ATHENA INSTITUTE

Please cite this article in press as: Lynch, D.H.J., et al., Unraveling Dutch citizens' perceptions on the bio-based economy: The case of bioplastics, bio-jetfuels and small-scale bio-refineries. Ind. Crops Prod. (2016), http://dx. a b s t r a c t Little is known about how citizens perceive the transition towards a bio-based economy (BBE), despite the fact that they are one of the most important actors in this transition. Citizens' perceptions of bio-based innovations can support policy-makers to improve the quality of decision-making and the bio-based industry to develop innovations. This study explores Dutch citizens' arguments for and against three selected bio-based innovations: bioplastics, bio-jetfuels and small-scale bio-refineries. Randomly selected Dutch citizens were consulted in seven focus groups discussions (n = 57). Results show that participants generally favor the contribution of bio-based technologies to economic growth and sustainability , but also mentioned several negative effects, such as high costs, food shortages or deforestation. In forming their opinion, citizens carefully weigh pros and cons of bio-based technologies from the perspective of their own interests and context, and this varies per bio-based technology. Their acceptance and support towards bio-based technologies increases when they feel more engaged with these technologies , and becomes even stronger when they identify opportunities for direct personal benefits, as in the case of the small-scale bio-refinery. This acceptance and support reduces if another important value is threatened (e.g. accessible mobility in the case of bio-jetfuels). Reliable information on both the advantages and disadvantages of bio-based technologies, coming from a neutral and independent body, is necessary in order for citizens to make their own judgments.

Besides offering opportunities in both clinical and non-clinical domains, the application of novel neuroimaging technologies raises pressing dilemmas. ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’ (RRI) aims to stimulate research and innovation activities that take ethical and social considerations into account from the outset. We previously identified that Dutch neuroscientists interpret “responsible innovation” as educating the public on neuroimaging technologies via the popular press. Their aim is to mitigate (neuro)hype, an aim shared with the wider emerging RRI community. Here, we present results of a media-analysis undertaken to establish whether the body of articles in the Dutch popular press presents balanced conversations on neuroimaging research to the public. We found that reporting was mostly positive and framed in terms of (healthcare) progress. There was rarely a balance between technology opportunities and limitations, and even fewer articles addressed societal or ethical aspects of neuroimaging research. Furthermore, neuroimaging metaphors seem to favour oversimplification. Current reporting is therefore more likely to enable hype than to mitigate it. How can neuroscientists, given their self-ascribed social responsibility, address this conundrum? We make a case for a collective and shared responsibility among neuroscientists, journalists and other stakeholders, including funders, committed to responsible reporting on neuroimaging research.