Ethical and Societal Values in Nanotoxicology
This chapter has explored a variety of ways that ethical and societal values associated with environmental policy making move “upstream” into the practice of policy-relevant scientific research. In the case of nanotoxicology, researchers face value-laden decisions about what materials to study, what biological models to employ, which effects to examine, and what standards of evidence to demand. Depending on how these choices are made, they can support the interests of those who want to aggressively protect environmental and public health, or they can benefit the regulated industries that are trying to market new products. In order to incorporate more effective ethical and societal reflection on these decisions, the chapter suggests developing socially-sensitive research-ethics training, developing appropriate forms of deliberation, and strategically investing in independently funded research.
- Angell, M. 2004. The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
- APHA (American Public Health Association). 2003. Supporting legislation for independent post-marketing phase IV comparative evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Washington, DC: APHA. Available at http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1265. Accessed on 12 Sept 2007.
- Balbus, J., et al. 2007. Hazard assessment for nanoparticles: Report from an interdisciplinary workshop. Environmental Health Perspectives 115: 1654–1659.Google Scholar
- Barrett, K., and C. Raffensperger. 1999. Precautionary science. In Protecting public health and the environment, ed. C. Raffensperger and J. Tickner, 106–122. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Biello, D. 2006, May 10. Mixing it up, scientific American. Available online at: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mixing-it-up. Last accessed on 16 Apr 2009.
- Bowman, D., and G. van Calster. 2008. Flawless or fallible? A review of the applicability of the European Union’s cosmetics directive in relation to nano-cosmetics. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 2: Article 6.Google Scholar
- Cranor, C. 1999. Asymmetric information, the precautionary principle, and burdens of proof. In Protecting public health & the environment: Implementing the precautionary principle, ed. C. Raffensperger and J. Tickner, 74–99. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Douglas, H. 2003. The moral responsibilities of scientists: Tensions between responsibility and autonomy. American Philosophical Quarterly 40: 59–68.Google Scholar
- Douglas, H. 2009. Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
- Elliott, K., and D. McKaughan. 2009. How values in scientific discovery and pursuit alter theory appraisal. Philosophy of Science 76: 598–611.Google Scholar
- Fagin, D., M. Lavelle, and The Center for Public Integrity. 1999. Toxic deception. Monroe: Common Courage Press.Google Scholar
- Kleinman, D. 2000. Science, technology, and democracy. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
- Kleinman, D. 2005. Science and technology in society: Biotechnology and the internet. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Krimsky, S. 2003. Science in the private interest. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T. 1977. Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In The essential tension, 320–339. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Lacey, H. 1999. Is science value free? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lacey, H. 2002. The ways in which the sciences are and are not value free. In In the scope of logic, methodology and philosophy of science, vol. 2, ed. P. Gärdenfors, J. Wolénski, and K. Kijania-Placek. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Lafollette, H., and N. Shanks. 1997. Brute science: Dilemmas of animal experimentation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Longino, H. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Maynard, A. 2008. Testimony for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science & Technology, Hearing on the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. Available at: http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2008/Full/16apr/Maynard_Testimony.pdf. Last accessed on 20 Aug 2009.
- McGarity, T., and W. Wagner. 2008. Bending science: How special interests corrupt public health research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- McMullin, E. 1983. Values in science. In PSA 1982, vol. 2, ed. P. Asquith and T. Nickles, 3–28. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
- Michaels, D. 2008. Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Raffensperger, C., and J. Tickner. 1999. Protecting public health & the environment: Implementing the precautionary principle, 51–70. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Shrader-Frechette, K. 1991. Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Shrader-Frechette, K. 1993. Consent and nuclear waste disposal. Public Affairs Quarterly 7: 363–377.Google Scholar
- Shrader-Frechette, K. 1994. Ethics of scientific research. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, UK. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm.
- von Schomberg, R. 2006. The precautionary principle and its normative challenges. In Implementing the precautionary principle: Perspectives and prospects, ed. E. Fisher, J. Jones, and R. von Schomberg, 19–41. Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
- Wahlström, B. 1999. The precautionary approach to chemicals management: A Swedish perspective. In Protecting public health & the environment: Implementing the precautionary principle, ed. C. Raffensperger and J. Tickner, 51–70. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar