David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
NanoEthics 1 (1):47-56 (2007)
While their strength, electrical, optical, or magnetic properties are expected to contribute a trillion dollars in global commerce before 2015, nanomaterials also appear to pose threats to human health and safety. Nanotoxicology is the study of these threats. Do nanomaterial benefits exceed their risks? Should all nanomaterials be regulated? Currently nanotoxicologists cannot help answer these questions because too little is known about nanomaterials, because their properties differ from those of bulk materials having the same chemical composition, and because they differ so widely in their applications. Instead, this paper answers a preliminary ethical question: What nanotech policies are likely to contribute to society’s ability to give or withhold free informed consent to the potential risks associated with production and use of nanomaterials? This paper argues that at least four current policies appear to jeopardize the risk-disclosure condition that is required for informed consent. These are the funding problem, the conflict-of-interest problem, the labeling problem, and the extrapolation problem. Apart from future decisions on how to ethically make, use, and regulate nanomaterials, this paper argues that, at a minimum, these four policies must be modified. Government must spend greater monies on nanotoxicology; ensure independent nanotoxicology research; label consumer products containing nanomaterials; and avoid assuming that nanotoxicological properties are based merely on mass and chemical composition. Otherwise free informed consent to these new technologies and materials may be jeopardized.
|Keywords||Benefit Conflict of interest Consent Disclosure Extrapolation Funding Health Labeling Nanotoxicology Policy Risk Regulation Safety|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Shaun D. Pattinson (2009). Consent and Informational Responsibility. Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (3):176-179.
Dave Wendler (2000). Informed Consent, Exploitation and Whether It is Possible to Conduct Human Subjects Research Without Either One. Bioethics 14 (4):310–339.
Emma Bullock (2010). Informed Consent as Waiver: The Doctrine Rethought? Ethical Perspectives 17 (4):529-555.
M. Sheehan (2011). Can Broad Consent Be Informed Consent? Public Health Ethics 4 (3):226-235.
A. T. Nuyen (2007). Knowing the Unknown and Informed Consent. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (2):213-223.
Padmavati Manchikanti & Tapas K. Bandopadhyay (2010). Nanomaterials and Effects on Biological Systems: Development of Effective Regulatory Norms. [REVIEW] Nanoethics 4 (1):77-83.
Michelle H. Biros (2007). Research Without Consent: Exception From and Waiver of Informed Consent in Resuscitation Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (3):361-369.
O. O'Neill (2001). Informed Consent and Genetic Information. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 32 (4):689-704.
Deborah Bowman (2011). Informed Consent: A Primer for Clinical Practice. Cambridge University Press.
David Shaw (2009). Prescribing Placebos Ethically: The Appeal of Negatively Informed Consent. Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (2):97-99.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #84,526 of 1,010,230 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,700 of 1,010,230 )
How can I increase my downloads?