The second newsletter of the NANO2ALL project aims to promote the latest Nano2All activities and materials and also presents some news from other exciting initiatives. Please take a look on this issue at http://www.nano2all.eu/newsletters/news-2/index.html
S.NET Newsletter, February 2017
D3.1 Dialogue methodology
D2.3 Online self-assessment tool
D2.2 Online Training Needs Survey Report
D2.1 Current RRI in Nano Landscape Report
Toolkit for Ethical Reflection and Communication, by ObservatoryNano
The ethical debate on nanotechnology is large and tangled. It is often unclear what the right questions in this debate are, nor whether these questions are specific to nanotechnology in comparison with other emerging technologies. This Toolkit for ethical reflection and communication does not claim to provide a definitive picture of all options in the ethical debate on nanotechnology. Its aim is more modest: we wish to provide the reader with means to frame his own vision of the debate and to sharpen ethical awareness of the parties involved in the development of nanosciences and nanotechnologies. We hope that this will foster the dialogue between philosophy, science, industry, and society. The toolkit does not replace academic research on the subject†. It is our firm conviction that those who think about nanosciences and nanotechnologies are better equipped to do so with a notion of philosophical ethics. This is because the views elaborated over centuries can enable the construction of an argument to respond to new problems and because philosophical reflection itself will suggest new lines of questioning.
Download this document here.
Just a Cog in the Machine? The Individual Responsibility of Researchers in Nanotechnology is a Duty to Collectivize
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) provides a framework for judging the ethical qualities of innovation processes, however guidance for researchers on how to implement such practices is limited. Exploring RRI in the context of nanotechnology, this paper examines how the dispersed and interdisciplinary nature of the nanotechnology field somewhat hampers the abilities of individual researchers to control the innovation process. The ad-hoc nature of the field of nanotechnology, with its fluid boundaries and elusive membership, has thus far failed to establish a strong collective agent, such as a professional organization, through which researchers could collectively steer technological development in light of social and environmental needs. In this case, individual researchers cannot innovate responsibly purely by themselves, but there is also no structural framework to ensure that responsible development of nanotechnologies takes place. We argue that, in such a case, individual researchers have a duty to collectivize. In short, researchers in situations where it is challenging for individual agents to achieve the goals of RRI are compelled to develop organizations to facilitate RRI. In this paper we establish and discuss the criteria under which individual researchers have this duty to collectivize.
View all details about this paper here.
Reconfiguring Responsibility, Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology
We need to open up the politics of responsible development. Nanotechnology is currently a focus for much excitement and anxiety, and the notion of ‘responsible development’, with its emphasis on safe and beneficial innovation, lies at the heart of current thinking on its governance. But what does responsible development mean in practice? And how can the development of new technologies be infused with the values of democracy and public participation? This report argues that, if responsible development is to succeed in opening up public debate on nanotechnology, it needs to be substantially rethought.
Download this report here.