The role of the humanities and social sciences in nanotechnology research and development
Nanoethics 2 (3):333-333 (2008)
| Abstract | The experience with genetically modified foods has been prominent in motivating science, industry and regulatory bodies to address the social and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology. The overall objective is to gain the general public’s acceptance of nanotechnology in order not to provoke a consumer boycott as it happened with genetically modified foods. It is stated implicitly in reports on nanotechnology research and development that this acceptance depends on the public’s confidence in the technology and that the confidence is created on the basis of information, education, openness and debate about scientific and technological developments. Hence, it is assumed that informing and educating the public will create trust, which will consequently lead to an acceptance of nanotechnology. Thus, the humanities and social sciences are seen as tools to achieve public acceptance. In this paper, the author argues that this is a narrow apprehension of the role of the humanities and social sciences. The humanities and social sciences have a critical function asking fundamental questions and informing the public about these reflections. This may lead to scepticism, however, the motivation for addressing the social and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology should not be public acceptance but informed judgement. The author illustrates this critical function by discussing the role, motivation and contribution of ethics as an example. Lastly, the author shows that a possible strategy for incorporating the humanities and the social sciences into nanotechnology research and development is Real-Time Technology Assessment, where the purpose is to integrate natural science and engineering investigations with ethical, legal and social science from the outset. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesRobert Doubleday (2007). The Laboratory Revisited. NanoEthics 1 (2).
Matthew Kearnes & Brian Wynne (2007). On Nanotechnology and Ambivalence: The Politics of Enthusiasm. NanoEthics 1 (2).
Armin Grunwald (2005). Nanotechnology — a New Field of Ethical Inquiry? Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (2):187-201.
Andrew Jamison (2009). Can Nanotechnology Be Just? On Nanotechnology and the Emerging Movement for Global Justice. Nanoethics 3 (2):129-136.
Craig Cormick (2009). Why Do We Need to Know What the Public Thinks About Nanotechnology? Nanoethics 3 (2):167-173.
Kenneth H. David & Paul B. Thompson (eds.) (2008). What Can Nanotechnology Learn From Biotechnology?: Social and Ethical Lessons for Nanoscience From the Debate Over Agrifood Biotechnology and Gmos. Elsevier/Academic Press.
Renee Kyle & Susan Dodds (2009). Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in Debates About Nanotechnologies. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1).
Rosalyn W. Berne (2004). Towards the Conscientious Development of Ethical Nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (4).
Robert Sparrow (2009). The Social Impacts of Nanotechnology: An Ethical and Political Analysis. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1).
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads15 ( #78,732 of 549,198 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
