Top

NanoEthics

Published in:

01-04-2014 | Original Paper

Exploring Societal and Ethical Views of Nanotechnology REUs

Authors: Gina M. Eosco, Meghnaa Tallapragada, Katherine A. McComas, Merrill Brady

Published in: NanoEthics | Issue 1/2014

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Little previous research has examined attitudes about societal and ethical issues (SEI) among interns participating in research experience for undergraduate programs (REUs) in nanotechnology, thus neglecting an important population for understanding the burgeoning views of the next generation of nanotechnology researchers. This study surveyed a sample of interns (N = 85) participating in the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network’s (NNIN) REU program during the summer of 2012. Our questions focused on interns’ experiences with education on ethical issues, as well as their attribution of responsibility for considering ethical issues, motivations to talk about ethical issues, and comfort level of discussing ethical issues with faculty, mentors, lab staff, and other REU students. Among key findings was that lab culture related to the extent to which REU interns felt comfortable discussing ethical issues. In addition, those who reported more discussions about ethical issues with their mentors were more likely to consider themselves as responsible for considering ethical issues. We conclude with recommendations and future research directions.

previous article From Anti-Biotech to Nano-Watch: Early Risers and Spin-Off Campaigners in Germany, the UK and Internationally

next article Making Better Sense of Animal Disenhancement: A Reply to Henschke

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

ABET (2013) Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Retrieved on July 16, 2013, from: http://www.abet.org/uploadedFiles/Accreditation/Accreditation_Step_by_Step/Accreditation_Documents/Current/2013_-_2014/eac-criteria-2013-2014.pdf

Acharya M, Davis M, Weil V (1995) Integrating ethics into a research experience for undergraduates. J Eng Educ 84(2):129–132CrossRef

Adams JS, Tashchian A, Shore TH (1999) Frequency, recall and usefulness of undergraduate ethics education. Teach Bus Ethics 3(3):241–253CrossRef

Armstrong MB, Ketz JE, Owsen D (2003) Ethics education in accounting: moving toward ethical motivation and ethical behavior. J Account Educ 21(1):1–16. doi:10.1016/S0748-5751(02)00017-9 CrossRef

Barakat N, Jiao H (2010) Proposed strategies for teaching ethics of nanotechnology. Nanoethics 4:221–228CrossRef

Bassett DR (2012) Notions of identity, society, and rhetoric in a speech code of science among scientists and engineers working in nanotechnology. Sci Commun 34(1):115–159CrossRef

Berne RW (2005) Nanotalk: conversations with scientists and engineers about ethics, meaning, and belief in the development of nanotechnology. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahCrossRef

Berne RW, Schummer J (2005) Teaching societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology to engineering students through science fiction. Bull Sci Technol Soc 25:459–468. doi:10.1177/0270467605283048 CrossRef

Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanoparticle Res 6:395–405CrossRef

10.

Cruz JA, Frey WJ (2003) An effective strategy for integrating ethics across the curriculum in engineering: an ABET 2000 challenge. Sci Eng Ethics 9(4):543–568CrossRef

11.

Cvetkovich G, Winter PL (2003) Trust and social representations of the management of threatened and endangered species. Environ Behav 35(2):286–307. doi:10.1177/0013916502250139 CrossRef

12.

Davies SR (2008) Constructing communication talking to scientists about talking to the public. Sci Commun 29(4):413–434CrossRef

13.

Earle TC, Cvetkovich GT (1995) Social trust: toward a cosmopolitan society. Praeger, Westport

14.

Evans FJ, Marcal LE (2005) Educating for ethics: business deans’ perspectives. Bus Soc Rev 110(3):233–248CrossRef

15.

Fisher E (2007) Ethnographic intervention: probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. Nanoethics. doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0016-5

16.

Hilgartner S, Bosk CL (1988) The rise and fall of social problems: a public arenas model. Am J Sociol 53–78

17.

Hirsch PL, Linsenmeier JAW, Smith HT, Walker JMT (2005) Enhancing core competency learning in an integrated summer research experience for bioengineers. J Eng Educ 94(4):391–401CrossRef

18.

Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes towards emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes towards nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27:240–267CrossRef

19.

Lincort J, Johnson R (2004) Ethics training: a genuine dilemma for engineering educators. Sci Eng Ethics 10:353–358CrossRef

20.

Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15(2):221–241CrossRef

21.

McComas KA (2012) Researcher views about funding sources and conflicts of interest in nanotechnology. Sci Eng Ethics 18(4):699–717. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9264-4 CrossRef

22.

McGinn R (2008) Ethics and nanotechnology: views of nanotechnology researchers. Nanoethics 2:101–131CrossRef

23.

McGregor J, Wetmore JM (2009) Researching and teaching the ethics and social implications. Nanoethics 3:17–30. doi:10.1007/s11569-009-0055-1 CrossRef

24.

National Science Foundation. National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network Program Solicitation. Retrieved on March 12, 2013, from: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf03519/nsf03519.html?org=NSF

25.

NNIN. Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU). Retrieved on April 15, 2013, from: http://www.nnin.org/research-experience-undergraduates

26.

NNIN. Societal and ethical issues: Orientation video. Retrived on February 7, 2014, http://www.nnin.org/news-events/video-gallery/nnin-sei-training-video-2012

27.

Rabins MJ (1998) Teaching engineering ethics to undergraduates: why? what? how? Sci Eng Ethics 4(3):291–302CrossRef

28.

Rest J (1986) Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Praeger, New York (1986)

29.

Savadori L, Savio S, Nicotra E, Rumiati R, Finucane M, Slovic P (2004) Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Anal 24(5):1289–1299. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00526.x CrossRef

30.

Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanoparticle Res 7:659–667CrossRef

31.

Schuubiers D (2011) What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Sci Eng Ethics 17(4):769–788CrossRef

32.

Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perception of risk and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20:195–203CrossRef

33.

Siegrist M (1999) A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. J Appl Soc Psychol 29:2093–2106CrossRef

34.

Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20:713–719CrossRef

35.

Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G, Gutscher H (2002) Risk preference predictions and gender stereotypes. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 87:91–102CrossRef

36.

Sjöberg L (2001) Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Anal 21:189–198CrossRef

37.

Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal 13(6):675–682CrossRef

38.

Sweeney A (2006) Social and ethical dimensions of nanoscale science and engineering research. Sci Eng Ethics 12(3):435–464CrossRef

39.

Thorne L (1998) The role of virtue in auditors’ ethical decision making an integration of cognitive-developmental and virtue-ethics perspectives. Res Account Ethics 4:291–308

40.

Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2011) The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: the hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Underst Sci 20(2):195–206CrossRef

Title: Exploring Societal and Ethical Views of Nanotechnology REUs
Authors: Gina M. Eosco
Meghnaa Tallapragada
Katherine A. McComas
Merrill Brady
Publication date: 01-04-2014
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: NanoEthics / Issue 1/2014
Print ISSN: 1871-4757
Electronic ISSN: 1871-4765
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0192-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

The Clinical Research of Nanomedicine: A New Ethical Challenge?

Is There a Moral Obligation to Develop Brain Implants Involving NanoBionic Technologies? Ethical Issues for Clinical Trials

Artificial Life and Ethics

Metaphors in Nanomedicine: The Case of Targeted Drug Delivery

Making Better Sense of Animal Disenhancement: A Reply to Henschke

Characteristics, Properties and Ethical Issues of Carbon Nanotubes in Biomedical Applications