No abstract

BACKGROUND: Science, technology and innovation (STI) governance concerns itself with the societal impact of STI. Occupation, whether used with the meaning of paid, unpaid work or any activity that is considered meaningful to the individual on an everyday basis is one area of societal impact of STI. Fields such as occupational therapy, occupational science and occupational health and safety concern themselves with the relationship between occupation and the health and well-being of human beings albeit all with different foci. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the knowledge of student from two Occupational Therapy programs on STI governance, specific STI products and their views on the impact of STI governance and STI products on occupational therapy and its clients. METHODS: Online survey employing Yes/No' questions with comment boxes and openended textbox questions. Descriptive quantitative and thematic qualitative data was generated RESULTS: Students were unfamiliar with STI governance discourses but felt that they should be aware of them. Students stated that how one governs STI impacts occupational therapy on all levels and that the occupational therapy community has expertise that would enrich STI governance discourses around occupation. CONCLUSION: Education actions seem to be warranted on the level of students and practitioners by the occupational therapy and STI governance communities.

BACKGROUND: The early involvement of many actors including health professionals is identified in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions as crucial in constructing conversations around awareness, reaction, and knowledge development pertaining to the ethical, legal, and societal consequences of neuroscientific or neurotechnological advancements (NA). Occupational Therapists (OTs) have a stake in NA; however, OTs are rarely mentioned within this context. Lifelong learning (LL) could be used to increase OTs knowledge on NA and its consequences. However, LL is rarely mentioned within neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions. OBJECTIVE: The study’s purpose is to understand the role of OTs as professionals and citizens in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions and to examine the utility of LL processes put in place for OTs to empower OTs to contribute in a meaningful way to NA discussions. METHODS: 8 semi-structured interviews with OTs were conducted and analyzed using a directed content analysis. RESULTS: Although participants believed OTs can provide a holistic perspective to neurogovernance discussions, their knowledge on NA and its consequences is limited, and LL is not used as a tool to remain informed about such consequences. CONCLUSION: More education on NA and its consequences throughout their OT degree and through LL opportunities is warranted to facilitate their involvement.