Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developments in the Debate on Nanoethics: Traditional Approaches and the Need for New Kinds of Analysis

  • Critical Discussion Notes
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Mnyusiwalla and co-authors [100] analysed literature published between 1985 and September 2002, using survey databases and searching for articles containing ‘nanotechnology’ as a keyword. The articles were then screened for the keywords ‘ethics’ and ‘social implications’.

  2. Discussion on the challenges posed by nano began in the USA with the publication of a National Science and Technology Council report on ‘Shaping the world atom by atom’ [106], which both anticipated utopian dreams of a better world and gave rise to fears and nightmares of a destructive future. The launch of a programme on ‘converging technologies for improving human performances’ was also particularly important [135]; this was followed by a response by the European Union [78].

  3. A number of conferences and meetings were particularly important in this initial debate: a Nanoethics conference in March 2005 at the University of South Carolina, USA (see also [25]); a workshop on Converging Technologies organised by the European Commission ([78]; cf. also [26]); and a clustering ‘workshop on the ethics of nanotechnology’, held in Brussels in November 2006 with the aim of coordinating current European projects on the ELSA of nanotechnology. Further interesting groups are the ‘NanoCenter’ at the USC Columbia (since 2001) in the USA; the ‘Working Group for the Study of Philosophy and Ethics of Complexity and Scale (SPECS)’ at the University of South Carolina; the Nanooffice at the University of Darmstadt; the Nanoethics Network based at the Danish University of Aarhus; and the recently founded S.NET (Society for the Study of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies).

  4. For a precise explanation of the different notions of nanotechnology see [141, 108].

  5. As a consequence of this generality, Schummer [144] considers the self-proclaimed common ground of the length scale as being too weak to enable different disciplines (such as chemistry, engineering, and material sciences) to integrate so as to achieve interdisciplinarity.

  6. Keiper [91] describes, for example, the discipline of nanoethics as being modelled on the development of bioethics.

  7. Susanne et al. [157] are, however, critical of current bioethical debate, and describe two typical pitfalls it falls into: a technical prejudice which argues for the solution of almost every question through new techniques; and a philosophical prejudice which tends to solve everything through speculative, a priori arguments.

  8. Allhoff [1] points out that if we consider, for example, issues of distributive justice, we have first of all to figure out which account of distribution we want to follow, then establish whether that account would be violated by a particular application: in doing this there is nothing new with respect to other debates on technologies.

  9. For Cameron [22], contemporary ‘bioethics’ is experiencing a crisis because it is withdrawing from substantive questions to focus on procedural concerns which concentrate strongly on individual autonomy and ‘informed consent’. In this way it leads to efforts to privatise ethical decision making and assume an atomistic view of society. Cameron sees in the twinning of bioethics and biopolicy the possibility of a “nanoethics that builds a vision for the common good—on the basis of shared convictions about ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’, and with a flipside in approaches to biopolicy that are not shy to encourage appropriate regulation” ([22], p. 294).

  10. The principle ‘Verum et factum reciprocantur seu convertuntur’ or ‘verum esse ipsum factum’ (‘the true and the made are...interchangeable,’ or ‘the true is what is made’) was formulated for the first time in 1710 as part of Vico’s work De Italorum Sapientia, and then reformulated and applied in Scienza nuova seconda in 1730, where it is connected with the doctrine that the civil world (history) is made by man. This principle states that human beings can only truly know the things that they have made. Rejecting Descartes’ knowledge principles, which are constructed upon the idea that natural science and mathematics need a ‘metaphysical explanation’, Vico argues that these disciplines demand an analysis of the causes (the activity) through which things are made.

  11. See also Bond’s speech, entitled ‘Responsible nanotechnology development’, at the SWISSRE Workshop [159] and quoted in [158].

  12. In this respect, ethical and social issues associated with emerging nanotechnologies are characterised by the following distinctive features: they are determinate, distinct, immediate (because now is not too soon to consider them), significant and actionable—meaning that now is the moment for certain actors to take steps to address some of the issues ([138], p. 8).

  13. This distinction is a working hypothesis similarly used by the European DEEPEN (Deepening Ethical Engagement in Emerging Nanotechnologies) Project, a EU Sixth Framework Programme funded project and Europe’s leading partnership for integrated understanding of the ethical challenges posed by nanotechnologies (see http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/projects/deepen). I would like to acknowledge productive discussions around this topic with the other DEEPEN partners.

  14. On the one hand, general visions of what nanotechnology is and what it can provide (i.e. nanotechnology in the singular) inform discourse on each specific application and influence the framework for concrete questions in a specific area. On the other hand, the particular questions that emerge in contexts of application (nanotechnologies in the plural) also go back and re-shape global visions of these technologies.

  15. Exceptions include an anthology edited by Walker and Ivanhoe [164] and recent efforts to develop virtue ethics arguments in the context of environmental discussion (see for example [139]).

  16. See, among others, [165, 104, 173].

  17. The work of Poortinga and Pidgeon [122], which refers to technologies in general, is interesting with regard to this. A number of other publications refer to the field of biotechnology [123, 85].

  18. The first international endorsement of the Precautionary Principle is contained in the World Charter for Nature 1982, which was successively ratified in the famous Rio Declaration, in which, in article 15, the Precautionary Principle is defined in the following terms: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” (http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163). In 2000 the European Commission developed a communication on the precautionary principle (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/docum/20001_en.htm), in which two aspects were distinguished: on the one hand the political decision to act or not to act, which is linked to the factors which trigger recourse to the precautionary principle; on the other the affirmative aspect—i.e. the measures which result from application of the precautionary principle. There is a very broad literature of this topic; for an overview, see [75].

  19. The principle offers a basis for a different kind of decision-making process to that traditionally proposed by risk assessment: whereas the latter is based upon the idea of balancing harm and benefit, in a precautionary decision-making structure evidence regarding alternatives and of the magnitude of possible harm from an activity are also considered (cf. [160]). In this sense, the principle can be defined as proposing a ‘state of mind’ that may help decision-makers avoid false negatives [119] and as a “salutary spur to greater humility” which draws attention to a broader range of non-reductive methods and which reveals the normative and contestable basis for decisions ([154], p. 312).

  20. Hull [80] distinguishes three kinds of critique of the precautionary principle: the claim that the principle is not scientific; that it ignores the risks of regulation; and that people make irrational decisions.

  21. Sunstein [156] argues, for example, that the principle is incoherent “not because it leads in bad directions, but because read for all its worth, it leads in no direction at all. The principle threatens to be paralyzing, forbidding regulation, inaction, and every step between. It provides help only if we blind ourselves to many aspects of risk-related situations and focus on a narrow subset of what is at stake” ([156], pp. 14–15).

  22. Perhaps an idea from the virtue ethics approach would be helpful in framing this differently: in virtue ethics the rightness of the action is determined by the character traits of the person performing it, or by their intentions.

  23. On 14th and 15th July 2005 a meeting exploring ‘responsible’ research and development, organised by the European Commission and held in Brussels, took place in order to discuss and further develop the 2004 dialogue launched by the European Commission Communication “Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology” and the June 2004 international meeting held in Alexandria (USA) and organised by the National Science Foundation (see ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/intldialogue_background.pdf). In the 2004 NSF meeting it was stated that an ongoing dialogue should enable and maximise beneficial contributions of nanotechnologies to society as well as addressing the concerns of the public in reducing risks. However, this appeal to ‘responsible development’ is ambiguous in its description of risk as the only public concern and in its avowed effort towards the maximisation of benefit.

  24. In 2004 the European Union called for a dialogue with the public on scientific issues (European Commission [50], and under the 6th Framework Programme extensive projects were funded to explore ways of involving citizens in dialogue and participation (see Science and Society program, http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.topic&id=356). In the UK, partly as a result of recommendations by the Royal Society [137], large numbers of ‘upstream public engagement’ activities (involving constructive and proactive debate on the future of nanotechnologies) have taken place (including Nanojury UK, Nanodialogues, and initiatives organized by the Nano Engagement Group; cf. [63]).

  25. On the Code of Conduct see: http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/index_en.html (cf. [103]). In the US there is a similar voluntary measure, the US Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP): http://www.epa.gov/oppt/nano/stewardship.htm.

  26. The consultation process was open from July 2007 to September 2007 and was based on 10 sets of questions (the consultation Paper can be found here: http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:3at3mqRFs2kJ:ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/pdf/nano-consultation_en.pdf+responsible+development+nanotechnology+governance&hl=de&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=de&client=firefox-a). From that a draft was formulated, which was again opened to public consultation from September to November 2007 (see http://www.responsiblenanocode.org/documents/ResponsibleNanoCodeConsultationDraft17September07.doc).

  27. One of the major difficulties, in the case of nanotechnologies, is a lack of appropriate regulation at governmental level, so that ‘voluntary measures’ such as Codes of Conduct involving private companies have become more and more important. These include the UK Responsible NanoCode, promoted by the Royal Society, Insight Investment and the Nanotechnology Industries Association (cf. also [136]); the Code of Conduct developed by BASF; the Nanocare Initiative promoted by a number of chemical companies; the Code of Conduct developed by the Swiss retailer’s association IG DHS; and the ‘Nano Risk Framework to Aid in Responsible Development of Nanotechnology’ developed by Dupont and the NGO Environmental Defense (EDF; [35] and cf. for paragraph 4.2). For an overview of this governance landscape see [89].

  28. The term ‘stakeholder’ (which literally means a person or organisation that has a legitimate interest in a project or entity, in our case a technology) comes from business ethics and the debate on corporate social responsibility. Interestingly, the exercises which identify different stakeholders in a particular situation—in our case the development of a technology—imply that a person has particular interests which are different from those of others, depending on his or her specific role in society: it seems that a consumer has different interests from an entrepreneur or scientist. However, this fragmentation of societal roles can be considered fundamentally problematic, in that an individual in a society always takes a number of different roles and positions (an entrepreneur, for example, is also a consumer and a citizen).

  29. This report sketches a particular regime of the economics of technoscientific promises (ETP), characterised by taking public opinion into account, whereas the development of dialogue on benefits and concerns ends up taking the form of polarised interactions between those for or against these technoscientific promises [52].

  30. It is not possible, in this article, to further investigate the implications of this new regime of responsible development. For further analysis of this topic see [103, 132,133].

  31. However, already in its first call for a moratorium the ETC Group highlighted the tension between, on the one hand, a lack of research on the toxicity of nanoproducts, and, on the other, the rapid commercialisation of these products: “No one expects the scientific community to have all the answers at this early stage; every consumer would expect, however, that scientists and regulators get it right before nanoproducts are sold or released in the environment and before they potentially endanger the health of workers in labs” (ETC Group [46], p. 6).

  32. These principles are abbreviated in the acronym CHISEL: criticality, holism, interaction, self-organisation, emergence and long-termism [82].

  33. Dupuy [37] proposes abandoning the traditional metaphysics of time typical of modern science, which has its highest rational expression in Leibniz’s philosophy and which underpins the theory of rational choice ([37], p.162 ff). In contrast, he highlights the importance of Bergsonian metaphysics of time.

  34. They argue that if, on the one hand it is not credible to be too optimistic, on the other we will end by undergoing the catastrophe if we close ourselves off in cognitive paralysis. In this sense the methodology of ongoing normative assessment can be seen as a conjunction of inverse prescription [42].

  35. The notion of a metaphysical research programme goes back to the theories of Karl Popper, who highlighted that every scientific theory relies on a set of values and worldviews which are built on general presuppositions about the structure of the world. In his work, ‘metaphysical’ assumptions are ones which are non-falsifiable, i.e. those which cannot undergo empirical testing. In the ‘Metaphysical Epilogue’ to his work Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics (originally 1982), Popper pointed out that, in almost every phase of the development of science, metaphysical ideas not only determine which problems of explanation we choose to attack, but also the kinds of answers we consider satisfactory additions to our knowledge ([124], p. 161). Popper followed the lead of Emile Meyerson’s De l’explication dans les sciences, originally published in 1927 (see [98]). The fact that he chooses the word ‘programme’ serves to stress the fact that these metaphysical ideas tend to cluster together and support each other in various ways. He then uses this notion to identify and criticise ideas within rival theories such as determinism, justificationism, subjectivism and essentialism. In Popper’s opinion, these rival metaphysical research programs are basic categories of thought that operate as invisible boundaries, dictating the types of problems that scientists choose to work on, the way that they are formulated, and the kinds of solutions that are accepted.

  36. The expression ‘ethics without ontology’ is taken from a series of lectures by Hilary Putnam [127]. Putnam argues that ‘ontology’ is not meant as a synonym of ‘metaphysics’ but rather is a part of it: that concerning the ‘science of Being’. Putnam then distinguishes the so-called ‘inflationary ontologists’, such as Plato or Moore, and ‘deflationary ontologists’, who are further distinguished as reductionists and eliminationists. Putnam, who here refers clearly to the nature of discursive entities, rejects every kind of Ontology (with a capital ‘O’, as he writes) and defends “what one might call pragmatic pluralism, the recognition that it is no accident that in everyday language we employ many different kinds of discourses, discourses subject to different standards and possessing different sorts of applications, with different logical and grammatical features—different ‘language games’ in Wittgenstein’s sense—no accident because it is an illusion that there could be just one sort of language game which could be sufficient for the description of all of reality!” ([127], p. 20).

  37. Dupuy [40] sees many of the same tensions, contradictions, paradoxes, and confusions as he found in cybernetics and within cognitive science in the philosophical foundation of converging technologies—in particular within the NBIC’s conception of these, although he sees, in this new project, more far-reaching and dangerous consequences because it is an entire programme founded upon acting upon nature and mankind.

  38. [145] points out, for example, that the trend of patenting DNA sequence databases similarly has doubtful benefits.

  39. For this reason, in analysis of possible impacts of these technologies on a global scale the race for control of patents and the question of consumption of material resources (since the economies of developing countries largely depend on mining and exporting these materials to industrialised countries) are of fundamental importance (cf. [145, 146]). The latest changes in intellectual property rights are in the field of materials—since 2000, all existing and aspiring member countries of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have to sign the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPs). Such legislation seems to have particularly negative side effects on developing countries, because the impact of property rights now depends on the imitation/innovation capacity of developing countries. Whereas the know-how gap between rich and poor countries was certainly large enough previously, and developing countries could neither imitate the products of developed countries nor compete with their innovations, before the development of nanotechnological materials TRIPs was not especially influential on the economy of these countries. Now, its impact on welfare is expected to produce clearly negative effects, especially for the least developed countries with little innovation but some imitation potential [145]. Furthermore, for Schummer [145, 146] many nanotechnologies promote the substitution of material resources for more expensive and ‘technological’ ones and are clearly following a long-term trend—begun in the late 19th century—which has been proven to have drastic effects on national economies.

  40. In particular this idea is highly visible in those papers which try to manage the tension between unexpected developments in science and technology and the necessity of preventing and minimising side-effects (see for example [65]). The problem with such thinking is that it refuses to analyse the development of new technologies in a historical manner, for example by comparing them with earlier, similar technologies or with technologies developed in a similar socio-economic context.

  41. See [49, 69]; [61, 102] and IUF [84].

  42. As already mentioned, in 2007 the ETC Group changed its strategy on its call for a moratorium on nano-products.

  43. For an analysis of the Framework proposed by Dupont and Environmental Defense see [89].

  44. It therefore requires “democratic involvement for the entire range of processes by which nanotechnologies are developed and used and is necessary at each stage of development on a continuing basis to ensure that public concerns, values and preferences inform and guide nanotechnology oversight” (NanoAction p. 9).

  45. For Nordmann and Rip [115], the implications for this relationship are more concrete and urgent than questions about personalised medicine, an idea which, due to the difficulties of establishing causal links between genetic data and disposition to disease, still seems too speculative.

  46. In the USA, for example, positive promises and great visions for nanotechnology have been a matter for political support, first under Clinton [107] and then under Bush (who signed the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act in December 2003), and have been seen as constituting powerful economic motors. The US debate on nanotechnology is characterised by an alliance between ‘visionary engineers’, science-fiction authors, business people and transhumanists. It takes technology to be a “given mysterious and autonomous force with one way impact on the society” [143], and sees cultural and social scientists as marginal actors in the debate.

  47. See for example the initiatives of the European Commission in [81]; in the USA the US Nanotechnology Initiative (http://www.nano.gov/). See also, amongst others, the project Observatory Nano which has prepared an ELSA literature on nanotechnology (http://www.observatorynano.eu/project/filesystem/files/Literature.doc) and the Nanoethics Bank (http://ethics.iit.edu/NanoEthicsBank/popular_search.php?cmd=search&words=ethics&mode=normal).

  48. To summarise: for some authors, these issues are extraordinarily new because they involve new technological possibilities, but do not need a new framework of reflection [11, 70, 71, 73, 74, 159]. For others, these issues are new and therefore need new ethical insights because of the extraordinary transformative technological power of both nature and the human being [14]. For others again, these issues are old because they touch traditional ethical questions raised by technological development and so can be fruitfully analysed using established frameworks such as approaches in bioethics [43]. Finally, for some these issues are old problems which need new kinds of reflection, because traditional ethical frameworks do not appear to satisfyingly capture the issues at stake (see [172, 40]).

References

  1. Allhoff F (2007) On the autonomy and justification of nanoethics. In: Nanoethics 1(3): 185–210

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allhoff F, Lin P (2006) What’s so special about nanotechnology and nanoethics? Introductory paper to nanoethics symposium published in. Int J Appl Philos 20(2):179–190

    Google Scholar 

  3. Allhoff F, Lin P (2008) Nanotechnology and society. Current and emerging ethical issues. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bachmann G (1998) Innovationsschub aus dem Nanokosmos. Technologieanalyse. VDI- Technologiezentrum, Düsseldorf

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (2004) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ball P (2003) Nanoethics and the purpose of new technologies. Talk delivered at “Material Choices” Symposium, Royal Society For Arts, London, March 2003

  7. Barnett J, Carr A, Clift R (2006) Going public: risk, trust and public understanding of nanotechnologies. In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology, risk and law. Earthscan, UK and USA, pp 196–212

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bensaude-Vincent B (2004) Two cultures of nanotechnology? In: HYLE 10, 2: 65–82

  9. Bensaude-Vincent B (2006) Self-assembly, self-organization: A philosophical perspective on converging technologies. Paper prepared for France/Stanford Meeting in Avignon, December 2006, Draft. http://www.u-paris10.fr/servlet/com.univ.collaboratif.utils.LectureFichiergw

  10. Bensaude-Vincent B (2009) Les vertiges de la technoscience. Editions La Découverte, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  11. Berne RW (2005) Nanoethics. In: Mitcham C (ed) Encyclopedia of science, technology and ethics, vol. 3. Thomson-Gale, Detroit, pp 1259–1262

    Google Scholar 

  12. Berube D (2009) Public perception of nano—a summary of findings, 20 october 2009, http://nanohype.blogspot.com/

  13. BIAC Expert Group on Nanotechnologies (2009) Responsible development of nanotechnology: turning vision into reality, BIAC expert group on nanotechnologies vision paper, http://www.biac.org/statements/nanotech/FIN09-01_Nanotechnology_Vision_Paper.pdf

  14. Bond P (2004) Vision for converging technologies and future society. In: Roco M, Montemagno C (eds) The coevolution of human potential and converging technologies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1013: 17–24

  15. Bostrom N (2007) Technological revolutions: ethics and policy in the dark. In: Cameron NM, Mitchell EM (eds) Nanoscale: issues and perspectives for the nano century. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 129–152

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bostrom N, Ord T (2006) The reversal test: eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics. In: Ethics 116: 656–679

  17. Braithwaite V, Levi M (eds) (1998) Trust and governance. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brown N, Rip A, van Lente H (2003) Expectation In and About Science and Technology: a background paper for the expectations workshop 13–14 June 2003, http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:o2RgVoVarFcJ:www.york.ac.uk/res/satsu/expectations/Utrecht%25202003/Background%2520paper%2520version%252014May03.pdf+nanotechnology+ideograph+rip&cd=3&hl=it&ct=clnk&gl=it

  19. Browne W R, Feringa WL (2006) Making molecular nanomachines work. In: Nature Nanotechnology 1(I1): 25–35

  20. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (2004a) Nanotechnologie. Innovationen für die Welt von morgen. Bonifatius GmbH, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (2004b) Nanotechnologie erobert Märkte. Deutsche Zukunftsoffensive für Nanotechnologie. Bonifatius GmbH, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cameron NM (2007) Toward nanoethics? In: Cameron NM, Mitchell EM (eds) Nanoscale: issues and perspectives fort he nano century. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 281–294

    Google Scholar 

  23. Campbell P (2003) Nanotech, uncertainty and the publics, Talk at a symposium on nanotechnology at ZKM, the Art and Media Museum, Karlsruhe, Germany, June 13, 2003, http://www.euroscience.net/article1.html

  24. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology. Risks, benefits, & trust. J Nano Res 6:395–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Coenen C (2005) NanoEthics conference at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA, March 2–5, 2005. Conference Report.In: Technikfolgenabschätzung. Theorie und Praxis 2(14):116–120, http://www.itas.fzk.de/tatup/052/coen05a.htm

  26. Coenen C, Fleischer T, Rader M (2004) Of visions, dreams, and nightmares: the debate on converging technologies. Report on the Conference “Converging Technologies for a Diverse Europe”, Brussels September 14–15, 2004. In: Technikfolgenabschätzung—Theorie und Praxis, Nr. 3(13): 118–125; http://www.itas.fzk.de/tatup/043/coua04a.htm

  27. COMEST (2005) The precautionary principle. Report of the expert group on the precautionary principle commission on the ethics of scientific knowledge and technology. Geneva, Unesco

  28. Comité Consultatif National d’Ethique pour la Sciences de la Vie et de la Santé (CCNE) (2007) AVIS N°96—Questions éthiques posées par les nanosciences, les nanotechnologies et la santé, http://www.ccne-ethique.fr/francais/start.htm

  29. Commission de l’éthique la Science et de la technologie (2006) Éthique et Nanotechnologies : se donner les moyens d’agir, Québec—Nov. 2006, http://www.ethique.gouv.qc.ca/fr/ftp/Nano_Web_BD.pdf

  30. Commission de l’Éthique de la Science et de la Technologie (2008) Ethics, risk, and nanotechnology: responsible approaches to dealing with risk. In: Allhoff F, Lin P (eds) Nanotechnology and society. Current and emerging ethical issues. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 75–89

    Google Scholar 

  31. Corley EA et al (2009) Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. In: Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 17 June 2009, http://www.springerlink.com/content/627323076677745q/fulltext.html

  32. Crandall BC (ed) (1996) Nanotechnology: molecular speculations on global abundance. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  33. Davies S et al (2009) Reconfiguring responsiility: lessons for public policy (Part 1 of the report on deepening the debate on nanotechnology). Duhram University, Duhram

    Google Scholar 

  34. Drexler E (1986) Engines of creation- the coming era of nanotechnology. Anchor Books, USA

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dupont, Environmental Defense (2007) Nano risk framework. June 2007, http://www.edf.org/documents/6496_Nano%20Risk%20Framework.pdf

  36. Dupuy J-P (2000) The mechanization of mind: on the origins of cognitive science. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  37. Dupuy J-P (2002) Pour une catastrophisme eclairé. Editions du Seuil, France

  38. Dupuy J-P (2004a) Complexity and uncertainty: a prudential approach to nanotechnology. In: Sanco, European Commission (Community Health and Consumer Protection) (2004) Nanotechnologies: A Preliminary Risk Analysis on the Basis of a Workshop, Brussels, 1–2 March 2004: 71–93, (www.europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_risk/documents/ev_20040301_en.pdf)

  39. Dupuy J-P (2004b) Do we shape technologies or do they shape us?, Proceedings of the Conference “Converging technologies for a diverse Europe”, September 2004, European Commission, Brussels. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/foresight/docs/ntw_22_dupuy_text.pdf

  40. Dupuy J-P (2007) Some pitfalls in the philosophical foundations of nanoethics. In: Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32(3): 237–261

    Google Scholar 

  41. Dupuy J-P (2009) “Preface to the new edition”: the mechanization of mind: on the origins of cognitive science. Princeton, Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  42. Dupuy J-P, Grinbaum A (2004) Living with uncertainty: toward the ongoing normative. Assessment of Nanotechnology. In: Techné 8: 4–25

  43. Ebbesen M, Andersen S, Besenbacher F (2006) Ethics in nanotechnology: starting from scratch? In Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 26: 451–462

  44. EGE (2006) Nanomedicine. Nanotechnology for health. European technology platform, stretegy research agenda for nanomedicine, November 2006, Belgium: European Commission

  45. ETC Group (2003a) The big down: technologies converging at the nano-scale, www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/54/02/com8788specialpnanomar-jun05eng.pdf

  46. ETC (2003b) Size matters. The call for a global moratorium, http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=165

  47. ETC Group (2004) Down on the farm. The impact of nano-scale technologies on food and agriculture, http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=80

  48. ETC Group (2005) Nanotech’s “Second Nature” patents: implications for the global south, http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=53

  49. ETC Group (2007) Broad international coalition issues urgent call for strong oversight of nanotechnology. press release, http://www.etcgroup.org/en/issues/nanotechnology.html

  50. European Commission (2004) Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology, communication from the Commission. Brussels, European Communities, Report. European Commission, Brussels, ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/nano_com_en.pdf

  51. European Commission (2008) A code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research, A Commission Recommendation of 07/02/2008; http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/index_en.html (last accessed 05/28/09)

  52. Felt U et al (2007) Taking European knowledge society seriously, Directorate General for Research, European Commission. http://cps.fns.uniba.sk/veda/files/european-knowledge-society_en.pdf

  53. Ferrari A (2008) Is it all about human nature? The ethical challenges of converging technologies beyond a polarized debate. In: Innovation. The European Journal of Social Science Research 1(21): 1–24

  54. Ferrari A (2009a) Controlling the ethics of nanorisks. In: Arnaldi S, Lorenzet A, Russo F (eds) Managing the uncertainty of nanotechnology: ethics, policy and public engagement. IOS, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ferrari A (2009b) The Nano-control freak: multi-faceted strategies for taming nature. In: Kjolberg K, Wickson F (eds) Nano goes Macro—Social Perspectives on Nano-scaled Sciences & Technologies, Pan Stanford (in press)

  56. Ferrari A (2010) Visions of a better world in nanotechnologies. In: Ferrari A, Gammel S (eds) Visionen der nanotechnologie. AKA Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 203–227

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ferrari A, Nordmann A (2009) Reconfiguring responsibility: lessons for nanoethics (Part 2 of the report on deepening the debate on nanotechnology). Duhram University, Duhram

    Google Scholar 

  58. Foladori G, Invernizzi N (2005) Nanotechnology in its socio-economic context. In: Science Studies 18, 2: 67–73

  59. Foladori G, Invernizzi N (2006) Nanotecnologías disruptivas. Implicaciones sociales de las nanotecnologías. Miguel Ángel Porrúa and Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, Zacatecas

    Google Scholar 

  60. Foladori G, Invernizzi N (2008) The workers’ push to democratize nanotechnology. In: Fisher E et al (eds) The yearbook of nanotechnology in society 1: 23–36 (originally posted at estudiosdeldesarrollo.net/relans/documentos/UITA-English-1.pdf

  61. Friends of the Earth (2007) Nanotechnology policy statement. http://nano.foe.org.au/filestore2/download/94/FoEA%20Nanotechnology%20Policy%20May%202006.pdf

  62. Fukuyama F (2002) Our posthuman future. The consequences of the biotechnology revolution. Profile Books, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  63. Gavelin K, Wilson R, Doubleday R (2007) Democratic technologies? Final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG), Involve, London, http://www.involve.org.uk/assets/Publications/Democratic-Technologies.pdf

  64. Goodsell DS (2004) Bionanotechnology: lessons from nature. Wiley-Liss Inc, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  65. Gordijn B (2006) Nanoethik—eine Neufassung der Debatte. In: Nordmann A, Schummer J, Schwarz A (eds) Nanotechnologien im Kontext. Philosophische, ethische und gesellschaftliche Perspektiven. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin, pp 311–323

    Google Scholar 

  66. Gordon R (2007) Reasoning about the future of nanotechnology. In: Cameron NM, Ellen MM (eds) Nanoscale. Issues and perspectives for the nanocentury. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 97–114

    Google Scholar 

  67. Gould KA (2005) Small, not beautiful: nanotechnology and the treadmill of production. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Marriott Hotel, Loews Philadelphia Hotel, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 12, 2005, http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p18495_index.html

  68. Gould KA, Pellow DN, Schnaiberg A (2003) Interrogating the treadmill of production: everything you wanted to know about the treadmill, but were afraid to ask. Revised paper from Madison Symposium on the Treadmill of Production, http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2004/schnaiberg/21_InterrogatingTreadmill.pdf

  69. Greenpeace (2007) Nanotechnology policy and position paper, http://www.greenpeace.org/denmark/press/rapporter-og-dokumenter/nanotechnology-policy-positi

  70. Grunwald A (2004a) Vision assessment as a new element of technology future analysis tool-box. In: Proceedings of the EU-US Scientific Seminar: New Technology foresight, forecasting & assessment methods, Seville, May 13–14 2004

  71. Grunwald A (2004b) Ethische Aspekte der Nanotechnologie. Eine Felderkundung, In: Technikfolgenabschätzung 2(13): 71–78

  72. Grunwald A (2005) Nanotechnology—a new field of ethical enquiry? In: Science and Engineering Ethics 11, 2: 187–201

  73. Grunwald A (2006) Nanotechnologie als Chiffre der Zukunft. In: Nordmann A, Schummer J, Schwarz A (eds) Nanotechnologien im Kontext. Philosophische, ethische und gesellschaftliche Perspektiven. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin, pp 49–80

    Google Scholar 

  74. Grunwald A (2008) Auf dem Weg in eine nanotechnologische Zukunft. Philosophisch- ethische Fragen. Freiburg I.B.: Karl Alber

  75. Harremoës P et al (2002) The precautionary principle in the 20th century: late lessons from early warnings. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  76. Harris J (2007) Enhancing evolution? The ethical case for making better people. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  77. Harris J, Chan S (2006) Cognitive regeneration or enhancement: the ethical issues. In: Regenerative Medicine 1(3): 361–366

  78. HLEG (2004) Converging technologies—shaping the future of European societies, a report to the European Commission Rappeurteur: Alfred Nordmann

  79. Holm S, Harris J (1999) Precautionary principle stifles discovery. In: Nature 400: 398

  80. Hull G (2007) Normative aspects of a “Substantive” precautionary principle. In: Social Science and Research Network (SSRN) available at: SSRN_ID1013357_code861170.pdf

  81. Hullmann V (2008) European activities in the field of ethical, legal and social aspects (ELSA) and governance of nanotechnology, ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/elsa_governance_nano.pdf

  82. Hunt G (2006) Nanotechnoscience and complex systems: the case for nanology. In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology. Risks, ethics and law. Earthscan, UK and USA, pp 43–58

    Google Scholar 

  83. Invernizzi N, Foladori G, Maclurcan D (2008) Nanotechnology’s controversial role for the south. In: Science Technology Society 13: 123–148

    Google Scholar 

  84. IUF (IUF (International Union of Food, Agricultural Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Association) (2007) Resolution on nanotechnologies at the IUF Congress meeting in Geneva. March 19-22, 2007, http://www.iuf.org

  85. James HS, Marks LA (2008) Trust and distrust in biotechnology risk managers: Insights from the United Kingdom, 1996–2002. In: AgBioForum 11(2): 93–105, http://www.agbioforum.org/v11n2/v11n2a03-james.htm

  86. Janich P (2006) Wissenschaftstheorie der Nanotechnologie. In: Nordmann A, Schummer J, Schwarz A (eds) Nanotechnologien im Kontext. Philosophische, ethische und gesellschaftliche Perspektiven. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin, pp 1–32

    Google Scholar 

  87. Kaiser M (2009) Visionen der Öffentlichkeit als Elemente nanotechnologischer Identitätsarbeit In: Ferrari A, Gammel S. Visionen der

  88. Kearnes M (2009) Nanotechnology and the constitution of the social. In: Ferrari A, Gammel S. Visionen der Nanotechnologie. Heidelberg Aka Verlag: 187–201

  89. Kearnes M, Rip A (2009) The emerging governance landscape of nanotechnology. In: Gammel S, Lösch A, Nordmann A (eds) Jenseits von Regulierung: Zum politischen Umgang mit der Nanotechnologie. Aka Verlag, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  90. Kearnes M et al (2006) Governing at the nanoscale: people, policies and emerging technologies. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  91. Keiper A (2007) Nanoethics as a discipline? In: The new Atlantis. A Journal of Technology & Science: 55–67, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/nanoethics-as-a-discipline

  92. Khushf G (2004) The ethics of nanotechnology. Vision and Values for a New Generation of Science and Engineering. In: National Academy of Engineering (ed.) Emerging Technologies and Ethical Issues in Engineering. Papers from a Workshop, October 14–15, 2003E. The National Academies Press; http://books.nap.edu/books/030909271X/html/29.html#pagetop

  93. Kjolberg K, Wickson F (2007) Social and ethical interactions with nano: mapping the early literature. In: Nanoethics 1: 89–104

  94. Kurzweil R (2003) Testimony to the US house of representatives committee on science, full science, hearing on the societal implications of nanotechnology, April 9, 2003 http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/science/hearings/full03/apr09/kurzweil.pdf

  95. Lee R, Jose D (2008) Self-interest, self-restraint and corporate responsibility for nanotechnologies: emerging dilemmas for modern managers. Technol Anal Strat Manag 20(1):113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Macoubrie J (2005) Informed public perception of nano and trust in government. Chigago: Woodrow Wilson Center www.wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/macoubriereport.pdf

  97. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning, and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15(2):221–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Meyerson E, Sipfle MA, Sipfle D (1991) Explanation in the sciences. Springer, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  99. Miller G (2008) Nanotechnology and the public interest: Repeating the mistakes of GM foods? In: International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation 7(2–3): 274–280

  100. Mnyusiwalla A, Daar AS, Singer PA (2003) Mind the gap. Science and ethics in nanotechnology. In: Nanotechnology 14: R9-R13

  101. Moor J, Weckert J (2004) Nanoethics: assessing the nanoscale from an ethical point of view. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS, Amsterdam, pp 301–310

    Google Scholar 

  102. NanoAction (2007) Principles for the oversight of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials, http://www.nanoaction.org/nanoaction/index.cfm

  103. NanoFraming (2009) FramingNano mapping study on regulation and governance of nanotechnologies, www.framingnano.eu

  104. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (1995) The national academy press on being a scientist: responsible conduct in research, Second Edition

  105. National Research Council (2006) A matter of size. Triennial review of the national nanotechnology initiative

  106. National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) (1999) Shaping the world atom by atom, http://itri.loyola.edu/nano/IWGN.Public.Brochure

  107. National Science and Technology Council (NSCT) (2000) National nanotechnology initiative: The initiative and its implementation plan. Washington, DC

  108. National Science Foundation (NSF) (2006) Nanotechnology definition. National Science Foundation, Varlington VA, http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/nano/reports/omb_nifty50.jsp

  109. Nordmann A (2004) Collapse of distance. Epistemic strategies of science and technoscience, http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/ZIF/FG/2006Application/PDF/Nordmann_essay2.pdf

  110. Nordmann A (2005) Noumenal technology: reflections on the incredible tininess of nano. In: Techné 8: 1–20

  111. Nordmann A (2007a) No future for nanotechnology? Historical development vs. global expansion. In: Jotterand F (ed) Nanotechnology and nanoethics: framing the field. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 43–63

    Google Scholar 

  112. Nordmann A (2007b) Design choices in the nanoworld: a space odyssey. In: Deblonde M, Goorden L et al.: Nano researchers facing choices. In: Timmerman C, Segaert B (eds) The Dialogue Series, Universitair Centrum Sint-Ignatius Antwerpen 10: 13–30

  113. Nordmann A (2007c) If and then: a critique of speculative NanoEthics. In Nanoethics 1.1: 31–46

  114. Nordmann A, Schwarz AE (2009) The lure of the “yes”: The seductive power of technoscience. In: Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmannn-Sutter C (eds) Assessment Regimes of Technology. Regulation, Deliberation & Identity Politics of Nanotechnology. Dordrecht, NL: Springer

  115. Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. In: Nature nanotechnology, 4: 273–274

  116. PEN (The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies) (2008) Europe spends nearly twice as much as U.S. on Nanotech risk research. In: PEN News, 19 April 2008, http://www.nanotechproject.org/news/archive/ehs-update/

  117. Pereira AG, Schomberg R, Funtowicz S (2007) Foresight knowledge assessment. In: International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy (IJFIP) 3(1): 53–75

  118. Petersen A, Anderson A (2007) A question of balance or blind faith?: Scientists’ and science policymakers’ representations of the benefits and risks of nanotechnologies. In: NanoEthics 1: 243–256

  119. Peterson M (2007) The precautionary principle should not be used as a basis for decision-making. In: EMBO Reports 8, 4: 305–308

  120. Phoenix C, Treder M (2003) Applying the precautionary principle to nanotechnology. The Centre for Responsible Nanotechnology, January, 2003, http://www.crnano.org/precautionary.htm

  121. Pidgeon N et al (2008) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United states and United Kingdom, Nature Nanotechnology. Published Online, 7(December)

  122. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF (2003) Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. In: Risk Analysis 23(5): 961–972

  123. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF (2005) Trust in risk regulation: cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? In: Risk Analysis 25, 1: 199–209

  124. Popper K (1992) Quantum theory and the schism in physics. From the postscript to the logic of scientific discovery. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  125. Powell MC (2007) New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. In: Health Risk Soc 9(2):173–190

  126. President’s Council of Bioethics (2003) Beyond therapy. Biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. Washington DC. Available at http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/beyondtherapy/index.html

  127. Putnam H (1994) Ethics without ontology. Harvard University Press, Harvard

    Google Scholar 

  128. Rip A (2001) Contributions from social studies of science and constructive technology assessment. In: Stirling A (ed) On Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk. Volume II. Case Studies. Sevilla: institute for prospective technology studies (European Commission Joint Research Centre), November 2001: 94–122

  129. Rip A (2002) Challenges for technology foresight/assessment and governance , final report of the STRATA consolidating wokshop. Brussel: European Commission, ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/improving/docs/sstp_strata_workshop_session2_final.pdf

  130. Rip A (2005) Technology assessment as part of the co-evolution of nanotechnology and society: the thrust of the TA Program in NanoNed, Conference on “Nanotechnology in Science, Economy and Society”, Marburg, 13–15 January, http://www.nanoandsociety.com/ourlibrary/documents/NanNed.pdf

  131. Rip A (2006) The tension between fiction and precaution in nanotechnology. In: Fisher E, Jones J, Schomberg R (eds) Implementing the precautionary principle. Perspectives and prospects. Edwar Elgar, Cheltentham

    Google Scholar 

  132. Rip A (2008a) A co-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance- and its ironies. In: Voss JP, Kemp R (eds) Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Edward Elgar Publishing

  133. Rip A (2008b) Discourse and practice of responsible nanotechnology development, http://www.mbs.ac.uk/research/innovation/documents/ManchesterSept08ArieRip.ppt

  134. Rip A, Shelley-Egan C (2010) Positions and responsibilities in the ‘real’ world of nanotechnology. In: von Schomberg R, Davies S (eds) Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies: options for framing public policies: A working document by the services of the European Commission. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  135. Roco M, Bainbridge W (eds) (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance: nanotechnology. Biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. National Science Foundation, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  136. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2008) Novel materials in the environment: the case of nanotechnology. HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  137. Royal Society (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. London: Royal Society. http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm

  138. Sandler R (2009) Nanotechnology: the social and ethical issues. PEN 16. Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center, Project on Emerging Technologies

  139. Sandler R, Cafaro P (2005) Environmental virtue ethics. Rowman & Littlefield, New York

    Google Scholar 

  140. Sarewitz D et al (2004) Science policy in its social context. In: Philosophy Today, Supplement: 67–83

  141. Schmid G et al (2003) Small dimensions and material properties. A definition of Nanotechnology. Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler: Europäische Akademie, Graue Reihe, Nr. 35, available at: http://www.ea-aw.de/susanis/presse/pressemeldung.php_id=2.html

  142. Schomberg R (2007) From the ethics of technology to the ethics of knowledge assessment. In: Goujon P et al (eds) The information society: innovation, legitimacy, ethics and democracy. Springer, Boston, pp 39–55

    Google Scholar 

  143. Schummer J (2004) Societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology: meanings, interest groups, and social dynamics. In: Techné—Research in Philosophy and Technology, 8, 2 (2004): 56–87 (reprinted in: J. Schummer, Baird D. (eds.): Nanotechnology Challenges: Implications for Philosophy, Ethics and Society, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2006: 413–449)

  144. Schummer J (2006) Cultural diversity in nanotechnology ethics. In: Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 31: 217–230

  145. Schummer J (2007a) Identifying ethical issues of nanotechnologies. In: ten Have HAMJ (ed) Nanotechnologies, ethics and politics. UNESCO, Paris, pp 79–98

    Google Scholar 

  146. Schummer J (2007) The impact of nanotechnologies on developing countries. In: Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J (eds) Nanoethics: examining the social impact of nanotechnology. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  147. Schummer J (2008) Cultural diversity in nanotechnology ethics. In: Allhoff F, Lin P (eds) Nanotechnology and society. Current and emerging ethical issues. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 265–280

    Google Scholar 

  148. Schummer J (2009) Nanotechnologie: Spiele mit Grenzen. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp

  149. Schwarz A (2004) Shrinking the ecological footprint with NanoTechnoScience? In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS, Amsterdam, pp 203–208

    Google Scholar 

  150. Shrader-Frechette K (2007) Nanotoxicology and ethical conditions for informed consent. In: Nanoethics 1: 47–56

  151. Siegrist M et al (2007) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. In: Appetite 49(2): 459–466

    Google Scholar 

  152. Spagnolo A, Daloiso V (2009) Outlining ethical issues in nanotechnologies. In: Bioethics 23(7): 394–402

    Google Scholar 

  153. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2007) Virtue ethics, Stanford University, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

  154. Stirling A (2007) Risk, precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy. In: EMBO Reports 8(4): 309–315

  155. Strand (2001) ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/nanostag-elsa.pdf

  156. Sunstein CR (2005) Laws of fear: beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  157. Susanne C, Casado M, Buxo MJ (2005) What challenges offers nanotechnology to bioethics? In: Law and the human genome review 22: 27–45

  158. Swiestra T, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. In: Nanoethics 1(1): 3–20

  159. SWISS RE (2004) Small matters. Many unknowns. Available at http://www.swissre.com/pws/research%20publications/risk%20and%20expertise/risk%20perception/nanotechnology%20-%20small%20matter%20many%20unknowns%20pdf%20page.html

  160. Tickner J (1999) A map toward precautionary decision-making. In: Raffensperger C, Tickner J (eds) Protecting public health and the environment: implementing the precautionary principle. Island, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  161. UNESCO (2006) The ethics and politics of nanotechnology. UNESCO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  162. Van Lente H (2000) Forceful futures: from promise to requirement. In: Brown N, Rappert B, Webster A (eds) Contested futures: a sociology of prospective techno-science. Aldershot, Ashgate, pp 43–63

    Google Scholar 

  163. Van Lente H, Rip A (1998) Expectations in technological developments: an example of prospective structures to be filled in by agency. In: Disco C, van der Meulen BJR (eds) Getting new technologies together. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 195–220

    Google Scholar 

  164. Walker RL, Ivanhoe PJ (eds) (2007) Working virtue. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  165. What Do You Care What Other People Think?: Further Adventures of a Curious Character by Richard Feynman (1988)

  166. Wickson F (2008) Narratives of nature and nanotechnology. In: Nature Nanotechnology 3: 313–315

  167. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  168. Woods S, Jones R, Geldart A (2003) The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. UK: Report to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). ESRC, London

    Google Scholar 

  169. Wullweber J (2006) Der mythos nanotechnologie. Die Entstehung einer neuen Inwertsetzungstechnologie. In: Peripherie—Zeitschrift für Politik und Ökonomie, 101/102: 99–118

  170. Wullweber J (2008) Nanotechnology—an empty signifier à venir? A delineation of a techno-socio-economical Innovation Strategy. Iin: Science, Technology and Innovation Studies 4 (1): 27–45

  171. Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert discourse of risk and ethics on GMOs. In: Science as Culture 10(1): 1–40

  172. Wynne B (2006) What could the Foundations of NanoBioInfoethics be? Some lateral thoughts. Paper presented at the the Avignon-Stanford Meeting, 17–18th December 2006, available at: http://ica.stanford.edu/france/conferences/workingpapersseries/ethics

  173. Ziman JM (1994) Prometheus bound: science in a dynamic steady state. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work originates from the research done during the EU-DEEPEN project (http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/Projects/Default.aspxalias=www.geography.dur.ac.uk/projects/deepen). I would like to thank all the members of the group for fruitful discussions. I would like to thank tow anonymous reviewers and John Weckert for their precious suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ITAS Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Arianna Ferrari

Authors
  1. Arianna Ferrari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arianna Ferrari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ferrari, A. Developments in the Debate on Nanoethics: Traditional Approaches and the Need for New Kinds of Analysis. Nanoethics 4, 27–52 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-009-0081-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-009-0081-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation