Public views on transformative technologies

This article discusses public views on transformative technologies. Global trust in science as an ideal is generally high. However, technologies represent artifacts released into the physical world. Ideally, they signify forward-looking purpose, though developed by unseen forces that no single person can fully manage or recreate. People will weigh everyday benefits and risks but also consider their meaning. Unsurprisingly, views across novel technologies are shaped by a range of social factors, psychological drivers and moral concerns, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to measuring or integrating these in innovation. Broad support is likely to grow when both technologies and their governance demonstrate clear purpose, oversight and societal benefit, and weaken when opaque, weird, unfair or uncertain. Quantitative psychological research can blueprint cognitive and affective supports of trust, but qualitative research (psychological and sociological) gives thicker detail to map terrain needed when bridging science and society.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Current Opinion in Psychology
Published
2026-01-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2026.102267
Primary Topic
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Public views on transformative technologies

Henry G.W. Dixson
Current Opinion in Psychology
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
article

Public views on transformative technologies

Henry G.W. Dixson
article en

Abstract

This article discusses public views on transformative technologies. Global trust in science as an ideal is generally high. However, technologies represent artifacts released into the physical world. Ideally, they signify forward-looking purpose, though developed by unseen forces that no single person can fully manage or recreate. People will weigh everyday benefits and risks but also consider their meaning. Unsurprisingly, views across novel technologies are shaped by a range of social factors, psychological drivers and moral concerns, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to measuring or integrating these in innovation. Broad support is likely to grow when both technologies and their governance demonstrate clear purpose, oversight and societal benefit, and weaken when opaque, weird, unfair or uncertain. Quantitative psychological research can blueprint cognitive and affective supports of trust, but qualitative research (psychological and sociological) gives thicker detail to map terrain needed when bridging science and society.

Current Opinion in PsychologyVol. 69
ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology (AU)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 81%
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.