Ethical and Societal Values in Nanotoxicology

  • Kevin C. Elliott
Part of the The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology book series (ELTE, volume 10)


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.


Scientific Practice Biological Model Precautionary Principle Asbestos Fiber Public Health Threat 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I thank Tara Sabo-Attwood and Tom Chandler for very helpful scientific input and examples. This work was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0809470. Any opinions, findings, conclusion, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


  1. 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
  2. APHA (American Public Health Association). 2003. Supporting legislation for independent post-marketing phase IV comparative evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Washington, DC: APHA. Available at Accessed on 12 Sept 2007.
  3. Balbus, J., et al. 2007. Hazard assessment for nanoparticles: Report from an interdisciplinary workshop. Environmental Health Perspectives 115: 1654–1659.Google Scholar
  4. Barnard, A. 2009. How can ab initio simulations address risks in nanotech? Nature Nanotechnology 4: 332–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Beierle, T. 2002. The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Analysis 22: 739–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biello, D. 2006, May 10. Mixing it up, scientific American. Available online at: Last accessed on 16 Apr 2009.
  8. Boverhof, D., et al. 2006. Comparative toxicogenomic analysis of the hepatotoxic effects of TCDD in Sprague Dawley rats and C57BL/6 mice. Toxicological Sciences 94: 398–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Calow, P., and V. Forbes. 2003. Does ecotoxicology inform ecological risk assessment? Environmental Science and Technology 37: 147A–151A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chandler, T., et al. 2004. Population consequences of fipronil and degradates to copepods at field concentrations: An integration of life cycle testing with leslie matrix population modeling. Environmental Science and Technology 38: 6407–6414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cranor, C. 1990. Some moral issues in risk assessment. Ethics 101: 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cranor, C. 1995. The social benefits of expedited risk assessments. Risk Analysis 15: 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Douglas, H. 2000. Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science 67: 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Douglas, H. 2003. The moral responsibilities of scientists: Tensions between responsibility and autonomy. American Philosophical Quarterly 40: 59–68.Google Scholar
  17. Douglas, H. 2009. Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  18. Eggen, R., et al. 2004. Challenges in ecotoxicology. Environmental Science and Technology 38: 59A–64A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elliott, K. 2008. A case for deliberation in response to hormesis research. Human and Experimental Toxicology 27: 529–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elliott, K. 2011. Is a little pollution good for you? Incorporating societal values in environmental research. New York: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elliott, K., and D. McKaughan. 2009. How values in scientific discovery and pursuit alter theory appraisal. Philosophy of Science 76: 598–611.Google Scholar
  22. Elliott, K., and D. Volz. 2012. Addressing conflicts of interest in nanotechnology oversight: Lessons learned from drug and pesticide safety testing. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 14: 664–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fagin, D., M. Lavelle, and The Center for Public Integrity. 1999. Toxic deception. Monroe: Common Courage Press.Google Scholar
  24. Fiorino, D. 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values 15: 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischer, F. 1993. Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sciences 26: 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fisher, E. 2007. Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics 1: 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grandjean, P. 2005. Implications of the precautionary principle for public health practice and research. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 11: 13–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guston, D. 1999. Evaluating the first US consensus conference: The impact of the citizen’s panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology, and Human Values 24: 451–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heinrich, U., et al. 1995. Chronic inhalation exposure of Wistar rats and 2 different strains of mice to diesel-engine exhaust, carbon-black, and titanium-dioxide. Inhalation Toxicology 7: 533–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hill, A., H. Teraoka, W. Heideman, and R. Peterson. 2005. Zebrafish as a model vertebrate for investigating chemical toxicity. Toxicological Sciences 86: 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Irvin, R., and J. Stansbury. 2004. Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review 64: 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kleinman, D. 2000. Science, technology, and democracy. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kleinman, D. 2005. Science and technology in society: Biotechnology and the internet. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Kriebel, D., et al. 2001. The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives 109: 871–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krimsky, S. 2003. Science in the private interest. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  36. Kuhn, T. 1977. Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In The essential tension, 320–339. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lacey, H. 1999. Is science value free? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Lafollette, H., and N. Shanks. 1997. Brute science: Dilemmas of animal experimentation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Liu, X., et al. 2009. Differential toxicity of carbon nanomaterials in Drosophila: Larval dietary uptake is benign, but adult exposure causes locomotor impairment and mortality. Environmental Science and Technology 43: 6357–6363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Longino, H. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. 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: Last accessed on 20 Aug 2009.
  43. McGarity, T., and W. Wagner. 2008. Bending science: How special interests corrupt public health research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. McGregor, J., and J. Wetmore. 2009. Researching and teaching the ethics and social implications of emerging technologies in the laboratory. NanoEthics 3: 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Michaels, D. 2008. Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  48. Oberdörster, G., et al. 2005. Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: Elements of a screening strategy. Particle and Fibre Toxicology 2: 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Philbrick, P., and J. Barandiaran. 2009. The national citizens’ technology forum: Lessons for the future. Science and Public Policy 36: 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pimple, K. 2002. Six domains of research ethics: A heuristic framework for the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Poland, C., et al. 2008. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nature Nanotechnology 3: 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Raffensperger, C., and J. Tickner. 1999. Protecting public health & the environment: Implementing the precautionary principle, 51–70. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  53. Ramachandran, G., et al. 2011. Recommendations for oversight of nanobiotechnology: Dynamic oversight for complex and convergent technology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13: 1345–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schmidtz, D. 2001. A place for cost-benefit analysis. Philosophical Issues 11: 148–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Service, R. 2008. Report faults U.S. strategy for nanotoxicology research. Science 322: 1779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shrader-Frechette, K. 1985. Risk analysis and scientific method: Methodological and ethical problems with evaluating societal hazards. Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shrader-Frechette, K. 1991. Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  58. Shrader-Frechette, K. 1993. Consent and nuclear waste disposal. Public Affairs Quarterly 7: 363–377.Google Scholar
  59. Shrader-Frechette, K. 1994. Ethics of scientific research. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  60. Shrader-Frechette, K. 2007a. Nanotoxicology and ethical conditions for informed consent. NanoEthics 1: 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shrader-Frechette, K. 2007b. Taking action, saving lives: Our duties to protect environmental and public health. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Steel, D. 2010. Epistemic values and the argument from inductive risk. Philosophy of Science 77: 14–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sunstein, C. 2005. Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Templeton, R., et al. 2006. Life-cycle effects of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes (SWNTs) on an estuarine meiobenthic copepod. Environmental Science and Technology 40: 7387–7393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, UK. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies. Available at:
  66. Tickner, J. 2005. Commentary: Barriers and opportunities to changing the research agenda to support precaution and primary prevention. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 11: 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Volz, D., and K. Elliott. 2012. Mitigating conflicts of interest in chemical safety testing. Environmental Science and Technology 46: 7937–7938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. vom Saal, F., and C. Hughes. 2005. An extensive new literature concerning low-dose effects of bisphenol a shows the need for a new risk assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives 113: 926–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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
  70. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations