public opinion on future innovations, science...

Eurobarometer Qualitative Study

PUBLIC OPINION ON FUTURE

INNOVATIONS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

National Report

June 2015

Denmark

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 Denmark

Linguistic Version EN

Catalogue Number KI-01-15-357-EN-N

ISBN 978-92-79-48057-7

DOI 10.2777/74562

© European Union, 2015

Eurobarometer Qualitative Study

Public opinion on future innovations,

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

National Report

Denmark

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 – Denmark “Innovations, science and technology”

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

B. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY .................................................... 10

Objectives .......................................................................................... 10

Methodology and sampling ................................................................... 10

Participant profiles ............................................................................... 10

National context .................................................................................. 11

I. GENERAL PERCEPTIONS ABOUT SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL

INNOVATIONS .................................................................................. 12

1.1 General associations linked to the notion of scientific innovation ........ 12

1.2 The most important scientific and technological innovations observed

over recent years ................................................................................... 14

II. SPONTANEOUS PROJECTIONS ON TOMORROW’S SCIENTIFIC AND

TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS ...................................................... 19

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

2030 and their possible impact ................................................................ 19

2.2 Expected innovations in selected areas ........................................... 20

III. REACTIONS TO FUTURE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL

INNOVATIONS IN SELECTED AREAS ................................................. 23

3.1 Homes and living ......................................................................... 23

3.2 Health and healthcare .................................................................. 29

3.3 Ubiquitous communication and interaction ...................................... 36

3.4 Environment ............................................................................... 40

IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 46

Qualitative Study European

Commission

Qualitative Study European

Commission


2

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

General perceptions about scientific and technological innovations

The participants had associated a number of ideas to the notion of innovation.

These can be grouped into technical innovations, positive associations and

negative associations.

The technical innovations named were:

o Robots leading to automation in everyday life

o 3D-printers

o New forms of transport, e.g. self-driving cars

o Digital technology

o Refinement of existing and development of new technology, e.g. better

diagnostic procedures

The participants’ positive associations were:

o Development, creativity and entrepreneurship

o Relief in everyday live, saving of resources

o Democratisation, sharing of knowledge

o Increased quality of life

The participants’ negative associations were:

o Alienation and loneliness, differentiation

o Unemployment

o Control and surveillance

o Strenuous to learn new things, opaqueness and stressfulness, hard to

control

o Dependence on technology and loss of accountability, laziness and loss of

knowledge

o Environmental impact

o A buzz word without any real meaning

When asked to reflect on the most important scientific and technological

innovations of the past 15 years, participants referred to the following

innovations:

Health/medical treatment

o Innovations:

Better and less invasive diagnostics and treatment.

Collection of knowledge on side effects in databases.

More and better vaccines.

Genetic testing.

Electronic aids within health care.

o Impact:

Participants felt healthier, safer and had a higher quality of life. It

was seen as positive that you can test for diseases in better and less

invasive ways.

It was seen as negative that people now depend on technical

equipment that might fail and participants felt that treatments have

often not been researched thoroughly when it comes to long-term

effects. The citizens’ longer lives were seen to put pressure on the

health care system.


3

Education/knowledge

o Innovations:

Virtual lectures and classes.

More interdisciplinary education.

Computer-based exams.

New technology in education, e.g. iPads.

o Impact:

It was seen as positive that people now have more access to

knowledge and (interdisciplinary) education without having to leave

their homes. Furthermore, the participants liked the idea that pupils

learned how to handle technology while still in school.

Participants felt that education should not only be virtual and that the

constant pressure to educate yourself might leave people behind.

Furthermore, it was feared that pupils might stop acquiring skills

such as writing by hand.

Living conditions/housing

o Innovations:

Smart grids that connect technology together.

More environmentally friendly building techniques.

Electronic aids within home life.

o Impact:

Participants felt it was positive that they live more environmentally

friendly now than previously. Technology and electronic aids were

seen as a good way to make daily life easier, especially for the

handicapped.

Transport

o Innovations:

Alternative fuels and engines.

More fuel-efficient engines.

Better infrastructure.

Safer and more reliable public transportation.

Traffic lights that can steer traffic to avoid congestions.

o Impact:

Participants felt that these innovations had a positive impact,

because they now have the opportunity to get from A to B faster and

in a more environmentally friendly manner.

Work/jobs

o Innovations:

Outsourcing.

Robots.

Better opportunities to work from home.

o Impact:

Participants felt it was positive to be able to work from home,

especially for the handicapped and that robots could take over

physically demanding tasks.

Participants felt however that outsourcing and robots have led to

greater unemployment and that working from home might lead to

people never being able to take a break.


4

Environmental protection

o Innovations:

Better catalytic converters.

Better particle filters.

More recycling and better ways to reuse resources.

De-extinction.

o Impact:

Participants perceived all named innovations as positive due to their

environmentally friendly nature.

Energy

o Innovations:

Renewable energy has become more widespread.

New and power-saving technologies, e.g. LED light bulbs.

o Impact:

Participants perceived the mentioned innovations as positive, since

they are environmentally friendly and may save participants’ money.

Personal data and data security

o Innovations:

Easier to secure data.

Secure online payment through PayPal.

Better protection against malware.

Individually targeted advertisements.

o Impact:

Participants felt it was positive that they had more and safer ways to

secure data and were better protected against malware.

Data was, however, never seen as safe from hackers and targeted

advertisements were perceived as annoying and a form of

surveillance.

Technology

o Innovations:

Internet and Wi-Fi

This innovation was seen to be the most important innovation of

the past 15 years by all participants.

Smart phones.

GPS.

Satellite and space technology.

o Impact:

Participants felt it was positive that they had access to information

and were able to uphold their networks better. GPS was seen as a

practical device when it comes to route planning and smart phones

were seen to combine all these qualities.

It was seen as negative that these innovations brought with them

what participants perceived to be a great danger of surveillance.

Furthermore, participants felt that the innovations had a negative

impact on social life and that smart phones could be seen as status

symbols.


5

Spontaneous projections on tomorrow’s scientific and technological innovations The scientific innovations participants believed could be part of their daily lives in

2030 were as follows:

Education/knowledge

o Innovations:

Better integration of IT.

o Impact:

This would ensure that technologies can communicate better with

each other.

Transport

o Innovations:

More effective and widespread use of electrical cars.

New types of planes.

Paths that move around by themselves.

Beaming.

Better regulation of traffic.

o Impact:

Participants hoped that these innovations will make transport more

effective and environmentally friendly.

Work/jobs

o Innovations:

Robots take over physical work.

o Impact:

Participants hoped that this will lead to less work related injuries.

Participants, however, feared increased unemployment due to this

innovation.

Energy

o Innovations:

Hydrogen energy as an alternative power source.

o Impact:

Participants felt that this was an environmentally friendly power

source.


o Innovations:

More surveillance and data collection.

o Impact:

This was seen as very negative and a step towards a surveillance

state.

Military

o Innovations:

New types of weapons.

More frequent use of drones.

o Impact:

Participants felt that this might make war safer for soldiers.


6

The participants also expected innovations within the selected areas:

Homes and living

o Innovations:

All-in-one mobile phones.

Robots take over household tasks.

Voice-control of appliances and technology.

Online shopping as the normal way of shopping.

Invisible noise barriers.

Wireless power.

Moneyless society.

o Impact:

Participants hoped the innovations will make their lives easier and

more comfortable.

Health and healthcare

o Innovations:

Electronic tracking of health via a chip.

New treatments.

Enabling the blind to see.

Organs made from stem cells.

o Impact:

Participants hoped the named innovations will improve people’s

health and thereby their quality of life.

Ubiquitous communication and interaction

o Innovations:

More effective surveillance.

Learning through virtual reality.

o Impact:

Participants hoped that education would be more accessible to

everyone.

They feared, however, that they might end up being monitored.

Environment

o Innovations:

More and better recycling.

More effective and widespread renewable energy sources.

o Impact:

Participant hoped that these innovations would make the lives they

lead more environmentally friendly.


7

Reactions to future scientific and technological innovations in selected areas Homes and living (assessment of the scenario and its innovations)

Participants spontaneously divided the scenario into two parts. The first part, the

personal robot Pra, received a negative reaction by most participants, while the

second part, the energy efficient house, received very positive reactions.

The personal robot assistant Pra

o This innovation was perceived as negative by most participants, because

the robot was experienced as distant and impersonal. Participants had a

great fear of being monitored by the robot and felt that it would have

access to sensitive information that should not be stored on company

servers. Furthermore, participants felt that the robot would lead to a loss

of spontaneity in their lives.

o Some participants, mostly older men with a high education and younger

men with a low education, felt however that the robot was a very practical

innovation that they would greatly enjoy.

The energy efficient house

o All participants very much liked the second part of the scenario, which was

perceived as purely positive.

o They liked the energy efficient house due to its energy saving innovations,

which would not only save participants money in the form of lower

electricity bills, but would bring to them lead an environmentally friendlier

life, which all participants thought was very positive.

Nearly all participants agreed that the scenario was very realistic for the year

2030. All but few participants thought the innovations in the scenario would be

accepted.

The participants identified two barriers:

Fear of surveillance.

The cost of installing the innovations.

Participants generally felt that the innovations presented in the scenario were

useful to have.

A few participants felt differently about the robot assistant. They felt, that people

would not want to live with a robot due to humans’ social nature.

None of the innovations were perceived as unacceptable or frightening.

Health and healthcare (assessment of the scenario and its innovations)

The scenario received a mixed response with female participants being more

critical towards the innovations than male participants.

The majority of participants did not wish to take a genetic test, because they

feared they might learn something they would rather not have known.

Furthermore, a supermarket was perceived to be the wrong place for such a

test due to a lack of competent personnel.

Many participants did not like the idea of getting dietary advice from the

supermarket, since they felt this was based on surveillance and did not want

to be judged for their groceries.

Several participants worried about the centralised health records being hacked

and felt that patients lack the competence to update their records.


8

Nearly all participants thought electronic blood tests were positive due to their

time-saving nature. Some participants worried however about hygiene and

equipment.

Stem cell therapy was perceived as very positive, though a few participants

raised ethical questions.

Some participants, especially older men, thought the health chip was practical.

Most other participants felt that this was a form surveillance.

Nearly all participants liked the idea of consultations from home, since this

was seen to save time.

All participants agreed that this scenario sounded realistic for the year 2030.

Participants agreed that all innovations except genetic testing in a supermarket

would become accepted in Danish society.

Participants were only surprised by electronic blood tests and health chips.

There was general agreement that all the innovations in the scenario were useful.

While none of the innovations in the scenario were seen as unacceptable or

frightening, participants worried about the quality of care in supermarkets and in

video consultations, the possible surveillance of people’s health and the ethical

dimension of stem cell therapy.

Ubiquitous communication and interaction (assessment of the scenario

and its innovations)

This scenario was also spontaneously divided up into two parts that received

different reactions from participants:

The first part, the ubiquitous tracking of machines and humans received a

negative reaction.

o Nearly all participants feared collection and misuse of data both with the

automatic issuance of tickets and personalised advertisements and

notifications.

o Face recognition technology was also greatly disliked, since participants

liked to be able to remain anonymous.

The second part, virtual reality, was well-received by participants.

o Nearly all participants liked the idea of holographic calls, though they

stressed that they prefer meetings in person.

o Virtual meetings were perceived as very positive, because they allow

people to be closer.

Participants perceived the scenario as a realistic version of the year 2030. The

innovations were seen to be acceptable in people’s lives in the future, though

participants did see the barrier of feeling monitored by the innovations within the

first part of the scenario.

Participants were not surprised by the innovations and only few had not heard of

face recognition technology and holographic calls. They felt that the innovations

were not useful to them, but to insurance companies, the police and companies

that try to sell something. Virtual communication was the only innovation that

participants perceived to be of use to them.

The perceived surveillance related to the tracking of machines and humans was

unacceptable to most participants and would only be overcome by giving people

the possibility to opt out.


9

Environment (assessment of the scenario and its innovations)

This scenario was also spontaneously divided by participants into two parts, which

received different reactions.

The first part, which was perceived to be very positive, takes place on a local

and national level.

o Participants greatly liked the fact that everything was made more energy

efficient, ran on renewable energy and was made more environmentally

friendly in general.

o A few participants felt, however, that the surveillance of plants and

animals went too far.

The second part, which takes place on a global level, was seen as very

positive but also very unrealistic.

o Participants felt that the innovations were unrealistic because their

implementation would require great international cooperation, which the

participants did not believe would be possible.

o The Geo-engineering innovations received mixed reactions, which were

due to the fact that participants did not feel like they really understood

them and were therefore critical of them.

Nearly all participants felt that the first part of the scenario was realistic. The

second part however was perceived to be unrealistic by all participants due to the

lack of international cooperation. While the participants generally thought that

the mentioned innovations would be accepted in Danish society, they also

identified the barriers due to consumption culture and the lack of economic

capital needed to implement the innovations.

Participants were generally not surprised by the innovations in the scenario.

Some participants, however, had not previously heard of CO2-storage and carbon

ocean fertilisation.

All participants agreed that the innovations were all very useful in order to ease

the burden on the environment.

While none of the innovations were unacceptable to participants, some

participants worried about the consequences of geo-engineering. In this respect,

more information was needed in order to help participants understand the

innovation better and thereby change their attitudes.


10

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 profiles The table below presents the composition of groups:

Group Description

1 18-34 year olds who finished their education between the age of 17 and

22

2 20-34 year olds who finished their education between the age of 20 and

25

3 35-64 year olds who finished their education before the age of 18

4 35-64 year olds who finished their education before the age of 18

5 35-64 year olds who finished their education after the age of 18

6 35-64 year olds who finished their education after the age of 18

The detailed participant profiles and group compositions, as well as details on the

fieldwork dates are described in the technical report.


11

National context

Denmark is a country with a very egalitarian society, where it is important to

people that no one is “left behind”. Personal freedom is important to Danes. This

manifests itself not only through general scepticism when it comes to changes

that are perceived to be “forced” on people, but also through the desire to have a

choice about whether they want to have new technology in their lives and at

which point in time. In this context, it is important to know that most Danes own

their place of residence and are therefore very cost-conscious regarding

innovations whose implementation would mean having to modify one’s place of

residence.

The Danish citizens are generally very open towards innovations. This means that

technology is not only widespread among the Danish population, but also that

Denmark as a whole is progressive when it comes to the implementation of new

technology in everyday life.


12

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

The participants in all groups named a number of different associations when

referring to the notion of scientific and technological innovations. These can be

grouped into technical innovations, positive associations and negative

associations.

The technical innovations that were named were:

Robots and other electronic aids that lead to automation of everyday life both

in domestic and professional contexts as well as in healthcare:

o Robot vacuum cleaner;

o Robots within geriatric care;

o Smart fridges;

o Smart houses.

3D-printers.

New forms of transport, such as self-driving cars, electric cars, electric

bicycles.

Digital technology, such as the Cloud.

Refinement of existing technologies and development of new ones within

health care:

o Nanotechnology;

o Better diagnostic procedures and equipment in medical care;

o Health chips that measure blood sugar levels.

The participants named the following positive associations:

Development

Development was seen as something positive, a forwards movement instead

of stagnation.

Relief in everyday life and saving of resources.

Innovations were perceived as helpful by making dull tasks easier and quicker

to accomplish. This gives participants extra time they can use to do other

things and saves them money.

Democratisation

Participants felt that innovations allow them to do more things themselves

instead of having to hire professionals.

“There’s democratisation, because technical equipment is

getting cheaper and cheaper.” (Denmark, Group 5)

Sharing of knowledge

Innovations, especially the Internet, were perceived to have led to a higher

level of knowledge within society by making knowledge easier to acquire.


13

“There is more knowledge about things; you can do things

better and differently. We know, for example, more about

how lakes work now and how you can prevent oxygen

depletion. We know a lot about ozone and CO2 now.”

(Denmark, Group 2)

Creativity and entrepreneurship

Innovation was associated with thinking in new and ambitious ways as well as

with people who are creative and who think in different ways.

Increased quality of life

Several participants have experienced that innovations within healthcare, e.g.

pacemakers, have led to an increased quality of life for them.

Negative ideas that participants associated with scientific and technological

innovations were:

Alienation and loneliness

Participants feared a loss of human contact and closeness due to the

implementation of new technology. This is especially the case with smart

phones and within geriatric care.

“Robotisation makes everything more impersonal and that

means that old people will never see anyone and get lonely.”

(Denmark, Group 1)

Unemployment

Many feared that technological innovations could render people unnecessary

within certain areas.

Control and surveillance

Nearly all participants feared that the state or companies may use

technological innovations to monitor them.

Strenuous – you have to learn new things

“There’s stress, because you have to learn new things all

the time.” (Denmark, Group 2)

Dependence on technology and loss of accountability

Especially older participants felt that we already depend too much on

technology and rid ourselves of responsibility in the process. This was

particularly the case with smart phones and social media, where participants

felt that you have to be reachable at all times.

Laziness and loss of knowledge

Many participants felt that people may become lazy if they let technological

innovations do their work for them and they might even forget how certain

tasks are accomplished.

“I just think that if the things you normally do yourself are

taken over by a robot, you end up forgetting how to do

them yourself.” (Denmark, Group 1)

Opaqueness and stressfulness

Several of the older participants had a hard time following the technical

development, which was perceived as happening too quickly for them to be

able to really understand it.


14

Hard to control

Some participants feared that technical developments might be too quick and

uncontrolled. They feared that we do not know what developments will lead to,

a worst case scenario being humans being overtaken by machines.

Environmental impact

Participants feared that more technology might lead to more energy being

used and therefore a greater burden on the environment.

“I’m worried about whether we can get things to be

sustainable. We use more and more and I worry about a

collapse and lack of resources.” (Denmark, Group 2)

Differentiation

Participants feared that technological innovations may increase inequality

between those with economic capital and/or technological knowledge and

others. The latter were perceived to be at risk of being oppressed by the

former. This applies to both national and international contexts.

A buzz word without any real meaning

Several participants felt that the term “innovation” has become a buzz word

that is used by many and in different contexts, which has led to the word

lacking in content.

“It’s a buzzword that is used in all these different contexts,

in all these different ways. It basically has no meaning

because of that.” (Denmark, Group 6)

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

When asked about the most important scientific and technological innovations

over the last 15 years, participants mostly refer to the same innovations they

talked about as general associations with the term “innovation” (see 1.1). All

participants had difficulties in distinguishing between innovations of the last 15

years and those which are older; they often mentioned older innovations that

have become more common within the last 15 years. The innovations mentioned

sorted by theme, are:

Health/medical treatment

Better, less invasive diagnoses and treatment of cancer and other illnesses. o Robot operations, microscope operations, laser operations, artificial organs

and body parts, stem cell therapy. o Positive effects were perceived to be a healthier population that feels safer

and a higher quality of life.

“There is better treatment, especially of cancer. Research

has improved a lot and they can treat a lot more now than

they could before. There are better scans now and there is a

good quality of life in all of that.” (Denmark, Group 6)


15

o Possible dependence on technical equipment was seen as negative, e.g.

pacemakers, which may fail. Some participants also felt that there are

treatment options that have not been researched thoroughly enough when

it comes to long term effects. Furthermore, the citizens’ longer lives were

feared to put pressure on the health care system.

Collection of knowledge on side effects in databases.

More and better vaccines.

Genetic testing: o Participants perceived it as positive that you can now test for certain

genes and thereby assess the risk of developing certain diseases. o This was also seen as negative, since it can have great effect on a person’s

quality of life and even lead to genetic cleansing. Participants questioned

how far this development should be permitted to go.

“I’m a little torn about whether you should treat diseases

in that way. Should we change nature or let it run its

course? I’m really having a hard time with that. Should we

really change how we are built? Who decides who gets

treatment?” (Denmark, Group 1)

Electronic aids within health care: o Electronic contact with doctors/hospitals is common among certain patient

groups (e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and was also seen as

thoroughly positive.

Education/knowledge

Virtual lectures and classes; o It was seen as positive that virtual lectures give people access to more

and different kinds of education, without having to leave their homes. o It was seen as negative that this could lead to students never seeing each

other, since this was considered to be crucial in order to build a

professional network.

“Distance learning is great, but it shouldn’t be all there is.

It’s important to get to know one another, especially when

you have to create a network for when you’re working later

in life. In order to be able to make use of one another, you

have to get to know each other better.” (Denmark, Group

4)

More interdisciplinary education: o The new knowledge generated was seen as positive. o Participants worried that the constant pressure to educate yourself more

and more might lead to some people being left behind.

“Education depends a little too much on what the individual

does now. People become even more divided into upper and

lower classes.” (Denmark, Group 5)

Computer-based exams.

New technology in education, e.g. iPads: o It was positive that pupils learn how to handle technology and that they no

longer have to carry heavy books, since those now are in digital form o Participants feared that pupils might stop acquiring certain skills, such as.

writing by hand and mental arithmetic


16

Living conditions/housing

Smart grids connect technology together, making it possible to control for

example lights from a smart phone.

More environmentally sound and power-saving building techniques. o Better isolation.

Electronic aids within the home: o Robot vacuum cleaners. o Stair lifts were seen as a thoroughly positive innovation that helped elderly

and handicapped people move around. o Tablets with special software help engage the handicapped and children

with special needs.

“Virtual communication can motivate a child. For example,

when a child has a task to do in a computer game, they go

into a different world mentally and this gets their fantasy

going. This has also been tried for autistic children and it

works.” (Denmark, Group 5)

Transport

Alternative fuels or engines: o Electric cars, hybrid cars. o LNG engines Stair lifts were seen as a thoroughly positive innovation that

helps elderly and handicapped people move around.

More energy-efficient engines.

Better infrastructure: o More and better bicycle lanes. o More public transport lines. o More bridges and tunnels.

Safer and more reliable public transportation.

Traffic lights that can steer traffic in order to avoid traffic jams.

Work/jobs

Outsourcing was seen as negative.

Robots: o It was seen as positive that robots can take over physically hard work,

which could minimise work injuries. o Participants were afraid that robots might take over people’s work and

thereby raise unemployment.

Better opportunities to work from home: o The Internet was perceived as having made this possible. o Working from home was seen as especially positive for physically

handicapped people. o Participants feared that they can no longer get a break from work.

“There are new ways of working now. You no longer need to

physically go outside, but then there are other control

mechanisms so that you do your work. But this all lacks

human contact and control can be abused.” (Denmark,

Group 2)


17

Environmental protection

Better catalytic converters.

Better particle filters.

More recycling and better ways to reuse resources.

De-extinction.

Energy

Renewable energy forms have become more common, which was seen as

thoroughly positive: o Wind power, solar power and wave power. o You can produce your own power and earn money with it.

New and power-saving technology: o LED light bulbs. o Lithium batteries with a longer battery life.


It has become easier to secure data, e.g. in the cloud or on dropbox, but

participants considered that data can never be safe when it is online.

“You can secure your data in better ways, for example in

dropbox, but that means that others could also access it.”

(Denmark, Group 2)

PayPal has made online payment more secure, which was seen as positive.

Better protection of data and against malware through different software.

Individually targeted advertisements were seen as negative due to the fear of

being surveyed.

Technology

Internet and Wi-Fi: o The Internet was perceived to be the most important innovation of the

past 15 years with the most impact on society and participants’ everyday

lives. o The Internet was seen as a positive innovation, because it has made

information more readily available and thereby increased the level of

knowledge within society. It has made better sharing of knowledge

possible (e-mail, professional articles online etc.). Participants found it to

be easier now to acquire and uphold professional and personal networks

as well as taking care of personal finances via online-banking and

shopping for many types of goods.

“We have faster access to information now and we can

check online whether a reference was right… And we can

see videos from other countries now.” (Denmark, Group 3)

o The negative impact associated with the Internet in particular was the fear

of cybercrime and personal data being hacked, recorded and used against

you. Information on the Internet was seen as superficial, often erroneous

and in the worst cases, an attempt at manipulation. The Internet was seen

as having alienated people from each other, because they now have less

personal contact. Participants perceived the Internet as a time waster that

that they felt dependent on (especially social media) and that could lead to

stress, because you always have to be online and reachable.


18

“People live on the Internet, with status updates and so on.

You no longer have anything to say when you actually meet

in person.” (Denmark, Group 3)

Smart Phones: o Participants felt that the greatest innovation with smart phones was the

fact that you now have the Internet with you all the time. This means that

the positive and negative impact mentioned concerning the Internet also

apply to smart phones. o It was seen as positive that smart phones have incorporated technologies

such as GPS, cameras and certain apps. In this respect, participants saw it

as very positive, that you can send and receive pictures on a smart phone.

“It’s like having your office in your pocket.” (Denmark,

Group 5)

o Smart phones are expensive and were perceived to have become a status

symbol that can exclude people if they do not own the “right” one.

Furthermore, some participants were afraid of being recorded on

film/photo against their will.

GPS: o Participants saw it as positive, that you can easily and quickly find your

way, estimate travel time and access traffic information.

“You can always find your way, without having to take a

map with you, you can have all of that on your phone as

well. I often use GPS to find out how long it will take me to

get from one place to another and whether there are traffic

jams on the way.” (Denmark, Group 6)

o The danger of being monitored was seen to be the greatest disadvantage

of GPS technology. Furthermore, participants fear that we might lose our

sense of direction and become dependent on GPS technology and its

provider, leading to a loss of responsibility.

Satellite and space technology: o The development of space technology has often had useful by-products in

the past, e.g. microwaves. o Participants feared that it may be used to monitor them and lead to a race

between nations for who has most prestige within space technology.

Furthermore, some participants did not think that space technology always

works.

“There is also this feeling of unsafety when it comes to

space technology, because it could always fall back down to

earth. There was this rocket recently that did that. Every

now and then something happens that reminds you that

things can go wrong as well.” (Denmark, Group 5)


19

II. SPONTANEOUS PROJECTIONS ON TOMORROW’S 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

Participants had different associations when it comes to scientific and

technological innovations that might be part of their everyday life by the year

2030. In the same way as with the innovations of the past 15 years, participants

felt that many possible innovations could have positive and negative effects on

society and everyday life. Certain innovations were however seen as desirable

scenarios, while others were seen as mostly negative.

The following innovations, grouped by theme, were mentioned by participants:

Education/knowledge

o Even better integration of IT, so that technologies can communicate well

with each other, regardless of their software.

Transport

o More effective and widespread use of electric cars.

This is seen as positive, since it is perceived as being more

environmentally friendly.

o New planes that have screens instead of windows.

“I read about this plane of the future recently and they said

it wouldn’t have any windows anymore, but screens that

would show the outside. It’s like the walls don’t exist

anymore then and it’s even supposed to save kerosene.”

(Denmark, Group 2)

o Paths that move around by themselves and that you step onto in order to

be transported.

o Beaming as a means of transportation.

This was seen as incredibly practical, since it would save a lot of time

and financial resources.

o Improved regulation of traffic.

Self-driving cars.

Work/jobs

o Robots taking over physical work.

Many participants felt that this would make life easier and would lead

to a decrease in work injuries.

All participants worried though, that this might lead to increased

unemployment.


20

“I worry about people being deselected at work, because

machines now do things for us. That leads to greater

unemployment.” (Denmark, Group 2)

Energy

o Hydrogen energy as an alternative power source.


o Participants also feared that their data and behaviour online might be

recorded in order to facilitate targeted advertisements, which was seen as

very negative.

Military

o New and improved drones that are used more frequently than today.

o More advanced weapons.

2.2 Expected innovations in selected areas

Homes and living

Participants imagined several different innovations that might be part of their

future daily lives by 2030 within the area of homes and living, all of which were

perceived to have both advantages and disadvantages.

All-in-one mobile phones, which have incorporated payment cards, insurance

cards etc.:

o This was perceived to be very positive, since people would no longer have

to carry all these things with them separately.

“We could have an all-in-one mobile phone, one that has

your insurance card, credit card, gift cards, bus ticket and

so on. That would be practical.” (Denmark, Group 1)

o Several participants worried that such a device would make identity theft

easier.

Robots taking over household tasks:

o Many participants felt that a personal robot could make their lives easier

and give them more free time.

o Several female participants worried about a possible loss of knowledge and

were unsure of what their role in the household would be.

Voice-control of everyday life appliances and technology.

Online shopping as the normal way of shopping:

o Some participants expect shops to close completely within the next 15

years in favour of internet shopping and delivery by courier or drone.

o Some participants saw this as very practical and time-saving.

o Most of the participants claimed however that they like going shopping

and getting inspired by the displays instead of having everything delivered.

Invisible noise barriers:

o These were seen as thoroughly positive, since they would remove the

eyesore that today’s noise barriers are perceived as.

Wireless power:

o Participants perceived it as positive to be able to avoid having electric

cables in their home.


21

“Wireless power would be great! I keep tripping over all

those power cables I have in the house and I’d love to get

rid of them.” (Denmark, Group 5)

o Some participants worried about what the electric field we would have to

live in might do to their bodies in a long term perspective.

Moneyless society, payment by finger print or identification chip within the

body:

o This was seen as a safer and more practical method of payment than cash

or card payments.

“In 15 years there will probably be a chip in our bodies that

we can use to pay. Developments are really fast.” (Denmark,

Group 6)

Health and healthcare

Participants imagined several different innovations that might be part of their

future daily lives by 2030 within the area of health and healthcare, all of which

were perceived to have both advantages and disadvantages:

Electronic health tracking via chip:

o This was perceived to save time lost in unnecessary trips to the doctor.

Furthermore, illnesses could be detected more quickly and less invasively.

o Several participants perceived such a chip as too invasive and worried

about possible surveillance.

New treatments:

o New treatments were generally seen as positive, because they increase

people’s quality of life. Several participants were worried about the effects

this might have on society, i.e. more old people who need care and

therefore greater pressure on the health care system.

o Enabling the blind to see via a chip in their brain and a camera in their

eyes.

o Organs made of stem cells:

This was seen as thoroughly positive, since these organs would be

tailored to one person and therefore last longer.

Genetic manipulation:

o Participants felt that it could be an advantage to be able to get rid of

hereditary illnesses.

o Participants thought that this was a morally grey area and were afraid of

what developments in this area might lead to.

“Let’s just assume that you could figure out everyone’s

genes. This could be abused, but you could also find out

about diseases. In the worst case, it will lead to a form of

racial hygiene.” (Denmark, Group 5)


22

Ubiquitous communication and interaction

Participants imagined several different innovations within the area of ubiquitous

communication and interaction that might be part of their future daily lives by

2030, all of which were perceived to have both advantages and disadvantages:

More effective surveillance

o This was seen as positive since it can prevent crimes and made

participants feel safer.

o All participants feared however, that they might be monitored themselves,

which is not something they want.

“I have this thing with surveillance, which is getting more

and more extensive. I can’t really come up with anything

good about it, but there might be a safety aspect in it.”

(Denmark, Group 5)

Virtual Education

o Some participants perceived the saved travel time as positive.

Furthermore, virtual education makes it possible to use different ways of

visualizing the topics at hand.

o Other participants felt that this would go against the social nature of

humans and keep students from developing social and professional

networks.

Environment

Participants imagined several different environmental innovations that might be

part of their future daily lives by 2030, all of which were perceived to have both

advantages and disadvantages:

More and better recycling:

o This was perceived to be more sustainable and therefore positive.

o Some participants worried about who will have to pay for changes in the

waste disposal system.

More effective and widespread wind and solar power:

o This was seen as very positive, since it would be climate friendly.

o Several participants doubted however that we could achieve a change

from other energy sources to renewable energy forms within the next 15

years. Several participants perceived countries that depend on the sale of

oil to be working against this. Furthermore, participants were unsure who

would pay for the additionally needed solar panels etc.

“We would need to change a lot of our infrastructure and

that is expensive. Who would pay for that? You need to

think the system through.” (Denmark, Group 6)


23

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

First impressions/ general feelings towards the scenario

The participants had both positive and negative first impressions and general

feelings associated with this scenario. The participants’ first reaction was

concentrated on those aspects which had made the greatest impression on them,

meaning that several other aspects within the scenario were disregarded.

The positive first impressions and general feelings were:

A luxurious life with a personal robot butler;

Good that a robot can help with everyday tasks;

Life is made easier and you can get more done within a day.

“I think it would be effective. It’s all very positive; I just

need to know when to switch the batteries.” (Denmark,

Group 6)

The negative first impressions and general feelings were:

Several female participants worried about their roles within their families

should a robot take over household tasks;

Impersonal and irritating robot;

Participants worried about data security;

Possible surveillance through the robot;

“That surveillance where you can always ask Pra what

happened at home during the day. It will probably have bad

consequences for living together with other people. Even

couples don’t share everything with each other.” (Denmark,

Group 6)

User-friendliness was questioned;

Participants worried about hackers and identity thieves that would get access

to a lot of sensitive information if they hacked the robot;


24

“I worry about data security here. There it a great deal of

surveillance going on in that home and everyone knows

about everything everyone is doing. There could also be

someone that hacks the robot and steals your identity.”

(Denmark, Group 1)

People might forget how to do things themselves if a robot does their tasks

for them;

Several participants felt that the robot might take over their lives and make

all decisions for them.

“It’s not a good feeling to think about a machine telling you

what to think.” (Denmark, Group 3)

Assessment of the scenario

All participants spontaneously divided the scenario into two parts. The first part,

which included the personal robot Pra, received more negative reactions, while

the second part, which included the energy efficient house, was received more

positively.

The first part of the scenario, the personal robot Pra, was received with great

scepticism by nearly all participants, especially by women.

Pra was experienced as very impersonal, cold, and distant.

o Many participants, especially women, preferred doing household tasks

themselves, even tasks that could be considered to be trivial, e.g. cleaning.

o Some participants worried about knowledge being lost if a robot takes

over those tasks and several female participants were unsure of what their

role in the family would be, if a robot took over what they considered to be

their tasks.

“That is very sensitive information, it’s not only how much

milk you drink, but creativity and identity is also taken from

you. Some of your value, something you can do is taken

from you.” (Denmark, Group 6)

o Some participants were under the impression that the robot was presented

as a replacement for family and friends, which they were against.

Pra was seen as one step away from artificial intelligence and experienced as

hard to control, even though the robot would be adapted to the individual

owner.

o Some participants were afraid of robots taking over.

o This fear is clearly inspired by American films, such as “I, Robot” and

“Terminator”.

Nearly all participants greatly disliked the fact that sensitive information would

be stored on an external server and feared that this information might be

used against them.

o Many participants were afraid that this information might be used to

monitor them and could therefore have consequences. Participants did not

feel that it would be the owner, who decides how much the robot gets to

know and that a personal robot instead would lead us one step closer to a

surveillance society.

“I think that information is private and it’s an invasion of my

private life.” (Denmark, Group 6)


25

o The idea that a fridge might tell its owner when they are nearly out of

specific products was perceived as very positive, though participants would

rather be told themselves instead of a robot.

“I would be really annoyed by some robot always running

around and talking to me. I don’t need a buddy, especially

when I already have a smart fridge. I don’t need that!”

(Denmark, Group 6)

Many participants were discontent at the thought of losing the opportunity for

spontaneity and variation in their shopping if Pra takes over this task.

o Participants missed being able to freely choose something if everything is

put into a fixed routine.

o Many participants feel that they would have no opportunity to change their

routines or vary their eating habits in this scenario.

“I usually cook food myself and we often change what we

eat, so I would rather decide myself what groceries we

need.” (Denmark, Group 3)

“I don’t think the robot could handle how often I change my

mind. Sometimes I want to eat and drink something other

than I normally do.” (Denmark, Group 6)

Some participants were unsure, whether a task would actually be

accomplished quicker by Pra than by themselves and whether they would

rather do the task themselves, if that was not the case.

A few participants also claimed to enjoy tasks such as cleaning and reading a

newspaper, meaning that Pra was not seen as an improvement of their daily

lives.

Some participants, which were mostly older men with a higher educational

background and younger men with a lower educational background, were

positive towards the scenario.

o These participants appreciate the robot being able to take over some of

the more trivial household tasks, thereby giving them more time to do

things they would rather do.

“The scenario sounds very good and sounds like there is a

lot of free time, because you don’t have to do all those daily

tasks, like cleaning.” (Denmark, Group 1)

o It was very important to these participants that one could install certain

economic knowledge in the robot, so it does not pay too much when

shopping.

The second part of the scenario, the energy efficient house, was perceived as

very positive by all participants.

It was experienced as especially positive that the house was well insulated

and that you can produce some of the energy you use yourself.

All participants were very aware of the scarceness of resources and felt that

everyone should respect and take care of the environment.

None of the participants associated measuring power consumption with

surveillance, which was due to the fact that everyone wanted to keep their

own power consumption at a low level. The reason for this was both

environmental and participants' personal finances.

It was seen as an especially good idea to have a lower price for electricity that

is consumed outside of peak hours.


26

The material on windows that keeps the rooms at a comfortable temperature

was seen as very positive.

Nearly all participants agreed that it seems realistic that the scenario would be

realised by 2030 and that several of the technological innovations have already

been invented, e.g. robot vacuum cleaners, smart fridges, solar and wind power.

Very few participants felt that the scenario was not realistic, because they

thought that people would not want to live this way due to their social nature.

“I think it’s unrealistic. It could very well be that some of

these things are going to happen, but I don’t think that

people would actually want to live like that, because people

have a social nature.” (Denmark, Group 1)

These participants did, however, agree that people would most likely get used to

personal robots etc. over time.

Nearly all participants thought that this scenario would be an accepted reality by

2030. However, choice was seen as an important element in accepting the

innovations in the participants’ daily lives. It was very important to participants,

that the innovations in the scenario would not be forced upon them, but that they

could make conscious choices themselves. Even if they decided to get a personal

robot, participants made it clear that it was important to be able to shut off the

robot if they wanted to.

Some participants identified possible barriers that would keep this scenario from

becoming reality one day.

Fear of surveillance:

o Participants generally felt uneasy at the idea of a robot butler in their

homes due to the fear either of it being used to monitor them or of it

possibly being hacked.

Economics:

o Several participants worried that the personal robot Pra could be very

expensive and thereby create inequality between those who can afford it

and those who cannot.

o Many participants felt that modifications to their home, e.g. new and

better insulation, would cost them a lot of money to get installed.

Assessment of the innovations contained in the scenario

Participants were not surprised by any of the innovations that were presented in

the scenario. This was largely due to the fact that they felt that many of the

innovations already existed in some form and were known to them.

Smart phones were perceived as already having the ability to do much of

Pra’s functions, with the one difference that you have to actively do something

to access the information instead of it coming to you.

“A lot of Pra’s functions are already covered by mobile

phones. I wouldn’t want to get a robot like that.” (Denmark,

Group 3)

All of the energy efficient house’s innovations already existed, claimed

participants; it was more a matter of being able to afford these innovations.


27

“That thing with the windows sounds really positive, but

that already exists today.” (Denmark, Group 6)

Most participants generally felt that the innovations presented in the scenario

were useful to have.

Coated glass on windows and smart meters connected to a smart power grid:

o These innovations were perceived to be most useful and remained

uncontested within all focus groups. Participants perceived these

innovations as particularly useful because they enabled participants to be

environmentally friendly while saving money at the same time.

Delivery of goods by drones:

o Nearly all participants felt that delivery by drones was very useful.

“It could be great if the food I need could be ordered for me,

but I don’t feel well about the robot already having ordered

something and it having access to my money. The delivery

is good though.” (Denmark, Group 1)

o Some participants wondered however, what would happen if they were not

home for a delivery and what would happen if the drone broke down.

“And what happens if the drone breaks down and we no

longer have convenience stores and so on?” (Denmark,

Group 1)

o Many participants also felt that delivery by drone should not replace

grocery shopping, because they liked getting inspired by the goods and

displays in supermarkets.

The personal robot Pra:

o Pra was perceived to be useful, because it takes care of household tasks.

This allows its owner to have more free time to spend on other things.

“It would be fantastic if someone cleaned at my place. I

really hate to clean, but do it because I have to and see it

as something I just need to get over with.” (Denmark,

Group 3)

o Some participants also felt that Pra would be a good helper for the

handicapped.

o Several participants were unsure whether Pra would get in their way

instead of helping and whether the robot would actually be able to

accomplish tasks faster than if participants did them themselves.


28

While none of the innovations presented in the scenario were perceived as

unacceptable or frightening, nearly all participants were worried about the

protection of their privacy. As mentioned before, participants were afraid of the

robot assistant being used to monitor them or it being hacked and misused

and/or their sensitive information stolen. Participants did not see a way to

improve this situation, since they felt that one cannot fully protect data on the

Internet anyway. This was especially the case with older participants.

Overall ranking of the innovations contained in the scenario

A ranking of the innovations contained in the scenario from those the participants

liked most to those they liked the least would be as follows:

1. Smart meters connected to a smart power grid: Participants liked this innovation due to the fact that it enables them to be

environmentally friendly, while saving money.

2. Coated glass on windows: All participants liked this innovation, since it regulates room temperature

for them, which they felt was positive.

3. Smart fridge: Participants experienced the SMART KØLESKAB as practical, because it

tells you when you are running out of a certain product without having to

open and look through it themselves.

4. Home delivery of goods by drones: This was seen as time-saving and therefore practical. Participants did not however, want to be forced to always get everything

delivered by drones, because many of them enjoyed grocery shopping and

felt that the displays and goods in the supermarket inspired them.

5. Personal robot assistant: A few participants liked the idea of a personal robot assistant, which they

felt was practical and would allow them to have more free time. Nearly all participants met Pra with great scepticism, due to several

concerns, which were previously mentioned: o The robot was experienced to be cold and distant; o Participants felt that it might be hard to control Pra; o Participants felt uncomfortable with the idea of sensitive information

being saved on company servers; o Many participants thought that having Pra order food for them would

rob them of the opportunity to be spontaneous when it comes to their

eating habits; o Participants felt that Pra could be used to monitor them and/or be

hacked and their sensitive information could be stolen. Many participants felt that it would remove some barriers if they were able

to personalise Pra to a greater degree, so that they felt more like it was

their robot instead of just a robot. Furthermore, sensitive information

should not be saved on company servers.


29

Alternative scientific innovations Participants generally did not provide any suggestions as to alternatives.

One participant did however have the idea that there could be a small charge

for drone delivery, while getting groceries yourself remains free of charge.

This would counteract people becoming lazy and dependent on technology

and keep the possibility open to go into a supermarket and be inspired by the

displays and goods.

3.2 Health and healthcare


The participants’ overall first impression and general feelings towards this

scenario were generally more positive than towards the first scenario. Again,

there were both positive and negative first impressions, though the positive

feelings predominated.

The positive first impressions and general feelings participants had about this

scenario were:

The scenario makes it possible to live longer;

Self-diagnosis is positive, it saves time;

Great for small cities in rural areas;

Improved health for everyone;

The innovations help people to become healthier;

Makes it easier to take care of yourself;

Security;

Improved knowledge about yourself.

The negative first impressions and general feelings that participants named were:

Surveillance of people and their health;

Worry about the lack of personal care;

People are no longer responsible for their own lives;

Forces people to be healthy in a commercialised way.

“I wrote health fascism in a commercialised form. I would

feel very provoked if I got an automatic email from

Superbest (Danish supermarket) that told me to eat

healthier.” (Denmark, Group 3)


This scenario received a mixed response among participants. While the female

participants again were more critical, the male participants were more open

towards the scenario and the innovations in it.

Several aspects of the scenario were received with great scepticism:


30

The majority of participants did not wish for a gene test:

o Participants claimed that they would not want to know whether they have

the genetic disposition for an illness, because it would take away their

quality of life.

Some participants even feared this might lead to a “reversed placebo

effect”, where they would constantly believe they are getting ill, even

though it is not the case.

“I’m a little worried, because you could respond to learning

that there is a chance that something is wrong with you.

You could become psychologically convinced and then your

body reacts to that as well. Like a negative placebo-effect.”

(Denmark, Group 1)

o Nearly all participants felt that a supermarket was not the right place to

get genetic testing done.

Participants considered there to be a lack of qualified personnel. They

therefore worried about the possibility of needing someone qualified

to talk to about the test results, especially if the results contain bad

news that could send a person into a state of chock of depression.

“And then there are these genetic tests that you can buy

and I’m afraid that the employees in a supermarket are not

competent to handle someone getting bad news.” (Denmark,

Group 3)

Several participants worried about the hygienic situation in a

supermarket and whether it was sanitary to take a blood test there.

Some participants also worried about whether their test results would

remain confidential, since they were not sure about who would have

access to the results.

“There’s also some personal information that comes out in

the supermarket then. What if I buy Viagra and people start

talking about it?” (Denmark, Group 3)

Several participants felt that having their health monitored in the way that the

scenario suggests would lead to a loss of a sense of responsibility for one’s

own life.

Many of the participants, especially among the older groups, felt monitored by

receiving a notification about what they should buy and consume.

o Some participants felt that this would lead to them constantly having a

guilty conscience and even feeling stressed about grocery shopping.

“You also get a guilty conscience, because you might not

have the healthiest lifestyle and when you’re constantly

reminded of that, it can lead to stress.” (Denmark, Group 1)

o Several participants also felt that the recommendations would not be

based on a well-founded picture of them, because the supermarket did not

monitor level of fitness etc.

“I have to be allowed to eat all the sweets I want. I can go

for a run afterwards, but that’s something that the

supermarket doesn’t know about.” (Denmark, Group 1)


31

o Some participants worried about a loss of knowledge about food and

nutrition, since they felt that people would start depending on

supermarket notifications more than on their own knowledge.

Several participants felt that this scenario lacked human contact, which they

equalled with quality of counselling.

Several participants also felt nervous about centralised health data records.

o They did not believe that the record could be kept confidential. In this

respect, participants once again are very afraid of hacking.

o Other participants did not find it a good idea for patients to keep their

centralised health data records themselves, due to a lack of competence

on the patients’ side.

Other aspects of the scenario were perceived as a lot more positive by

participants:

Nearly all participants find it positive to be able to send blood samples to

the doctor electronically.

o A few did however worry about what and how much equipment

they would have to keep at home, should there be the possibility to

take more than just blood tests electronically.

Most participants perceive stem cell therapy as very positive as well:

o Only two participants had ethical objections, since they were not

sure whether people should change nature or let it run its course.

“That could be the remedy for someone with a chronic

disease.” (Denmark, Group 5)

Some participants, especially older men, thought that a chip that registers

your health status and lets you know if you need to be aware of something,

sounds very desirable.

o These participants did not feel that their responsibility for their own

lives would be taken away from them, but rather saw the chip as a

welcome aid.

“I liked the chip in the arm, it would be great to get relevant

data at the right point in time.” (Denmark, Group 3)

Some participants would like to have a gene test done, but only by a

competent doctor and in connection with detailed counselling.

Several participants appreciated the idea of dietary advice for disease

prevention. These participants did not see this as surveillance should it

take its point of departure in participants’ current behaviour.

“I think it all sounds positive. It gives you security and

that’s why I think it’s fine to be monitored when it comes to

my health.” (Denmark, Group 5)

Nearly all participants perceived medical consultations from home as a

great way to save time. While many participants preferred personal

contact and felt that this innovation could lead to a slight decline in quality

of counselling, participants generally did not think this mattered.

“I think the waiting time would get a lot better with video

consultations, but I much prefer personal contact.”

(Denmark, Group 1)


32

All participants agreed that this scenario sounded like a realistic version of daily

life in 2030.

They also largely agreed that nearly all of the innovations in the scenario would

become accepted in society in the future. As with the innovations in the first

scenario, it was important to participants that innovations would not be forced

upon them, but that they would have the chance to actively decide whether they

want to have them in their lives or not.

Since this scenario was perceived to be rather positive and practical, participants

could only identify barriers regarding the acceptance of one innovation:

Genetic testing in supermarkets.

o Participants felt that gene tests should not be compulsory, because they

might not want to know the results.

“There isn’t anything medical about a cashier sitting there

and telling you about the results of your genetic test. The

electronic blood tests are probably a good idea, but it would

make me very sad to get an answer to a genetic test I

didn’t want to take in the first place. You have to be able to

choose not to do that.” (Denmark, Group 5)

o Furthermore, participants considered that the personnel in the

supermarket would lack the competence required to counsel them in case

the results of the gene test contained bad news.

“I also thought about the poor cashier, who has to handle

people that have received some seriously bad news. Doctors

learn how to handle that, but a cashier doesn’t.” (Denmark,

Group 3)

o Several participants felt that a supermarket would be an unhygienic place

to take a blood test.

o Some participants also worried about who would have access to their gene

test results if it was done in a supermarket.


As with the first scenario, participants were generally not surprised by most of

the innovations. This was the case, because they once again felt that many of the

innovations already exist or are well on their way.

Dietary advice for disease prevention is available through doctors;

There are already centralised health data records in Denmark, which both

doctors and patients have access to;

Certain patient groups (e.g. those with chronic obstructive pulmonary

disease) are already in electronic contact with their doctors.

Participants were however surprised by two innovations that they encountered for

the first time in the scenario:

Electronic blood tests

Chips that measure your health status.


33

Participants generally agreed that the innovations presented in the scenario were

useful. Objections to the innovations were not based on their usefulness, but

rather on other considerations, such as fear of surveillance.

“Over the counter” genetic tests

o Some participants thought a gene test would give them access to better

knowledge about themselves and how to live their lives.

o Most participants claimed, however, that they did not want to know the

results of such a test.

“The life expectancy is raised, but I think people will be

afraid if they learn about everything that they could die of.

It’s okay if there’s only one thing you should avoid, but I

don’t need to know every single thing that is wrong with

me.” (Denmark, Group 1)

Dietary advice for disease prevention

o Many participants found it practical that the supermarket provided dietary

advice for disease prevention, so that they would be made aware of

possible illnesses and how to avoid them.

o A few participants did, however, worry about a loss of knowledge and

responsibility for one’s own life.

Biochips for health monitoring and diagnosis

o Participants generally thought it was useful that a chip could monitor their

health and pass the data along to a doctor in real time, should the need

occur.

Centralised health records

o Most participants felt that centralised health records were very useful.

Medical consultations made from home

o This innovation was seen as very useful by nearly all participants, since

they felt they could save a great amount of time by not having to wait for

treatment.

“You can save lots of time there, not only waiting time, but

also transport. There would probably also be less sick leave,

because people can consult their doctors during their lunch

break at work.” (Denmark, Group 1)

o Some participants felt however that this would have a negative impact on

the quality of care provided and insisted that there were certain things a

doctor would need to see with their own eyes.

“There are just some things that the doctor needs to see

and judge in person. In a video consultation you can only

tell about your symptoms.” (Denmark, Group 1)

Stem cell therapy

o It was perceived as very positive to be able to individualise health care in

this way, thereby making it unnecessary for example to change

transplanted organs after a certain time period.

“I think it would be fantastic to be able to help people by

giving them new organs made of stem cells.” (DK, Group 1)


34

While none of the innovations in the scenario were perceived as unacceptable or

frightening, many participants worried about certain aspects:

Quality of care

o In supermarkets:

Participants did not feel that there was a way to overcome this barrier,

since they felt that supermarkets cannot provide the necessary

quality of care.

o Via online consultations:

Participants felt that this barrier might be overcome by having real

appointments as well as online consultations.

Surveillance

o Related to dietary advice for disease prevention:

Participants felt that this barrier could be overcome by being able to

opt out.

“Yes, that gives me a stomach-ache. That doesn’t belong in

a supermarket. A supermarket should not tell me what I

need. And no one should have access to my data unless I

want them to.” (Denmark, Group 3)

o Related to wearable biochips:

Participants did not know how to overcome the feeling of surveillance

while being monitored by biochip.

Stem cell therapy:

o A few participants had ethical objections to stem cell therapy:

Participants did not offer any solutions to these objections.

Overall ranking of the innovations contained in the scenario

Below is the ranking of the innovations in the scenario from those the participants

liked the most to those they liked the least, based on all the participant groups:

1. Stem cell therapy

Older participants generally felt that stem cell therapy was a very positive

invention that had a lot of positive qualities.

Younger participants also felt that stem cell therapy was a positive

invention, but they raised the aforementioned ethical questions.

Stem cell therapy would come in second place for the younger participants.

2. Medical consultations made from home

Both older and younger participants felt that this saved a great amount of

time on transport and waiting for consultation.

Medical consultations made from home would come in first place for the

younger participants.

3. Biochips for health monitoring and diagnoses

Several older and younger participants felt that this was very practical in

order to monitor your health. However they also raised the objection that

it could be used for surveillance.

Wearable biochips would also come in third place for the younger

participants.

4. Centralised health records

Older participants felt that this innovation was practical. They did however

worry about the possibility of hacking.

Younger participants agreed with this and also raised the question whether

patients are competent enough to be able to update their own medical

record.


35

Centralised health records would come in fifth place for the younger

participants.

5. Dietary advice for disease prevention

Older participants felt that this innovation could help prevent possible

illnesses. However, they worried about possible surveillance and felt that

what they bought was only their business.

Younger participants agreed with these aspects, though they did not worry

about surveillance as much.

Dietary advice for disease prevention would come in fourth place for the


6. “Over the counter” genetic tests

Nearly all older and younger participants agreed that this innovation was

not a good idea, since they felt that there were too many aspects that

could go wrong.

Genetic tests would come in sixth place for the younger participants as

well.

Alternative scientific innovations

Participants once again did not provide a great amount of suggestions of

alternative innovations. The few alternative innovations mentioned were:

A genetic test that is carried out on a “need to know”-basis, meaning that a

person’s DNA will only be tested for genes related to diseases that they can

actively do something to avoid falling ill to.

“You could make the test on a need-to-know basis, so that

you only learn about the things you absolutely have to know.

You don’t always need to know about some genes you have.”

(Denmark, Group 5)

A database where doctors would be able to cooperate and share their

knowledge with each other.

“I would like to see another kind of database, one where

doctors can work together. That would make more sense to

me.” (Denmark, Group 3)

One participant wished for the centralised health records to be accessible to

more doctors, since he felt that more doctors bring more expertise.


36

3.3 Ubiquitous communication and interaction


Participants predominantly had negative first impressions and general feelings

about this scenario:

Surveillance society

Complete surveillance

Frightening amount of surveillance

Big Brother is watching you

Can you ever be in private?

There were, however, also few positive first impressions and general feelings:

The holograms sound great

It would be practical to be able to avoid traffic jams.


Participants once again spontaneously divided the scenario up into two parts,

which received different reactions.

The first part, which happens outside of the home, received a somewhat negative

reaction by participants, which is based on the fear of surveillance.

Ubiquitous tracking of machines and humans was perceived in an especially

negative way, since participants feared surveillance and misuse of the

collected data. This was perceived to happen in two different ways:

o Automatic issuing of fines, if you act wrongly:

The majority of participants and especially older men refuse

automatic registration of their cars in general, regardless of whether

it is to issue fines or to regulate their insurance premium.

The reason for this is participants’ conviction that it is their right to

drive a little too fast.

“I don’t want my insurance company in my car. My son

should be able to learn how to drive in my car as well.”

(Denmark, Group 4)

o Personalised advertisements and product suggestions:

This was perceived as being especially negative by nearly all

participants, because they felt it would be annoying and based on

surveillance.

Only two participants felt that product suggestions would help them

to find presents and only receive presents which they wanted.

“I like the idea with personalised notifications. I often get

presents I didn’t want and have to exchange them.

Shopping with notifications could be an experience. If I

want to buy a present, it tells me what Ida wants to

have… It’s like with cookies on the internet.” (Denmark,

Group 4)


37

Nearly all participants reacted negatively towards face recognition technology,

because they felt this was an invasion of their privacy and were worried that

they might be monitored.

The second part of the scenario received a more positive reaction by participants:

Nearly all participants liked the idea of holographic calls.

o It was important to most participants to meet up in person should this be

possible. Holographic calls and virtual meetings were however seen as a

good alternative in the case where meetings in person would not be

possible.

“The holographic calls are good when you’re not mobile, but

I’d lack human response, being together with colleagues.”

(Denmark, Group 4)

o Many participants already use Skype and see the presented innovations as

a better alternative

“I think the holographic calls would be great, much better

than Skype. Something gets lost in Skype calls, body

language and then the dynamic in the discussion is off

because of the delays. It’s also awkward to talk on the

phone.” (Denmark, Group 2)

Virtual communication was perceived as very positive, because it was

perceived as enabling participants to be closer.

o This was the case both in the private sphere, but also the public and work

spheres. Several participants already use video conference calls at work

and the step towards virtual meetings was not perceived to be that big.

“It would be fantastic to be able to see the person you’re

communicating with. That’s a great advantage, because it

gives you more security in your communication.” (Denmark,

Group 5)

o Several participants also felt that virtual communication can be beneficial

when it comes to engaging with children with special needs.

Participants perceived the scenario as a realistic depiction of life in 2030.

Participants felt that they already had many of the presented innovations in

their lives, such as cookies on the internet that collect data about the user’s

preferences.

Some participants felt that other countries were “ahead” of Denmark when it

comes to surveillance in everyday life, e.g. Great Britain’s CCTV.

The participants felt that the innovations in the second part of the scenario would

readily be accepted in people’s daily lives. They did, however, see the previously

mentioned barriers when it comes to acceptance of the innovations in the first

part of the scenario. This was once again based on the fear of being monitored.

Furthermore, some participants felt that the first part of the scenario went

against the perception that individual freedom is very important for Danes and in

Danish society.


38

“I don’t think the insurance company surveillance would be

accepted. Danes like to decide themselves and this is just

too much surveillance.” (Denmark, Group 4)


As with the previous scenarios, participants were generally not surprised by the

innovations in the scenario. This was due to the fact that participants felt that

much of the presented technology is already was present in their lives.

Cookies on the Internet collect data about users’ preferences;

A Danish insurance company proposes to their customers to have black boxes

installed in their cars. The black boxes will monitor driving behaviour and

adjust insurance premiums accordingly;

There is behaviour recognition software that can be used to identify suicidal

persons in train stations.

However, a few participants had not heard of certain innovations before:

Face recognition technology

Hologram calls.

Participants agreed that the usefulness of the innovations in the first part of the

scenario depends from which perspective you look at it. The virtual reality of the

scenario’s second part was seen as useful by all participants.

Ubiquitous tracking of machines and people:

o Automatic speeding tickets are useful for the police, because they save

manpower.

o Black boxes in cars are useful for insurance companies, because these

would tell them when to in-/decrease insurance premiums.

o Participants feel however that these innovations are not useful to them.

The reason for this is because they are under the impression that they

would not only be monitored, but that this would also lead to negative

financial consequences. Furthermore, they question the ethics of

surveillance.

“I think that a lot of things would be smart here, but I think

it’s problematic with who is going to be monitoring us all.

Who decides and watches? This would lead to inequality.”

(Denmark, Group 2)

Facial recognition technology:

o Participants felt that this innovation could be useful for someone who

wants to identify them in order to send them advertisements for example.

o Personally, nearly all participants felt that this was surveillance and that

they would like to be able to remain anonymous if they want to.

“It’s like a technological dictatorship, where it’s not me who

decides where I want to be recognised and what I want to

be shown. Someone else decides that for me.” (Denmark,

Group 5)


39

Data collection about personal preferences, used by companies:

o This innovation was seen to be useful from the perspective of the

companies who want to sell something.

“I would be really annoyed by constantly getting updates

that aunt Jytte wants something or another as a present.”

(Denmark, Group 5)

o Participants also felt that this innovation was not useful for them and

rather regarded it as an invasion of privacy.

“It takes away your freedom of choice. I love to go around

and look at things.” (Denmark, Group 4)

Virtual communication:

o All participants agreed that the virtual communication presented in the

scenario was very useful, because it can be used for communication in

different contexts and brings people closer together.

Participants found the perceived surveillance of the first part in the scenario to be

unacceptable due to the aforementioned reasons. The innovations involved could

be more acceptable to participants if they were given the choice to opt out.

Overall ranking of the innovations contained in the scenario The ranking below lists the innovations contained in the scenario from those the

participants liked most to those they liked the least:

1. Virtual communication

All participants felt that the virtual communication innovations presented

in the scenario were very practical and often time saving. They bring

people closer together and were therefore seen as positive.

2. Data collection about personal preferences, used by companies

Nearly all participants disliked the idea of their data being collected and

used by companies.

This innovation was seen as a little better than face recognition technology

due to the fact that participants were already used to it in the form of

cookies on the Internet.

3. Facial recognition technology

Participants greatly disliked the idea of facial recognition technology, since

they perceived this as an invasion of their privacy, which makes it

impossible for them remain anonymous while shopping.

4. Ubiquitous tracking of machines and people

Due to the aforementioned reasons, ubiquitous tracking of machines and

people was seen as very negative and almost unacceptable.

These barriers might be overcome to a degree by giving people a choice to

take part in the innovation or not.


40


The participants had a few ideas for alternative scientific inventions that would be

more useful or acceptable:

Cruise Control for cars:

o This innovation would mean that cars are unable to drive faster than the

speed limit, whereby surveillance would be unnecessary.

Education via hologram and virtual reality:

o This innovation was seen as a great time saver.

3.4 Environment


The participants were divided in their first impressions and general feelings. While

all participants felt the scenario was very positive, the first reactions show that

only a few participants believed that this scenario could actually become reality:

Idealistic and not possible for all countries;

Utopian, more a goal than the future;

Expensive;

Perfect society;

“The perfect society. They’ve figured out how to conserve

the environment.” (Denmark, Group 4)

Great for the environment;

Can we really accomplish this?

Wishful thinking, like a dream;

Does not seem well-thought-out, are these innovations even possible?

Fantastic future;

Absurd time frame;

Assessment of the scenario This scenario was spontaneously divided into two parts by participants. The first

part takes place on a local and national level, while the second part takes place

on a global level.

The participants liked the innovations that affect life on a local and national level

a lot because they all eased the burden on the environment:

Participants highly appreciated that the main part of energy consumption

should be covered by solar and wind energy.

“We should use more renewable energy, like in the scenario.

In Scotland they generate power from waves along their

coast. I wonder why we don’t use our coastline for

something like that, we have so much of it.” (DK, Group 4)

Participants felt it was positive that all residences and cities were as energy

efficient as possible.


41

It was also perceived as positive, that recycling was optimised and waste used

to make other products.

Furthermore, participants felt it was very positive that land use was improved.

There were only very few negative reactions to one of the innovations in the first

part of the scenario:

A few participants felt that the surveillance of animals and plants could be

seen as part of a surveillance society that was unnecessary in the first place.

“I thought the surveillance of nature was negative. Nature

varies, so which standard do you use to measure it?”

(Denmark, Group 6)

Nearly all the participants liked the innovations that affect life on a global level,

since they were aware of having to minimize CO2 emissions and climate change.

This was especially the case for younger participants, for whom the environment

was particularly important.

This part of the scenario was perceived to be unrealistic, since it would take a

lot of international cooperation, which participants felt has not been successful

in the past.

“It’s idealistic. It’s something to strive for, but is this really

possible for everyone? It probably isn’t in many countries.”

(Denmark, Group 2)

Many participants liked the idea of storing CO2 in geological formations within

the earth:

o Some participants felt, however, that this was not thought through when it

comes to long term consequences.

“The part with the CO2 seems short-sighted. It sounds

dangerous when there’s a natural disaster.” (Denmark,

Group 2)

o A few participants were also under the impression that this might be

dangerous because it might explode.

Carbon ocean fertilisation was received with mixed feelings among

participants:

o This was mostly due to the fact that participants did not have sufficient

knowledge of marine ecosystems and therefore did not understand this

innovation.

o The lack of understanding for this innovation led to many participants

believing that it could easily go wrong and damage marine ecosystems.

“I don’t think the carbon ocean fertilisation is thought

through. What happens to the animals in the water?”

(Denmark, Group 4)

A few participants also felt that the scenario was not ambitious enough and that

society should be further ahead in their attempts to save the environment.

There were different attitudes towards the question whether the scenario is a

realistic depiction of the year 2030.


42

Innovations on a local and national level:

o Many participants felt that several innovations are already present in our

daily lives and therefore saw this part as realistic.

This was especially the case for better insulation and the ability to

generate your own power and feed it back into the system.

Many participants also felt that it is a necessity to make a scenario

like this reality by 2030 in order to try and reverse the damage done

to the environment. This was especially the case among younger

participants.

o Other participants felt that the scenario was not very realistic.

It would take a great amount of investments in order to integrate all

the innovations into their daily lives and participants did not know

where the necessary money would come from.

Innovation on a global level

o As previously mentioned, participants felt that a lack of international

cooperation would prevent the presented innovations from becoming

reality.

o Several participants also feared that those countries who are dependent

on selling oil, could actively work against efforts to make energy

consumption more environmentally friendly.

“It’s like a good dream, but a dream. I just don’t think that

the countries who depend on selling oil and coal would want

a development like that.” (Denmark, Group 4)

Participants generally believed that the innovations presented in the scenario

would be accepted in Danish society, even though they also identified some

barriers:

Some participants worried that the innovations were based on ideas that go

against today’s consumption culture. While they found this positive,

participants felt that it would therefore be harder to establish the scenario’s

innovations in everyday life.

“This really goes against consumer culture today. For

example to buy and throw away when something newer or

better comes along. There isn’t that much prestige in using

old things.” (Denmark, Group 2)

Economic capital

o Many participants felt that it would take a lot of money to realize all the

different inventions and integrate them into daily life. Participants were

unsure of where this money should come from.

o A possible solution would be tax benefits for those who would invest in the

presented innovations.


43


As with the previous scenarios, the participants were generally not surprised by

the innovations mentioned. This was due to the fact that many participants felt

that innovations from the scenario were already present in their daily lives.

Participants can already receive and invest in renewable energy sources.

By investing in insulation, people can already make their houses more energy

efficient.

“That sounds really great and I think we’ve already started

with that. You can no longer build a house for example, that

is an F on the energy use scale. ” (Denmark, Group 6)

There is already recycling in Denmark, though not nearly to the degree

depicted in the scenario.

“We have already started with the recycling. Those small

metal pieces from coke bottles and tea candles – only a few

people know that they can be reused.” (DK, Group 4)

However, some participants had not heard of certain innovations before and were

surprised by them:

Participants had not heard of the geo-engineering innovations of underground

CO2 storage and carbon ocean fertilisation and were surprised by these

innovations.

“CO2 in the earth? That surprised me, it’s not very obvious

to me.” (Denmark, Group 4)

All participants agreed that the innovations in the scenario were very useful in

order to ease the burden on the environment.

Energy derived from renewable energy:

o Renewable energy was seen as an optimal solution to ease the burden on

the environment without having to change one’s own energy use.

Energy efficient homes and cities:

o These were perceived as a great way to not only use less energy, but also

save money in the process.

o Some participants were worried about the costs connected to making a

house more energy efficient.

“The idea is fantastic when you look at our society today,

but it’s unrealistic. It would cost way too much to install all

these new systems. It sounds super fantastic, but it

probably should have said that it is the year 2530.”

(Denmark, Group 6)

Recycling of materials and resources:

o Participants liked the idea of recycling materials and resources in order to

save them and act more environmentally friendly.

Recycling of waste:

o As with the recycling of materials and resources, participants liked the idea

of recycling waste.


44

o Several participants once again worried about who would pay for the

changes to recycling as it is today.

Conversion of waste into value-added by products:

o Participants saw this innovation as a good way to recycle resources and

waste and thereby act more environmentally friendly.

New farming management practices in agriculture:

o Most participants liked the idea of improved agriculture, since this seemed

more sustainable to them.

Geoengineering:

o Many participants did not really understand the innovations and were

therefore rather sceptical towards them.

o Participants were also under the impression that these innovations were

not well thought-out and might lead to bad consequences in the long run.

“I think it sounds really dangerous to fertilise the ocean with

something or another, even though there are good

intentions behind it. We probably think this is good today,

but who knows how long that will last.” (Denmark, Group 6)

o Furthermore, nearly all participants did not think these innovations were

realistically achievable due to lack of international cooperation.

While none of the innovations in the scenario were seen as unacceptable to

participants, some were frightened by Geoengineering.

This fear can be linked to participants not really understanding the

innovations, since they did not know how the storage of CO2 underground

or in marine eco systems could be achieved.

Participants felt that the CO2 that was stored underground could explode

or leak into the groundwater.

The Geo-engineering innovations could be made more acceptable by a

higher level of information about these innovations among participants.

Overall ranking of the innovations contained in the scenario A ranking of the innovations contained in the scenario, from those the

participants liked most to those they liked the least, would be as follows:

1. In collective first place:

Renewable energy

o Participants felt that renewable energy sources were the optimal

energy sources of the future, due to the fact that they were seen as

environmentally friendly.

Energy efficient homes and cities

o All participants agreed that more energy efficient homes were a great

idea, since they would not only reduce the cost of electricity bills, but

also be environmentally friendly in the process.

2. In collective second place:

Recycling of materials and natural resources

o The participants found it a good idea to recycle materials and

resources in order to save them.

Recycling of waste

o Recycling of waste was seen as a good way to save resources and

make everyday life more sustainable.

o Nevertheless, some participants worried about the costs associated

with the implementation of a better recycling system.


45

3. Conversion of waste into value-added by-products

Participants felt that this innovation was a good way to recycle resources

and thereby act in a sustainable manner.

4. New farming management practices in agriculture

Participants generally thought the innovations within agriculture are a

good way to make it more sustainable.

Some participants felt however that this innovation was connected to

surveillance and thereby a surveillance state.

5. Geo-engineering

Most participants did not really understand these innovations and were

therefore sceptical towards them.

Some participants also felt that the innovations were not well thought-out

and thought they might have dangerous long-term consequences.

These innovations were also perceived to be the least likely to ever

become reality, since they were seen to require international cooperation.

This is something that all participants thought lacked in politics, especially


A possible way to overcome the participants scepticism towards these

innovations might be better and more information.


Participants had no suggestions of more useful or more acceptable innovations in

this particular area. Instead they wished for increased use of renewable energy

sources and tax benefits for those who invest in environmentally friendly

innovations, such as solar power or better insulation.


46

IV. CONCLUSION Nearly all participants did not change their minds during the course of the

discussion. Most participants were very sceptical towards innovations in general

and especially the innovations discussed in the scenarios. This manifested itself

particularly in the fact that they spent a lot more time talking about what might

be wrong about a certain innovation or scenario and not having that much to say

when it comes to innovations that can be seen as positive.

“I don’t think I have changed my mind either. I can see that

I will probably have some technological innovations in my

life in the future, but I haven’t changed my mind.”

(Denmark, Group 3)

Very few participants changed their minds to a more positive view on scientific

and technological innovations. The causes for this were the following:

More and better information:

o Some participants felt that it helped them to learn more about possible

innovations in the future and get some explanations they felt they had

been lacking.

“I have become less sceptical, because I got some

explanations here. I’m always sceptical when I don’t

understand something.” (Denmark, Group 2)

o Other participants claimed that they were more aware of innovations in

their everyday lives after the discussion than they were before.

Other participants simply stated that the discussion gave them a lot to think

about when it comes to future innovations and that they simply do not know

where the future is heading and how our needs and desires will develop.

“In 2030 we probably have needs we have no idea about

now. But I hope that we have come up with something that

gives us more free time to spend together with other

people.” (Denmark, Group 3)

public opinion on future innovations, science...

Documents