Skip to main content

Development and Pilot Testing of an Evidence-Based Training Module for Integrating Social and Ethical Implications into the Lab

NanoEthics volume 13, pages 37–52 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

In this project, we (1) explore perceptions of the social and ethical implications (SEI) of nanotechnology among US scientists who work at the nanoscale, and (2) develop and pilot test an online training module to foster consideration of social and ethical implications in the lab. To meet our first goal, we drew qualitative insights from open-ended survey data collected from scientists affiliated with the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network. Our data suggest that while the survey participants responded positively to the idea that consideration of SEI should be a part of the work they do, there was confusion about whether SEI refers to lab safety, research integrity, or something more. This is something we sought to address in the online training module that we developed based on that qualitative data and on feedback collected from experts in nanoethics and lab management. We then pilot tested the module with undergraduate students studying nanotechnology in the National Science Foundation’s Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program and with scientists registered to use a National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure-funded microelectronics research lab. The undergraduate data suggested that students appreciated the SEI training but wished professors and scientists would begin integrating the ideas therein into coursework and mentoring. The scientist data suggested that the module increased understanding of “social and ethical implications,” increased the perceived need to implement SEI into workplace routines, and, interestingly, heightened perceptions of risk associated with the scientists’ own work. The practical and theoretical implications of this work are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1

References

  1. Howard CV, Ikah DSK (2006) Nanotechnology and nanoparticles toxicity: a case study of precaution. In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology: risk, ethics and law. Earthscan, London, pp 154–166

  2. Jahnel J (2015) Conceptual questions and challenges associated with the traditional risk assessment paradigm for nanomaterials. Nanoethics 9(3):261–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brey P (2017) Ethics of emerging technologies. In: Hansson SO (ed), The ethics of technology. Methods and approaches. Rowman and Littlefield International, London, pp 175–192

  4. Khan A (2015) Ethical and social implications of nanotechnology. QScience Proceedings 2015(4):57. https://doi.org/10.5339/qproc.2015.elc2014.57

  5. Merton RK (1938) Science and the social order. Philos Sci 5(3):321–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Galston AW (1972) Science and social responsibility: a case history. Ann N Y Acad Sci 196(4):223–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Commission E (2004) Towards a European strategy on nanotechnology. Brussels, Belgium

  9. Committee HoCSaT (2004) Too little too late? Government investment in nanotechnology. Fifth report of session 2003–2004. House of Commons, London

  10. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance: integrating from the nanoscale. J Nanopart Res 4(4):281–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wood S, Geldart A, Jones R (2008) Crystallizing the nanotechnology debate. Tech Anal Strat Manag 20(1):13–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. $81 million to support new National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure. (2015). https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=136211. Accessed 13 June 2018

  13. Palmberg C, Dernis H, Miguet C (2009) Nanotechnology: an overview based on indicators and statistics. (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2009/07), OECD Publishing, Paris 

  14. Office USGP (2003) The 21st century nanotechnology research and development act. Washington, DC

  15. Amato I, Carroll L (1999) Nanotechnology: shaping the world atom by atom. National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering, and Technology, Washington, DC

  16. Ferrari A (2010) Developments in the debate on nanoethics: traditional approaches and the need for new kinds of analysis. NanoEthics 4(1):27–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Drexler KE (2000) Engines of creation: the coming era of nanotechnology. Foresight Institute, Los Altos (orig. 1986)

  18. Omlor AJ, Nguyen J, Bals R, Dinh QT (2015) Nanotechnology in respiratory medicine. Respir Res 16(1):64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Allhoff F (2007) Nanoethics: the ethical and social implications of nanotechnology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken

  20. Bacchini F (2013) Is nanotechnology giving rise to new ethical problems? Nanoethics 7(2):107–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bennett-Woods D (2008) Nanotechnology: ethics and society. CRC press, Boca Raton

  22. Corley EA, Kim Y, Scheufele DA (2016) Scientists’ ethical obligations and social responsibility for nanotechnology research. Sci Eng Ethics 22(1):111–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gordijn B, Cutter AM (2014) In pursuit of nanoethics: an introduction. In: Gordijn B, Cutter AM (eds), In pursuit of nanoethics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–11

  24. Macnaghten P, Kearnes MB, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27(2):268–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McGinn R (2008) Ethics and nanotechnology: views of nanotechnology researchers. Nanoethics 2(2):101–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. McGinn RE (2010) What’s different, ethically, about nanotechnology?: foundational questions and answers. Nanoethics 4(2):115–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rasmussen AJ, Ebbesen M, Andersen S (2012) Nanoethics—a collaboration across disciplines. Nanoethics 6(3):185–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cutcliffe SH, Pense CM, Zvalaren M (2012) Framing the discussion: nanotechnology and the social construction of technology--what STS scholars are saying. NanoEthics 6(2):81–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Grunwald A (2005) Nanotechnology—a new field of ethical inquiry? Sci Eng Ethics 11(2):187–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih T-J, Hillback E, Guston DH (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2(12):732–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Viseu A, Maguire H (2012) Integrating and enacting ‘social and ethical issues’ in nanotechnology practices. NanoEthics 6(3):195–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kahlor LA, Dudo A, Liang M-C, Lazard AJ, AbiGhannam N (2016) Ethics information seeking and sharing among scientists: the case of nanotechnology. Sci Commun 38(1):74–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Olmstead M, Bassett D (2009) Teaching nanoethics to graduate students. In: Bassett D, Wysocki A, Brainard S (eds) Monograph: nanoethics graduate education symposium. Center for Workforce Development, University of Washington, Seattle, pp 131–140

  36. Patra D (2011) Responsible development of nanoscience and nanotechnology: contextualizing socio-technical integration into the nanofabrication laboratories in the USA. NanoEthics 5(2):143–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Miller RL (1976) Mere exposure, psychological reactance and attitude change. Public Opin Q 40(2):229–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kjølberg K, Wickson F (2007) Social and ethical interactions with nano: mapping the early literature. NanoEthics 1(2):89–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kjølberg KL, Strand R (2011) Conversations about responsible nanoresearch. NanoEthics 5(1):99–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Allenby B (2006) Macroethical systems and sustainability science. Sustain Sci 1(1):7–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fisher E, Maricle G (2014) Higher-level responsiveness? Socio-technical integration within US and UK nanotechnology research priority setting. Sci Public Policy 42(1):72–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. McGregor J, Wetmore JM (2009) Researching and teaching the ethics and social implications of emerging technologies in the laboratory. Nanoethics 3(1):17–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Foley RW, Bennett I, Wetmore JM (2012) Practitioners’ views on responsibility: applying nanoethics. NanoEthics 6(3):231–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K (1988) An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q 15(4):351–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Arthur W Jr, Bennett W Jr, Edens PS, Bell ST (2003) Effectiveness of training in organizations: a meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. J Appl Psychol 88(2):234–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Christian LM, Dillman DA, Smyth JD (2008) The effects of mode and format on answers to scalar questions in telephone and web surveys. Advances in Telephone Survey Methodology 12:250–275

    Google Scholar 

  47. Scott J, Carrington PJ (2011) The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. SAGE publications, London

  48. Stern PN (1980) Grounded theory methodology: its uses and processes. J Nurs Scholarsh 12(1):20–23

    Google Scholar 

  49. Silva Costa H, Sethe S, Pêgo AP, Olsson IAS (2011) Scientists’ perception of ethical issues in nanomedicine: a case study. Nanomedicine 6(4):681–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Bronfenbrenner U (1977) Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Am Psychol 32(7):513–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Griffin RJ, Dunwoody S, Neuwirth K (1999) Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environ Res 80(2):S230–S245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kahlor L (2010) PRISM: a planned risk information seeking model. Health Commun 25(4):345–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Eosco GM, Tallapragada M, McComas KA, Brady M (2014) Exploring societal and ethical views of nanotechnology REUs. NanoEthics 8(1):91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. National Academy of Sciences, N. A. (2009) On being a scientist: a guide to responsible conduct in research. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Download references

Funding

This study received funding from National Science Foundation National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure grant ECCS-1542159 and the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network Social and Ethical Issues Seed Grant Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stan Richards School of Advertising and Public Relations, The University of Texas at Austin, 300 W. Dean Keeton (A1200), Austin, TX, 78712-1069, USA

    Lee Ann Kahlor & Xiaoshan Li

  2. Peace Corps Benin, Cotonou, Benin

    Jacy Jones

Authors
  1. Lee Ann Kahlor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaoshan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jacy Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lee Ann Kahlor.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Screenshots of content from the SEI training module

figure a

Appendix 2. Study 2 scientist survey

The following survey items ask you to think about the social and ethical implications of nanotechnology. We leave these terms open to your interpretation.

  1. 1.

    When you hear the phrase “the social and ethical implications of nanotechnology,” what does this phrase mean to you? Here we are just looking for your interpretation of the phrase. (Essay response)

Next, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements (these were formatted as 5-point agree-disagree or likelihood scales).

  1. 2.

    I am familiar with some of the ethical and/or social concerns posed by nanotechnology.

  2. 3.

    I have thought about the social and/or ethical implications of nanotechnology.

  3. 4.

    I have come across information about the social and/or ethical implications of nanotechnology.

  4. 5.

    There is a need for implementing the consideration of nanoethics into my routine practices.

  5. 6.

    How likely is it that you will be impacted by the potential risks posed by nanotechnology?

  6. 7.

    How likely is it that your workplace will be impacted by the potential risks posed by nanotechnology?

  7. 8.

    How likely is it that the environment will be impacted by the potential risks posed by nanotechnology?

  8. 9.

    How likely is it that society will be impacted by the potential risks posed by nanotechnology?

The following video was developed to introduce you to ways we might think about the social and ethical implications of nanotechnology. Viewing this video is a requirement for working in the MRC labs. After the video, you will need to answer a few questions. The video is about 16 min long. [Trainees viewed the module here.]

  1. 10.

    We’d like you to reflect once again on the phrase “the social and ethical implications of nanotechnology.” What does it refer to? (Essay response)

Please note your level of agreement with the following statements:

  1. 11.

    There is a need for implementing the consideration of nanoethics into my routine practices.

  2. 12.

    How might you think about ethics in the context of your own work? (Essay response)

  3. 13.

    What are the four levels of ethical consideration presented in the video? (Essay response)

  4. 14.

    How likely is it that you will be impacted by the potential risks posed by nanotechnology?

  5. 15.

    How likely is it that your workplace will be impacted by the potential risks posed by nanotechnology?

  6. 16.

    How likely is it that the environment will be impacted by the potential risks posed by nanotechnology?

  7. 17.

    How likely is it that society will be impacted by the potential risks posed by nanotechnology?

  8. 18.

    How might you be (or become) an ethical leader? (Essay response)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kahlor, L.A., Li, X. & Jones, J. Development and Pilot Testing of an Evidence-Based Training Module for Integrating Social and Ethical Implications into the Lab. Nanoethics 13, 37–52 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-019-00336-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-019-00336-5

Keywords

  • Nanoethics
  • Social and ethical implications
  • SEI
  • Ethics training
  • Lab training