What about you?
Here are some more answers we got when we asked survey participants, "Would you ever consider getting technology implanted or added to your body?" For many, the only way they would consider getting tech in their body was for medical purposes.
​
Depends on the reason. I would consider it if it was something that could help my health (like a pacemaker).
Aren't we already doing that already with hip replacements and breast implants?
Yes. Because what if it becomes so advanced that it’s positively life changing?
I would consider it for healthcare purposes, ie: a microchip that would provide doctors with medical history, prescriptions, etc in case of emergencies.
Honestly, yes I think it could be a way to improve the future. Being able to see your vitals, knowing if you're sick and tracking the progress.
Yes. Only if it were an established thing like hearing aids or a pacemaker, which have been around for a long time.
Global Medical Innovation
​
Click on a country to learn more about what the report had to say about it or view the key findings here.
The Global Innovation Index is an annual report created by Cornell University, the European Institute of Business Administration (INSEAD), and the World Intellectual Property Organization. The report analyzes each country and gives it a score based on its overall innovation for the year and potential for innovation moving forward. 2019's theme was "Creating Healthy Lives—The Future of Medical Innovation."
Why are we showing you this?
​
The ability to innovate relies on the assumption that a country has the time, space, and resources to focus their energy on developing medical technology. Unlike the example we saw with research happening at MIT in the United States, many countries do not have the foundation or access to these innovation opportunities.
While it is important and incredible to learn about the fantastic medical innovation happening in the West and other developed countries, it is especially critical to look globally and consider how a country's status will affect their timeline or ability to "become a cyborg." And, from this, we can learn how to make equity and economic feasibility our major priorities when designing advanced technology that can and should permeate around the world.
Access and Quality of Life
As we have seen, there are very different ends of the financial spectrum when it comes to developing medical technology. Advanced medical research is costly, and the very first prototypes of smart prosthetics are often only accessible to a select few. What we want to be cautious of, though, is creating a society of the "haves" and the "have nots."
We see this in society today, where revolutionary tech is being developed while there are still parts of the world where many don't even have access to the most basic tech. It is undeniable that socioeconomic status and race are intertwined in ways that would make it so that if new tech is only available to the wealthy, racial gaps will widen too. This inequality, viewed through an intersectional lens, is rarely brought up in the media representations we see of flashy new technology.
​
It is incredible to see what the brightest of minds are able to create in terms of medical advancements that fundamentally change our lives. At the same time, we must acknowledge disparity and look at it critically. If we don't, we risk further entrenching the poor into poverty and the rich into a cyborg fantasy. Those in the research and development phases of cyborg tech, whether they're biohackers, medical professionals, or somewhere in between, have the responsibility to make decisions that take into account access and equity so that we can avoid creating such a huge gap among people.