Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scientists’ Ethical Obligations and Social Responsibility for Nanotechnology Research

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scientists’ sense of social responsibility is particularly relevant for emerging technologies. Since a regulatory vacuum can sometimes occur in the early stages of these technologies, individual scientists’ social responsibility might be one of the most significant checks on the risks and negative consequences of this scientific research. In this article, we analyze data from a 2011 mail survey of leading U.S. nanoscientists to explore their perceptions the regarding social and ethical responsibilities for their nanotechnology research. Our analyses show that leading U.S. nanoscientists express a moderate level of social responsibility about their research. Yet, they have a strong sense of ethical obligation to protect laboratory workers (in both universities and industry) from unhealthy exposure to nanomaterials. We also find that there are significant differences in scientists’ sense of social and ethical responsibility depending on their demographic characteristics, job affiliation, attention to media content, risk perceptions and benefit perceptions. We conclude with some implications for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As previously stated, our sample contains only a small proportion of Republicans.

  2. Statements number 5 and 7 in Table 4 did not yield a significant F test for the OLS regression model. Therefore, they are not included as models in Table 5.

References

  • AAPOR. (2008). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Lenexa, KS: American Association for Public Opinion Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agresti, A., & Agresti, B. (1970). Statistical methods for the social sciences. San Francisco, CA: Dellen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2014). The “nasty effect:” Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Agenda setting in emergent R&D policy subsystems: Examining discourse effects of the 21st century nanotechnology research and development act. Review of Policy Research, 30(5), 447–463. doi:10.1111/ropr.12033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balas, F., Arruebo, M., Urrutia, J., & Santamaria, J. (2010). Reported nanosafety practices in research laboratories worldwide. Nature Nanotechnology, 5(2), 93–96. http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v5/n2/suppinfo/nnano.2010.1_S1.html.

  • Balbus, J. M., Florini, K., Denison, R. A., & Walsh, S. A. (2007). Protecting workers and the environment: An environmental NGO’s perspective on nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9(1), 11–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, J. C., & Nisbet, M. (2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 644–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, S. J. (1994). Overlooked aspects in the education of science professionals: Mentoring, ethics, and professional responsibility. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3(1), 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, S. J. (1999). Including ethics in graduate education in scientific research. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Perspectives on scholarly misconduct in the sciences (pp. 174–188). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Børsen, T., Antia, A., & Glessmer, M. (2013). A case study of teaching social responsibility to doctoral students in the climate sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(4), 1491–1504. doi:10.1007/s11948-013-9485-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, D. M., & Gilligan, G. (2010). The private dimension in the regulation of nanotechnologies: Developments in the industrial chemicals sector. UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 28(1), 77–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, R. D., & Ascher, W. (1992). Science and social responsibility. Policy Sciences, 25(3), 295–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2011). From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(3), 385–404. doi:10.1177/0963662509347815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chodorow, N. (1974). Family structure and feminine perspective. In M. Rosaldo & L. Lamphere (Eds.), Women in culture and society (pp. 41–48). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffe, H., & Bolzendahl, C. (2011). Partisan cleavages in the importance of citizenship rights and responsibilities. Social Science Quarterly, 92(3), 656–674. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00786.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2008). Ethics teaching in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 327–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, D., & Reeve, C. (1986). Science speaks to power: The role of experts in policy making. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conti, J. A., Killpack, K., Gerritzen, G., Huang, L., Mircheva, M., Delmas, M., et al. (2008). Health and safety practices in the nanomaterials workplace: Results from an international survey. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(9), 3155–3162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley, E. A., Kim, Y., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). The current status and future direction of nanotechnology regulations: A view from nano-scientists. Review of Policy Research, 30(5), 488–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley, E. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Hu, Q. (2009). Of risks and regulations: How leading U.S. nano-scientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(7), 1573–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COSEPUP. (2009). On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(1), 61–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies, 56(1), 76–98. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00718.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. J. (2009). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American politics. Washington: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggleson, K. (2013). Dual-use nanoresearch of concern: Recognizing threat and safeguarding the power of nanobiomedical research advances in the wake of the H5N1 controversy. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine, 9(3), 316–321. doi:10.1016/j.nano.2012.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. H. (2003). Have Americans’ attitudes become more polarized? An update. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 71–90. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.8401005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evers, K. (2001). Standards for ethics and responsibility in science: An analysis and evaluation of their content, background and function (Vol. 89). Paris: The International Council for Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, M. S. (1994). Science as a socially responsible community. Bloomington, IN: Poynter Center, Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, M. S. (2013, February). The social responsibilities of scientists. Speech presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting, Boston, MA.

  • Freeman, L. C. (1965). Elementary applied statistics: For students in behavioral science. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice—Women’s conceptions of the self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47(4), 481–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göb, R., McCollin, C., & Ramalhoto, M. F. (2007). Ordinal methodology in the analysis of Likert scales. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 601–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, L. A., & Kruskal, W. H. (1979). Measures of association for cross classifications. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1), 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, A. D. (2009). Tying it all together: Networks and policy-oriented learning in regional planning processes. Davis: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, S. S., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2011). Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: The interplay of public and experts. Science Communication, 33(2), 167–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAC. (2012). Responsible conduct in the global research enterprise. InterAcademy Council.

  • Jasanoff, S. (2010). Testing time for climate science. Science, 328(5979), 695–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2007). Nanotechnology risk perceptions: The influence of affect and values. Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School.

  • Kim, Y., Corley, E. A., & Scheufele, D. A. (2012). Classifying US nano-scientists: Of cautious innovators, regulators, and technology optimists. Science and Public Policy, 39(1), 30–38. doi:10.3152/030234212x13113405157822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krogsgaard-Larsen, P., Thostrup, P., & Besenbacher, F. (2011). Scientific social responsibility: A call to arms. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 50(46), 10738–10740. doi:10.1002/anie.201105641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma, J., & Besley, J. (2008). Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: From bio- to nanotechnology. NanoEthics, 2(2), 149–162. doi:10.1007/s11569-008-0035-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lackey, R. T. (2007). Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 12–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77(1), 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.

  • Lippincott, W. T. (1975). Scientific freedom and responsibility: Report of AAAS Committee. Journal of Chemical Education, 52(7), 417. doi:10.1021/ed052p417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, W. T., & Kline, R. (2000). Engineering practice and engineering ethics. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(2), 195–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madison, J. (1788). The Federalist Papers, # 51. Federalist collection of essays written in favour of the new constitution of the United States of America, 1.

  • Mansour, N. (2009). Science–technology–society (STS): A new paradigm in science education. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29(4), 287–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, D. (1989). Communicating technological risk: The social construction of risk perception. Annual Review of Public Health, 10(1), 95–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordgren, A. (2001). Responsible genetics: The moral responsibility of geneticists for the consequences of human genetics research. Philosophy and medicine. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • NSABB. (2012). Enhancing responsible science: Considerations for the development and dissemination of codes of conduct for dual use research. National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity.

  • NSB. (2012). Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (1996). The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(16), 1427–1453. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb00079.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimple, K. D. (2002). Six domains of research ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poland, C. A., Duffin, R., Kinloch, I., Maynard, A., Wallace, W. A. H., Seaton, A., et al. (2008). Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nature Nanotechnology, 3(7), 423–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. J. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz, J. R. (1990). The merger of knowledge with power: Essays in critical science. London: Mansell Publishing Limited.

  • Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2003). Nanotechnology: Societal implications—Maximizing benefit for humanity. In M. C. Roco & W. S. Bainbridge (Eds.), Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative workshop. National Science Foundation: Aringlton, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotblat, J. (1999). Science and humanity at the turn of the millennium.

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European public policy, 5(1), 98–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C. E. H., Conti, J., & Herr Harthorn, B. (2009). Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(11), 752–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, D., & Lewenstein, B. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, K., & Riediker, M. (2008). Use of nanoparticles in Swiss industry: A targeted survey. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(7), 2253–2260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulte, P., Geraci, C., Murashov, V., Kuempel, E., Zumwalde, R., Castranova, V., et al. (2014). Occupational safety and health criteria for responsible development of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 16(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulte, P. A., & Salamanca-Buentello, F. (2007). Ethical and scientific issues of nanotechnology in the workplace. Journal of Environmental Health Perspective, 12(5), 1319–1332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, J. (2004). Societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology: Meanings, interest groups, and social dynamics. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 8(2), 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, M. P. (1935). The classical American doctrine of “the separation of powers”. The University of Chicago Law Review, 2(3), 385–436.

  • Siegrist, M., Wiek, A., Helland, A., & Kastenholz, H. (2007). Risks and nanotechnology: The public is more concerned than experts and industry. Nature Nanotechnology, 2(2), 67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2000). Science for the twenty-first century. A new commitment.

  • Weber, J. R., & Schell Word, C. (2001). The communication process as evaluative context: What do nonscientists hear when scientists speak? Scientists and nonscientists benefit by recognizing that attempts at mutual influence, multiple frames of reference, and “objective” information in science communication are not neutral but evaluated with other social influences. BioScience, 51(6), 487–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M. (2007). An advocacy coalition framework approach to stakeholder analysis: Understanding the political context of California marine protected area policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, A. M. (1978). The obligations of citizenship in the republic of science. Minerva, 16(1), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A., & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 119(4), 41–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, E. J., & Collingridge, D. (1993). Incrementalism, intelligent trial-and-error, and the future of political decision theory. An heretical heir of the enlightenment: Politics, policy, and science in the work of Charles E. Lindblom (pp. 131–154). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

  • Zandvoort, H., Børsen, T., Deneke, M., & Bird, S. (2013). Editors’ overview perspectives on teaching social responsibility to students in science and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(4), 1413–1438. doi:10.1007/s11948-013-9495-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This material is based on work supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (SES-0531194), the Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics at ASU, and the John E. Ross Chair in Science Communication at the University of Wisconsin. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF, The Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics, or the University of Wisconsin.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, 411 N. Central Avenue, Suite 450, Mail Code 3720, Phoenix, AZ, 85004-0687, USA

    Elizabeth A. Corley & Youngjae Kim

  2. John E. Ross Professor, Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 309 Hiram Smith Hall, 1545 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI, 53706-1215, USA

    Dietram A. Scheufele

Authors
  1. Elizabeth A. Corley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Youngjae Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dietram A. Scheufele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Corley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Corley, E.A., Kim, Y. & Scheufele, D.A. Scientists’ Ethical Obligations and Social Responsibility for Nanotechnology Research. Sci Eng Ethics 22, 111–132 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9637-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9637-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation