No abstract

Besides offering opportunities in both clinical and non-clinical domains, the application of novel neuroimaging technologies raises pressing dilemmas. ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’ (RRI) aims to stimulate research and innovation activities that take ethical and social considerations into account from the outset. We previously identified that Dutch neuroscientists interpret “responsible innovation” as educating the public on neuroimaging technologies via the popular press. Their aim is to mitigate (neuro)hype, an aim shared with the wider emerging RRI community. Here, we present results of a media-analysis undertaken to establish whether the body of articles in the Dutch popular press presents balanced conversations on neuroimaging research to the public. We found that reporting was mostly positive and framed in terms of (healthcare) progress. There was rarely a balance between technology opportunities and limitations, and even fewer articles addressed societal or ethical aspects of neuroimaging research. Furthermore, neuroimaging metaphors seem to favour oversimplification. Current reporting is therefore more likely to enable hype than to mitigate it. How can neuroscientists, given their self-ascribed social responsibility, address this conundrum? We make a case for a collective and shared responsibility among neuroscientists, journalists and other stakeholders, including funders, committed to responsible reporting on neuroimaging research.

An increasing number of healthy adolescents are consuming products that can enhance their cognitive performance in educational settings. Currently, the use of pharmaceuticals is the most widely discussed enhancement method in the literature, but new evidence suggests that other methods based on Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) also have potential as cognitive enhancer. Just like pharmaceutical enhancers, the availability and education-related use of tES-devices raise a broad range of ethical, legal, and societal issues that need to be addressed by policy-makers. Few studies, however, have specifically explored these issues in relation to child wellbeing. In this narrative review with systematic search, we describe the issues for child wellbeing that could arise from the availability and education-related use of tES-based enhancers by healthy minors. We demonstrate that the issues form a complex web of uncertainties and concerns, which are mainly incited by two factors. First is the high level of factual uncertainty due to gaps in empirical evidence about the exact working mechanisms and efficacy of tES. Moreover, a lack of insight into the technique’s (long-term) effects on healthy developing brains, and uncertainties about potential cognitive trade-offs have fueled concerns about the technique’s safety and impact. The second factor that contributes to the complexity of issues is the presence of moral diversity in our society. Different opinions exist on whether a certain enhancement effect would be desirable and whether potential risks would be acceptable. These opinions depend on one’s moral perspective, and the way one interprets and weights values such as the child’s autonomy and authenticity. The challenge for proper governance resides in the design of an appropriate framework that is capable of balancing the different moral perspectives in society, while recognizing the uncertainties that still exist. We therefore argue for a responsible innovation approach, which encourages an adaptive attitude toward emerging knowledge and dynamic societal values, to deal with the identified issues regarding tES-based enhancement appropriately.

In this chapter, we challenge the presupposed concept of innovation in the responsible innovation literature. As a first step, we raise several questions with regard to the possibility of 'responsible' innovation and point at several difficulties which undermine the supposedly responsible character of innovation processes, based on an analysis of the input, throughput and output of innovation processes. It becomes clear that the practical applicability of the concept of responsible innovation is highly problematic and that a more thorough inquiry of the concept is required. As a second step, we analyze the concept of innovation which is self-evidently presupposed in current literature on responsible innovation. It becomes clear that innovation is self-evidently seen as (1) technological innovation, (2) is primarily perceived from an economic perspective, (3) is inherently good and (4) presupposes a symmetry between moral agents and moral addressees. By challenging this narrow and uncritical concept of innovation, we contribute to a second round of theorizing about the concept and provide a research agenda for future research in order to enhance a less naïve concept of responsible innovation.

Background Diabetes is a major global epidemic and serious public health problem. Diabetes self-management is a 24/7 challenge for people with type 1 diabetes that influences their quality of life (QoL). Certain apps can support the self-management of people with diabetes; however, current apps do not meet the needs of people with diabetes appropriately, and their safety is not ensured. Moreover, there are a multitude of hardware and software problems associated with diabetes apps and regulations. Clear guidelines are required to regulate medical care via apps. In Germany, apps must undergo 2 examination processes to be listed in the Digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen directory. However, neither examination process considers whether the medical use of the apps is sufficient for users’ self-management. Objective This study aims to contribute to the technology development process of diabetes apps by exploring individual perspectives on desired features and content of diabetes apps among people with diabetes. The vision assessment conducted is a first step toward creating a shared vision among all relevant stakeholders. To ensure adequate research and development processes for diabetes apps in the future, guiding visions from all relevant stakeholders are required. Methods In a qualitative study, 24 semistructured interviews with patients with type 1 diabetes were conducted, among whom 10 (42%) were currently using an app. To clarify the perceptions of people with diabetes regarding the functions and content of diabetes apps, a vision assessment was conducted. Results People with diabetes have concrete ideas of features and content in apps to improve their QoL and allow them to live as comfortably as possible, such as informative predictions through artificial intelligence, improvements in signal loss and value delay through smartwatches, improved communication and information-sharing capabilities, reliable information sources, and user-friendly and discreet messaging options through smartwatches. In addition, according to people with diabetes, future apps should show improved sensors and app connectivity to avoid incorrect values being displayed. They also wish for an explicit indication that displayed values are delayed. In addition, personalized information was found to be lacking in apps. Conclusions People with type 1 diabetes want future apps to improve their self-management and QoL and reduce stigma. Desired key features include personalized artificial intelligence predictions of blood glucose levels, improved communication and information sharing through chat and forum options, comprehensive information resources, and smartwatch alerts. A vision assessment is the first step in creating a shared vision among stakeholders to responsibly guide the development of diabetes apps. Relevant stakeholders include patient organizations, health care professionals, insurers, policy makers, device manufacturers, app developers, researchers, medical ethicists, and data security experts. After the research and development process, new apps must be launched while considering regulations regarding data security, liability, and reimbursement.