This paper, guided by the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, assumes that regulators should aim to support the development of nanomedicine while, at the same time, putting in place whatever limits or safeguards are indicated by ethical considerations. Relative to this regulatory objective, it is argued that, notwithstanding the importance of precaution (characteristically, concerning health, safety, and the environment), ethical reflection needs to go both broader and deeper. It is suggested that, by attending to the basic matrix (...) of ethical debate and the “bioethical triangle” through which the matrix is currently articulated, the breadth, depth, and conflictual plurality of ethical concerns about nanomedicine will be clarified. In this light, the conventional thinking about precaution is revisited and concerns about human dignity and informed consent (under conditions of extreme uncertainty) are analysed. The paper concludes that, once the range of ethical pluralism is grasped, the extent of the challenge facing regulators will be more clearly appreciated. (shrink)

The following article offers a brief overview of current nanotechnology policy, regulation and ethics in Europe and The People’s Republic of China with the intent of noting (dis)similarities in approach, before focusing on the involvement of the public in science and technology policy (i.e. participatory Technology Assessment). The conclusions of this article are, that (a) in terms of nanosafety as expressed through policy and regulation, China PR and the EU have similar approaches towards, and concerns about, nanotoxicity—the official debate on (...) benefits and risks is not markedly different in the two regions; (b) that there is a similar economic drive behind both regions’ approach to nanodevelopment, the difference being the degree of public concern admitted; and (c) participation in decision-making is fundamentally different in the two regions. Thus in China PR, the focus is on the responsibility of the scientist; in the EU, it is about government accountability to the public. The formulation of a Code of Conduct for scientists in both regions (China PR’s predicted for 2012) reveals both similarity and difference in approach to nanotechnology development. This may change, since individual responsibility alone cannot guide S&T development, and as public participation is increasingly seen globally as integral to governmental decision-making. (shrink)

There have been several conscious efforts made by different stakeholders in the area of nanoscience and nanotechnology to increase the awareness of social and ethical issues (SEI) among its practitioners. But so far, little has been done at the laboratory level to integrate a SEI component into the laboratory orientation schedule of practitioners. Since the laboratory serves as the locus of activities of the scientific community, it is important to introduce SEI there to stimulate thinking and discussion of SEI among (...) practitioners, which would eventually contribute toward the responsible development of this technology. In this article, through an example (at the Cornell NanoScale Science and Technology Facility (CNF), practitioners of which represent a section of the nano researchers’ community in the USA), it is shown how a SEI component can be incorporated into the laboratory orientation schedule of the practitioners from diverse disciplinary and institutional backgrounds. Results show that, at CNF, the practitioners enjoyed the discussion since most of them learned about SEI for the first time in their professional career. At the same time, some of them were also knowledgeable about SEI and contributed to the debates. Moreover, the SEI orientation had significant positive impact on the scientific community enabling them to self-reflect upon their own research and its implications for the wider society. This article also describes the efforts that were undertaken to disseminate this form of SEI orientation to other 13 USA universities within the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN, one of the biggest networks funded from National Science Foundation for Nanotechnology research, of which CNF is a part). As a result of this effort, most of the NNIN sites have already started or were in the process of integrating a SEI component into their nanofabrication laboratories to make their users aware of SEI, ensuring eventual robust socio-technical integration in the NNIN laboratories. In the future, this form of SEI orientation can also be disseminated to other nanofabrication laboratories in the USA. (shrink)

Many developing countries have allocated significant amounts of funding for nanoscience and nanotechnology research, yet compared to developed countries, there has been little study, discussion, or debate over social and ethical issues. Using in-depth interviews, this study focuses on the perceptions of practitioners, that is, scientists and engineers, in one developing country: India. The disciplinary background, departmental affiliation, types of institutions, age, and sex of the practitioners varied but did not appear to affect their responses. The results show that 95% (...) of the Indian practitioners working in the area of nanoscience and nanotechnology research recognized ethical issues in this research area, and 60% of them could offer specific examples, which included possible ill effects on environment and human, use as a weapon, hype, professional ethics, laboratory testing on animals, cyborgs, widening the gap between rich and poor, self-replication, and longevity of human life. The results may offer opportunities for future cross-cultural research, as well as offer examples that can be used to raise the awareness of other practitioners in India and elsewhere regarding the importance of ethical issues. (shrink)

This paper aims to review different discourses within the emerging field of ethical reflection on nanotechnology. I will start by analysing the early stages of this debate, showing how it has been focused on searching for legitimacy for this sphere of moral inquiry. I will then characterise an ethical approach, common to many authors, which frames ethical issues in terms of risks and benefits. This approach identifies normative issues where there are conflicts of interest or where challenges to the fundamental (...) values of our society arise. In response to the limitations of this approach, other commentators have called for more profound analysis of the limits of our knowledge, and have appealed to values, such as sustainability or responsibility, which should, they suggest, inform nanotechnological development (I will define this approach as a “sophisticated form of prudence”). After showing the ways in which these frameworks are limited, I will examine more recent developments in debates on nanoethics which call for the contextualisation of ethical discourse in its ontological, epistemic and socio-economic and political reflections. Such contextualisation thus involves inquiry into the ‘metaphysical research program’ (MRP) of nanotechnology/ies and analysis of the socio-economic, political and historical reality of nano. These ideas offer genuinely new insights into the kind of approach required for nanoethical reflection: they recover a sense of the present alongside the need to engage with the past, while avoiding speculation on the future. (shrink)

In this paper, I take a critical stance on the emerging field of nanoethics. After an introductory section, “Conceptual Foundations of Nanotechnology” considers the conceptual foundations of nanotechnology, arguing that nanoethics can only be as coherent as nanotechnology itself and then discussing concerns with this latter concept; the conceptual foundations of nanoethics are then explicitly addressed in “Conceptual Foundations of Nanoethics”. “Issues in Nanoethics” considers ethical issues that will be raised through nanotechnology and, in “What’s New?”, it is argued that (...) none of these issues is unique to nanotechnology. In “It’s a Revolution!”, I express skepticism about arguments which hold that, while the issues themselves might not be unique, they nevertheless are instantiated to such a degree that extant moral frameworks will be ill-equipped to handle them. In “What’s Different?”, I draw plausible distinctions between nanoethics and other applied ethics, arguing that these latter might well identify unique moral issues and, as such, distinguish themselves from nanoethics. Finally, in “What Now?”, I explore the conclusions of this result, ultimately arguing that, while nanoethics may fail to identify novel ethical concerns, it is at least the case that nanotechnology is deserving of ethical attention, if not a new associative applied ethic. (shrink)

Syftet med artikeln är att diskutera organiseringen av svensk nanoteknik och varför denna skiljer sig från de länder inom vilka det sker en mer sammanhållen aktörsmobilisering kring nanoteknik, och där tillväxtfokus i högre grad än i Sverige integreras med fokus på miljö och samhällsmässiga aspekter. Utvecklingen av svensk nanoteknik visar att vetenskaplig effektivitet inte nödvändigtvis betyder att frågor om innovation eller effekter av denna innovation också hanteras effektivt. Stora vetenskapsprogram drivs utan samordnande hantering av nanoteknik som innovationsobjekt. Forskning om miljö (...) och samhälleliga aspekter sker i liten skala och utan tydlig koppling till nanoteknikens innovationssystem. Förklaringar söks i den svenska modellens implikation för FoU i allmänhet och nanoteknik i synnerhet. Modellen är centrerad kring storindustrins behov och har sitt fokus på expertis. Sammantaget har Sverige haft svårt både att hantera nanoteknik som utvecklingsprojekt och att bredda diskussionen kring nanoteknik som samhällsprojekt. (shrink)

There is the popular notion according to which the world is built up in a hierarchical order, such that combining entities from the lower level results in entities of the next higher level, and so on. It seems beyond doubt in this view that the entities at the lowest level are some subatomic particles, to be followed at the next levels by atoms, molecules, biological organs and organisms including humans, and eventually societies. Accordingly, a scientific discipline is assigned to each (...) level, resulting in a disciplinary hierarchy that starts with physics and goes via chemistry, biology, and psychology to sociology. This popular notion has its merits as it assures us that both the world and our scientific knowledge are perfectly ordered in a harmonious but hierarchical manner. It provides philosophical food to discuss the interfaces between the ontological levels or disciplines in terms of reduction, emergence, supervenience, and so on. And it appeals to some philosophers who are interested in science but unable to read the about two million scientific publications per year, because it allows them to focus on the handful of publications in what is supposed to be the fundamental level of Everything. The hierarchical picture became popular in the 19th century just when most of our scientific disciplines emerged in a process of horizontal diversification, when each discipline carved out and established its own specific subject matter, methodology, theories, and problems and rejected just the idea of the hierarchical dependencies between the disciplines (Stichweh 1984). Despite its anachronism at the time of its popularization, the hierarchical picture was appealing to all those who felt lost in the exploding fields of science and who were yearning for the good old days in which a simple metaphysical scheme could provide order to the entire world. It is more than likely that the hierarchical picture is appealing still nowadays for the same reasons. It would not be worthwhile to discuss the anachronistic hierarchical picture, if it had not such a great appeal to many philosophers.1 In this paper I discuss only one particular problem of the hierarchical picture, the lack of matter or stuffs2 in the ontological hierarchy, which actually consists in a series of structures or forms.. (shrink)