Document Actions
A Practical Framework for Discussing Nanotechnology Ethics and Society
Prof. Deb Bennett-Woods, an associate professor in the Department of Health Care Ethics at Regis University in Denver, Colorado, says nanotechnology is on the brink of affecting many areas of our day-to-day lives, and that now is the time to begin an enlightened discussion among many stakeholders about how to apply ethics to the study and commercialization of nanotechnology.
Prof. Deb Bennett-Woods is the author of Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society
Bennett-Woods directs the Center for Ethics and Leadership in the Health Professions, and is a Fellow of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society in the Chicago-Kent College of Law at the Illinois Institute on Technology.
NanoScienceWorks.org spoke with Bennett-Woods on the occasion of the publication of her new book, “Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society.”
“The increasing pace, complexity and uncertainty of the marketplace, combined with the power of technology to rapidly transform society, really calls for a genuine dialogue on how to evaluate nanotechnology’s advantages against potential risks,” Bennett-Woods told NanoScienceWorks.org.
Bennett-Woods view is firmly grounded in the work she has done to create a framework within which to discuss ethics and technology, across a wide range of research, business and consumer interests. “Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society is not a philosophical treatise but rather a practical guidebook for how to think about technology,” Bennett-Woods says. “Whether you are a student, a researcher, an engineer, a regulator, a CEO or just an interested layperson, you would find the book easy to read and challenging to think about. It will help many people from different backgrounds consider what we want to achieve with technological breakthroughs and how best to minimize the inevitable effects of the double-edged sword we know technology to be.”
Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society – A Framework for Discussion
Her book presents a framework for bringing these groups together, founded in the idea of “asking good questions,” and she also provides suggestions. .
“I know from my own experience teaching health care professionals, that students are pretty open to technologies that cure medical disorders generally. However, when you start getting into genetic manipulation or metabolic enhancements or nano-enabled implants (such as neuro chips), then they start to squirm. They want to know more, they are not as enthusiastic.
“Upon thinking about it further one might ask to what extent communities should be informed and participate in technology decisions that will profound affect their health, well being and prosperity (principle of respect for communities). One might also ask whether the potential benefits outweigh the harms (principle of the common good). Finally, we can ask who the technology benefits and whether the impact on others is fair and equitable (principle of social justice).”
Making “Go-or-No” Decisions of Research Projects
Her book also offers a 6-step ‘assessment model’ for helping make “go-or-no” decisions on nano research projects. “The trick is getting enough diverse stakeholders interested to move the dialogue out of the ivory tower and into the realm of practical, everyday decision-making. If the ethicists and social scientists are only talking to each other, and they are the only ones reading each other’s books, then we haven’t accomplished much.”
Specifically, Bennett-Woods says her 6-step assessment model is “aimed at working to systematically organize one’s thought and test one’s conclusions and/or resolve conflicts,” .
For instance, in nano-enabled medical technology, she says, “one would need first to describe the context within which the technology in question is being developed. This involves broad-based fact finding in a number of technical and social dimensions. The second step involves being clear about the purpose of the analysis, the practical decision we are trying to make, followed by framing a series of ethical questions, as I described earlier, to ensure consideration from many vantage points and priorities. The core of the analysis lies in answering those questions in a point and counterpoint format. Options for action can then be generated and tested against the important criteria discovered in the analysis and, from there, we can begin to find common ground that allows us to move forward prudently but with confidence.” “
So, as a practical matter, how does one get started with this ethical discussion of technology? Bennett-Woods has practical advice there as well:
• The first step is genuine commitment, because even the most pragmatic ethical conversation takes time and energy.
• The next is to learn some form of the language of ethics to help frame questions that can engage you and take you beyond the overly narrow and short term cost/benefit focus to which we have become accustomed.
Bennett--Woods: Helping to Know the ‘Un-knowable’ Risks
When it comes to assessing hazards or negative impacts, many might think of asbestos or tobacco, where negative effects weren’t known for a generation – or longer. Bennett-Woods suggests lessons learned from these earlier episodes should encourage nanoscience researchers and administrators to deal with these ‘un-knowables’ with eyes wide open.
“The exact impact of any particular technology will always be unknowable to some extent.. What is notable about your examples of tobacco and asbestos is the history of minimizing and even covering up or misrepresenting the threats once they were actually known and not a mere matter of speculation. Society has paid, and continues to pay, a high price in many social arenas for both asbestos and tobacco. Asking good, balanced questions up front can mitigate the negative impacts by reasonably attempting to anticipate them, and working throughout the research and development process to maximize the positive and minimize the negative possibilities. I hope that my book inspires a desire and willingness on the part of researchers, engineers, entrepreneurs and regulators to be aggressively transparent about both suspected and known benefits and harms as nanoscience and nanotechnologies emerge. “
Bennett-Woods summarizes with a simple observation: Applying ethics to nanoscience research all throughout the process -- not just at the end where commercialization takes place -- may be best for scientists, businessmen and the consumers.
“The overriding guiding principle is simply that ethics are eminently practical when dealing with complex situations. If it’s done well, with a proper range of stakeholders, ethically grounded solutions and decisions can result in greater consensus and therefore a stronger buy-in from those affected. A peaceful and prosperous future is more likely the more willing we are to be thoughtful and strategic in our pursuit and use of the tremendous power technology affords us,” she says.
NanoScienceWorks.org spoke with Bennett-Woods on the occasion of the publication of her new book, “Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society.”
“The increasing pace, complexity and uncertainty of the marketplace, combined with the power of technology to rapidly transform society, really calls for a genuine dialogue on how to evaluate nanotechnology’s advantages against potential risks,” Bennett-Woods told NanoScienceWorks.org.
Bennett-Woods view is firmly grounded in the work she has done to create a framework within which to discuss ethics and technology, across a wide range of research, business and consumer interests. “Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society is not a philosophical treatise but rather a practical guidebook for how to think about technology,” Bennett-Woods says. “Whether you are a student, a researcher, an engineer, a regulator, a CEO or just an interested layperson, you would find the book easy to read and challenging to think about. It will help many people from different backgrounds consider what we want to achieve with technological breakthroughs and how best to minimize the inevitable effects of the double-edged sword we know technology to be.”
Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society – A Framework for Discussion
Her book presents a framework for bringing these groups together, founded in the idea of “asking good questions,” and she also provides suggestions. .
“I know from my own experience teaching health care professionals, that students are pretty open to technologies that cure medical disorders generally. However, when you start getting into genetic manipulation or metabolic enhancements or nano-enabled implants (such as neuro chips), then they start to squirm. They want to know more, they are not as enthusiastic.
“Upon thinking about it further one might ask to what extent communities should be informed and participate in technology decisions that will profound affect their health, well being and prosperity (principle of respect for communities). One might also ask whether the potential benefits outweigh the harms (principle of the common good). Finally, we can ask who the technology benefits and whether the impact on others is fair and equitable (principle of social justice).”
Making “Go-or-No” Decisions of Research Projects
Her book also offers a 6-step ‘assessment model’ for helping make “go-or-no” decisions on nano research projects. “The trick is getting enough diverse stakeholders interested to move the dialogue out of the ivory tower and into the realm of practical, everyday decision-making. If the ethicists and social scientists are only talking to each other, and they are the only ones reading each other’s books, then we haven’t accomplished much.”
Specifically, Bennett-Woods says her 6-step assessment model is “aimed at working to systematically organize one’s thought and test one’s conclusions and/or resolve conflicts,” .
For instance, in nano-enabled medical technology, she says, “one would need first to describe the context within which the technology in question is being developed. This involves broad-based fact finding in a number of technical and social dimensions. The second step involves being clear about the purpose of the analysis, the practical decision we are trying to make, followed by framing a series of ethical questions, as I described earlier, to ensure consideration from many vantage points and priorities. The core of the analysis lies in answering those questions in a point and counterpoint format. Options for action can then be generated and tested against the important criteria discovered in the analysis and, from there, we can begin to find common ground that allows us to move forward prudently but with confidence.” “
So, as a practical matter, how does one get started with this ethical discussion of technology? Bennett-Woods has practical advice there as well:
• The first step is genuine commitment, because even the most pragmatic ethical conversation takes time and energy.
• The next is to learn some form of the language of ethics to help frame questions that can engage you and take you beyond the overly narrow and short term cost/benefit focus to which we have become accustomed.
Bennett--Woods: Helping to Know the ‘Un-knowable’ Risks
When it comes to assessing hazards or negative impacts, many might think of asbestos or tobacco, where negative effects weren’t known for a generation – or longer. Bennett-Woods suggests lessons learned from these earlier episodes should encourage nanoscience researchers and administrators to deal with these ‘un-knowables’ with eyes wide open.
“The exact impact of any particular technology will always be unknowable to some extent.. What is notable about your examples of tobacco and asbestos is the history of minimizing and even covering up or misrepresenting the threats once they were actually known and not a mere matter of speculation. Society has paid, and continues to pay, a high price in many social arenas for both asbestos and tobacco. Asking good, balanced questions up front can mitigate the negative impacts by reasonably attempting to anticipate them, and working throughout the research and development process to maximize the positive and minimize the negative possibilities. I hope that my book inspires a desire and willingness on the part of researchers, engineers, entrepreneurs and regulators to be aggressively transparent about both suspected and known benefits and harms as nanoscience and nanotechnologies emerge. “
Bennett-Woods summarizes with a simple observation: Applying ethics to nanoscience research all throughout the process -- not just at the end where commercialization takes place -- may be best for scientists, businessmen and the consumers.
“The overriding guiding principle is simply that ethics are eminently practical when dealing with complex situations. If it’s done well, with a proper range of stakeholders, ethically grounded solutions and decisions can result in greater consensus and therefore a stronger buy-in from those affected. A peaceful and prosperous future is more likely the more willing we are to be thoughtful and strategic in our pursuit and use of the tremendous power technology affords us,” she says.