Ethics on the Laboratory Floor pp 57-78 | Cite as
The Multiple Practices of Doing ‘Ethics in the Laboratory’: A Mid-level Perspective
Abstract
When ethicists go to the laboratory they move ‘upstream’ in the development of science and technologies. This move is often justified by two arguments. The first one hinges on ethics’ effectiveness: doing ethics in the laboratory presumably creates more opportunities for co-shaping the eventually resulting technology. The second is concerned with the relevance of ethics: close cooperation with scientists and engineers may help to focus ethical reflection on the most urgent and pressing ethical issues, and to avoid empty speculation about what might happen in the future. If ethics in the laboratory lives up to these promises, it seems a valuable and justified move, creating an ethics that fits the complex and evolving character of its object: new and emerging science and technologies. Talking about ‘ethics in the laboratory’ suggests, however, that there is a uniform and well defined way of doing ethics in the laboratory. This is hardly the case; there is a set of publications sharing the idea that it would be useful if ethics enters the laboratory [or, more generally, becomes involved in real-time research and development (R&D)], suggesting various approaches for doing so.
Keywords
Synthetic Biology Engineer Ethic Laboratory Practice Ethical Work Family ResemblancePreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Fisher, E. (2007) ‘Ethnographic invention: probing the capacity of laboratory decisions’, Nanoethics, 1: 155–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fisher, E., Mitcham, C., and Mahajan, R. (2006) ‘Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance from Within’, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 26: 485–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gorman, M.E., Groves, J. F., and Shrager, J. (2004) ‘Societal Dimensions of Nanotechnology as a Trading Zone: Results from a Pilot Project’, in Baird, D., Nordmann, A., and Schummer, J. (eds) Discovering the Nanoscale (Amsterdam: IOS Press).Google Scholar
- Hymers, M. (2010) Wittgenstein and the Practice of Philosophy (Peterborough: Broadview).Google Scholar
- Lucivero, F. (2012) ‘Too Good to be True? Appraising Expectations for Ethical Technology Assessment’, PhD thesis (University of Twente).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nordmann, A. (2007) ‘If and Then: A Critique of Speculative NanoEthics’, Nanoethics, 1: 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nordmann, A. and Rip, A. (2009) ‘Mind the gap revisited’, Nature Nanotechnology, 4: 273–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rabinow, P. (2011) The Accompaniment. Assembling the Contemporary (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rabinow, P. and Bennett, G. (2012) Designing Human Practices. An Experiment With Synthetic Biology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rabinow, P. and Bennett, G. (2009) ‘Synthetic Biology: Ethical Ramifications’, Systems and Synthetic Biology, 3(1): 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schuurbiers, D. (2010) ‘Social Responsibility in Research Practice. Engaging Applied Scientists with the Socio-ethical Context of their Work’, PhD thesis (University of Delft).Google Scholar
- Schuurbiers, D. (2011) ‘What Happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4): 769–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- van der Burg, S. (2009) ‘Imagining the Future of Photoacoustic Mammography’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(1): 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zwart, S. D., van der Poel, I., van Mil, H., and Brumsen, M. (2006) ‘A Network Approach for Distinguishing Ethical Issues in Research and Development’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 12: 663–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar