Skip to main content
Log in

Nanoethics in a Nanolab: Ethics via Participation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A participant–observer who is both informed and interested in ethical issues, and is embedded within a nanotechnology research and development facility may be able to influence the ethical awareness of researchers in nanotechnology, and tease out the societal implications of the work being conducted. Two inter-disciplinary methods were employed: (1) regular involvement in the technical and scientific research at the facility by the participant–observer, and (2) repeated interactions and discussions between the participant–observer and the scientists. As a result of this qualitative approach, an ethics questionnaire was developed and tested. This questionnaire has been incorporated into the admissions procedures for researchers as they commence use of the nanotech facility. The questionnaire highlights the importance of ethical issues in nanotechnology research and draws researchers into an engagement with possible ethical consequences and with future societal implications of their work.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Hacking makes reference to Bacon’s quip but I have not been able to find a textual reference in Bacon’s published works.

  2. Of course, I am speaking metaphorically. As we will soon see, a very important aspect of nanotechnology research deals primarily with limiting the amount of contamination of one’s hands, but more importantly of one’s sample products.

  3. A current copy of the exam can be seen at https://sites.google.com/a/uic.edu/ncf/safety. [Accessed 3/22/2013].

  4. “Check-out” is the semi-standardized procedure of training on a piece of equipment in the lab. It usually involves the training manager going through a series of standard operations after the trainee has read the appropriate equipment manuals and lab operating procedures on the particular piece of equipment. The procedures and safety precautions are reiterated while the training manager performs the operations. The trainee is then observed while performing the tasks on the equipment that he or she will likely undertake as part of his or her research. Once successfully demonstrating proficiency (including an understanding of the safety protocol), the trainee is “checked-out” or allowed to operate the machinery (with the proviso of continued following of all lab standards, e.g., appropriate use of reservation schedules, safe operating procedures, etc.).

  5. High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) and ultra-low particulate air (ULPA) filters are used to screen out particles in the nano-range (roughly between 0.3 and 0.12 µm, respectively).

  6. See, for instance, NASA’s Glenn Research Center clean room in their instrumentation and controls division: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/multimedia/imagegallery/if017_clean_room.html [Accessed 3/20/2013]. Some clean rooms also require members to wear battery packs and personal air filtering systems as part of the protective gear. See also Advanced Micro Devices’ new manufacturing sight, Fab 36 in Dresden, Germany, at http://www.amdboard.com/amd_fab36.html [Accessed 3/20/2013] for views of a cutting edge industrial facility and a clean room that is nearly 150,000 square feet.

  7. During my stay at MAL, I met researchers originally from China, India, Pakistan, Russia, Japan, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Serbia, Scotland, England, and Spain.

  8. I was assigned to various projects being conducted by the lab manager. My initial research consisted of shadowing the manager as he conducted the lab’s experiments, but evolved (as described below) into a more substantive role of assisting the manager in his duties.

  9. As always, there are exceptions. Users are more likely to share time on a microscope than on a piece of equipment where runs take longer, or where contamination is a concern, etc.

  10. The question of what counts as true “expertise” within the lab is also interesting. “Expert” status is sometimes bestowed upon an individual who has little more experience than another (sometimes having performed the given procedure as little as once before). The willingness to defer to others is influenced not only by the task at hand but by the amount of perceived familiarity or experience of the other users. This low threshold meritocracy holds only initially; eventually, clear expertise surfaces and truly skilled users rise to become recognized and appreciated within the lab. Experts also determine what gets seen and counted as “normal”, “correct”, “acceptable”, “okay”, or “not good”.

  11. I work in the philosophy of science, primarily in the philosophy of biology; though this training was helpful at NF, my interest in ethical issues and in the sociology of science was more helpful for making observations that were deemed unusual or interesting because they came from a different perspective.

  12. Perhaps what was most surprising was the amount of detail (e.g., when each piece of machinery was last serviced, how much this costs, when the lab was due for new machinery, etc.) expounded upon by the lab managers regarding the equipment. It was as if the machinery came to symbolize something more important about the lab (e.g., the degree to which it was a cutting-edge research facility, the attention and care researchers dedicate to the science being conducted there, confidence in the results of experiments conducted at NF, etc.).

  13. There is a broad literature in occupational health issues and research specific to nanotechnology occupational health issues is growing.

  14. Low Pressure Chemical Vapor Deposition—a system for uniformly depositing silicon nitride, polysilicon, and sometimes low temperature oxides onto various substrates.

  15. The Oxford DRIE—Deep Reactive Ion Etching—is a piece of equipment used to etch features into silicon (Si). Three dimensional features are created in Si through successive stages of isotropic Si etching and polymer deposition to protect the side walls. Even better aspect ratios (up to 30 to 1) are achievable using the “Bosch Process” which involves Reactive Ion Etching with an inductive coupled plasma source, and helium (He) backside cooling. The “Bosch Process” also is advantageous because (1) it works at room temperature and (2) it has a relatively fast etch Rate (up to 10 µm/min), with good uniformity, controllable wall profiles and high selectivity to Resist (a type of polymer) and to SiO2. See the manufacturer’s website at http://www.oxfordplasma.de/homepage.htm (Accessed [date]) for more details.

  16. A “kludge” or “kluge” is an engineering slang term meaning to devise a workaround usually by cobbling together unrelated parts to get a functioning whole.

  17. Even during training sessions, researchers are reminded that certain things are “not in the manual”. This gives the impression that the special manufacturer’s training session (for which researchers are paying extra) provides some difficult to access or secret knowledge of the instrumentation, but it also creates a sense that there are different levels of “feel for” the instrumentation that are not describable in a manual (e.g., one can touch the microscope head in such a way that a subtle vibration or click lets you know that the mechanism is functioning (cycling) properly). This “feel for” and anthropomorphizing of the instrumentation is interesting for it simultaneously involves a knowledge of, and a bit of removal from, the instruments: as if getting too close would ruin the instrument’s objectivity. Thus, there is this desire to become one with the mechanism and to learn its revealing secrets and powers, but not so close as to introduce too much subjectivity in its measurements; it all makes for a strange mix of mystery, respect, and power – a fetishizing of the instruments of science.

References

  • Baird, D. (1989). Instruments on the cusp of science and technology. Knowledge and Society, 8, 107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjornstad, D. J., & Wolfe, A. K. (2011). Adding to the mix: Integrating ELSI into a national nanoscale science and technology center. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 743–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., Brewer, M. B., & Collins, B. E. (1981). Scientific inquiry and the social sciences: A volume in honor of Donald T. Campbell (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. E., & Fujimura, J. (Eds.). (1992). The right tools for the job: At work in twentieth century life sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. E., & Gerson, E. M. (1990). Symbolic interactionism in social studies of science. In H. S. Becker & M. M. McCall (Eds.), Symbolic interaction and cultural studies (pp. 179–214). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, S. N. (2011). Engagement agents in the making: On the front lines of socio-technical integration—Commentary on: “Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies”. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 715–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conti, J. A. (2008). Health and safety practices in the nanomaterials workplace: Results from an international survey. Environmental Science and Technology in Society, 42(9), 3155–3162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerson, E. M. (1983). Scientific work and social worlds. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 4, 357–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire], New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Jacob, F. (1977). Evolution and tinkering. Science, 196, 1161–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, L. E. (1993). The molecular vision of life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the rise of the new biology. Monographs on the history and philosophy of biology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1979). Tinkering toward success: Prelude to a theory of scientific practice. Theory and Society, 8, 347–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, R. E. (1994). Lords of the fly: Drosophila genetics and the experimental life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Sage library of social research (Vol. 80). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, B. S. (2006). Occupational and environmental health: Recognizing and preventing disease and injury (5th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, B. S., & Wegman, D. H. (2000). Occupational health: Recognizing and preventing work-related disease and injury (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberdörster, G., Oberdörster, E., & Oberdörster, J. (2005). Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(7), 823–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, K. T., Cox, R. A. F., & Brown, I. (Eds.). (2007). Fitness for work: The medical aspects (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perin, C. (2005). Shouldering risks: The culture of control in the nuclear power industry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinow, P. (1996). Making PCR: A story of biotechnology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, N. (1987). A new model of developmental constraints as applied to the Drosophila system. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 127(3), 271–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rom, W. N., & Markowitz, S. (Eds.). (2007). Environmental and occupational medicine (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulte, P. A., & Salamanca-Buentello, F. (2007). Ethical and scientific issues of nanotechnology in the workplace. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(1), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulte, P., Geraci, C., Zumwalde, R., Hoover, M., & Kuempel, E. (2008). Occupational risk management of engineered nanoparticles. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 5(4), 239–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (1995). Ecologies of knowledge: work and politics in science and technology. SUNY series in science, technology, and society. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuma, J. R. (2011). Nanoethics and the breaching of boundaries: A heuristic for going from encouragement to a fuller integration of ethical, legal and social issues and science—Commentary on: “Adding to the mix: Integrating ELSI into a national nanoscale science and technology center”. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 761–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt, W. C. (1980). Randomness and perceived-randomness in evolutionary biology. Synthese, 43, 287–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt, W. C., (1994). The ontology of complex systems: Levels, perspectives and causal thickets. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, supplementary volume #20, R. Ware & M. Matthen (Eds.), 207–274.

  • Wimsatt, W. C. (2007). Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., Striolo, A., & Cummings, P. T. (2005). C60 binds to and deforms nucleotides. Biophysical Journal, 89(6), 3856–3862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research described herein took place between August of 2004 and January of 2006 and was conducted under the supervision of the facility’s manager and PI, the direction of Vivian Weil of the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), and the advice of Ullica Segerstrale (IIT) and Jeffrey Stanton (Syracuse University). I am thankful to the very useful comments from anonymous reviewers of Science and Engineering Ethics and for the advice and help from the advisors on this project. Additionally, I would like to thank all of the researchers, scientists, and engineers at the nanotechnology research and development facility who volunteered their time and patience and made this study possible. Finally, I am indebted to a grant from the National Science Foundation, NSF #ECS0500431 which funded the research for this project and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the Illinois Institute of Technology which provided training and procedural review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julio R. Tuma.

Appendix 1: Survey

Appendix 1: Survey

Several revisions have been made to develop and improve the questionnaire and to solicit the fullest and best answers from respondents while keeping the form short enough to be filled-out in about 20 min. The questions in the latest revision are as follows:

  1. 1.

    Are you a member of a : (Circle all that apply)

    1. a.

      University,

    2. b.

      Engineering Department,

    3. c.

      Chemistry Department,

    4. d.

      Medical School,

    5. e.

      Start-up company,

    6. f.

      Large established company,

    7. g.

      Other (Please elaborate.)

  2. 2.

    What project(s) will you be working on at NF?

  3. 3.

    Please describe what specific research you will be conducting at this facility.

  4. 4.

    How does this investigation relate to a larger research project?

  5. 5.

    If you are producing a particular piece of technology, what will this technology be used for? Who will use it?

  6. 6.

    Can you explain potential benefits and/or dangers of such a technology? Benefits for whom? Dangers for whom? (i.e., for individuals, groups, communities, nations, global ecology, etc.)

  7. 7.

    Have you considered possible unintended consequences of your technology? Possible unintended uses by others of the technology? What do you think these might be?

  8. 8.

    Does your research include ways of controlling the technology you produce over different time- and size- scales? What kinds of controls? Controls over what?

  9. 9.

    Say, for instance, that you are producing a new nano-material. Will it give-off or shed particles at even smaller size scales? Does it disperse over long distances or quickly through the food-chain? Can processes begun by your technology be reversed? How quickly? How long will the new materials (or those materials used in its production) persist in the environment?

  10. 10.

    As with any technology that requires large amounts of established infrastructure, an educated and able work force, and large amounts of capital investment, nano-technologies will likely be developed and produced in developed industrial countries. If the fruits of this research and production are then unequally distributed to these centers of production, there will be the potential for a nano-divide that will follow along already established economic dividing lines. So, will the technology you produce lead to an increase or a decrease in economic disparities between populations? How will it contribute to these ends here in the developed world vs. the developing world?

  11. 11.

    Who should be responsible for the research you conduct? What is this responsibility? To whom will you be answerable? (e.g., (a) investors; (b) the university; (c) a private company; (d) government; (e) society at large; (f) other—please explain.)

  12. 12.

    Who should know about your research? Why or why not?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tuma, J.R. Nanoethics in a Nanolab: Ethics via Participation. Sci Eng Ethics 19, 983–1005 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9449-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9449-0

Keywords

Navigation