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)|
References found in this work BETA
Ethical and Philosophical Consideration of the Dual-Use Dilemma in the Biological Sciences.Seumas Miller & Michael J. Selgelid - 2007 - Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4):523-580.
A Code of Ethics for the Life Sciences.Nancy L. Jones - 2007 - Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (1):25-43.
Ethics of University Research, Biotechnology and Potential Military Spin-Off.Kathryn Nixdorff & Wolfgang Bender - 2002 - Minerva 40 (1):15-35.
Citations of this work BETA
Engineers and Active Responsibility.Udo Pesch - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (4):925-939.
“Dual Use” and “Intentionality”: Seeking to Prevent the Manifestation of Deliberately Harmful Objectives.Raymond E. Spier - 2010 - Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1):1-6.
When Technologies Make Good People Do Bad Things: Another Argument Against the Value-Neutrality of Technologies.David R. Morrow - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics (2):1-15.
Characteristics, Properties and Ethical Issues of Carbon Nanotubes in Biomedical Applications.Anna Julie Rasmussen & Mette Ebbesen - 2014 - NanoEthics 8 (1):29-48.
Similar books and articles
Technology: Autonomous or Neutral.Hans Oberdiek - 1990 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (1):67 – 77.
Speak No Evil: Scientists, Responsibility, and the Public Understanding of Science. [REVIEW]Nicholas Evans - 2010 - NanoEthics 4 (3):215-220.
Taking Due Care: Moral Obligations in Dual Use Research.Frida Kuhlau, Stefan Eriksson, Kathinka Evers & Anna T. Höglund - 2008 - Bioethics 22 (9):477-487.
Performance-Enhancing Technologies and Moral Responsibility in the Military.Jessica Wolfendale - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (2):28 – 38.
Nanotalk: Conversations with Scientists and Engineers About Ethics, Meaning, and Belief in the Development of Nanotechnology.Rosalyn W. Berne - 2006 - Lawrence Erlbaum.
Science Education and Moral Education.Michael Martin - 1986 - Journal of Moral Education 15 (2):99-108.
Is There an Ivory Tower in Reality?E. Mamchur - 1990 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (1):101 – 111.
Exploring a Moral Landscape: Genetic Science and Ethics.Barbara Nicholas - 2001 - Hypatia 16 (1):45-63.
Added to index2009-08-03
Total downloads33 ( #153,959 of 2,158,842 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #132,568 of 2,158,842 )
How can I increase my downloads?