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.
