IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2016 - 73

Opinions Regarding the
Societal Use of IMS and
Appropriate Phases to
Consider the ELSI of IMS

ALL_Yes

ALL_No
Through ten questions on IMS
and society, respondents were
required to rate their opinions
IMS_Yes
on a five-point scale ("agree" to
"disagree" rated 1-5). The ten
IMS_No
questions are:
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1) Government can prevent
(%)
misuse of IMS
2) Private company can pre1) Only Humans Should do
3) IMS Takes the Initiative
2) Humans Take the Initiative
4) Almost Totally Rely on IMS
vent misuse of IMS
5)
Don't
Know
3) Researchers can prevent
misuse of IMS
4) IMS researchers cannot think FIguRe 3. The figure illustrates the answer to "child rearing" scenarios, including responses
of the social implications from people who had experience in child rearing.
of IMS
5) The direction of the R&D of IMS should be decided
opinions regarding the evaluation of IMS. Moreover,
by experts
whereas SF writers/editors/critics comprised the most
6) The public should be engaged in IMS impact
eager group to be engaged in IMS impact evaluation, the
evaluation
public was the least interested group.
7) Human beings cannot catch up to IMS's progress
Unlike other groups, IMS researchers are optimistic
8) To obtain the benefits of IMS, its risks should
about the progress of IMS and think that they can manbe accepted
age its risks. Further, SSH researchers are concerned
9) People should take responsibility for using IMS
about their responsibilities in using IMS.
10) The use of IMS has the potential for unpredictable
In addition, we asked five groups apart from the pubrisks
lic to specify from among the following four phases the
The cross tabulation analysis revealed that stakeappropriate phase when the ethical, legal, and social
holder groups had significantly different perceptions
implications (ELSI) of IMS must be considered: the idea
regarding all the items (p < 0.0001). In order to show
phase, the basic phase in the laboratory, the practical
conveniently the tendencies of all the answers of the
phase, or the improvement phase after social implesix groups, we considered options as an ordinal scale
mentation. By adding the options "researchers have no
and calculated the mean. Ten items were referenced,
need to think about ELSI in any phase," "researchers
examining the risk perceptions of science and technolconsider ELSI but have no need to dialog with the
ogy between experts and the
public [6].
Figure 5 indicates the following:
ALL_Yes
It was found that trust that
the government could avoid the
ALL_No
misuse of IMS is low, whereas
trust in researchers is high. The
IMS_Yes
public tends to trust the government, private companies, and
IMS_No
researchers more compared to
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
other groups.
(%)
IMS researchers strongly felt
1) Only Humans Should do
3) IMS Takes the Initiative
that they "think about the social
2)
Humans
Take
the
Initiative
4) Almost Totally Rely on IMS
implications of IMS" and the
5)
Don't
Know
"direction of R&D of IMS should
be decided by experts." In contrast, SSH researchers and PMs FIguRe 4. The figure illustrates the answer to "elder care" scenarios, including responses
h a d c o m p l e t e l y o p p o s i t e from people who had experience of elder care.

DECember 2016

∕

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine

73
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2016
