Skip to main content
Log in

But is it Unique to Nanotechnology?

Reframing Nanoethics

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Attempts have been made to establish nanoethics as a new sub-discipline of applied ethics. The nature of this sub-discipline is discussed and some issues that should be subsumed under nanoethics are proposed. A distinction is made between those issue that may ensue once nanotechnology applications become available and procedural issues that should be integrated into the decision structure of the development. A second distinction relates to the central value of the ethical issue. The conditions for the ethical debate differ depending on whether the value(s) in question is internal to the technological development (i.e. health and safety) or external to it (i.e. privacy, equity etc).

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. An early version of this paper was presented at the Nanotechnology, Ethics and Sustainability, NanoMat satellite conference, University of Bergen, June 2007. Many thanks to the participants at the conference for their perceptive comments. For other helpful comments on early drafts I also wish to thank Sven Ove Hansson, Per Sandin, and Kalle Grill.

  2. Although I am sympathetic toward those who would like to replace the singular term with the plural term nanotechnologies, I will, out of convention, proceed with nanotechnology.

  3. It should be admitted that many of these concerns have also been addressed under headings such as social issues or societal impacts of nanotechnology. This paper will treat these issues as potentially subsumed under a nanoethics whenever the foreseen social consequences of nanotechnology are situated in discussions of whether these effects are favourable or not.

  4. Grunwald also advocates restricted role for ethics in technology in general [20].

  5. One might of course ask: when does a scientific field of research ever translate into a clear-cut normative domain of investigation? It is possible that the objections posed here be equally applicable to other fields of applied ethics; however, it is not my intention to discuss the general issue here.

  6. Dupuy and Grinbaum even suggest that the uncertainty of nanotechnology is so vast that it becomes its defining feature, that in turn warrants a completely new normative approach [9].

  7. In making this distinction it is worth stressing that one need not make any priority between ensuing and procedural ethical issues. If the reader detects any emphasis on the procedural issue from my part, it is only because it appears that matters of justice, research priorities and mistrust are either situated at the wrong end of the analysis (as potential consequences) or overlooked as ethical topics altogether.

  8. Our vernacular conception of risks might of course include other societal risks related to nanotechnology such as risks of increased international competition, public alienation of science etc. Although these issues are not discussed in this paper, I incidentally believe they are better understood as procedural rather than ensuing issues.

  9. Although I believe that the argument applies to both values of health and environmental sustainability, I should say that the latter has only in recent years become a key concern for technological development and is probably likely to be secondary to values of health and safety.

  10. I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for raising this important objection.

  11. The uniqueness claim might have been both genuine and important for those seeking funding or other institutional support for ethics research on nanotechnology. I hope that it is clear from what has been said in this paper that such support should be equally legitimate without the claim of dealing with unique issues.

References

  1. Peterson, C. (2000). Taking technology to the molecular level. Computer, 33(1), 46–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ratner, M. A., & Ratner, D. (2003). Nanotechnology: A gentle introduction to the next big idea. Prentice Hall.

  3. Wood, S., Jones, R., & Geldart, A. (2006). The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Roco, M. C. (2003). Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 5, 181–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mnyusiwalla, A., Daar, A. S., & Singer, P. (2003). ‘Mind the gap’: Science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology, 14, R9–R13. doi:10.1088/0957-4484/14/3/201.

  6. Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). What counts as a ‘social and ethical issue’ in nanotechnology? Hyle, International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 11, 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Weil, V. (2003). Zeroing in on ethical issues in nanotechnology. Proceedings of the IEEE, 91(11), 1976–1979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Nordmann, A. (2007). If and then: A critique of a speculative nanoethics. Nanoethics, 1, 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dupuy, J.-P., & Grinbaum, A. (2004). Living with uncertainty: Toward an ongoing normative assessment of nanotechnology. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 8(1), S4–S25.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Grunwald, A. (2005). Nanotechnology – A new field of ethical inquiry? Science and Engineering Ethics, 11, 187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sweirstra, T., & Rip, A. (2007). Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging technologies. Nanoethics, 1, 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Robison, W. L. (2004). Nano-ethics. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the nanoscale (pp. 285–300). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Litton, P. (2007). ‘Nanoethics’? What’s new? Hastings Center Report, 37(1), 22–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Keiper, A. (2007). Nanoethics as a discipline? The New Atlantis, 16, 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.

  16. Bainbridge, W.-S. (2006). Ethical considerations in the advance of nanotechnology. In L. Foster (Ed.), Nanotechnology science, innovation and opportunities (pp. 233–243). Prentice Hall.

  17. Nagel, D., & Smith, S. (2006). Nanotechnology-enabled sensors: Possibilities, realities and diverse applications. In L. Foster (Ed.), Nanotechnology science, innovation and opportunities (pp. 63–176). Prentice Hall.

  18. Lavan, D. A., Lynn, D. M., & Langer, R. (2002). Moving smaller in drug discovery and delivery. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 1, 77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hansson, S.-O. (2004). Great uncertainty about small things. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 8(2), S26–S35.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Grunwald, A. (2000). Against over-estimating the role of ethics in technology development. Science and Engineering Ethics, 6, 181–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Juvetson, S. (2006). Nanotechnology commercialization: Transcending Moore’s law with molecular electronics and nanotechnology. In L. Foster (Ed.), Nanotechnology science, innovation and opportunities (pp. 33–56). Prentice Hall.

  22. Small, B. H., & Jollands, N. (2006). Technology and ecological economics: Promethean technology, Pandorian potential. Ecological Economics, 56, 343–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gavelin, K., Wilson, R., & Doubleday, R. (2007). Democratic technologies? Final Report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). Involve, London, June 2007.

  24. Godman, M., & Hansson, S.-O. (2007). Public advice on the development of nanobiotechnology. Final Report of Four European Convergence Seminars. NanoBio-RAISE, Royal Inst. of Technology, Stockholm, November 2007.

  25. Hansson, S.-O. (2007). Hypothetical retrospection. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 10(2), 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rawls, J. ([1971] 1999). A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  27. Salamanca-Buentello, F., Persad, D. L., Court, E. B., Martin, D. K., Daar, A. S., & Singer, P. A. (2005). Nanotechnology and the developing world. PLoS Med, 2(5), e97. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020097.

  28. Colvin, V. (2003). The potential environmental impact of engineered nanomaterials. Nature Biotechnology, 21, 1166–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Reijenders, L. (2006). Cleaner nanotechnology and hazard reduction of manufactured nanoparticles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 124–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hoet, P. H.-M., Brüske-Hohnfeld, I., & Salata, O. O. V. (2004). Nanoparticles – known and unknown health risks. Journal of Nanobiotechnology, 2, 12. doi:10.1186/1477-3155-2-12.

  31. Hansson, S.-O., & Hermansson, H. (2007). A three-party model tool for ethical risk analysis. Risk Management, 9(3), 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marion Godman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Godman, M. But is it Unique to Nanotechnology?. Sci Eng Ethics 14, 391–403 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9052-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9052-y

Keywords

Navigation