OBJECTIVES: Emerging developments in nanomedicine allow the development of genome-based technologies for unobtrusive and individualized screening of colorectal cancer. An example is the nanopill that is currently being developed. The pill collects gastrointestinal fluid and screens DNA for tumour markers. The main objective is to inform further development by determining the public preferences for screening as well as the possible uptake of the nanopill compared to standard CRC screening. METHODS: Data was collected through a discrete choice experiment among individuals aged between 50 and 74 years living in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. A full-profile fractional factorial design with a balanced overlap was implemented. Fourteen random and two fixed choice-tasks with triplets and dual-none response were used. Through an extensive literature search following attributes were included: preparation, technique, sensitivity, specificity, complication rate, and testing frequency. Data were analysed using Hierarchical Bayes analysis and a Multinomial Logit model. RESULTS: Thirteen hundred fifty-six respondents completed the questionnaire, from which 884 (65%) passed the consistency test. Most preferred attributes were: technique (pill), preparation (none); sensitivity (100%), specificity (100%), complications (none), and interval (every 5 years). Nanopill was the most preferred screening modality (46%), followed by iFOBT (40%), colonoscopy (2%), and sigmoidoscopy (1%). Eleven percent would choose not to be screened. CONCLUSIONS: CRC screening has been implemented in a number of countries using standard screening techniques, like FOBT and virtual colonoscopy. However, current developments in nanomedicine allow the development of new technologies for individualized screening. The expected benefits delivered by the nanopill are an improved screening adherence, earlier diagnosis and an increased test performance. The present study suggests the nanopill to be accepted by the public, which does support further development. However, the study used hypothetical scenarios to describe the nanopill and the results do not guarantee market uptake. Cost-benefit analysis and clinical trials remain mandatory.