2025 TechnikRadar’s findings offer a strategic lens for aligning technological development with societal values.

Recent report: when innovation meets public opinion

14 July 2025

The article at a glance

2025 TechnikRadar’s findings offer a strategic lens for aligning technological development with societal values.

Micha Kaiser.
Dr Micha Kaiser

The EEI team was recently briefed by Senior Research Associate, Dr Micha Kaiser, to hear about his work on a major recent report – TechnikRadar by the German Academy of Science and Engineering (acatech). This is a recurring survey project explores public attitudes toward technology. It aims to identify gaps between technological innovation and societal expectations, focusing on topics like digital transformation, artificial intelligence (AI) and ethical concerns. Using representative social research methods, it provides insights into how people perceive the impact of technology on their lives and helps guide public dialogue and policy.

The 2025 edition emphasises AI, data privacy, and the influence of tech companies.

We were especially curious to hear about public perceptions of AI and trust, about human agency and decision-making. The below interview brings our conversation to a wider readership.

Introducing TechnikRadar 2025: public attitudes towards technology

You were involved as an external advisor in the creation of TechnikRadar 2025. Can you briefly describe your role and contribution to the project?

Professor Lucia Reisch, Director of the El-Erian Institute of Behavioural Economics and Policy at Cambridge Judge Business School, is a full member of acatech and part of the core project group for the TechnikRadar. She was originally scheduled to participate in one of the key workshops, but when she was unable to attend she asked if I might be interested in stepping in. As soon as I saw the richness of the data and the breadth of the survey, I was immediately enthusiastic and agreed. That led to my participation in a dedicated workshop focused on data analysis, and from there, I took on the role of external data advisor for acatech. My main contribution was to support, and in some cases conduct, the statistical analyses required for the publication, always with a focus on disciplinary rigour and interpretive clarity.

TechnikRadar has now become a long-term monitoring tool. From your perspective, what makes this year’s edition particularly relevant or distinctive?

Three things stand out: one methodological and 2 thematic.

From a methodological perspective, this year marks the first time the survey was conducted online rather than via telephone. There were initial concerns that this change might influence response patterns, particularly regarding social desirability bias. Fortunately, the results remained stable, indicating that the switch did not distort responses. Substantively, the strong focus on artificial intelligence makes this year’s edition especially timely. The findings directly address current public debates, and it’s well worth examining how Germans perceive the opportunities and risks associated with AI. A third distinctive feature is the inclusion of political orientation. While not entirely novel, what makes it so interesting this year is the timing: the survey was conducted during the federal election campaign. This enables unusually precise insights into how various voter groups interact with technology and innovation.

Surprising insights on AI adoption and public sentiment

I was astonished to see that around 80% of respondents reported never having used generative AI tools.

The report highlights strong ambivalence in the public perception of AI. Were you surprised by any of the findings regarding generative AI or autonomous agents?

Yes, 2 things genuinely surprised me. First, as someone who works with large language models daily, I was astonished to see that around 80% of respondents reported never having used generative AI tools. That number was almost unbelievable to me. It points to a substantial risk: generative AI is arguably the defining technological development of our time, advancing at unprecedented speed. If this transformation is bypassing such a large segment of the population, there’s a very real danger that many will be left behind, not just economically through impacts on jobs, but also socially and politically, for example, in their ability to identify AI-generated misinformation. Second, I was also struck by how ambivalent the German public remains towards the use of AI in the context of military defence. Germany is currently engaged in one of its most significant rearmament programmes since the end of the Cold War. One might expect that this shift would also bring greater public openness towards emerging defence technologies like AI. But the survey results suggest otherwise, ambivalence and scepticism persist, even in this domain.

Shifting public priorities: climate and security concerns

The survey found that users of generative AI tend to be quite positive, but still demand clear labelling. What does this suggest about digital literacy in Germany?

That’s a very good question, and I can only refer back to what I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of people in Germany, around 80%, have no experience with generative AI at all. Among the minority who do, many express a desire for clear labelling of AI-generated content. This suggests that those 20% likely exhibit somewhat higher levels of digital literacy than the general population. And as I’ve said before, given the rapid pace at which AI is evolving, that gap poses a serious challenge. If a large share of the population lacks basic exposure or understanding of these technologies, they risk being left behind, with significant consequences for everything from job security to the ability to assess information critically.

One headline finding was the shift in priorities, with domestic security surpassing job security for the first time. What does this signal in terms of public sentiment toward technology and society?

To be honest, I wouldn’t overinterpret this particular finding. The 2 top priorities, domestic security and job security, are very close in absolute terms, and the observed shift could very well fall within the margin of statistical error. What I personally found more concerning was something else: the noticeable decline in perceived urgency around climate change. Limiting global warming dropped significantly in the public’s list of priorities. That’s troubling, especially given that climate change remains arguably the most pressing global issue we face. There are numerous reasons to treat it with utmost urgency, yet the data suggests it’s slipping from the public agenda in Germany.

Bridging the gap: public outreach and AI’s potential

Openness to positive change needs to be activated through targeted, substantive and credible engagement.

If you had to highlight one takeaway for technology leaders or policymakers, what would it be?

AI is here to stay, and we urgently need more public education about its potential benefits. Currently, much of the public conversation, rightly so, revolves around risks. However, I often get the impression, and the data support this, that those risks tend to overshadow the potential gains. This creates a kind of societal paralysis, a wait-and-see mentality that could become a barrier to progress. At the same time, the TechnikRadar shows that when it comes to questions about the broader developments like the digitalisation of the economy, a majority of respondents actually report more benefits than risks. That’s encouraging. It suggests that there is a latent openness to positive change, but it needs to be activated through targeted, substantive and credible engagement.

What role can studies like the TechnikRadar play in shaping more inclusive and democratic technology governance?

Ideally, institutions like acatech, the publisher of the TechnikRadar, would play a stronger role in shaping public discourse, precisely because they operate according to rigorous scientific standards. That said, it’s important to interpret this role as objectively informative rather than normatively prescriptive. Striking that balance can be delicate, especially when it comes to how findings are framed and communicated. Ultimately, it’s up to civil society, and political actors in particular, to engage with this kind of knowledge. Studies like the TechnikRadar can offer a starting point, but they are not, and should not be, the sole drivers of public debate. They provide the foundation; it’s others who must build upon it.