Anticipating the Interaction between Technology and Morality: A Scenario Study of Experimenting with Humans in Bionanotechnology

During the last decades several tools have been developed to anticipate the future impact of new and emerging technologies. Many of these focus on ‘hard,’ quantifiable impacts, investigating how novel technologies may affect health, environment and safety. Much less attention is paid to what might be called ‘soft’ impacts: the way technology influences, for example, the distribution of social roles and responsibilities, moral norms and values, or identities. Several types of technology assessment and of scenario studies can be used to anticipate such soft impacts. We argue, however, that these methods do not recognize the dynamic character of morality and its interaction with technology. As a result, they miss an important opportunity to broaden the scope of social and political deliberation on new and emerging technologies.In this paper we outline a framework for building scenarios that enhance the techno-moral imagination by anticipating how technology, morality and their interaction might evolve. To show what kind of product might result from this framework, a scenario is presented as an exemplar. This scenario focuses on developments in biomedical nanotechnology and the moral regime of experimenting with human beings. Finally, the merits and limitations of our framework and the resulting type of scenarios are discussed.

[1]  Michiel Korthals,et al.  Ethics in a Technological Culture , 2002 .

[2]  D. Collingridge.  The social control of technology , 1980 .

[3]  Larry J Kricka,et al.  Nanobiotechnology: the promise and reality of new approaches to molecular recognition. , 2005, Trends in biotechnology.

[4]  Fabrice Jotterand,et al.  Emerging conceptual, ethical and policy issues in bionanotechnology , 2008 .

[5]  Nanotechnologie in der Medizin , 2007 .

[6]  T. Swierstra,et al.  Forging a fit between technology and morality: The Dutch debate on organ transplants , 2010 .

[7]  E. Smadja.  Scenario Planning as a Tool for Choosing more Ethical Futures: a Case Study in Nanoscale Science and Technology , 2006, 2006 IEEE Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium.

[8]  Robin Williams,et al.  Compressed Foresight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High Technology Futures , 2006 .

[9]  Paul Sollie,et al.  Evaluating new technologies : methodological problems for the ethical assessment of technology developments , 2009 .

[10]  M. Trappenburg.  Darwin in de medische ethiek , 2003 .

[11]  B. Wynne,et al.  Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs , 2001, Science as culture.

[12]  Arie Rip,et al.  Challenges for technology foresight/assessment and governance. Final report of the STRATA Consolidating workshop "Science and technology policies in Europe: new challenges, new responses" Brussels, 22-23 April 2002 , 2003 .

[13]  J. Dewey.  The Evolutionary Method as Applied to Morality , 1902 .

[14]  Michael Decker,et al.  Ethical inquiry and (health) technology assessment: the social shaping perspective , 2004, Poiesis Prax..

[15]  Yudong D. He,et al.  A Gene-Expression Signature as a Predictor of Survival in Breast Cancer , 2002 .

[16]  W. Smit,et al.  De wederzijdse beinvloeding van technologie en maatschappij: een Technology Assessment-benadering , 1999 .

[17]  Michael Decker,et al.  The role of ethics in interdisciplinary technology assessment , 2004, Poiesis Prax..

[18]  Rutger O. van Merkerk,et al.  Tailoring CTA for emerging technologies , 2008 .

[19]  H. D. Jouvenel,et al.  A Brief Methodological Guide to Scenario Building , 2000 .

[20]  J. Dewey,et al.  The moral writings of John Dewey , 1976 .

[21]  Michiel Korthals,et al.  Ethics in Technological Culture: A Programmatic Proposal for a Pragmatist Approach , 2004, Science, technology & human values.

[22]  F. Miller,et al.  The internal morality of medicine: an evolutionary perspective. , 2001, The Journal of medicine and philosophy.

[23]  M. V. Asselt,et al.  An updated scenario typology , 2003 .

[24]  Christian Clausen,et al.  Ethics and HTA: some lessons and challenges for the future , 2004, Poiesis Prax..

[25]  Dynamic Ethics , 2003 .

[26]  Arie Rip,et al.  Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation About New and Emerging Science and Technology , 2007 .

[27]  Julie A. Johnson,et al.  Molecular diagnostics as a predictive tool: genetics of drug efficacy and toxicity. , 2002, Trends in molecular medicine.

[28]  Yudong D. He,et al.  Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer , 2002, Nature.

[29]  G. D. Hartogh,et al.  Euthanasie. Nieuwe knelpunten in een voortgezette discussie , 2003 .

[30]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA) , 2006 .

[31]  N. Brown,et al.  Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science , 2000 .

[32]  R. Pagon.  Genetic testing for disease susceptibilities: consequences for genetic counseling. , 2002, Trends in molecular medicine.

[33]  Geertsma Re,et al.  Nanotechnology in medical applications:state-of-the-art in materials and devices , 2005 .

[34]  T. Swierstra,et al.  Exploring the interaction between technology and morality in the field of genetic susceptibility testing: A scenario study , 2010 .

[35]  Marianne Boenink,et al.  Tensions and Opportunities in Convergence: Shifting Concepts of Disease in Emerging Molecular Medicine , 2009, Nanoethics.

[36]  Thomas J. Misa,et al.  Managing technology in society: the approach of constructive technology assessment , 1997 .