Research participants as 'pioneers'? Exploring how neurotechnology research is adapting the rhetoric of scientific risk-taking, exploration and trailblazing.
{"title":"Research participants as 'pioneers'? Exploring how neurotechnology research is adapting the rhetoric of scientific risk-taking, exploration and trailblazing.","authors":"Andrew Ivan Brown, Sara Goering, Eran Klein","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2026.2673139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The theme of pioneers charting new frontiers has long been a staple of scientific and technological discourse in the United States. Scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs perceived as doing groundbreaking work are lauded as pioneers in their fields. In recent years, the application of the pioneer label has expanded to include research participants in clinical trials for neurotechnologies such as Neuralink or other brain-computer interface (BCI) devices: 'BCI pioneers.' What might explain this new popular usage of the pioneer label? American science policy in the mid twentieth century drew on the mythos of the American frontier as a way of mobilizing public interest in scientific and technological innovation on a mass scale. One such way of mobilizing interest was to use frontier rhetoric to attribute novelty to scientific undertakings and technological developments: dubbed the new frontiers. A less explored aspect of this history is the application of the pioneer label to patients and research participants in scientific, mostly biomedical, studies. Through the use of frontier rhetoric, articulations of novelty can be attributed to patients and participants, and their participatory practices, including being the first to undergo a new medical procedure, as well as being explorers and trailblazers in their own right. Such rhetoric may be understood as mobilizing support for research participants by acknowledging their bravery, altruism and contributions to science, with implications for participatory science and scientific and technological innovation.</p>","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13309173/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science As Culture","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2026.2673139","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The theme of pioneers charting new frontiers has long been a staple of scientific and technological discourse in the United States. Scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs perceived as doing groundbreaking work are lauded as pioneers in their fields. In recent years, the application of the pioneer label has expanded to include research participants in clinical trials for neurotechnologies such as Neuralink or other brain-computer interface (BCI) devices: 'BCI pioneers.' What might explain this new popular usage of the pioneer label? American science policy in the mid twentieth century drew on the mythos of the American frontier as a way of mobilizing public interest in scientific and technological innovation on a mass scale. One such way of mobilizing interest was to use frontier rhetoric to attribute novelty to scientific undertakings and technological developments: dubbed the new frontiers. A less explored aspect of this history is the application of the pioneer label to patients and research participants in scientific, mostly biomedical, studies. Through the use of frontier rhetoric, articulations of novelty can be attributed to patients and participants, and their participatory practices, including being the first to undergo a new medical procedure, as well as being explorers and trailblazers in their own right. Such rhetoric may be understood as mobilizing support for research participants by acknowledging their bravery, altruism and contributions to science, with implications for participatory science and scientific and technological innovation.
期刊介绍：
Our culture is a scientific one, defining what is natural and what is rational. Its values can be seen in what are sought out as facts and made as artefacts, what are designed as processes and products, and what are forged as weapons and filmed as wonders. In our daily experience, power is exercised through expertise, e.g. in science, technology and medicine. Science as Culture explores how all these shape the values which contend for influence over the wider society. Science mediates our cultural experience. It increasingly defines what it is to be a person, through genetics, medicine and information technology. Its values get embodied and naturalized in concepts, techniques, research priorities, gadgets and advertising. Many films, artworks and novels express popular concerns about these developments. In a society where icons of progress are drawn from science, technology and medicine, they are either celebrated or demonised. Often their progress is feared as ’unnatural’, while their critics are labelled ’irrational’. Public concerns are rebuffed by ostensibly value-neutral experts and positivist polemics. Yet the culture of science is open to study like any other culture. Cultural studies analyses the role of expertise throughout society. Many journals address the history, philosophy and social studies of science, its popularisation, and the public understanding of society.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
