ABSTRACT
It is difficult to identify the starting point of the debate over nanotechnology and society. There are, however, some arguments for assuming that everything began around the year 2000: the Bill Joy debate, the first consideration of the possible health or environmental risks caused by nanoparticles, and the first activities related to nanotechnology and sustainable development. We can thus look back on about 10 years of debate over nanotechnology and society, including ethical reflection, whose start was in fragmented and isolated activities but which soon developed fulminant momentum (Sections 2.6 and 5.1). This is one motivation for assessing the situation: What has been reached so far? What has
not been reached? And what can be said about the outcome of these 10 years in relation to the expectations raised at an early stage? Obviously, a manifold of research and reflection in the social sciences, in ethics, and in the humanities has been performed, which now constitutes a considerable body of knowledge that previously was not available. This is a remarkable step toward understanding the cultural, social, and ethical dimensions of nano(bio)technology in particular and new and emerging technologies in general (see Chapters 5-9). However, my question is more directed toward the impact of ethical reflection outside these fields (cf. in more detail Grunwald, 2011b). One aim of ethical inquiry into nanotechnology is to influence the further course of development or, in short, to have an impact rather than to be a mere ornament. The early stage of many developments in nanotechnology provided and provides an advantageous opportunity: the chance and also the time for concomitant reflection, as well as the opportunity to integrate the results of reflection into the process of technology design, thereby contributing to the further development of nanotechnology (Moor and Weckert, 2004; Fleischer, 2003). Ethics and other types of prospective analysis and assessment, such as science, technology, and society (STS) studies, have largely recognized this opportunity: the hype surrounding nanotechnology has been followed by hype around reflection on the social implications and impact of nanotechnology. It seems appropriate to question which impact the second form of hype has had up to now. In a “strong” understanding of the social shaping of technology approach (SST; Yoshinaka et al., 2003; Grunwald and Hocke-Bergler, 2010) we should expect an impact on the “shaping” of nanotechnology, and this “strong understanding” was dominant in the early phase of nanoethics: the objective was to influence nanotechnology development. The central message was that a “better” nanotechnology could be constructed by using SST: “to achieve better technology in a better society” (Schot and Rip, 1997). The social construction of technology has even been extended to the social construction of the consequences of technology. In order to achieve an environmentally and socially friendlier technology, network-oriented approaches to the sociology of technology have tried to control the problem of the unintended side effects of technology by applying adequate strategies for shaping technology
during its genesis. Behind these approaches are highly ambitious models of social construction and constructability of technology. The main diagnosis today is, however, that there is only weak evidence for the strong understanding, i.e., weak evidence that ethical contributions played a substantial role in the formation of nanotechnology itself (following Grunwald and Hocke-Bergler, 2010). Study of the literature and observation of the public discourse have detected hardly any traces of ethical deliberations on the pathways and roadmaps of nanotechnology and, thus, of an influence of ethics on the nanoscientific agenda itself. Ethical deliberations, however, clearly had and still have a concrete impact in other fields. They have not directly affected the nanoscientific agenda, but they have complemented the view on what should urgently be done in other fields of research (such as nanotoxicology). And by motivating public debate, they have contributed to nanotechnology becoming a public phenomenon. There is more evidence to support a weaker interpretation of the contribution that ethical debate has made to the formation of nanotechnologies. This weak understanding — which does not imply a weak influence — could be described as follows:
Ethical issues, positions, and judgments have become an accepted part of society’s debate about nanotechnology. They can be found in the academic sphere, but especially in public, such as in events at academies and educational institutions, at discussion forums organized by foundations, in the features section of larger newspapers, in policy consultation, and in the political debate itself. In the meantime, ethical topics have come to belong to the standard repertoire of scientific policy consultation. The example of parliamentary technology assessment demonstrates that ethical topics have, taken together, increased in significance in parliament. Policy consultation on nanotechnology has in the meantime become
a broad subject, in which ethical issues are taken into consideration as a matter of principle. Social issues in nanotechnology receive broad treatment in public dialogs in Germany (at events such as the federal government’s nanoforum, which is coordinated by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, and at similar dialogs at the state level), in the activities of nongovernmental organizations (e.g., BUND, 2008), in conferences held by church academies and by foundations belonging to political parties, as well as in the relevant workshops of economic groups. Workshops and consumer conferences take place on specific fields of application, particularly in the food sector, where the issues covered are primarily related to risk acceptance, risk acceptability, and labeling requirements. Ethical issues even frequently play a central role at these conferences. The two issues at the forefront are the risks posed by synthetic nanoparticles and the rather futuristic topic of the relationship between humans and technology. The imprint of ethical arguments accordingly permeates the entire public debate on nanotechnology. It is therefore possible to speak of the de facto presence of ethics in the debate about nanotechnology. Moral arguments are raised by scientists and spread by the media, and they are present in the realms of politics and economics. This ethical reflection has contributed to sensitizing social groups with regard to nanotechnology. The fact that nanotechnology is a challenge to science, to reflection, and to the societal organization of technology is not something that was made clear by the older economic estimates of the market potential of nanotechnology (e.g., Bachmann, 1998); it was made clear by the pattern of ethical argumentation that was introduced into the debate, as it was everywhere following the Bill Joy debate. Professional ethical reflection has deconstructed and reconstructed the patterns of the moral arguments that have been raised by Eric Drexler, Bill Joy, the transhumanists, Jean-Pierre Dupuy, and other representatives of striking positions. It has also linked these patterns to the relevant discussions and arguments in subdisciplines of applied ethics. This has, as it were, demystified nanotechnology by “normalizing” it. This normalization may have contributed to the fact that the social dialog on nanotechnology has until now proceeded in civilized channels. The revolutionary pathos of nanotechnology’s early phase was constantly in danger of turning into a rejection that was just as radical. “Tremendous transformative
potential comes with tremendous anxieties” (Nordmann, 2004, p. 4; see also Grunwald, 2006a). No one can assert that ethical reflection has changed the course of nanotechnology (as asserted by a strong understanding of “shaping technology”). Yet it has — in concert with other forms of research into and reflection on the social aspects of nanotechnology such as STS studies, technology assessment, and risk studies — contributed to the fact that nanotechnology has been embedded in society in a manner that is different to how it would otherwise have been. In other words, ethical reflection was not a force shaping nanotechnology itself — this technology is still at a stage that might be too early for this to happen — but it was a force shaping the interface between nanotechnology and society. This occurred, for example, by means of the early demand that research be conducted into the possibly toxic properties of nanoparticles, by opening the debate on the relationship between humans and technology in light of the possibilities for technical human “enhancement,” and by insisting on opportunities for participation and on dialog. Ethical reflection on nanotechnology, as has been shown, has not met the high expectations on it that it contribute to the formation of nanotechnology itself in the sense of influencing the research agenda. A strong interpretation of the position of social construction cannot be verified. The ethical debate on nanotechnology in its different forms has however had a remarkable impact on the social and scientific environment of nanotechnology. This means that ethical reflection — although it has not been able to contribute directly to “shaping technology” — is not merely ornamental. This is, in my eyes, a positive result. Ethical analysis and STS studies have really contributed to normalizing nanotechnology, which means to a successful piecewise embedding of nanotechnology into society despite the risks and even while taking these risks seriously.
