Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Challenges in the Evaluation of Nanoscale Research: Ethical Aspects

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the present paper is: (1) to outline a conceptual framework useful for the analysis of ethical issues raised by goal-directed activities, (2) to apply this framework to nanoscale research, (3) identify some of the main challenges in the evaluation of such research, and (4) exemplify what is needed for a positive answer to the question “How can nanoscale research improve the quality of life?” A basic idea of the paper is that nanoscale research can improve the conditions and quality of life of large groups in society, provided that: (a) this research is directed at certain generally accepted goals, (b) at least some of the opportunities are exploited for the good of mankind, (c) the key obstacles on the road are eliminated, reduced or circumvented, and (d) this is done in ethically acceptable ways.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Singer [37] for an overview of different ethical theories, traditions and their applications.

  2. For illustrations, see e.g. Mason and Mitroff [27], Mitroff [28], Phillips [31] and Hermerén [22].

  3. At the 24 July 2006 Council meeting, Austria, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovakia wished to put an end to EU funding for embryonic stem cell research, whereas Germany, Italy and Slovenia changed their initial negative position after assurances that no EU money would be granted to activities causing the destruction of embryos.

  4. See e.g. Hermerén [21].

  5. For a well-known overview and discussion see Beauchamp and Childress [3].

  6. EGE [10].

  7. See Fleischhauer and Hermerén [14], chapter 7 and the works referred to there.

  8. Duncan [9]. See also Ferrari [12, 13].

  9. Rawls [32].

  10. WHO [40].

  11. Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering [35].

  12. Fuchs et al. [16] and Bolt et al. [6].

  13. Rip et al. [33]; Callon et al. [8] and Rodemeyer et al. [34].

  14. See Altmann [1, 2] for a discussion of these problems.

  15. See Fleischhauer and Hermerén [14], p. 418 and the works by Nordenfelt, Brülde and others referred to there.

  16. Beyleveld [5] and Egonsson [11].

  17. See Rawls [32] and Gewirth [17–19].

  18. Hermerén [23].

  19. For further information, see www.nanotechproject.org.

  20. See Global Forum for Health Research [20] as well as earlier 10/90 reports published by the Global Forum for Health Research.

  21. See SCENIHR [36] and International Risk Governance Council (2006).

  22. Borm et al. [7].

  23. Oberdörster et al. [30].

  24. Smalley [38].

  25. NanoDialogue is an EU funded project to engage the public in a debate on nanotechnologies and nanosciences. The project partners include eight science centers around Europe, as well as ECSITE, the European Network of Science Centres and Museums. In order to include issues of social participation, the project consortium also includes the Centre for Studies on Democracy at the University of Westminster in the UK. http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology/src/pressroom_projects.htm

  26. Smalley [39].

  27. Freitas [15].

  28. See e.g. Holland et al. [24] and Bender et al. [4] and the works they refer to.

  29. See Murphy [29] and Loue [26] for a discussion of many important cases.

References

  1. Altmann J (2005) Nanotechnology and preventive arms control. Stiftung Friedensforschung (DSF), Osnabrück (also available electronically)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Altmann J (2006) Military nanotechnology: potential application and preventive arms control. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2001) Principles of biomedical ethics. 5th ed. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bender W, Hauskeller C, Manzei A (eds) (2005) Crossing borders. Cultural, religious and political differences concerning stem cell research. Agenda, Münster

  5. Beyleveld D (1991) The dialectical necessity of morality: an analysis and defense of Alan Gewirth’s argument to the principle of generic consistency. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bolt I, Wijsbek H, de Beaufort I, Hilhorst M (2002) Beauty and the doctor: moral issues in health care with regard to appearances. Damon, Rotterdam, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  7. Borm PJ, Robbins D, Haubold S, Kuhlbusch T, Fissan H, Donaldson K, Schins R, Stone V, Kreyling W, Lademann J, Krutman J, Warheit D, Oberdorster E (2006) The potential risks of nanomaterials: a review carried out for ECETOC. Part Fibre Toxicol 3:11(Aug 14)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Callon M, Law J, Rip A (eds) (1986) Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: sociology of science in the real world. Macmillan, Basingstoke

  9. Duncan R (2004) Nanomedicines in action. Pharm J 273:485–488 (Oct 2)

    Google Scholar 

  10. EGE (European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission) (2007) Opinion on the ethical aspects of nanomedicine. Opinion no. 21, January 17, European Commission, Brussels. Available electronically at http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/index_en.htm

  11. Egonsson D (1998) Dimensions of dignity: the moral importance of being human. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ferrari M (2005a) Cancer nanotechnology: opportunities and challenges. Nat Rev Cancer 5(3):161–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ferrari M (2005b) Nanovector therapeutics. Curr Opin Chem Biol 9(4):343–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fleischhauer K, Hermerén G (2006) Goals of medicine in the course of history and today. Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien Almqvist & Wiksell distr, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  15. Freitas R (1998–2006) Nanomedicine. Available at: http://www.foresight.org/nanomedicine, accessed March 26, 2007

  16. Fuchs M, Lanzerath D, Hillebrand I, Runkel T, Balcerak M, Schmitz B (2002) Enhancement. Die etische Diskussion über biomedizinische Verbesserungen des Menschen. DRZE Sachstandsbericht Number 1, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gewirth A (1978) Reason and morality. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gewirth A (1982) Human rights: essays on justification and applications. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gewirth A (1996) The community of rights. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  20. Global Forum for Health Research (2004) 10/90 report on health research 2003–2004. Published on 10 May 2004, Geneva. Available at: http://www.globalforumhealth.org

  21. Hermerén G (1977) Criteria of Objectivity in History. Dan Yearb Philos 14:13–40

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hermerén G (1996) Kunskapens pris (The price of knowledge/In praise of knowledge), 2nd edn. Swedish Academic, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hermerén G (2006) European values, ethics and law. Present policies and future challenges. Jahrb Wiss Ethik 11:5–40

    Google Scholar 

  24. Holland S, Lebacqz K, Zoloth L (2001) The human embryonic stem cell debate. MIT, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  25. International Risk Governance Council (2006) Nanotechnology risk governance. IRGC June, Geneva

  26. Loue S (2000) Textbook of research ethics: theory and practice. Plenum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mason RO, Mitroff II (1981) Challenging strategic planning assumptions: theory, cases and techniques. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mitroff II (1983) Stakeholders of the organizational mind. Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco

    Google Scholar 

  29. Murphy TF (2004) Case studies in biomedical research ethics. MIT, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  30. Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113(7):823–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Phillips R (2003) Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. Berrett-Koehler, San Fransisco

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice, revised edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rip A, Misa TJ, Schot J (eds) (1995) In: Managing technology in society: the approach of constructive technology assessment. Pinter, London

  34. Rodemeyer M, Sarewitz D, Wilsdon J (2005) The future of technology assessment. Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  35. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, London

    Google Scholar 

  36. SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks) (2005) The appropriateness of existing methodologies to assess the potential risks associated with engineered and adventitious products of nanotechnologies. No. 29.9

  37. Singer P (ed) (1993) A companion to ethics. Basil Blackwell, Oxford

  38. Smalley R (2001) Of chemistry, love and nanobots – how soon will we see the nanometer-scale robots envisaged by K. Eric Drexler and other molecular nanotechnologists? The simple answer is never. Sci Am 285:68–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Smalley R (2003) Presentation to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, March 3, 2003. Available at: http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/march3meetingagenda.html

  40. WHO (2002) World Health Report. Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical ethics, Faculty of Medicine, Medicinsk etik, BMC C 13, 221 84, Lund, Sweden

    Göran Hermerén

Authors
  1. Göran Hermerén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Göran Hermerén.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hermerén, G. Challenges in the Evaluation of Nanoscale Research: Ethical Aspects. Nanoethics 1, 223–237 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0024-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0024-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation