Exploring responsible innovation: Dutch public perceptions of the future of medical neuroimaging technology

Marlous E. Arentshorst, Tjard de Cock Buning and Jacqueline E.W. Broerse

Technology in Society, 2016, vol. 45, issue C, 8-18

Abstract: Insight into public perceptions provides opportunities to take public desires and concerns into account in an early phase of innovation development in order to maximise the potential benefits for users of the future. Public perceptions of neuroimaging in health care are presented in this article, based on research undertaken in the Netherlands. In six focus groups, 46 citizens articulated benefits, disadvantages and specific concerns regarding future medical neuroimaging applications. Six technological frames of neuroimaging and three frames of the socio-technical system surrounding neuroimaging were found to underlie the arguments used to articulate the degree of desirability of future applications. Depending on the context, individuals use different frames and related lines of arguments. New and improved options for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of brain disorders are considered conditionally desirable by almost all citizens consulted. The desirability of neuroimaging applications becomes controversial when specific applications embody conflicting values and desires. Depending on the weight given to these different values and desires, the application is perceived as desirable or undesirable. It appears that concerns regarding the endorsed values of certainty and naturalness are preferred to desired states as control over life and risk avoidance. As a consequence, enhancement options and options to determine a predisposition and to diagnose mental disorders might be considered controversial. The identified different perspectives and concerns are a suitable starting point for processes aiming at the identification of more responsible future directions and related applications of medical neuroimaging.

Keywords: Public perceptions; Neuroimaging; Frames; Lines of arguments; Focus groups; Responsible research and innovation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X1600004X
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:teinso:v:45:y:2016:i:c:p:8-18

DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.01.003

Access Statistics for this article

Technology in Society is currently edited by Charla Griffy-Brown

More articles in Technology in Society from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().