Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation About New and Emerging Science and Technology

Swierstra, Tsjalling; Rip, Arie

doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0005-8

Cited by 289 publications

(223 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

186

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Traditionally, this technological determinism was based on the assumption of an autonomous, quasi-Hegelian, scientific or technological logic unfolding itself (see, for example, Ellul 1964;Postman 1992). Nowadays, the justification of this determinism is usually somewhat more political: technology cannot be steered or controlled because of the relative powerlessness of any single nation state in a globalizing economy (Mitcham 1994;Swierstra and Rip 2007). An additional often-heard argument is that technological development cannot be stopped because of the psychological mechanism that somehow forces consumers always to desire and demand what has become technologically available (Postman 1992).…”

Section: Co-evolution Of Science and Technology And Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

Reframing and Articulating Socio-scientific Classroom Discourses on Genetic Testing from an STS Perspective

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades, Science & Technology Studies (STS) have revealed the dynamic interaction between science and technology and society. Technology development is not an autonomous process and its artifacts are not socially inert. Society and technology shape each other. Technologies often have 'soft impacts' in terms of unpredicted side effects on individuals and society. Nevertheless, current societal discourse on technological innovations is still dominated by 'hard impacts' such as quantifiable risks for health, safety and the environment. Furthermore, participants in socio-scientific discourses often underestimate their agency in influencing technological innovations, and at the same time overestimate their freedom of choice to use a technology. Past debates on technological innovations have shown how these debates were framed and often caught in fruitless discourse patterns or arguments. Interventionist STS research experiments with solutions to this problem. Assuming that an STS perspective is helpful in reframing and articulating socio-scientific classroom discourses, the case of genetic testing is used to explore this. An important positive 'hard impact' of genetic testing is disease prevention. However, this is put into perspective by addressing 'soft impacts' such as limited access to certain careers based on genetic risk and changes in the conception of health and the perception of responsibility for one's health. Discussion stoppers such as 'playing God' or 'We can't stop technological advancement' can be challenged through uncovering underlying assumptions. The use of narratives and future scenarios in classrooms seems 123 Sci & Educ (2014) 23:485-507 DOI 10.1007 fruitful in provoking imagination and engaging students in public debates on technological innovations.The message of the gene appears to be equivocal. It promises both certainty, order, predictability, control and helplessness, limitation and acceptance of biological fate. It can stress both similarities and differences. It can discover human relations and at the same time break them off (Ten Have 1995, p. 29; translation from Dutch).

show abstract

Section: Co-evolution Of Science and Technology And Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

Reframing and Articulating Socio-scientific Classroom Discourses on Genetic Testing from an STS Perspective

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Like many of the debates over SynBio, reasoning about harms tends to be consequentialist (Schmidt et al, 2008;Swierstra and Rip, 2007); perhaps because identifying outcomes and endpoints is more amenable to scientific engagement than is a discussion of principles, duties or virtues which may lack tangibility or practical context. A consequentialist approach also naturally lends itself to considerations of harm, which can then provide a useful 'hook' into discussions over policy-making for SynBio.…”

Section: Ethical Issues Arising In Synbiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Ethical Issues in Synthetic Biology: Where Should We Go from Here?

Newson

2011

Accountability in Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Synthetic Biology (SynBio) is an emerging scientific field which has quickly established momentum and visibility. Although no single definition of SynBio prevails, the field broadly encompasses the application of engineering principles to biology; re-designing biological materials and using them as new substrates to create products and entities not otherwise found in nature. This paper first reviews SynBio, highlighting the novel aspects of this technology. It then synthesises ethical issues highlighted in the literature to date and makes some initial claims that research on the ethical aspects of SynBio should: avoid creating a new sub-type of bioethics, concentrate on novel concepts and problems and be situated within a context of cooperative inter-disciplinary investigation.

show abstract

“…Based on these kinds of observations, many philosophers of technology [3,4,[16][17][18] conclude that artifacts are mediating our behavior. Technological artifacts are not just passive tools: they affect our actions and intentions.…”

Section: Technological Delegationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tsjalling Swierstra and Arie Rip elaborate on technological mediation of norms and values when discussing nanotechnology and NEST ethics [17]. They argue that According to most theories one could only be responsible if one could have known the relevant moral norms [7,26].…”

Section: Ad 4 the Actor Is Aware Of The Relevant Norms And Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Technological Delegation: Responsibility for the Unintended

Waelbers

2008

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article defends three interconnected premises that together demand for a new way of dealing with moral responsibility in developing and using technological artifacts. The first premise is that humans increasingly make use of dissociated technological delegation. Second, because technologies do not simply fulfill our actions, but rather mediate them, the initial aims alter and outcomes are often different from those intended. Third, since the outcomes are often unforeseen and unintended, we can no longer simply apply the traditional (modernist) models for discussing moral responsibility. We need to reinterpret moral responsibility. A schematic layout of a model on Social Role-Responsibility that incorporates these three premises is presented to allow discussion of a new way of interpreting moral responsibility.

show abstract

Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation About New and Emerging Science and Technology

Cited by 289 publications

References 17 publications

Reframing and Articulating Socio-scientific Classroom Discourses on Genetic Testing from an STS Perspective

Reframing and Articulating Socio-scientific Classroom Discourses on Genetic Testing from an STS Perspective

Current Ethical Issues in Synthetic Biology: Where Should We Go from Here?

Technological Delegation: Responsibility for the Unintended

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About