Abstract
To develop responsible innovations, the potential impacts on society, both positive and negative, should be identified and incorporated into research, development and design of new technologies. In this research, neuroimaging applications in health care are subject to a constructive technology assessment (CTA) process which is combined with vision assessment that acknowledges the mechanisms and dynamics surrounding innovations. The ‘guiding visions’ of scientists and technology developers which are currently shaping the future of neuroimaging are presented. Results show that these experts expect that future advances in neuroimaging technologies will make it possible to obtain more insight into both the healthy brain and brain disorders. They consider that these advances will lead to improved prevention, diagnosis and treatment options. The barriers that need to be overcome to realize these guiding visions are identified. In addition, findings show which aspects need further exploration and follow-up activities in order to ensure that medical neuroimaging develops in a more responsible direction.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
i.e. the failure to anticipate on controversies surrounding genetically modified crops led to the failure of some industrial innovations (Chilvers and Macnaghten 2011).
- 2.
For example biofuels did not live up (to now) to their ‘promise’ of a clean, sustainable and environmentally friendly way to produce fuel that would enable energy independence and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, it is questioned whether the possible benefits outweigh the possible damage (for example, using up food resources) the production of biofuels may cause (e.g. Kleiner 2008; Laney 2006).
- 3.
This research project is funded by the thematic programme Responsible Innovation. Ethical and societal exploration of science and technology (MVI) of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).
References
Akrich, M. 1992. The description of technical objects. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. W.L. Bijker. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Arentshorst, M. E., T. de Cock Buning and J.E.W. Broerse. Forthcoming a. Exploring responsible neuroimaging innovation: vision from a societal actor perspective.
Arentshorst, M. E., T. de Cock Buning, and J.E.W. Broerse. Forthcoming b. Exploring responsible innovation: Dutch public perceptions of the future of medical neuroimaging technology.
Broerse, J.E.W., and J.F. Bunders. 2000. Requirements for biotechnology development: The necessity for an interactive an participatory innovation process. International Journal for Biotechnology 2(4): 275–296.
Broerse, J.E.W., T. de Cock Buning, A. Roelofsen, and J.F. Bunders. 2009. Evaluating interactive policy-making on biotechnology: The case of the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 29(6): 447–463.
Brown, N., and M. Michael. 2003. A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 15(1): 3–18.
Brown, N., A. Rip, and H. Van Lente. 2003. Expectations in & about science and technology. A background paper for the ‘expectations’ workshop of 13–14 June 2003. http://www.york.ac.uk/satsu/expectations/Utrecht%202003/Background%20paper%20version%2014May03.pdf . Accessed September 2012.
Chilvers, J., and P. Macnaghten. 2011. The future of science governance: A review of public concerns, governance and institutional response. BIS/Sciencewise-ERC.
Collingridge, D. 1981. The social control of technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Dickstein, S.G., K. Bannon, F.X. Castekkanos, and M.P. Milham. 2006. The neural correlates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: An ALE meta-analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47(10): 1051–1062.
Fisher, E., C. Mitcham, and R. Mahajan. 2006. Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26: 485–496.
Fuchs, T. 2006. Ethical issues in neuroscience. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 19: 600–607.
Geels, F.W. 2010. Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy 39(4): 495–510.
Geels, F., and R. Kemp. 2000. Transities vanuit socio-technisch perspectief. Enschede/Maastricht: CSTM/MERIT.
Geels, F.W., and J. Schot. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36(3): 339–417.
Glahn, D. 2008. Psychiatric neuroimaging: Joining forces with epidemiology. European Psychiatry 23(4): 315–319.
Glannon, W. 2006. Neuroethics. Bioethics 20(1): 37–52.
Grin, J., and A. Grunwald. 2000. Vision assessment: Shaping technology in 21st century society; towards a repertoire for technology assessment. Berlin: Springer.
Grunwald, A. 2004. Vision assessment as a new element of the FTA toolbox. In EU-US seminar: 885 New technology foresight, forecasting & assessment methods, 53–67. Seville, 13–14 May 2004. http://foresight.jrc.ec.europa.eu/fta/papers/Session%204%20What%27s%20the%20Use/Vision%20Assessment%20as%20a%20new%20element%20of%20the%20FTA%20toolbox.pdf
Hagendijk, R., and A. Irwin. 2006. Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44: 167–184.
Illes, J., and E. Racine. 2005. Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics. American Journal of Bioethics 5(2): 5–18.
Kingdon, J. 1995. Agendas, alternatives and public policies (1st ed. 1984). New York: Harper Collins.
Kleiner, K. 2008. The backlash against biofuels. Nature Report Climate Change 2: 9–11.
Kloet, R.R., L. Hessels, M.B.M. Zweekhorst, J.E.W. Broerse, and T. de Cock Buning. 2013. Understanding constraints in the dynamics of a research program intended as niche innovation. Science and Public Policy 40(2): 206–218.
Laney, K. 2006. Biofuels: Promises and constraints. International Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council. IPC Discussion Paper.
Malhi, G.S., and J. Lagopoulos. 2007. Making sense of neuroimaging in psychiatry. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 117(2): 100–117.
Mambrey, P., and A. Tepper. 2000. Technology assessment as metaphor assessment. Visions guiding the development of information and communication technologies. In Vision assessment: Shaping technology in 21st century society; towards a reportoire for technology assessment, ed. J. Grin and A. Grunwald, 33–51. Berlin: Springer.
McGuire, P., O.D. Howes, J. Stone, and P. Fusar-Poli. 2008. Functional neuroimaging in schizophrenia: Diagnosis and drug discovery. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 29(2): 91–98.
Mokyr, J. 1990. The lever of riches: Technological creativity and economic progress. New York: Oxford University Press.
Moreira, T., and P. Palladino. 2005. Between truth and hope: On Parkinson’s disease, neurotransplantation and the production of the ‘self’. History of the Human Sciences 18(3): 55–82.
Petrella, J.R., R.E. Coleman, and P.M. Doraiswamy. 2003. Neuroimaging and early diagnosis of Alzheimer disease: A look to the future. Radiology 226(2): 315–336.
Pickersgill, M. 2011. ‘Promising’ therapies: Neuroscience, clinical practice, and the treatment of psychopathy. Sociology of Health & Illness 33(3): 448–464.
Rip, A., T. Misa, and J. Schot. 1995. Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter.
Roelofsen, A. 2011. Exploring the future of ecogenomics: Constructive technology assessment and emerging technologies. Ridderkerk: Ridderprint.
Roelofsen, A., J.E.W. Broerse, T. de Cock Buning, and J.F.G. Bunders. 2008. Exploring the future of ecological genomics: Integrating CTA with vision assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75: 334–355.
Roelofsen, A., R.R. Kloet, J.E.W. Broerse, and T. de Cock Buning. 2010. Guiding visions in ecological genomics: A first step to exploring the future. New Genetics and Society 29(1): 19–36.
Rosas, H.D., A.S. Feigin, and S.M. Hersch. 2004. Using advances in neuroimaging to detect, understand, and monitor progression in Huntington’s disease. The Journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics 1(2): 263–272.
Swierstra, T., and A. Rip. 2007. Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nanoethics 1: 3–20.
Willmann, J.K., N. van Bruggen, L.M. Dinkelborg, and S.S. Gambhir. 2008. Molecular imaging in drug development. Nature Reviews – Drug Discovery 7: 591–607.
Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis. 2004. See-through science, why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
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
Arentshorst, M.E., Broerse, J.E.W., Roelofsen, A., de Cock Buning, T. (2014). Towards Responsible Neuroimaging Applications in Health Care: Guiding Visions of Scientists and Technology Developers. 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_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8956-1_14
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)