1 Ethics and the Development of Nanotechnology

1 I have little to contribute directly to ethical reflection that specifically deals with risks that might be occasioned by innovations of nanotechnology (Schummer, 2007; Shelley, 2006), and with how to promote responsible conduct and public trust in the face of them (Weil, 2006). Instead, I will introduce a general ethical stance towards technoscientific research and innovations, one that I have developed over the past several years while writing about ethical issues of agricultural biotechnology (Lacey, 2005, 2006a). It has implications for thinking ethically about nanotechnology. The general ethical stance is that it is irresponsible to engage in the kind of research – e.g., in biotechnology or nanotechnology – that leads to technoscientific innovations, unless commensurate systematic and rigorous research is also conducted on the long-term ecological and social consequences (risks) of implementing them, taking into account the socio-economic conditions of the planned implementations, and unless adequate research pertinent to appraising the general social value (benefits) of the implementations is conducted. 2 It requires that ethical responsibilities be explicitly exercised from the outset of research. It pertains to research priorities (and also to methodological choices – Lacey, 2005; 2006a). It is not a reactive stance – one, where ethics comes into play only after priorities have been set and results have been obtained (see Lacey, 2007). Like the ‘Precautionary Principle’ (PP) (Lacey, 2006b, and the many references listed there), this stance (1) proposes caution and delay in the face of technoscientific innovation, pending (2) conducting research in areas that cannot be investigated adequately using only the research methodologies that lead to technoscientific innovations, and explain their efficacy (see Note 14). I have in mind, here, conducting relevant ecological, social and other studies on anticipated risks, not only short-term risks occasioned by biological, chemical and physical mechanisms, but also those occasioed by socio-economic mechanisms. “Risk” is obviously a value-laden term. What is considered a risk for one ethical perspective may be of no concern for another. 3 PP identifies the risks that should be investigated in the light of ethical judgments that concern (among others) universal human rights, environmental responsibility, sustainable development, interand intra-generational equity, 4 and participatory democracy.