Abstract
The interest in responsible innovation has led to various activities to include social, economic and moral concerns in the process of innovation. This ambition, however, brings along several fundamental questions. We encountered these in a project on responsible innovation in the case of new molecular early diagnostics for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Currently, a number of novel technologies are being developed for in vivo early diagnosis of AD, by identifying and testing new molecular biomarkers. In our project, we study scientific and clinical uncertainties in technology development, analyze the social and cultural as well as the moral implications of existing and alternative ways to deal with them. In this chapter we summarize the fundamental questions about responsible innovation in terms of six ‘quandaries’: problematic, difficult and ambiguous conditions that somehow require fundamental and practical decisions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alzheimer’s Association. New diagnostic criteria and guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. http://www.alz.org/research/diagnostic_criteria/. Accessed 11 July 2011.
Center for Translational Molecular Medicine. 2006. Business plan. http://www.ctmm.nl/pro1/general/start.asp?i=2&j=0&k=0&p=0&itemid=52&folder=About%20CTMM&title=Business%20Plan. Accessed 11 July 2011.
Clifford, R.J. Jr., M.S. Albert, D.S. Knopman, F.M. McKahnn, R.A. Sperling, M.C. Carillo, B. Thies, and C.H. Phelps. 2011. Introduction to the recommendations from the national institute on aging and the Alzheimer’s Association Workgroup on Diagnostic Guidelines for Alzheimer’s Disease. Alzheimer’s & Dementia (16 April 2011): 1–6.
Cuijpers, Y., and H. van Lente. (forthcoming) Early diagnostics and Alzheimer’s disease: Beyond ‘cure’ and ‘care’. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.03.006.
Dubois, Bruno, Howard H. Feldman, Jacova Claudia, Steven T. DeKosky, Barberger-Gateau Pascale, Cummings Jeffrey, Delacourte André, et al. 2007. Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: Revising the NINCDS–ADRDA criteria. The Lancet Neurology 6(8): 734–746.
Fisher, E., and R.L. Mahajan. 2006. Midstream modulation of nanotechnology research in an academic laboratory. In Proceedings of ICEME2006 ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition. http://csid.unt.edu/files/Fisher_MM_IMECE-06%20_.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2011.
George, D., and Peter J. Whitehouse. 2009. The classification of Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment: Enriching therapeutic models through moral imagination. In Treating dementia, do we have a pill for it? ed. Jesse F. Ballenger, Peter J. Whitehouse, Constantine G. Lyketsos, Peter V. Rabins, and Jason H.T. Karlawish, 5–25. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Gertz, H.-J, and A. Kurz. 2011. Diagnosis without therapy – Early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease in the stage of mild cognitive impairment. Nervenarzt 82(9): 1151–1159.
Grunwald, Armin. 2004. Paper 5: Vision assessment as a new element of the FTA toolbox. Paper presented at EU-US seminar: New technology foresight, forecasting & assessment methods, Seville, http://forera.jrc.ec.europa.eu/fta/papers/Session%204%20What\T1\textquoterights%20the%20Use/Vsion%20Assessment%20as%20a%20new%20element%20of%20the%20FTA%20toolbox.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2011.
Grunwald, A. 2007. Converging technologies: Visions, increased contingencies of the conditio humana, and search for orientation. Futures 39(4): 380–392.
Grunwald, A. 2010. From speculative nanoethics to explorative philosophy of nanotechnology. NanoEthics 4(2): 91–101.
Guston, D.H., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24(1–2): 93–109.
Gutman, A., and D. Thompson. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Henwood, F., S. Wyatt, A. Hart, and J. Smith. 2003. ‘Ignorance is bliss sometimes’: Constraints on the emergence of the ‘informed patient’ in the changing landscapes of health information. Sociology of Health and Illness 25(6): 589–607.
Johnson, Deborah G. 2007. Ethics and technology ‘in the making’: An essay on the challenge of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1(1): 21–30.
Katz, J., M. Aakhus, H.D. Kim, and M. Turner. 2002. Young user’s attitudes toward ICTS: A comparative semantic differential study of the mobile telephone. Annales Des Telecommunications/Annals of Telecommunications 57(3–4): 225–237.
LeARN. Public summary, in vivo molecular diagnostics in Alzheimer’s disease. http://www.ctmm.nl/pro1/general/start.asp?i=0&j=0&k=0&p=0&itemid=78. Accessed 4 Aug 2010.
Lucivero, F., T. Swierstra, and M. Boenink. 2011. Assessing expectations: Towards a toolbox for an ethics of emerging technologies. NanoEthics 5: 129–141.
Lüthje, C., C. Herstatt, and E. Von Hippel. 2005. User-innovators and “local” information: The case of mountain biking. Research Policy 34(6): 951–965.
Mattson, N., D. Brax, and H. Zetterberg. 2010. To know or not to know: Ethical issues related to early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. International Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 2010: 1–4.
Mol, A., I. Moser, and J. Pols. 2010. Care in practice, on tinkering in clinics, homes and farms. Bielefelt: Transcript Verlag.
Nagel, T. 1989. The view from nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek. 2008a. Maatschappelijk verantwoord innoveren, ethische en maatschappelijke verkenning van wetenschap en technologie, MVI programma notitie april 2008.
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek. 2008b. Maatschappelijk verantwoord innoveren, ethische verkenning van wetenschap en technologie, beschrijving themaprogramma.
Nordmann, A. 2007. If and then: A critique of speculative nanoethics. NanoEthics 1(1): 31–46.
Nordmann, A., and A. Rip. 2009. Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology 4(5): 273–274.
Oudshoorn, N., and T. Pinch. 2003. How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Smits, R.E.H.M., and W.P.C. Boon. 2008. The role of users in innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Drug Discovery Today 13(7–8): 353–359.
van Buchem, M.A., B.N.A. van Berckel, et al. 2007. Project description Leiden Alzheimer Research Netherlands. Eindhoven: CTMM.
Van Lente, H. 1993. Promising technology, the dynamics of expectations in technological development. Ph.D., University of Twente.
Van Lente, H., and S. Bakker. 2010. Competing expectations: The case of hydrogen storage technologies. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 22(6): 693–709.
Von Hippel, E. 1976. The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy 5(3): 212–239.
Von Schomberg, Rene. 2011. Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methode, ed. M. Dusseldorp and R. Beecroft, 39–61. Wiesbaden: Vs Verlag.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cuijpers, Y.M., van Lente, H., Boenink, M., Moors, E.H.M. (2014). Quandaries of Responsible Innovation: The Case of Alzheimer’s Disease. In: van den Hoven, J., Doorn, N., Swierstra, T., Koops, BJ., Romijn, H. (eds) Responsible Innovation 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8956-1_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8956-1_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-8955-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-8956-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)