Nanoethics (2014) 8:207–209 DOI 10.1007/s11569-014-0195-9

BOOK REVIEW

Review of In Pursuit of Nanoethics Stephanie E. Vasko

Received: 20 May 2014 / Accepted: 26 May 2014 / Published online: 9 July 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Pursuit A seductive word which sparks images of animals chasing down prey, of relentless motion towards a goal or purpose. On first picking up In Pursuit of Nanoethics [1], I found myself asking if, seven years after the advent of this journal, we are still chasing down a definition for “nanoethics”? On first glance, I would expect that a title such as this one gives the reader a similar impression; however, the introduction to this volume makes it clear that this is not the definition of “pursuit” from which Bert Gordijn and Anthony Mark Cutter are operating. Instead, they trace the lineage of the word from its first usages to its use in the title of this journal. They then move towards the debates around “nanoethics” and how these debates have transformed with time. In order to explore the continuing debate around interactions of nanotechnology and ethics, this book is divided into four topical areas: Concepts and Novelty, Opportunities and Challenges, Risks and Precaution, and Public Debate and Policy. Gordijn and Cutter’s introduction both sets the scene for this volume of pieces (many of which are from authors familiar to the readers of this journal) and presents a short synopsis of each piece. Rather than repeat the work done in this section, I’ll provide impressions of the pieces as well as reflect on the themes of individual sections and the volume as a whole.

S. E. Vasko (*) The Rock Ethics Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA e-mail: [email protected]

The first section (‘Concepts and Novelty’) is representative of what a “traditional” approach to exploring a term like “nanoethics” might look like. It provides the reader with an introduction not only to the debates around new fields of applied ethics, but also to how arguments for these fields can or need to tie into existing fields of study. Joachim Schummer’s ‘On the Novelty of Nanotechnology: A Philosophical Essay’ does a thoughtful, thorough, and interesting job in unpacking the definition of novelty with respect to nanotechnology. Due to the all-too-common use of arguments such as “nanotechnology is not new/novel because it has been around forever” (as mentioned in the introduction, p. 5), an extended treatment of novelty, including the role of the public in defining the novelty of nanotechnology, is an important addition to this volume. Søren Holm opens his piece (‘Does Nanotechnology Require New ‘Nanoethics’?’) by both claiming that the debate around nanoethics is still an open question and by introducing nanotechnology as a space to explore, if for each future technology, “…we need a new field of ethics to handle the issues raised by the technology?” (p. 31) Holm centers on four questions (p. 32), and the last of these four, “Do we need experts in the ethics of nanotechnology?,” informs his conclusion that “what we need is not a new nano ethics, but a new field of nanoethicists” (p. 37). Holm highlights the time it takes to to acquire knowledge and scientific expertise and and the importance of this mastery for performing ethical analysis of new technologies. Finally, Ronald Sandler’s ‘GM Food and Nanotechnology’ looks at comparisons between GM foods and nanotechnology, offering three lessons

208

(public engagement, technological fixes, and case by case assessment) that nanotechnology can take away from the debates around GM foods. Sandler’s last sentence points out that while similarities exist between technologies and lessons can be learned, the disparities between GM and nano require that the “…lessons be done carefully, critically, and with attentiveness to the complexities involved” (p. 54). The combination of these pieces provides a great opening to the volume by analyzing the arguments made for and against nanoethics as its own branch of ethics and highlighting the intersection of nanoethics with other branches of ethics (bioethics) or ethically-contentious technologies (GM food). ‘Challenges and Opportunities,’ contains a collection of interesting, yet disparate, pieces. It may be that the name of this section is what causes it to read as disconnected, perhaps a better frame for these pieces would be ‘Disciplinary Intersections.’ This section begins with Melanie Latham’s ‘Nanomedecine and Body Modification: A Critical Perspective,’ which delineates feminist critiques on cosmetic enhancements and ends with a discussion of public engagement and precautionary measures for nanomedecine. Darryl Macer’s ‘Nanotechnology and Biodiversity’ does a nice job teasing out the differences between anthropocentric, biocentric, and ecocentric ethical analysis (p. 74). Macer walks the reader through the different ways that nano can impact biodiversity, ending on discussion of governance and the need for both further research and further policy development. The last piece in this section, Robert Simpson and Robert Sparrow’s ‘Nanotechnologically Enhanced Combat Systems: The Downside of Invulnerability,’ is the strongest piece of this sub-collection and is an interesting read, especially for one unfamiliar with potential military applications. Situating itself in war ethics, this piece explores the various facets of (and justifications for) just war theory, and explores the intersection of nanotechnology with this theory. While disparate, these pieces work well individually and can serve as introduction points to issues with nanoethics for researchers and students from various backgrounds. In the third section, Fritz Allhoff’s piece (‘Risk, Precaution, and Nanotechnology’) gives the reader an excellent grounding in risk, cost-benefit analysis, and the precautionary principle. This allows for a more nuanced reading not only of the subsequent two pieces, but also of the rest of this volume as well. While Allhoff’s selection provides a deep understanding of

Nanoethics (2014) 8:207–209

these concepts with the nanotechnology-based issues couched behind them, Roberto Andorno and Nikola Biller-Andorno’s “The Risks of Nanotechnology and the Precautionary Principle” brings the nanotechnology to the foreground. This piece contains several subsections (specifically, “9.2.3-Privacy and Confidentiality” and “9.2.4-The Challenge of Enhancement”) that could serve as seed points for independent pieces. Kevin Elliot’s “Ethical and Societal and Value in Nanotechnology” probes how value judgements are present in scientific research as a whole. He deftly explores these embedded values in nanotechnology by drilling down into nanotoxicology, looking at how values infiltrate questions around the material studied (10.3.1), the biological models used (10.3.2), the effects examined (10.3.3) and standards of evidence (10.3.4). Elliot’s statement in 10.3.4. that “…one might be tempted to consider these questions about standards of evidence to be primarily a policy issue rather than a scientific one. Nevertheless, it is sometimes difficult to disentangle these sorts of policy considerations from scientific practice” (p. 155) offers both a lead-in for the next section and a call for exploration at the science/policy intersection. Philip Macnaghten’s “Nanotechnology, Risk, and Public Perception” opens the final section of the book with the aim to unpack public perceptions towards nanotechnology. Macnaghten discusses survey research (one of the main tools for unpacking public understanding), traces the history and results of nanotechnology survey research, and offers some critiques of the methodological frameworks used in this type of research. Perhaps the most interesting takeaway from this piece is that Macnaughten highlights the schism in public perception literature between “(generally) crude survey research” (p. 177) and “descriptions of deliberative policy processes” (p. 177) as stemming from “…the problematic nature of studying public perceptions of technologies that frequently don’t exist yet” (p. 177). Simone Arnaldi’s ‘Unlocking the Futures of Nanotechnology. Future-Oriented Narratives and Access to the Public Discourse on Nanoscale’ uses a quasi 5-Ws approach to understanding the intersection of futureoriented narratives with public discourse. In subsections of this piece, he asks “What Futures?”, “Why Futures?” and “Whose Futures?” In the latter section, there is some discussion of where futures are “formulated and debated” (p.188), but geographical representation through a section like “Where Futures?” was noticeably missing and a “How Futures?” section may have underscored

Nanoethics (2014) 8:207–209

the call for public discourse. The final piece of the volume, Henk ten Have’s ‘Nanotechnology and Ethics-European Public Policies,’ considers the now global nature of science and technology with respect to biotechnology and bioethics before seguing into the need to address the globalization of nanotechnology and nanoethics as well. He highlights the intersection of economic and ethical concerns before exploring the ethical issues that the European Group has identified as salient ones (Safety, Research Ethics, Public Participation, Responsibility of the Scientific Community). Finally, he underscores that international agencies, specifically UNESCO, are uniquely positioned to address these concerns. One minor issue with this volume is that it occasionally feels dated, which is highlighted by the use of “recent” in some pieces. For example, a discussion of public engagement activity in the United States (p. 175) lacks a discussion of the Nanoscale Informal Science Education (NISE) Network, and one section mentions the “recent” scandal over toxic waste in the Ivory Coast (p. 193). Additionally, while this selection of wellwritten and well-reasoned pieces represents a diverse set of authors and perspectives, the thematic groups did not serve the volume as well as they could have and occasionally felt arbitrary. From the first to the last piece in this volume, calls for public involvement, engagement, and participation form important takeaway messages for the reader, as well as for the scientific/research and policy communities. Instead of the original themes, themes could have been based on this and other common themes present throughout the volume. In 2014, we’ve moved beyond situating ourselves with Drexler, Joy, and Feynman. While it’s important to understand

209

where we are coming from historically in our pursuit of nanoethics and in dialogues of futures, it is just as important to situate ourselves in the present with an eye towards the future. Focusing on the intersection of publics with nanoethics enables these pieces to move beyond the previously mentioned figures in angling the field toward the most salient issues for future work. Overall, thanks to the strength of several pieces in this volume, In Pursuit of Nanoethics is a welcome contribution to the field. I found myself recommending many of the selections to colleagues working in various areas of applied ethics and have gone back to many of the pieces to inform my own future research directions. From the novice student to the experienced scholar, this volume has something to offer for everyone, especially for those interested in integrating publics into the discourse around nanoethics.

Conflict of Interest S.E. Vasko is a member of Socially Relevant Philosophy of/in Science and Engineering (SRPoiSE), an organization in which Kevin Elliott ('Ethical and Societal Values in Nanotoxicology') is also a member.

Funding S.E. Vasko is funded through support from the Rock Ethics Institute at The Pennsylvania State University and from a National Science Foundation Ethics Education in Science and Engineering Grant #1135327.

References 1. cpcp1. Gordijn B and Cutter AM (eds) (2014) In Pursuit of Nanoethics. Springer, Dordrecht