Top

NanoEthics

Published in:

01-12-2007 | Original Paper

On the Autonomy and Justification of Nanoethics

Author: Fritz Allhoff

Published in: NanoEthics | Issue 3/2007

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

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

In this paper, I take a critical stance on the emerging field of nanoethics. After an introductory section, “Conceptual Foundations of Nanotechnology” considers the conceptual foundations of nanotechnology, arguing that nanoethics can only be as coherent as nanotechnology itself and then discussing concerns with this latter concept; the conceptual foundations of nanoethics are then explicitly addressed in “Conceptual Foundations of Nanoethics”. “Issues in Nanoethics” considers ethical issues that will be raised through nanotechnology and, in “What’s New?”, it is argued that none of these issues is unique to nanotechnology. In “It’s a Revolution!”, I express skepticism about arguments which hold that, while the issues themselves might not be unique, they nevertheless are instantiated to such a degree that extant moral frameworks will be ill-equipped to handle them. In “What’s Different?”, I draw plausible distinctions between nanoethics and other applied ethics, arguing that these latter might well identify unique moral issues and, as such, distinguish themselves from nanoethics. Finally, in “What Now?”, I explore the conclusions of this result, ultimately arguing that, while nanoethics may fail to identify novel ethical concerns, it is at least the case that nanotechnology is deserving of ethical attention, if not a new associative applied ethic.

previous article Scientific Research–Who Should Govern?

next article Privacy in the Shadow of Nanotechnology

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

National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Technology [73].

See, for example, Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin, James Moor, and John Weckert (eds.), Nanoethics: The Social and Ethical Implications of Nanotechnology (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2007).

See, for example, Allhoff and Lin [5].

National Nanotechnology Initiative [70], http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html (accessed July 16, 2007).

As an anonymous reviewer pointed out, this definition is ambiguous between two readings: whether the novelty attaches to the matter at 1 to 100 nm or whether it attaches to nanotechnology itself. Ultimately, the interpretation hinges on the semantics of the clause following the comma, which could be read either restrictively or non-restrictively. Consider, for example, “marsupials are mammals who lay eggs.” In this case, “who lay eggs” is a restrictive clause used to distinguish egg-laying mammals from non-egg-laying mammals. Alternatively, consider “marsupials are mammals, who lay eggs.” In this case, the more natural reading of “who lay eggs” is as a non-restrictive clause which suggests that all mammals lay eggs. If the comma makes the difference, then, the novelty attaches to the matter at the nanoscale, and not (necessarily) to nanotechnology itself. But this then falsely suggests that all matter at that scale manifests such novelty given the scope of the non-restrictive clause. Rather, it seems that nanotechnology should manifest the novelty, and the semantics of this definition are therefore misleading. I thank the reviewer for these insights, as well as the linguist that s/he consulted in providing them.

[8], Ch. 1.

[8], Ch. 3.

The surface of a sphere is given by A = 4πr ² (where r is the radius of the sphere) and the volume is given by V = 4πr ³/3. The surface to volume ratio, then, is 3/r so, as the radius gets smaller, the surface to volume ratio goes up.

See, for example, http://www.silverinstitute.org/news/2b03.html (accessed July 16, 2007 [102]).

See, for example, Joachim Schummer, “Cultural Diversity in Nanotechnology” in Fritz Allhoff and Patrick Lin (eds.), Nanoethics: Emerging Debates (Dordrecht: Springer, forthcoming), “Conceptual Foundations of Nanotechnology”. Schummer identifies, in addition to the traditional “nominal” definitions, both “real” and “teleological” definitions for nanotechnologies. Real definitions refer to a list of particular research topics, though it still seems to me that there will be vagueness as to what is or is not on this list. Or else that the list is so fluid across time as to not be of much use in the first place. Teleological approaches define nanotechnology in terms of its future goals, but then it seems that there are the obvious problems of whose goals should count in such an analysis, and different constituencies would obviously have different goals. Furthermore, those goals are, again, fluid across time, so this would not lead to stable definitions. Regarding this last point, which was again made against “real” definitions, I take it that one desideratum of definitions is that they should be (at least mostly) persistent; it would not make much sense to say that, today, bachelors were unmarried males but, tomorrow, they were something else altogether.

Davis Baird and Tom Vogt, “Societal and Ethical Interactions with Nanotechnology (SEIN): An Introduction,” Nanotechnology Law & Business 1.4 (2004): 391–396. Some understand “SEIN” as “social and ethical implications of nanotechnology”, but I do not see this as a relevant difference.

Adam Keiper, “Nanoethics as a Discipline?”, The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society (Spring 2007), p. 60.

See, for example, [42].

See, for example, Anne Ingeborg Myhr and Roy Dalmo, “Nanotechnology and Risk: What Are the Issues?”, in Allhoff et al. [9], pp. 149–159.

See, for example, Joachim Schummer, “The Impact of Nanotechnologies on Developing Countries” in Allhoff et al. [9], pp. 291–307.

In this, I am sympathetic to the “real” approach discussed by Schummer. See footnote 10 above, where I mention some misgiving about it but, practically (if not theoretically), it has some advantages.

See Allhoff et al. [9] and Allhoff and Lin (forthcoming) for both more in-depth discussion regarding particular issues as well as discussion of a greater number of issues themselves.

The following list is becoming more or less standard, but there are two sources that I have paid especially close attention to in drafting it. See Davis Baird and Tom Vogt, “Societal and Ethical Interactions with Nanotechnology (SEIN) – An Introduction”, Nanotechnology Law & Business Journal 1.4 (2004): 391–6. See also [89], especially “Conceptual Foundations of Nanotechnology”.

While I will have nothing specific to say about intellectual property, this is closely related – if nevertheless orthogonal in some respects – to legal and regulatory issues. See Robert [89] for brief mention therein. The following discussion of patents, though, reveals some of the issues that attach to intellectual property as well.

[111]. Available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/patent.overview.html (accessed July 27, 2007).

[42], “Issues in Nanoethics”.

[42], “Legal and Regulatory Issues”, “Research Funding and Priorities”, “Equity”, “Environment, Health, and Safety”, in “Issues in Nanoethics”.

[58].

Baird and Vogt [11], p. 392.

[91]. Available at http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2006/November/24110602.asp (accessed July 27, 2007).

[90]. Available at http://www.nano.gov/html/res/IntlFundingRoco.htm (accessed August 3, 2007).

[71]. Available at http://64.225.252.6/html/budget/2006/One-Pagers/FY06NationalNanotechnologyInitiative1-pager.pdf (accessed August 3, 2007).

[78]. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/defense.html (accessed August 3, 2007).

See Schummer [97, 98] and Schummer [96].

[118]. Available at http://www.who.int/entity/water_sanitation_health/factsfigures2005.pdf (accessed July 24, 2007). Quoted in Schummer [98], p. 296.

Schummer [97, 98], p. 297.

[109]. Available at http://www.unaids.org/en/HIV_data/2006GlobalReport/default.asp (accessed July 24, 2007).

Schummer [97, 98], p. 298. For an associated scientific study, see [47].

It is also worth pointing out that, though the discussion herein has been framed in terms of the developed versus developing world, issues of equity can cut against different axes as well: rural/non-rural; carbon-based/non-carbon-based economies; oil and non-oil producing regions, etc. This nanodivide, therefore, can be far more insidious than merely trans-continental. See Baird and Vogt [11], p. 393. I follow Schummer [97, 98], though, in thinking that the questions regarding the developing world are the most perspicuous, which is not to say that others might not be profitably explored.

Environmental impacts are sometimes treated separately from health and safety ones, though they are often treated together as well. For present purposes, I think that they can be properly consolidated. Generally, my view is that a sufficiently broad conception of “environment” covers the health and safety issues as well, though I will use the more standard “environment, health, and safety (EHS)” locution.

Baird and Vogt [11], p. 392.

Allhoff et al. [9], p. 147.

[77]. For a follow-up study, see [120].

See, for example, Chiu-Wing Lam, John T. James, Richard McCluskey, and Robert L. Hunter, “Pulmonary Toxicity of Single-Wall Carbon Nanotubes in Mice 7 and 90 Days After Intratracheal Instillation”, Toxicological Sciences 77 (2004): 126–134.

For a discussion of some of the interpretive issues, see [14].

Myhr and Dalmo [67].

The following section is excerpted and adapted from Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin, and John Weckert, Nanoethics, Privacy, and Trust: The Impact of Monitoring and Surveillance Devices Enabled by Nanotechnology (under review, National Science Foundation [USA]).

See, for example, [54]. See also [38]. Available at http://www.epic.org/privacy/nano (accessed August 15, 2007).

Joachim Schummer, “Identifying Ethical Issues in Nanotechnology” in Hank ten Have (ed.), Science Ethics and Policy Issues (Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 2007), pp. 79–98.

[49]. Available at http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/staff/bios/ajuels/publications/pdfs/RFIDREP2.pdf (accessed August 3, 2007).

[50].

[112].

[95], pp. 411–2.

See, for example, [30]. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/activities/docs/opinion_21_nano_en.pdf (accessed August 3, 2007).

For more detailed discussion, see Mette Ebbesen and Thomas G. Jensen, “Nanomedicine: Techniques, Potentials, and Ethical Implications”, Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006 (2006): 1–11. See also [13].

[76]. Quoted in Ebbesen and Jensen [25], p. 2.

[106].

Ebbesen and Jensen [25], p. 2.

[68]. Available at: http://nano.cancer.gov/news_center/nanotech_news_2005-10-17b.asp (accessed August 7, 2007).

[28].

[69]. Available at http://nano.cancer.gov/news_center/nanotech_news_2005-04-25b.asp (accessed August 7, 2007).

[27].

Ebbesen and Jensen [25], p. 7.

See, for example, [37, 57, 59].

For a discussion of the legal issues following the cloning of Dolly and those surrounding the ban on human cloning in the US, see [104]. Also see the report from [108]. Available at: http://www.un.org/law/cloning/ (accessed August 23, 2007).

See [20].

Thomas May, “Funding Agendas: Has Bioterror Defense Been Over-Prioritized?”, American Journal of Bioethics 5.4 (2005): 34–44. See also [2].

May [63], p. 34.

[3].

See, for example, [86]. (Rawls advocates a “difference principle” by which inequalities are justified only if they make the least-well off class better off.)

See, for example, [74].

Having just mentioned Rawls (footnote 65 above), it should be acknowledged that a Rawlsian reflective equilibrium might benefit from having particular cases by which to consider these broader theoretical commitments. So, for example, we might imagine some disparity, and this disparity might violate our sense of justice; to the extent that this is true, any principles which license such a disparity might be revised to achieve equilibrium with our considered judgment in that particular case. But, while we might have considered judgments regarding distributions of nanotechnologies, I am extremely skeptical that there could be anything special about those technologies such that similar judgments could not be structurally replicated in multiple ways. If this is true, then the appeal to nanotechnology, while perhaps effective, would not be necessary; nanotechnology would then not play any essential role in the discourse.

Myhr and Dalmo[67], p. 150.

[110]. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts61.html (accessed August 13, 2007).

[64]. Available at http://www.mesothelioma-center.com/information/asbestos/history-of-asbestos.html (accessed August 13, 2007).

[51].

[29]. Available at http://reports.ewg.org/reports/asbestos/facts/fact1.php (accessed August 13, 2007).

Again, see Lam et al. [56].

Myhr and Dalmo [67].

[10], November 2006. Available at http://www.abanet.org/poladv/priorities/asbestos.html (accessed August 13, 2007).

See, for example, [21, 39, 40, 87, and 105]. A more comprehensive bibliography can be found at http://www.infra.kth.se/phil/riskpage/bib2.htm (accessed August 14, 2007).

[15, 22, 41, 62, and 75]. A more comprehensive bibliography can be found at http://www.infra.kth.se/phil/riskpage/bib3.htm (accessed August 14, 2007). This issue is discussed specifically as pertains to nanotechnology in John Weckert and James Moor, “The Precautionary Principle in Nanotechnology” in [9]: 133–46. Originally published under the same title in International Journal of Applied Philosophy 2.2 (2006): 191–402. See also [85]. Available at http://www.crnano.org/precautionary.htm (accessed August 14, 2007).

Weckert and Moor [115], p. 134.

Note that this conclusion is not challenged in Weckert and Moor [115].

See, for example, [94] and [88].

H.R. 3162. Available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:h3162enr.txt.pdf (accessed August 15, 2007).

See, especially, the following articles from a symposium in the Notre Dame Journal of Law Ethics, and Public Policy 19.1 (2005): [17, 83 and 116].

This is not to say that I take governments to be morally insignificant, just that the introduction of a government instead of some other entity does not alter the moral structure of the case.

See, for example, [65, 113 and 114].

[24].

In the medical contexts, perhaps it is the case that the calculus shifts somewhat insofar as privacy is now no longer opposed by security per se, but rather by improved outcomes: as privacy increases, those outcomes become less likely, and vice versa. Again, though, this formal structure lacks any features endemic to nanotechnology; whatever debates need to be held can be executed within this framework – informed by empirical details of nanotechnology – without the framework itself being altered.

Note that one of the pioneers of radioactivity, Marie Curie died from aplastic anemia, which was almost certainly caused by exposure to radiation. Rosalind Franklin, whose work on X-ray crystallography was critical to the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA contracted ovarian cancer at a relatively young age; again, her work was almost certainly responsible.

There have been numerous studies of the effects of the use x-ray technology in diagnostic procedures. For a recent overview of data relating to risk of cancer see [23]. Also, see [53, and 72].

It is worth noting that part of the concern about nano-diagnostics is that the toxicities are patently not well understood. While true, this is irrelevant to the formal deliberative model that is under discussion.

[84]. Available online at http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/10/31613 (accessed August 16, 2007).

[117]. Data taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_for_the_mile_run (accessed August 20, 2007). A fantastic book documents the quest to break the 4 min mile – achieved when Britain’s Roger Bannister ran 3:59.4 in May of 1954 – as well as the subsequent history. See [12].

The doubling time is sometimes mentioned as 18 months, but Moore claimed that it was 2 years. The original paper is [66]. See also Intel’s website at http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/ (accessed August 17, 2007).

[46]. Available at http://www.intel.com/museum/archives/4004facts.htm (accessed August 17, 2007).

[100]. Available at http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/computing/dual-core-itanium-0806.pdf (accessed August 17, 2007).

Mathematically, 2.300 × 2¹⁹ = 1.2 billion, which is reasonably close to 1.7 billion. Note that the transistors’ capacity, on average, doubles slightly faster than Moore predicted.

This representation roughly reflects the actual developments of transistor capacity for Intel processors in the intervening decades as well; the improvements have obviously not come at a constant rate, but are not far from it, either. That history is available at http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/index.htm (accessed August 17, 2007).

See, for example, discussion in [48]. Available at http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=173603144 (accessed August 23, 2007) and [31]. Available at http://www.fsu.edu/news/2005/10/20/steel.paper/ (accessed August 23, 2007).

[119]. Available at http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/declaration/ (accessed August 20, 2007).

It is worth noticing that this sort of project does not afford a privileged status to nanotechnology, but rather to all technologies: nanotechnology, biotechnology, informational technologies, computer technologies and artificial intelligence, and so on. As the purview for the project broadens, nanotechnology’s role with in it similarly diminishes.

100

See [16]. Available at http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/values.html (accessed August 23, 2007).

101

See, for example, [55]. Another ambitious project is [43].

102

[93] in Allhoff et al. [9], pp. 353–365.

103

[107], in Allhoff et al. [9], pp. 323–337.

104

[81], p. 35. See also [82].

105

Ibid.

106

Ibid, p. 36.

107

See, for example, [99]. See also [45]. Available at http://ifas.msu.edu/NSWorkshopReport.pdf (accessed August 21, 2007).

108

For a more sustained critique of some of these ideas, see [4], especially pp. 395–400.

109

[36].

110

[34]. See also [35].

111

See, for example, [6].

112

[1].

113

Monroe H. Freedman, “Professional Responsibility of the Criminal Defense Lawyer: The Three Hardest Questions,” Michigan Law Review 27 (1966).

114

See, for example, [7].

115

[92].

116

See, for example, [101].

117

For a recent discussion of cost-benefit analysis in the USA that contrasts its use with the ‘precautionary principle’ of the UK, see [103].

118

See, for example, [26]. Available at http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html (accessed August 22, 2007).

[44], p. 10.

Ibid, p. 10.

[18]. See also [19].

The link between personhood, personal identity, and psychological criteria invites a long tradition which extends, at least, to John Locke. See [60]. More recently, see [80]. For a dissent – one which postulates biological, as opposed to psychological criteria – see [79].

123

See, for example, [33].

124

[61].

125

Cf., Freedman [32].

126

See, for example, Keiper [52].

Allhoff F (ed) (2008) Physicians at war: the dual-loyalties challenge. Springer, Dordrecht (in press)

Allhoff F (2005a) Germ-line genetic enhancements and Rawlsian primary goods. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 15.1:39–56CrossRef

Allhoff F (2005b) On economic justifications of bioterrorism defense spending. American Journal of Bioethics 5.4:52–54

Allhoff F (2006) Physician involvement in hostile interrogations. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 15:392–402CrossRef

Allhoff F, Lin P (2006) What’s so special about nanotechnology and nanoethics? Int J Appl Philos 20.2:179–190

Allhoff F, Vaidya AJ (eds) (2008a) Business ethics. Broadview Press, Calgary (in press)

Allhoff F, Vaidya AJ (eds) (2008b) Professional ethics. Broadview Press, Calgary (in press)

Allhoff F, Lin P, Moore D (2009) Nanotechnology: What it is and why it matters. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA (forthcoming)

Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J (eds) (2007) Nanoethics: the social and ethical implications of nanotechnology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ

10.

American Bar Association (2006) Tort law: asbestos litigation. Retrieved August 13, 2007, from http://www.abanet.org/poladv/priorities/asbestos.html

11.

Baird D, Vogt T (2004) Societal and ethical interactions with nanotechnology (“SEIN”): an introduction. Nanotechnology Law & Business 1.4:391–396

12.

Bascomb N (2004) The perfect mile: three athletes, one goal, and less than four minutes to achieve it. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

13.

Bawa R, Johnson S (2008) Emerging issues in nanomedicine and ethics. In: Allhoff F, Lin P (eds) Nanoethics: emerging debates. Springer, Dordrecht (in press)

14.

Berube DM (2007) Intuitive toxicology: the public perception of nanoscience. In: Allhoff F, Lin P (eds) Nanoethics: Emerging debates. Springer, Dordrecht (in press)

15.

Bodansky D (1991) Scientific uncertainty and the precautionary principle. Environment 33.7:4–5; 43–44

16.

Bostrom, N. (n.d.) Transhumanist values. Retrieved August 23, 2007, from http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/values.html

17.

Brandt E, Otter CL (2005) Preserving the foundation of liberty. Notre Dame J Law Ethics Public Policy 19.1:261–276

18.

Buford C, Allhoff F (2005) Neuroscience and metaphysics. American Journal of Bioethics 5.2:34–36

19.

Buford C, Allhoff F (2007) Neuroscience and metaphysics (redux). American Journal of Bioethics (AJOB-Neuroscience) 7.1:58–60CrossRef

20.

Cantrell MK (1998-1999) International response to Dolly: will scientific freedom get sheared? J Law Health 13:69–102

21.

Chicken JC, Telford T, Posner T (1998) The philosophy of risk. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA

22.

Cross FB (1996) Paradoxical perils of the precautionary principle. Wash Lee Law Rev 53:851–921

23.

de Gonzalez AB, Darby S (2004) Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 363.906:345 (January 31)CrossRef

24.

DeCew JW (1997) In pursuit of privacy: law, ethics, and the rise of technology. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY

25.

Ebbesen M, Jensen TG (2006) Nanomedicine: techniques, potentials, and ethical implications. J Biomed Biotechnol 2006:1–11CrossRef

26.

Edwards J, Cheney D (2004) Comments during the 2004 (US) vice presidential debate. Retrieved August 22, 2007 from http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html

27.

El-Sayed I, Huang X, El-Sayed MA (2005) Surface plasmon resonance scattering and absorption of anti-EGFR antibody conjugated gold nanoparticles in cancer diagnostics: applications in oral cancer. Nano Lett 5.5:829–834CrossRef

28.

El-Sayed I, Huang X, El-Sayed MA (2006) Selective laser photo-thermal therapy of epithelial carcinoma using anti-EGFR antibody conjugated gold nanoparticles. Cancer Lett 239.1:129–135CrossRef

29.

Environmental Working Group (2007) The asbestos epidemic in America. Retrieved August 13, 2007 from http://reports.ewg.org/reports/asbestos/facts/fact1.php

30.

European Commission Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (2007) Opinion on the ethical aspects of nanomedicine (Opinion no. 21). Retrieved August 3, 2007 from http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/activities/docs/opinion_21_nano_en.pdf

31.

Florida State University (2005) FSU researcher’s ‘buckypaper” is stronger than steel. FSU News, October. Retrieved August 23, 2007 from http://www.fsu.edu/news/2005/10/20/steel.paper/

32.

Freedman MH (1966) Professional responsibility of the criminal defense lawyer: the three hardest questions. Mich Law Rev 27:1469–1484CrossRef

33.

Freeman A, Sutherland K, Libet B (eds) (2000) The volitional brain: toward a neuroscience of free will. Imprint Academic, Exeter

34.

Freeman RE (1994) The politics of stakeholder theory. Bus Ethics Q 4.4:409–421 (October)CrossRef

35.

Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman Publishing, London

36.

Friedman M (1970) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, September 13, SM17

37.

Grunwald A (2005) Nanotechnology – a new field of ethical inquiry? Sci Eng Ethics 11:187–201CrossRef

38.

Gutierrez E (2004) Privacy implications of nanotechnology. Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved August 15, 2007 from http://www.epic.org/privacy/nano

39.

Hansson SO (1996) What is philosophy of risk? Theoria 62:169–186CrossRef

40.

Hansson SO (1999a) A philosophical perspective on risk. Ambio 28:539–542

41.

Hansson SO (1999b) Adjusting scientific practices to the precautionary principle. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 5:909–921CrossRef

42.

Harris DL (2008) Carbon nanotube patent thickets. In: Allhoff F, Lin P (eds) Nanoethics: Emerging debates. Springer, Dordrecht (in press)

43.

Hughes J (2004) Citizen cyborg: why democratic societies must respond to the redesigned human of the future. Westview Press, Boulder, CO

44.

Illes J, Racine EJ (2005) Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics. American Journal of Bioethics 5.2:5–18

45.

Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards, Michigan State University (2007) An issues landscape for nanotechnology standards: Report of a workshop. Retrieved August 21, 2007, from http://ifas.msu.edu/NSWorkshopReport.pdf

46.

Intel Museum (2007) The Intel 4004 processor. Retrieved August 17, 2007 from http://www.intel.com/museum/archives/4004facts.htm

47.

Jiang Y, Emau P, Cairns JS, Flanary L, Morton WR, McCarthy TD, Tsai C (2005) SPL7013 gel as topical microbicide for prevention of vaginal transmission of SHIV_89.6P in macaques. AIDS Res Hum Retrovir 21.3:207–213CrossRef

48.

Johnson RC (2005) Carbon nanotube “paper” stronger than steel. EE Times, November 21. Retrieved August 23, 2007 from http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=173603144

49.

Jules A, Syverson P, Bailey D (2005) High-power proxies for enhancing RFID privacy and utility. Retrieved August 3, 2007 from http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/staff/bios/ajuels/publications/pdfs/RFIDREP2.pdf

50.

Kardasiadou Z, Talidou Z (2006) Legal issues of RFID technology. Legal Issues for the Advancement of Information Society Technologies (Legal-IST) Consortium, IST-2-004252-SSA

51.

Keal EE (1960) Asbestosis and abdominal neoplasm. Lancet 2:1211–1216CrossRef

52.

Keiper A (2007) Nanoethics as a discipline? The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society 60:55–67 (Spring)

53.

Kereiakes JG, Rosenstein M (1980) Handbook of radiation doses in nuclear medicine and diagnostic X-ray. CRC, Boca Raton, FL

54.

Khushf G (2004) Systems theory and the ethics of monitoring and surveillance: a framework for NBI convergence. Ann NY Acad Sci 1013:124–149CrossRef

55.

Kurzweil R (2006) The singularity is near: when humans transcend biology. Penguin, New York

56.

Lam C, James JT, McCluskey R, Hunter RL (2004) Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in mice 7 and 90 days after intratracheal instillation. Toxicol Sci 77:126–134CrossRef

57.

Lewenstein BV (2005) What counts as a “social and ethical issue” in nanotechnology? HYLE: International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 5:5–18

58.

Lin P (2007) Nanotechnology bound: evaluating the case for more regulation. Nanoethics: Ethics for Technologies that Converge at the Nanoscale 1:105–122

59.

Litton P (2007) Nanoethics: what’s new? Hastings Cent Rep 37:22–25CrossRef

60.

Locke J (1994) An essay concerning human understanding, 2nd edn. Prometheus Books, New York [1694]

61.

Luban D (1983) The adversary excuse. In: Luban D (ed) The good lawyer: lawyers’ roles and lawyers’ ethics. Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ, pp 83–122

62.

Martin PH (1997) If you don’t know how to fix it, please stop breaking it. Found Sci 2:263–292CrossRef

63.

May T (2005) Funding agendas: has bioterror defense been over-prioritized? American Journal of Bioethics 5.4:34–44

64.

Mesothelioma Resource Center (2007) History of asbestos. Retrieved August 13, 2007, from http://www.mesothelioma-center.com/information/asbestos/history-of-asbestos.html

65.

Miller S, Weckert J (2000) Privacy, the workplace, and the Internet. J Bus Ethics 28:255–265CrossRef

66.

Moore GE (1965) Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics, 38.8, 56–59. Retrieved August 17, 2007 from http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/

67.

Myhr A, Dalmo R (2007) Nanotechnology and risk: what are the issues? In: Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J (eds) Nanoethics: the social and ethical implications of nanotechnology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp 149–159

68.

National Cancer Institute (2005a) Gold nanoparticles show potential for noninvasive cancer treatment. Nanotech News, October 17. Retrived August 7, 2007 from http://nano.cancer.gov/news_center/nanotech_news_2005-10-17b.asp

69.

National Cancer Institute (2005b) Targeted gold nanoparticles detect oral cancer cells. Nanotech News, April 25. Retrieved August 7, 2007 from http://nano.cancer.gov/news_center/nanotech_news_2005-04-25b.asp

70.

National Nanotechnology Initiative (2007) Retrieved July 16, 2007 from http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html

71.

National Nanotechnology Initiative (2007) Research and development funding in the president’s 2006 budget. Retrieved August 3, 2007 from http://64.225.252.6/html/budget/2006/One-Pagers/FY06NationalNanotechnologyInitiative1-pager.pdf

72.

National Research Council (1990) Health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

73.

National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Technology (2000) National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution. February

74.

Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books, New York

75.

O’Riordon T, Cameron J (eds) (1994) Interpreting the precautionary principle. Earthscan Publications, London

76.

Obataya I, Nakamura C, Han S, Nakamura N, Miyake J (2005) Nanoscale operation of a living cell using an atomic force microscope with a nanoneedle. Nano Lett 5.1:27–30CrossRef

77.

Oberdörster E (2004) Manufactured nanomaterials (Fullerenes, C₆₀) induce oxidative stress in the brain of juvenile largemouth bass. Environ Health Perspect 112.10:1058–1062CrossRef

78.

Office of the US President (2007) Office management and budget. Retrieved August 3, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/defense.html

79.

Olson E (1997) The human animal: personal identity without psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

80.

Parfit D (1984) Reasons and persons. Clarendon, Oxford

81.

Pellegrino ED, Thomasma DC (1993) The virtues in medical practice. Oxford University Press, New York

82.

Pellegrino ED (1985) The virtuous physician, and the ethics of medicine. In: Shelp (ed) Virtue and medicine: explorations in the character of medicine. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, pp 237–255

83.

Perrine JB (2005) The USA patriot act: big brother or business as usual? Notre Dame J Law Ethics Public Policy 19.1:163–195

84.

Philipkowski K (1999) Another change for gene therapy. Wired, October 1. Retrieved August 16, 2007 from http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/10/31613

85.

Phoenix C, Treder M (2004) Applying the precautionary principle to nanotechnology. Retrieved August 14, 2007 from http://www.crnano.org/precautionary.htm

86.

Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice, rev. edn. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

87.

Rescher N (1983) Risk: a philosophical introduction to the theory of risk evaluation and management. University Press of America, Lanham, MD

88.

Roessler B (2005) The value of privacy. Polity Press, Oxford

89.

Robert JS (2007) Nanoscience, nanoscientists, and controversy. In: Allhoff F, Lin P (eds) Nanoethics: emerging debates. Springer, Dordrecht (in press)

90.

Roco MC (n.d.) Nanotechnology funding: an international outlook. Retrieved August 3, 2007 from http://www.nano.gov/html/res/IntlFundingRoco.htm

91.

Royal Society of Chemistry (2006) Washing machine triggers nanoparticle regulation. Chemistry News, November 24. Retrieved July 27, 2007 from http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2006/November/24110602.asp

92.

Sagoff M (1981) At the shrine of our Lady of Fatima; or, why political questions are not all economic. Ariz Law Rev 23:1283–1298

93.

Sethe S (2007) Nanotechnology and life extension. In: Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J (eds) Nanoethics: the social and ethical implications of nanotechnology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp 353–365

94.

Schoeman DF (ed) (1984) Philosophical dimensions of privacy: an anthology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

95.

Schmid G et al. (2006) Nanotechnology: assessments and perspectives. Springer, Berlin

96.

Schummer J (2008) Cultural diversity in nanotechnology. In: Allhoff F, Lin P (eds) Nanoethics: emerging debates. Springer, Dordrecht (in press)

97.

Schummer J (2007a) Identifying ethical issues in nanotechnology. In: ten Have H (ed) Science ethics and policy issues. UNESCO Publishing, Paris, pp 79–98

98.

Schummer J (2007b) The impact of nanotechnologies on developing countries. In: Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J (eds) Nanoethics: the social and ethical implications of nanotechnology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp 291–307

99.

Shew A (2007) Nanotechnology’s future: considerations for the professional. In: Allhoff F, Lin P (eds) Nanoethics: emerging debates. Springer, Dordrecht (in press)

100.

Shiveley R (2006) Dual-core Intel Itanium 2 processors deliver unbeatable flexibility and performance to the enterprise. Technology@Intel Magazine, August. Retrieved August 17, 2007 from http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/computing/dual-core-itanium-0806.pdf

101.

Shrader-Frechette K (1998) A defense of risk-cost-benefit analysis. In: Pojman LP (ed) Environmental ethics: readings in theory and application, 3rd edn. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, pp 507–514

102.

Silver Institute (2003) Samsung washing machine disinfects with silver – no hot water needed. Retrieved July 16, 2007 from http://www.silverinstitute.org/news/2b03.html

103.

Sunstein CR (2005) Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Ethics 115:351–385 (January)CrossRef

104.

Swartz JS (2002) The human cloning act of 2001: vagueness and federalism. Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science, and Technology 43:79–90

105.

Thompson PB (1986) The philosophical foundations of risk. South J Philos 24:273–286CrossRef

106.

Tirlapur UK, König K (2003) Femptosecond near-infrared laser pulses as a versatile non-invasive tool for intra-tissue nanoprocessing in plants without compromising viability. Plant J 31.2:365–374

107.

Toth-Fejel T, Dodsworth C (2007) Nanoethics and the high frontier. In: Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J (eds) Nanoethics: the social and ethical implications of nanotechnology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp 323–337

108.

UN Ad Hoc Committee (2007) Retrieved August 23, 2007 from http://www.un.org/law/cloning/

109.

UNAIDS (2006) Report on the global AIDS epidemic. Retrieved July 24, 2007 from http://www.unaids.org/en/HIV_data/2006GlobalReport/default.asp

110.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2001) ToxFAQs for asbestos. Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, September. Retrieved August 13, 2007 from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts61.html

111.

US Patent Act–35 USCS Sects. 1–376 (2007) Retrieved July 27, 2007 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/patent.overview.html

112.

van den Hoven J (2006) Nanotechnology and privacy: the instructive case of RFID. Int J Appl Philos 20:215–228

113.

Weckert J (2005) On-line trust. In: Cavalier R (ed) The impact of the Internet on our moral lives. SUNY Press, Albany, NY, pp 95–117

114.

Weckert J (2002) Trust, corruption, and surveillance in the electronic workplace. In: Brunnstein K, Berleur J (eds) Human choice and computers: issues of choice and quality of life in the information society. Kluwer, Boston, pp 109–120

115.

Weckert J, Moor J (2007) The precautionary principle in nanotechnology. In: Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J (eds) Nanoethics: the social and ethical implications of nanotechnology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ pp 133–46. Originally published under the same title in (2006). Int J Appl Philos 2.2:191–402

116.

Weldon C (2005) Liberty’s duty to defend itself. Notre Dame J Law Ethics Public Policy 19.1:277–288

117.

Wikipedia (2007) World record progression for the mile run. Retrieved August 20, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_for_the_mile_run

118.

World Health Organization (2004) Water, sanitation, and hygiene links to health: Facts and figures. Retrieved July 24, 2007 from http://www.who.int/entity/water_sanitation_health/factsfigures2005.pdf

119.

World Transhumanist Association (2002) The transhumanist declaration. Retrieved August 20, 2007 from http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/declaration/

120.

Zhu S, Oberdörster E, Hassch ML (2006) Toxicity of an engineered nanoparticle (Fullerene, C₆₀) in two aquatic species, daphnia and fathead minnow. Mar Environ Res 62(Suppl 1):S5–S9CrossRef

Title: On the Autonomy and Justification of Nanoethics
Author: Fritz Allhoff
Publication date: 01-12-2007
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: NanoEthics / Issue 3/2007
Print ISSN: 1871-4757
Electronic ISSN: 1871-4765
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0018-3

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 3/2007

A Question of Balance or Blind Faith?: Scientists’ and Science Policymakers’ Representations of the Benefits and Risks of Nanotechnologies

What can Prudent Public Regulators Learn from the United Kingdom Government’s Nanotechnological Regulatory Activities?

Challenges in the Evaluation of Nanoscale Research: Ethical Aspects

Scientific Research–Who Should Govern?

Editorial – Governing Nanotechnology: More than a Small Matter?

Privacy in the Shadow of Nanotechnology