NanoEthics

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 17–30 | Cite as

Researching and Teaching the Ethics and Social Implications of Emerging Technologies in the Laboratory

Original Paper

Abstract

Ethicists and others who study and teach the social implications of science and technology are faced with a formidable challenge when they seek to address “emerging technologies.” The topic is incredibly important, but difficult to grasp because not only are the precise issues often unclear, what the technology will ultimately look like can be difficult to discern. This paper argues that one particularly useful way to overcome these difficulties is to engage with their natural science and engineering colleagues in laboratories. Through discussions and interactions with these colleagues ethicists can simultaneously achieve three important objectives. First they can get a great deal of assistance in their research into the social implications of future technologies by talking with people that are actively creating those futures. Second their presence in the lab and the discussions that result can be a very powerful method for educating not only students, but faculty about the ramifications of their work. And third, because the education is directly linked to the students’ everyday work it is likely that it will not just be a theoretical exercise, but have direct impact on their practice.

Keywords

Emerging technologies Ethics Laboratories 

References

  1. 1.
    National Science and Technology Council (1999) Nanotechnology: shaping the world atom by atom. National Science and Technology Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance: nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. National Science Foundation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kurzweil R (2006) The singularity is near: when humans transcend biology. Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crow M, Sarewitz D (2001) Nanotechnology and societal transformation. In: Teich AH et al (ed) AAAS science and technology policy yearbook. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, pp 89–101Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kulinowski KM (2004) Nanotechnology: from ‘wow’ to ‘yuck’? Bull Sci Technol Soc 24:13–20, doi:10.1177/0270467604263112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCray WP (2005) Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future. Hist Technol 21(2):177–203, doi:10.1080/07341510500103735 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berube DM (2006) Nano-hype: The truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NYGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eric Drexler E, Peterson C, Pergamit G (1993) Unbounding the future: the nanotechnology revolution. Quill Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller G (2008) Contemplating the implications of a nanotechnology “revolution”. In: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore J (eds) The yearbook of nanotechnology in society, volume I: presenting futures. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    See, for example Group ETC (2004) Down on the farm: the impact of nano-scale technologies on food and agriculture, November. Available at http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=80
  11. 11.
    Parens E (ed) (2000) Enhancing human traits: ethical and social implications. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Woodhouse EJ, Sarewitz D (2004) Small is powerful. In: Lightman AP, Sarewitz DR, Desser C (eds) Living with the genie: essays on technology and the quest for human mastery. Island, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 23(4):93–109, doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson D, Wetmore JM (2008) Technology & society: Building our socio-technical future. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ABET (2004) Accreditation board for engineering and technology, engineering accreditation commission, “criteria for accrediting engineering programs. ABET, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Faden R, Kass N et al (2002) On the importance of research ethics and mentoring. Am J Bioeth 2:50–51, doi:10.1162/152651602320957565 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Macrina FL (2005) Scientific integrity: text and cases in responsible conduct of research, 3rd edn. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Latour B, Woolgar S (1979) Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Traweek S (1992) Beamtimes and lifetimes: the world of high energy physics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vinck D (ed) (2003) Everyday engineering: An ethnography of design and innovation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mody CM (2005) The sounds of science: listening to laboratory practice. Sci Technol Human Values 30:175–198, doi:10.1177/0162243903261951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baum RJ, Flores A (eds) (1980) Ethical problems in engineering. Center for the Study of the Human Dimensions of Science and Technology, Troy, NYGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baum RJ (1980) Ethics and the engineering curriculum, volume 7 of the teaching of ethics. The Hastings Center, Hastings-on-Hudson, NYGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martin MW, Schinzinger R (2005) Ethical issues in engineering, 4th edn. McGraw Hill, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fisher E (2007) Ethnographic invention: probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics 1(2):155–165, doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0016-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Berne R (2006) Nanotalk: conversations with scientists and engineers about ethics, meaning, and belief in the development of nanotechnology. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    City of Berkeley Community Environmental Advisory Commission (2008) Manufactured nanoparticle health and safety disclosure,” December 5, 2006. In: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore J (eds) Yearbook of nanotechnology in society: presenting futures. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rip A, Misa TJ, Schot J (eds) (1995) Managing technology in society: the approach of constructive technology assessment. Pinter, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Joy B (2000) Why the future doesn’t need us. WIRED Mag 8(4):238–262Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kurzweil R, Joy B (2005) “Recipe for destruction” Op ed, New York Times (October 17)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brown, Kalichman (1998) Effects of training in the responsible conduct of research: a survey of graduate students in experimental sciences. Sci Eng Ethics 4(4):487–498, doi:10.1007/s11948-998-0041-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Johnson D, Wetmore J (2008) Technology & society: building our socio-technical future. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Whitbeck C (2001) Group mentoring to foster the responsible conduct of research. Sci Eng Ethics 7(4):541–558, doi:10.1007/s11948-001-0012-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Woolf P (2001) Trustworthy research: commentary on ‘group mentoring to foster the responsible conduct of research,’. Sci Eng Ethics 7:559–562, doi:10.1007/s11948-001-0013-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Berne R (2006) Nanotalk: conversations with scientists and engineers about ethics, meaning, and belief in the development of nanotechnology. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wetmore J (2006) Book review of nanotalk. Sci Eng Ethics 12(3):583–584, doi:10.1007/s11948-006-0056-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Berne R (2006) Nanotalk: Conversations with scientists and engineers about ethics, meaning, and belief in the development of nanotechnology. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 23(4):93–109, doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schot J, Rip A (1996) The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change 54:251–268, doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Willis R, Wilsdon J (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Allenby B (2005) Micro and macro ethics for an anthropogenic earth. Prof Ethics Rep 18(2):1–3Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fisher E, Majajan R (2006) Contradictory intent: US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. Sci Public Policy 33(1):5–16, doi:10.3152/147154306781779181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Consortium of Science Policy & Outcomes, School of Human Evolution & Social ChangeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations