Introduction: nanotechnology, society, and ethics

2009

2008

This brief paper introduces the subject of Nanotechnology and its ethical implications as an applied technology. It goes on to explore and present a blueprint for the theological, legal and ethical issues which Muslim scholars may need to address, as well as a framework through which scholars can determine relevant solutions.

Advances in Computers, 2007

This chapter reviews the role ethical and societal issues associated with nanotechnology have played in the development of national, and particularly US nanotechnology policies. The prominence of nanotechnology as a matter of national policy is significant, as is the attention being afforded to ethical and societal considerations. Notably, there is an emphasis on the early anticipation of societal dimensions of nanotechnology and of collaborative socio-technical integration during research and development activities. While these policies are fairly unprecedented and pose considerable challenges to the societal and technical researchers to whom the tasks of early integration may fall, there is reason to believe that continued efforts aimed at their implementation are likely. The chapter provides a brief history and explanation of the US nanotechnology "ethics policy" in reference to the discourse and concerns motivating policy makers. It then surveys some of the growing body of literature emerging around what has been termed nanoethics. This literature includes a similar emphasis on early and collaborative anticipation of the ethical and societal implications surrounding nanotechnology. Finally, the chapter identifies a list of fundamental tasks that would be necessary to address for the sake of developing the capacity of social and technical researchers to effectively engage in socio-technical integration. These tasks include defining the scope of nanoscale science and engineering subject to the ethics policy, and the interactions, responsibility, participation, and regulation envisioned or implied by the ethics policy under consideration. A few emerging cases of socio-technical collaborations are noted, and key statements made by congressional witnesses and others are cited. Throughout the chapter, an attempt is made to frame the statements within conceptual considerations drawn from the diverse contexts of nanotechnology, policy, and ethics.

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 2011

Nanotechnologies are considered to be one of the spearheads of emerging technologies. They are qualified by some as a new technological revolution, in the sense that they can change the way humans perceive ourselves and relate to our natural and social environments. If a human activity is thought to cause such revolutionary changes, it should be accompanied by a reflection. In order to give such a reflection an ethical dimension we need to fix a framework, a set of commonly accepted definitions of concepts and terminology. Questions like: «what does being nanotechnological mean?» do not seem satisfactorily answered, or the answers given to date do not seem to satisfy all stakeholders. We analyze the lacks in some of the definitions found in available literature. From this analysis, and taking as a basis the philosophical paradigm of epistemic realism, which we claim it could be adequate for ethics purposes, we go on to propose an approach which, we argue, could motivate further thinking on definitions that could serve ethics reflection on nanotechnologies.

Science and engineering ethics, 2005

Nanotechnology is a swiftly developing field of technology that is believed to have the potential of great upsides and excessive downsides. In the ethical debate there has been a strong tendency to strongly focus on either the first or the latter. As a consequence ethical assessments of nanotechnology tend to radically diverge. Optimistic visionaries predict truly utopian states of affairs. Pessimistic thinkers present all manner of apocalyptic visions. Whereas the utopian views follow from one-sidedly focusing on the potential benefits of nanotechnology, the apocalyptic perspectives result from giving exclusive attention to possible worst-case scenarios. These radically opposing evaluations hold the risk of conflicts and unwanted backlashes. Furthermore, many of these drastic views are based on simplified and outdated visions of a nanotechnology dominated by self-replicating assemblers and nanomachines. Hence, the present state of the ethical debate on nanotechnology calls for the development of more balanced and better-informed assessments. As a first step in this direction this contribution presents a new method of framing the ethical debate on nanotechnology. Thus, the focus of this paper is on methodology, not on normative analysis.

—Nanotechnology has turned into the recent scientific lingo and swift innovation in this field are significantly impacting the courses in which we conceptualise the future and human capacity to control matter at the nuclear and atomic levels, by offering undreamt promises for scientific innovations. Since the merging of nanotechnology with biotechnology, data innovation, subjective science discipline has crafted and hold guarantee for the change of human enactment at various levels, hence 'social and ethical issues' turns into a repeating expression in the scientific group. Hence stakeholders paying consideration on nanotechnology innovation with a vital question: whether nanotechnology is demonstrating ethically and socially unique issues or the ethical and social issues are related to nanotechnology like other innovative technologies. The present article endeavours to comprehend the discussion over nanotechnology with respect to its potential advantages and the threat to the society. One view in this discussion is that nanotechnology has a progressive potential and will have huge financial advantages, while the another view is wary about its potential with regards to ethical and social issues and values, for example, equity and social justice. Finally, an attempt is made to find the variance in the societal and ethical issue in both, those who want to promote it and those who have fears about its potential. Thus this write-up adds the level headed discussions by investigating foundational issues about the relationship of ethics and nanotechnology.

2018

Since a significant time ago, although time runs very fast, nanotechnology transformed from one of the most promising scientific hopes in uncountable human domains into a marvelous certainty. Innumerable scientific studies in several areas of knowledge were made since nanoscale emergence, carrying their contribution to the nanoscience development, leading to a great development of technical and scientific knowledge but also raising numerous problems in the ethical field. In this chapter, nanotechnology is discussed both in terms of ethics and in terms of borders that nanotechnology applications must satisfy and concluding notes are presented, highlighting the results of the analysis. Significant considerations are made on the close connection between ethics and the nanotechnology and the effects over the society and values.

NanoEthics, 2010

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.

NanoEthics, 2011

How are we to understand the fact that the philosophical debate over nanotechnologies has been reduced to a clash of seemingly preprogrammed arguments and counterarguments that paralyzes all rational discussion of the ultimate ethical question of social acceptability in matters of nanotechnological development? With this issue as its starting point, the study reported on here, intended to further comprehension of the issues rather than provide a cause-andeffect explanation, seeks to achieve a rational grasp of what is being said through the appeals made to this or that principle in the range of arguments put forward in publications on the subject. We present the results of the study's analyses in two parts. In the first, we lay out the seven categories of argument that emerged from an analysis of the literature: the arguments based on nature, dignity, the good life, utility, equity, autonomy, and rights. In the second part, we present the background moral stances that support each category of argument. Identifying the different categories of argument and the moral stance that underlies each category will enable a better grasp of the reasons for the multiplicity of the arguments that figure in discussions of the acceptability of nanotechnologies and will ultimately contribute to overcoming the tendency towards talking past each other that all too often disfigures the exchange. Clarifying the implications of the moral arguments deployed in the debate over nanotechnologies may make it possible to reduce the confusion observable in these exchanges and contribute to a better grasp of the reasons for their current unproductiveness. Keywords Acceptability. Debate on nanotechnology. Dialogue. Interdisciplinarity. Moral arguments. Nanoethics. Philosophy and nanotechnology. Social acceptability and nanotechnology As has been pointed out by Jean-Pierre Dupuy ([4]: 238), philosophical debate over the ethical foundations of nanotechnology has become so routine that it would be easy to simply rhyme off the arguments regularly brought forward: 'The same arguments are always served up, and they are always answered with the same counter-arguments.' How are we to understand the fact that this philosophical debate has been reduced to a clash among seemingly preprogrammed arguments and counterarguments that are paralyzing