Philosophical Aspects of Dual Use Technologies
- 377 Downloads
The term dual use technologies refers to research and technology with the potential both to yield valuable scientific knowledge and to be used for nefarious purposes with serious consequences for public health or the environment. There are two main approaches to assessing dual use technologies: pragmatic and metaphysical. A pragmatic approach relies on ethical principles and norms to generate specific guidance and policy for dual use technologies. A metaphysical approach exhorts us to the deeper study of human nature, our intentions, goals, values ideals and social relations when considering dual use technology. Use of science and technology (S and T) is determined by two components of human nature: human intentions and choices. We have drawn a distinction between specific measures, goals and intentions with respect to technologies in order to show that moral judgment about technologies must precede their use. Understanding of our intentionality and values, and our moral ideals, as a measurable, tangible part of the real world is important for the prevention of any possible harm from S and T. In the context of dual use technologies, we stress the importance of three main understandings of human nature: vulnerability, responsibility and narrative identity. These can become a strong ontological “antidote” to technology’s poisoning of modern man. Each new technology can be measured and compared with man’s values, traditions and societal norms. This can be done bearing in mind the concept that human nature is not dualistic, but pluralistic. A system of ethical principles that includes the principles of good intentions, the correspondence of goals and means, the balancing of risks and benefits, simplicity, and contextuality, will help ensure that technologies are more humanistic and friendly to human beings.
KeywordsDual use technologies Science and technologies Intention and measure Human nature Ethical principles
We express our thanks: to professor Andrzej Gorski, organizer of the Warsaw conference ‘The Advancement of Science and the Dilemma of Dual Use: Why We Can`t Afford to Fail’ (9–10 November 2007), where the first draft of the paper was presented; to Professor Raymond Spier for his very important remarks and comments to the manuscript; to Liudmyla Palyey for her help with translation of the manuscript from Russian into English.
- 1.Mollas-Gallart, J. (1998). Dual use technologies and the different transfer mechanisms/The International School on Dusarmament Research on Conflicts (ISODARCO), 19th Summer Course Candriai, 26 August–2 September 1998.Google Scholar
- 2.Galev, T. (2003). Questioning “Dual use” concept. IAS-STS Work-in-Progress, 13 March 2003, p. 8.Google Scholar
- 3.Conference “The Advancement of Science and the Dilemma of Dual Use: Why We Can`t Afford to Fail”, Warsaw, 9–10 November 2007. Presentations [online] (2007), available on the Internet: http://www.pan.pl/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1355<emid=298.
- 5.Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Report prepared by the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics for the National Security Science and Technology Unit, November 2006, p. 6. [Online] (2006), available on the Internet: http://biosecurity.anu.edu.au/pdf/Dual%20use%20final%report.pdf.
- 7.Bunge, M. (1999). Ethics and praxiology as technologies. Philosophy and Technology, 4, 4.Google Scholar
- 8.Potter, V. R. (1971). Bioethics: Bridge to the future (p. 185). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- 9.Wilber, K. (2002). The eye of spirit. An integral vision for a world gone slightly mad (pp. 38–39). Moscow: Public house “AST”.Google Scholar
- 10.Miller, S. (2007). Responses to the ethical problem of the dual use dilemma in the biological sciences. Presentation at the Conference “The Advancement of Science and the Dilemma of Dual Use: Why We Can`t Afford to Fail”, Warsaw, 9–10 November 2007, p. 5. [Online] (2007), available on the Internet: http://www.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/BWZ/dual_use/presentations/04_Miller.pdf.
- 11.Heyd, D. (1992). Genetics. Moral issues in the creation of people (p. 2). Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- 12.Agazzi, E. (1998). Right, wrong and science. The ethical dimensions of the techno-scientific enterprise (p. 344). Moscow: Moscow philosophical fund (in Russian).Google Scholar
- 13.Habermas, U. (2002). Future of human nature. On the way to the liberal eugenics (p. 144). Moscow: Ves’mir (in Russian).Google Scholar
- 14.Fromm, E. (1994). Anatomy of human destructivity (p. 447). Moscow: Respublika (in Russian).Google Scholar
- 15.Grof, S. (2004). Cosmic playing. Investigation of human consciousness’ limits (p. 248). Moscow: Limited company “Public house AST and Co.” (in Russian).Google Scholar
- 16.European Commission. (2003). Synthetic biology applying engineering to biology (Report of a NEST High-Level Expert Group; Directorate General for Research. Eur. 21796) [online] (2003), available on the Internet: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nest/docs/syntheticbiology_b5_eur21796_en.pdf.
- 17.Naisbitt, J. (2005). High tech-high touch. Technology and our search of meaning (p. 381). Moscow: AST “Tranzitkniga” (in Russian).Google Scholar
- 18.Mamardashvili, M. (2000). Esthetic of thinking (p. 415). Moscow: Moscow School of Political Studies (in Russian).Google Scholar
- 19.Tabachkovskyy, V. (2005). Plural essence of Homo: Philosophical and humanistic idea looking for “noneuclidean reflectivity” (p. 432). Kiev: Parapan (in Ukrainian).Google Scholar
- 20.Sloterdijk, P. (2002). Kritik der zynischen Vernunft (p. 544). Kiev: Publish house “Tandem” (In Ukrainian).Google Scholar
- 21.Koppiters, B., Foushin, N., & Apresyan. R. (Eds.) (2002). Moral limitation of war: Problems and examples (p. 407). Moscow: Gardariki (in Russian).Google Scholar