David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1):119-133 (2010)
The age-old maxim of scientists whose work has resulted in deadly or dangerous technologies is: scientists are not to blame, but rather technologists and politicians must be morally culpable for the uses of science. As new technologies threaten not just populations but species and biospheres, scientists should reassess their moral culpability when researching fields whose impact may be catastrophic. Looking at real-world examples such as smallpox research and the Australian “mousepox trick”, and considering fictional or future technologies like Kurt Vonnegut’s “ice-nine” from Cat’s Cradle, and the “grey goo” scenario in nanotechnology, this paper suggests how ethical principles developed in biomedicine can be adjusted for science in general. An “extended moral horizon” may require looking not just to the effects of research on individual human subjects, but also to effects on humanity as a whole. Moreover, a crude utilitarian calculus can help scientists make moral decisions about which technologies to pursue and disseminate when catastrophes may result. Finally, institutions should be devised to teach these moral principles to scientists, and require moral education for future funding.
|Keywords||Dangerous technology Moral responsibility Duty of restraint Scientific ethics Research ethics|
|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
Nancy L. Jones (2007). A Code of Ethics for the Life Sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (1):25-43.
Seumas Miller & Michael J. Selgelid (2007). Ethical and Philosophical Consideration of the Dual-Use Dilemma in the Biological Sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4):523-580.
Kathryn Nixdorff & Wolfgang Bender (2002). Ethics of University Research, Biotechnology and Potential Military Spin-Off. Minerva 40 (1):15-35.
Citations of this work BETA
David R. Morrow (2013). When Technologies Make Good People Do Bad Things: Another Argument Against the Value-Neutrality of Technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics (2):1-15.
Raymond E. Spier (2010). “Dual Use” and “Intentionality”: Seeking to Prevent the Manifestation of Deliberately Harmful Objectives. Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1):1-6.
Similar books and articles
Hans Oberdiek (1990). Technology: Autonomous or Neutral. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (1):67 – 77.
Nicholas Evans (2010). Speak No Evil: Scientists, Responsibility, and the Public Understanding of Science. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 4 (3):215-220.
Frida Kuhlau, Stefan Eriksson, Kathinka Evers & Anna T. Höglund (2008). Taking Due Care: Moral Obligations in Dual Use Research. Bioethics 22 (9):477-487.
Kirsten E. Martin (2008). Internet Technologies in China: Insights on the Morally Important Influence of Managers. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 83 (3):489 - 501.
Jessica Wolfendale (2008). Performance-Enhancing Technologies and Moral Responsibility in the Military. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (2):28 – 38.
Rosalyn W. Berne (2006). Nanotalk: Conversations with Scientists and Engineers About Ethics, Meaning, and Belief in the Development of Nanotechnology. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Michael Martin (1986). Science Education and Moral Education. Journal of Moral Education 15 (2):99-108.
E. Mamchur (1990). Is There an Ivory Tower in Reality? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (1):101 – 111.
Barbara Nicholas (2001). Exploring a Moral Landscape: Genetic Science and Ethics. Hypatia 16 (1):45-63.
Mike Cooley (1995). The Myth of the Moral Neutrality of Technology. AI and Society 9 (1):10-17.
Added to index2009-08-03
Total downloads26 ( #95,137 of 1,696,514 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #184,517 of 1,696,514 )
How can I increase my downloads?