IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2017 - 9

TABLE 1. Implant-Centric Surveys Conducted between 2003 and 2017.
Source, Location, Survey
Size, Year, References

Claims

Counter-claim

Bias or Context

"Researchers reported higher levels
of acceptance of the implantation of a
chip when college students perceived
benefits from this technology."

"Majority of respondents
were unwilling in context
of threats of identity theft,
national security."

"Mainly about security and
biometrics, and respondents
were College students.
Questions were in context of
perceived benefits."

Perakslis & Wolk, USA,
141, 2005 [49]

"Most respondents were "not
concerned" if criminals were tracked
using RFID implants."

"65% of respondents were
"highly" or "extremely
concerned" if a government
body collected data about
them using RFID."

Internet-based study only, using
some dependent respondents.

Johnson, Australia,
100, 2005 [50]

"Comparisons of the 2005
results of the study to the results
of the 2010 research revealed
shifts in levels of willingness of
college students. A shift was
evident; levels of willingness
moved from unwillingness toward
either neutrality or willingness
to implant a chip in the human
body to reduce identity theft, as a
potential lifesaving device, and to
increase national security. Levels
of unwillingness decreased for all
aforementioned areas as follows."

"Majority of respondents
shifted from unwilling to
neutral relative to identity
theft."

Questions were in context of
perceived benefits: "How willing
would you be to implant an
RFID chip in your body as a
method ...(to reduce identity
theft, as a potential lifesaving
device, to increase national
security)?" Respondents were
college students.

Perakslis, 2010

"23% out of 1000 German
respondents would accept to have
a microchip implanted in their
body if that would bring concrete
benefits from it." "About 16% of
the respondents said they would
wear an implanted chip in order
to be saved faster by emergency
services in case of a fire or
accident and 5% would be willing
to have an implant to make their
shopping easier."

"One must not overlook
the fact that 77% of the
study respondents were, in
fact, against the respective
technology." "72% stated
they wouldn't "under any
circumstances" allow
electronics in their body."

"Study findings are debatable
as the respondent sample was
not only small but also taken
from a special pool (CeBIT
visitors who are probably IT
inclined)."

BITKOM, Germany,
1000, 2010 [51], [52]

The authors recognize there are
significant social implications relative
to implanting chips in humans.

Although voluntary
chipping has been
embraced by certain
individuals, the chipping
of humans is rare and
remains mostly a topic of
discussion and debate into
the future.

Transnational study. Internetbased. Respondents offered
very small incentive to
complete survey. Focus on
employee ID.

Michael & Michael,
Australia, India, U.K., U.S.,
453, 2011 [61], [62]

Results not yet analyzed.

Results not yet analyzed.

Transnational study. Internetbased. Respondents offered
very small incentive to
complete survey.

Michael & Michael,
Australia, U.K., U.S.,
Canada, India,
4000, 2013 [53]

DECEMBER 2017

∕

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

9
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2017
