Multidisciplinary Engagement with Nanoethics Throu

Authors: Daan Schuurbiers Susanne Sleenhoff Johannes F Jacobs Patricia Osseweijer

Publish Date: 2009/11/21

Volume: 3, Issue: 3, Pages: 197-

PDF Link

Abstract

This paper presents and evaluates two advanced courses organised in Oxford as part of the European project NanobioRAISE and suggests using their format to encourage multidisciplinary engagement between nanoscientists and nanoethicists Several nanoethicists have recently identified the need for ‘better’ ethics of emerging technologies arguing that ethical reflection should become part and parcel of the research and development RD process itself Such new forms of ethical deliberation it is argued transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries and require the active engagement and involvement of both nanoethicists and nanoscientists with the broader issues surrounding technological developments Whereas significant research efforts into multi and interdisciplinary collaborations during RD processes are now emerging opportunities for encouraging multidisciplinary engagement through education have remained relatively underexplored This paper argues that educational programmes could be a natural extension of ongoing collaborative research efforts ‘in the lab’ and analyses how the NanobioRAISE courses could be used as a model for course development In addition to exploring how the elements that were conducive to multidisciplinary engagement in this course could be preserved in future courses this paper suggests shifting the emphasis from public communication towards ethical deliberation Further course work could thus build capacity among both nanoscientists and nanoethicists for doing ‘better’ nanoethicsThis paper presents and evaluates two postdoctoral advanced courses organised in Oxford as part of the European project NanobioRAISE and suggests using their format to encourage multidisciplinary engagement1 between nanoscientists and nanoethicists2 The reason for encouraging multidisciplinary engagement derives from a recent scholarly debate concerning the ethical assessment of emerging technologies Several ethicists have recently identified the need for ‘better’ ethics of emerging technologies Appropriate ethical assessment of emerging technologies it is argued requires that ethical deliberation become part and parcel of the RD process and demands increased collaborations between nanoscientists and nanoethicists This paper will suggest pedagogical support for such increased collaboration by building on an existing course model that proved successful in bringing together participants with very diverse backgrounds and building interactional expertise between them This course model will be analysed and used as a model for further course development Before going into the details of these courses the following section will outline why scholars have indicated the need for a better nanoethics and what it entailsIt is difficult to overstate the expectations that have surrounded the emergence of nanotechnology in recent years It has been hailed as the next industrial revolution comparable to electrification or the steam engine 35 39 53 providing unparalleled technological and social progress in almost any field imaginable Nanotechnologies are repeatedly claimed to provide radical advances in medical diagnosis and treatment 31 electronics 1 cheap sustainable energy 8 environmental remediation 21 more powerful IT capabilities 3 and improved consumer products 25 Whether or not these promises will hold true they have served to generate considerable investments worldwide RD funding of nanotechnology was approximately 14 billion US dollars in 2007 and rose to 18 billion in 2008 24 As research into diverse areas of applications continues a range of nanoenabled consumer products like sunscreens containing nanosized titanium dioxide and food storage containers with nanosilver is entering the market 51 The world market for such products was around 150 billion US in 2007 and is forecast to grow to 31 trillion in 2015 23Despite the promises of nanotechnology expectations and investments have been accompanied by expressions of doubt and concern ever since the ignition of the nanoboom in the early years of the 21st century Concerned scholars have argued that if this emerging technology is indeed as revolutionary as promised it would be wise to assess its wider ethical and societal ramifications In addition to uncertainty about the human and environmental health risks of nanoparticles 12 16 36 and regulatory challenges 7 nanotechnology was feared to pose deeper ethical challenges with respect to human enhancement 5 equity 47 privacy 20 and security 2‘As recent debates in the UK and elsewhere demonstrate developments in science and technology do not take place in a social and ethical vacuum Widespread discussions of issues such as nuclear energy agricultural biotechnology and embryonic stem cells illustrate this point only too clearly Given this backdrop it seems highly likely that some nanotechnologies will raise significant social and ethical concerns’ 41 p 51Although the assumption that nanotech will be ‘the next GM’ has been contested 42 the potential for a social backlash against nanotechnology encouraged policy makers to demand attention for the broader dimensions of nanotechnology giving rise to a new field of social and ethical enquiry From the outset the aim of this burgeoning field of nanoethics has been to ‘close the gap’ between the accelerated speed of developments in nanotechnology and its ethical assessment 29 But due to the intrinsic novelty of the technologies as well as deep uncertainty about future directions and possible impacts of the research the appropriate role and remit of this developing discipline has remained a matter of considerable debate 52 Nanoethics has been criticised for speculating about improbable futures and strengthening the hype and myth of nanotechnology by ifandthen reasoning 32 If traditional methods for ethical deliberation and assessment lag behind the speed of development of new technologies then what is needed for nanoethics to ‘catch up’In response to these challenges several leading ethicists have recently proposed a reexamination of the processes of ethical deliberation in light of the very nature of emerging technologies Engineering ethicist Joe Herkert has analysed the propositions of both computer ethicist James Moor and bioethicist George Khushf for a ‘better’ nanoethics that can keep pace with the ethical challenges of emerging nanotechnologies Herkert 2009 unpublished manuscript Moor 30 argues that anticipated ‘major technological upheavals’ require ‘…Better ethical thinking in terms of being better informed and better ethical action in terms of being more proactive’ He suggests three improvements first the acknowledgement that ‘ethics is an ongoing and dynamic enterprise’ second the employment of a multidisciplinary approach that includes ‘better collaborations among ethicists scientists social scientists and technologists’ and finally the development of ‘more sophisticated ethical analysis’ Herkert notes how bioethicist George Khushf has similarly suggested redefining traditional methods of ethical reflection in light of radical ethical challenges put forward by the radical possibilities associated with new technologies ‘Faced with the prospect of increasingly accelerating radically new technologies we must completely reassess how ethical issues are addressed and how ethical debate informs broader public and legal policy’ Emerging technologies thus pose ‘an ethical challenge not just in the number scope and depth of issues that are raised but also in the very form that ethical reflection takes’ 22 p 258 For both Khushf and Moor ‘better’ nanoethics requires both that ethical reflection should become more tightly integrated with the RD process itself and requires increased collaborations through new multidisciplinary engagements between nanoscientists and nanoethicists Herkert’s representation of the views of Moor and Khushf particularly the suggestion to reassess the very form that ethical reflection should take links in with the views of Nordmann and Rip 33 who recently argued for a ‘more focused approach’ in nanoethics that ‘could lead to more meaningful interactions’ between scientists and ethicistsWhile the theoretical contours of ‘doing’ nanoethics differently are slowly becoming visible—notably the vision of bringing ethical assessment ‘closer’ to RD processes and increasing collaborations between nanoscientists and nanoethicists—precisely how to implement this broad vision is as yet unclear In 1959 the British physicist CP Snow introduced his now famous notion of the ‘Two Cultures’ in his Rede lecture arguing that the divide between the sciences and the humanities was a ‘hindrance to solving the world’s problems’ 48 Fifty years later the two cultures seem to be more strongly separated than ever with respect to the topics addressed questions asked methods used and worldviews Although new forms of collaboration between natural scientists and engineers and social and human scientists are emerging in various places 18 43 and recent studies suggest that nanotechnology researchers appear receptive to ethical issues in relation to nanotechnology 27 multidisciplinary engagement between nanoscientists and nanoethicists still faces significant challenges Due to differences in training and cultural ‘formation’ between the disciplines it has proven very difficult to establish common ground for meaningful discussion between nanoscientists and nanoethicists Reflection on the broader dimensions of research does not form an integral part of lived practices in the laboratory as a consequence of both longstanding institutional arrangements and educational structures that have fostered a ‘laissezfaire’ attitude with respect to engaging with the broader dimensions of research 4 28 Particularly young researchers often operate in a ‘protected space’ effectively shielded from outside pressures by their lab directors 37 Senior researchers are hesitant to add social and ethical ‘digressions’ to already extremely demanding science curricula Conversely nanoethicists have in some cases been hesitant to ‘get their hands dirty’ and have preferred to engage in theoretical reflection and conceptual analyses rather than engaging with research practices directly 19 26 Here as in the natural sciences the academic careers of young researchers largely depend on publications in traditional mostly monodisciplinary journals

Keywords: