nano pen16 final-nanotechnology

7/30/2019 Nano Pen16 Final-nanotechnology

1/63

Project on EmergingNanotechnologies

Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies is supported

by The Pew ChariTable TrusTsPen 16

january 2

Te Si d Eti IssesnanoTEchnology:

Ronald Sandler


2/63


3/63

Ronald Sandler

Pen 16 january 2009

Te Si d Eti Isses

The opinions expressed in this report are those o the author and do not necessarily refect views

o the Woodrow Wilson International Center or Scholars or The Pew Charitable Trusts.

nanoTEchnology:


4/63


5/63

ExEcutivE Summary

i. introduction: tEchnology, EthicS and govErnmEnt

Technology and SocietyEthics and the Functions of GovernmentThe National Nanotechnology Initiative and the Other Social and Ethical IssAbout this Report

ii. EthicS and EmErging nanotEchnologiESEthics as Restraint and AspirationRoles of Ethics in Responsible DevelopmentEthical Issues vs. Ethical Implications

iii. thrEE miSconcEptionS about thE Social and Ethical iSSuESToo Soon to TellThe Inevitable Goodness of the Nanotechnology RevolutionThe Point Is to Secure Public Acceptance

iv. typology of thE iSSuESSocial Context IssuesContested Moral IssuesTechnoculture IssuesForm of Life Issues

Transformational Issuesv. Social contExt iSSuESScenario: Manufacturing NanotechnologyEnvironmental JusticeThe Issue: Environmental Justice and NanotechnologyAddressing Environmental InjusticeBeyond Environmental JusticeComments on Social Context Issues

vi. contEStEd moral iSSuESScenario: Research at the Boundaries of Life FormsResearch on Novel Life FormsThe Issue: The Sanctity of Life Forms?Beyond the Sanctity of Life FormsComments on Contested Moral Issues

vii. tEchnoculturE iSSuESScenario: Nanotechnology, Genomics and Asthma in Upper ManhattanThe Techno-FixThe Issue: Nanotechnology as Techno-Fix?Beyond the Techno-FixComments on Technoculture Issues

viii. form of lifE iSSuESScenario: Virtual SocializationVirtual RealityThe Issue: Virtual Reality and SociabilityBeyond Virtual Reality and SociabilityComments on Form of Life Issues

ix. tranSformational iSSuES

Scenario: Cognitive EnhancementOn the Threshold of (Radical) Human Enhancement?Social and Ethical Dimensions of Radical Human EnhancementThe Issue: Transformational Dimensions of Radical Human EnhancementBeyond Radical Human EnhancementComments on Transformational Issues

x.concluSion: thE opportunityrEfErEncES

acKnoWlEdgmEntS

Contents 59

13

16

21

25

31

37

43

48

55

57

59


6/63

4

Too oten, discussions about the social and ethical issues surrounding new technologies aretreated as aterthoughts, or worse still, as potential roadblocks to innovation. The ethical

discussions are relegated to the end o scientifc conerences, outsourced to social scientists,

or generally marginalized in the policymaking process.

The goal o this paper by Ron Sandler o Northeastern University is to clearly place

social and ethical issues within ongoing debates on the responsible development o nano-

technologies. The paper presents a broad ramework to structure the analysis and discussion

o ethical issues, which builds on improving our understanding o the social, cultural, and

moral context o emerging technologies and assessing the status o these issues as the tech-

nologies evolve.

The author takes on some o the common misconceptions that undermine our ability

to address social and ethical issues early and eectively, such as the its too early to discuss

ethics excuse and the tendency to rame new technologies in terms o their inevitability

(and inevitable good). The paper highlights, through theory and research linked to case

studies, a wide variety o possible social and ethical issues linked to emerging nanotech-

nologies, ranging rom environmental justice to human enhancement and the myth o the

techno-fxour tendency to avor technological fxes to problems rather than behavioral

changes or other major shits. Indeed, the ramework outlined in this paper can be applied

to a wide variety o emerging technologies.

Every emerging technology oers us a new opportunity to engage stakeholders in a social

and ethical debate. The nanotech revolution is stil l beginning and we stil l have time or an

open and public discussion o its consequences, both intended and unintended. Hopeully,this paper will provide a ramework or thinking through some o those impacts.

David Rejeski

Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies

PrefaCe


7/63

5

Nanotechnology has tremendous potential to contribute to human fourishing in sociallyjust and environmentally sustainable ways. However, nanotechnology is unlikely to real izeits ull potential unless its associated social and ethical issues are adequately attended. Thepurpose o this report is to raise the salience o social and ethical issues within ongoing re-sponsible development discourses and eorts by:

identiying the crucial roles o ethics in the responsible development o technology;

dispell ing common misconceptions about the social and ethical issues associated withemerging nanotechnologies;

providing a typology o the social and ethical issues associated with emerging nano-technologies and identiying several specic issues within each type; and

emphasizing how social and ethical issues intersect with governmental unctions andresponsibilities.

Government and Ethics

Among the unctions o government that intersect with the ethical and value dimensions otechnology are the ollowing:

Science and technology policy and funding involve decisions about what ends should re-

ceive priority and about how resources should be allocated in pursuit o those ends.Justication o these decisions requires that some goals be valued more highly thanothersi.e., it rests on comparative value judgments.

Regulation of science and technology is intended to accomplish something that is thoughtto be worthwhile and that justies any associated costs. Regulation also has power,control, oversight and responsibility dimensions, and oten involves allocating bur-dens and benets. All o these are character istic o ethical issues and decisions.

Government can support research on, raise awareness o and promote responsiveness to socialand ethical issues associated with technology (as many believe to be the case with theHuman Genome Project). It can also obscure social and ethical issues associated withtechnology (as many believe to be the case with genetically modied crops).

exeCutive summary

Ronald Sandler is an associate proessor o philosophy in the Department o Philosophy and

Religion, a researcher in the Nanotechnology and Society Research Group and Center or High-rate

Nanomanuacturing, and a research associate in the Environmental Justice Research Collaborative at

Northeastern University


8/63

6

Roles of Ethics in the ResponsibleDevelopment of Technology

The goal or any emerging technology is to contribute to human fourishing in sociallyjust and environmentally sustainable ways. Given this, the roles o ethics within responsibledevelopment o nanotechnology include:

elucidating what constitutes justice, human fourishing and sustainability;

identiying opportunities or nanotechnology to accomplish the goal and anticipat-ing impediments to its doing so;

developing standards or assessing prospective nanotechnologies;

providing ethical capacity (i.e., tools and resources that assist individuals and organi-zations to make ethically inormed decisions) to enable society to adapt eectively to

emerging nanotechnologies; andidentiying limits on how the goal ought to be pursued.

Three Misconceptions about Ethics andEmerging Nanotechnologies

Several common misconceptions about the social and ethical issues associated with emerg-ing nanotechnologies have obscured their signicance to responsible development andthereby hampered our responsiveness to them. Three o the most important o these mis-conceptions are as ollows:

It is too soon to tell what the social and ethical issues are. This misconception is ostered by anarrow ocus on the technology itsel when trying to identiy social and ethical issues.When broader contextual actors, such as unequal access to technology, inormationinsecurity and inadequate biodeense research oversight are considered, it becomesclear that it is not too early to identiy and to begin to respond to social and ethicalissues associated with emerging nanotechnologies.

The nanotechnology revolution is inevitably good. This misconception results rom a preoc-cupation with the crucial contributions that technology makes to the comort, secu-rity, healthulness and longevity o peoples lives in industrialized nations. I one takes

a more encompassing historical, global and ecological view o technologys develop-ment and impacts, it is clear that emerging technologies (including emerging nano-technologies) are not inevitably good.

The point of the social and ethical issues is to secure public acceptance. This misconceptionarises rom the desire or smooth commercialization o emerging nanotechnologiescoupled with the view that public opposition to them is primarily the result o mis-understandings or baseless concerns regarding them. In act, peoples concerns re-


9/63

7

garding emerging technologies are oten neither the result o ignorance nor baseless.Moreover, as indicated above, there are robust roles or ethics in responsible develop-ment o nanotechnology other than securing public acceptance.

A Typology of Ethical Issues

This typology is intended to organize the social and ethical issues associated with emergingnanotechnologies in ways that are illuminating and productive.

1. Social Context Issues: Social context issues arise rom the interaction o nanotechnolo-gies with problematic eatures o the social or institutional contexts into which thenanotechnologies are emerging. Examples o social context issues include unequalaccess to health care, inequalities in education, unequal access to technology, inad-

equate inormation security/privacy protection, ineciencies in intellectual prop-erty systems, unequal exposure to environmental hazards and inadequate consumersaety protection.

2. Contested Moral Issues: Contested moral issues arise rom nanotechnologys interac-tion with or instantiation o morally controversial practices or activitiesi.e., thosethat a substantial number o citizens believe should be prohibited. Examples o con-tested moral practices and activities in which nanoscale science and technology are,or are likely to be, involved include synthetic biology, construction o articial or-ganisms, biological weapons development, stem cell research and genetic modica-tion o human beings.

3. Technoculture Issues: Technoculture issues arise rom problematic aspects o the roleo technology within the social systems and structures rom which, and into which,nanotechnologies are emerging. Examples o technoculture issues include an over-reliance on technological xes to manage problematic eects (rather than addressingunderlying causes o those eects), overestimation o our capacity to predict andcontrol technologies (particularly within complex and dynamic biological systems)and technological mediation o our relationship with and experience o nature (andassociated marginalization o natural values).

4. Form o Lie Issues: Form o lie issues arise rom nanotechnologys synergist ic impactson aspects o the human situation on which social standards, practices and institu-tions are predicated. For example, i nanomedicine helps extend the average human

lie span even ve or ten healthul years, norms o human fourishing will need tobe reconsidered and there are likely to be signicant impacts on amily norms andstructures (e.g., care responsibilities), lie plans or trajectories (e.g., when peoplemarry) and social and political institutions (e.g., Medicare).

5. Transormational Issues: Transormational issues ar ise rom nanotechnologys potential(particularly in combination with other emerging technologies, such as biotechnol-ogy, inormation technology, computer science, cognitive science and robotics) to


10/63

8

transorm aspects o the human situation. This might be accomplished by signi-cantly altering the kind o creatures that we are, reconstituting our relationship tothe natural environment or creating sel-aware and autonomous articial intelli-

gences (i.e., art iactual persons). In such cases, some prominent aspect o our ethicallandscape would need to be reconguredor example, what it means to be human,personal identity or the moral status o some artiacts.

The Status of the Social and Ethical Issueswithin Responsible Development

With the misconceptions resolved and the ull range o issues elucidated, it is clear that thesocial and ethical issues associated with emerging nanotechnologies are:

Determinate: It is possible to identiy many o the social and ethical issues. Immediate: It is not too soon to begin considering many o the issues. Distinct: The issues are not reducible to other aspects o responsible development. Signicant: Addressing the issues is crucial to the responsible development o emerg-

ing nanotechnologies. Actionable: In many cases, there are steps that can be taken now by actors, including

those in government, to address the issues.

Consideration o and responsiveness to socia l and ethical issues are needed now in orderto anticipate and proactively address, as ar as possible, potential negative aspects o emerging

nanotechnologies, as well as to identiy and promote opportunities or nanotechnology tocontribute to human fourishing in just and sustainable ways. The National NanotechnologyInitiative aords a unique opportunity to promote a broad, critical and constructive per-spective on the relationships between technology, government, environment and societyat the same time that emerging nanotechnologies oer enormous possibilities or makingsocial (not just technological) progress through comprehensive, innovative, and orward-looking responsible development.


11/63

nc: t sc ec iIntroduction: Technology, Ethics and Government 9

Technology and Society

Technology is a thoroughly social phenom-enon. Technologies emerge rom society.They are made possible and encouragedby societye.g., through social valuing,public unding and intellectual propertypolicies. They are implemented in and dis-

seminated through society; they are alsosometimes prohibited, resisted or reject-ed by society. They alter society. Indeed,without technology it is dicult to con-ceive o society at all or, at least, to con-ceive o a society such as ours with complexand evolving cultures constituted by accu-mulated knowledge, traditions, practices,institutions and organizat ions. Technologyshapes every aspect o our livesthe placeswe inhabit, the ways we interact, how wedo our work (and the work that we do),our orms o recreation, our institutionalarrangements and how we organize ourdays and our lives.

This understanding o the relationshipbetween technology and society militatesagainst the nave view o technology as sim-ply what we create to solve problems andovercome barriers i.e., that we nd a needor it, create it, use it and control it (except,

o course, or the occasional unanticipatedside eects, which are best handled by ur-ther technological inventiveness). Not onlyis technology inseparable rom society, itshapes us as much as we shape it. Thus, therelationship between technology and soci-ety is deeply value laden.

Ethics and the Functions ofGovernment

Ethics, in its most basic sense, concerns howwe ought (and ought not) to lead our lives.Because technology structures our experi-ences and shapes how we live, it has enor-mous ethical signicance. The unctions o

government intersect with the ethical andvalue dimensions o technology in severalways:

Science and technology policy and fundingin-volve decisions about what ends shouldreceive priority and how resourcesshould be allocated in pursuit o thoseends. This is evident in domains as di-verse as energy policy (e.g., the balanceo eciency and production and the dis-tribution o energy sources), intellectualproperty policy and research unding(rom particle physics to entomology).In each case, the policy is intended toaccomplish certain goals rather thansome others. Its justication thereoredepends on certain goals being valuedmore highly than their alternatives.Decisions about priorities are based onvalue judgments.

Regulation of science and technology is in-tended to accomplish something that isthought to be worthwhile and that justi-es any associated costs. Regulation haspower, control, oversight and respon-sibility dimensions and oten involves

i. introduCtion: teChnology,ethiCs and government


12/63

10

allocating burdens and benets. All othese are characteristic o ethical issuesand decisions. This is evident in domainsas diverse as acilities permitting (e.g.,

nuclear power plants and waste-transerstations), setting research limits (e.g.,human subjects research and reproductivecloning), risk management (e.g., work-place saety and environmental pollution)and technology use (e.g., privacy protec-tion and non-therapeutic use o humangrowth hormone). Regulation, like poli-cy, has ineliminable value components.

Government can support research on, raiseawareness o and promote responsiveness to so-

cial and ethical issues associated with tech-nology. The most prominent case o thisin the United States has been the Ethical,Legal, and Societal Implications com-ponent o the Human Genome Project.Supported by 35 percent o the projectsunding, this component catalyzed theeld o bioethics by creating a cadre oproessional ethicists and raising the sa-lience o several ethical issues associatedwith genomicse.g., the possibility ogenetic screening by employers and in-surance companies and protection o thecondentiality o genetic inormation.Government can also obscure social andethical issues associated with technology.This has been the case with geneticallymodied crops, where inadequate gov-ernment capacity (with respect to over-

sight, regulatory design and meaningulpublic participation in decision making,or example) has resulted in substantialeconomic, social and technological costs.

Although social and ethical issues as-sociated with science and technology

do not begin and end with government,government is not a neutral observer.Government unctions and actors, romthe local to the ederal level and across all

branches o government, respond to, en-gage with and act upon values and ethicalissues associated with science and technol-ogy. This can be done eectively (as somehave argued is the case with the HumanGenome Project and embryonic stem cellresearch) or not (as some have argued isthe case with genetically modied cropsand nuclear power). How governmentengages these issues has substantial ethi-

cal, social, economic and technologicalimplications.

The NationalNanotechnology Initiativeand the Other Socialand Ethical Issues

The purpose o the National Nanotechnology

Initiative (NNI) is to promote nanoscalescience and technology in ways that, as aras possible, benet U.S. citizens in particu-lar and humanity in general. A crucial com-ponent to achieving this goal is supportingresponsible development o nanotechnol-ogy, which, according to core NNI docu-ments, is to be accomplished by addressingenvironmental, health and saety (EHS)concerns, engaging in public education and

outreach and addressing other ethical, legaland social issues. To this end, the NNI hassupported considerable work on EHS (e.g.,characterizing the toxicity and mobilityproperties o nanoscale materials, assessingassociated regulatory capacity and develop-ing best research/workplace practices) and


13/63

nc: t sc ec iIntroduction: Technology, Ethics and Government 11

on education and outreach (e.g., preparingthe workorce, educating the public aboutnanotechnology and encouraging public ac-ceptance o nanotechnology). This is not

to claim that current EHS and educationeorts are adequate. As several indepen-dent assessments have indicated, there areserious concerns that current institutionalcapacities and eorts in these areas are notsuciently organized or robust (Maynard2006; National Research Council 2008).Nevertheless, in comparison with the atten-tion aorded the other social and ethical is-sues, the NNI-supported work on EHS and

education has been substantial.Reerences to the other social and ethi-cal issues in core NNI documents are usu-ally limited to a ew sentences at the endo a section addressing the other aspects oresponsible development. An example othis is in The National NanotechnologyInitiative at Five Years: Assessmentand Recommendations o the NationalNanotechnology Advisory Panel: Finally,there is an expanding need or activitiesthat are ocused on ethical, legal and othersocietal implications beyond just the en-vironmental and health eects. The NNIshould participate in appropriate dialogueswith stakeholders, beyond the researchand technical communities (PresidentsCouncil o Advisors on Science andTechnology 2005, p. 43). The documentdoes not indicate what the implicationsare, who the stakeholders and communi-

ties are, how dialogue might take place,what the dialogues are intended to accom-plish or how attention to the implicationsor dialogues might inorm the nanotech-

nology research and development pro-gram or otherwise contribute to shapinggovernment policy, regulatory capacity orinstitutions.

This is standard treatment o the othersocial and ethical issues. They appear to bean a terthought. They are not considered tobe directly relevant to the science and tech-nology research program and are believedto be marginal to responsible developmenteorts, except when they intersect withpublic acceptance o nanotechnology.

About this Report

I nanoscale science and engineering isgoing to be the platorm or the next revo-lution in technology and industry (or i iteven approaches this status), as many o itsproponents claim, then it will be sociallyand ethically revolutionary as well. Wecannot wait to address the ethical issuesassociated with emerging nanotechnolo-gies until the dust has settled rom inno-

vation and commercialization. I our goalis to maximize nanotechnology as a socialgoodto have it contribute, as ar as pos-sible, to human fourishing in socially justand environmentally sustainable waysthen the social and ethical issues associatedwith emerging nanotechnologies must beidentied. In addition, they must, as ar aspossible, be addressed concurrently with,and must mutually inorm, technology de-

velopment and commercialization.The social and ethical issues associated

with emerging technologies are determi-natei.e., it is possible to clearly identiy

The most thorough consideration o them within the NNI is Roco and Bainbridge (2005). See al so Roco andBainbridge (2001).


14/63

12

them. They are immediatei.e., it is nottoo soon to begin considering them. Theyare distincti.e., not reducible to other as-pects o responsible development. They are

signicanti.e., crucial to responsible devel-opment o nanotechnology. And they areactionablei.e., steps can be taken now byactors, including those in government, toaddress them. The purpose o this report isto describe the salience o these issues andto draw attention to them by articulatingwhat they are, why they matter and whatis involved in addressing them. To this end,the report:

identies the crucial roles o ethics inresponsible development o technology;

dispels common misconceptions aboutthe social and ethical issues associatedwith emerging nanotechnologies;

provides a typology o the social andethical issues associated with emergingnanotechnologies and identies severalissues within each type;

discusses in detail one paradigmaticissue o each type to illustrate signi-cant eatures o the issues within thetype; and

emphasizes how social and ethicalissues intersect with government unc-tions and responsibilities.


15/63

nc: t sc ec iEthics and Emerging Nanotechnologies 13

ii. ethiCs and emergingnanoteChnologies

Ethics as Restraint andAspiration

Ethics, particularly as it relates to technology,is usually associated with prohibitions and re-straints. This is unortunate. Although part oits purview is proscription, ethics is also aspira-tional. It involves identiying how to make ourway in the world well, what to strive or andthe ideals that we set beore ourselves, as indi-viduals and as societies, and that we attemptto live up to and measure ourselves against.So while the ethics o nanotechnology doesinvolve prohibitions and restraints, that is notnearly the whole, or even the most importantpart, o it. Nor is it where ethical refection onnanotechnology is best begun. It should beginby refecting on what we, as a society, shouldwant rom emerging nanotechnologies, name-ly, that theycontribute to human ourishing in so-

cially just and environmentally sustainable ways.

Roles of Ethics inResponsible Development

I this (or something close to it) is the appro-priate goal, there are several roles or ethics inthe development, application and dissemina-tion o nanotechnology.

1. Ethical refection and discourse can il-luminate the goal by helping elucidatewhat justice, human fourishing and sus-tainability amount to. These concepts areneither obvious nor uncontested. Theymust be claried and disambiguated and,to the extent possible, disagreements re-

garding them must be adjudicated (orcommon ground identied) i the goal ornanotechnology is to be well understood.Many ethicists are, and long have been,engaged in this project.

2. Ethical analysis and social science researchon the relationship between society andtechnology, both in general and as it in-volves emerging nanotechnologies in par-ticular, can not only identiy opportuni-ties or nanotechnology to accomplish thegoal but also anticipate (and help resolve)impediments to its doing so. This can beaccomplished by identiying societal andenvironmental problems that nanotech-nological innovation might help address,identiying non-technical barriers that mayprevent nanotechnology rom achievingwhat it otherwise could and developing ap-proaches to overcome these barriers in ways

other than, but complementary to, techno-logical innovatione.g., involving institu-tional structures, public and private policiesand individual and cultural practices. Forexample, nanotechnology has tremendouspotential or helping the global poortheapproximately 2.5 billion people who liveon less than $2 ppp/day. However, thereare signicant non-technological barriersto its doing so, including lack o research

inrastructures in developing nations, lacko incentives or researchers in developednations to work on pro-poor technolo-gies, intellectual property restrictions, ine-ective or inecient distribution systems,incompatibility with the conditions andliestyles o those whom the technologiesare intended to benet and inadequate


16/63

14

regulatory capacities. Identiying, analyz-ing and developing eective strategies oraddressing these and other barriers requiresthe tools, resources and expertise o the so-

cial sciences and ethics.

3. Ethics can provide standards or assessingprospective nanotechnologies. Nanoscalescience and technology includes diverse re-search areas and types o applicatione.g.,energy, agriculture, computing, medicine,weapons, textiles, building materials andenvironmental remediation. The ethicalproles o emerging nanotechnologies are

thereore various. Some emerging elds orapplications might be just, sustainable andcompassionate; others might be reckless,shortsighted, unsustainable or unneces-sary. Compare a synthetic biology researchproject situated within a biological deenseprogram sited in an urban center with anindustry-unded research project to de-velop carbon nanotubeenabled memorychips sited in a suburb. Both projects in-volve nanotechnology, but their ethicalproles dier along (at least) the ollowingdimensions: objectives, risks, benets andbeneciaries, control, oversight, regulationand degree to which they involve a con-troversial moral practice. The ormer raisessanctity-o-lie issues, biological weaponsissues, public health and saety issues, publicunding issues and transparency/oversightissues that the latter does not. Case-by-caseassessment is thus as important with respect

to ethics as it is with respect to EHS. Socialand ethical evaluations o nanotechnologymust be research, technologyand applica-tion-specic. Such evaluations can contrib-ute to more inormed decision making re-garding resource allocations and policy andregulatory designs, as well as help avoid

public or regulatory reactions that mightimpede development or commercializationo desirable nanotechnologies.

4. Ethical capacityi.e., tools and resourcesthat assist individuals and organizationsto make ethically inormed decisionsis crucial to societys ability to adapt e-ectively to emerging nanotechnologies.Ethical capacity involves, or example,proessional codes o conduct, ethicalrameworks, well-developed case stud-ies and historical precedents and indi-viduals and organizations with expertise

and experience identiying, analyzingand addressing relevant ethical issues.Governmental capacity (e.g., resources,expertise, commitment, institutionaldesign, legal authority, public trust andaccess to inormation) and social capac-ity (e.g., educational institutions, mediaand communications, public interest/ad-vocacy organizations, orums or publicdiscourse and proessional organizations)are critical to the responsible develop-ment o emerging nanotechnologies.Because o the limited domain o gov-ernment activity and authority in com-parison with the actors relevant to tech-nological innovation and impacts, andbecause the exercise o ethical and socialcapacity oten precedes, precipitates andguides government responsiveness, ethi-cal capacity is critical as well. For exam-ple, the voluntary moratorium on certain

orms o genetic research by members othe molecular biology community in the1970s raised the salience o the issues, en-abled urther refection and responsive-ness to them by the research communityand precipitated governmental action inthe orm o National Institutes o Health


17/63

nc: t sc ec iEthics and Emerging Nanotechnologies 15

(NIH) guidelines and eorts to devel-op expertise in identiying, analyzingand addressing issues as they arise (i.e.,bioethics).

5. Ethics may help identi y l imit s onhow the goal ought to be pursued.Some means are not ethically accept-able, even i their ends are worthwhile.This is why medical research involvinghuman subjects must be regulated, orexample. Good intentions and a laud-able goal are not sucient to ensureethically acceptable practice.

Ethical Issues vs. EthicalImplications

This is a report on the ethical issues asso-ciated with emerging nanotechnologies,broadly construed to include goals, oppor-tunities, complications, barriers and limits.It is not a report on the ethical implicationso nanotechnology (the preerred NNI ter-minology), which are not yet determined.The implications are what is at stake, andwhat those concerned with responsibledevelopment hope in some measure to

shape by addressing the issues. Likewisethis is not a report on the ethical challengeso nanotechnology, since emerging nano-technologies present as much in social andethical opportunities as in potential socialand ethical problems, and ethics is a s muchaspirational as proscriptive.


18/63

16

There are several common misconceptionsregarding the social and ethical issues as-sociated with emerging nanotechnologiesthat obscure their signicance to respon-sible development. This section discussesthree o the most infuential and wide-spread o these issues.

Too Soon to Tell

A 2006 review o the NNI conducted bythe National Research Council states that,Currently, ethical considerations specicto nanotechnology have not come intoocus. Although near-term and tangibleethical concerns related to use o nano-technology have yet to be determined, itis not too early now to think about howto inorm, communicate with, and engagethe public to ensure broad consideration

o what responsible development o nano-technology might entail rom a societalperspective (National Research Council2006, pp. 87-88).

This common too soon to tell, but letskeep our eyes open position is premisedon two claims. The rst is that there isnothing socially or ethically problematicabout the capacity to characterize, controland construct on the nanoscale or the pro-cesses involvedi.e., the practice o nano-scale science and engineering. The secondis that relatively ew products containingengineered nanoscale particles, processesor devices have been developed, let aloneproduced in large volumes and widely

disseminated. I the practice o nanotech-nology is socially and ethically innocuous(or at least no worse than what came be-ore) and the nanotechnologies themselveslargely do not yet exist (or at least have notbeen eectively commercialized), then thesocial and ethical considerations must re-main indeterminate.

This line o reasoning is mistaken or tworeasons. First, the social and ethical issuesassociated with emerging nanotechnologies

need not be unique to nanotechnology inorder to merit concern and attention. Theremay be issues that are amiliar but that none-theless need to be addressed because o theirsocial and ethical signicance. Indeed, be-cause o the distinctive properties o nano-scale materials, the unctionalities and prod-ucts that nanoscale science and technologyenable or the rate and volume o innovationassociated with accelerating nanoscale sci-

ence and engineering eorts, some o theseissues may be exacerbated by nanotechnol-ogy. Second, there are resources or makingreasonable predictions about what the socialand ethical issues associated with nanotech-nology are likely to be: experience withprevious emerging technologies and thechallenges they posed; inormation aboutthe characteristic eatures o nanotechnol-ogy; inormat ion about the particular social,cultural and institutional contexts in whichnanotechnologies are being developed, im-plemented, disseminated and regulated; andinormation about the time line or the ap-plication and commercialization o manytypes o products and devices incorporat-

iii. three misConCePtions aboutsoCial and ethiCal issues

The number o products on the market that incorporate nanotechnology is steadily increasing (Project onEmerging Nanotechnologies 2008).


19/63

nc: t sc ec iThree Misconceptions about Social and Ethical Issues 17

ing nanotechnology. These are, in act, thesame resources that are being drawn on toanticipate and respond to possible EHS andeducation challenges and opportunities as-

sociated with emerging nanotechnologies.What these considerations have in com-

mon is that they involve refecting on morethan just the practice and products o nano-technology. The social and ethical issues canbe identied only by considering both thecharacteristic eatures o nanotechnologiesand the eatures o the contexts into whichthey are emerging. When this is done, manyo the social and ethical issues associated

with nanotechnology come into ocus.

The Inevitable Goodnessof the NanotechnologyRevolution

A second misconception is premised on theview that technological innovation is inexo-rableor even accelerating at an exponen-tial rateand so, too, are the benets thataccompany it. Given this, emphasizing thesocial and ethical issues (in this case iden-tied with limits and restraints) associatedwith nanotechnology innovation is at bestutile and at worst detrimental, since any-thing that might slow nanotechnologys in-evitable arrival impedes its contribution tothe social good. To promote the social good,it is best to promote innovation, applicationand dissemination in as unencumbered, un-

ettered and unregulated a way as possible,while also preparing or the coming techno-logical upheaval. The role o responsible de-velopment, then, is to educate people aboutnanotechnology, promote public acceptanceo it, acilitate commercialization o prod-ucts and prepare people and institutions to

adjust and identiy, prevent, mitigate andremediate undesirable and unintended EHSeects.

The kernel o truth to this moralized

variation o science creates, industry ap-plies and society adapts is that people livingin industrialized nations today live health-ier, longer, more secure, more comortablelives than did people at any other time inhuman history, and technology contributesenormously to this. Lie expectancy in theUnited States or individuals born in 2005 is78 years; in 1900, it was 47 (National Centeror Health Statistics 2003, 2007). The ma-

jority o United States citizens have reliableaccess to basic resourceswater, sanitation,electricity, shelter and oodand most havesubstantial additional economic resources(or example, in 2001 United States citi-zens spent U.S.$25 billion on recreationalwatercrat [Easterbrook 2003] and in 2002United States citizens spent U.S. $180 bil-lion at health and personal care stores[United States Census Bureau 2004]).

However, technological innovation isonly part o the story. First, technologyspotential as a social good (as opposed to anindividual or class good) oten has been re-alized only ater signicant social and ethi-cal issues have been addressed. Moreover,addressing these issues has oten been ardu-ous. It has required novel laws and regula-tions (e.g., environmental and workplace-saety laws), the creation o governmentagencies (e.g., the Department o Labor

[DOL] and the Environmental ProtectionAgency [EPA]) and whole new areas oethics (e.g., environmental ethics, businessethics and medical ethics), as well as ro-bust social movements to push or reorms(e.g., the environmental movement and thelabor movement). It takes great social (not


20/63

18

merely technological or industrial) eortand, oten, sacrice to maximize the goodrom technology while minimizing thebad. Moreover, technological innovation is

not the only cause o longer lie spans andincreased material comort. Innovations inpolitical, economic and other social systems,institutions and arrangements have beensignicant, as have been changes in beliesystems, values and worldviews (each whichhas oten been intertwined with technolog-ical innovation).

Second, it is uncertain whether the ben-ets associated with the accelerated rate o

technological innovation that has occurredsince the industrial revolution are sustain-able. Technology has enabled systems oproduction and patterns o consumption thathave drawn down Earths natural capitali.e., natural resources, living systems, biodi-versity and the capacity or them to be re-plenishedat an incredible rate. Moreover,associated ecological and agricultural prob-lems have arisen with remarkable rapidityand on a global scalee.g., pollution andtoxics (in air, water, soil and products), cli-mate change (which already is resulting inenvironmental reugees, agricultural dis-ruptions and biodiversity loss) and oodinsecurities (Worldwatch Institute 2004,2007; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment2005; Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange 2007). It may be, as many maintain,that urther technological innovation willremedy these. But at this point, that con-

viction is rooted more in aith than in act,since individual consumption levels continueto increase both domestically and globally,with associated decreases in natural capitaland increases in pollution and greenhousegas emissions (Worldwatch Institute 2007,2004; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change 2007). Furthermore, even i thesebasic human-health and lie challenges aremet, there remain quality-o-lie costs (e.g.,ewer wilderness areas, diminished natural

beauty and less biological and cultural di-versity), as well as the detrimental eects onnon-human animals and other organisms.

Third, rom a global perspect ive, the pe-riod o rapid technological innovation be-ginning with the industrial revolution hasnot been nearly as benecial: 1.1 billionpeople in less economically and technologi-cally developed nations lack access to po-table water; 2.6 billion lack access to basic

sanitation; and 2.5 billion live on less than$2 ppp/day, with 980 million living on lessthan U.S. $1 ppp/day (United Nations 2006,2007). In addition, the problems o pollu-tion and toxic waste are acute in parts o thedeveloping world, as industrialized nationshave increasingly sought to pass environ-mental costs on to developing countries andas developing nations race to industrializeand exploit natural resources without ad-equate protection or regulatory structures.Moreover, those with the least resources(and thus the least means to respond to en-vironmental hardship) tend to live in themost environmentally tenuous areas, e.g.,polluted places and low ground. Particularlywith respect to subsistence agriculture/aquaculture communities, when support-ing environments are compromisede.g.,water tables drop, extended droughts occur,sea levels rise or coral rees diesocial sys-

tems can be undermined and environmentalreugees created.

Finally, even i, rom a general history otechnology perspective, technological in-novation accelerates over time, which tech-nologies emerge at what time, how they aredisseminated, and who has access to them


21/63

nc: t sc ec iThree Misconceptions about Social and Ethical Issues 19

are shaped by social and political eatures,e.g., unding priorities, unding availabil-ity, research constraints, programmatic de-cisions and intellectual property policies.

Moreover, rom the individual perspective,i.e., the perspective o a persons lived expe-rience and his/her social situatedness, whichis the perspective rom which meaning andvalue are derived, the details o technologi-cal innovation and dissemination are sig-nicant, and these are responsive to social,institutional and political activities otenmotivated and justied by social and ethicalconsiderations. Thereore, marginalizing at-

tentiveness and responsiveness to nanotech-nologys social and ethical dimensions is notjustied, even i technological innovation is(in some sense) inevitable.

The Point Is to SecurePublic Acceptance

A primary objective o the NNIs respon-sible development program is to promotepublic acceptance o nanotechnology:

Support or the continued advancement

of nanotechnology research, and eventual

integration of nanotechnology into con-

sumer products and useul applications, will

depend heavily on the publics acceptance o

nanotechnology. Governments around the

world must take a proactive stance to ensure

that environmental, health and saety

concerns are addressed as nanotechnologyresearch and development moves orward in

order to assure the public that nanotechnol-

ogy products will be safe In addition to

its coordinating role, the NNI, through the

[National Nanotechnology Coordination

Ofce] , should vigorously communicate

with various stakeholders and the public

about the Governments efforts to address

societal concerns. Without such commu-

nication, public trust may dissipate and

concerns based on inormation rom othersources, including the entertainment indus-

try, may become dominant(PresidentsCouncil o Advisors on Science andTechnology 2005, pp. 42-3).

It is a common view, even among thosewho advocate strongly or social and ethicalresearch, that its primary unction is to helpsecure public acceptance o nanotechnolo-

gies and ensure nanotechnologys integra-tion into the national and global economiesby demonstrating that societal concernsare being addressed. However, this concep-tion o the appropriate or primary role orattentiveness to social and ethical issues isbelied by several o the considerations al-ready discussede.g., their signicance inthe past and an inclusive conception o eth-ics. Research on social and ethical issues canidentiy opportunities or nanotechnologiesto contribute to human fourishing in justand environmentally sustainable ways, an-ticipate potential barr iers to its doing so, andsuggest approaches (technological, socialand institutional) or overcoming them.

There are signicant social and ethicaldimensions to public outreach, discourseand education. Their eectiveness dependsin part on scientists and development re-searchers ability to discuss nanotechnol-

ogy accurately and in eectively ramedways. It is also important that such discus-sions be open, accessible, inclusive and air.Moreover, as with EHS issues, public en-gagement and education in nanotechnologyinvolve authority, responsibility, relativesocial infuence, power and control, public


22/63

20

policy and regulation (which always involvecomparative value judgments), distributionso burdens and benets (distributive justice),decision-making processes (procedural jus-

tice) and inormed consent/voluntariness(autonomy). In these respects, social andethical issues are implicated in and insepa-rable rom the other aspects o responsibledevelopment. Nevertheless, as indicatedabove, the social and ethical issues are notexhausted by these actors or otherwise re-ducible to public education, addressing EHSconcerns and promoting smooth commer-cialization o nanotechnology.

Furthermore, treating social and ethicalresearch (and public engagement) as primar-ily an educational or public relations enter-prise ails to appreciate the limits o scienceand industry. Although the scientic com-munity has technical expertise and industryhas economic expertise, neither necessarilyhas expertise in the social and ethical issuesassociated with technological innovations orthe standing to claim to represent the publicsviews about them. They are not empoweredto make decisions about where we ought, orought not, aim our material resources andtechnology in the uture or about what lim-its we ought to place on our eorts to getthere. Science and industry experts have animportant role to play in discussions aboutthese issues. They are well positioned to see

what is possible, what is easible and what isrequired to achieve certain economic andtechnological ends. They thereby play a cru-cial inormational role. But knowledge o

what can and cannot be done, and o whatis and is not required to do it, is quite di-erent rom knowledge o what ought andought not be done. What ends should be pri-oritized, how resources should be allocatedin pursuit o those ends and what constraintsshould be placed on how those ends oughtto be pursued are ethical and social questionsto be addressed in the public and politicalspheres (where, in a liberal democratic po-

litical system, outcomes are open-ended andactors are not excluded on the basis o theirworldviews), not economic and technologi-cal decisions to be worked out in boardroomsor laboratories. They depend on value judg-ments and conceptions o the goodareas inwhich business acumen and scientic knowl-edge aord no special privi lege. So while sci-entists and industry leaders may be elite intheir knowledge o the science and businesso nanotechnology, they are not necessarilyelite with respect to the social and ethicalissues associated with nanotechnology, and itin no way justies marginalizing the socialand ethical issues raised by researchers andthe concerned public by casting them pri-marily as barriers to be overcome in securingcommercialization and public acceptance.


23/63

nc: t sc ec iTypology of the Issues 21

Typologies divide and organize conceptualterrain. Most typologies are conventionaland programmatic. This one is no dierent.It is a typology, not thetypology, o the so-cial and ethical issues. The considerationsthat have guided its development are thatit illuminate the ull range o issues (inclu-siveness), that the types are clear and distin-guished by signicant eatures (e.g., timeline, amiliarity, determinacy or regulatoryrelevance), that the types are neither too

gross (and too ew) nor too ne (and toomany) to be helpul in organizing discourseon them and that it refect ongoing discus-sions on the issues. The types are not mu-tually exclusivea particular issue mightall within more than one typeand someaspects cut across all the typese.g., evalu-ations o risks, power relations and societal(governmental, social and ethical) capacity.

The Typology

SocialcontextiSSueS

conteStedMoraliSSueS

technocultureiSSueS

ForMoFliFeiSSueS

tranSForMationaliSSueS

Social Context Issues

Social context issues arise rom the interac-tion o nanotechnologies with problematiceatures o the social or institutional contextsinto which they are emerging. With theseissues, nanoscale science and technology is

not responsible or the problem, in the sensethat it is not the cause o the problematiceature o the social context that gives rise tothem. Nevertheless, when nanotechnologyis introduced into those contexts, it becomesimplicated in them. In many cases, it can bereasonably expected that nanotechnologywill exacerbate the problem because o thedistinctive properties o nanoscale materials,the unctionalities and products that nano-scale science and technology enable or the

rate and volume o innovation associatedwith accelerating nanoscale science and en-gineering eorts. However, the problematiceatures sometimes also provide opportuni-ties, insoar as nanotechnologies may con-tribute to addressing them.

Because nanotechnology is a general-use, enabling technology, and there areso many problematic eatures o the socialcontexts into which it is emerging, its as-

sociated social context issues are legionand their range is expansive. They include,or example, unequal access to health care,inequalities in education, unequal accessto technology, inadequate inormation se-curity/privacy protection, ineciencies inintellectual property systems, inadequateprotections o individua l autonomy (in do-mains such as labeling and human subjectsresearch), under-representation o womenand minority groups in engineering andacademia, shortsighted agricultural prac-tices and policies, unair taris and tradeagreements, inadequate incentives and re-sources to develop pro-poor technologies,inadequate consumer-saety protection,

iv. tyPology of the issues

The conceptual terrain covered by this typology does not include legal issues or workplace and proessionalethics (e.g., lab ethics or publishing ethics).


24/63

22

conficts o interests among regulators andresearchers, inadequate research oversight(or example, with respect to biodeenselabs), insucient corporate accountabil-

ity, externalizat ion o pollution and healthcosts, unequal exposure to environmentalburdens, lack o transparency and account-ability in military research and diminish-ing public trust in industry and govern-mental institutions. These are social andethical issues or nanotechnology becausethey are relevant to the extent to whichnanotechnology wi ll contribute to humanfourishing in just and sustainable ways.

Contested Moral Issues

Contested moral issues arise rom nano-technologys interaction with or instan-tiation o morally controversial practices oractivitiesi.e., those that a substantial num-ber o citizens believe should be prohibited.Contested moral issues can involve researchand engineering practice (e.g., nanoscale

science and engineering tools and tech-niques) or what nanoscale technologies en-able in application (e.g., products and uses).Examples o contested moral practices andactivities in which nanoscale science andtechnology are (or are likely to be) impli-cated include genetic modication o livingorganisms, the use o embryonic stem cellsand chimeras in research, synthetic biology,constructing articial organisms, weapons

development (e.g., chemical and biological),gene patenting (and bioprospecting) andmodication o human nature (e.g., geneti-cally or pharmacologically). As with socialcontext issues, contested moral issues otenare not unique to nanotechnology, althoughin some cases nanotechnology might enable

realizing particularly compelling or contro-versial instantiations o them.

Technoculture IssuesTechnoculture issues arise rom problem-atic aspects o the role o technology with-in the social systems and structures romwhich, and into which, nanotechnologiesare emerging. Technology is not separablerom society. Nevertheless, robust critiqueso particular aspects o the relationship andparticular roles aorded technology within

modern industrialized society have been de-veloped. These include, or example, over-reliance on technological xes to manageproblematic eects (rather than addressingunderlying causes o those eects), overes-timation o our capacity to predict and con-trol technologies (particularly within com-plex and dynamic biological systems), thetendency to avor control-oriented alterna-tives over less technologically sophisticatedand accommodation alternatives, techno-

logical mediation o our relationship withand experience o nature (and associatedmarginalization o natural values), privileg-ing elite-controlled quantitative risk assess-ment over more-inclusive and precautionaryapproaches to determining responsivenessto uncertainties associated with emergingtechnologies and overcondence that tech-nology will provide solutions to any prob-lematic side eects associated with techno-

logical innovation.As with social context and contested

moral issues, technoculture issues are notunique to nanotechnology. However, nano-scale science and technology is distinctivebecause it involves the capacity to preciselycharacterize, design and control matter at


25/63

nc: t sc ec iTypology of the Issues 23

the atomic and molecular levels. As a result,nanotechnology may be particularly suscep-tible to many technoculture issues.

Form of Life Issues

Form o lie issues arise rom nanotech-nologys impacts on social standards, prac-tices and institutionse.g., amily struc-tures, social networks and lie trajectories.Social norms are oten predicated on actsabout, or particular understandings o, thehuman situationi.e., the human person,our relationships with each other and ourrelationships to the natural environment.Emerging nanotechnologies are likely toalter that situation.

As discussed earlier, technological in-novation and dissemination has changedwhat reasonably can be considered a long,healthy, comortable lie. I nanotechnol-ogy (or nanomedicine, in particula r) is ableto deliver close to what has been prom-ised, the norms associated with human

fourishing will see urther modication.Moreover, as in the past, increased longev-ity and expectations or healthulness willhave signicant impacts on amily normsand structures (e.g., care responsibilities),lie plans or trajectories (e.g., when peopleget married) and social and political insti-tutions (e.g., Social Security).

Nanotechnology might also have a sig-nicant impact on sociability. Inormation

technologies have already altered orms andconceptions o social interact ion. New typeso orums have been created (e.g., online),and physical proximity has become lesscrucial. As nanoscale technologies increasememory and processing power and enablenew modes o inormation exchange and in-

teracing, these trends are likely to continueand new possibilities are l ikely to emerge.

Form o lie issues are likely to arise inenvironmental domains as well. Material

sciences already have developed articialalternatives (or articial sources) or manyresources and goods previously extractedrom natural systems and organisms. Thistrend, too, is likely to accelerate given thecapacity o nanoscale science and engineer-ing to characterize materials and design andconstruct them at the atomic, molecular andmacro-molecular level.

As the case o human health and longev-

ity demonstrates, the disruption and recon-guring o social norms can be benecial.Nevertheless, it requires adaptation and re-sponse, which can be accomplished more orless smoothly and successully. As with theissue types previously described, orm o lieissues are not new with nanotechnology, butnanotechnology is likely to realize noveland compelling versions o them.

Transformational Issues

Transormational issues arise rom nano-technologys potential (particularly in com-bination with other emerging technologies,such as biotechnology, inormation technol-ogy, computer science, cognitive science androbotics) to transorm aspects o the humansituation and not merely, as with orm o lieissues, modiy some parameters. This might

be accomplished by signicantly altering thekind o creatures that we are, reconstitutingour relationship to the natural environment,creating sel-aware and autonomous arti-cial intelligences (i.e., artiactual persons)or developing robust alternative environ-ments (e.g., virtual worlds that are as rich,


26/63

24

immersive and social ly complex as the phys-ical world).

In such cases, novel ethical terrainwould be introduced or some prominent

aspect o our ethical landscape would needto be recongured or reconceivede.g.,what it means to be human (human na-ture), personal identity (psychological andmetaphysical), the moral status o (some)art iacts, what constitutes embodiment andemplacement and the constituents o ourfourishing (e.g., what is valuable or mean-ingul in lie).

Examples o the types o technologi-

cal accomplishment that would give rise totransormational issues, should they be re-alized, include genetic, pharmacological or

biomachine enhancements o our physical,cognitive and psychological capabilities (orthe introduction o novel capabilities) sig-nicantly beyond the range attainable by

technologically unassisted people; directintegration o human and machine intelli-gences; articial intelligences that pass theTuring test; and nanoassemblers or nano-bots that would enable rapid molecularmanuacture o macro-scale objects. Thesewould also raise substantial social contextissues (e.g., access to technology), orm olie issues (e.g., eects on democratic insti-tutions), technoculture issues (e.g., disaec-

tion with our biological selves) and contest-ed moral issues (e.g., the appropriateness otranscending biological limits).


27/63

nc: t sc ec iSocial Context Issues 25

Environmental Justice

Distributive environmental just ice concernsthe allocation o environmental burdens andbenets. Environmental burdens are landuses, acilities or activities that diminish the

quality o a communitys environmente.g., agricultural waste streams, industrialpollution, toxic-waste sites, incinerators,waste transer stations, reneries, transpor-tation depots, mine tailings and sewage-treatment acilities. Environmental benetsare the goods associated with environmental

burdensi.e., commodities, experiences andwealth, the production o which generatesthe environmental burdens. Not all com-munities are equally exposed to environ-mental burdens. Low-income communities,which receive ewer o the environmentalbenets, and high-minority communities

are disproportionately exposed to undesir-able land uses:

For 2000, neighborhoods within 3 kilome-

ters o commercial hazardous waste acili-

ties are 56 percent people o color whereas

non-host areas are 30 percent people of color.

v. soCial Context issues

Social context issues arise rom nanotechnologys interaction with problematic eatureso the social contexts into which it is emerging. Ater ocusing on one illustrative socialcontext issueenvironmental justiceseveral sign icant eatures o social context is-sues in general are discussed.

Scenario: Manufacturing Nanotechnology

In order or the benets o nanotechnology to be realized, nanomaterials and productscontaining nanotechnology must be manuactured at a high rate, in a high volume,with high reliability and at reasonable cost. Because o the distinctiveness o many

o these materials and products, innovative nanoproduction and nanomanuacturingprocesses that are not easily (or inexpensively) incorporated into existing manuactur-ing and production acilities are required. As a result, a substantial new manuacturinginrastructureone that includes everything rom production o basic nanomaterialsthrough nished products, as well as process and end-o-lie waste disposalmust beestablished. Because o social, economic and institutional actors currently in place, themajority o the new acilities are sited in or near low-income and high-minority com-munities, ensuring that members o those communities are disproportionately exposedto the environmental (and attendant health) hazards associated with nanoscale par-ticle releases into the environment. In addition, these communities, where traditionalmanuacturing and processing acilities also are disproportionately sited, experienceless requent and less thorough site reclamation and redevelopment than do other com-munities as out-o-date acilit ies cease operations.


28/63

26

Thus, percentages of people of color as a

whole are 1.9 times greater in host neighbor-

hoods than in non-host areas. Poverty

rates in the host neighborhoods are 1.5 times

greater than non-host areas and mean annualhousehold incomes and mean owner-occupied

housing values in host neighborhoods are

15% lower(Bullard et al. 2007).

The situation is starker in someplaces than in others. For example, inMassachusetts, low-income communities(median annual income less than $39,525)ace a cumulative exposure rate to haz-

ardous acilities and sites that is 2.5 to 4times greater than that o higher-incomecommunities, and communities with highminority populations (greater than 25percent) ace a cumulative exposure ratethat is over 20 times greater than that ocommunities with low minority popu-lations (less than 5 percent) (Faber andKrieg 2005, pp. 9-10). In Massachusetts,as in the nation, race is signicant aboveand beyond class when it comes to expo-

sure to environmental burdens.The distribution o environmental bur-

dens and benets is not only unequal butalso unjust. Nearly every theory or concep-tion o justice would endorse the ollowingprinciple o justice: Justice increases whenthe benets and burdens o social coopera-tion are born more equally, except whenmoral considerations or other values justiygreater inequality (Wenz 2007, p. 58).

Theories and conceptions o justice dierin their accounts o what justies inequal-ity. Nevertheless, none endorses race, eth-nicity or class as a basis or inequality orunequal treatment, which are the actors atissue in the case o unequal exposure to en-vironmental burdens.

The Issue: EnvironmentalJustice andNanotechnology

What does the unequal and unjust distribu-tion o environmental burdens have to dowith nanotechnology? Nanotechnology isnot the cause o the distr ibution o environ-mental burdens and benets, and the capac-ity to design, control and construct on thenanoscale is not inherently unjust. Whenthe eatures and pract ice o nanotechnologyare considered, environmental justice does

not appear to be a nanotechnology issue.However, it is not possible to identiy

the social and ethical dimensions o nano-technology by considering nanotechnologyin itsel, abstracted rom its social context.Nanotechnology is emerging into a con-text in which inequalities in environmen-tal burdens are allowed, and in many waysenabled and encouraged, by social institu-tions and practices. Moreover, it is clear

that many nanotechnologies and nanoman-uacturing processes will generate bothenvironmental burdens and environmentalbenets. Given the current social context,these are likely to perpetuate or exacerbateenvironmental injustice. Thereore, re-sponsible development o nanotechnologyis incomplete i it does not address the issueo environmental justice.

Addressing EnvironmentalInjustice

Responsible development o nanotech-nology requires addressing the causes oenvironmental injustice. Among the pri-mary causes are pollution and its resultant


29/63


health eects. Some nanotechnologies andnanomanuacturing processes might bedeveloped and disseminated in orms orways that could help mitigate these causes.

Nanotechnologies might provide cleanerenergies, reduce pollution and waste out-puts associated with production o sometypes o consumer goods, provide highlyecient and eective environmental re-mediation, vastly improve environmentalmonitoring and data collection and dra-matically improve prevention, detectionand treatment o diseases, including en-vironmental illnesses such as asthma and

many cardiovascular diseases.Whether nanotechnologies and nano-manuacturing processes exacerbate or al-leviate environmental injustice dependsupon, or example, which nanotechnologiesand nanomanuacturing processes are real-ized, how they are implemented, dissemi-nated and situated (and who or what ac-tors determine these), who controls themand what sorts o oversight and regulat ionspertain to them (and how eectively theseare enorced). These are not merely tech-nology design or risk management issues,since policy, regulation, industry standards,education, social activism, social expecta-tions, economics and the values and com-mitments o the people involved (amongmany other actors) are also relevant. Sowhile nanotechnology mightcontribute toaddressing environmental injustice, socialcontext is crucial to whether it in actdoes

so.Moreover, the causes o environmen-

tal injustice extend well beyond pollutionand its health eects, which do not at allexplain the unequal distribution. In theUnited States, these include the role ocost-benet analysis in acility siting deci-

sions, zoning and land-planning legaciesrom segregation, racism in job hiring andadvancement, NIMBY (not in my back-yard ) eect s, dierential political infu-

ence, redlining in insurance and lendingpractices, discriminatory use o restrictivecovenants and corporate infuence and themarginalization o local communities inland use decisions.

Nanotechnology (and science and en-gineering more generally) cannot ad-dress these actors. They require socialand political response. For example, in1994 President Clinton issued an ex-

ecutive order titled Federal Actions toAddress Environmental Justice in MinorityPopulations and Low-Income Populationsthat calls or each Federal agency [tomake] achieving environmental justicepart o its mission by identiying and ad-dressing, as appropriate, disproportionatelyhigh and adverse human health or environ-mental eects o its programs, policies andactivities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States(Clinton 1994). Eective implementationo this order would signicantly advanceenvironmental justice eorts. However,according to the EPAs Oce o InspectorGeneral and the U.S. Commission on CivilRights, the EPA has not yet integrated en-vironmental justice into its core mission,and the relevant agencies and administra-tions have not developed a comprehensivestrategic plan or implementing the order

(Oce o Inspector General 2004; UnitedStates Commiss ion on Civil Rights 2003).

Eorts to address environmental in-just ice would also be advanced by imple-menting aggressive toxics reduction man-dates (e.g., strict command-and-controllimits; comprehensive toxics substitution


30/63

28

programs or programs that require pollut-ers to pay the health and ecosystem ser-vices costs o their pollution); shiting theburden o proo to industry to establish

that chemicals used are sae (the No data,no market principle); establishing morecomprehensive Toxics Release Inventoryreporting requirements; increasing greenchemistry research and implementationsupport at both the state and ederal levels;adopting green procurement policies at thestate and ederal levels; standardizing liecycle analysis and end-o-lie (or cradle-to-cradle) considerations in technology

and production process designs (e.g., byincorporating them into industry and pro-essional standards, as well as engineeringcurricula) and in regulatory and undingreview (at state and ederal agencies); en-couraging participation o local commu-nities in zoning and industrial permittingprocesses (e.g., by curbing the power ocorporations associated with their person-hood status); incentivizing community-oriented brownelds remediation and re-development; more eectively enorcinganti-discrimination laws in areas such asemployment and lending (and requiringonly disparate impact, rather than intent,to establish discrimination); improvingcollaboration among environmental jus-tice and environmental organ izations; andincreasing private oundation unding orenvironmental justice initiatives.

The above is not a set o individually nec-

essary or jointly sucient conditions or en-suring that nanotechnology reduces, ratherthan exacerbates, environmental injustice.But it does indicate the scope o the challengeassociated with developing nanotechnologyin a responsible way with regards to environ-mental justice.

Beyond EnvironmentalJustice

Environmental justices intersection withnanotechnology is not anomalous. Thereare all manner o problematic eatureso obtaining social contexts that are rel-evant to the implementation, dissemina-tion, control, oversight, responsibility or,access to, protection rom, benets andburdens o and decision making regardingnanotechnology. Moreover, the dist inctiveeatures o nanoscale science and technol-

ogy, the unctionalities and products theyenable and the rate and volume o inno-vation are likely to exacerbate many othese. As a result, the social context issues as-sociated with nanotechnology are legion. Theyinclude:

dierential access to medical care andmedical technologies;

educational inequalities;

inadequate inormation security/pri-vacy protections;

ineciencies in intellectua l propertysystems;

inadequate individual autonomyprotections;

under-representation o women andminority groups in engineering andacademia;

unsustainable agricultural policies andpractices;

unair taris, subsidies and tradeagreements;

inadequate consumer saety protection;


31/63


conficts o interests or regulators orresearchers;

externali zation o pollution and health

costs; inadequate biodeense/mil itary re-

search oversight; and

inadequate governmental capacity(e.g., resources, expert ise, commit-ment, institutional design, legal au-thority, public trust, communication,access to inormation).

Comments on SocialContext Issues

1. These issues are determinate. They ariserom eatures o obtaining social con-text s. Moreover, in many cases, such asenvironmental jutice, researchers havedetermined many o the actors (attitu-dinal, social, economic, institutional,legal, environmental and so on) that

give rise to them. There is no need towait until nanotechnology matures toidentiy social context issues.

2. These issues merit immediate atten-tion. They are determinate and ariserom problematic eatures o obtain-ing social contexts, so they ought tobe attended to now, even independentrom nanotechnology. However, theirimmediacy is amplied by nanotech-nology, insoar as it might exacerbatethem. They are opportunities or ac-complishing anticipatory and proac-tive respon-sible development.

3. These issues are signicant to respon-sible development. They are not minor

or margina l issues. Addressing them iscrucial in determining the extent towhich nanotechnology wi ll contributeto human fourishing in socially just

and environmentally sustainable ways.Moreover, they are neither secondaryto nor in the service o the other as-pects o responsible development.

4. Responding to these issues requires rem-edying the problematic features of the social

contexts. They cannot be addressed bytechnology design and risk manage-ment alone, although these sometimes

can contribute to resolving them.

5. These issues are actionable. They are de-terminate, both in their content and,oten, their causes. As a result, they re-quently are determinate in their remedyas well, since researchers, practitionersand policy makers can develop well-inormed (and oten well-established)policies, programs, practices and otherresponses to address them.

6. These issues intersect with government func-tions. Social context issues do not alwaysstart and end with government. Theyinvolve non-governmental institutions,social practices and individual attitudesand behaviors as well. However, theyoten substantial ly involve state, ederalor local government authority, activ-ity and responsibility. As a result, they

oten cannot be adequately addressedwithout considerable government en-gagement and investment (e.g., aware-ness, commitment, personnel, resourc-es, policy and regulation), well beyondcurrent levels.


32/63

30

7. The work o social scientists and ethicistsis crucial to identiying and studyingthese issues and in developing in-ormed policies and other actions or

addressing them. Moreover, becausethese issues extend beyond science andtechnology, comprehensive responsi-ble development wil l require engagingresearchers (inclusive o universities,public interest groups, governmentand proessional organizations) whospecialize in social research and ethicalanalysis in areas such as agriculture,environment, medicine, business, gen-

der, race, public health, global health,education and government.

8. Addressing these issues requires that theNNI substantially expand its other social and

ethical issues eorts. It is not just that moreresearch (and researchers) are requiredthan currently are involved. The scopeo issues being studied and addressed, aswell as the range o expertise o thoseinvolved in the research need consider-able expansion. Moreover, mechanismsneed to be established through whichconsideration o social and ethical issuescan inorm the science and technology

research and development program orotherwise contribute to shaping govern-ment policy and regulatory capacity. Atpresent, although social and ethical re-

search on emerging nanotechnologiesis supported by the NNI, it is not clearhow (or whether) this research will havean impact on research or governmentalactivities.

One possible response to this expansiveconception o responsible developmentmight be that the problematic eatures thatgive rise to social context issues are too

ubiquitous, too institutionally and cultur-ally entrenched and too multiaceted toreasonably expect that they could be re-solved. Many o these issues are dicultand recalcitrant. However, the scope anddepth o the challenges involved demandthat we do what we can to address them.To conclude that we ought not concernourselves with them because they cannotbe ully resolved would be to commit theperectionist allacy. As with EHS issues,the point o considering and responding tosocial and ethical issues is to make as muchprogress as possible, even as perect respon-sible development is impossible.


33/63

nc: t sc ec iContested Moral Issues 31

Research on Novel LifeForms

Research involving articial organisms,synthetic biology, chimeras and geneticmodication, each o which already employs

nanoscale science and engineering tools andtechnologies, is advancing. Researchers atLos Alamos National Laboratory have re-ported creating sel-replicating cells as-sembled rom nonliving organic and inor-ganic matter. These articial organisms arenanoscale in size, around 1 million timessmaller than bacteria, and do not contain

any biomolecules ound in living cells. Thevision is to engineer living technologies,which will be robust, autonomous, adap-tive and even sel-replicating, i necessary(American Association or the Advancemento Science 2008).

Synthetic biology makes use o genetic

(and other) materials rom modern biologi-cal lie orms to design and construct novelorganisms. A prominent vision or syntheticbiology is to develop an ever-expandinginventory o standard genomic parts andprocedures that engineers can draw rom toconstruct lie orms with the desired unc-tionalities. Among recent, and high-prole,

vi. Contested moral issues

Scenario: Research at the Boundaries of Life Forms

As the tools and techniques o nanoscale science and technology continue to improve,research involving articial organisms, synthetic biology, genetically modied organismsand chimeras (human-animal hybrids) accelerates. Just as awareness o this research isbecoming more widespread, a group interested in pushing the boundaries o the sciencedecides to introduce synthetic lie orms into themselves. During the ensuing media cov-erage it is discovered that the Army has been introducing genetically modied bacteriainto soldiers in an attempt to increase their resistance to illness when deployed. It is alsolearned that university researchers, supported by government unding, have synthesized

novel strains o the polio virus. Several public interest groups and political constituen-cies begin to organize against this nearly entirely unregulated lie-meddling research,arguing that this sort o research should not be done or, i it is done, that it should nottake place near population centers or be introduced to humans, thereby exposing thepublic unknowingly and without their consent. Researchers in these elds nd them-selves on the deensive as eorts are made to restrict not only these research programsbut all programs using the tools and techniques that made them possible. The politicaland regulatory uncertainty aects unding availability, as well as researchers decisionsabout where to ocus their work, and causes considerable resources (researchers, students,private unding) to be relocated to other countries. The result is a substantial decelerationo cutting-edge research in these areas, and a urther diminishing o the United Statescompetitive advantage in emerging science and technology.


34/63

32

events in the eld are the genomic (or chro-mosomal) reconstruction o a Mycoplasmabacterium, accomplished by the J. CraigVenter Institute (Gibson et al. 2008), and the

synthesis o a polio virus by State Universityo New York at Stony Brook researchers(Cello et al. 2002). As with articial organ-isms, basic research in synthetic biology isnot merely o scientic interest. The intentis to create organisms that can perorm use-ul unctions, such as manuacturing vac-cines, chemicals and energy (e.g. hydrogen,biouels, or oils), coding inormation, orsupplementing our immune systems.

Genetically modied mice have beenengineered with capacities well beyondthose o non-genetically modied micewith respect to physical capabilities (e.g.strength [Lee 2007; Barre et al. 2007] andendurance [Wang et al. 2004]), cogni-tive capabilities (e.g. memory, learning,and problem solving [Tang et al. 1999;Routtenberg et al. 2000; Wang et al.2004; Tan et al. 2006]), longevity (up to65% longer liespan [Conti 2006; Longoand Finch 2003]), and perception (e.g.trichromatism [Smallwood et al. 2003]).The last o these was accomplished by thereplacement o a single mouse gene with asingle human gene that encodes or a typeo cone photoreceptor not normally pos-sessed by mice (mice are usually bichro-matic). Genetic alteration o non-humananimals has not been restricted to miceand has included behavioral traits. For ex-

ample, pair bonding male meadow voles(which normally are not pair bonding)were engineered by inserting into theirgenome a gene responsible or pair-bond-ing behavior in prairie voles. (The geneencodes or a receptor or the hormone va-sopressin, which is not otherwise present

in male meadow voles [Lim et a l. 2004]) .With respect to chimera research, ater

a three month public consultation, theUnited Kingdoms Human Fertilisation and

Embryology Authority is permitting re-search using cytoplasmic hybrids, which in-volves inserting human DNA into an emptynon-human animal egg. These embryosmust be destroyed within 14 days and areprohibited rom being implanted in a womb.Other chimera research, such as that involv-ing ertil izing a non-human egg with humansperm, has not been approved (HumanFertilisation and Embryology Authority,

United Kingdom 2008). The United States,in contrast, does not have a comprehensiveederal policy regarding such research, al-though the use o ederal unding or it isprohibited, and President Bush, in his 2006State o the Union Address, proposed mak-ing such research illegal (Bush 2006).

Tools, techniques, and applications onanoscale science and engineering increas-ingly are employed in all o these researchelds, enabling them and contributing sub-stantially to their development. Withoutnanotechnology, much o the researchbeing done would not be possible and theirprospects or the uture would not be near-ly so bright.

The Issue: The Sanctity ofLife Forms?

All these research programs push at theboundaries o lie orms. They alter lieorms at their most basic (i.e., genetic) level;they create novel lie orms that would nototherwise exist; or they combine aspects odi erent lie orms that would not otherwisebe integrated. This is moral ly contested ter-


35/63

nc: t sc ec iContested Moral Issues 33

rain. These activities involve human design,intention, purpose, control and property ina domain where many believe they do notbelong. Objections to them are expressed

in terms such as unnatural, disrespect-ul, hubris, domination, proane andplaying God. The bases o these objectionsare various; some are religious and some arenot. They include, or example, conceptionso lie orms (in general or instantiated inindividual organisms) on which they arenot materials to be manipulated or humanends, conceptions o stewardship towardliving things that these practices breach and

consequentialist concerns regarding possibledetrimental eectssocial, public healthand environmentalo such research andthe attitudes that countenance it.

Counterarguments to these concernsinclude emphasizing the prospective ben-ets o the technologies or humanityand, in many cases, or the environment,as well as highlighting respects in whichthe technologies are simila r to (or only anextension o) other research programs andtechnologies that are now widely accept-ede.g., hybridization, in vitro ertiliza-tion and vaccinations. Appeals are alsomade to the value and rights o individualliberty and autonomye.g., that peopleought to be able to engage in the activitieso their own choosing, as long as they donot harm anyone else. In addition, objec-tions to the research are criticized on thegrounds that their bases are not scientic;

that they are not inormed by a properunderstanding o the techniques and tech-nologies involved or that the principles towhich they appeal would render almostall technological innovations in medicineand agriculture unethical, thereby dem-onstrating the absurdity o the principles.

Beyond the Sanctity of LifeForms

Sanctity o li e orm issues are not the onlycontested moral issues associated withnanotechnology. Other contested researchareas and applications in which nanoscalescience and technology now play a role, orlikely soon will, include:

biological and chemical weapons;

human embryonic stem cell research(and associated therapeutics);

human enhancement; and

gene patenting and bio-prospecting.

Comments on ContestedMoral Issues

1. These issues are not applicable to all nano-technologies. They apply to particular eldso research, types o research programsand applications. They do not apply, orexample, to the use o nanoscale scienceand technology in paints, memory chips,textiles, tennis rackets, solar panels andwater lters.

2. These issues are determinate and immediate.In most cases, these are ongoing issuesinto which emerging nanotechnologies

have been introduced, although nano-scale science and engineering requentlyenable or accelerate research programs ortechnologies that raise them.

3. These issues oten involve contrary world-viewsi.e., sets o values and belies that


36/63

34

inorm conceptions o the human situa-tion, diagnoses o the challenges associ-ated with that situation and prescrip-tions regarding appropriate responses to

those challenges. They usually are notmerely disagreements about acts that canbe resolved through urther research oreducation.

4. Concerns regarding morally contestedresearch and applications may have merit. Itis not the case that anything is permissibleas long as it advances science and technol-ogy. This is why there is regulation and

oversight o human subjects research, orexample. It is possible that some contro-versial research programs and applicationshave morally problematic dimensions orpose unjustied and unacceptable risks.

5. Concerns regarding morally contestedresearch and applications typically arenot based on ignorance or misunderstanding.In the case o sanctity-o-lie-orm is-sues, what is ound objectionablei.e.,creating, substantially altering or inte-grating dierent lie orms at the geneticleveloten is distinctive o the research.Moreover, understanding how cytoplas-mic hybridization is accomplished orthe tools involved in recombinant DNAtechniques is not needed to determinewhether these activities oend somemoral commitment.

6. Concerns regarding controversial moralpractices are substantive. They are notmerely expressions o disapproval or re-pugnance. They oten refect belies aboutthe proper use and limits o science andtechnology that are grounded in a robustworldview. They thereore involve value,

empirical or metaphysical claims that canbe articulated, engaged and evaluated.Consensus on these issues is not likely,and many advocates (on both sides) are

dogmatic and entrenched. Nevertheless,the issues themselves are not intractable,ineable or otherwise beyond the domaino productive inquiry and discourse.

7. Concerns regarding

nano pen16 final-nanotechnology

Documents