisations imagine, work with, and shape their future. 

CIFS is one of the worlds oldest think tanks exclusively focusing on foresight. CIFS teach very popular courses in foresight, gives key notes and launch various initiatives and do research projects. CIFS is a self-owned think tank, completely independent of special interests. 

This report showcases the results of the two-round Dynamic Argumentative Delphi survey carried out within the project “S&T&I for 2050. Science, Technology and Innovation for Ecosystem Performance – Accelerating Sustainability Transitions”. The overarching ambition of this project is the “identification and mapping of future scientific and technological developments that can radically improve ecosystem performance”. The main outcome is to provide “reflections towards the 2nd Strategic Plan of Horizon Europe (HE), in its broad direction to support the Sustainable Development Goals.”

To this end, quantitative and qualitative methods were employed, among which this report refers to:  

• Patent and bibliometric analysis for selecting the most dynamic Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) domains; 
• Horizon scanning through web mining and human evaluation for identifying key STI directions and specific examples of technological/scientific breakthroughs within these directions; 
• Dynamic Argumentative Delphi engaging relevant experts from around the world in an argument-based exploration regarding the contribution of STI to the capability of ecosystems to flourish from now to 2050. 

Event takeaways:

The workshop offered a structured journey—reflecting on the past of liberal democracies, examining current research on key pillars like institutions, participation, and media, and exploring possible futures through the lens of four science fiction novels that imagine future democratic developments

• Senior scientist at “Our World in Data”, Bastian Herre gave an alarming as well as reconciling view into the deterioration of liberal democracies worldwide as well as in Europe. Yet, he pointed out that most of our present democracies are built on solid institutions and they are most likely to be resilient against internal and external attacks.
• Michel Debruyne of Beweging.net introduced results from comparative country research from the INVOLVE Democracy project. Among the factors stablizing liberal democracies long-term are the quality of trust in public institutions and policies as well as making participation possible for all citizens. However, when looking at public policies and social benefits, the picture is more ambiguous: while public health expenditure is considered a stabilizing factor, high expenditure in pensions might result in distrust. More definite in destabilizing democracy in a country are corruption and low quality of public transport.
• The RECLAIM project is researching the significance of expression of information disorder and democratic stability. The protection of the public sphere is identified as a cornerstone of democracy. Of similar importance are public service social media as well as a better regulation of social media companies. In his presentation Maximilian Conrad, University of Iceland, also pointed out the significance of the education factor, not only for children but also for adults, including science education and media literacy. Destabilizing factors are, among others, disruptive technologies, fragmented public spheres and distrust in traditional journalism and science.
• In the MeDeMAP presentation, Maren Beaufort, Austrian Academy of Sciences focused on the role of (social) media and stated that traditional information media and pluralism, thinking long-term and endorsing a culture of diversity are crucial in maintaining democratic values. Investigative journalism plays a special role as it uncovers corrupt activities and disguised the foes of democracy. What we cannot expect is a consensus in social media bubbles. Definitely destabilizing liberal democracies is the exclusion of citizens from discourses; and also the suppression of media as well as the lack of self-criticism within journalism. Still open are questions such as: How to prevent democracies dying at the hands of elected leaders—who subvert the very process that brought them to power.
• An outlook into diverse futures of democratic values was presented in the “Literary Quartet”, where four passionate readers of science fiction literature gave their interpretation of four different novels dedicated to the longevity of democratic life in the future. What we can learn from novel like Infomocracy (2016), The Lost Cause (2023), The Left Hand of Darkness (1969), and The Ministry for the Future (2020)? The discussion extracted visions of pluralist and diverse societies where humans can change their identity, experiment with new forms of governance in local communities, where central governments are resolved and where people find ways to cope with climate change by supporting each other.

This workshop is part of a series of “Eye of Europe” pilot activities taking place during 2025, aimed at exploring various futures and their implications for R&I policy.

The workshop was open to a wide audience - experts and non-experts - interested in questions of future democracies.

Paulo Carvalho has been working in the field of futures and foresight for more than 25 years. On one hand, he is a professor in foresight, strategy and innovation at the Faculty of Economics and Management at the University of Lisbon. On the other hand, he founded a foresight company five years ago, IF Insight Foresight, focussing on consulting, horizon scanning and strategic intelligence, as well as other strategy and innovation projects. He talked to Futures4Europe about Insight Foresight’s recently developed tool ORION and how it could revolutionise foresight practices.

Research and innovation (R&I) foresight in Europe is no longer a niche methodological practice. It is increasingly recognised as a governance capability for navigating polycrises and rapid technological change. Yet it remains unevenly institutionalised and therefore strategically underused. The revised Eye of Europe report, Showcasing Perspectives: A Stocktaking of R&I Foresight Practices in Europe, argues that the value of foresight depends less on the number of activities conducted than on mandates, timing, institutional anchoring and the conditions that enable uptake. 

The report, drafted by the DLR Project Management Agency (DLR-PT) is based on a mixed-methods design combining desk research, an online survey, and qualitative interviews. It identifies 181 organisations involved in R&I foresight and analyses a portfolio of 69 recent projects submitted by 51 organisations from 21 European Research Area (ERA) countries. Taken together, these cases show how foresight is applied at the intersection of science, innovation and policy. This includes agenda-setting at national and regional levels, addressing mission-oriented challenges such as climate change and health, and anticipating the impact of digitalisation and emerging technologies. This demonstrates that foresight is already being applied in situations involving both high levels of uncertainty and significant political implications.

A central finding concerns a governance gap in the way foresight is used. In some contexts, foresight is supported by institutional routines and longstanding project experiences. In others, however, it remains disconnected from budget cycles, regulatory windows, and key decision points. This results in ad hoc exercises, which lower their impact. foresight generates policy value when it is embedded in governance cycles where decisions are taken and backed by clear administrative or political mandates. When senior decision-makers are engaged from the outset and remain committed, foresight can inform strategies, influence funding priorities and contribute to formal policy instruments. However, when it is poorly timed or treated as a standalone initiative (as it is in the case of some of the 69 cases), it tends to remain advisory rather than impactful. 

Process and participation matter

This is also why the study considers the foresight process itself to be significant. Across the 69 cases, co-creation and participatory engagement generated long-lasting benefits, such as trust-building and enhanced futures literacy, which often outlast the written output such as yet another foresight report. These learning effects strengthen anticipatory capacity by shaping how institutions interpret signals, assess risk and negotiate trade-offs in uncertain conditions. Furthermore, the report indicates that the participation of decision makers is associated with higher uptake than expert-only approaches.

The report also identifies structural weaknesses that limit the political legitimacy of foresight, and consequently its strategic impact. Participation patterns remain strongly centred on experts and the political administration: scientists and experts, as well as public bodies, are involved in the vast majority of projects (93% and 90%, respectively), while citizens and business representatives are integrated less systematically (30% and 40%, respectively). This choice of participants influences which futures are considered plausible and which risks are prioritised. For mission-oriented and transformative R&I agendas, where implementation depends on social acceptance and behavioural change, broader participation is not simply a box-ticking exercise but appears to be an important condition for the development of robust policies that are socially acceptable.
Methodologically, the report highlights a continued focus on exploratory tools. Scenarios, trend analysis and horizon scanning dominate (64%, 52% and 48% respectively), while methods that connect more directly to implementation and robustness, such as policy stress-testing (7%), backcasting (20%) and futures literacy formats (10%), remain underused. This has both technical and political implications. While the prevailing method mix supports exploration, it often fails to translate long-term insight into robust decision-making under short-term political incentives, budget constraints and organisational routines. In this context, broadening the methodological repertoire is about strengthening the capacity of institutions to connect long-term perspectives to actionable pathways that can withstand electoral, administrative, and fiscal pressures. 

When it comes to communicating results, the study highlights a tendency to rely too heavily on written outputs, which can restrict visibility and sustained engagement. In contrast, more immersive, visual or experiential formats can extend interaction beyond the immediate project cycle. This determines whether foresight is perceived as just another report in the bookshelf or as an active reference point in debates on public policy. 

Capacity was identified as the overarching constraint in the assessed cases. Almost all respondents (96%) identified capacity-building needs relating to methods, facilitation, data analysis, communication, policy translation and staffing. When foresight is added to existing roles as an additional task, continuity and quality tend to deteriorate and institutionalisation stalls. Therefore, the synthesis treats capacity building as a prerequisite for transitioning from project-based experimentation to routine governance functions embedded in organisational practice and decision-making cycles.

Looking ahead, the report identifies emerging practices of political significance. AI-supported horizon scanning and data-driven anticipation offer greater speed and scope, while experiential and speculative formats increase engagement and deliberation. At the same time, the report emphasises the need for critical reflection on transparency and bias. It highlights a growing focus on representation (including future generations and nature), debiasing techniques, and human-centred, sustainability-oriented futures. These developments signal a shift away from technology- or growth-centred narratives, towards approaches that more explicitly address values, legitimacy and intergenerational justice as these issues are gaining importance in European debates on the direction of R&I policy.

The findings raise a broader question for the European foresight community: what would it take for foresight to move from project-based experimentation to a routine governance capability across Europe? Addressing this question requires attention not only to methods, but to mandates, institutional design, participation and capacity. How these elements are strengthened will shape the role foresight can play in guiding Europe’s R&I policy in the years ahead. 

For more information, please contact the author, Simon Winter, at Simon.Winter@dlr.de.