IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i10p3472-d172605.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Irresponsible Research and Innovation? Applying Findings from Neuroscience to Analysis of Unsustainable Hype Cycles

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Fox

    (VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, FI-02044 VTT, Finland)

Abstract

The introduction of technological innovations is often associated with suboptimal decisions and actions during cycles of inflated expectations, disappointment, and unintended negative consequences. For brevity, these can be referred to as hype cycles. Hitherto, studies have reported hype cycles for many different technologies, and studies have proposed different methods for improving the introduction of technological innovations. Yet hype cycles persist, despite suboptimal outcomes being widely reported and despite methods being available to improve outcomes. In this communication paper, findings from exploratory research are reported, which introduce new directions for addressing hype cycles. Through reference to neuroscience studies, it is explained that the behavior of some adults in hype cycles can be analogous to that of irresponsible behavior among adolescents. In particular, there is heightened responsiveness to peer presence and potential rewards. Accordingly, it is argued that methods applied successfully to reduce irresponsible behavior among adolescents are relevant to addressing hype cycles, and to facilitating more responsible research and innovation. The unsustainability of hype cycles is considered in relation to hype about artificial intelligence (AI). In particular, the potential for human-beneficial AI to have the unintended negative consequence of being fatally unbeneficial to everything else in the geosphere other than human beings.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Fox, 2018. "Irresponsible Research and Innovation? Applying Findings from Neuroscience to Analysis of Unsustainable Hype Cycles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3472-:d:172605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3472/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3472/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Colyvas, Jeannette A., 2007. "From divergent meanings to common practices: The early institutionalization of technology transfer in the life sciences at Stanford University," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 456-476, May.
    2. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    3. Dorothy Watson, 1992. "Correcting for Acquiescent Response Bias in the Absence of a Balanced Scale," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 21(1), pages 52-88, August.
    4. Suraya A. Afiff, 2014. "Engineering the Jatropha Hype in Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Gisler, Monika & Sornette, Didier & Woodard, Ryan, 2011. "Innovation as a social bubble: The example of the Human Genome Project," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1412-1425.
    6. Bryer, R. A., 1991. "Accounting for the "railway mania" of 1845-- A great railway swindle?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 16(5-6), pages 439-486.
    7. Matthew James Shun-Shin & Darrel P Francis, 2013. "Why Even More Clinical Research Studies May Be False: Effect of Asymmetrical Handling of Clinically Unexpected Values," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-6, June.
    8. Boer, Duncan den & Rip, Arie & Speller, Sylvia, 2009. "Scripting possible futures of nanotechnologies: A methodology that enhances reflexivity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 295-304.
    9. Camelia Kuhnen & Brian Knutson, 2005. "The Neural Basis of Financial Risk Taking," Experimental 0509001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Marco Campani & Ruggero Vaglio, 2015. "A simple interpretation of the growth of scientific/technological research impact leading to hype-type evolution curves," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 75-83, April.
    11. Jolita Ceicyte & Monika Petraite, 2018. "Networked Responsibility Approach for Responsible Innovation: Perspective of the Firm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, May.
    12. Zacharias Maniadis & Fabio Tufano, 2017. "The Research Reproducibility Crisis and Economics of Science," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 200-208, October.
    13. Ivan Ligardo-Herrera & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Edurne A. Inigo & Vincent Blok, 2018. "Addressing Climate Change in Responsible Research and Innovation: Recommendations for Its Operationalization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dag Øivind Madsen, 2019. "The Emergence and Rise of Industry 4.0 Viewed through the Lens of Management Fashion Theory," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-25, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    2. Constance Holman & Sophie K Piper & Ulrike Grittner & Andreas Antonios Diamantaras & Jonathan Kimmelman & Bob Siegerink & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2016. "Where Have All the Rodents Gone? The Effects of Attrition in Experimental Research on Cancer and Stroke," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    3. Didier Sornette & Spencer Wheatley & Peter Cauwels, 2019. "The Fair Reward Problem: The Illusion Of Success And How To Solve It," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(03), pages 1-52, May.
    4. Didier Sornette & Spencer Wheatley & Peter Cauwels, 2019. "The fair reward problem: the illusion of success and how to solve it," Papers 1902.04940, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2019.
    5. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    6. Alexander Frankel & Maximilian Kasy, 2022. "Which Findings Should Be Published?," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-38, February.
    7. Jyotirmoy Sarkar, 2018. "Will P†Value Triumph over Abuses and Attacks?," Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 7(4), pages 66-71, July.
    8. Yuping Jia & Laurence Van Lent & Yachang Zeng, 2014. "Masculinity, Testosterone, and Financial Misreporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(5), pages 1195-1246, December.
    9. Cheng, Zhiming & Smyth, Russell & Zhang, Le, 2024. "Does childhood adversity affect household portfolio decisions? Evidence from the Chinese Great Famine," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    10. Fox, Stephen & Groesser, Stefan N., 2016. "Reframing the relevance of research to practice," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 457-465.
    11. Stanley, T. D. & Doucouliagos, Chris, 2019. "Practical Significance, Meta-Analysis and the Credibility of Economics," IZA Discussion Papers 12458, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Luciana Maines da Silva & Claudia Cristina Bitencourt & Kadígia Faccin & Tatiana Iakovleva, 2019. "The Role of Stakeholders in the Context of Responsible Innovation: A Meta-Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, March.
    13. Lina Koppel & David Andersson & India Morrison & Kinga Posadzy & Daniel Västfjäll & Gustav Tinghög, 2017. "The effect of acute pain on risky and intertemporal choice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(4), pages 878-893, December.
    14. Carstensen, Laura L. & Reynolds, Megan E., 2023. "Age differences in preferences through the lens of socioemotional selectivity theory," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 24(C).
    15. Karin Langenkamp & Bodo Rödel & Kerstin Taufenbach & Meike Weiland, 2018. "Open Access in Vocational Education and Training Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-12, July.
    16. Shashwatashish Pattnaik & Nick Mmbaga & T. Daniel White & Rhonda K. Reger, 2024. "To entrepreneur or not to entrepreneur? How identity discrepancies influence enthusiasm for academic entrepreneurship," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 1444-1470, August.
    17. Geert Bekaert & Eric C. Engstrom & Nancy R. Xu, 2022. "The Time Variation in Risk Appetite and Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 3975-4004, June.
    18. Carl Senior & Nick Lee & Michael Butler, 2011. "PERSPECTIVE---Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 804-815, June.
    19. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    20. Jelte M Wicherts & Marjan Bakker & Dylan Molenaar, 2011. "Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-7, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3472-:d:172605. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.