, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 231–241 | Cite as

Practitioners’ Views on Responsibility: Applying Nanoethics

  • Rider W. Foley
  • Ira Bennett
  • Jameson M. Wetmore
Original Paper


Significant efforts have been made to define ethical responsibilities for professionals engaged in nanotechnology innovation. Rosalyn Berne delineated three ethical dimensions of nanotechnological innovation: non-negotiable concerns, negotiable socio-cultural claims, and tacitly ingrained norms. Braden Allenby demarcated three levels of responsibility: the individual, professional societies (e.g. engineering codes), and the macro-ethical. This article will explore how these definitions of responsibility map onto practitioners’ understanding of their responsibilities and the responsibilities of others using the nanotechnology innovation community of the greater Phoenix area, which includes academic researchers, investors, entrepreneurs, manufacturers, insurers, attorneys, buyers, and media. To do this we develop a three-by-three matrix that combines Berne’s three dimensions and Allenby’s three levels. We then categorize the ethical responsibilities expressed by forty-five practitioners in semi-structured interviews using these published dimensions and levels. Two questions guide the research: (i) what responsibilities do actors express as theirs and/or assign to other actors and; (ii) can those responsibilities be mapped to the presented ethical frameworks? We found that most of the responsibilities outlined by our respondents concentrate at the professional society + non-negotiable and professional + negotiable intersections. The study moves from a philosophical exploration of ethics to an empirical analysis, exploring strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the existing nanotechnology innovation network. This opens the door for new practitioners to be introduced in an effort to address responsibilities that are not currently recognized.


Applied ethics Nanotechnology Practitioner Responsibility 


  1. 1.
    Academic Research 1 (AR1). (2011) Personal Communication. 16 August 2011Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allenby B (2005) Macroethical systems and sustainability science. Sustain Sci 1:7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Angelo MJ (2010) Corn, carbon, and conservation: rethinking U.S. agricultural policy in a changing global environment. George Mason Law Review 17:593–660Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beard B (2012) Corner stones of Arizona’s future. The Arizona Republic. Feb. 11th, 2012Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berne RW (2005) Nanotalk: conversations with scientists and engineers about ethics, meaning, and belief in the development of nanotechnology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, MahwahCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berne RW (2008) Science Fiction, Nano-Ethics, and the Moral Imagination. In: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore JM (eds) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, vol. 1: Presenting Futures. Springer, New York, pp 291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    US Census (2010) Population Distribution and Change: 2000 – 2010. Retrieved 19 March 2012, from
  8. 8.
    Felbinger CL, Rohey JE (2001) Globalization’s Impact on state and local policy: the rise of regional cluster-based economic development strategies. Rev of Policy Res 18:63–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foley, RW & Wiek A (under review) Nanotechnology innovation: governance by urban actors. Review of Policy ResearchGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibson RB (2006) Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assess and Proj Apprais 24(3):170–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Government Funding Support 2 (GFS2) (2011) Personal Communication. 15 August 2011Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guston DH (2008) Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454(August):5–6Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24:93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harris CE Jr, Pritchard MS, Rabins MJ (2008) Engineering ethics: concepts and cases. Wadsworth Publishing, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herkert JR (2001) Future directions in engineering ethics research: microethics, macroethics and the role of professional societies. Sci Eng Ethics 7:403–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    IND4 (2011) Personal Communication. 10 August 2011Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    IND5 (2011) Personal Communication. 17 August 2011Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Industrial Representative 3 (IND3) (2011) Personal Communication. 1 August 2011Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Insurer 1 (INS1) (2011) Personal Communication. 25 August 2011Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Investor 1 (INV1) (2011) Personal Communication. 8 August 2011Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martin MW, Schinzinger R (2009) Introduction to engineering ethics. McGraw Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McGregor J, Wetmore JM (2009) Researching and teaching the ethics and social implications of emerging technologies in the laboratory. NanoEthics 3:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meadows DH, Club of Rome (1974)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Media Representative 2 (MED2). Personal Communication. 1 September 2011Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mu D, Seager TP, Rao PSC, Park J, Zhao F (2011) A resilience perspective on biofuels production. Integr Environ Assess Manag 7:348–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Science Foundation (NSF) (2011) Award and administrative guide. Retrieved 13 May 2012, from
  27. 27.
    Non-Governmental Organization 2 (NGO2). (2011) Personal Communication. 19 September 2011Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Norton BG (2005) Sustainability: a philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    NSF (2012) National Science Foundation, About NSF. Retrieved 12 May 2012, from
  30. 30.
    Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanoparticle Res 8(2):153–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rosenberg C (1976) Science and social values in nineteenth-century America: a case study in the growth of scientific institutions. In: Rosenberg C (ed) No other gods: on science and American social thought. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 135–152Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wetmore J (2012) The value of the social sciences for maximizing the public benefit of engineering, The Bridge, (Fall) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Youtie J, Shapira P (2011) Metropolitan development of nanotechnology: concentration or dispersion. In: Cozzens S, Wetmore J (eds) Yearbook of nanotechnology in society, volume II: The challenges of equity, equality, and development. Springer, New York, pp 165–180Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Philbrick M, Barandiaran J (2009) The National Citizens’ Technology Forum: Lessons for the future. Sci Pub Policy 36:335–347.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rider W. Foley
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ira Bennett
    • 2
  • Jameson M. Wetmore
    • 2
  1. 1.School of SustainabilityArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Consortium for Science, Policy & OutcomesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations