Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Eurobarometer Qualitative Study
PUBLIC OPINION ON FUTURE
INNOVATIONS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
National Report
June 2015
The Netherlands
This study has been requested by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and
Innovation and co-ordinated by Directorate-General for Communication.
Qualitative study – TNS Qual+
Project title
Eurobarometer Qualitative study - “Public opinion on future innovations, science and technology” - National Report The Netherlands
Linguistic Version EN
Catalogue Number KI-02-15-344-EN-N
ISBN 978-92-79-48066-9
DOI 10.2777/259058
© European Union, 2015
Eurobarometer Qualitative study
Public opinion on future innovations,
science and technology: results of focus groups in selected Member States
National Report
The Netherlands
Conducted by TNS Qual+ at the request of the European Commission,
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Survey co-ordinated by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication
(DG COMM “Strategy, Corporate Communication Actions and Eurobarometer” Unit)
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................ 2
B. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY ...................................................... 6
Objectives ............................................................................................ 6
Methodology and sampling ..................................................................... 6
Participant profile .................................................................................. 6
National context .................................................................................... 6
I. GENERAL PERCEPTIONS ABOUT SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL
INNOVATIONS .................................................................................... 8
1.1 General associations linked to the notion of scientific innovation .......... 8
1.2 The most important scientific and technological innovations observed
over recent years ..................................................................................... 9
II. SPONTANEOUS PROJECTIONS ON TOMORROWS SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS ...................................................... 11
2.1 The scientific innovations expected to be part of peoples’ daily life in
2030 and their possible impact ................................................................ 11
2.2 Expected innovations in selected areas ........................................... 12
III. REACTIONS TO FUTURE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL
INNOVATIONS IN SELECTED AREAS ................................................. 14
3.1 Homes and living ......................................................................... 14
3.2 Health and healthcare .................................................................. 19
3.3 Ubiquitous communication and interaction ...................................... 22
3.4 Environment ............................................................................... 26
IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 29
Qualitative Study European
Commission
Qualitative Study European Commission
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
2
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
General perceptions about scientific and technological innovations
General associations linked to the notion of scientific innovation: robots, medical
innovations, cars (self-driving, low-energy), mobile devices, gadgets/apps and
renewable energy. Positive connotations linked to the notion of scientific
innovation are speed, efficiency, reachability and convenience. Negative
connotations linked to the notion of scientific innovation are less communication
between people, loss of privacy, not being able to keep up with the changes, loss
of jobs, and laziness.
The most important scientific and technological innovations observed over recent
years are the Internet and consequently the digitalisation of society, mobile
phones, smartphones, and social media.
The positive impact of smartphones is that everything can be looked up and more
can be arranged than before. The negative impacts of smartphones are a loss of
jobs, overload of information, not everybody being able to keep up, and the
danger of the youth being influenced by extreme ideas.
The positive impacts of mobile phones/smartphones are reachability (which is
handy and safe) and the fact that it is easy and convenient (information is always
at hand).
The negative impacts of mobile phones/smartphones are also the reachability
(unsafe in traffic and one never has peace)
The positive impact of social media is that keeping up with social contacts is
easier.
The negative impacts of social media are that social contacts can become more
impersonal, a decreasing quality of real life contacts, the danger of sharing too
much information, and the danger of addiction to social media.
Spontaneous projections on tomorrows’ scientific and technological innovations Scientific innovations expected to be part of peoples’ daily life in 2013 and their
possible impacts are advanced medical science (equipment and medicines), a
cashless society, robots performing all kinds of tasks (household, taking care of
elderly and sick people, healthcare, catering, supermarkets), advanced
equipment in houses, and self-driving or flying cars. The positive impacts of the
above mentioned innovations (ideal scenario) are better healthcare, more
convenience and comfort, and fewer mistakes and accidents. The negative
impacts of these innovations that participants feared (the disaster scenario) are
less personal contact, too much dependency on technology, more control over
and less freedom for people, and possible abuse of information by governments
with ‘bad intentions’.
Expected innovations in the area of Homes and living are equipment operated
by voice, equipment operated from a distance (while away from home), advanced
equipment such as automatic vacuum cleaners and 3D printers. The positive
impacts are convenience, while the negative impacts are laziness, too little
physical exercise, and too much dependency on technology.
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
3
Expected innovations in the area of Health and Healthcare are more advanced
medical equipment and medicines and more consultation with doctors via the
Internet instead of a ‘live visit’. The positive impacts are fewer serious
(consequences of) diseases. The negative impacts that were mentioned are less
quality in the contact with doctors and the risk of extending the life of sick people
too long.
In the area of Ubiquitous communication, participants thought that in 15 years
there will be even more gadgets than now, we will communicate using holograms
and there will be more registration and linking of personal data.
The positive impact of these innovations would be ease (for example less
paperwork) and the negative impact would be less privacy.
In the area of the Environment, participants expected that we will have more
renewable energy at our disposal, fewer emissions because all cars will be
electrical, recycling of all waste, only biodegradable materials, and more nature in
cities. The impact of these innovations was considered to be positive on the whole.
Reactions to future scientific and technological innovations in selected areas This section focuses on participants’ reactions to scenarios in four areas: Homes
and Living, Health and healthcare, Ubiquitous communication and interaction and
Environment.
Homes and living (assessment of the scenario and of its innovations) Participants stated that this scenario seems technically realistic and is partly
happening already. On one hand they were positive and thought that it is
convenient that a lot of things are done for you and that the equipment keeps an
overview of what has to be done and ordered. On the other hand they thought
that this scenario goes way too far. They had a lot of reservations in the area of
privacy, safety of data, and self-determination. They thought life would become
too predictable and thought this scenario could have negative effects on (healthy)
behaviour (lack of physical exercise) and the quality of social life (loneliness).
Participants thought that the robot in the form of a human was rather scary. Two
participants (in different groups) even had associations with the movie I Robot in
which robots try to take over humans and gain total power over them. Some
participants thought that perhaps the robot would be more acceptable if it was
smaller or not in the form of a robot.
Innovations liked most: Smart meters connected to smart power grids and
coated glass
Innovations received with mixed feelings: Smart fridge that warns you
when you run out of food and personalised assistance in executing
‘household cores’
Innovation not taken seriously: home delivery by drones
Innovations liked the least: personal assistant (planning, personal
messages, weather forecasts), robot keeping complete memory and all
data kept online
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
4
Health and healthcare (assessment of the scenario and of its innovations) Participants thought that this scenario was technically realistic. They stated that
parts of the scenario such as online consults with a physician, the national health
record, and stem cell therapy are already happening. Nevertheless the scenario
caused a lot of resistance which was not due to the separate innovations, but to
the idea that supermarkets would be giving uninvited health advice to customers.
Participants did not think of the supermarket as a reliable channel for medical
diagnosis. They stated that the supermarket mainly has a commercial interest
and less interest in the health of the customers. They also doubted the reliability
of the diagnosis in case one does shopping for the whole family. Participants
thought nobody should interfere in their health affairs without their permission.
Innovations liked most: the National Health Record, genetic tests, and
dietary advice (if not offered by supermarkets)
Not known very well: Stem cell therapy (but the participants that knew
the innovation appreciated it):
Innovation partly liked: online medical advice
Innovation that participants had different ideas about: the biochip
Ubiquitous communication and interaction (assessment of the scenario and of its innovations) Participants thought this scenario is technically realistic. They saw some elements
already happening in society; loyalty cards in shops and recognition based on iris
scan. Only this scenario is going further; technologies are more advanced. Some
participants thought this scenario leaves out developments that could make some
of the innovations mentioned in this scenario irrelevant. They referred to more
and more online shopping and self-driving cars. The prevention of crime, traffic
jams, tracing missing persons, and the possibility of crowd control are seen as
positive by participants and some innovations could make parts of life easier for
some of the participants (for example if you receive a reminder from a shop in
case you forget something). But most participants had major concerns about
privacy and being controlled. Also participants feared that with this scenario,
assessment of behaviour and needs is based on information on behaviour and
needs in the past and that there would not be room for spontaneous actions,
change, and creativity anymore.
Innovation that was most liked: virtual reality at work (virtual
meetings with colleagues).
Innovation that participants had different ideas about: data collection
about personal preferences used by companies (in all cases only after
explicit permission of the customer).
Innovations participants had mixed feelings and concerns about:
(facial) recognition technology, ubiquitous tracking of machines and
people with satellites, trackers and cameras, virtual reality at home,
and virtual reality in public places.
Innovation liked the least: virtual reality in education.
Environment (assessment of the scenario and of its innovations) Participants were very enthusiastic about this scenario in general. They thought
that protecting the environment is very necessary to keep the earth habitable and
they would like it to be happening already. They thought the sooner we start the
better. Despite the fact that parts of it are possible already (renewable energy,
recycling) they thought that implementing these technologies on a large scale in
2030 would be too ambitious. They thought that it will not be possible to adjust
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
5
all houses according to the scenario in the Netherlands within 15 years. They also
saw the changing of the agricultural practice in the way described in the scenario
as too ambitious. Furthermore participants had strong doubts about the political
feasibility of the scenario. They did not have confidence in politics to settle
environmental issues. They thought the process of decision making is far too slow
to make it happen in 15 years. Participants also felt that the process of
introduction will be slowed down by parties like the oil industry. The younger
group raised the point that this scenario is only useful if it is implemented globally
and they thought that would not be possible for developing countries. The
technology of fertilising the ocean was not understood. This technology raised a
lot of question marks. Participants got lost in the explanation. Also the
innovations concerning farming management practises were not understood very
well.
Innovations liked unanimously: renewable energy such as solar panels and
wind farms, building energy efficient homes and cities, recycling of
materials and natural resources, recycling of waste, and conversion of
waste into value added by-products.
Not understood very well: new farming management practices in
agriculture and carbon ocean fertilisation.
Innovation liked the least: Underground CO2 storage.
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
6
B. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
Objectives
The aim of this qualitative study was to get a better understanding of European
opinion on the subject of innovations brought about by science and technology in
society. More precisely, its main objective was to explore reactions to some
specific innovations that might be a part of everyday life for citizens in Europe in
15 years’ time in four different areas.
Four areas/scenarios were tested:
The house of the future (Homes and living),
Health and healthcare,
Communications (Ubiquitous communication and interaction),
The environment.
Methodology and sampling
Fieldwork consisted of a series of 6 focus groups, each approximately two hour
and a half in length, conducted in each of the following 16 Member States:
France, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Finland, United Kingdom and the Czech
Republic.
Participant profile The table below presents the composition of groups:
Group Description
1 18-34 years old who finished their education between 17 and 22
2 20-34 years old who finished their education between 20 and 25
3 35-64 years old who finished their education before 18
4 35-64 years old who finished their education before 18
5 35-64 years old who finished their education after 18
6 35-64 years old who finished their education after 18
The detailed participant profiles and group composition, as well as detail on the
fieldwork dates are described in the technical report.
National context
Economic situation and employment
The news about the economic and employment situation continues to be
pessimistic. The general tone is a situation of stagnation.
The opinion on robots and employment could be influenced by the minister of
social affairs, Lodewijk Asscher. He stated publicly that we should be afraid that
robots will take over more and more paid jobs from Dutch people in the future,
because they are more efficient.
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
7
Internet and social media
Dutch people are very keen on their right to privacy. The news about accessing
private data by the NSA and FBI heated the discussion about the Internet and
privacy.
Dutch people are afraid of indoctrination of young people through social media;
the reason for this concern is also related to the news that some youngsters have
moved to Syria to join IS.
Environment
A Dutch student created a concept that could help to remove 7.250.000 tonnes of
plastics from the oceans worldwide. This student and a couple of engineers are
testing this concept now.
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
8
I. GENERAL PERCEPTIONS ABOUT SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS
This chapter focuses on the participants’ general view on scientific and
technological innovations in order to get an overall grasp of their opinion on this
subject. Firstly, what ideas, feelings and associations come to their mind
when thinking about these innovations? What positive and negative aspects
do they tend to associate with innovations brought about by science and
technology? Secondly, looking back on recent years, which innovations do
they think have had the most impact on society and why? What changes
did these scientific and technological innovations bring?
1.1 General associations linked to the notion of scientific innovation
When participants thought about scientific and technological innovations they
often referred to ranges of applications. Most mentioned associations were:
Robots
Medical innovations
Cars (self-driving, low-energy),
Renewable energy
Mobile devices
Gadgets/apps
House-construction
Food
Communication
shortage (of energy and natural resources)
Modernisation
Fast sequence of innovations
Positive connotations:
Efficiency
“More can be done at the same time” (NL, group 5)
Reachability
“You can immediately reach your friends, wherever they are.” (Netherlands,
group 1)
“The world is becoming smaller. It is easy to Skype with someone in Australia.”
(NL, group 6)
ease
“Everything is becoming easier, it takes less effort” (NL, group1)
Freedom
“Every innovation generates new possibilities to move more freely in a technical
and spiritual way.” (NL, group 5)
Environmentally friendly
“New technologies in the construction of buildings. Environmentally friendly
materials.”
Improved health quality
“Better medicines, better medical equipment.” (NL, group 3)
Transparency
“I can trace my friends easily.” (NL, group 1)
Chances
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
9
Negative connotations:
Speed
“Everything is moving so fast. That makes me tired!”(NL, group 6)
Less communication between people
“We don’t talk on the phone anymore, we only communicate through WhatsApp.”
(NL, group 1)
Loss of privacy, Big Brother
“They are keeping an eye on you and you’re not always aware of it.” (NL, group
6)
Not being able/feeling pressure to keep up with the changes
“Especially elder people are locked out. They cannot keep up with all technical
developments.”(NL, group 2)
Loss of jobs
“Trades will disappear, like carpenters and bakers.” (NL, group 1)
Laziness
“Nowadays you don’t have to do much anymore. That leads to laziness. (NL,
group 2)
Impersonal
“Less real contact between people.” (NL, group 5)
Less thinking of your own
“You have a gadget or app for everything. You don’t have to think anymore.” (NL,
group 5)
1.2 The most important scientific and technological innovations observed over recent years
The scientific and technological innovations that were unanimously considered to
have had most impact on society over the last 15 years were:
The Internet
Digitalisation of society
The mobile phone and the smartphone
Social media.
Also medical innovations, such as more possibilities to prevent and cure diseases
(especially cancer) and innovations such as the electrical car were mentioned. But
they were considered to have much less of an impact on society as a whole.
Internet
Positive impact:
Everything can be found and looked up
“Google!” (NL, group 1)
“Everything on one place, who could have thought of that before.” (NL, group 6)
Less paperwork
“Internet banking, digital tax declaration.” (NL, group 2)
Negative impact:
An overload of information
“All those energy providers, insurance companies etc. that are offering their
services. It’s too much.”(NL, group 5)
“If you don’t watch out you get lost.” (NL, group 4)
The danger for the youth of being influenced by extreme ideas
“Many people are getting strange ideas because strange ideas are shared through
the Internet, like Osama Bin Laden (NL, group 2)
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
10
Digitalisation of society
Positive impact:
Efficiency
“Systems are connected which saves double administration and double work.” (NL,
group 5).
Negative impact:
A loss of jobs
“We can do things more efficiently. We just need fewer people to do those jobs.”
(NL, group 2)
Not everybody can keep up
“When you’re elder you don’t understand it anymore, or when you cannot afford a
good computer every few years."(NL, group 2)
The mobile phone/smartphone
Positive impact:
Reachability: handy and safe
“When my children started having nights out I was glad we could keep in touch
through their mobile phone.” (NL, group 6)
Information is always at hand at all times: easy and convenient
“You don’t have to look up the way when you go somewhere; you just go and
your navigation will show you.” (NL, group 2)
Negative impact:
Reachability: unsafe in traffic
“Everybody is looking at their phone while cycling. They don’t watch the traffic
anymore.” (NL, group 6)
Reachability: one never has peace
“You’re expected to be available 24 hours a day.” (NL, group 4)
Social media
Positive impact:
Keeping up with social contacts is easier
“We keep in touch, share pictures, and announce parties.” (NL, group 2)
Negative impact:
Social contacts can become more impersonal.
“We used to send a written birthday card by post, but now it is only a WhatsApp
message.” (NL, group 2)
Decreasing quality of real life contacts
“If you visit people, they’re always glancing at their phones. It ruins a good
atmosphere. (NL, group 2)
The danger of sharing too much information
“People often do not know much about the privacy settings of Facebook or
Twitter.” (NL, group 5)
The danger of addiction to social media
“My friends are checking their phone for messages every few minutes.” NL, group
5)
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
11
II. SPONTANEOUS PROJECTIONS ON TOMORROWS SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS
This chapter focuses on participants’ spontaneous predictions about the scientific
and technological innovations that could be part of daily life in 2030, which
changes are seen as beneficial and those seen as more negative or undesirable.
Finally, it looks at the scientific innovations in four selected areas:
How living at home will be different in the future;
how people will take care of their health;
how people will interact with each other and with machines;
and how people will protect the environment in 2030.
2.1 The scientific innovations expected to be part of peoples’ daily life in 2030 and their possible impact
Most mentioned were the following innovations:
Advanced medical science (equipment and medicines),
A cashless society
Robots performing all kinds of tasks (household, taking care of elderly and
sick people, healthcare, catering, supermarkets),
Advanced equipment in houses.
Self-driving or flying cars
The positive impact the above mentioned innovations (ideal scenario):
Better healthcare
“Fewer serious diseases and a better chance to recover from serious diseases.”
(NL, group 1)
An easier life
“No vacuum cleaning anymore.” (NL, group 4)
Fewer mistakes and accidents
“Cars and trains have sensors and the car will automatically stop if necessary.”
(NL, group 4)
The negative impact of these innovations that participants feared (the disaster
scenario):
Less personal contact
“No service from real people anymore.” (NL, Group 3)
Too much dependency on technology
“Everybody is totally dependent on technology. What if we have a technical
breakdown or a cyberwar?” NL, group 1)
More control over and less freedom for people
“You have no insight into how things work, because everything is done
automatically” (NL, group 2)
“Institutions know everything about you. Everything is recorded; you do not have
control over it anymore.” (NL, group 2)
Danger of abuse of information by governments with ‘bad intentions’
“If you watch this movie about the GDR, It’s clear what the consequences could
be if you don’t agree with the government and they know everything about you.”
(NL, group 2)
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
12
2.2 Expected innovations in selected areas
Homes and living In 15 years’ time participants expect equipment in the house to be operated by
voice and from a distance, like turning of the heating (while you are not at home).
They also expect that there will be advanced equipment in the house such as
automatic vacuum cleaners and 3D printers (even for food).
The main positive impact of these innovations would be:
Convenience
“Everything is done for you.” (NL, group 1)
The main negative impacts would be:
Laziness and too little physical exercise
“They‘re will be less physical exercise and more overweight people.” (NL, group
3)
“And what are you going to do? Lie on the couch all day?” (NL, group 5)
Too much dependency on technology:
“People do not know how to clean their house anymore.” (NL, group 1)
Health and healthcare
Participants expected that in 2030 there will be more advanced medical
equipment and medicines. And consultation of doctors will happen more via the
Internet instead of a ‘live visit’.
The most mentioned positive impact of the above mentioned innovations was:
Fewer serious (consequences of) diseases
“They will know immediately when something is wrong. So they can save people.”
(NL, group 1)
The negative impacts that were mentioned are:
Less quality in the contact with doctors
“Some people just need a good conversation.” (NL, group 4)
“It can never replace contact with a doctor. Sometimes you need to check your
body.”
The risk of extending the life of sick people too long
“If you have a serious illness and there is a medicine that does not cure you, but
only extends your life, your suffering is also extended.” (NL, group 6)
Ubiquitous communication and interaction
Participants thought that in 15 years there will be even more gadgets than now.
We will communicate using holograms. And there will be more registration and
linking of personal data.
According to the participants the positive impact of these innovations would be:
Ease; less paperwork
“If you want to apply for an allowance they know everything about you already
and you do not have to send 83 copies.”(NL, group 1)
The negative impact would be:
Less privacy
“Institutions know everything about you. Everything is recorded and you do not
have a grip on it.” (NL, group 2)
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
13
Environment Participants expected that we will have more renewable energy at our disposal,
fewer emissions from cars because all cars will be electrical, recycling of all waste,
only biodegradable materials, and more nature in cities. The impact of these
innovations was considered to be positive on the whole. There would be less
pressure on the environment. No negative impacts were mentioned.
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
14
III. REACTIONS TO FUTURE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS IN SELECTED AREAS
The main objective of the study was to explore reactions to some specific
innovations that might be a part of everyday life for citizens in Europe in 15
years’ time in four different areas.
The house of the future (homes and living);
Health and healthcare;
Communications (ubiquitous communication and interaction);
The environment.
A scenario related to each theme and introducing possible innovations was
presented during the focus-groups.
This chapter focuses on participants’ reactions to the four scenarios.
3.1 Homes and living
General feelings The first reactions to this scenario were:
Seems to leave little room for variation
“Every day the same breakfast’: (NL, group1)
“Everything is over organised. No room for coincidence (NL. Group 3)
Could cause loneliness.
“You don’t talk to each other anymore (NL, group 5)
Parts of the scenario could be convenient
“Saves a lot of work.” (NL, group 1)
“You don’t have to think anymore.” (NL, group 1)
Great for working parents with small children.”(NL, group 3)
Scary.
“The robot is creepy.” (NL, group 1)
Assessment of the scenario
Technically realistic and parts of the scenario are happening already
In general participants were not surprised about this scenario. They stated that
this scenario seems technically realistic and is partly happening already. Some of
them already have a smart meter in their homes. Others had heard or read about
some innovations.
“People with solar panels on their roof have smart meters already.” (NL,
group 1)
“I saw a programme on TV: A screen on your kitchen unit that can be
operated through your voice. And things are automatically filled up by the
supermarket. “(NL, group 1)
“Drones? Amazon is using them already in America.” (NL. Group 5)
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
15
Parts of the scenario may be useful for some people.
Participants had mixed feelings about this scenario. On one hand they thought
that it is convenient that a lot of things are done for you and that the equipment
keeps an overview of what has to be done and ordered. Younger people and busy
parents particularly liked this. It was also seen as convenient for people who are
not able to perform household tasks (e.g. people with reduced mobility).
“You don’t have to think ahead anymore.” (NL, group 3)
“You will have time left for fun things.” (NL, group5)
“I do not like vacuum cleaning, this is nice!” (NL, group 1)
“Great for working parents with small children.” (NL, group 3)
But it goes too far…
On the other hand they thought that this scenario goes too far. They had a lot of
concerns in the area of privacy and self-determination and thought this scenario
could have negative effects on (healthy) behaviour (lack of physical exercise) and
the quality of a person’s social life (loneliness).
Online storing of all private data generated a lot of resistance
The fact that everything that happens in the house and all conversations with the
personal assistant are recorded and stored online generated the most resistance
among participants. Participants stated that the online storing of data of their
private life would be a violation of their privacy. The data stored is very private
and should be kept privately.
“This will not be accepted by the majority of people. Why should
everything be saved?” (NL, group 3)
“I do not think people will accept that everything is recorded and stored
online." (NL, group 1)
“So everything that happens in my life is in the cloud? That’s a violation
of my privacy.”(NL, group 5)
“Everything is known, my whole life. All details.” (NL, group 3)
“All my private information is collected. They’ll know everything about
me.” (NL, group 5)
“The information is probably treated confidentially, but you never
know.”(NL, group 5)
Participants also feared for the safety of this private information. They were afraid
of misuse or that the information would end up in wrong hands
“All information stored in one place. What if hackers break in?” (NL, group
3)
Scary: robot in the form of a human being
The robot in the form of a human being was not seen as very attractive.
Especially the younger group thought Pra was rather scary. They even had
associations with the movie I Robot in which robots try to take over humans and
gain total power over them.
“I would be scared to death if this Pra was standing next to my bed in the
morning.”(NL, group 1)
“You don’t wake up relaxed like that. A big 1.80 m tall robot. That’s too
big!”(NL, group 1)
Things done automatically: loss of self determination
Participants thought that the scenario does not leave enough space for self-
determination
“If you don’t have to think anymore. What is left of your life?” (NL, group
5)
“The robot should do things on request, not automatically.” (NL, group 1)
“I want to be able to program the equipment and change it whenever I
want.” (NL, group 5)
“I do not want the fridge to decide what I eat.”(NL, Group 1)
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
16
“I want this robot to ask me for permission before he does something.”
(NL, group 1)
Things done automatically: life becomes too predictable
Participants feared that with this scenario there would not be room for
spontaneous actions, change and creativity anymore.
“No surprises anymore, boring!”(NL, group 3)
“Maybe I decide not to eat eggs anymore, but the fridge has filled itself up
with eggs again.” (NL, group 3)
Too many things done for you: laziness and lack of physical exercise
“If you can get it yourself, why let somebody else, or something else do
it.”(NL, group 5)
“People will not move anymore. They will become lazy and fat.” (NL, group
3)
Less personal contact could cause loneliness
“People will be isolated if everything is delivered at home. No personal
contact anymore.” (NL, group 5)
“You only have to talk to your robot. What about personal contact? (NL,
group 1)
Assessment of the innovations contained in the scenario The innovations below are displayed in order of rating (starting with the
innovation participants liked most and ending with the innovation participants
liked least).
Innovations liked by most participants, especially in the older groups:
Smart meters connected to a smart power grid
Participants knew of smart meters already. Some of them mentioned that they
are already using them. They thought smart meters are useful: a very good way
to save energy and save money.
“Good for the environment.” (NL, group 3)
“Everything that saves energy is good.”(NL, group 5)
Coated glass that automatically darkens to block excess sunlight
Participants were rather positive about this innovation. They did not really know
of this innovation, but they thought of it as a good solution to keep the
temperature agreeable in winter and summer and at the same time save money.
“Always the right temperature in your house. I also like climate control in
my car.” (NL, group 3)
“Saves money and is environmentally friendly.” (NL, group 5)
The innovations that were received with mixed feelings:
Smart fridge that warns you when you run out of food
Some participants found this innovation very useful, this was especially true for
the younger participants and for participants with a very busy life, for example
working parents with young children; they felt it would be great never to be
without supplies.
“No more ‘Oops my milk is finished.’” (NL, group 1)
“When I’m too late to do shopping it’d be handy. My children have to eat.”
(NL, group 3)
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
17
Other participants had mixed feelings. On the one hand they thought a smart
fridge is handy for the above mentioned reasons, on the other hand they were
afraid that there would be no longer any room for change and creativity.
“I would only like it for the things you always need, like milk and water,
but please not always the same diner on the same weekday for example.”
(NL, group 3)
“That would be very monotonous. When something is finished you get the
same again. Every Monday the same breakfast, every Sunday the same
meat.” (NL, group 1)
Personalised assistance in executing 'household chores' (cleaning
of the house)
Participants liked the idea that some unpleasant jobs can be taken over by the
personal assistant. They also thought of it as useful for disabled people.
“Yes! No more vacuum cleaning anymore.” (NL, group 1)
“Good for disabled or elderly people.” (NL, group 3)
Some of the participants however have considerations with this innovation,
because they thought most people are very well able to perform these jobs by
themselves. They thought of it as somewhat decadent for healthy people.
“I‘d rather do these jobs by myself, if not I would feel superfluous.” (NL,
group 1)
“Some cleaning is good physical exercise. Not everything should be taken
over.” (NL, group 5)
Innovations liked by a minority or no participants:
Personal assistant (planning, personal messages, weather
forecast…)
As long as the personal assistant or robot is only executing household tasks it
was still acceptable for most of the participants. But an assistant that is
organising your life goes too far. Some of the participants feared that the robot
would gain power over them.
“It is scary that robots can be smarter than people. That they know more
than we do.” (NL, group 5)
“It makes me think about that movie with Will Smith, I Robot. They are
ruling the world in the end. No thank you!” (NL, group 1)
Robot keeps a complete memory/recording of home events
This innovation was not acceptable for most participants. Like with the previous
innovation they were afraid that the robot would take over their lives.
“You pass on your whole life to the robot. That’s creepy” (NL, group 1)
All data stored by the robot in his memory is kept online at the
company’s data servers (in case he breaks down)
This innovation generated most resistance. See the previous section (general
feelings and assessment of the scenario) for an extended explanation.
Innovation not taken very seriously:
Home delivery of goods by drones
Participants were not reluctant to the idea of the delivery of shopping, but they
did not take the idea of delivery of shopping by drones very seriously. They
reacted a bit giggly to it.
“Will they just drop the shopping in my garden?” (NL, group 3)
“Why not a normal delivery van with some healthy fellows carrying the
shopping upstairs?” (NL, group 5)
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
18
“Ha ha! These drones have to watch out not to bump into each other.”
(NL, group 1)
Alternative scientific innovations
Some participants thought that perhaps the robot would be more acceptable if it
was smaller or not in the form of a robot.
“Maybe a very small friendly creature instead of this 1.80 m tall thing. Like
a little pet.” (NL, group 1)
“The robot should not have a human form, but it should be built in
somewhere. Only a voice.”(NL, group 1)
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
19
3.2 Health and healthcare
General feelings The first reactions:
Patronising, a violation of privacy or self-determination.
“It’s my own business if I want to buy 10 kilos of sweets.” (NL, group 1)
“Somebody else decides what I have to do, where is my own free will? “ (NL,
group 4)
“They tell you what to do. Goes too far.”
Good that you can prepare in case there is a risk for disease.
“You can prepare and adjust in case you have a chance for a disease.”(NL, group
5)
Assessment of the scenario Technically realistic and parts of scenario are happening already
Participants thought that this scenario was technically realistic. They stated that
parts of the scenario such as online consults with a physician, the national health
record, and stem cell therapy are already happening.
“I know a boy that had leukaemia. His sister donated her stem cells to cure him.”
(NL, group 4)
“Online consults are done nowadays already. You can call an emergency number
online.” (NL, group 1)
“We’ve all have a national health record for a long time already. I even blocked it,
because it was accessible to a lot of institutions.” (NL, group 6)
But there was a lot of resistance related to supermarkets interfering with
health affairs
This scenario generated a lot of resistance. But the resistance was mainly related
to the supermarkets giving uninvited health advice to customers.
“Terrible, one moment you're doing shopping and the next moment you have
to consult your physician.” (NL, group 4)
“To me it’s shocking that a supermarket could do this.” (NL, group 1)
“That’s none of their business.”(NL, group 4)
“I come to the supermarket to get the shopping I need; I go to the doctor
when I’m ill. Don’t mix that up.” (NL, group 1)
Participants mentioned the following reasons for this resistance:
Supermarket are not a reliable channel for medical advise
Participants did not think of the supermarket as a reliable channel for medical
diagnosis; the supermarket mainly has a commercial interest and less interest in
the health of the customers.
“It’s a conflict of interests. Shops should never interfere with health” (NL,
group 6)
“You have to ask yourself: What’s in it for them?” (NL, group 6)
“I only want medical advice from somebody who studied for it. What does
a supermarket know?” (NL, group 1)
They also doubted the reliability of the diagnosis in case one does shopping for
the whole family. A personal health advice would be very inaccurate in that case.
“Suppose I visit the supermarket once a week and buy sweets and cake
for a lot of people. What advice would I get?” (NL, group 4)
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
20
Uninvited health advice was considered patronising
Participants thought nobody should interfere in their health affairs without their
permission. They felt that their health is something that only concerns them and
if they would like advice they would rather take the initiative themselves.
“I feel well and I don’t appreciate advice.” (NL, group 4)
“I do not want to know, leave me alone.” (NL, group 1)
“A supermarket telling me I buy too much sugar? Don’t interfere!” (NL,
group 1)
Assessment of the innovations contained in the scenario The innovations below are displayed in order of rating (starting with the
innovation participants like most and ending with the innovation participants liked
least).
The innovation liked by most participants:
Centralised Health data records (‘National Health Record’). Furthermore
be used in an anonymised way by researchers for medical developments
Participants thought it is very useful to have a record where all medical
information is stored. That feels secure. Doctors have all the necessary
information at hand when needed.
"It gives a secure feeling that doctors around the world have access to
your medical data. If something happens, you're safe. “(NL, group 4)
Some participants have concerns however:
They stated that data should only be used for medical development after explicit
permission of the patient.
“Your data should not be used automatically. Not everybody is willing to
share their data.” (NL, group 1)
Some participants also expressed their concerns about the online storing of the
medical data. They asked themselves if it they would be protected sufficiently
against deletion or hacking. They were also afraid of misuse of the data by
insurance companies.
“I hope the information will not be deleted accidentally or on purpose by
hackers or something. I am allergic to antibiotics. I don’t want that
information to be lost.” (NL, group 1)
“Is the information also accessible to health insurance companies? Maybe
they’ll raise the premium when you’re ill a lot. So it should be kept secret
for them.” (NL, group 1)
Stem cell therapy
Not all participants understood this innovation well. Some of the participants did
not want to give a judgement yet. They wanted to know more first.
“This is very technical. I want to know more about it first” (NL, group 6)
“I don’t know about this one. How does it work? (NL, group 4)
Some participants pointed out that this innovation already exists (see also
previous section). The participants that knew the innovation appreciated it. If
necessary you would be able to repair your body with your own healthy cells that
have been saved before.
“It is a very beautiful technology.” (NL, group 6)
“It’s good that you can take precautions.” (NL, group 4)
Innovations liked by most participants provided that they were not offered by a
supermarket:
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
21
Genetic tests
Participants think genetic tests are useful. You would be able to estimate your
risk of a particular disease. Then you could prepare and take precautions. It was
felt, however, that such a test should be offered by a doctor and certainly not by
a supermarket or drugstore.
“Only when it’s not offered by the supermarket. I suspect the
supermarkets make deals with the producers of the tests. Mixed
interests.” (NL, group 4)
Dietary advice for disease prevention
Dietary advice was considered as useful in general. It was seen as a means to
prevent diseases. But only on request and by a medical professional”.
“Advice is good, but not by the supermarket.” (NL, group 4)
“The job of a supermarket is to make sure the right labels are on the food.
How much salt, how much fat etc.” (NL, group 1)
The innovation that participants partly liked was:
Doctor consults/advices you from your home ('telemedicine')
For small questions or for a quick update this innovation was considered useful
and acceptable. But a screen with a doctor should never replace face to face
contact. Face to face contact with a doctor was considered to be more reassuring
and secure than online contact.
“Sometimes I have a telephone consult with my physician, but usually that
leads to a visit.” (NL, group 4)
“Probably ok when the news is not so serious, but when it is about
something serious a screen is very impersonal.” (N, group 1)
“If I have a lump somewhere, how can the doctor check that online?” (NL,
group 6)
“They can provide online consulting, but you have to be able to decide for
yourself.” (NL, group 6)
The fact that a blood test can be done at home and be sent to the physician
electronically is considered to be a progress. You don’t have to go out of the
house and wait in line to prick blood anymore. That saves a lot of time.
“Now it is like this: you first you go to the doctor, than to a health centre
to prick blood and then call the doctor for the result. The way it is done in
this scenario is way more efficient and saves a lot of time. I like it.” (NL,
group 6)
Innovations on which participants had different opinions:
(Wearable) biochips for health monitoring and diagnosis
Some participants thought the biochip is useful. You would be able to detect a
disease in a very early stage and prevent worse.
“If your chance is 50% to get the disease, wear it. Make use of it!” (NL,
group 4)
Other participants stated that they would never wear such a chip. They thought it
would influence them too much. They would check it all the time and that would
make them nervous.
“I would be thinking about this disease all the time, I would not have
peace anymore.” (NL, group 1)
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
22
Alternative scientific innovations
No alternative scientific innovations were mentioned for this scenario.
3.3 Ubiquitous communication and interaction
General feelings The first reactions:
Loss of privacy
“Everybody knows everything about you” (NL, group 3)
Too much control
“Too much control” (NL, group 2)
“Control and Power” (NL, group 6)
Restrictive
“Everything is decided based on your profile.” (NL, group 2)
“You are being labelled.” (NL, group 3
Could be safe
“Less crime.” (NL, group 3)
Assessment of the scenario Technically realistic, some elements already happen in society
Participants thought this scenario is technically realistic. They see some elements
already happening in society; loyalty cards in shops, facial identification based on
iris scans at the airport. Only this scenario is going further; technologies are more
advanced.
“Yes, this is going to happen. We have fingerprint and iris scans. We would
not have believed that fifteen years ago, but it’s real now. This will be real
as well.” (NL, group 2)
“We have this technology already. In this scenario this technology is used
minus the privacy protection we have now.” (NL, group 2)
“We have loyalty programs already. If you buy a pair of Replay pants, next
time you go to that shop the cashier asks you: Hello Mrs. So and So, were
you pleased with you Replay pants?” (NL, group 2)
“On the Internet they know a lot about your behaviour already. That’s why
they use cookies.” (NL, group 3)
“If you click on something on the Internet while you’re searching, you will
see advertisements popping up of the subject you’re looking for.” (NL,
group 3)
“If you’re traveling they can already trace you through your mobile phone.”
(NL, group 6)
“It is not as futuristic as we think. In some parts of the city scooters are
being followed like this already.” (NL, group 6)
Developments like online shopping and self-driving cars could make
parts of this scenario irrelevant.
Some participants thought this scenario leaves out developments that could make
some of the innovations mentioned in this scenario irrelevant. They referred to
more and more online shopping and self-driving cars. When the trend of more
and more online shops and fewer ‘real-life’ shops continues, tracking customers
who are moving around the store would be less relevant. And if self-driving cars
will really develop and will be introduced on a large scale, traffic jams and
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
23
irresponsible driving will be prevented and there will be no need to control drivers
anymore.
“This scenario does not really take into account that we shop online more
and more. This scenario is about visiting and moving around in a shop.”
(NL, group 2)
“I do not see anything about self-driving cars. Would we still need this
with self-driving cars? They are very safe, no extra control is needed!” (NL,
group 2)
Could make the world safer
The prevention of crime, traffic jams, tracing missing persons, and the possibility
of crowd control is seen as positive by participants.
“Great if your child is missing and could be traced like this.” (NL, group 2)
“It seems like a safe world.” (NL, group 3)
“It could be easier for the police to trace criminals. That is costing them a
lot of money now. If you are a respectable citizen you don’t have to fear
anything.” (NL, group 3)
“No more traffic jams. That’s an advantage.” (NL, group 6)
Could make life easier for some people
And some innovations could make parts of life easier for some of the participants.
For example if you receive a reminder from a shop in case you forget something
or if you can meet up for your work via the hologram technology.
“Nespresso knows your taste and only offers you the taste you like next
time you need new capsules.” (NL, group 2)
“Great if they could offer me an idea for a present for my wife!” (NL,
group 3).
“My husband has to fly to France for his work twice a month. With this
hologram technology he could stay home. I’d like that.” (NL, group 2)
But most participants had major concerns about privacy and being
controlled
The scenario talks about being followed by authorities and companies all the time.
Participants did not like that at all. It felt threatening and scary that everything
about your whereabouts and behaviour is known by everyone all the time.
Ubiquitous communication is ubiquitous control at the same time.
“You cannot hide from it. You’re followed all the time.” (NL, group 2)
“You’re whole identity is exposed.” (NL, group 2)
“No privacy anymore.”’ (NL, group 2)
“All information will be known forever.” (NL, group 2)
“Big Brother is watching you. You are constantly being pursued.” (NL,
group 3)
“They will have more control and power over you.” (NL, group 6)
“What if we get a different regime? They could have total power over you.”
(NL, group 6)
Some participants had the feeling that a loss of privacy is already happening and
will continue without them being able to do anything about it. They would like to
do something about it, but see a kind of resignation in society, a feeling of
powerlessness. People do not have the feeling they can do anything about it and
feel they are continuously confronted with a fait accompli.
“Everything just happens, whether you like it or not.” (NL, group 6)
Dutch people accept everything. They don’t protest anymore. Not with
anything political.’ (NL, group 6)
Moreover: no room for spontaneous actions, change and creativity
anymore
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
24
Participants feared that with this scenario, assessment of behaviour and needs is
based on information on behaviour and needs in the past. Just like in the scenario
about Homes and Living participants feared that there would not be room for
spontaneous actions, change, or creativity anymore.
“They only show things in the shops based on your profile. I would like to
be surprised, not just more of the same.” (NL, group 2)
“It’s boring that you cannot find something unexpected or silly in the
shops.” (NL, group 2)
“You don’t have to be creative anymore when you forget to buy butter.”
(NL, group 2)
Assessment of the innovations contained in the scenario The innovations below are displayed in order of rating (starting with the
innovation participants liked most and ending with the innovation participants
liked least).
The innovation that was most liked by the participants:
Virtual reality at work (virtual meetings with colleagues)
Most participants liked virtual reality at work. If the meeting is with a lot of
people that work far away from each other you do not have to travel, but can still
see each other. It could save a lot of money and time.
“For work it is handy. Then I don’t have to go there. I can work at home
more. Saves time.” (NL, group 3)
““My husband has to fly to France for his work twice a month. With this
hologram technology he could stay home. I’d like that.” (NL, group 2)
Participants had different opinions about the following innovation:
Data collection about personal preferences, used by companies
Some participants thought it would be handy to receive an offer from a shop that
is in line with your preferences (or the preferences of someone you want to buy a
present for).
“Especially handy for men. They don’t have to ask their wives anymore.”
(NL, group 3)
But other participants believed that this would leave no room for their own
creativity and would make shopping too predictable.
“Why is someone else deciding what I want to buy?” (NL, group 3)
“You have to think about it and take your time when choosing a present
for somebody. Otherwise it’s not a real present.” (NL, group 2)
All participants thought that data should only be collected after explicit permission
from the customer. Otherwise it would undermine their privacy.
“In shops it should be optional and they shouldn’t keep data too long. (NL,
group 6)
Participants had mixed feelings and concerns about the following innovations:
(Facial) recognition technology
Participants thought this technology could make life safer on one hand - when it
is used by the police and customs. But on the other, they didn’t think it would be
a good idea for use in shops. They didn’t see advantages for themselves using
this technology in shops, only the advantages for the shop itself. And it feels like
a violation of privacy.
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
25
“It would be appropriate in places like the airport, not in shops.” (NL,
group 6)
“Ha-ha, I would crawl through the shop so they wouldn’t see my face.”(N,
group 3)
“It has to be a choice,”’ (NL, group 3)
Ubiquitous tracking of machines and people with satellites,
trackers and cameras
Participants had mixed feelings and important concerns with this innovation. The
support for this innovation depended very much on the way the technology would
be used. Participants stated that the technology could be useful to solve or
prevent significant risks or inconveniences; tracking or finding missing persons
and criminals, controlling crowds, and preventing traffic jams. But it is only
acceptable for these kinds of purposes. It should not be used by authorities to
follow people in their daily lives with the purpose of controlling them and certainly
not by commercial parties – e.g. insurance companies – to adjust the premiums.
“Great if your child is missing and could be traced like this.” (NL, group 2)
“Only by the authorities for solving crimes, traffic jams.” (NL, group 3)
“Don’t use this against the will of people, only if it serves the public
interest.” (NL, group 3)
Virtual reality at home; holographic calling
Participants liked this innovation, but only for contacts that live far away. It
should be used instead of telephone and skype and not instead of real contact.
“I would use it the same way as I use skype now. For family that lives far
away. This is a bit more advanced.” (NL, group 6)
“It should not come instead of real contact with my family. I want to see
them in real life.” (NL, group 2)
Virtual reality in public places (virtual information stands)
Participants could not really imagine how it would be to have virtual information
stands.
“I like it because it sounds exciting, but I really don’t know.” (NL, group 3
The innovation that was not liked by most of the participants:
Virtual reality in education (virtual courses)
Participants thought the hologram technology is less suitable for education. They
found face to face contact important with teaching.
“As a teacher I think it is more difficult to share your experience with a
hologram. You need the interaction.” (NL, group 3)
“It’s like with a course on the Internet. That works less well.” (NL, group
3)
Alternative scientific innovations
A participant suggested that it would be safe to build in a chip under the skin to
have all important data at hand in case something happens.
“If you would have a heart attack in the middle of the street, you would
know immediately know what’s the matter with that person.” (NL, group
3)
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
26
3.4 Environment
General feelings The first reactions all showed approval.
“This is necessary! (NL, group 2)
“A lot has to be done. The sooner, the better.” (NL, group 2)
“Good, sensible!”(NL, group 4)
“This gives us hope.” (NL, group 4)
“Very positive.” (NL, group 5)
Assessment of the scenario
A lot of enthusiasm as the urge to protect the environment is felt
unanimously
Participants were very enthusiastic about this scenario in general. They thought
that protecting the environment is very necessary to keep the earth habitable and
they would like it to happen now already. They thought the sooner we would start
the better.
“Why not start now already?” (NL, group 4)
“If we don’t do it, it will be the end for all of us.” (NL, group 2)
“If I read this, I realise there is a lot that needs to be done.”(NL, group 2)
Parts of it are seen as technically too ambitious
Participants think parts of the scenario are not realistic. Despite of the fact that
parts of it are possible already (renewable energy, recycling) the thought was
that applying these technologies on a large scale in 2030 would be too ambitious.
They thought that it will not be possible to adjust all houses in the Netherlands
within 15 years so that they will be totally sustainable as described in the
scenario.
“All the old houses that have to be renovated to be energy efficient, get
solar panels or windmills on their roof, build two separate water supply
lines. That seems too ambitious” (NL, group 2)
Also the changing of the agricultural practice in the way described in the scenario
is seen as too ambitious.
“I don’t believe that all agricultural practice can change within this time.
Sensors and satellites and everything, that’s really something. (NL, group
2)
Not realistic in a political sense
Participants have strong doubts about the political feasibility of the scenario.
The older groups did not have confidence in politics to settle environmental issues.
They felt that this scenario would need a lot of political support to make it happen,
but the process of decision making is far too slow to make it happen in 15 years.
“Not in 2030. A lot of countries have to agree amongst each other. Now it
already takes 20 year before a decision is taken. And I’m only talking
about small issues!” (NL, group 5)
Participants also felt that the process of introduction will be slowed down by
parties like the oil industry.
“The big interests will prevent it from coming true. Look at the oil industry,
if that stops you will get a world war. The Middle East is all about oil.” (NL,
group 4)
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
27
The younger group pointed out that they thought that the scenario is only useful
if the whole world participates in it. However they believed that the scenario is
too advanced for developing countries.
“The biggest environmental problem lies in the third world. Waste being
burned alongside the road, a lot of traffic pollution. And India is 3.5 times
the size of Europe. If they don’t join us, it’s no use.” (NL, group 2)
The technology of fertilising the oceans is not understood
This technology raises a lot of question marks. Participants get lost in the
explanation.
“Are they going to warm up the ocean? What about the fish?” (NL, group
4)
“What are they planning? To throw poo in the ocean?” (NL, group 5)
Resistance against underground storing of CO2
This innovation was seen as risky and not wise. Participants felt that not enough
is known about the consequences. Moreover they felt it would be better not to
emit so much CO2.
“If you put it under the ground, you do not know what the effect would be.”
(NL, group 4)
“I am afraid of explosions or earthquakes” (NL, group 5)
“It’s postponing the solution.” (NL, group 5)
“We should stop polluting instead of storing it.” (NL, group 1)
Assessment of the innovations contained in the scenario The innovations below are displayed in order of rating (starting with the
innovation participants liked most and ending with the innovation participants
liked least).
The innovations that were most liked by the participants:
(Most energy is derived from) renewable energy e.g. solar panels
and wind farms
Most participants supported this technology and think it is very useful. Some of
them stated that solar energy and windmills are not really innovations because it
is happening already.
“It’s a first step. A lot of people are doing it. We are on the way.” (NL, group
2)
“I have solar panels on my roof.” (NL, group 2)
Energy efficiency: energy efficient homes and cities
Recycling of materials and natural resources
(building/construction materials, water…)
Recycling of waste
Conversion of waste into value‐added by products (ex.
Biorefineries turning agricultural residues into plastic and fuel)
Participants unanimously liked these innovations and think they’re very useful,
but think it is somewhat of an obvious question to ask. They also pointed out that
the recycling of waste and natural resources is not really an innovation. They
stated that the technology is available, but that it is just not applied enough at
the moment.
“How can you not be positive about this”? NL, group 2)
“How can you be against this? It’s only sensible to produce and use in
efficient way, so that nothing is wasted and a lot is reused.” (NL, group 5)
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
28
One participant added that we should not turn waste into plastic as plastic is not
good for the environment.
“It’s good to recycle, but we should forget about plastics. The oceans are
loaded with them. Plastics are a big problem.” (NL, group 4)
There was a lot of support for the closed circuit water-system.
“It’s absurd that we flush our toilet with drinking water. If that changes,
that’s an improvement!” (NL, group 2)
The innovation most participants did not like:
Geo-engineering: Underground CO2 storage
Some participants thought that it is very risky to store CO2 underground.
They asked themselves if it would be a safe solution (see also the previous
section: general feelings and assessment of the scenario).
Participants did not really understand the following innovations:
New farming management practices in agriculture (minimum
inputs/monitoring of crops and cattle with high‐resolution
satellites and sensors)
Some participants had difficulties understanding parts of this innovation. They
asked themselves how one can monitor the growth and health of crops and cattle
with the help of high-resolution satellites and with biological and electronic
sensors in the field. But despite of the fact they did not understand exactly how it
worked, they did think it could be beneficial.
“It is probably useful, but how does it work? I don’t understand that.” (NL,
group 2)
“It seems to better for the environment this efficiency, but that’s how far I
get in understanding.”’ (NL, group 5)
Some participants pointed out that it could cause a loss of jobs.
“If they do not have to use so many chemicals anymore I guess it’s very
good!” (NL, group 2)
Geo-engineering: Carbon Ocean fertilisation
This technology raised a lot of question marks. Participants got lost in the
explanation (see also the previous section: general feelings and assessment of
the scenario).
Alternative scientific innovations One participant suggested shooting CO2 into space, but that idea was not
supported by the other participants.
“I am not sure that this is the best idea, but throw it in a big container and
store it in space.” (NL, group 5)
One participant thought that we should not only consider solar energy and
windmills. He stated that there are more possibilities for renewable energy.
“Also check for other possibilities, for example little gel balls you can lay in
the earth. They absorb solar energy. There are more technologies.” (NL,
group 5)
Another participant suggested using other scientific disciplines like psychology or
sociology.
“It’s a matter of changing our behaviour and sociology is a science as well.”
(NL, group 4)
NATIONAL REPORT – The Netherlands “Innovations, science and technology”
29
IV. CONCLUSION Participants reported at the end of the focus groups that they were more
conscious than before about what the future could bring us.
“I think differently about robots now. I do not want a robot in the form of
a human. That’s scary.” (NL, group 1)
“I’m a bit in a shock. A lot of people don’t realise the dangers that we have
now already. What about if the Internet is off for three days. How are you
going to pay? Scary.” (NL, group 3)
“The developments are moving faster than I thought. You don’t think
about that every day.” (NL, group 6)
“It makes me scared a bit.” (NL, group 6)
“I have more resistance against records being kept and that your life will
be organised for you. I only realise the impact of that now.” (NL, group 5)