ABSTRACT
For nanotechnology, this suggests that if some religious thinkers can anchor their views on nanotech in specific Biblical proof-tests, then there could hypothetically be a rich body of Judeo-Christian commentaries. Another comparison is that of religious reactions to biotechnology, and here there is a problem. In his analysis of “Religious and Metaphysical Opposition to Biotechnology,” Paul Thompson was disappointed to discover a series of deficiencies in religious thought about biotech. Some religious objections to biotech were nothing more than “standard technological ethics,” that is, arguments that could have been written by secular sources in the sense that they contain no theological or sectarian content or inspiration. A denomination’s “scholarly academic theology” might be quite different from the beliefs of its laity. The principal value of commentaries by theologians could have been their “metaphysically based concerns,” but in fact the theologians had not done this, or at least not successfully [6]. Thompson summarized religious thought on biotech as “the inchoate character of religious opposition” [6]. He expressed a hope that religious views will become more coherent, and that the scientists who were developing this form of biotechnology would assist religious people in developing their views. But his description of the status of those views was so unhappy that it is difficult to be optimistic that those things would happen. In addition, Patrick Hopkins cautioned that poorly formulated religious critiques of biotechnology would backfire and discredit religion [7]. One can imagine the same happening in the case of nanotechnology. 48.1.2 Background: Religious Belief and Public Views of
NanotechnologyThree surveys enable us to see how public reactions to nanotechnology will be shaped by certain cultural values, including religious values. In the UK, an exercise was conducted in modeling public reactions to six likely applications of nanomedicine. Four groups from different parts of the country were each balanced for gender and ethnicity, and they pondered the potential applications of nanomedicine in a two-stage process. Together they concluded that better diagnosis of diseases and better drug delivery were
the two most attractive applications. The two least attractive were drug discovery and “theranostics,” that is, combining diagnosis and therapy in a single process. Two other considerations (infection control and regenerative medicine) occupied middle positions on the continuum of attractive-and-unattractive [8]. What were the participants’ reasons for ranking those six applications that way? They embraced a set of value-laden themes which endorsed (a) personal empowerment and responsibility, as opposed to institutional control of one’s health; (b) protecting the privacy of the patient; and (c) a sense of social equity which controls the costs of health care, and which disdains public funding that leads to private profits. Thus theranostics was believed to take away choice and responsibility, but diagnosis of disease gave patients the information to act on their own medical situations. Drug discovery was felt to be equivalent to public support for private gain, but better drug delivery represented a benefit for everyone [8]. If that study shows us that certain cultural values, not dependent upon scientists’ preferences, will shape nonexperts’ reactions to nanomedicine, then we can turn to a pair of surveys that connect religious beliefs to nanotechnology. One survey, based on a sample of 706 people in the US, found that the “strength of religious beliefs is negatively related to support for funding of nanotechnology.” Religious apprehensions that developed earlier in response to biotechnology served as a template for reactions against nanotechnology. People for whom religion was not very important were more supportive of funding for nanotech. Knowledge of nanotechnology had little influence [9]. The other survey examined a certain correlation in the US and twelve EU nations. All had comparable levels of science and technology, and each had a rating on a scale from religious to secular, based on earlier comparative research. The more secular nations found nanotechnology more morally acceptable; the more religious nations found it less acceptable. “Religiosity is the dominant predictor of moral acceptance of nanotechnology,” wrote Dietram Scheufele and his colleagues. “Public attitudes toward issues such as nanotechnology are increasingly driven by personal values and beliefs” [10]. One might say that the scientific knowledge in people’s minds is a weak companion to the strong values and concerns in their hearts.
