Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Responsibilities of Nanotechnology Researchers: A Short Guide

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

Abstract

Little if any of the scholarly literature on nanotechnology (NT) and ethics is directed at NT researchers. Many of these practitioners believe that having clear ethical guidelines for the conduct of NT research is necessary. This work attempts to provide such guidelines. While no qualitatively new ethical issues unique to NT have yet been identified, the ethical responsibilities identified below merit serious attention by NT researchers. Thirteen specific ethical responsibilities arising at three levels are identified. They are derived by applying four fundamental ethical responsibilities of scientists and engineers to the specific conditions of NT research and researchers in contemporary Western societies. Since society is placing increasing importance on producing scientists and engineers who combine high technical competence with a sensitive ethical compass, study of the ethical dimension of NT, including the identified ethical responsibilities, should become a required element of the formal education of all NT researchers.

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. Bill Joy, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Wired, Vol. 8, No. 4, April, 2000.

  2. See http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?WT.z_pims_id=5612&ods_key=nsf03519.

  3. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prey_(novel).

  4. The centers were established at Arizona State University and the University of California, Santa Barbara.

  5. See http://www.springer.com/philosophy/ethics/journal/11569.

  6. European Commission (Directorate-General for Research, Directorate L [Science, Economy and Society], Unit L3 [Governance and Ethics]), “Commission Recommendation on ‘A Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research’ and Council Conclusions on ‘Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research’,” EUR 23906, 2009, p. 11.

  7. In a 2005–06 survey of the views of 1,037 NT researchers at NNIN laboratories about ethical issues related to their work, 58.7% of the 847 respondents indicated that having “clear ethical guidelines for the conduct of nanotech research” is “necessary,” 34.7% that having such guidelines is “desirable but not necessary,” and 6.6% that having them is “neither necessary nor desirable.” See [5], p. 110.

  8. Some may wonder whether the abovementioned, European Commission-adopted “Code of Conduct” has already filled this gap. The heart of this code is contained in “Ethical Responsibilities of NT Researchers” (“Guidelines On Actions To Be Taken”). Of the 27 guidelines listed, only five are aimed at NT researchers. (Subsection 4.1.2 calls on them to make NT-related scientific knowledge and information “easily accessible and understandable by lay people as well as by the scientific community”; 4.1.4 to “insure that scientific data and results are duly peer reviewed before being widely disseminated outside the scientific community”; 4.1.9 to consider “the future implications of technologies or objects being researched”; 4.2.1 to “take specific health, safety, and environmental measures adapted to the peculiarities of the nano-object manipulated”; and 4.2.6 to “gain a better understanding of fundamental biological processes in the toxicology and ecotoxicology of nano-objects” and to widely publicize their findings.) The other 22 guidelines are aimed at other “stakeholders,” e.g., EU member states, employers, NT research organizations, and NT research funding bodies. In short, the gap between NT researcher need and scholarly literature remains unfilled.

  9. NT researchers are not the only professional group with NT-related ethical responsibilities. Other groups with such responsibilities include product designers, manufacturers, regulators, lawyers, judges, journalists, and educators.

  10. McGinn, loc. cit., p. 104.

  11. I owe this phrase to Douglas Kysar.

  12. I owe this idea to Douglas Kysar.

  13. The distributional criterion to be used varies, depending on what is being distributed as well as on relevant characteristics of individual group members.

  14. Some believe that because the relationship between doctor and patient is typically more direct than that between engineer or scientist and those affected by her/his work, engineers and scientists do not have the same fundamental ethical responsibility as doctors, viz., to do no harm to their patients. However, the fact that the relationship between the engineer or scientist and parties affected downsteam by her/his work products is typically more indirect does not by itself exempt the engineer or scientist from the fundamental ethical responsibility to do no harm to their “patients” (in the broader sense specified above). Harm indirectly caused is still harm caused.

  15. What makes a risk of causing harm “unreasonable” will vary from situation to situation, depending on various factors.

  16. This responsibility applies even if the alerting party is not the cause of the risky situation and not able to prevent it.

  17. This is intended to be a more defensible version of the vague loyalty-to-employer canons found in many codes of engineering ethics. For example, the code of ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) states that engineers, in the performance of their professional duties, shall “act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.” See [6], Fundamental Canon # 4.

  18. Many codes of engineering ethics state categorically that engineers, in the performance of their professional duties, shall “hold paramount” the legitimate interests of society at large (“the health, safety, and welfare of the public.”) See, e.g., the NSPE code of ethics [6], Fundamental Canon # 1.

  19. See, for example, [7].

  20. In the aforementioned survey, given a scenario in which “the top managers of a nanotechnology laboratory do not actively promote a culture of safety in their facility,” 50.1% of the responding NT researchers deemed that failure on the part of top managers “completely unethical”; another 31.5% deemed it “somewhat unethical.”

  21. See, for example, [3].

  22. Such stakes include patent ownership, promotion, realization of royalties, and recovery of initial investment.

  23. Instead of “hype,” lawyers often use the expression “non-actionable puffery.” I owe this phrase to Douglas Kysar.

  24. The same responsibility applies vis-à-vis hype at the level of any NT sub-area.

  25. In U.S. electronic media coverage of science and engineering, the long-running Public Broadcasting Service program, “NOVA,” devoted to improving public understanding of science, technology, and engineering, is a notable exception to the rule.

  26. See [4].

  27. The above-referenced survey of NNIN researchers yielded a remarkable (and encouraging) finding: the vast majority (76.3%) of respondents “strongly agreed” that such a researcher would have the stated ethical responsibility under the specified condition. See McGinn, loc. cit., p. 114.

  28. For example, a researcher who knows the historical record or economic and political condition of the company or government for which s/he works, is aware of some harm-risking uses that her/his work could be made to serve, recognizes that doing so could powerfully further her/his firm’s or government’s important political-economic interests, and has evidence suggesting company or government intent to pursue one or more such uses, might well be said to have “reason to believe” that would engender ER12.

  29. See [8].

  30. Access to water that does not pose a significant risk of harm to human health is arguably something to which all citizens have a moral right, derivable from the universal human right to life. Affordable nanometric water filtration membranes could foster a more equitable distribution of this good across the countries and peoples of the world than is currently the case.

  31. It might be thought that while this would be a good thing to have happen, it cannot plausibly be viewed as an ethical responsibility of the MDC NT practitioner, no matter how well positioned. But when one considers the priority of fulfilling basic needs over non-need-based preferences, the international provenance of the NT knowledge base, and the appalling historical record of MDC-LDC relationships, the case for speaking of an ethical responsibility here, under FERSE #2 becomes compelling.

  32. Nano on All Fronts,” loc. cit.

  33. At a meeting of the U.S. House Science Committee in September 2006, Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, stated, “The evidence before us strongly suggests that current federal research efforts are not adequate to address concerns arising about the environmental, health and safety impacts of nanotechnology. There are clear gaps in the research portfolio in determining potential hazard, evaluating exposure, controlling releases of nanomaterials, determining potential impact and managing risk.” See [9].

  34. The same ethical responsibility would apply if what a knowledgeable NT researcher became aware of was non-scientific regulatory decision-making regarding the use of nano-materials in food or personal care products, such as cosmetics.

  35. Staff, “Nanos on All Fronts,” loc. cit.

  36. [2].

  37. In the aforementioned survey, nanotechnology researchers were asked to assess the following scenario: “in the future, unknown to a group of human patients, experimental nano-devices will be implanted in them for their own benefit.” 76% of the respondents deemed that practice “completely unethical” and 11.75% “somewhat ethical,” whereas only 2.2% deemed it “somewhat ethical” and 3.6% “completely ethical.”

  38. In the aforementioned survey of nanotechnology researchers, 18% of respondents deemed “future NT R&D projects to increase human mental abilities” “not at all” morally acceptable and 20.1% found such projects only “slightly” morally acceptable. (The response options were “not at all,” “slightly,” “moderately,” “quite,” and “very much.”)

  39. The aforementioned survey revealed that a strong majority of respondents were somewhat, quite, or very willing to “spend some time learning about ethical issues related to nanotechnology.” (The percentages were 4.6% “not at all,” 17.1% “slightly,” 34.3% “somewhat,” 29.3% “quite,” and 13.7% “very” willing). See McGinn, loc. cit., p. 116.

  40. Among the likely consequences of such work are blurring the line between interventions for therapeutic purposes and for purposes of enhancement by parties with economic interests in doing so, and access to enhancement-related HINDS being effectively limited to those able to pay the going market price or afford insurance policies that cover treatment with such devices.

  41. From Samuel Johnson’s moral fable, Rasselas, 1759, Chapter 41 (bracketed words added), http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/∼jlynch/Texts/rasselas.html.

  42. Albert Einstein, “Address Before Student Body,” California Institute of Technology, February 16, 1931, http://www.hss.caltech.edu/∼kcb/Ec121/EinsteinSpeech.html.

  43. In 2004, the U.K.’s Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering recommended “that the consideration of ethical and social implications of advanced technologies (such as nanotechnologies) should form part of the formal training of all research students and staff working in these areas and, specifically, that this type of formal training should be listed in the Joint Statement of the Research Councils’/AHRB’s Skills Training Requirements for Research Students.” See “Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties,” RS Policy Document 19/04, 29 July 2004, p. 87. See also http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk and http://www.raeng.org.uk.

References

  1. Colman D (2004) Director’s corner: a new MNI program in NeuroEngineering, Neuro News. Montreal Neurological Institute, Montreal, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jotterand F (2007) Nanomedicine: how it could reshape clinical practice. Nanomedicine 2(4):401–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. LaFollette MC (1992) Stealing into print: fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lederman LM (1999) The responsibility of the scientist. New York Times, p. A15, July 24

  5. McGinn R (2008) Ethics and nanotechnology: views of Nanotechnology Researchers. Nanoethics 2(2):101–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. National Association of Professional Engineers. NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers. http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html. Accessed July 2007

  7. Roduner E (2006) Size matters: why nanomaterials are different. Chem Soc Rev 35:583–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Staff, “Nanos on All Fronts,” Part 2 of “Riding the Nano Wave,” CNRS International Magazine, Vol. 2, Spring 2006, http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/529.htm

  9. U.S. House Science Committee, Press Release 109–323, September 21, 2006

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management Science and Engineering, Program in Science, Technology, and Society, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305-2120, USA

    Robert McGinn

Authors
  1. Robert McGinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert McGinn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McGinn, R. Ethical Responsibilities of Nanotechnology Researchers: A Short Guide. Nanoethics 4, 1–12 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-010-0082-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-010-0082-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation