ArticleNanoethics2011
Assessing Expectations: Towards a Toolbox for an Ethics of Emerging Technologies.
Article in Nanoethics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methods for Practising Ethics in Research and Innovation: A Literature Review, Critical Analysis and Recommendations.Science and engineering ethics · 2018Pooled it
- Ethical challenges in biomarker research and precision medicine - a qualitative study in dermatology.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Ethics Readiness of Technology: The Case for Aligning Ethical Approaches with Technological Maturity.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- Ethical Design of Data-Driven Decision Support Tools for Improving Cancer Care: Embedded Ethics Review of the 4D PICTURE Project.JMIR cancer · 2025Review
- Embedded Ethics in Practice: A Toolbox for Integrating the Analysis of Ethical and Social Issues into Healthcare AI Research.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- Ethics and responsibility in biohybrid robotics research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- The use of digital twins in healthcare: socio-ethical benefits and socio-ethical risks.Life sciences, society and policy · 2021Article
- Making the invisible visible NormativitiesTATuP - Zeitschrift fur Technikfolgenabschatzung in Theorie und Praxis = Journal for technology assessment in theory and practice · 2019Article
- Constructing future scenarios as a tool to foster responsible research and innovation among future synthetic biologists.Life sciences, society and policy · 2018Article
- Giving Voice to Patients: Developing a Discussion Method to Involve Patients in Translational Research.Nanoethics · 2018Article
- Transcranial Electrical Stimulation to Enhance Cognitive Performance of Healthy Minors: A Complex Governance Challenge.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2017Review
- Artificial gametes: perspectives of geneticists, ethicists and representatives of potential users.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2014Article
- Midstream modulation in biotechnology industry: redefining what is 'part of the job' of researchers in industry.Science and engineering ethics · 2013Article
- The why and how of enabling the integration of social and ethical aspects in research and development.Science and engineering ethics · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, several authors have argued that the desirability of novel technologies should be assessed early, when they are still emerging. Such an ethical assessment of emerging technologies is by definition focused on an elusive object. Usually promises, expectations, and visions of the technology are taken as a starting point. As Nordmann and Rip have pointed out in a recent article, however, ethicists should not take for granted the plausibility of such expectations and visions. In this paper, we explore how the quality of expectations on emerging technologies might be assessed when engaging in a reflection on the desirability of emerging technologies. We propose that an assessment of expectations' plausibility should focus on statements on technological feasibility, societal usability, and desirability of the expected technology. Whereas the feasibility statement and, to a lesser extent, the usability statements are frequently quite futuristic, the claims on desirability, by contrast, often display a conservative stance towards the future. Assessing the quality of expectations and visions on behalf of emerging technologies requires, then, a careful and well-directed use of both skepticism and imagination. We conclude with a brief overview of the tools and methods ethicists could use to assess claims made on behalf of emerging technologies and improve the ethical reflection on them.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.