Abstract
Nanotechnology is the new(est) star in the high technologies sky. While nanotechnologies remain technologies of promise and potential, a growing number of nano-materials and nano-particle-reliant products are being produced. And although a growing number of academic, policy and industry reports are exploring nanotechnologies, there are very few genuine ethical assessments of nanotechnologies as they exist and might evolve in the coming years. Many questions have yet to be answered about the nature, development, and social and commercial deployment of nanotechnologies and what that means for the human condition and the preservation of our core values. We argue that the early and potentially risky nature of this interdisciplinary science does not justify a blinkered focus on risk assessment and management to the detriment of deep and ranging ethical evaluations. Much improved ethics evaluations must be undertaken, particularly in Taiwan where very little has happened despite grand expectations for, and funding of, the science. In this paper, we uncover the development imperatives for nanotechnologies, demonstrate the paucity of genuine nanoethics exercises, outline key questions for stakeholders undertaking nanoethics exercises to consider, and we articulate some preliminary actions for Taiwan (and other similarly situated jurisdictions).
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aitken R et al (2004) Nanoparticles: an occupational hygiene review: HSE research report 274. Health & Safety Executive Books, Norwich
Arendt H (1958) The human condition. CUP, Chicago
Atlan H (1999) Les Étincelles du Hasard. Seuil, Paris
Baird D, Shew A (2004) Probing the history of scanning tunnelling microscopy. In: Baird D et al (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS, Amsterdam, pp 145–156
Bawa R et al (2005) Protecting new ideas and inventions in nanomedicine with patents. Nanomedicine 1:150–158
Benjamin W (1968) In: Arendt H (ed) Illuminations: essays and reflections. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, NY
Bhushan D (ed) (2005) Handbook of nanotechnology, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin
Cheng TJ (2010) Risk perception and policy research of nanotechnology, report of environmental protection administration project EPA-99-U1U1-02-101
Chou KT (2007) Conflicts of technology policy and governance paradigm. Issues Stud 43:97–130
Cobb M, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395–405
Drexler E et al (2003) Unbounding the future: the nanotechnology revolution. Quill Books, NY
D’Silva J (2009) Pools, thickets and open source nanotechnology. Eur Intellect Property Rev 31:300–306
Dupuy JP (2007) Some pitfalls in the philosophical foundations of nanoethics. J Med Philos 32:237–261
Expert Panel on Nanotechnology (2008) Small is different: a science perspective on the regulatory challenges of the nanoscale. Council of Canadian Academies, Ottawa
Ferrari A, Nordmann A (2010) Beyond conversation: some lessons for nanoethics. NanoEthics 4:171–181
Feynman R (1959, December) There’s plenty of room at the bottom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Physical Society, California
Fischer D (2008) Nanotechnology–scientific and regulatory challenges. Villanova Environ Law J 19:315–333
Foladori G et al (2009) Two dimensions of the ethical problems related to nanotechnology. NanoEthics 3:121–127
Friedrichs S, Schulte J (2007) Environmental, health and safety aspects of nanotechnology: implications for the R&D in small company. Sci Tech Adv Mater 8:12–18
Gaskell G et al (2005) Imaging nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Publ Understand Sci 14:81–90
Harmon S (2006) From engagement to re-engagement: the expression of moral values in patenting proceedings, present and future. Eur Law Rev 31:642–666
Harmon S (2006) Solidarity: a (new) ethic for global health policy. Health Care Anal 14:215–236
Harmon S (2008) Ethical rhetoric: genomics and the moral content of UNESCO’s ‘Universal’ declarations. J Med Ethics 34:e24
Harmon S (2010) Regulation of stem cell and regenerative science: stakeholder opinions, plurality and actor space in the argentine social/science setting. Law Innovat Tech 2:95–114
Harmon S, Kim NK (2008) A tale of two standards: drift and inertia in modern Korean medical law. SCRIPTed 5(2):267–293
Hart Research Associates (2007) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies: a report of findings. Available at http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Nanotechnologies/Hart_NanoPoll_2007.pdf [accessed 5 April 2010]
Helland Å (2004) Nanoparticles: a closer look at the risks to human health and the environment perceptions and precautionary measures of industry and regulatory bodies in Europe. Available at http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1329339&fileOId=1329340 [accessed 5 April 2010]
Hullman A, Frycek R (2007) Results from the ‘international IPR in nanotechnology–lessons from experiences worldwide’. World Patent Inform 29:395–398
Hullman A, Meyer M (2003) Publications and patents in nanotechnology: an overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Sci Metrics 58:507–527
Johnson D (2007) Ethics and technology ‘in the making’: an essay on the challenges of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1:21–30
Jones D (2006) Enhancement: are ethicists excessively influenced by baseless speculation? J Med Ethics 32:77–81
Kallinger C et al (2008) Patenting nanotechnology: a European patent office perspective. Nano Law Bus 5:95–106
Koepsell D (2009) Let’s get small: an introduction to transitional issues in nanotech and intellectual property. NanoEthics 3:157–166
Lemley M (2005) Patenting nanotechnology. Stanford Law Rev 58:601–630
Lin KM (2008) Technology policy democratization: possibility and limitation–an example of GMO consensus conference in Taiwan. Available at http://www.nsc.gov.tw/scicircus/public/Attachment/95149145471.pdf
Manoharan H et al (2000) Quantum mirages formed by coherent projection of electronic structure. Nature 403:512–515
Marchant G et al (2008) Risk management principles for nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2:43–60
Maynard A et al (2006) Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444:267
Mody C (2006) Corporations, universities and instrumental communities: commercialising probe microscopy, 1981–1996. Technol Cult 47:56–80
National Science Council (2002, June) National science and technology programme for nanoscience and nanotechnology, approved by the 157th NSC Board Meeting. Available at http://nano-taiwan.sinica.edu.tw/newsen.asp
National Science Council, Eighth National Science and Technology Conference, Taipei, 12–15 January 2009
National Science Council (2009) Risk perceptions about nanotechnology in Taiwan. Available at http://www.epa.gov.tw/FileDownload/FileHandler.ashx?FLID=15096
Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nat Nanotech 4:273–274
Nowotny H et al (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity, Cambridge
Palmberg C et al (2009) OECD working paper 2009/7: nanotechnology: an overview based on indicators and statistics. OECD, Paris
Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the public: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health Risk Soc 9:191–210
Powell M (2007) New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? how scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. Health Risk Soc 9:173–190
Ratner M, Ratner D (2003) Nanotechnology: a gentle introduction to the next big idea. Prentice Hall, NY
Renn O, Roco M (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nano Res 8:153–191
Rip A (1997) A cognitive approach to relevance in science. Soc Sci Inf 38:615–640
Rip A (2011, June) How to integrate future and speculative possibilities with ongoing and embedded dynamics of development. Paper presented at the Implanted Smart Technologies Project Research Retreat, Prague
Roco M, Bainbridge M (eds) (2001) NSET workshop report: societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Available at http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/nanosi.pdf [accessed 1 April 2010]
Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2006) Reflecting upon the UK’s Citizens’ jury on nanotechnologies: nanojury UK. Nanotech L Bus 3:167–180
Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. RS/RAE, London
Sarewitz D (1996) Frontiers of illusion: science, technology and the politics of progress. Temple University Press, Philadelphia
Sheetz T et al (2005) Nanotechnology: awareness and societal concerns. Technol Soc 27:329–345
Song SY (2006) The rise and fall of embryonic stem cell research in Korea. Asian Biotechnol Dev Rev 9:65–73
Swierstra T, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1:3–20
Symonides J (ed) (1998) Human rights: new dimensions and challenges. Ashgate, England
Tai TH, Chiou WT (2008) Equality and community in public deliberation: genetic democracy in Taiwan. In: Launis V, Räikkä J (eds) Genetic democracy: philosophical perspectives. Springer, Munich, pp 105–120
Taiwan Government. Available at http://nano-taiwan.sinica.edu.tw/ProjectEn.asp?S=1
Taiwan Science, Technology & Society Association. See http://www.tw-sts.org/
Taiwan STS Network. See http://stsweb.ym.edu.tw/
Uldrich J, Newberry D (2003) The next big thing is really small: how nanotechnology will change the future of your business. Random House, NY
Wang SH (2002, September) Special report: nanoscience is the engine for new industrial revolution. Commercial Times
Wilkinson C et al (2007) From uncertainty to risk: scientific and news media portrayals of nanoparticle safety. Health Risk Soc 9:145–157
Williams R (2006) Compressed foresight and narrative bias: pitfalls in assessing high technology futures. Sci Cult 15:327–348
Yen SY, Harmon S, Tang SM (2011) Genomics, biobanks and governance: challenges for Taiwan biobank—the case of indigenous peoples. Submitted to Issues & Studies
Zhou W (2003) Symposium review: ethics of nanobiotechnology at the frontline. Santa Clara Comput High Tech Law J 19:481–489
Acknowledgements
Redacted for anonymity.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harmon, S.H.E., Yen, SY. & Tang, SM. Invigorating ‘Nanoethics’: Recommendations for Improving Deliberations in Taiwan and Beyond. Nanoethics 5, 309–318 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-011-0131-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-011-0131-1