Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Researching and Teaching the Ethics and Social Implications of Emerging Technologies in the Laboratory

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

Abstract

Ethicists and others who study and teach the social implications of science and technology are faced with a formidable challenge when they seek to address “emerging technologies.” The topic is incredibly important, but difficult to grasp because not only are the precise issues often unclear, what the technology will ultimately look like can be difficult to discern. This paper argues that one particularly useful way to overcome these difficulties is to engage with their natural science and engineering colleagues in laboratories. Through discussions and interactions with these colleagues ethicists can simultaneously achieve three important objectives. First they can get a great deal of assistance in their research into the social implications of future technologies by talking with people that are actively creating those futures. Second their presence in the lab and the discussions that result can be a very powerful method for educating not only students, but faculty about the ramifications of their work. And third, because the education is directly linked to the students’ everyday work it is likely that it will not just be a theoretical exercise, but have direct impact on their practice.

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. While these are often referred to as “emerging technologies,” it is a phrase that we find troubling. It could imply that these technologies are somehow inevitable. We maintain that they will only “emerge” if people and institutions spend the time, money, and effort to make them a reality and that it is how these people and institutions interpret needs that will decide the precise characteristics of the technologies.

  2. In this article we do not draw a strict distinction between “social implication,” “ethical implication,” or “political implication” in large part because we did not draw such a distinction when we discussed issues in the laboratory. There can be important methodological reasons to separate these three ideas. For most of the students we interacted with, however, thinking about these ideas in the context of science was so new that we were more interested in exposing them to a variety of ideas, rather than compartmentalizing them. In the end they recognized that the issues are inherently interrelated and one must understand them from multiple angles to be able to act towards multiple ends.

  3. In an effort to keep the conversations at a personal level we did not tape record them. The quotations included in this paper are close approximations from our written notes.

  4. Joy’s interest in ethical issues in science has continued. In 2005 he teamed up with Ray Kurzweil to speak out against Science magazine’s publication of the 1918 Influenza virus [30].

  5. The NSF has done this most notably through its “Criterion 2”which requires grant applicants to explain what they foresee as the broader impacts of their research.

References

  1. National Science and Technology Council (1999) Nanotechnology: shaping the world atom by atom. National Science and Technology Council, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  2. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance: nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kurzweil R (2006) The singularity is near: when humans transcend biology. Penguin, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Crow M, Sarewitz D (2001) Nanotechnology and societal transformation. In: Teich AH et al (ed) AAAS science and technology policy yearbook. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, pp 89–101

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kulinowski KM (2004) Nanotechnology: from ‘wow’ to ‘yuck’? Bull Sci Technol Soc 24:13–20, doi:10.1177/0270467604263112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. McCray WP (2005) Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future. Hist Technol 21(2):177–203, doi:10.1080/07341510500103735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Berube DM (2006) Nano-hype: The truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY

    Google Scholar 

  8. Eric Drexler E, Peterson C, Pergamit G (1993) Unbounding the future: the nanotechnology revolution. Quill Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Miller G (2008) Contemplating the implications of a nanotechnology “revolution”. In: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore J (eds) The yearbook of nanotechnology in society, volume I: presenting futures. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. See, for example Group ETC (2004) Down on the farm: the impact of nano-scale technologies on food and agriculture, November. Available at http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=80

  11. Parens E (ed) (2000) Enhancing human traits: ethical and social implications. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC

  12. Woodhouse EJ, Sarewitz D (2004) Small is powerful. In: Lightman AP, Sarewitz DR, Desser C (eds) Living with the genie: essays on technology and the quest for human mastery. Island, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  13. Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 23(4):93–109, doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Johnson D, Wetmore JM (2008) Technology & society: Building our socio-technical future. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  15. ABET (2004) Accreditation board for engineering and technology, engineering accreditation commission, “criteria for accrediting engineering programs. ABET, Baltimore, MD

    Google Scholar 

  16. Faden R, Kass N et al (2002) On the importance of research ethics and mentoring. Am J Bioeth 2:50–51, doi:10.1162/152651602320957565

    Google Scholar 

  17. Macrina FL (2005) Scientific integrity: text and cases in responsible conduct of research, 3rd edn. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  18. Latour B, Woolgar S (1979) Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Sage, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  19. Traweek S (1992) Beamtimes and lifetimes: the world of high energy physics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  20. Vinck D (ed) (2003) Everyday engineering: An ethnography of design and innovation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

  21. Mody CM (2005) The sounds of science: listening to laboratory practice. Sci Technol Human Values 30:175–198, doi:10.1177/0162243903261951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Baum RJ, Flores A (eds) (1980) Ethical problems in engineering. Center for the Study of the Human Dimensions of Science and Technology, Troy, NY

  23. Baum RJ (1980) Ethics and the engineering curriculum, volume 7 of the teaching of ethics. The Hastings Center, Hastings-on-Hudson, NY

    Google Scholar 

  24. Martin MW, Schinzinger R (2005) Ethical issues in engineering, 4th edn. McGraw Hill, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fisher E (2007) Ethnographic invention: probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics 1(2):155–165, doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0016-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Berne R (2006) Nanotalk: conversations with scientists and engineers about ethics, meaning, and belief in the development of nanotechnology. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  27. City of Berkeley Community Environmental Advisory Commission (2008) Manufactured nanoparticle health and safety disclosure,” December 5, 2006. In: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore J (eds) Yearbook of nanotechnology in society: presenting futures. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rip A, Misa TJ, Schot J (eds) (1995) Managing technology in society: the approach of constructive technology assessment. Pinter, London

  29. Joy B (2000) Why the future doesn’t need us. WIRED Mag 8(4):238–262

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kurzweil R, Joy B (2005) “Recipe for destruction” Op ed, New York Times (October 17)

  31. Brown, Kalichman (1998) Effects of training in the responsible conduct of research: a survey of graduate students in experimental sciences. Sci Eng Ethics 4(4):487–498, doi:10.1007/s11948-998-0041-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Johnson D, Wetmore J (2008) Technology & society: building our socio-technical future. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  33. Whitbeck C (2001) Group mentoring to foster the responsible conduct of research. Sci Eng Ethics 7(4):541–558, doi:10.1007/s11948-001-0012-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Woolf P (2001) Trustworthy research: commentary on ‘group mentoring to foster the responsible conduct of research,’. Sci Eng Ethics 7:559–562, doi:10.1007/s11948-001-0013-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Berne R (2006) Nanotalk: conversations with scientists and engineers about ethics, meaning, and belief in the development of nanotechnology. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wetmore J (2006) Book review of nanotalk. Sci Eng Ethics 12(3):583–584, doi:10.1007/s11948-006-0056-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Berne R (2006) Nanotalk: Conversations with scientists and engineers about ethics, meaning, and belief in the development of nanotechnology. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  38. Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 23(4):93–109, doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Schot J, Rip A (1996) The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change 54:251–268, doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Willis R, Wilsdon J (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  41. Allenby B (2005) Micro and macro ethics for an anthropogenic earth. Prof Ethics Rep 18(2):1–3

    Google Scholar 

  42. Fisher E, Majajan R (2006) Contradictory intent: US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. Sci Public Policy 33(1):5–16, doi:10.3152/147154306781779181

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Joan McGregor

  2. Consortium of Science Policy & Outcomes, School of Human Evolution & Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Jameson M. Wetmore

Authors
  1. Joan McGregor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jameson M. Wetmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jameson M. Wetmore.

Additional information

We would like to thank David Guston and Brad Allenby for their invaluable comments on several drafts of this paper, two anonymous reviewers, and Neal Woodbury, Deputy Director of the Biodesign Institute at ASU for his contributions to this project. Without his support we could not have conducted the pilot for this project. This project was supported by the National Science Foundation’s Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (NSF #0531194). Any opinions, findings and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McGregor, J., Wetmore, J.M. Researching and Teaching the Ethics and Social Implications of Emerging Technologies in the Laboratory. Nanoethics 3, 17–30 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-009-0055-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-009-0055-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation