Perceptions of Nano Ethics among Practitioners in a Developing Country: A Case of India
- 222 Downloads
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.
KeywordsCyborg Ethical issues India Nanotechnoscience Perception Practitioners
We are thankful to the Indian scientists and engineers, who participated in this study, for their valuable time and opinions. We thank Prof. Prajit K. Basu, Department of Philosophy, University of Hyderabad for his contribution to this study. We thank Dr. Abani K. Pradhan for providing valuable insights to draft versions of this paper. We thank Michael Skavarla of Cornell NanoScale Science and Technology Facility, Cornell University for introducing the concept of ‘cyborg insects’ to us. We are also thankful to the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions.
- 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.Crichton M (2002) Prey. HarperCollins Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 7.Hughes J (2004) Citizen cyborg: why democratic societies must respond to the redesigned human of the future. Westview Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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.Moore AJ, Parker RJ, Wiggins J (2008) Malignant mesothlioma. Orphanet J Rare Dis 3(34)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 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.Singer P, Salamanca-Buentello F, Daar AS (2005) Harnessing nanotechnology to improve global equity. Issues Sci Technol 21:57–64Google Scholar