Abstract
One of the aims of the DEEPEN project was to deepen ethical understanding of issues related to emerging nanotechnologies through an interdisciplinary approach utilizing insights from philosophy, ethics, and the social sciences. Accordingly, part of its final report was dedicated to the question of what was accomplished with regards to this aim and what further research is required. It relates two insights: Nanotechnologies intensify the ambivalence of ongoing, long-term developments; and yet, our intuitions and received story-lines fail us as a guide to ethical and political matters concerning nanotechnologies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The final report of the DEEPEN project was considerably more substantial than what follows in these pages. Aside from the “Lessons for Nanoethics” (first published as [12]) it offered “Lessons for Public Policy” [6]. We would like to thank all DEEPEN project-partners and Sarah Davies, in particular, for their contributions to the drafting and editing process.
These further themes are not considered in [8] which takes as its point of departure the question of narratology and the ethical significance of the accounts that are provided by lay publics.
For a review of different approaches to nanoethics see [11].
See [14] for a report of expert discussions that focused on the intensification through nanomedicine of ongoing trends in biomedical research and commercial development.
For a somewhat more extended critique of the “language game of responsible development” with its conversational mode and language of concern, see [15].
This is not to say, of course, that genuine ethical issues are subject to majority rule. It is only political issues that are somehow relegated to a vaguely conceived sphere of ethical concern that need to be returned to the arena of politics by preparing them for public contestation.
For a more nuanced presentation of Dupuy’s discussion, see his contribution to [8] of Nanoethics.
For example, the use of biological properties for the construction of nanomaterials (virus-like molecules as nanotechnological building blocks) deserve far more critical scrutiny than they have received so far.
The very formulation “nanotechnology in food and cosmetics” illustrate the difficulty of conceiving how nanotechnologies work. The formulation suggests that nanotechnology is an isolable component or ingredient like all others of a composite material or device. (“Nanomaterials in cosmetics and food” does not do the trick either. The deep conceptual issue concerns the innocuous word “in.”)
Since we are adopting the constraint of looking for research perspectives beyond the six themes identified in the context of the DEEPEN-project, there may well be other and more relevant research perspectives than the ones presented here. For example, inclusion of further and more fitting stories into the narrative repertoire may well suggest important avenues for research. Obvious candidates for this are the stories of Don Juan and Doctor Strangelove [8] or the ancient, modern, and contemporary myths of Prometheus, the Golem, Frankenstein, and the Matrix (see [19]).
Ray Kurzweil’s invitation to live long enough to live forever concerns the question of immortality, literally. Here, we are suggesting that this injunction also underwrites the belief in the win-win situation of economic as well as ecological sustainability: If our societies live long enough to realize this win-win situation, they will have found the technological fix to climate change that allows them to go on forever. Needless to say, notions like these require critical scrutiny (e.g. [23]).
Dupuy’s critical discussion of the five story-lines served as a heuristic by opening up a wider space of reflection. However, within this space of reflection we do not always follow Dupuy’s lead. Here, for example, we are only responding to one aspect of the story of Pandora’s box.
This is a summary of the analysis provided by [18].
Uffe Juul Jensen and Karin Christiansen (Aarhus University) have begun to pursue these questions. We thank them for drawing our attention to this.
For tentative beginnings along these lines see [17].
Knowledge gaps and the systematic difficulties of closing them are frequently discussed regarding the health-impacts of nanomaterials and of nanoparticles, in particular. This often leads to statements about the uncertain state of toxicological knowledge that takes knowledge about benefits for granted: “In order to realize the vast economic potential of nanotechnologies, the questions regarding their risks need to be settled.” Here, a more symmetric approach would be in order. It asks also regarding economic benefits how good the available knowledge is and what the current as well as systematic limits of knowledge are.
References
Amato I (1999) Nanotechnology: shaping the world atom by atom. National Science and Technology Council, Washington
Bowman D, Hodge G, Maynard A (eds.) (2010) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Cassirer E (1985) Form und Technik. In: Cassirer E (ed) Symbol, Technik, Sprache. Meiner, Hamburg, pp 39–92
Conrad P (2007) The medicalization of society: on the transformation of human conditions into medical disorders. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Davies JC (2008) Nanotechnology oversight: an agenda for the new administration. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington
Davies S, Macnaghten P, Kearnes M (eds) (2009) Reconfiguring responsibility: lessons for public policy (Part 1 of the report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology). Durham University, Durham
Davies S, Macnaghten P (2010) Narratives of mastery and resistance: Lay ethics of nanotechnology. Nanoethics 4:(in this volume)
Dupuy J-P (2010) The Narratology of Lay Ethics. Nanoethics 4:(in this volume)
Commission E (2008) Commission recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. European Commission, Brussels
Felt U, Wynne B et al (2007) Taking European knowledge society seriously. European Commission, Brussels
Ferrari A (2010) Developments in the debate on nanoethics: traditional approaches and the need for new kinds of analysis. Nanoethics 4:27–52
Ferrari A, Nordmann A (eds) (2009) Reconfiguring responsibility: lessons for nanoethics (Part 2 of the report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology). Durham University, Durham
Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223–244
Nordmann A, Kohl T (rapporteurs) (2010) Ethical and societal aspects of nanomedicine. in nanomed: a report on the nanomedicine economic, regulatory, ethical and social environment, 11–17
Nordmann A, Macnaghten P (2010) Engaging narratives and the limits of lay ethics: introduction. Nanoethics 4:(in this volume)
Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the Gap revisited. Nat Nanotechnol 4:273–274
Nordmann A (2010) Enhancing material nature. In: Kjølberg KL, Wickson F (eds) Nano meets macro: social perspectives on nanoscale sciences and technologies. Pan Stanford, Singapore, pp 283–306
Nordmann A, Schwarz A (2010) Lure of the “Yes”: the seductive power of technoscience. In: Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Governing future technologies: nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 255–277
Pavlopoulos M, Grinbaum A, Bontems V (2010) Toolkit for ethical reflection and communication on nanotechnology. CEA, Saclay, available at www.observatorynano.eu/project/catalogue/4ET/, accessed July 9, 2010
von Schomberg R (2010) Organising collective responsibility: on precaution, codes of conduct and understanding public debate. In: Fiedeler U, Coenen C, Davies S, Ferrari A (eds) Understanding nano and emerging technologies: a volume from the S.Net Society. IOS Press, Amsterdam
Shelley-Egan C (2010) The ambivalence of promising technology. Nanoethics
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
Vogt T (2010) Buying time—using nanotechnologies and other emerging technologies for a sustainable future. In: Fiedeler U, Coenen C, Davies S, Ferrari A (eds) Understanding Nanotechnology. Philosophy, Policy and Publics. IOS Press, Amsterdam (in press)
Ferrari A (2008) The hyped nano and the stressed laboratory animal. In: Nanotechnology: towards reducing animal testing, 28–29 May 2008, The Royal Society, London. Institute of Nanotechnology, Post-Event Proceedings, CD-ROM
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ferrari, A., Nordmann, A. Beyond Conversation: Some Lessons for Nanoethics. Nanoethics 4, 171–181 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-010-0098-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-010-0098-3