Skip to main content
Log in

Ethics and Nanotechnology: Views of Nanotechnology Researchers

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A study was conducted of nanotechnology (NT) researchers’ views about ethics in relation to their work. By means of a purpose-built questionnaire, made available on the Internet, the study probed NT researchers’ general attitudes toward and beliefs about ethics in relation to NT, as well as their views about specific NT-related ethical issues. The questionnaire attracted 1,037 respondents from 13 U.S. university-based NT research facilities. Responses to key questionnaire items are summarized and noteworthy findings presented. For most respondents, the ethical responsibilities of NT researchers are not limited to those related to safety and integrity in the laboratory. Most believe that NT researchers also have specific ethical responsibilities to the society in which their research is done and likely to be applied. NT appears to be one of the first areas of contemporary technoscientific activity in which a long-standing belief is being seriously challenged: the belief that society is solely responsible for what happens when a researcher’s work, viewed as neutral and merely enabling, is applied in a particular social context. Survey data reveal that most respondents strongly disagree with that paradigmatic belief. Finally, an index gauging NT researcher sensitivity to ethics and ethical issues related to NT was constructed. A substantial majority of respondents exhibited medium or high levels of sensitivity to ethics in relation to NT. Although most respondents view themselves as not particularly well informed about ethics in relation to NT, a substantial majority are aware of and receptive to ethical issues related to their work, and believe that these issues merit consideration by society and study by current and future NT practitioners.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Many individuals contributed to this study. James Plummer and Yoshio Nishi introduced the author to the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility. Paul Rissman, John Shott, Mary Tang, and Michael Deal made many helpful suggestions for improving the survey questionnaire. Mary Tang also devised a number of scenarios for one questionnaire item. Suzanne Brainard and François Baneyx provided important feedback on an early draft version of the questionnaire. Sandip Tiwari, James Meindl, Carlton Osburn, Fred Terry, Mark Rodwell, Paul Rissman, Lynn Rathbun, Kirsty Mills, James Reynolds, Carolyn Broome, Taft Broome, Elizabeth Litzler, Dong Qin, Jean Toll, Elizabeth Keating, Angela Berenstein, Brian Thibeault, Tina Prestridge, Lisa Daub, James Griffin, and Kathryn Hollar helped resolve various survey implementation issues. Steve Barley provided feedback on a draft version of this essay. Susan Holmes offered advice on the statistical interpretation of some response data. Special acknowledgment is due to Rafael Pardo Avellaneda for extensive help with the study, including numerous valuable criticisms and suggestions during the questionnaire-design, data-analysis, and write-up phases. An anonymous reviewer provided valuable analysis of the data in Table 3. Support from NNIN made this study possible. Remaining errors are the responsibility of the author.

  2. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf03519/nsf03519.html

  3. Ibid.

  4. Ibid.

  5. NNIN facilities are located at the following universities: Cornell, Stanford, Harvard, Michigan, Georgia Tech, Washington, Penn State, U. C. Santa Barbara, Minnesota, Howard, New Mexico, Texas, and North Carolina State.

  6. For the text of the questionnaire, see Appendix 1.

  7. E-mail solicitation of a NNIN facility’s users took place only after approval was secured from the local university human subjects research board. To limit the survey to NNIN researchers, the questionnaire was password-protected. To ensure that responses were anonymous, at the author’s request representatives of the Web site on which the questionnaire was posted blocked access to the IP addresses of the computers on which respondents did the questionnaire.

  8. In a presentation at NSF in Washington, D.C. on October 27, 2006, NNIN Director Sandip Tiwari stated that in the March 2005–June 2006 period there were “4200 users performing research” at NNIN sites. However, since existing users stop using NNIN facilities and newcomers start doing so over time, the total number of NNIN users typically varies from month to month. Therefore, since it was based on the dynamic figure of 4,200 users, the claimed 24.7% percent response rate is in reality a rough approximation.

  9. The smallest number of respondents from any one site was 30, the largest 204. However, these numbers are minima: they reflect only the 915 respondents who indicated their respective site affiliations.

  10. Questionnaire items are referenced below by letter and number. For example, “A8” refers to the eighth item in part A of the questionnaire.

  11. The qualifier “significant” was used in item A1 because without it, a respondent could have answered in the affirmative even if believing that all ethical issues related to NT were trivial. The aim was to make affirmative responses—“somewhat” or “strongly” agree—meaningful by asking at the outset about belief that there are significant NT-related ethical issues.

  12. Instead of “ethical issues related to nanotechnology,” the more succinct phrase “ethical issues in nanotechnology” could have been used. But use of the latter expression would have risked focusing respondents’ attention on ethical issues in NT research settings, thereby deflecting attention from possible ethical issues linked to downstream applications and uses of NT in society at large. The longer but more neutral phrase was chosen with the hope that it would prompt respondents to consider both types of ethical issues.

  13. A strongly disagree response was recorded in the data file as a “1,” a somewhat disagree as a “2,” agree as much as disagree as a “3,” somewhat agree as a “4,” and strongly agree as a “5.” In questions with a Don’t Know option, that response was recorded as a “6.”

  14. The correlation between the variables ‘degree of agreement that significant EIRNT exist’ and the ‘degree of importance [to the respondent] that EIRNT be considered’ is statistically significant. The value of Spearman’s rho for these two ordinal variables in this data set is.595, with p = .000.

  15. Indeed, the correlation between the ‘existence’ and ‘interest’ ordinal variables is statistically significant: Spearman’s rho is .530 and p = .000. In general, the greater a respondent’s degree of agreement that significant EIRNT exist, the higher her/his level of interest in EIRNT. In fact, the average level of respondent interest in EIRNT increases monotonically across the five levels of agreement that significant EIRNT exist, from 2.28 for the lowest level (“strongly disagree”) to 4.24 for the highest (“strongly agree”).

  16. There are statistically significant correlations here between the ‘importance of the E dimension of the NT field compared with the importance of its S dimension’ variable and both the ‘degree of agreement that significant EIRNT exist’ and ‘degree of interest in EIRNT’ variables. The value of Spearman’s rho is .476 for the former and .470 for the latter, p = .000 for both correlations. The correlation between the ‘importance of E compared with the importance of S’ and the ‘how important is it that EIRNT be considered’ variables is also statistically significant; in this instance Spearman’s rho is .574, p = .000.

  17. Responses from completely unethical to completely ethical were recorded in the data set with 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, while ethics is not relevant to [judging] the action responses were initially recorded as 6’s, later recoded as zeroes to avoid misleading statistical results.

  18. In the case of the ‘without telling administrators beforehand’ scenario, this sum plummeted to 37.2%. However, some of this decline is probably due to the fact that the first two scenarios involved a researcher who planned to do something that s/he “realizes is a potentially hazardous procedure,” whereas the third involved a researcher who planned to do something that s/he “believes is a non-hazardous procedure.”

  19. In evaluating how worrisome the 24% take no action’ level is, two aspects of this scenario should be taken into account: characterization of the shortcut as “relatively safe,” and reference to it as behavior that “clearly violates published laboratory procedures.”

  20. For citizens of countries other than the U.S., the situation was precisely the opposite, for both the report to management and take no action options: they were disproportionately highly represented amongst those who chose the former option and disproportionately lowly represented among those who chose the latter option. What to make of these findings is unclear.

  21. Are there noteworthy characteristics of the 4.4% who strongly agreed that the only ethical responsibility of a researcher at a NT lab is to follow lab rules? Of the 44 respondents involved, 38 indicated their citizenship. Of these, a disproportionately low percent were U.S. citizens (39.5%) and a disproportionately high percent (42.1%) were non-U.S. citizens. (Recall that 64.3% of the sample consist of U.S. citizens, while citizens of other countries comprise 28.9%.) However, the small number of cases involved here—38—implies that a claim attributing differences in option selection to respondent citizenship status would be suspect.

  22. The correlation between the ‘most likely response to shortcutter in your lab’ nominal variable and the ‘degree of agreement that NT researchers are willing and able to self-regulate’ ordinal variable is statistically significant; p = .018.

  23. Besides “take no action,” the only other response option to the “most likely lab reaction to a shortcutter” item whose electors disagreed with the “NT researchers are willing and able to regulate themselves” claim by more than a 2 to 1 ratio was “take own shortcuts.” It would seem that most respondents who chose the “take own shortcuts” option believe that the phenomenon of researchers responding to known shortcutting by taking their own shortcuts counts against the plausibility of effective self-regulation.

  24. P = .000.

  25. In “Risk, Precaution, and Laboratory Practice”.

  26. In “Ethical Responsibility and NT Laboratory Safety Rules”.

  27. The second is discussed in “Ethical Responsibility to “Alert””.

  28. The correlation between the ‘how well informed about EIRNT do you believe yourself to be?’ variable and the ‘how willing are you to spend some time in the future learning about EIRNT?’ variable is statistically significant.

  29. The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, RS Policy Document 19/04, July 2004, p. 87. See also http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk and http://www.raeng.org.uk.

  30. Quite a bit and very much responses could be viewed as indications that these respondents believe that the issues raised in Part A of the questionnaire regarding NT were also apt to arise in other areas of contemporary technoscientific inquiry.

  31. Cross-tabulation analysis of the data in Table 3 yielded the following: Pearson Chi-Square = 42.585, df = 10, and a p-value <10−3. Thus the null hypothesis of no association between the ‘# of ethics-education courses taken’ variable (V1) and the ‘strength of belief that study of ethical issues related to science and engineering should become a standard part of the education of future engineers and scientists’ variable (V2) can be rejected; indeed, V1 and V2 appear to be strongly associated. Further, ordinal regression (“proportional odds logistic regression”) analysis of the same data, carried out by an anonymous reviewer, showed that the response differences across the three groups are meaningful and that the five major response categories cannot legitimately be reduced to a smaller number by any melding of categories.

  32. An example of a [1, 5] scale frequently used in the questionnaire is that in which the respondent is offered five responses: strongly disagree (1), somewhat disagree (2), agree as much as disagree (3), somewhat agree (4), and strongly agree (5). When, working online, a respondent checked a particular qualitative response to a specific questionnaire item, the number (from 1 to 5) corresponding to that response was automatically entered into the data file as that respondent’s response to that item.

  33. Generally speaking, the [1, 6] scales used in the questionnaire are identical to the [1, 5] scales except that they offer an additional response option, usually Don’t Know, to which the number “6” was assigned. However, to avoid distortion in data analysis, 6’s were recoded as 0’s.

  34. Three comments are in order about the range of this variable. First, for consistency, the values of the responses to item A14 were altered so that the more important the respondent believed it was that there be clear ethical guidelines for the conduct of NT research, the higher the number assigned to the response. (Under the wording of the original item, the reverse was the case.) Thus, the response neither desirable nor necessary was assigned a “1,” desirable but not necessary a “2,” and necessary a “3.” Second, for items with [1, 6] scales, i.e., items offering a Don’t Know option, all responses of “6” were changed to “0” in the revised data set to avoid producing higher sensitivity values when a respondent was actually giving a Don’t Know response. Third, if a respondent skipped any of the eight items, that item added a “0” when calculating the sensitivity value for that respondent. Hence, while, in principle, the range of values of the “sensitivity to nanoethics” variable is from 8—if the respondent gave eight answers to which the number “1” was assigned—to 38—if seven responses assigned the number “5” and one assigned the number “3” were given—in fact the range is [0, 38], since a respondent could have skipped all eight items.

  35. For items A2, A3, A6g, A15c, and A15d, responses of 6, for Don’t Know, were assigned the number 0 in order to avoid distorting respondent sensitivity scores.

References

  1. 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 

  2. Dupuy J -P (2007) Some pitfalls in the philosophical foundations of nanoethics. J Med Philos 32:237–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Khushf G (2004) The ethics of nanotechnology: vision and values for a new generation of science and engineering. In: Emerging technologies and ethical issues in engineering. National Academy of Engineering Press, Washington, D.C., pp 29–56

  4. Mnyusiwalla A, Daar AS, Singer PA (2003) ‘Mind the gap’: science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14:R9–R13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lederman LM 1999 The responsibility of the scientist. New York Times, p A15, July 24

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert McGinn.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

NNIN Survey Questionnaire

on

ETHICS AND NANOTECHNOLOGY: MAPPING THE VIEWS OF THE NNIN COMMUNITY

August 2005

Part A: Ethics and Nanotechnology (16 minutes)

  1. A1

    “There are significant ethical issues related to nanotechnology.” To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

    Please circle the number that corresponds to your position.

  2. A2

    How interested are you in ethical issues related to nanotechnology?

    Please circle the appropriate number.

  3. A3

    How important do you believe it is that ethical issues related to nanotechnology be considered?

    Please circle the appropriate number.

  4. A4

    In your opinion, how does the importance of the ethical dimension (E) of the nanotech field compare with the importance of the scientific dimension (S) of the nanotech field?

    In the space provided, please write the number of the view closest to your opinion.

    • 1 = E is much less important than S

    • 2 = E is somewhat less important than S

    • 3 = E is as important as S

    • 4 = E is somewhat more important than S

    • 5 = E is much more important than S

    Your answer: _____

  5. A5

    Please evaluate each of the following actions from an ethical point of view.

    For each item, circle the number that best reflects your ethical evaluation.

    A

    A nanotech scientist demands that her/his research assistant produce the results the scientist expects, quickly and at any cost.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NR

    B

    A senior nanotech researcher orders her/his research assistants to turn in their lab notebooks at the end of each day.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NR

    C

    An experienced nanotech researcher, never involved in a lab accident, plans to carry out in the lab for the first time what s/he realizes is a potentially hazardous procedure, and to do so without fully searching the existing scholarly literature.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NR

    D

    An experienced nanotech researcher, never involved in a lab accident, plans to carry out in the lab for the first time what s/he realizes is a potentially hazardous procedure, and to do so without informing the workers who share her/his bench.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NR

    E

    An experienced nanotech researcher, never involved in a lab accident, plans to carry out in the lab for the first time what s/he believes to be a non-hazardous procedure, and to do so without informing administrators beforehand.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NR

    F

    Confident that nothing is going to go wrong, an experienced nanotech researcher uses a laboratory practice that s/he knows is generally regarded as unsafe by other nanotech researchers.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NR

    G

    In the future, voluntarily implanted nanodevices will be used to repair damaged human faculties, such as sight and hearing.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NR

    H

    In the future, voluntarily implanted nanodevices will be used to improve normal human functions and performance.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NR

    I

    In the future, unknown to a group of human patients, experimental nanodevices will be implanted in them for their own benefit.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NR

    J

    In writing a funding proposal, a nanotech researcher describes the benefits of her/his project as greater than s/he expects them to be.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NR

    K

    A nanotech researcher testifying before a government budget committee states that developments in the nanotech field are launching a technological revolution that will transform life as we know it during the next 50 years.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NR

    L

    Relying on each other’s expertise, the co-authors of a nanotech manuscript do not check each other’s results before submitting it for publication.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NR

    M

    A design engineer specifies that a product use a new nanomaterial whose constituent ingredients are known to be safe at the micro and macro scales.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NR

    N

    In putting the final touches on a paper, a nanotech researcher makes up and adds several data points that are consistent with those previously obtained experimentally.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NR

    O

    The top managers of a nanotech laboratory do not actively promote a culture of safety in their facility.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NR

    P

    A nanotech researcher selects the best results of his/her experiment for publication and discards the rest.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NR

  6. A6

    To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the statements below about nanotechnology research and development (R&D) work?

    For each statement, please circle the number that corresponds to your position on it.

    A

    There are no significant ethical issues in basic nanotech research.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    B

    There are no significant ethical issues in applied nanotech research.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    C

    Only when nanotech products and processes reach the market will there be significant ethical issues.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    D

    The only ethical responsibility of a researcher at a nanotech R&D lab is to follow laboratory rules.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    E

    The pressure to engage in ethically questionable behavior in a nanotech R&D lab is greater when commercial interests are involved.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    F

    The pressure to engage in ethically questionable behavior in a nanotech R&D lab is greater when military goals are involved.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    G

    Nanotech researchers should always strive to anticipate ethical issues that may arise out of future applications of their work.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

  7. A7

    For several weeks, a nanotech lab researcher has been taking a relatively safe, timesaving shortcut in doing her/his work. This shortcut clearly violates published laboratory procedures. So far, no unfortunate results have occurred because of this behavior. Other lab users know that s/he is taking the shortcut.

    Which of the following do you think would be the two most likely responses to this situation by users in your nanotech lab? (Place “1” in front of the most likely response in your lab and “2” in front the second most likely response in your lab.)

    • ______A Users would report the individual to lab management.

    • ______B Users would cease having professional contact with the individual.

    • ______C Users would approach the individual and try to persuade her/him to stop taking the shortcut.

    • ______D Users would start taking rule-violating shortcuts of their own.

    • ______E Users would take no action and the situation would continue unchanged.

    • ______F Users would make this situation a matter of public debate at the lab.

  8. A8

    For each of the following groups, to what extent do you agree or disagree that the group has an ethical responsibility for the effects that new nanomaterials and nanodevices may have on society?

    For each group, please circle the number that corresponds to your position.

    A

    Academic researchers in nanotechnology

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    B

    Industrial researchers in nanotechnology

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    C

    Basic researchers in nanotechnology

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    D

    Applied researchers in nanotechnology

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    E

    Service providers and suppliers who support nanotech research

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    F

    Development engineers who create nanotech applications

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    G

    Manufacturers of nanoscale materials and devices

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    H

    Regulators responsible for authorizing the sale of nanoscale materials and devices in the marketplace

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    I

    End users of nanoscale materials and devices

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

  9. A9

    “If a nanotech researcher has reason to believe that her/his work will be applied in society so as to pose a risk of significant harm to human beings, s/he has an ethical responsibility to alert appropriate parties to the potential dangers.” To what extent do you agree or disagree with that statement?

    Please circle the appropriate number.

  10. A10

    To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about nanotechnology in society?

    For each statement, please circle the number that corresponds to your position on it.

    A

    The convergence of work in nanotechnology, biotechnology, information science, and cognitive science will eventually result in the development of human-implantable nanodevices that raise significant ethical issues.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    B

    Nanotechnology researchers are willing and able to regulate themselves.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    C

    Biomedical human-implantable nanodevices raise no more ethical issues than human-implantable devices used in the past and at present.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    D

    Work on nanoscale materials, devices, and systems with the potential to be turned into weapons poses a much smaller risk to society than does work on biological agents with the potential to be turned into weapons.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    E

    The ethical issues raised by nanotechnology in society are essentially the same as those raised by biotechnology in society.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

  11. A11

    To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement about nanotechnology in society? Government regulation of the manufacture, sale, and use of nanotech materials, devices, and systems in U.S. society should be minimal.”

    If you answered “4” or “5” to A11, continue with item A12; otherwise go directly to item A13.

  12. A12

    How much did each of the following views influence your response (of “4” or “5”) to question A11?

    Please circle the number that reflects how much each of the following views influenced your response to question A11.

    A

    Anything more than minimal government regulation of nanotechnology will significantly discourage innovation in the field.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    B

    If minimally regulated nanotech materials or devices have any unexpected negative effects, technical solutions for these problems will be found in a timely manner.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

  13. A13

    Please evaluate each of the following possible goals for future nanotechnology R&D projects along the 4 given dimensions (likely, useful, morally acceptable, and safe).

    Please fill in each empty box with the number that best reflects your personal evaluation.

    \(\matrix { \to \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad {\text{Dimension}}} \hfill \\ {\quad \quad {\text{Possible}}\,{\text{Nanotech}}} \hfill \\ {\quad \quad \quad {\text{Project}}\,{\text{Goals}}} \hfill \\ {\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \; \downarrow } \hfill \ \)

    HOW LIKELY it is that nanotech projects aimed at this goal will be pursued in the next 25 years [1, 5]

    HOW USEFUL these nanotech projects will prove to be [1, 5]

    HOW MORALLY ACCEPTABLE this project goal is to you [1, 5]

    HOW SAFE the nanotech projects aimed at this goal will prove to be [1, 5]

    A

    To extend the human life span

        

    B

    To increase human mental abilities

        

    C

    To enhance homeland security

        

    D

    To develop “assemblers” or nanoscale factories to do manufacturing at the molecular scale

        

    E

    To clean the environment

        

    F

    To repair damaged human body parts

        
  14. A14

    Which of the following three statements do you agree with the most?

    1. A.

      “It is necessary to have clear ethical guidelines for the conduct of nanotech research.”

    2. B.

      “It is desirable but not necessary to have clear ethical guidelines for the conduct of nanotech research.”

    3. C.

      “It is neither necessary nor desirable to have clear ethical guidelines for the conduct of nanotech research.”

    Your answer: _____ (A, B, or C)

  15. A15

    To conclude the ethics-and-nanotechnology part of this questionnaire, answer the following questions.

    For each question, please circle the number that corresponds to your answer to it.

    A

    How interested are you in ethical issues related to nanotechnology?

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    B

    How well informed do you believe you are about ethical issues related to nanotechnology?

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    C

    How willing are you to spend some time in the future learning about ethical issues related to nanotechnology?

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    D

    How much do you believe that study of ethical issues related to science and engineering should become a standard part of the education of future engineers and scientists?

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

Part B: About You (4 minutes)

  1. B1

    Your age\(\begin{array}{*{20}l} {\square <18} \hfill & {\square 27 - 30} \hfill & {\square 51 - 60} \hfill \\ {\square 18 - 22} \hfill & {\square 31 - 40} \hfill & {\square >60} \hfill \\ {\square 23 - 26} \hfill & {\square 41 - 50} \hfill & {} \hfill \\ \end{array} \)

  2. B2

    Your gender

    $$\begin{array}{*{20}l}{\square {\text{Male}}} \hfill & {\square {\text{Female}}} \hfill \\\end{array} $$
  3. B3

    Your ethnicity/race (check one or more)

    $$\begin{array}{*{20}l}{\square {\text{Hispanic}}\,{\text{or}}\,{\text{Latino}}} \hfill & {\square {\text{Native}}\,{\text{Hawaiian}}\,{\text{or}}\,{\text{Other}}\,{\text{Pacific}}\,{\text{Islander}}} \hfill \\{\square {\text{American}}\,{\text{Indian}}\,{\text{or}}\,{\text{Alaska}}\,{\text{Native}}} \hfill & {\square {\text{White}}} \hfill \\{\square {\text{Asian}}} \hfill & {\square {\text{decline}}\,{\text{to}}\,{\text{answer}}} \hfill \\{\square {\text{Black}}\,{\text{or}}\,{\text{African}}\,{\text{American}}} \hfill & {} \hfill \\\end{array} $$
  4. B4

    Disability status (check one or more)

    $$\begin{array}{*{20}l}{\square {\text{hearing}}\,{\text{impairment}}} \hfill & {\square {\text{other}}} \hfill \\{\square {\text{visual}}\,{\text{impairment}}} \hfill & {\square {\text{none}}} \hfill \\{\square {{{\text{mobility}}} \mathord{\left/{\vphantom {{{\text{mobility}}} {{\text{orthopedic}}\,{\text{impairment}}}}} \right.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{\text{orthopedic}}\,{\text{impairment}}}}} \hfill & {\square {\text{decline}}\,{\text{to}}\,{\text{answer}}} \hfill \\\end{array} $$
  5. B5

    Citizenship (check one or more)

    $$\begin{array}{*{20}l}{\square {\text{U}}{\text{.}}\,{\text{S}}{\text{.}}\,{\text{citizen}}} \hfill & {\square {\text{citizen}}\,{\text{of}}\,{\text{another}}\,{\text{country}}} \hfill & {\square {\text{permanent}}\,{\text{U}}{\text{.}}\,{\text{S}}{\text{.}}\,{\text{resident}}} \hfill \\\end{array} $$
  6. B6

    With which nanotech facility are you primarily affiliated?

    • □ Cornell Nanoscale Facility (Cornell University)

    • □ Stanford Nanofabrication Facility (Stanford University)

    • □ Solid State Electronics Laboratory (University of Michigan)

    • □ Microelecronics Research Center (Georgia Institute of Technology)

    • □ Center for Nanotechnology (University of Washington)

    • □ Penn State Nanofabrication Facility (Pennsylvania State University)

    • □ Nanotech (University of California at Santa Barbara)

    • □ Minnesota Nanotechnology Cluster (University of Minnesota)

    • □ Nanoscience at the University of New Mexico (University of New Mexico)

    • □ Microelectronics Research Center (University of Texas at Austin)

    • □ Center for Imaging and Mesoscale Structures (Harvard University)

    • □ Howard Nanoscale Science and Engineering Facility (Howard University)

    • □ Triangle National Lithography Center (North Carolina State University)

  7. B7

    How long have you been affiliated with your present nanotechnology facility?

    $$\begin{array}{*{20}l}{\square <6\,{\text{months}}} \hfill & {\square 1 - 2{\text{years}}} \hfill & {\square 6 - 10{\text{years}}} \hfill & {\square 16 - 20{\text{years}}} \hfill \\{\square 6 - 12\,{\text{months}}} \hfill & {\square 3 - 5{\text{years}}} \hfill & {\square 11 - 15\,{\text{years}}} \hfill & {\square >20{\text{years}}} \hfill \\\end{array} $$
  8. B8

    What percentage of your work is scientific or engineering work on nanotechnology?

    $$\begin{array}{*{20}l}{\square 0\% } \hfill & {\square 21 - 40\% } \hfill & {\square 61 - 80\% } \hfill \\{\square 1 - 20\% } \hfill & {\square 41 - 60\% } \hfill & {\square 81 - 100\% } \hfill \\\end{array} $$
  9. B9

    For how many years have you been involved with nanotechnology work?

    $$\begin{array}{*{20}l}{\square <1} \hfill & {\square 3 - 5} \hfill & {\square 11 - 15} \hfill & {\square >20} \hfill \\{\square 1 - 2} \hfill & {\square 6 - 10} \hfill & {\square 16 - 20} \hfill & {} \hfill \\\end{array} $$
  10. B10

    Put a mark next to each certificate or degree you have earned: (check as many as apply)

    □ High school diploma

    □ B.S.

    □ J.D.

    □ A.A. (Associate in Arts)

    □ M.A.

    □ M.D.

    □ A.S. (Associate in Science)

    □ M.S.

    □ Other (specify:__________)

    □ B.A.

    □ Ph.D.

     
  11. B11

    If you went to college, what was your major field of study?

    1. A.

      as an undergraduate student _____________

    2. B.

      as a graduate student______________________ NA (check here if you did not attend graduate school)

  12. B12

    Put a mark next to the phrase that best describes your current occupational status and situation. (check one please)

    • □ undergraduate student

    • □ graduate student

    • □ post-doctoral researcher

    • □ scientist (in a university)

    • □ scientist (in an industrial firm)

    • □ scientist (in a government lab)

    • □ engineer (in a university)

    • □ engineer (in an industrial firm)

    • □ engineer (in a government lab)

    • □ professor who is a PI and works in a nanotech lab

    • □ professor who is a PI, does not personally work in a nanotech lab, but has undergraduate or graduate students working with her/him who DO work in a nanotech lab

    • □ professor who does research and teaching

    • □ professor who does only research

    • □ technician

    • □ site director/manager/administrator

    • □ staff member at an NNIN site

  13. B13

    In doing your nanotech work, how much are you motivated by each of the following factors?

    For each of the following factors, please circle the number that corresponds to your motivation level for that factor.

    I

    Advancing the state of knowledge in nanoscience and nanotechnology

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NA

    II

    Furthering your research career

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NA

    III

    Designing useful new nanotech devices and systems

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NA

    IV

    Improving your financial situation (by bringing a useful new nanotech device, system, or material to market)

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NA

    V

    Being involved in the development of an exciting new technical field

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NA

    VI

    Getting your degree

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NA

    VII

    Doing your job

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    NA

    _____ NA (check “NA” if you’re not currently doing nanotech R&D)

  14. B14a

    Have you ever taken an ethics course?

    • □ Yes

    • □ No (if “No,” go directly to B15a)

  15. b

    b. If so, was it as…

    • □ an undergraduate student

    • □ a graduate student

    • □ other (specify:_________________________)

  16. c

    How much do you agree or disagree that the ethics course you took provided useful preparation for addressing ethical issues related to nanotechnology that you might face in the future?

    Please circle the number that corresponds to your position.

  17. B15a

    Did you ever take a course in which ethical issues closely related to science, technology, and/or engineering were discussed?

    $$\begin{array}{*{20}l} {{\square {\text{Yes}}} \hfill} & {{\square {\text{No}}\,{\left( {{\text{if}}\,{\text{No,}}\,{\text{you have }}\,\underline{{FINISHED}} \,{\text{the}}\,{\text{questionnaire}}} \right)}.} \hfill} \\ \end{array} $$
  18. b

    b. Regarding that course, was it…

    • □ a standard ethics course?

    • □ an ethics course focused on ethical issues closely related to science, technology, or engineering?

    • □ a technical science or engineering course?

    • □ other (specify: ________________________)

  19. c

    Regarding that course, to what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following two statements? For each statement, please circle the number that corresponds to your position.

    I.

    In that course, the coverage of ethical issues closely related to science, technology, or engineering was in-depth.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

    II

    The study (in that course) of ethical issues closely related to science, technology, and/or engineering provided useful preparation for addressing ethical issues related to nanotechnology that you might face in the future.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    DK

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE!

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McGinn, R. Ethics and Nanotechnology: Views of Nanotechnology Researchers. Nanoethics 2, 101–131 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0040-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0040-0

Keywords

Navigation