Research Commons
      • Browse 
        • Communities & Collections
        • Titles
        • Authors
        • By Issue Date
        • Subjects
        • Types
        • Series
      • Help 
        • About
        • Collection Policy
        • OA Mandate Guidelines
        • Guidelines FAQ
        • Contact Us
      • My Account 
        • Sign In
        • Register
      View Item 
      •   Research Commons
      • University of Waikato Research
      • Arts and Social Sciences
      • Arts and Social Sciences Papers
      • View Item
      •   Research Commons
      • University of Waikato Research
      • Arts and Social Sciences
      • Arts and Social Sciences Papers
      • View Item
      JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

      “Just wrong”, “disgusting”, “grotesque”: How to deal with public rejection of new potentially life-saving technologies

      Weijers, Dan M.
      Thumbnail
      Files
      How to Deal with Public Rejection of New Potentially Life-saving Technologies - last author version.pdf
      Accepted version, 416.0Kb
      Find in your library  
      Citation
      Export citation
      Weijers, D. M. (2021). ‘Just wrong’, ‘disgusting’, ‘grotesque’: How to deal with public rejection of new potentially life-saving technologies. In R. Steff, J. Burton, & S. R. Soare (Eds.), Emerging Technologies and International Security: Machines, the State, and War (1st ed., pp. 254–272). Routledge.
      Permanent Research Commons link: https://hdl.handle.net/10289/14024
      Abstract
      This chapter begins by explaining how PAM was supposed to work and how public expressions of moral repugnance led to the project being shut down. It then introduces and explains the psychology of moral repugnance and discusses a taxonomy of kinds of moral repugnance that might result from the roll out of a new or disruptive technology for security purposes. A major contribution of this chapter is the discussion of what these different kinds of repugnance should mean for new disruptive technology proposals. Using PAM as the central example, the chapter works through a taxonomy of kinds of repugnance to identify the responses that would be appropriate for teams to use when researching and implementing new technologies. The chapter closes with some words of advice about managing public perception of disruptive new security technologies.
      Date
      2021
      Type
      Chapter in Book
      Publisher
      Routledge
      Rights
      This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge in Emerging Technologies and International Security: Machines, the State, and War, available online: https://www.routledge.com/Emerging-Technologies-and-International-Security-Machines-the-State-and/Steff-Burton-Soare/p/book/9780367407391
      Collections
      • Arts and Social Sciences Papers [1403]
      Show full item record  

      Usage

      Downloads, last 12 months
      14
       
       

      Usage Statistics

      For this itemFor all of Research Commons

      The University of Waikato - Te Whare Wānanga o WaikatoFeedback and RequestsCopyright and Legal Statement