Skip to main content

Quandaries of Responsible Innovation: The Case of Alzheimer’s Disease

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Responsible Innovation 1

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

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. 2007. Converging technologies: Visions, increased contingencies of the conditio humana, and search for orientation. Futures 39(4): 380–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. 2010. From speculative nanoethics to explorative philosophy of nanotechnology. NanoEthics 4(2): 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D.H., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24(1–2): 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutman, A., and D. Thompson. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Deborah G. 2007. Ethics and technology ‘in the making’: An essay on the challenge of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1(1): 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A., I. Moser, and J. Pols. 2010. Care in practice, on tinkering in clinics, homes and farms. Bielefelt: Transcript Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T. 1989. The view from nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek. 2008a. Maatschappelijk verantwoord innoveren, ethische en maatschappelijke verkenning van wetenschap en technologie, MVI programma notitie april 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek. 2008b. Maatschappelijk verantwoord innoveren, ethische verkenning van wetenschap en technologie, beschrijving themaprogramma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann, A. 2007. If and then: A critique of speculative nanoethics. NanoEthics 1(1): 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann, A., and A. Rip. 2009. Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology 4(5): 273–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oudshoorn, N., and T. Pinch. 2003. How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Buchem, M.A., B.N.A. van Berckel, et al. 2007. Project description Leiden Alzheimer Research Netherlands. Eindhoven: CTMM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lente, H. 1993. Promising technology, the dynamics of expectations in technological development. Ph.D., University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lente, H., and S. Bakker. 2010. Competing expectations: The case of hydrogen storage technologies. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 22(6): 693–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E. 1976. The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy 5(3): 212–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yvonne M. Cuijpers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics