The development of quantum technologies has been accelerating in the last decade, turning them into emerging technologies that need explicit attention by decision-makers at national funding agencies, companies, and governments. In this paper we consider the governance of quantum internet, a new type of network that distributes quantum information across distances and is developed under the promise that it can deliver intrinsically secure functions solely through its technical design. The paper gives an analysis of the functions quantum internet offers – from secure communication to linking quantum computers and quantum sensors – and then challenges this promise by arguing that trust, an essential precondition for users to adopt this technology, cannot be guaranteed by technical features alone. Instead, trust is fundamentally a social phenomenon, shaped by how quantum internet is governed, operated, and regulated. Therefore, the ultimate success of quantum internet in fulfilling its promise of secure communication will depend not just on its technical hardware and software but also on the policies and frameworks for running these capacities, and on the public trust in those policies and frameworks. With this argument we arrive at a number of recommendations to decision-makers for developing quantum internet and its governance in a way that quantum internet can be trusted for its promised capacities. For instance: organizations delivering hardware, operators, and regulation, should be kept apart to be independent sources for trust by users; third party organizations can provide independent checks to users of the operation of quantum internet; and transparency in policing of communication enables trust in the regulation of quantum internet.
This exploratory study examines how scientifically literate stakeholders in Costa Rica evaluate food-related nanotechnology under conditions of technical uncertainty and uneven regulatory visibility. The term food-related nanotechnology is used here as a domain-level category that includes nano-enabled food-contact and smart packaging, nanostructured delivery or encapsulation systems, nanoemulsions, antimicrobial nanomaterials, nanosensors, and nanoscale fractions in additives; the survey was not designed to compare specific materials or products. Using an online survey, we collected responses from 129 stakeholders from academia, civil society, government, and industry. Respondents reported substantial awareness of nanomaterials in food (59.7
Previous empirical studies have examined moral attitudes toward the creation of human brain organoids (HBOs), yet the psychological factors shaping these attitudes remain underexplored. This study investigated the relationship between moral attitudes toward creating HBOs and the five moral foundations measured by the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. An online survey was conducted with participants from the United Kingdom and Japan (N = 783). We found that, across both cultural contexts, the moral foundations of Authority and Purity significantly influenced attitudes toward creating HBOs. Specifically, higher Purity scores were associated with less positive attitudes, whereas higher Authority scores were associated with more positive attitudes. Additional analyses revealed cross-cultural differences: participants in the United Kingdom generally expressed more positive views than those in Japan, and these differences were partly mediated by differences in moral foundations as well as varying levels of trust in scientists. Furthermore, attitudes were more favorable when HBOs were created for the advancement of disease treatment compared to scientific advancement. These findings suggest that moral attitudes toward creating HBOs are shaped by a complex interplay of psychological and cultural factors. Understanding this interplay can enrich discussions in moral psychology and bioethics concerning emerging biotechnologies.
This interview with Professor Armin Grunwald, Head of the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), offers an in-depth exploration of Technology Assessment (TA) as a conceptual, methodological, and institutional practice. Combining biographical reflection with systematic inquiry, the interview traces the development of Professor Grunwald’s intellectual trajectory and examines how his methodological and conceptual perspectives on TA have evolved in dialogue with philosophy, ethics, and related fields. The interview is structured into six thematic parts. It begins with biographical reflections that situate Grunwald’s engagement with TA within broader academic and institutional contexts, followed by a discussion of his approach to TA and its theoretical underpinnings. The second part examines the interrelations between TA and other disciplines and approaches, including philosophy and ethics of technology, highlighting both complementarities and enduring tensions. The third part addresses political, social, and economic dimensions of TA, with particular attention to questions of policy advice, democratic governance, and the prospects and challenges of “global” TA. This section foregrounds contextual differences between democratic and non-democratic political systems and engages critically with issues of inclusivity, discrimination, power, and privilege within TA practices. The fourth part connects TA to environmental thinking and environmental ethics, exploring how ecological concerns and sustainability considerations shape and challenge established TA frameworks. The fifth part introduces a set of more provocative questions, including reflections on whether and to what extent artificial intelligence and robotic systems might assume tasks traditionally associated with TA. The interview concludes by turning toward the future of TA, addressing the prospective roles of research institutes such as ITAS and revisiting biographical themes in light of ongoing technological development and innovation. Overall, the interview contributes to a nuanced understanding of TA as a reflective, interdisciplinary, and societally embedded field. The reflections and insights of a leading intellectual and experienced insider are intended to stimulate further dialogue between Technology Assessment and neighboring fields of inquiry and practice.
Today’s robots are often perceived as technologically advanced, yet their limitations become evident in dynamic environments such as public spaces, where they sometimes require assistance from incidentally copresent persons. Empirical research has shown that humans are generally willing to help robots, for example by freeing a delivery robot stuck in snow. Designers have deliberately adopted strategies to elicit such human assistance. This paper argues that these design practices raise ethical concerns. It distinguishes between functional incapacity, a robot’s genuine inability to perform a task in a given environment, and performative incapacity, a deliberately designed appearance of helplessness intended to solicit human service. To enable a nuanced ethical analysis, the paper further introduces the Elicitation Spectrum, which maps robot behaviors from passive presence to coercive pressure. Performative incapacity, particularly at the expressive end of the spectrum, constitutes a form of hidden state deception. From a Kantian perspective, such deception is always morally impermissible. From a consequentialist perspective, its moral status depends on outcomes: the paper therefore discusses both potential beneficial effects, such as reinforcing prosocial behavior, and potential harms to the InCoP and to society more broadly. The paper concludes by calling for greater scrutiny of human–robot interaction in public spaces and by proposing normative recommendations for the ethical design of robots in public spaces.
Prosthetic devices are often framed as biomedical solutions designed by professionals to restore function to disabled bodies. Drawing on ethnographic research conducted with amputees in France, the Netherlands, and Germany, this article challenges this view by examining how prosthetic users actively modify, fabricate, and reconfigure their devices in everyday life. These practices, we argue, are forms of prosthetic tinkering, that is, situated interventions through which users adjust, repurpose, or create prosthetic devices and arrangements in response to bodily sensations, environmental constraints, and social interactions. Through ethnographic cases, such as socket adjustments, homemade task-specific prostheses, alternative mobility arrangements, and aesthetic modifications, we show that these practices constitute a form of disability expertise grounded in experiential knowledge of bodies and technologies. This article shows that prosthetic tinkering allows amputees not only to improve comfort and functionality, but also to navigate ableist norms, manage the visibility of disability, and reshape social relationships. Importantly, prosthetic tinkering mainly takes place in the domestic sphere, i.e., in kitchens, garages, and living rooms, rather than in the more visible or publicised sites of technological innovation such as laboratories, engineering workshops, or fablabs. By foregrounding these often-overlooked practices, the article contributes to science and technology studies and critical disability studies debates on agency, expertise, and the politics of design, highlighting prosthetic modification as a situated practice of world-making rather than a mere technical adjustment.
This article examines how quantum theory—and the emerging landscape of quantum technologies—has reshaped contemporary aesthetic, narrative, and moral imagination. Moving beyond the well-documented influence of relativity on early modernist art, it argues that quantum mechanics has generated a particularly influential cultural provocation: superposition, entanglement, and probabilistic ontology have challenged classical assumptions about identity, causality, and worldhood. The essay traces how these concepts migrated into artistic practice long before their full technological realization. The discussion begins with Fernando Pessoa’s (1888–1935) heteronymy, read as an early literary analogue of entanglement: a distributed authorship in which multiple selves coexist and condition one another without resolving into unity. It then turns to Raúl Ruiz’s Three Lives and Only One Death (1996), whose overlapping destinies exemplify superposition at the level of cinematic ontology. A further step is taken with the Daniels’ interactive short Possibilia (2014), where digital branching structures operationalize narrative choice as a form of wavefunction collapse. The article also considers the philosophical and moral resonance of Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022), interpreted through an Everettian framework, and turns to Werner Herzog’s Theatre of Thought (2022), which explores speculative links between quantum theory and consciousness. A subsequent section addresses the proliferation of “quantum woo,” examining how quantum terminology circulates within wellness cultures and tracing its unexpected historical ties to the countercultural physics of the 1970s and the emergence of the no-cloning theorem. In the conclusion, the essay offers an ekphrastic reading of Laure Prouvost’s We Felt a Star Dying (2025), an installation that reframes quantum uncertainty and fragility as perceptual experience. Across these cases, the article sketches the contours of what might be called a ‘quantum humanism’, in which science and the arts collaborate to render the quantum world culturally intelligible without trivialization or mystification.
Based on ethnographic research conducted in Greece, this article explores the practical knowledge and agency enacted by persons living with deep brain stimulation (DBS) and Parkinson’s disease (PD), as well as by their caregivers. It examines how these practices help make their worlds more habitable, particularly within a healthcare system where continuity of care is uncertain. As an under-the-skin technology, DBS is frequently presented within the Greek context as a technological solution to chronic illnesses and disabilities, premised on an imagined seamless human–machine integration. This understanding is not neutral; it sustains and legitimizes dominant constructions of technological bodyminds as passive recipients of technological intervention, obscuring their situated forms of action and expertise. Drawing on Science, Technology, and Society and Critical Disability Studies, I approach the implanted bodymind as a site of epistemic inquiry, rather than an object to be corrected. In doing so, the analysis is structured around four thematic clusters: navigating the Greek healthcare infrastructure, moving within a spacetime regime, adjusting parameters, and building knowledge through sensing. Despite important contributions, existing literature has given relatively little attention to how implanted and chronically ill persons, such as those with PD, enact knowledge and agency to make their worlds more habitable, especially in contexts shaped by economic constraints and bureaucratic complexity.
eXtended Reality (XR) technologies often embed ableist design assumptions, privileging hand-based interaction and vision-centric interfaces that presume a normative able-bodied user. As a result, many disabled people—including those with limited mobility or blindness—are excluded from the outset, with accessibility added only as an afterthought. We critique this dynamic through a critical disability studies lens, formulating the notion of a “bare-minimum accessibility paradigm”—a tendency to meet only minimal compliance requirements rather than rethinking access as a generative design concern. In response, we propose crip-hacking and crip-aesthetics as transformative frameworks for accessible XR design. Crip-hacking draws on disabled communities’ DIY technology adaptations while crip-aesthetics reimagines disability-centric creativity as a design asset. We illustrate these approaches through an autoethnographic account of an XR artwork co-created with disabled artists using mouth gestures. This case demonstrates how reimagining XR through disability experiences challenges entrenched ableist design norms and broadens the discourse at the nexus of disability theory, technology ethics, and inclusive design research.
Hype surrounding emerging technologies poses a fundamental dilemma: failure to criticize risks lock-in and loss of public trust, while poorly conducted criticism risks becoming “criti-hype” itself, potentially damaging public trust without improving research quality. This paper addresses the question of when and under what conditions criticism of hype in quantum technology is justified, and conversely, when criticism should be withheld. We define hype as speaking overly optimistically about a technology’s feasibility or timeline while still being based on some degree of scientific evidence—distinguishing it from pseudoscience. Drawing on DeGeorge’s whistleblowing criteria from business ethics, this paper develops a modified framework (W1’–W5’) for justifying hype criticism within the scientific community. The framework comprises permissibility requirements (W1’–W3’)—existence of structural harm through application-level lock-in and comparative weighing, priority of internal professional discussion, and gradual escalation—and obligation requirements (W4’–W5’)—interdisciplinary consensus and efficacy of correction combined with integrity of criticism. A key theoretical contribution is the identification of a “reversal of obligation”: due to the structural harm of lock-in (W1’) and the efficacy of correction afforded by the scientific community’s interiority (W5’), criticism of internal hype can become obligatory even when deviation from fact is relatively small, whereas criticism of external pseudoscience, despite larger factual deviation, remains merely permissible. This framework clarifies both when criticism is justified and when restraint is normatively required, providing guidance for balancing the healthy development of quantum technology with the avoidance of a quantum winter.
Just as philosophy of technology has distinctive origins in Europe and in the United States, so too in China. Here we aim to give an introductory narrative account of Chinese origins for English language readers, anchored in the lives and thought of Chen Changshu (sic) and Yuan Deyu (sic) , two leading influences on what is sometimes been called the "Northeastern School" in the philosophy of technology. A general introduction to this school is developed through a narrative account of Chen's and Yuan's interactive lives and work in historical context followed by appreciations of their philosophical achievements, most particularly Chen's 1999 Jishu zhexue yin lun (sic) [Introduction to philosophy of technology] and two Yuan interviews from 2018 and 2022. Our claim is that Chen and Yuan were much earlier paying attention to the empirical experience of engineers than Western counterparts who later started the "empirical turn" movement and that their originary contributions are pertinent for anyone in the West who desires to engage with Chinese thinking about engineering and technology, if not in fact to the placing of Western philosophy of technology in a more global perspective.
In Section “Introduction” we introduce the concept of quantum computing [QC]; in essence, the attempt to solve very complex computational problems characterized by numerous variables interacting simultaneously by using quantum mechanical effects (such as superposition and quantum interference). In Section “Applications of QC”, we summarise some applications of QC developed to date and discuss some of the benefits that this technology may bring about for individuals and society. In Section “Ethical Issues underlying QC”, we evaluate some of the downsides (or ethical challenges) arising from the possible wide-scale implementation of this technology. We claim that QC poses utterly new ethical challenges that will likely require novel conceptual tools and methods to be fully and properly tackled. However, we note that QC is not only crucial for the challenges it poses to ethics but also because it affords unique opportunities for enhancing our cognitive abilities and therefore for improving our cognitive profiles. Thus, in Section “QC and the Extended Mind Thesis”, we explore possible points of contact between QC and the extended mind thesis [EMT]. We argue that QC can provide solid evidence to validate some of the claims underlying EMT. Finally, we wrap up the paper (Section “Conclusion”) by summarising what we have achieved and by pointing out possible future research directions.
The article calls attention to a distinction in English between the terms ‘engineering science’ and ‘engineering sciences’ (singular and plural): the former appearing to be broader and denote educational programs that include more than technical engineering, the latter to be a collective noun for diverse engineering sciences such as mechanics, statics, dynamics, electronics, et al. Furthermore, it calls attention to a professional society and journals dedicated to engineering science in the singular, briefly reflects on personal interaction with the Department of Engineering Science at Pennsylvania State University, and selectively dips into historical-philosophical literature. The article also provides reflections on ‘engineering wonder’.
Transparency has become a fundamental public value and a linchpin for effective policymaking. Accordingly, emerging biotechnologies, along with their regulatory and implementation frameworks, are increasingly evaluated against this standard. To illustrate this point, we draw on the example of a citizen conference addressing the issue of xenotransplantation. The citizen group expressed conditional support for xenotransplantation, with their approval hinging on specific requirements that can be analyzed through the lens of transparency. Transparency involves at least three key dimensions. First, it required openness and the provision of information to those directly affected by xenotransplantation, such as the transplanted patients. Second, it requires establishing an effective system of checks and balances through regulatory bodies and state authorities. Third, it calls for the disclosure of xenotransplantation research processes to the wider public. Additionally, another vital aspect of transparency – and one that contributes to good policies in the context of citizen participation – is demonstrating how citizens' opinions are genuinely considered and integrated into the policymaking process. Reflecting on the citizen conference as a “showing” of transparency itself, the complete fulfilment of its demands must always appear as lacking, even though such participation formats may facilitate transparency in terms of both visibility and explanation.
This piece defends an integrative medicine approach to Medical AI, grounded in a Daoist perspective. Specifically, it draws on the Daoist classic Zhuangzi to argue that algorithms in medical AI should not be restricted to offering diagnoses and treatments from a Western medical perspective alone. Instead, medical AI should be prepared to provide patients with various forms of alternative medicine (such as Chinese medicine). This can significantly benefit public health and address the healthcare needs of a broader population.
In dynamic sociotechnical contexts, values evolve over time and diverge across stakeholder groups, complicating the coordination of innovation processes through individual and collective commitments. This paper argues that sociotechnical agendas, which are structured sets of technology-related issues that shape attention and guide decision-making, can be a helpful framework for examining the interplay between personal and shared values. We demonstrate how three levels of agenda-setting contribute to the recognition and institutionalization of values: issue salience that determines what values matter, attribute framing that shapes how values are interpreted, and network interconnection that establishes how values relate to each other. We examine sociotechnical agenda-setting as a process through which personal and institutional values are negotiated, aligned, and contested, often under conditions of tension and uncertainty. While sociotechnical agendas can foster consensus and support responsible technological development, they also pose challenges, including power imbalances, selective framing, and psychological influence. The study calls for further research into how transparent and inclusive agenda-setting processes can promote responsible value sharing in ways that advance broader societal goals.
The growth and dissemination of scientific knowledge are characteristic of contemporary engineering worldwide. In recent decades, the distinctive features of engineering sciences have been discussed in comparison to both the natural sciences and other forms of knowledge circulating in engineering practice. The range of problems in the philosophy of engineering sciences includes, for example, the relationship between theory and practice; the processes of explaining and formalising knowledge; the demarcation between natural sciences and engineering sciences and their interaction in technoscience; the emergence and formation of branches of engineering science and their mutual influence; the development of engineering science disciplines in different national contexts; the logic and structure of engineering research; multi- and interdisciplinary research methodologies; the nature of engineering systems thinking and ontologies; the functions of languages, visualizations and artefacts; the problems of digitisation and the application of Artificial Intelligence in engineering research; as well as specific questions of experimentation, modelling, quantification, etc. The special collection invites contributions from philosophy of engineering, STS and engineering studies, engineering ethics, and related fields, as well as methodological research in engineering education, including comparative studies and case studies.
Although quantum technologies (QT) are still in their early stages of development, their ethical foundations are already being shaped by their innovation context. While earlier works have discussed the ethical implications of this emerging field, the contextualization of these risks in broader socio-technical dynamics has received less attention. Drawing on interdisciplinary sources, I present a critical interpretive literature review of QT’s ethical challenges, situating them within the technologies’ broader socio-technical context and showing how innovation dynamics and socio-political factors contribute to shaping their normative futures. While many of QT’s ethical challenges stem from anticipated technical affordances, these risks must also be understood through broader socio-technical dynamics, opening valuable lines of inquiry into who sets research priorities, whose interests are served, and what alternative futures are foreclosed. Through expanding our view of QT’s ethical challenges towards the structural conditions that inscribe, and sometimes intensify them, we gain a better understanding of the normative assumptions being embedded into the field, elucidating how these narrow the space for alternative forms of innovation. Insights suggest that, without critical reflection, the hegemonic innovation trajectory risks constraining democratic oversight and ethical reflection precisely at a foundational moment, when QT’s pathways are being locked in.
Research on emerging technologies such as AI-driven health interventions, extended reality (XR) systems, biobanks, and genome editing poses novel ethical challenges that traditional ethics governance models struggle to address. This article explores various models of research ethics governance within the European Union (EU) context, starting from traditional one-time research ethics committee (REC) reviews, REC review with post-approval monitoring, as well as alternative models such as ethics self-assessment, and ethics-by-design approaches. Based on literature analysis and a survey of European research ethics experts, the study identifies prevalent models of research ethics oversight, research ethics expert perceptions of their sufficiency, and challenges such as insufficient technical and ethics expertise, lack of specific guidelines, and unclear boundaries of REC responsibilities. Findings also indicate that traditional REC reviews remain dominant but have limitations in effectively managing rapidly evolving technologies. Research ethics experts highlighted the feasibility of continuous oversight mechanisms to better integrate ethical reflection throughout the research lifecycle. The article concludes by recommending a shift towards proportional, risk-based oversight, development of clearer, technology-specific guidelines, enhanced REC training, and improved harmonization across EU ethics governance systems to address current gaps.
