Transcript Social Values and Nanotechnology

Some Thoughts on Scientific
Responsibility
John Weckert
Centre for Applied Philosophy and
Public Ethics
Charles Sturt University
Australian National University
University of Melbourne
Overview
Responsibility
Six considerations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Double effect
Dual use
Collingridge dilemma
Prediction
Collective responsibility
If we don’t others will
Some conclusions
Scientific responsibility
Responsibility to do good science


Any attempt at guiding scientific research
towards a purpose other than its own is an
attempt to deflect it from the advancement
of science (Polanyi,1962).
Scientific progress …results from the free
play of free intellects, … in the manner
dictated by their curiosity for exploration
of the unknown. (Bush, 1945)
European Commission
Researchers and research
organisations should remain
accountable for the social,
environmental and human health
impacts that their N&N research may
impose on present and future
generations (code of conduct for responsible
nanosciences and nanotechnologies research, 2008)
Responsibility
1. Causal responsibility
2. Role responsibility
3. Moral responsibility
(Individual v Collectivity responsibility)
2. Double Effect/Unintended
Consequences
Thomas Aquinas: A single act may
have two effects, of which only one is
intended, while the other is incidental
to that intention. But the way in which a
moral act is to be classified depends on
what is intended
Double Effect/Unintended
Consequences
1. consequences that are both foreseen
and intentional
2. consequences that are foreseen and
unintentional
3. consequences that are unforeseen
1 - responsibility
2 – alternatives?
3 -some unforeseen consequences
should have been foreseen
3. Dual Use
Any products, software or technology
that can be used for both civil and
military purposes are dual-use items.
Not the sense used here
Dual Use
The so-called “dual use dilemma”
arises in the context of research in the
biological and other sciences as a
consequence of the fact that one and
the same piece of scientific research
sometimes has the potential to be used
for harm as well as for good. (Miller
and Selgelid)
Dual Use
It is an ethical dilemma since it is about
promoting good in the context of the
potential for also causing harm
Ethical dilemmas should be solved not
by simply weighing up the potential
benefits against the potential harms,
but rather by finding other alternatives.
4. The Collingridge Dilemma
Either a technology is in a relatively early stage of
development when it is unknown what changes
should be made, or a technology is in a relatively
late stage of development when change is
expensive, difficult and time-consuming.
If the former, then control is not possible.
If the latter, then control is not feasible.
Therefore, either controlling technology is not
possible, or controlling technology is not feasible
So there can be no responsibility
BUT it is not a real dilemma!
5. Prediction
The consequences of research cannot
be predicted
Therefore responsibility for
consequences does not arise
Prediction
"I think there is a world market for maybe
five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
Bill Gates, 1981
Prediction
"Radio has no future."
"X-rays are clearly a hoax."
"The aeroplane is scientifically
impossible."
Royal Society president William Thomson,
Lord Kelvin, 1897-9.
Prediction
Eric Drexler distinguishes between
predicting future scientific knowledge
and engineering developments
Some prediction is reasonable

Extrapolation from known cases
Eg. use of surveillance technology
Vision assessment (Grünwald)
1. Collective responsibility
Science is collaborative (collective)
No individual can be held responsible
BUT if what the group does is morally
questionably and I accept it, I am
morally tainted (May)
6. “If we don’t others will”
The problem
Tennis rackets

If we don’t manufacture tennis rackets
containing nanoparticles someone else
will
Bionics
We might worry about where bionics will
lead, but the R & D will be done anyway by
someone
Both statements are probably true
Are these good arguments?
Justification
The world won’t be a better place if we
do not, because the developments will
still happen
It may be a worse place because we
have better safeguards
We will miss out and others will benefit
So we should do it and cannot be held
responsible for any harms
“If we don’t others will”
Arguments against
If something is wrong we should not do
it, even if others will

(deontological argument)
If we do it, it will give a bad example to
others
If we don’t it will set a good example

(consequentialist argument)
“If we don’t others will”
Metaphysical guilt even if no moral
responsibility
We are responsible for the kind of
people that we are
Moral taint
“If we don’t others will”
Some considerations
How bad is the action?
How much harm will it cause?
How much less harm will be caused if we do
it than if someone else does?
How much more will it benefit us if we do it
than someone else if they do it?
How certain is it that if we don’t do it
someone else will?
Do we want to be morally tainted?
Conclusion
All arguments can be reasonable in
some circumstances
All can be (often are) used as excuses
There is a need for more and continued
examination of the issues underlying
these arguments
Albert Einstein
'In our time, scientists and engineers
carry a particularly heavy burden of
moral responsibility, because the
development of military means of mass
destruction is dependent on their work.'
Joseph Rotblat
believed that scientists should always
be concerned with the ethical
consequences of their work.
was the only physicist to leave the
Manhattan Project on the grounds of
conscience
Leonardo da Vinci
Leonardo da Vinci
How and why is it that I do not describe my
method for remaining underwater and how
long I can remain there without coming up
for air? I do not wish to divulge or publish
this because of the evil nature of men, who
might use it for murder on the sea-bed
(quoted in White, 2000, 206).