Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Invigorating ‘Nanoethics’: Recommendations for Improving Deliberations in Taiwan and Beyond

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nanotechnology is the new(est) star in the high technologies sky. While nanotechnologies remain technologies of promise and potential, a growing number of nano-materials and nano-particle-reliant products are being produced. And although a growing number of academic, policy and industry reports are exploring nanotechnologies, there are very few genuine ethical assessments of nanotechnologies as they exist and might evolve in the coming years. Many questions have yet to be answered about the nature, development, and social and commercial deployment of nanotechnologies and what that means for the human condition and the preservation of our core values. We argue that the early and potentially risky nature of this interdisciplinary science does not justify a blinkered focus on risk assessment and management to the detriment of deep and ranging ethical evaluations. Much improved ethics evaluations must be undertaken, particularly in Taiwan where very little has happened despite grand expectations for, and funding of, the science. In this paper, we uncover the development imperatives for nanotechnologies, demonstrate the paucity of genuine nanoethics exercises, outline key questions for stakeholders undertaking nanoethics exercises to consider, and we articulate some preliminary actions for Taiwan (and other similarly situated jurisdictions).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aitken R et al (2004) Nanoparticles: an occupational hygiene review: HSE research report 274. Health & Safety Executive Books, Norwich

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arendt H (1958) The human condition. CUP, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  3. Atlan H (1999) Les Étincelles du Hasard. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baird D, Shew A (2004) Probing the history of scanning tunnelling microscopy. In: Baird D et al (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS, Amsterdam, pp 145–156

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bawa R et al (2005) Protecting new ideas and inventions in nanomedicine with patents. Nanomedicine 1:150–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Benjamin W (1968) In: Arendt H (ed) Illuminations: essays and reflections. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, NY

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bhushan D (ed) (2005) Handbook of nanotechnology, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cheng TJ (2010) Risk perception and policy research of nanotechnology, report of environmental protection administration project EPA-99-U1U1-02-101

  9. Chou KT (2007) Conflicts of technology policy and governance paradigm. Issues Stud 43:97–130

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cobb M, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Drexler E et al (2003) Unbounding the future: the nanotechnology revolution. Quill Books, NY

    Google Scholar 

  12. D’Silva J (2009) Pools, thickets and open source nanotechnology. Eur Intellect Property Rev 31:300–306

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dupuy JP (2007) Some pitfalls in the philosophical foundations of nanoethics. J Med Philos 32:237–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Expert Panel on Nanotechnology (2008) Small is different: a science perspective on the regulatory challenges of the nanoscale. Council of Canadian Academies, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ferrari A, Nordmann A (2010) Beyond conversation: some lessons for nanoethics. NanoEthics 4:171–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Feynman R (1959, December) There’s plenty of room at the bottom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Physical Society, California

  17. Fischer D (2008) Nanotechnology–scientific and regulatory challenges. Villanova Environ Law J 19:315–333

    Google Scholar 

  18. Foladori G et al (2009) Two dimensions of the ethical problems related to nanotechnology. NanoEthics 3:121–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Friedrichs S, Schulte J (2007) Environmental, health and safety aspects of nanotechnology: implications for the R&D in small company. Sci Tech Adv Mater 8:12–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gaskell G et al (2005) Imaging nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Publ Understand Sci 14:81–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Harmon S (2006) From engagement to re-engagement: the expression of moral values in patenting proceedings, present and future. Eur Law Rev 31:642–666

    Google Scholar 

  22. Harmon S (2006) Solidarity: a (new) ethic for global health policy. Health Care Anal 14:215–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Harmon S (2008) Ethical rhetoric: genomics and the moral content of UNESCO’s ‘Universal’ declarations. J Med Ethics 34:e24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Harmon S (2010) Regulation of stem cell and regenerative science: stakeholder opinions, plurality and actor space in the argentine social/science setting. Law Innovat Tech 2:95–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Harmon S, Kim NK (2008) A tale of two standards: drift and inertia in modern Korean medical law. SCRIPTed 5(2):267–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hart Research Associates (2007) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies: a report of findings. Available at http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Nanotechnologies/Hart_NanoPoll_2007.pdf [accessed 5 April 2010]

  27. Helland Å (2004) Nanoparticles: a closer look at the risks to human health and the environment perceptions and precautionary measures of industry and regulatory bodies in Europe. Available at http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1329339&fileOId=1329340 [accessed 5 April 2010]

  28. Hullman A, Frycek R (2007) Results from the ‘international IPR in nanotechnology–lessons from experiences worldwide’. World Patent Inform 29:395–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hullman A, Meyer M (2003) Publications and patents in nanotechnology: an overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Sci Metrics 58:507–527

    Google Scholar 

  30. Johnson D (2007) Ethics and technology ‘in the making’: an essay on the challenges of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1:21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jones D (2006) Enhancement: are ethicists excessively influenced by baseless speculation? J Med Ethics 32:77–81

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kallinger C et al (2008) Patenting nanotechnology: a European patent office perspective. Nano Law Bus 5:95–106

    Google Scholar 

  33. Koepsell D (2009) Let’s get small: an introduction to transitional issues in nanotech and intellectual property. NanoEthics 3:157–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lemley M (2005) Patenting nanotechnology. Stanford Law Rev 58:601–630

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lin KM (2008) Technology policy democratization: possibility and limitation–an example of GMO consensus conference in Taiwan. Available at http://www.nsc.gov.tw/scicircus/public/Attachment/95149145471.pdf

  36. Manoharan H et al (2000) Quantum mirages formed by coherent projection of electronic structure. Nature 403:512–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Marchant G et al (2008) Risk management principles for nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2:43–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Maynard A et al (2006) Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444:267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mody C (2006) Corporations, universities and instrumental communities: commercialising probe microscopy, 1981–1996. Technol Cult 47:56–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. National Science Council (2002, June) National science and technology programme for nanoscience and nanotechnology, approved by the 157th NSC Board Meeting. Available at http://nano-taiwan.sinica.edu.tw/newsen.asp

  41. National Science Council, Eighth National Science and Technology Conference, Taipei, 12–15 January 2009

  42. National Science Council (2009) Risk perceptions about nanotechnology in Taiwan. Available at http://www.epa.gov.tw/FileDownload/FileHandler.ashx?FLID=15096

  43. Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nat Nanotech 4:273–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Nowotny H et al (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  45. Palmberg C et al (2009) OECD working paper 2009/7: nanotechnology: an overview based on indicators and statistics. OECD, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the public: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health Risk Soc 9:191–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Powell M (2007) New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? how scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. Health Risk Soc 9:173–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ratner M, Ratner D (2003) Nanotechnology: a gentle introduction to the next big idea. Prentice Hall, NY

    Google Scholar 

  49. Renn O, Roco M (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nano Res 8:153–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rip A (1997) A cognitive approach to relevance in science. Soc Sci Inf 38:615–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Rip A (2011, June) How to integrate future and speculative possibilities with ongoing and embedded dynamics of development. Paper presented at the Implanted Smart Technologies Project Research Retreat, Prague

  52. Roco M, Bainbridge M (eds) (2001) NSET workshop report: societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Available at http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/nanosi.pdf [accessed 1 April 2010]

  53. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2006) Reflecting upon the UK’s Citizens’ jury on nanotechnologies: nanojury UK. Nanotech L Bus 3:167–180

    Google Scholar 

  54. Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. RS/RAE, London

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sarewitz D (1996) Frontiers of illusion: science, technology and the politics of progress. Temple University Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sheetz T et al (2005) Nanotechnology: awareness and societal concerns. Technol Soc 27:329–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Song SY (2006) The rise and fall of embryonic stem cell research in Korea. Asian Biotechnol Dev Rev 9:65–73

    Google Scholar 

  58. Swierstra T, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1:3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Symonides J (ed) (1998) Human rights: new dimensions and challenges. Ashgate, England

    Google Scholar 

  60. Tai TH, Chiou WT (2008) Equality and community in public deliberation: genetic democracy in Taiwan. In: Launis V, Räikkä J (eds) Genetic democracy: philosophical perspectives. Springer, Munich, pp 105–120

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  61. Taiwan Government. Available at http://nano-taiwan.sinica.edu.tw/ProjectEn.asp?S=1

  62. Taiwan Science, Technology & Society Association. See http://www.tw-sts.org/

  63. Taiwan STS Network. See http://stsweb.ym.edu.tw/

  64. Uldrich J, Newberry D (2003) The next big thing is really small: how nanotechnology will change the future of your business. Random House, NY

    Google Scholar 

  65. Wang SH (2002, September) Special report: nanoscience is the engine for new industrial revolution. Commercial Times

  66. Wilkinson C et al (2007) From uncertainty to risk: scientific and news media portrayals of nanoparticle safety. Health Risk Soc 9:145–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Williams R (2006) Compressed foresight and narrative bias: pitfalls in assessing high technology futures. Sci Cult 15:327–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Yen SY, Harmon S, Tang SM (2011) Genomics, biobanks and governance: challenges for Taiwan biobank—the case of indigenous peoples. Submitted to Issues & Studies

  69. Zhou W (2003) Symposium review: ethics of nanobiotechnology at the frontline. Santa Clara Comput High Tech Law J 19:481–489

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Redacted for anonymity.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Innogen, ESRC Centre for Social Economic Research on Innovation in Genomics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Shawn H. E. Harmon

  2. SCRIPT, School of Law, AHRC Centre for Research on Intellectual Property and Technology Law, University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL, UK

    Shawn H. E. Harmon

  3. Graduate Institute of Management of Technology, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan

    Shang-Yung Yen

  4. Department of Financial & Economic Law, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan

    Shu-Mei Tang

Authors
  1. Shawn H. E. Harmon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shang-Yung Yen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shu-Mei Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shawn H. E. Harmon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harmon, S.H.E., Yen, SY. & Tang, SM. Invigorating ‘Nanoethics’: Recommendations for Improving Deliberations in Taiwan and Beyond. Nanoethics 5, 309–318 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-011-0131-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-011-0131-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation