David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
NanoEthics 3 (2):129-136 (2009)
Because of the overly market-oriented way in which technological development is carried out, there is a great amount of hubris in regard to how scientific and technological achievements are used in society. There is a tendency to exaggerate the potential commercial benefits and willfully neglect the social, cultural, and environmental consequences of most, if not all innovations, especially in new fields such as nanotechnology. At the same time, there are very few opportunities, or sites, for ensuring that nanotechnology is used justly and fairly, or for that matter, contribute to alleviating any of the wide variety of injustices that exist in the world. Most of the public authorities responsible for the development and application of science and technology are uninterested and unwilling to “assess” the implications of nanotechnology, and there are few, if any spaces in the broader culture for assessment to take place. Within the various “social movements” that are, in one way or another, concerned with issues of global justice, there is as yet little interest in nanotechnology. By examining the relations between nanotechnology and the emerging movement for global justice this article attempts to understand the enormous gap between the potential for science and technology to do good and the actual ways in science and technology get developed, and what, if anything, might be done to help close the gap in relation to nanotechnology, so that it might better be able to contribute to global justice.
|Keywords||Global justice Social movements Innovation Nanotechnology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Ron Eyerman (1989). Social Movements. Theory and Society 18 (4):531-545.
Michael Gibbons (ed.) (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage Publications.
Citations of this work BETA
Anna Julie Rasmussen, Mette Ebbesen & Svend Andersen (2012). Nanoethics—A Collaboration Across Disciplines. NanoEthics 6 (3):185-193.
Similar books and articles
E. Schuller (2004). Perception of Risk and Nanotechnology. In Baird D. (ed.), Discovering the Nanoscale. Ios.
Rosalyn W. Berne (2006). Nanotalk: Conversations with Scientists and Engineers About Ethics, Meaning, and Belief in the Development of Nanotechnology. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thomas M. Powers (2008). Environmental Holism and Nanotechnology. In F. Allhoff & P. Lin (eds.), Nanotechnology and Society: Current and Emerging Ethical Issues. Springer.
Rosalyn W. Berne (2004). Towards the Conscientious Development of Ethical Nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (4):627-638.
Ellen-Marie Forsberg (2012). Standardisation in the Field of Nanotechnology: Some Issues of Legitimacy. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (4):719-739.
Chris Toumey (2011). Seven Religious Reactions to Nanotechnology. NanoEthics 5 (3):251-267.
Robert Sparrow (2009). The Social Impacts of Nanotechnology: An Ethical and Political Analysis. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):13-23.
Robert E. McGinn (2010). What's Different, Ethically, About Nanotechnology?: Foundational Questions and Answers. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 4 (2):115-128.
Deborah G. Johnson (2007). Ethics and Technology 'in the Making': An Essay on the Challenge of Nanoethics. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 1 (1):21-30.
Added to index2009-08-08
Total downloads29 ( #66,053 of 1,167,998 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #85,305 of 1,167,998 )
How can I increase my downloads?