public opinion on future innovations, science and...

Eurobarometer Qualitative Study

PUBLIC OPINION ON FUTURE

INNOVATIONS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

National Report

June 2015

The Netherlands

This study has been requested by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and

Innovation and co-ordinated by Directorate-General for Communication.

Qualitative study – TNS Qual+

Project title

Eurobarometer Qualitative study - “Public opinion on future innovations, science and technology” - National Report The Netherlands

Linguistic Version EN

Catalogue Number KI-02-15-344-EN-N

ISBN 978-92-79-48066-9

DOI 10.2777/259058

© European Union, 2015

Eurobarometer Qualitative study

Public opinion on future innovations,

science and technology: results of focus groups in selected Member States

National Report

The Netherlands

Conducted by TNS Qual+ at the request of the European Commission,

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

Survey co-ordinated by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication

(DG COMM “Strategy, Corporate Communication Actions and Eurobarometer” Unit)

NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................ 2

B. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY ...................................................... 6

Objectives ............................................................................................ 6

Methodology and sampling ..................................................................... 6

Participant profile .................................................................................. 6

National context .................................................................................... 6

I. GENERAL PERCEPTIONS ABOUT SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL

INNOVATIONS .................................................................................... 8

1.1 General associations linked to the notion of scientific innovation .......... 8

1.2 The most important scientific and technological innovations observed

over recent years ..................................................................................... 9

II. SPONTANEOUS PROJECTIONS ON TOMORROWS SCIENTIFIC AND

TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS ...................................................... 11

2.1 The scientific innovations expected to be part of peoples’ daily life in

2030 and their possible impact ................................................................ 11

2.2 Expected innovations in selected areas ........................................... 12

III. REACTIONS TO FUTURE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL

INNOVATIONS IN SELECTED AREAS ................................................. 14

3.1 Homes and living ......................................................................... 14

3.2 Health and healthcare .................................................................. 19

3.3 Ubiquitous communication and interaction ...................................... 22

3.4 Environment ............................................................................... 26

IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 29

Qualitative Study European

Commission

Qualitative Study European Commission


2

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

General perceptions about scientific and technological innovations

General associations linked to the notion of scientific innovation: robots, medical

innovations, cars (self-driving, low-energy), mobile devices, gadgets/apps and

renewable energy. Positive connotations linked to the notion of scientific

innovation are speed, efficiency, reachability and convenience. Negative

connotations linked to the notion of scientific innovation are less communication

between people, loss of privacy, not being able to keep up with the changes, loss

of jobs, and laziness.

The most important scientific and technological innovations observed over recent

years are the Internet and consequently the digitalisation of society, mobile

phones, smartphones, and social media.

The positive impact of smartphones is that everything can be looked up and more

can be arranged than before. The negative impacts of smartphones are a loss of

jobs, overload of information, not everybody being able to keep up, and the

danger of the youth being influenced by extreme ideas.

The positive impacts of mobile phones/smartphones are reachability (which is

handy and safe) and the fact that it is easy and convenient (information is always

at hand).

The negative impacts of mobile phones/smartphones are also the reachability

(unsafe in traffic and one never has peace)

The positive impact of social media is that keeping up with social contacts is

easier.

The negative impacts of social media are that social contacts can become more

impersonal, a decreasing quality of real life contacts, the danger of sharing too

much information, and the danger of addiction to social media.

Spontaneous projections on tomorrows’ scientific and technological innovations Scientific innovations expected to be part of peoples’ daily life in 2013 and their

possible impacts are advanced medical science (equipment and medicines), a

cashless society, robots performing all kinds of tasks (household, taking care of

elderly and sick people, healthcare, catering, supermarkets), advanced

equipment in houses, and self-driving or flying cars. The positive impacts of the

above mentioned innovations (ideal scenario) are better healthcare, more

convenience and comfort, and fewer mistakes and accidents. The negative

impacts of these innovations that participants feared (the disaster scenario) are

less personal contact, too much dependency on technology, more control over

and less freedom for people, and possible abuse of information by governments

with ‘bad intentions’.

Expected innovations in the area of Homes and living are equipment operated

by voice, equipment operated from a distance (while away from home), advanced

equipment such as automatic vacuum cleaners and 3D printers. The positive

impacts are convenience, while the negative impacts are laziness, too little

physical exercise, and too much dependency on technology.


3

Expected innovations in the area of Health and Healthcare are more advanced

medical equipment and medicines and more consultation with doctors via the

Internet instead of a ‘live visit’. The positive impacts are fewer serious

(consequences of) diseases. The negative impacts that were mentioned are less

quality in the contact with doctors and the risk of extending the life of sick people

too long.

In the area of Ubiquitous communication, participants thought that in 15 years

there will be even more gadgets than now, we will communicate using holograms

and there will be more registration and linking of personal data.

The positive impact of these innovations would be ease (for example less

paperwork) and the negative impact would be less privacy.

In the area of the Environment, participants expected that we will have more

renewable energy at our disposal, fewer emissions because all cars will be

electrical, recycling of all waste, only biodegradable materials, and more nature in

cities. The impact of these innovations was considered to be positive on the whole.

Reactions to future scientific and technological innovations in selected areas This section focuses on participants’ reactions to scenarios in four areas: Homes

and Living, Health and healthcare, Ubiquitous communication and interaction and

Environment.

Homes and living (assessment of the scenario and of its innovations) Participants stated that this scenario seems technically realistic and is partly

happening already. On one hand they were positive and thought that it is

convenient that a lot of things are done for you and that the equipment keeps an

overview of what has to be done and ordered. On the other hand they thought

that this scenario goes way too far. They had a lot of reservations in the area of

privacy, safety of data, and self-determination. They thought life would become

too predictable and thought this scenario could have negative effects on (healthy)

behaviour (lack of physical exercise) and the quality of social life (loneliness).

Participants thought that the robot in the form of a human was rather scary. Two

participants (in different groups) even had associations with the movie I Robot in

which robots try to take over humans and gain total power over them. Some

participants thought that perhaps the robot would be more acceptable if it was

smaller or not in the form of a robot.

Innovations liked most: Smart meters connected to smart power grids and

coated glass

Innovations received with mixed feelings: Smart fridge that warns you

when you run out of food and personalised assistance in executing

‘household cores’

Innovation not taken seriously: home delivery by drones

Innovations liked the least: personal assistant (planning, personal

messages, weather forecasts), robot keeping complete memory and all

data kept online


4

Health and healthcare (assessment of the scenario and of its innovations) Participants thought that this scenario was technically realistic. They stated that

parts of the scenario such as online consults with a physician, the national health

record, and stem cell therapy are already happening. Nevertheless the scenario

caused a lot of resistance which was not due to the separate innovations, but to

the idea that supermarkets would be giving uninvited health advice to customers.

Participants did not think of the supermarket as a reliable channel for medical

diagnosis. They stated that the supermarket mainly has a commercial interest

and less interest in the health of the customers. They also doubted the reliability

of the diagnosis in case one does shopping for the whole family. Participants

thought nobody should interfere in their health affairs without their permission.

Innovations liked most: the National Health Record, genetic tests, and

dietary advice (if not offered by supermarkets)

Not known very well: Stem cell therapy (but the participants that knew

the innovation appreciated it):

Innovation partly liked: online medical advice

Innovation that participants had different ideas about: the biochip

Ubiquitous communication and interaction (assessment of the scenario and of its innovations) Participants thought this scenario is technically realistic. They saw some elements

already happening in society; loyalty cards in shops and recognition based on iris

scan. Only this scenario is going further; technologies are more advanced. Some

participants thought this scenario leaves out developments that could make some

of the innovations mentioned in this scenario irrelevant. They referred to more

and more online shopping and self-driving cars. The prevention of crime, traffic

jams, tracing missing persons, and the possibility of crowd control are seen as

positive by participants and some innovations could make parts of life easier for

some of the participants (for example if you receive a reminder from a shop in

case you forget something). But most participants had major concerns about

privacy and being controlled. Also participants feared that with this scenario,

assessment of behaviour and needs is based on information on behaviour and

needs in the past and that there would not be room for spontaneous actions,

change, and creativity anymore.

Innovation that was most liked: virtual reality at work (virtual

meetings with colleagues).

Innovation that participants had different ideas about: data collection

about personal preferences used by companies (in all cases only after

explicit permission of the customer).

Innovations participants had mixed feelings and concerns about:

(facial) recognition technology, ubiquitous tracking of machines and

people with satellites, trackers and cameras, virtual reality at home,

and virtual reality in public places.

Innovation liked the least: virtual reality in education.

Environment (assessment of the scenario and of its innovations) Participants were very enthusiastic about this scenario in general. They thought

that protecting the environment is very necessary to keep the earth habitable and

they would like it to be happening already. They thought the sooner we start the

better. Despite the fact that parts of it are possible already (renewable energy,

recycling) they thought that implementing these technologies on a large scale in

2030 would be too ambitious. They thought that it will not be possible to adjust


5

all houses according to the scenario in the Netherlands within 15 years. They also

saw the changing of the agricultural practice in the way described in the scenario

as too ambitious. Furthermore participants had strong doubts about the political

feasibility of the scenario. They did not have confidence in politics to settle

environmental issues. They thought the process of decision making is far too slow

to make it happen in 15 years. Participants also felt that the process of

introduction will be slowed down by parties like the oil industry. The younger

group raised the point that this scenario is only useful if it is implemented globally

and they thought that would not be possible for developing countries. The

technology of fertilising the ocean was not understood. This technology raised a

lot of question marks. Participants got lost in the explanation. Also the

innovations concerning farming management practises were not understood very

well.

Innovations liked unanimously: renewable energy such as solar panels and

wind farms, building energy efficient homes and cities, recycling of

materials and natural resources, recycling of waste, and conversion of

waste into value added by-products.

Not understood very well: new farming management practices in

agriculture and carbon ocean fertilisation.

Innovation liked the least: Underground CO2 storage.


6

B. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

Objectives

The aim of this qualitative study was to get a better understanding of European

opinion on the subject of innovations brought about by science and technology in

society. More precisely, its main objective was to explore reactions to some

specific innovations that might be a part of everyday life for citizens in Europe in

15 years’ time in four different areas.

Four areas/scenarios were tested:

The house of the future (Homes and living),

Health and healthcare,

Communications (Ubiquitous communication and interaction),

The environment.

Methodology and sampling

Fieldwork consisted of a series of 6 focus groups, each approximately two hour

and a half in length, conducted in each of the following 16 Member States:

France, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Netherlands,

Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Finland, United Kingdom and the Czech

Republic.

Participant profile The table below presents the composition of groups:

Group Description

1 18-34 years old who finished their education between 17 and 22

2 20-34 years old who finished their education between 20 and 25

3 35-64 years old who finished their education before 18

4 35-64 years old who finished their education before 18

5 35-64 years old who finished their education after 18

6 35-64 years old who finished their education after 18

The detailed participant profiles and group composition, as well as detail on the

fieldwork dates are described in the technical report.

National context

Economic situation and employment

The news about the economic and employment situation continues to be

pessimistic. The general tone is a situation of stagnation.

The opinion on robots and employment could be influenced by the minister of

social affairs, Lodewijk Asscher. He stated publicly that we should be afraid that

robots will take over more and more paid jobs from Dutch people in the future,

because they are more efficient.


7

Internet and social media

Dutch people are very keen on their right to privacy. The news about accessing

private data by the NSA and FBI heated the discussion about the Internet and

privacy.

Dutch people are afraid of indoctrination of young people through social media;

the reason for this concern is also related to the news that some youngsters have

moved to Syria to join IS.

Environment

A Dutch student created a concept that could help to remove 7.250.000 tonnes of

plastics from the oceans worldwide. This student and a couple of engineers are

testing this concept now.


8

I. GENERAL PERCEPTIONS ABOUT SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS

This chapter focuses on the participants’ general view on scientific and

technological innovations in order to get an overall grasp of their opinion on this

subject. Firstly, what ideas, feelings and associations come to their mind

when thinking about these innovations? What positive and negative aspects

do they tend to associate with innovations brought about by science and

technology? Secondly, looking back on recent years, which innovations do

they think have had the most impact on society and why? What changes

did these scientific and technological innovations bring?

1.1 General associations linked to the notion of scientific innovation

When participants thought about scientific and technological innovations they

often referred to ranges of applications. Most mentioned associations were:

Robots

Medical innovations

Cars (self-driving, low-energy),

Renewable energy

Mobile devices

Gadgets/apps

House-construction

Food

Communication

shortage (of energy and natural resources)

Modernisation

Fast sequence of innovations

Positive connotations:

Efficiency

“More can be done at the same time” (NL, group 5)

Reachability

“You can immediately reach your friends, wherever they are.” (Netherlands,

group 1)

“The world is becoming smaller. It is easy to Skype with someone in Australia.”

(NL, group 6)

ease

“Everything is becoming easier, it takes less effort” (NL, group1)

Freedom

“Every innovation generates new possibilities to move more freely in a technical

and spiritual way.” (NL, group 5)

Environmentally friendly

“New technologies in the construction of buildings. Environmentally friendly

materials.”

Improved health quality

“Better medicines, better medical equipment.” (NL, group 3)

Transparency

“I can trace my friends easily.” (NL, group 1)

Chances


9

Negative connotations:

Speed

“Everything is moving so fast. That makes me tired!”(NL, group 6)

Less communication between people

“We don’t talk on the phone anymore, we only communicate through WhatsApp.”

(NL, group 1)

Loss of privacy, Big Brother

“They are keeping an eye on you and you’re not always aware of it.” (NL, group

6)

Not being able/feeling pressure to keep up with the changes

“Especially elder people are locked out. They cannot keep up with all technical

developments.”(NL, group 2)

Loss of jobs

“Trades will disappear, like carpenters and bakers.” (NL, group 1)

Laziness

“Nowadays you don’t have to do much anymore. That leads to laziness. (NL,

group 2)

Impersonal

“Less real contact between people.” (NL, group 5)

Less thinking of your own

“You have a gadget or app for everything. You don’t have to think anymore.” (NL,

group 5)

1.2 The most important scientific and technological innovations observed over recent years

The scientific and technological innovations that were unanimously considered to

have had most impact on society over the last 15 years were:

The Internet

Digitalisation of society

The mobile phone and the smartphone

Social media.

Also medical innovations, such as more possibilities to prevent and cure diseases

(especially cancer) and innovations such as the electrical car were mentioned. But

they were considered to have much less of an impact on society as a whole.

Internet

Positive impact:

Everything can be found and looked up

“Google!” (NL, group 1)

“Everything on one place, who could have thought of that before.” (NL, group 6)

Less paperwork

“Internet banking, digital tax declaration.” (NL, group 2)

Negative impact:

An overload of information

“All those energy providers, insurance companies etc. that are offering their

services. It’s too much.”(NL, group 5)

“If you don’t watch out you get lost.” (NL, group 4)

The danger for the youth of being influenced by extreme ideas

“Many people are getting strange ideas because strange ideas are shared through

the Internet, like Osama Bin Laden (NL, group 2)


10

Digitalisation of society

Positive impact:

Efficiency

“Systems are connected which saves double administration and double work.” (NL,

group 5).

Negative impact:

A loss of jobs

“We can do things more efficiently. We just need fewer people to do those jobs.”

(NL, group 2)

Not everybody can keep up

“When you’re elder you don’t understand it anymore, or when you cannot afford a

good computer every few years."(NL, group 2)

The mobile phone/smartphone

Positive impact:

Reachability: handy and safe

“When my children started having nights out I was glad we could keep in touch

through their mobile phone.” (NL, group 6)

Information is always at hand at all times: easy and convenient

“You don’t have to look up the way when you go somewhere; you just go and

your navigation will show you.” (NL, group 2)

Negative impact:

Reachability: unsafe in traffic

“Everybody is looking at their phone while cycling. They don’t watch the traffic

anymore.” (NL, group 6)

Reachability: one never has peace

“You’re expected to be available 24 hours a day.” (NL, group 4)

Social media

Positive impact:

Keeping up with social contacts is easier

“We keep in touch, share pictures, and announce parties.” (NL, group 2)

Negative impact:

Social contacts can become more impersonal.

“We used to send a written birthday card by post, but now it is only a WhatsApp

message.” (NL, group 2)

Decreasing quality of real life contacts

“If you visit people, they’re always glancing at their phones. It ruins a good

atmosphere. (NL, group 2)

The danger of sharing too much information

“People often do not know much about the privacy settings of Facebook or

Twitter.” (NL, group 5)

The danger of addiction to social media

“My friends are checking their phone for messages every few minutes.” NL, group

5)


11

II. SPONTANEOUS PROJECTIONS ON TOMORROWS SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS

This chapter focuses on participants’ spontaneous predictions about the scientific

and technological innovations that could be part of daily life in 2030, which

changes are seen as beneficial and those seen as more negative or undesirable.

Finally, it looks at the scientific innovations in four selected areas:

How living at home will be different in the future;

how people will take care of their health;

how people will interact with each other and with machines;

and how people will protect the environment in 2030.

2.1 The scientific innovations expected to be part of peoples’ daily life in 2030 and their possible impact

Most mentioned were the following innovations:

Advanced medical science (equipment and medicines),

A cashless society

Robots performing all kinds of tasks (household, taking care of elderly and

sick people, healthcare, catering, supermarkets),

Advanced equipment in houses.

Self-driving or flying cars

The positive impact the above mentioned innovations (ideal scenario):

Better healthcare

“Fewer serious diseases and a better chance to recover from serious diseases.”

(NL, group 1)

An easier life

“No vacuum cleaning anymore.” (NL, group 4)

Fewer mistakes and accidents

“Cars and trains have sensors and the car will automatically stop if necessary.”

(NL, group 4)

The negative impact of these innovations that participants feared (the disaster

scenario):

Less personal contact

“No service from real people anymore.” (NL, Group 3)

Too much dependency on technology

“Everybody is totally dependent on technology. What if we have a technical

breakdown or a cyberwar?” NL, group 1)

More control over and less freedom for people

“You have no insight into how things work, because everything is done

automatically” (NL, group 2)

“Institutions know everything about you. Everything is recorded; you do not have

control over it anymore.” (NL, group 2)

Danger of abuse of information by governments with ‘bad intentions’

“If you watch this movie about the GDR, It’s clear what the consequences could

be if you don’t agree with the government and they know everything about you.”

(NL, group 2)


12

2.2 Expected innovations in selected areas

Homes and living In 15 years’ time participants expect equipment in the house to be operated by

voice and from a distance, like turning of the heating (while you are not at home).

They also expect that there will be advanced equipment in the house such as

automatic vacuum cleaners and 3D printers (even for food).

The main positive impact of these innovations would be:

Convenience

“Everything is done for you.” (NL, group 1)

The main negative impacts would be:

Laziness and too little physical exercise

“They‘re will be less physical exercise and more overweight people.” (NL, group

3)

“And what are you going to do? Lie on the couch all day?” (NL, group 5)

Too much dependency on technology:

“People do not know how to clean their house anymore.” (NL, group 1)

Health and healthcare

Participants expected that in 2030 there will be more advanced medical

equipment and medicines. And consultation of doctors will happen more via the

Internet instead of a ‘live visit’.

The most mentioned positive impact of the above mentioned innovations was:

Fewer serious (consequences of) diseases

“They will know immediately when something is wrong. So they can save people.”

(NL, group 1)

The negative impacts that were mentioned are:

Less quality in the contact with doctors

“Some people just need a good conversation.” (NL, group 4)

“It can never replace contact with a doctor. Sometimes you need to check your

body.”

The risk of extending the life of sick people too long

“If you have a serious illness and there is a medicine that does not cure you, but

only extends your life, your suffering is also extended.” (NL, group 6)

Ubiquitous communication and interaction

Participants thought that in 15 years there will be even more gadgets than now.

We will communicate using holograms. And there will be more registration and

linking of personal data.

According to the participants the positive impact of these innovations would be:

Ease; less paperwork

“If you want to apply for an allowance they know everything about you already

and you do not have to send 83 copies.”(NL, group 1)

The negative impact would be:

Less privacy

“Institutions know everything about you. Everything is recorded and you do not

have a grip on it.” (NL, group 2)


13

Environment Participants expected that we will have more renewable energy at our disposal,

fewer emissions from cars because all cars will be electrical, recycling of all waste,

only biodegradable materials, and more nature in cities. The impact of these

innovations was considered to be positive on the whole. There would be less

pressure on the environment. No negative impacts were mentioned.


14

III. REACTIONS TO FUTURE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS IN SELECTED AREAS

The main objective of the study was to explore reactions to some specific

innovations that might be a part of everyday life for citizens in Europe in 15

years’ time in four different areas.

The house of the future (homes and living);

Health and healthcare;

Communications (ubiquitous communication and interaction);

The environment.

A scenario related to each theme and introducing possible innovations was

presented during the focus-groups.

This chapter focuses on participants’ reactions to the four scenarios.

3.1 Homes and living

General feelings The first reactions to this scenario were:

Seems to leave little room for variation

“Every day the same breakfast’: (NL, group1)

“Everything is over organised. No room for coincidence (NL. Group 3)

Could cause loneliness.

“You don’t talk to each other anymore (NL, group 5)

Parts of the scenario could be convenient

“Saves a lot of work.” (NL, group 1)

“You don’t have to think anymore.” (NL, group 1)

Great for working parents with small children.”(NL, group 3)

Scary.

“The robot is creepy.” (NL, group 1)

Assessment of the scenario

Technically realistic and parts of the scenario are happening already

In general participants were not surprised about this scenario. They stated that

this scenario seems technically realistic and is partly happening already. Some of

them already have a smart meter in their homes. Others had heard or read about

some innovations.

“People with solar panels on their roof have smart meters already.” (NL,

group 1)

“I saw a programme on TV: A screen on your kitchen unit that can be

operated through your voice. And things are automatically filled up by the

supermarket. “(NL, group 1)

“Drones? Amazon is using them already in America.” (NL. Group 5)


15

Parts of the scenario may be useful for some people.

Participants had mixed feelings about this scenario. On one hand they thought

that it is convenient that a lot of things are done for you and that the equipment

keeps an overview of what has to be done and ordered. Younger people and busy

parents particularly liked this. It was also seen as convenient for people who are

not able to perform household tasks (e.g. people with reduced mobility).

“You don’t have to think ahead anymore.” (NL, group 3)

“You will have time left for fun things.” (NL, group5)

“I do not like vacuum cleaning, this is nice!” (NL, group 1)

“Great for working parents with small children.” (NL, group 3)

But it goes too far…

On the other hand they thought that this scenario goes too far. They had a lot of

concerns in the area of privacy and self-determination and thought this scenario

could have negative effects on (healthy) behaviour (lack of physical exercise) and

the quality of a person’s social life (loneliness).

Online storing of all private data generated a lot of resistance

The fact that everything that happens in the house and all conversations with the

personal assistant are recorded and stored online generated the most resistance

among participants. Participants stated that the online storing of data of their

private life would be a violation of their privacy. The data stored is very private

and should be kept privately.

“This will not be accepted by the majority of people. Why should

everything be saved?” (NL, group 3)

“I do not think people will accept that everything is recorded and stored

online." (NL, group 1)

“So everything that happens in my life is in the cloud? That’s a violation

of my privacy.”(NL, group 5)

“Everything is known, my whole life. All details.” (NL, group 3)

“All my private information is collected. They’ll know everything about

me.” (NL, group 5)

“The information is probably treated confidentially, but you never

know.”(NL, group 5)

Participants also feared for the safety of this private information. They were afraid

of misuse or that the information would end up in wrong hands

“All information stored in one place. What if hackers break in?” (NL, group

3)

Scary: robot in the form of a human being

The robot in the form of a human being was not seen as very attractive.

Especially the younger group thought Pra was rather scary. They even had

associations with the movie I Robot in which robots try to take over humans and

gain total power over them.

“I would be scared to death if this Pra was standing next to my bed in the

morning.”(NL, group 1)

“You don’t wake up relaxed like that. A big 1.80 m tall robot. That’s too

big!”(NL, group 1)

Things done automatically: loss of self determination

Participants thought that the scenario does not leave enough space for self-

determination

“If you don’t have to think anymore. What is left of your life?” (NL, group

5)

“The robot should do things on request, not automatically.” (NL, group 1)

“I want to be able to program the equipment and change it whenever I

want.” (NL, group 5)

“I do not want the fridge to decide what I eat.”(NL, Group 1)


16

“I want this robot to ask me for permission before he does something.”

(NL, group 1)

Things done automatically: life becomes too predictable

Participants feared that with this scenario there would not be room for

spontaneous actions, change and creativity anymore.

“No surprises anymore, boring!”(NL, group 3)

“Maybe I decide not to eat eggs anymore, but the fridge has filled itself up

with eggs again.” (NL, group 3)

Too many things done for you: laziness and lack of physical exercise

“If you can get it yourself, why let somebody else, or something else do

it.”(NL, group 5)

“People will not move anymore. They will become lazy and fat.” (NL, group

3)

Less personal contact could cause loneliness

“People will be isolated if everything is delivered at home. No personal

contact anymore.” (NL, group 5)

“You only have to talk to your robot. What about personal contact? (NL,

group 1)

Assessment of the innovations contained in the scenario The innovations below are displayed in order of rating (starting with the

innovation participants liked most and ending with the innovation participants

liked least).

Innovations liked by most participants, especially in the older groups:

Smart meters connected to a smart power grid

Participants knew of smart meters already. Some of them mentioned that they

are already using them. They thought smart meters are useful: a very good way

to save energy and save money.

“Good for the environment.” (NL, group 3)

“Everything that saves energy is good.”(NL, group 5)

Coated glass that automatically darkens to block excess sunlight

Participants were rather positive about this innovation. They did not really know

of this innovation, but they thought of it as a good solution to keep the

temperature agreeable in winter and summer and at the same time save money.

“Always the right temperature in your house. I also like climate control in

my car.” (NL, group 3)

“Saves money and is environmentally friendly.” (NL, group 5)

The innovations that were received with mixed feelings:

Smart fridge that warns you when you run out of food

Some participants found this innovation very useful, this was especially true for

the younger participants and for participants with a very busy life, for example

working parents with young children; they felt it would be great never to be

without supplies.

“No more ‘Oops my milk is finished.’” (NL, group 1)

“When I’m too late to do shopping it’d be handy. My children have to eat.”

(NL, group 3)


17

Other participants had mixed feelings. On the one hand they thought a smart

fridge is handy for the above mentioned reasons, on the other hand they were

afraid that there would be no longer any room for change and creativity.

“I would only like it for the things you always need, like milk and water,

but please not always the same diner on the same weekday for example.”

(NL, group 3)

“That would be very monotonous. When something is finished you get the

same again. Every Monday the same breakfast, every Sunday the same

meat.” (NL, group 1)

Personalised assistance in executing 'household chores' (cleaning

of the house)

Participants liked the idea that some unpleasant jobs can be taken over by the

personal assistant. They also thought of it as useful for disabled people.

“Yes! No more vacuum cleaning anymore.” (NL, group 1)

“Good for disabled or elderly people.” (NL, group 3)

Some of the participants however have considerations with this innovation,

because they thought most people are very well able to perform these jobs by

themselves. They thought of it as somewhat decadent for healthy people.

“I‘d rather do these jobs by myself, if not I would feel superfluous.” (NL,

group 1)

“Some cleaning is good physical exercise. Not everything should be taken

over.” (NL, group 5)

Innovations liked by a minority or no participants:

Personal assistant (planning, personal messages, weather

forecast…)

As long as the personal assistant or robot is only executing household tasks it

was still acceptable for most of the participants. But an assistant that is

organising your life goes too far. Some of the participants feared that the robot

would gain power over them.

“It is scary that robots can be smarter than people. That they know more

than we do.” (NL, group 5)

“It makes me think about that movie with Will Smith, I Robot. They are

ruling the world in the end. No thank you!” (NL, group 1)

Robot keeps a complete memory/recording of home events

This innovation was not acceptable for most participants. Like with the previous

innovation they were afraid that the robot would take over their lives.

“You pass on your whole life to the robot. That’s creepy” (NL, group 1)

All data stored by the robot in his memory is kept online at the

company’s data servers (in case he breaks down)

This innovation generated most resistance. See the previous section (general

feelings and assessment of the scenario) for an extended explanation.

Innovation not taken very seriously:

Home delivery of goods by drones

Participants were not reluctant to the idea of the delivery of shopping, but they

did not take the idea of delivery of shopping by drones very seriously. They

reacted a bit giggly to it.

“Will they just drop the shopping in my garden?” (NL, group 3)

“Why not a normal delivery van with some healthy fellows carrying the

shopping upstairs?” (NL, group 5)


18

“Ha ha! These drones have to watch out not to bump into each other.”

(NL, group 1)

Alternative scientific innovations

Some participants thought that perhaps the robot would be more acceptable if it

was smaller or not in the form of a robot.

“Maybe a very small friendly creature instead of this 1.80 m tall thing. Like

a little pet.” (NL, group 1)

“The robot should not have a human form, but it should be built in

somewhere. Only a voice.”(NL, group 1)


19

3.2 Health and healthcare

General feelings The first reactions:

Patronising, a violation of privacy or self-determination.

“It’s my own business if I want to buy 10 kilos of sweets.” (NL, group 1)

“Somebody else decides what I have to do, where is my own free will? “ (NL,

group 4)

“They tell you what to do. Goes too far.”

Good that you can prepare in case there is a risk for disease.

“You can prepare and adjust in case you have a chance for a disease.”(NL, group

5)

Assessment of the scenario Technically realistic and parts of scenario are happening already

Participants thought that this scenario was technically realistic. They stated that

parts of the scenario such as online consults with a physician, the national health

record, and stem cell therapy are already happening.

“I know a boy that had leukaemia. His sister donated her stem cells to cure him.”

(NL, group 4)

“Online consults are done nowadays already. You can call an emergency number

online.” (NL, group 1)

“We’ve all have a national health record for a long time already. I even blocked it,

because it was accessible to a lot of institutions.” (NL, group 6)

But there was a lot of resistance related to supermarkets interfering with

health affairs

This scenario generated a lot of resistance. But the resistance was mainly related

to the supermarkets giving uninvited health advice to customers.

“Terrible, one moment you're doing shopping and the next moment you have

to consult your physician.” (NL, group 4)

“To me it’s shocking that a supermarket could do this.” (NL, group 1)

“That’s none of their business.”(NL, group 4)

“I come to the supermarket to get the shopping I need; I go to the doctor

when I’m ill. Don’t mix that up.” (NL, group 1)

Participants mentioned the following reasons for this resistance:

Supermarket are not a reliable channel for medical advise

Participants did not think of the supermarket as a reliable channel for medical

diagnosis; the supermarket mainly has a commercial interest and less interest in

the health of the customers.

“It’s a conflict of interests. Shops should never interfere with health” (NL,

group 6)

“You have to ask yourself: What’s in it for them?” (NL, group 6)

“I only want medical advice from somebody who studied for it. What does

a supermarket know?” (NL, group 1)

They also doubted the reliability of the diagnosis in case one does shopping for

the whole family. A personal health advice would be very inaccurate in that case.

“Suppose I visit the supermarket once a week and buy sweets and cake

for a lot of people. What advice would I get?” (NL, group 4)


20

Uninvited health advice was considered patronising

Participants thought nobody should interfere in their health affairs without their

permission. They felt that their health is something that only concerns them and

if they would like advice they would rather take the initiative themselves.

“I feel well and I don’t appreciate advice.” (NL, group 4)

“I do not want to know, leave me alone.” (NL, group 1)

“A supermarket telling me I buy too much sugar? Don’t interfere!” (NL,

group 1)


innovation participants like most and ending with the innovation participants liked

least).

The innovation liked by most participants:

Centralised Health data records (‘National Health Record’). Furthermore

be used in an anonymised way by researchers for medical developments

Participants thought it is very useful to have a record where all medical

information is stored. That feels secure. Doctors have all the necessary

information at hand when needed.

"It gives a secure feeling that doctors around the world have access to

your medical data. If something happens, you're safe. “(NL, group 4)

Some participants have concerns however:

They stated that data should only be used for medical development after explicit

permission of the patient.

“Your data should not be used automatically. Not everybody is willing to

share their data.” (NL, group 1)

Some participants also expressed their concerns about the online storing of the

medical data. They asked themselves if it they would be protected sufficiently

against deletion or hacking. They were also afraid of misuse of the data by

insurance companies.

“I hope the information will not be deleted accidentally or on purpose by

hackers or something. I am allergic to antibiotics. I don’t want that

information to be lost.” (NL, group 1)

“Is the information also accessible to health insurance companies? Maybe

they’ll raise the premium when you’re ill a lot. So it should be kept secret

for them.” (NL, group 1)

Stem cell therapy

Not all participants understood this innovation well. Some of the participants did

not want to give a judgement yet. They wanted to know more first.

“This is very technical. I want to know more about it first” (NL, group 6)

“I don’t know about this one. How does it work? (NL, group 4)

Some participants pointed out that this innovation already exists (see also

previous section). The participants that knew the innovation appreciated it. If

necessary you would be able to repair your body with your own healthy cells that

have been saved before.

“It is a very beautiful technology.” (NL, group 6)

“It’s good that you can take precautions.” (NL, group 4)

Innovations liked by most participants provided that they were not offered by a

supermarket:


21

Genetic tests

Participants think genetic tests are useful. You would be able to estimate your

risk of a particular disease. Then you could prepare and take precautions. It was

felt, however, that such a test should be offered by a doctor and certainly not by

a supermarket or drugstore.

“Only when it’s not offered by the supermarket. I suspect the

supermarkets make deals with the producers of the tests. Mixed

interests.” (NL, group 4)

Dietary advice for disease prevention

Dietary advice was considered as useful in general. It was seen as a means to

prevent diseases. But only on request and by a medical professional”.

“Advice is good, but not by the supermarket.” (NL, group 4)

“The job of a supermarket is to make sure the right labels are on the food.

How much salt, how much fat etc.” (NL, group 1)

The innovation that participants partly liked was:

Doctor consults/advices you from your home ('telemedicine')

For small questions or for a quick update this innovation was considered useful

and acceptable. But a screen with a doctor should never replace face to face

contact. Face to face contact with a doctor was considered to be more reassuring

and secure than online contact.

“Sometimes I have a telephone consult with my physician, but usually that

leads to a visit.” (NL, group 4)

“Probably ok when the news is not so serious, but when it is about

something serious a screen is very impersonal.” (N, group 1)

“If I have a lump somewhere, how can the doctor check that online?” (NL,

group 6)

“They can provide online consulting, but you have to be able to decide for

yourself.” (NL, group 6)

The fact that a blood test can be done at home and be sent to the physician

electronically is considered to be a progress. You don’t have to go out of the

house and wait in line to prick blood anymore. That saves a lot of time.

“Now it is like this: you first you go to the doctor, than to a health centre

to prick blood and then call the doctor for the result. The way it is done in

this scenario is way more efficient and saves a lot of time. I like it.” (NL,

group 6)

Innovations on which participants had different opinions:

(Wearable) biochips for health monitoring and diagnosis

Some participants thought the biochip is useful. You would be able to detect a

disease in a very early stage and prevent worse.

“If your chance is 50% to get the disease, wear it. Make use of it!” (NL,

group 4)

Other participants stated that they would never wear such a chip. They thought it

would influence them too much. They would check it all the time and that would

make them nervous.

“I would be thinking about this disease all the time, I would not have

peace anymore.” (NL, group 1)


22


No alternative scientific innovations were mentioned for this scenario.

3.3 Ubiquitous communication and interaction

General feelings The first reactions:

Loss of privacy

“Everybody knows everything about you” (NL, group 3)

Too much control

“Too much control” (NL, group 2)

“Control and Power” (NL, group 6)

Restrictive

“Everything is decided based on your profile.” (NL, group 2)

“You are being labelled.” (NL, group 3

Could be safe

“Less crime.” (NL, group 3)

Assessment of the scenario Technically realistic, some elements already happen in society

Participants thought this scenario is technically realistic. They see some elements

already happening in society; loyalty cards in shops, facial identification based on

iris scans at the airport. Only this scenario is going further; technologies are more

advanced.

“Yes, this is going to happen. We have fingerprint and iris scans. We would

not have believed that fifteen years ago, but it’s real now. This will be real

as well.” (NL, group 2)

“We have this technology already. In this scenario this technology is used

minus the privacy protection we have now.” (NL, group 2)

“We have loyalty programs already. If you buy a pair of Replay pants, next

time you go to that shop the cashier asks you: Hello Mrs. So and So, were

you pleased with you Replay pants?” (NL, group 2)

“On the Internet they know a lot about your behaviour already. That’s why

they use cookies.” (NL, group 3)

“If you click on something on the Internet while you’re searching, you will

see advertisements popping up of the subject you’re looking for.” (NL,

group 3)

“If you’re traveling they can already trace you through your mobile phone.”

(NL, group 6)

“It is not as futuristic as we think. In some parts of the city scooters are

being followed like this already.” (NL, group 6)

Developments like online shopping and self-driving cars could make

parts of this scenario irrelevant.

Some participants thought this scenario leaves out developments that could make

some of the innovations mentioned in this scenario irrelevant. They referred to

more and more online shopping and self-driving cars. When the trend of more

and more online shops and fewer ‘real-life’ shops continues, tracking customers

who are moving around the store would be less relevant. And if self-driving cars

will really develop and will be introduced on a large scale, traffic jams and


23

irresponsible driving will be prevented and there will be no need to control drivers

anymore.

“This scenario does not really take into account that we shop online more

and more. This scenario is about visiting and moving around in a shop.”

(NL, group 2)

“I do not see anything about self-driving cars. Would we still need this

with self-driving cars? They are very safe, no extra control is needed!” (NL,

group 2)

Could make the world safer

The prevention of crime, traffic jams, tracing missing persons, and the possibility

of crowd control is seen as positive by participants.

“Great if your child is missing and could be traced like this.” (NL, group 2)

“It seems like a safe world.” (NL, group 3)

“It could be easier for the police to trace criminals. That is costing them a

lot of money now. If you are a respectable citizen you don’t have to fear

anything.” (NL, group 3)

“No more traffic jams. That’s an advantage.” (NL, group 6)

Could make life easier for some people

And some innovations could make parts of life easier for some of the participants.

For example if you receive a reminder from a shop in case you forget something

or if you can meet up for your work via the hologram technology.

“Nespresso knows your taste and only offers you the taste you like next

time you need new capsules.” (NL, group 2)

“Great if they could offer me an idea for a present for my wife!” (NL,

group 3).

“My husband has to fly to France for his work twice a month. With this

hologram technology he could stay home. I’d like that.” (NL, group 2)

But most participants had major concerns about privacy and being

controlled

The scenario talks about being followed by authorities and companies all the time.

Participants did not like that at all. It felt threatening and scary that everything

about your whereabouts and behaviour is known by everyone all the time.

Ubiquitous communication is ubiquitous control at the same time.

“You cannot hide from it. You’re followed all the time.” (NL, group 2)

“You’re whole identity is exposed.” (NL, group 2)

“No privacy anymore.”’ (NL, group 2)

“All information will be known forever.” (NL, group 2)

“Big Brother is watching you. You are constantly being pursued.” (NL,

group 3)

“They will have more control and power over you.” (NL, group 6)

“What if we get a different regime? They could have total power over you.”

(NL, group 6)

Some participants had the feeling that a loss of privacy is already happening and

will continue without them being able to do anything about it. They would like to

do something about it, but see a kind of resignation in society, a feeling of

powerlessness. People do not have the feeling they can do anything about it and

feel they are continuously confronted with a fait accompli.

“Everything just happens, whether you like it or not.” (NL, group 6)

Dutch people accept everything. They don’t protest anymore. Not with

anything political.’ (NL, group 6)

Moreover: no room for spontaneous actions, change and creativity

anymore


24

Participants feared that with this scenario, assessment of behaviour and needs is

based on information on behaviour and needs in the past. Just like in the scenario

about Homes and Living participants feared that there would not be room for

spontaneous actions, change, or creativity anymore.

“They only show things in the shops based on your profile. I would like to

be surprised, not just more of the same.” (NL, group 2)

“It’s boring that you cannot find something unexpected or silly in the

shops.” (NL, group 2)

“You don’t have to be creative anymore when you forget to buy butter.”

(NL, group 2)



liked least).

The innovation that was most liked by the participants:

Virtual reality at work (virtual meetings with colleagues)

Most participants liked virtual reality at work. If the meeting is with a lot of

people that work far away from each other you do not have to travel, but can still

see each other. It could save a lot of money and time.

“For work it is handy. Then I don’t have to go there. I can work at home

more. Saves time.” (NL, group 3)

““My husband has to fly to France for his work twice a month. With this

hologram technology he could stay home. I’d like that.” (NL, group 2)

Participants had different opinions about the following innovation:

Data collection about personal preferences, used by companies

Some participants thought it would be handy to receive an offer from a shop that

is in line with your preferences (or the preferences of someone you want to buy a

present for).

“Especially handy for men. They don’t have to ask their wives anymore.”

(NL, group 3)

But other participants believed that this would leave no room for their own

creativity and would make shopping too predictable.

“Why is someone else deciding what I want to buy?” (NL, group 3)

“You have to think about it and take your time when choosing a present

for somebody. Otherwise it’s not a real present.” (NL, group 2)

All participants thought that data should only be collected after explicit permission

from the customer. Otherwise it would undermine their privacy.

“In shops it should be optional and they shouldn’t keep data too long. (NL,

group 6)

Participants had mixed feelings and concerns about the following innovations:

(Facial) recognition technology

Participants thought this technology could make life safer on one hand - when it

is used by the police and customs. But on the other, they didn’t think it would be

a good idea for use in shops. They didn’t see advantages for themselves using

this technology in shops, only the advantages for the shop itself. And it feels like

a violation of privacy.


25

“It would be appropriate in places like the airport, not in shops.” (NL,

group 6)

“Ha-ha, I would crawl through the shop so they wouldn’t see my face.”(N,

group 3)

“It has to be a choice,”’ (NL, group 3)

Ubiquitous tracking of machines and people with satellites,

trackers and cameras

Participants had mixed feelings and important concerns with this innovation. The

support for this innovation depended very much on the way the technology would

be used. Participants stated that the technology could be useful to solve or

prevent significant risks or inconveniences; tracking or finding missing persons

and criminals, controlling crowds, and preventing traffic jams. But it is only

acceptable for these kinds of purposes. It should not be used by authorities to

follow people in their daily lives with the purpose of controlling them and certainly

not by commercial parties – e.g. insurance companies – to adjust the premiums.

“Great if your child is missing and could be traced like this.” (NL, group 2)

“Only by the authorities for solving crimes, traffic jams.” (NL, group 3)

“Don’t use this against the will of people, only if it serves the public

interest.” (NL, group 3)

Virtual reality at home; holographic calling

Participants liked this innovation, but only for contacts that live far away. It

should be used instead of telephone and skype and not instead of real contact.

“I would use it the same way as I use skype now. For family that lives far

away. This is a bit more advanced.” (NL, group 6)

“It should not come instead of real contact with my family. I want to see

them in real life.” (NL, group 2)

Virtual reality in public places (virtual information stands)

Participants could not really imagine how it would be to have virtual information

stands.

“I like it because it sounds exciting, but I really don’t know.” (NL, group 3

The innovation that was not liked by most of the participants:

Virtual reality in education (virtual courses)

Participants thought the hologram technology is less suitable for education. They

found face to face contact important with teaching.

“As a teacher I think it is more difficult to share your experience with a

hologram. You need the interaction.” (NL, group 3)

“It’s like with a course on the Internet. That works less well.” (NL, group

3)


A participant suggested that it would be safe to build in a chip under the skin to

have all important data at hand in case something happens.

“If you would have a heart attack in the middle of the street, you would

know immediately know what’s the matter with that person.” (NL, group

3)


26

3.4 Environment

General feelings The first reactions all showed approval.

“This is necessary! (NL, group 2)

“A lot has to be done. The sooner, the better.” (NL, group 2)

“Good, sensible!”(NL, group 4)

“This gives us hope.” (NL, group 4)

“Very positive.” (NL, group 5)

Assessment of the scenario

A lot of enthusiasm as the urge to protect the environment is felt

unanimously

Participants were very enthusiastic about this scenario in general. They thought

that protecting the environment is very necessary to keep the earth habitable and

they would like it to happen now already. They thought the sooner we would start

the better.

“Why not start now already?” (NL, group 4)

“If we don’t do it, it will be the end for all of us.” (NL, group 2)

“If I read this, I realise there is a lot that needs to be done.”(NL, group 2)

Parts of it are seen as technically too ambitious

Participants think parts of the scenario are not realistic. Despite of the fact that

parts of it are possible already (renewable energy, recycling) the thought was

that applying these technologies on a large scale in 2030 would be too ambitious.

They thought that it will not be possible to adjust all houses in the Netherlands

within 15 years so that they will be totally sustainable as described in the

scenario.

“All the old houses that have to be renovated to be energy efficient, get

solar panels or windmills on their roof, build two separate water supply

lines. That seems too ambitious” (NL, group 2)

Also the changing of the agricultural practice in the way described in the scenario

is seen as too ambitious.

“I don’t believe that all agricultural practice can change within this time.

Sensors and satellites and everything, that’s really something. (NL, group

2)

Not realistic in a political sense

Participants have strong doubts about the political feasibility of the scenario.

The older groups did not have confidence in politics to settle environmental issues.

They felt that this scenario would need a lot of political support to make it happen,

but the process of decision making is far too slow to make it happen in 15 years.

“Not in 2030. A lot of countries have to agree amongst each other. Now it

already takes 20 year before a decision is taken. And I’m only talking

about small issues!” (NL, group 5)

Participants also felt that the process of introduction will be slowed down by

parties like the oil industry.

“The big interests will prevent it from coming true. Look at the oil industry,

if that stops you will get a world war. The Middle East is all about oil.” (NL,

group 4)


27

The younger group pointed out that they thought that the scenario is only useful

if the whole world participates in it. However they believed that the scenario is

too advanced for developing countries.

“The biggest environmental problem lies in the third world. Waste being

burned alongside the road, a lot of traffic pollution. And India is 3.5 times

the size of Europe. If they don’t join us, it’s no use.” (NL, group 2)

The technology of fertilising the oceans is not understood

This technology raises a lot of question marks. Participants get lost in the

explanation.

“Are they going to warm up the ocean? What about the fish?” (NL, group

4)

“What are they planning? To throw poo in the ocean?” (NL, group 5)

Resistance against underground storing of CO2

This innovation was seen as risky and not wise. Participants felt that not enough

is known about the consequences. Moreover they felt it would be better not to

emit so much CO2.

“If you put it under the ground, you do not know what the effect would be.”

(NL, group 4)

“I am afraid of explosions or earthquakes” (NL, group 5)

“It’s postponing the solution.” (NL, group 5)

“We should stop polluting instead of storing it.” (NL, group 1)



liked least).

The innovations that were most liked by the participants:

(Most energy is derived from) renewable energy e.g. solar panels

and wind farms

Most participants supported this technology and think it is very useful. Some of

them stated that solar energy and windmills are not really innovations because it

is happening already.

“It’s a first step. A lot of people are doing it. We are on the way.” (NL, group

2)

“I have solar panels on my roof.” (NL, group 2)

Energy efficiency: energy efficient homes and cities

Recycling of materials and natural resources

(building/construction materials, water…)

Recycling of waste

Conversion of waste into value‐added by products (ex.

Biorefineries turning agricultural residues into plastic and fuel)

Participants unanimously liked these innovations and think they’re very useful,

but think it is somewhat of an obvious question to ask. They also pointed out that

the recycling of waste and natural resources is not really an innovation. They

stated that the technology is available, but that it is just not applied enough at

the moment.

“How can you not be positive about this”? NL, group 2)

“How can you be against this? It’s only sensible to produce and use in

efficient way, so that nothing is wasted and a lot is reused.” (NL, group 5)


28

One participant added that we should not turn waste into plastic as plastic is not

good for the environment.

“It’s good to recycle, but we should forget about plastics. The oceans are

loaded with them. Plastics are a big problem.” (NL, group 4)

There was a lot of support for the closed circuit water-system.

“It’s absurd that we flush our toilet with drinking water. If that changes,

that’s an improvement!” (NL, group 2)

The innovation most participants did not like:

Geo-engineering: Underground CO2 storage

Some participants thought that it is very risky to store CO2 underground.

They asked themselves if it would be a safe solution (see also the previous

section: general feelings and assessment of the scenario).

Participants did not really understand the following innovations:

New farming management practices in agriculture (minimum

inputs/monitoring of crops and cattle with high‐resolution

satellites and sensors)

Some participants had difficulties understanding parts of this innovation. They

asked themselves how one can monitor the growth and health of crops and cattle

with the help of high-resolution satellites and with biological and electronic

sensors in the field. But despite of the fact they did not understand exactly how it

worked, they did think it could be beneficial.

“It is probably useful, but how does it work? I don’t understand that.” (NL,

group 2)

“It seems to better for the environment this efficiency, but that’s how far I

get in understanding.”’ (NL, group 5)

Some participants pointed out that it could cause a loss of jobs.

“If they do not have to use so many chemicals anymore I guess it’s very

good!” (NL, group 2)

Geo-engineering: Carbon Ocean fertilisation

This technology raised a lot of question marks. Participants got lost in the

explanation (see also the previous section: general feelings and assessment of

the scenario).

Alternative scientific innovations One participant suggested shooting CO2 into space, but that idea was not

supported by the other participants.

“I am not sure that this is the best idea, but throw it in a big container and

store it in space.” (NL, group 5)

One participant thought that we should not only consider solar energy and

windmills. He stated that there are more possibilities for renewable energy.

“Also check for other possibilities, for example little gel balls you can lay in

the earth. They absorb solar energy. There are more technologies.” (NL,

group 5)

Another participant suggested using other scientific disciplines like psychology or

sociology.

“It’s a matter of changing our behaviour and sociology is a science as well.”

(NL, group 4)


29

IV. CONCLUSION Participants reported at the end of the focus groups that they were more

conscious than before about what the future could bring us.

“I think differently about robots now. I do not want a robot in the form of

a human. That’s scary.” (NL, group 1)

“I’m a bit in a shock. A lot of people don’t realise the dangers that we have

now already. What about if the Internet is off for three days. How are you

going to pay? Scary.” (NL, group 3)

“The developments are moving faster than I thought. You don’t think

about that every day.” (NL, group 6)

“It makes me scared a bit.” (NL, group 6)

“I have more resistance against records being kept and that your life will

be organised for you. I only realise the impact of that now.” (NL, group 5)

public opinion on future innovations, science and...

Documents