Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nanoethics—A Collaboration Across Disciplines

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

Abstract

The field of nanoscience and nanotechnology is expanding rapidly, promising great benefits for society in the form of better medicine, more efficient energy production, new types of materials, etc. Naturally, in order for the science and technology to live up to these promises, it is important to continue scientific research and development, but equally important is the ethical dimension. Giving attention to the social, ethical and legal aspects of the field, among others, will help in developing a fully responsible—and thereby capable—science and technology. Nanoethics has emerged as a field concerned with such ethical issues related to nanoscience and nanotechnology. Even though this field is relatively new, a significant amount of literature has already been published. This paper focuses on three of the major issues which are discussed in the literature of nanoethics, and also points to a certain bias in this literature. Each quite different in nature, these issues are: (1) The naming and (2) the timing of and approach to the field, as well as (3) the issue of safety. As will be seen, these issues are almost exclusively discussed by ethicists, (throughout the article, the term’ethicist’ is used in a broad definition covering philosophers, social and political scientists as well as philosophers of science) thus having no direct influence on the work being carried out by scientists. One can argue, therefore, that this bias creates a distortion of the ethical debate, making it insufficient and misleading. Ultimately, this bias is caused by the lack of communication and collaboration between ethicists on the one hand, and nanoscientists on the other. Thus, an argument is made for the different disciplines to begin collaborating, so as to more effectively and responsibly develop the field of nanoscience.

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

Notes

  1. ‘Modulation’ as a term was introduced by Arie Rip, Professor of Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Twente, The Netherlands It is used as an alternative to more forceful ways of bringing about change [35]

References

  1. Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Castro P, Esmer Y, Fischler C, Jackson J, Kronberger N, Hampel J, Mejlgaard N, Quintanilha A, Rammer A, Revuelta G, Stoneman P, Torgersen H, Wagner W (2010) Europeans and biotechnology—winds of change? European Commission Directorate-General for Research Communication Unit

  2. Hartsell L, Weckert J, Pogge T (2011) Nanoscience, ethics and progress. The poor and advanced technologies. 2011 International Conference on Nanoscience, Technology and Societal Implications. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6111991

  3. Jamison A (2009) Can nanotechnology be just? On nanotechnology and the emerging movement for global justice. NanoEthics 3:129–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ebbesen M (2009) The principle of justice and access to nanomedicine in national healthcare systems. Stud Ethics Law Technol 3(3):Article 5

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ferrari A (2010) Developments in the debate on nanoethics: traditional approaches and the need for a new kind of analysis. NanoEthics 4:27–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brownsword R (2009) Nanoethics: old wine, new bottles? J Consum Policy 32:355–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Meetoo D (2009) Nanotechnology: is there a need for ethical principles? Br J Nurs 18(20):1264–1268

    Google Scholar 

  8. Godman M (2008) But is it unique to nanotechnology? Sci Eng Ethics 14:391–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Allhoff F, Lin P (2006) What’s so special about nanotechnology and nanoethics? Int J Appl Philos 20(2):179–190

    Google Scholar 

  10. McGinn RE (2010) What’s different, ethically, about nanotechnology?: Foundational questions and answers. NanoEthics 4:115–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kagawa C (2009) Neuroethics and bioethics—implications of balkanization controversy. Brain Nerve 61(1):11–17

    Google Scholar 

  12. van de Poel I (2008) How should we do nanoethics? A network approach for discerning ethical issues in nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2:25–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Allhoff F (2007) On the autonomy and justification of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1(3):185–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Weil V (2003) Zeroing in on ethical issues in nanotechnology. Proc IEEE 91(11):1976–1979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Grunwald A (2010) From speculative nanoethics to explorative philosophy of nanotechnology. NanoEthics 4:91–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ebbesen M, Andersen S, Besenbacher F (2006) Ethics in nanotechnology: starting from scratch? Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(6):451–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lin P (2007) In defense of nanoethics: a reply to Adam Keiper. www.nanoethics.org—the ethics and societal impact of nanotechnology, (30-08-2011)

  18. Mnyuisiwalla A, Daar AS, Singer PA (2003) Mind the gap: science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14:R9–R13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Roache R (2008) Ethics, speculation, and values. NanoEthics 2:317–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Keiper A (2007) Nanoethics as a discipline? The New Atlantis (Spring):55–67

  22. Nordmann A (2007) If and then: a critique of speculative nanoethics. NanoEthics 1:31–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2008) Risk management principles for nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2:48–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992) The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. http://www.unesco.org/education/information/nfsunesco/pdf/RIO_E.PDF

  25. Koepsell D (2010) On genies and bottles: scientists’ moral responsibility and dangerous R&D. Sci Eng Ethics 16:119–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kuzma J, Besley JC (2008) Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: from bio- to nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2:149–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Costa HS, SetheS PAP, Olsson IAS (2011) Scientists’ perception of ethical issues in nanomedicine: a case study. Nanomedicine 6(4):681–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wolpe PR (2006) Reasons scientists avoid thinking about ethics. Cell 125:1023–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sparrow R (2008) Talkin’ ‘bout a (nanotechnological) revolution. Technol Soc Mag IEEE 27(2):37–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Legge JS, Durant RF (2010) Public opinion, risk assessment, and biotechnology: lessons from attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union. Rev Policy Res 27(1):59–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bonny S (2003) Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe. Electron J Biotechnol 6(1):50–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. McGinn R (2010) Ethical responsibilities of nanotechnology researchers: a short guide. NanoEthics 4:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dubochet J (2008) Citizen biologists. The Lausanne experience. EMBO Rep 9(1):5–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dubochet J (2009) Genomics for citizens. EMBO Rep 10(10):1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rip A (2006) Aco-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance—and its ironies. In: Voss J, Bauknecht D, Kemp R (eds) Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 82–100

    Google Scholar 

  36. Fisher E (2007) Ethnographic invention: probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics 1:155–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Schuurbiers D, Fisher E (2009) Lab-scale intervention. EMBO Rep 10(5):424–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Fisher E, Mahajan R (2006) Midstream modulation of nanotechnology in an academic laboratory. In Proceedings of IMECE2006: American Society of Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, November 5–10. Chicago, IL, USA: ASME

  39. Webster A (2007) Crossing boundaries: social science in the policy room. Sci Technol Hum Values 32:458–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Bioethics and Nanoethics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Anna Julie Rasmussen, Mette Ebbesen & Svend Andersen

  2. Interdisciplinary Nanoscience Centre, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Anna Julie Rasmussen

  3. Centre for Bioethics and Nanoethics, Faculty of Arts, Aarhus University, Jens Chr. Skous Vej 5, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Anna Julie Rasmussen

Authors
  1. Anna Julie Rasmussen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mette Ebbesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Svend Andersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Julie Rasmussen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rasmussen, A.J., Ebbesen, M. & Andersen, S. Nanoethics—A Collaboration Across Disciplines. Nanoethics 6, 185–193 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0156-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0156-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation