NanoEthics

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 67–75 | Cite as

Perceptions of Nano Ethics among Practitioners in a Developing Country: A Case of India

  • Debasmita Patra
  • E. Haribabu
  • Katherine A. McComas
Original Paper

Abstract

Many developing countries have allocated significant amounts of funding for nanoscience and nanotechnology research, yet compared to developed countries, there has been little study, discussion, or debate over social and ethical issues. Using in-depth interviews, this study focuses on the perceptions of practitioners, that is, scientists and engineers, in one developing country: India. The disciplinary background, departmental affiliation, types of institutions, age, and sex of the practitioners varied but did not appear to affect their responses. The results show that 95% of the Indian practitioners working in the area of nanoscience and nanotechnology research recognized ethical issues in this research area, and 60% of them could offer specific examples, which included possible ill effects on environment and human, use as a weapon, hype, professional ethics, laboratory testing on animals, cyborgs, widening the gap between rich and poor, self-replication, and longevity of human life. The results may offer opportunities for future cross-cultural research, as well as offer examples that can be used to raise the awareness of other practitioners in India and elsewhere regarding the importance of ethical issues.

Keywords

Cyborg Ethical issues India Nanotechnoscience Perception Practitioners 

References

  1. 1.
    Bhabra G, Sood A, Fisher B, Cartwright L, Saunders M, Evans WH, Surprenant A, Lopez-Castejon G, Mann S, Davis SA, Hails LA, Ingham E, Verkade P, Lane J, Heesom K, Newson R, Case CP (2009). Nanoparticles can cause DNA damage across a cellular barrier. Nature Nanotechnology. Published online November 5, 2009, and retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nnano.2009.313.html
  2. 2.
    Crichton M (2002) Prey. HarperCollins Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dhawan A, Taurozzi JS, Pandey AK, Shan W, Miller SM, Hashsham SA, Tarabara VV (2006) Stable colloidal dispersions of C60 fullerenes in water: evidence for genotoxicity. Environ Sci Technol 40:7394–7401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gilbert N (2009) Nanoparticiple safety in doubt. Nature 460:937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giles J (2005) Taking on the cheats. Nature 435:258–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Godman M (2008) But is it unique to nanotechnology? Sci Eng Ethics 14:391–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hughes J (2004) Citizen cyborg: why democratic societies must respond to the redesigned human of the future. Westview Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hunt G (2007) The global ethics of nanotechnology. In: Hunt G, Mehta MD (eds) Nanotechnology: risk, ethics and law. Earthscan, London, pp 183–195Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kjølberg K, Wickson F (2007) Social and ethical interactions with nano: mapping the early literature. Nanoethics 1:89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maynard AD, Aitken RJ, Butz T, Colvin V, Donaldson K, Oberdörster G, Philbert MA, Ryan J, Seaton A, Stone V, Tinkle SS, Tran L, Walker NJ, Warheit DB (2006) Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444:267–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McGinn R (2008) Ethics and nanotechnology: views of nanotechnology researchers. Nanoethics 2:101–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mnyusiwalla A, Daar AS, Singer PA (2003) Mind the gap: science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14:R9–R13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moor JH, Weckert J (2004) Nanoethics: assessing the nanoscale from an ethical point of view. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 301–310Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moore AJ, Parker RJ, Wiggins J (2008) Malignant mesothlioma. Orphanet J Rare Dis 3(34)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Myllynen P (2009) Nanotoxicology: damaging DNA from a distance. Nat Nanotechnol 4:795–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nel A, Xia T, Mädler L, Li N (2006) Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311:622–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nat Nanotechnol 4:273–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nordmann A (2004) Molecular disjunctions: staking claims at the nanoscale. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 51–62Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oberdorster E (2004) Fullerenes and fish brains. Environ Health Perspect 112:A 568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Patra D, Haribabu E, Basu PK (2009) Nanoscience and nanotechnology: ethical, legal, social and environmental issues. Curr Sci 96(5):651–657Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schummer J (2007) Identifying ethical issues of nanotechnologies. In: ten Have HAMJ (ed) Nanotechnology: science, ethics and politics. UNESCO, Paris, pp 79–98Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Singer P, Salamanca-Buentello F, Daar AS (2005) Harnessing nanotechnology to improve global equity. Issues Sci Technol 21:57–64Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Strauss A (1987) Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sweeney AE, Seal S, Vaidyanathan P (2003) The promises and perils of nanoscience and nanotechnology: exploring emerging social and ethical issues. Bull Sci Technol Soc 23:236–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weil V (2003) Zeroing in on ethical issues in nanotechnology. Proc IEEE 91:1976–1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debasmita Patra
    • 1
  • E. Haribabu
    • 2
  • Katherine A. McComas
    • 3
  1. 1.Cornell NanoScale Science and Technology FacilityCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of HyderabadHyderabadIndia
  3. 3.Department of CommunicationCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations