Shaping the Ethics of an Emergent Field

Author:

Anderson Alison1,Petersen Alan2

Affiliation:

1. University of Plymouth, UK

2. Monash University, Australia

Abstract

Nanotechnologies present significant new challenges for the study of technoethics. While they are surrounded by high expectations there is considerable uncertainty about their impact. Discussions about their likely ethical implications have often assumed that ethical issues and standpoints are relatively clear. The commonly held narrow utilitarian conception of benefits versus risks tends to overlook broader issues concerning the operation of power in problem definition, unimagined or unknown effects, and accountability. Drawing upon data from a recent UK-based study, this article examines how scientists’ and policymakers’ representations of nanotechnologies contribute to shaping thinking about the ‘ethics’ of this field. It suggests that their particular framing of the field is likely to constrain debate on a range of important matters in need of urgent deliberation, including the direction of current research efforts and whether the investments in particular lines of research are likely to bring about the promised economic and social benefits or have deleterious impacts. Overall, the study found that most of the respondents were optimistic about the perceived benefits of nanotechnologies and sought to distance their work from wider non-technical questions. Scientists and policymakers, it is argued, need to reflect much more upon their own assumptions and consider how these may influence the trajectory of technology development and public responses.

Publisher

IGI Global

Reference36 articles.

1. Ach, J. S., & Siep, L. (Eds.). (2006). Nano-bio-ethics. Ethical dimensions of nanobiotechnology. Münster: NoE Nano2Life.

2. What’s so special about nanotechnology and nanoethics?;F.Allhoff;The International Journal of Applied Philosophy,2006

3. Allhoff, F., & Lin, P. (Eds.). (2008). Nanotechnology and society: Current and emerging issues. Dordrecht: Springer.

4. Allhoff, F., Lin, P., Moor, J., & Weckert, J. (2007). Nanoethics: The social and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

5. Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A., & Wilkinson, C. (2008). Nanoethics: News media and the shaping of public agendas. In R. Luppicini & R. Adell (Ed.), Handbook of research on technoethics (pp. 373-90). Hershey, New York: Idea Group Publishing.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. § 25. Der Dritte im Familienrecht;Der Dritte im Zivilrecht;2018-05-22

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3