Specifically, despite differences in religious background, individuals show no difference in the pattern of their moral judgments for unfamiliar moral scenarios.
Our thinking about hypothetical moral scenarios has been shown to be highly sensitive to arbitrary variations, such as in the order of presentation.
In accordance with Greene et al. (2001) and Fumagalli et al. (2009), these dilemmas were classified into 20 "non-moral" (NM), and two classes of "moral" scenarios subdivided into impersonal moral (IM, n = 18) and personal moral (PM, n = 22) dilemmas.
In particular, employing overly artificial moral scenarios (e.g., trolley dilemma), on top of the inherent limitations of neuroimaging paradigms, could have systematically overestimated cognitive versus emotional processes.
Future neuroimaging studies should therefore strive for using more realistic moral scenarios to minimize the risk of investigating the neural correlates of "in vitro moral cognition" (cf. Schilbach et al. 2012; Schilbach 2010).
Techno-moral scenarios invite audiences to imagine and appraise ways in which imperfect technologies like SynBio health applications might change our world, our ideas, values and ideals.
As thought experiments techno-moral scenarios can be used to create a controlled environment for testing ideas and arguments about the future.
Scenarios supporting future imagination Develop 'techno-moral' scenarios as a tool to stimulate imagination, reflection and debate in the context of real time TA, education and public engagement activities.
The development of 'techno-moral' scenarios as a tool to stimulate imagination, reflection, debate, education, and public engagement has been proposed in the European Policy Workshop as another way to support anticipatory governance in a highly uncertain field.
While application scenarios focus on the prospects and challenges for innovation and related regulatory concerns, techno-moral scenarios highlight the wider transformative potential of SynBio in society, thus shifting the attention to 'soft' impacts (Swierstra et al. [2009]; Boenink et al. [2010]).
