Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 521–533 | Cite as

Nanoethics: From utopian dreams and apocalyptic nightmares towards a more balanced view

Article

Abstract

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 Furthermore, many of these drastic views are based on simplified and outdated visions of a nanotechnology dominated by self-replicating assemblers and nanomachines.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.

Keywords

ethics nanotechnology utopia dystopia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Moore, A. (2001) Brave Small World. Biotechnology and Nanotechnology may give Rise to a Completely New Industry. EMBO Reports 2 (2): 86–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peterson, C. (2003) Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Full Science Committee Hearing on The Societal Implications of Nanotechnology, April 9, 2003 (available at http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full03/apr09/peterson.htm; accessed 17 September, 2005).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stix, G. (2001) Little Big Science. Scientific American 285 (3): 26–31.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobstein, N and Reynolds, G.H. (2004) Foresight Guidelines Version 4.0: Self Assessment Scorecards for Safer Development of Nanotechnology (available at http://www.foresight.org/guidelines/current.html; accessed 17 September, 2005).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bachmann, G. (1998) Innovationsschub aus dem Nanokosmos. Technologieanalyse. VDI-Technologiezentrum, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    May, M. (1999) Nanotechnology: Thinking Small. Environmental Health Perspectives 107 (9): A450-A451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (2000) National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and Its Implementation Plan. Washington, D.C. (available at http://www.nano.gov/html/res/nni2.pdf; accessed 17 September, 2005).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drexler, K.E. (1986) Engines of Creation. The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. Anchor Press/Doubleday, New York.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Von Neumann, J. (1951) The general and logical theory of automata, in Jeffress, L.A. ed. Cerebral Mechanisms in Behavior. John Wiley, New York: 1–41.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feynman, R. (1992) There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom [reprint]. Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems 1 (1): 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dewdney, A.K. (1988) Nanotechnology: Wherein Molecular Computers control Tiny Circulatory Submarines. Scientific American 258 (1): 100–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Freitas, R.A.Jr. (1999) Nanomedicine, Volume I: Basic Capabilities. Landes Bioscience, Georgetown, TX.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herzog, A. (2002) Of Genomics, Cyborgs and Nanotechnology: A Look into the Future of Medicine. Connecticut Medicine 66 (1): 53–54.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Merkle R.C. (1992) The Technical Feasibility of Cryonics. Medical Hypotheses 39: 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Merkle, R.C. (1996) Nanotechnology and Medicine, in: Klatz, R.M. ed. Advances in Anti-Aging Medicine. Vol. I. Larchmont, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., New York: pp. 277–286.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ashley, S. (2001) Nanobot Construction Crews. Scientific American 285 (3): 76–77.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smalley, R.E. (2001) Of Chemistry, Love and Nanobots. Scientific American 285 (3): 68–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Phoenix, C. and Drexler, E. (2004) Safe Exponential Manufacturing. Nanotechnology 15: 869–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Freitas, R.A.Jr. (1998) Nanomedicine FAQ. (available at http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/index.html#NM%20FAQ; accessed 17 September, 2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaku, M. (1997) Visions. How Science will revolutionize the 21 st Century. Anchor Books/Doubleday, New York.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kurzweil R. (1999) The Age of Spiritual Machines. When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence. The Viking Press, New York.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bostrom, N. (2003) The Transhumanist FAQ — A General Introduction — Version 2.1. (available at http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html; accessed 17 September, 2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Merkle, R.C. (1994) The Molecular Repair of the Brain. Part I. Cryonics 15 (1): 16–31.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Merkle, R.C. (1994) The Molecular Repair of the Brain. Part II. Cryonics 15 (2): 20–32.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mnyusiwalla, A., Daar, A.S. and Singer, P.A. (2003) Mind the Gap: Science and Ethics in Nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14: R9-R13;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Peterson, C. (2003) Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Full Science Committee Hearing on The Societal Implications of Nanotechnology, April 9, 2003 (available at http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full03/apr09/peterson.htm; accessed 17 September, 2005).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Joy B. (2000) Why the Future doesn’t need Us. Wired. 8.04 (available at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html; accessed 17 September, 2005).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Service, R.F. (2000) Is Nanotechnology Dangerous? Science 290 (November 24): 1526–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Crichton, M. (2002) Prey. Harper Collins, New York.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alivisatos, A.P. (2001) Less is More in Medicine. Scientific American 285 (3): 59–65.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Randal, J. (2001) Nanotechnology getting off the Ground in Cancer Research. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93 (24): 1836–1838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Roco, M.C. and Bainbridge, W.S. (2002) Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance. Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. Arlington, Virginia (available at http://wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/; accessed 17 September, 2005).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Popper, K. (1982) The Open Universe: An Argument for Indeterminism. Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bogunia-Kubick, K and Sugisaka, M. (2002) From Molecular Biology to Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine. Biosystems 65 (2–3): 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Taton, T.A. (2001) Nanotechnology. Boning up on Biology. Nature 412 (August 2): 491–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    36 ETC. (2003) The Big Down: Technologies Converging at the Nano-scale. (available at http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/TheBigDown.pdf; accessed 17 September, 2005).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Winner, L. (2003) Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Full Science Committee Hearing on The Societal Implications of Nanotechnology, April 9, 2003 (available at http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full03/apr09/winner.htm; accessed 17 September, 2005).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hett, A. (2004) Nanotechnology: Small Matter, Many Unknowns. Swiss Reinsurance Company, Zürich (available at http://www.swissre.com/; accessed 17 September, 2005).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nanoforum, (2004) Benefits, Risks, Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Nanotechnology (available at http://www.nanoforum.org/; accessed 17 September, 2005).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering (Royal Society). (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties — Summary and Recommendations. The Royal Society, London. (available at http://www.nanotec.org.uk/report/summary.pdf; accessed 17 September, 2005).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    European Union. (2004) Communication from the Commission. Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology, Brussel. (available at ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/nano_com_en.pdf; accessed 17 September, 2005).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine (232 EFG)Radboud University Medical Centre NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations