Nanotechnology: the Social and Ethical Issues

Nanotechnology: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars The Social and Ethical Issues One Woodrow Wilson Plaza 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20004-3027 Ronald Sandler

T 202.691.4000 F 202.691.4001 www.wilsoncenter.org/nano www.nanotechproject.org

This publication has been printed on 100% recycled Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies is supported Pen 16 paper with soy-based inks. by The Pew Charitable Trusts january 2009 Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Lee H. Hamilton, President and Director

Bo a r d o f Tr u s t e e s Joseph B. Gildenhorn, Chair David A. Metzner, Vice Chair

Pu b l i c Me mb e r s James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress; G. Wayne Clough, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution; Bruce Cole, Chair, National Endowment for the Humanities; Mark R. Dybul, designated appointee within the federal government; Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Condoleezza Rice, Secretary, U.S. Department of State; Margaret Spellings, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education; Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States

Pr i v a t e Ci t i z e n Me mb e r s Robin B. Cook, Donald E. Garcia, Bruce S. Gelb, Sander Gerber, Charles L. Glazer, Susan Hutchison, Ignacio E. Sanchez

The Pr o j e c t o n Em e r g i n g Na n o t echnologies was launched in 2005 by the Wilson Center and The Pew Charitable Trusts. It is dedicated to helping business, governments, and the public anticipate and manage the possible human and environmental implications of nanotechnology.

Th e Pe w Ch a r i t a b l e Tr u s t s serves the public interest by providing information, advancing policy solutions and supporting civic life. Based in Philadelphia, with an office in Washington, D.C., the Trusts will invest $248 million in fiscal year 2007 to provide organizations and citizens with fact- based research and practical solutions for challenging issues.

The Wo o d r o w Wi l s o n In t e r n a t i o n a l Ce n t e r f o r Sc h o l a r s is the living, national memorial to President Wilson established by Congress in 1968 and headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Center establishes and maintains a neutral forum for free, open and informed dialogue. It is a nonpartisan institution, supported by public and private funds and engaged in the study of national and international affairs. Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues

Ronald Sandler

Pen 16 january 2009

The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect views of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars or The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Contents 5 Executive Summary 9 I. Introduction: Technology, Ethics and Government Technology and Society Ethics and the Functions of Government The National Nanotechnology Initiative and the “Other” Social and Ethical Issues About this Report 13 II. Ethics and Emerging Nanotechnologies Ethics as Restraint and Aspiration Roles of Ethics in Responsible Development Ethical Issues vs. Ethical Implications 16 III. Three Misconceptions about the Social and Ethical Issues Too Soon to Tell The Inevitable Goodness of the Nanotechnology Revolution The Point Is to Secure Public Acceptance 21 IV. Typology of the Issues Social Context Issues Contested Moral Issues Technoculture Issues Form of Life Issues Transformational Issues 25 V. Social Context Issues Scenario: Manufacturing Nanotechnology Environmental Justice The Issue: Environmental Justice and Nanotechnology Addressing Environmental Injustice Beyond Environmental Justice Comments on Social Context Issues 31 VI. Contested Moral Issues Scenario: Research at the Boundaries of Life Forms Research on Novel Life Forms The Issue: The Sanctity of Life Forms? Beyond the Sanctity of Life Forms Comments on Contested Moral Issues 37 VII. Technoculture Issues Scenario: Nanotechnology, Genomics and Asthma in Upper Manhattan The Techno-Fix The Issue: Nanotechnology as Techno-Fix? Beyond the Techno-Fix Comments on Technoculture Issues 43 VIII. Form of Life Issues Scenario: Virtual Socialization Virtual Reality The Issue: Virtual Reality and Sociability Beyond Virtual Reality and Sociability Comments on Form of Life Issues 48 IX. Transformational Issues Scenario: Cognitive Enhancement On the Threshold of (Radical) Human Enhancement? Social and Ethical Dimensions of Radical Human Enhancement The Issue: Transformational Dimensions of Radical Human Enhancement Beyond Radical Human Enhancement Comments on Transformational Issues 55 X. Conclusion: The Opportunity 57 REFERENCES 59 ACKNOWLEDGMENTs 4

preface

Too often, discussions about the social and ethical issues surrounding new technologies are treated as afterthoughts, or worse still, as potential roadblocks to innovation. The ethical discussions are relegated to the end of scientific conferences, outsourced to social scientists, or generally marginalized in the policymaking process. The goal of this paper by Ron Sandler of Northeastern University is to clearly place social and ethical issues within ongoing debates on the responsible development of nanotechnologies. The paper presents a broad framework to structure the analysis and discussion of ethical issues, which builds on improving our understanding of the social, cultural, and moral context of emerging technologies and assessing the status of these issues as the technologies evolve. The author takes on some of the common misconceptions that undermine our ability to address social and ethical issues early and effectively, such as the “it’s too early to discuss ethics” excuse and the tendency to frame new technologies in terms of their inevitability (and inevitable good). The paper highlights, through theory and research linked to case studies, a wide variety of possible social and ethical issues linked to emerging nanotechnologies, ranging from environmental justice to human enhancement and the myth of the techno-fix—our tendency to favor technological fixes to problems rather than behavioral changes or other major shifts. Indeed, the framework outlined in this paper can be applied to a wide variety of emerging technologies. Every emerging technology offers us a new opportunity to engage stakeholders in a social and ethical debate. The nanotech revolution is still beginning and we still have time for an open and public discussion of its consequences, both intended and unintended. Hopefully, this paper will provide a framework for thinking through some of those impacts.

David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies 5

Executive Summary

Nanotechnology has tremendous potential to contribute to human flourishing in socially just and environmentally sustainable ways. However, nanotechnology is unlikely to realize its full potential unless its associated social and ethical issues are adequately attended. The purpose of this report is to raise the salience of social and ethical issues within ongoing responsible development discourses and efforts by:

• identifying the crucial roles of ethics in the responsible development of technology; • dispelling common misconceptions about the social and ethical issues associated with emerging nanotechnologies; • providing a typology of the social and ethical issues associated with emerging nanotechnologies and identifying several specific issues within each type; and • emphasizing how social and ethical issues intersect with governmental functions and responsibilities.

Government and Ethics

Among the functions of government that intersect with the ethical and value dimensions of technology are the following:

• Science and technology policy and funding involve decisions about what ends should receive priority and about how resources should be allocated in pursuit of those ends. Justification of these decisions requires that some goals be valued more highly than others—i.e., it rests on comparative value judgments. • Regulation of science and technology is intended to accomplish something that is thought to be worthwhile and that justifies any associated costs. Regulation also has power, control, oversight and responsibility dimensions, and often involves allocating burdens and benefits. All of these are characteristic of ethical issues and decisions. • Government can support research on, raise awareness of and promote responsiveness to social and ethical issues associated with technology (as many believe to be the case with the Human Genome Project). It can also obscure social and ethical issues associated with technology (as many believe to be the case with genetically modified crops).

Ronald Sandler is an associate professor of philosophy in the Department of Philosophy and Religion, a researcher in the Nanotechnology and Society Research Group and Center for High-rate Nanomanufacturing, and a research associate in the Environmental Justice Research Collaborative at Northeastern University 6

Roles of Ethics in the Responsible Development of Technology

The goal for any emerging technology is to contribute to human flourishing in socially just and environmentally sustainable ways. Given this, the roles of ethics within responsible development of nanotechnology include:

• elucidating what constitutes justice, human flourishing and sustainability; • identifying opportunities for nanotechnology to accomplish the goal and anticipat- ing impediments to its doing so; • developing standards for assessing prospective nanotechnologies; • providing ethical capacity (i.e., tools and resources that assist individuals and organizations to make ethically informed decisions) to enable society to adapt effectively to emerging nanotechnologies; and • identifying limits on how the goal ought to be pursued.

Three Misconceptions about Ethics and Emerging Nanotechnologies

Several common misconceptions about the social and ethical issues associated with emerging nanotechnologies have obscured their significance to responsible development and thereby hampered our responsiveness to them. Three of the most important of these misconceptions are as follows:

• It is too soon to tell what the social and ethical issues are. This misconception is fostered by a narrow focus on the technology itself when trying to identify social and ethical issues. When broader contextual factors, such as unequal access to technology, information insecurity and inadequate biodefense research oversight are considered, it becomes clear that it is not too early to identify and to begin to respond to social and ethical issues associated with emerging nanotechnologies. • The nanotechnology revolution is inevitably good. This misconception results from a preoccupation with the crucial contributions that technology makes to the comfort, security, healthfulness and longevity of people’s lives in industrialized nations. If one takes a more encompassing historical, global and ecological view of technology’s development and impacts, it is clear that emerging technologies (including emerging nanotechnologies) are not inevitably good. • The point of the social and ethical issues is to secure public acceptance. This misconception arises from the desire for smooth commercialization of emerging nanotechnologies coupled with the view that public opposition to them is primarily the result of mis- understandings or baseless concerns regarding them. In fact, people’s concerns re- 7

garding emerging technologies are often neither the result of ignorance nor baseless. Moreover, as indicated above, there are robust roles for ethics in responsible development of nanotechnology other than securing public acceptance.

A Typology of Ethical Issues

This typology is intended to organize the social and ethical issues associated with emerging nanotechnologies in ways that are illuminating and productive.

1. Social Context Issues: Social context issues arise from the interaction of nanotechnologies with problematic features of the social or institutional contexts into which the nanotechnologies are emerging. Examples of social context issues include unequal access to health care, inequalities in education, unequal access to technology, inadequate information security/privacy protection, inefficiencies in intellectual property systems, unequal exposure to environmental hazards and inadequate consumer safety protection. 2. Contested Moral Issues: Contested moral issues arise from nanotechnology’s interaction with or instantiation of morally controversial practices or activities—i.e., those that a substantial number of citizens believe should be prohibited. Examples of contested moral practices and activities in which nanoscale science and technology are, or are likely to be, involved include synthetic biology, construction of artificial organisms, biological weapons development, stem cell research and genetic modification of human beings. 3. Technoculture Issues: Technoculture issues arise from problematic aspects of the role of technology within the social systems and structures from which, and into which, nanotechnologies are emerging. Examples of technoculture issues include an over- reliance on technological fixes to manage problematic effects (rather than addressing underlying causes of those effects), overestimation of our capacity to predict and control technologies (particularly within complex and dynamic biological systems) and technological mediation of our relationship with and experience of nature (and associated marginalization of natural values). 4. Form of Life Issues: Form of life issues arise from nanotechnology’s synergistic impacts on aspects of the human situation on which social standards, practices and institutions are predicated. For example, if nanomedicine helps extend the average human life span even five or ten healthful years, norms of human flourishing will need to be reconsidered and there are likely to be significant impacts on family norms and structures (e.g., care responsibilities), life plans or trajectories (e.g., when people marry) and social and political institutions (e.g., Medicare). 5. Transformational Issues: Transformational issues arise from nanotechnology’s potential (particularly in combination with other emerging technologies, such as biotechnology, information technology, computer science, cognitive science and robotics) to 8

transform aspects of the human situation. This might be accomplished by significantly altering the kind of creatures that we are, reconstituting our relationship to the natural environment or creating self-aware and autonomous artificial intelligences (i.e., artifactual persons). In such cases, some prominent aspect of our ethical landscape would need to be reconfigured—for example, what it means to be human, personal identity or the moral status of some artifacts.

The Status of the Social and Ethical Issues within Responsible Development

With the misconceptions resolved and the full range of issues elucidated, it is clear that the social and ethical issues associated with emerging nanotechnologies are:

• Determinate: It is possible to identify many of the social and ethical issues. • Immediate: It is not too soon to begin considering many of the issues. • Distinct: The issues are not reducible to other aspects of responsible development. • Significant: Addressing the issues is crucial to the responsible development of emerging nanotechnologies. • Actionable: In many cases, there are steps that can be taken now by actors, including those in government, to address the issues.

Consideration of and responsiveness to social and ethical issues are needed now in order to anticipate and proactively address, as far as possible, potential negative aspects of emerging nanotechnologies, as well as to identify and promote opportunities for nanotechnology to contribute to human flourishing in just and sustainable ways. The National Nanotechnology Initiative affords a unique opportunity to promote a broad, critical and constructive perspective on the relationships between technology, government, environment and society at the same time that emerging nanotechnologies offer enormous possibilities for making social (not just technological) progress through comprehensive, innovative, and forward- looking responsible development. Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Introduction: Technology, Ethics and Government 9

I. Introduction: Technology, Ethics and Government

Technology and Society Ethics and the Functions of Government Technology is a thoroughly social phenom- enon. Technologies emerge from society. Ethics, in its most basic sense, concerns how They are made possible and encouraged we ought (and ought not) to lead our lives. by society—e.g., through social valuing, Because technology structures our experi- public funding and intellectual property ences and shapes how we live, it has enor- policies. They are implemented in and dis- mous ethical significance. The functions of seminated through society; they are also government intersect with the ethical and sometimes prohibited, resisted or reject- value dimensions of technology in several ed by society. They alter society. Indeed, ways: without technology it is difficult to con- ceive of society at all or, at least, to con- • Science and technology policy and funding in- ceive of a society such as ours with complex volve decisions about what ends should and evolving cultures constituted by accu- receive priority and how resources mulated knowledge, traditions, practices, should be allocated in pursuit of those institutions and organizations. Technology ends. This is evident in domains as di- shapes every aspect of our lives—the places verse as energy policy (e.g., the balance we inhabit, the ways we interact, how we of efficiency and production and the dis- do our work (and the work that we do), tribution of energy sources), intellectual our forms of recreation, our institutional property policy and research funding arrangements and how we organize our (from particle physics to entomology). days and our lives. In each case, the policy is intended to This understanding of the relationship accomplish certain goals rather than between technology and society militates some others. Its justification therefore against the naïve view of technolog y as sim- depends on certain goals being valued ply what we create to solve problems and more highly than their alternatives. overcome barriers i.e., that we find a need Decisions about priorities are based on for it, create it, use it and control it (except, value judgments. of course, for the occasional unanticipated side effects, which are best handled by fur- • Regulation of science and technology is in- ther technological inventiveness). Not only tended to accomplish something that is is technology inseparable from society, it thought to be worthwhile and that justi- shapes us as much as we shape it. Thus, the fies any associated costs. Regulation has relationship between technology and soci- power, control, oversight and respon- ety is deeply value laden. sibility dimensions and often involves 10

allocating burdens and benefits. All of do not begin and end with government, these are characteristic of ethical issues government is not a neutral observer. and decisions. This is evident in domains Government functions and actors, from as diverse as facilities permitting (e.g., the local to the federal level and across all nuclear power plants and waste-transfer branches of government, respond to, en- stations), setting research limits (e.g., gage with and act upon values and ethical human subjects research and reproductive issues associated with science and technol- cloning), risk management (e.g., work- ogy. This can be done effectively (as some place safety and environmental pollution) have argued is the case with the Human and technology use (e.g., privacy protec- Genome Project and embryonic stem cell tion and non-therapeutic use of human research) or not (as some have argued is growth hormone). Regulation, like poli- the case with genetically modified crops cy, has ineliminable value components. and nuclear power). How government engages these issues has substantial ethi- • Government can support research on, raise cal, social, economic and technological awareness of and promote responsiveness to so- implications. cial and ethical issues associated with technology. The most prominent case of this The National in the United States has been the Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications com- Nanotechnology Initiative ponent of the Human Genome Project. and the “Other” Social Supported by 3–5 percent of the project’s funding, this component catalyzed the and Ethical Issues field of bioethics by creating a cadre of professional ethicists and raising the sa- The purpose of the National Nanotechnology lience of several ethical issues associated Initiative (NNI) is to promote nanoscale with genomics—e.g., the possibility of science and technology in ways that, as far genetic screening by employers and in- as possible, benefit U.S. citizens in particu- surance companies and protection of the lar and humanity in general. A crucial com- confidentiality of genetic information. ponent to achieving this goal is supporting Government can also obscure social and responsible development of nanotechnol- ethical issues associated with technology. ogy, which, according to core NNI docu- This has been the case with genetically ments, is to be accomplished by addressing modified crops, where inadequate gov- environmental, health and safety (EHS) ernment capacity (with respect to over- concerns, engaging in public education and sight, regulatory design and meaningful outreach and addressing other ethical, legal public participation in decision making, and social issues. To this end, the NNI has for example) has resulted in substantial supported considerable work on EHS (e.g., economic, social and technological costs. characterizing the toxicity and mobility properties of nanoscale materials, assessing Although social and ethical issues as- associated regulatory capacity and develop- sociated with science and technology ing best research/workplace practices) and Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Introduction: Technology, Ethics and Government 11 on education and outreach (e.g., preparing nology research and development pro- the workforce, educating the public about gram or otherwise contribute to shaping nanotechnology and encouraging public ac- government policy, regulatory capacity or ceptance of nanotechnology). This is not institutions. to claim that current EHS and education This is standard treatment of the other efforts are adequate. As several indepen- social and ethical issues. They appear to be dent assessments have indicated, there are an afterthought. They are not considered to serious concerns that current institutional be directly relevant to the science and tech- capacities and efforts in these areas are not nology research program and are believed sufficiently organized or robust (Maynard to be marginal to responsible development 2006; National Research Council 2008). efforts, except when they intersect with Nevertheless, in comparison with the atten- public acceptance of nanotechnology.¹ tion afforded the other social and ethical issues, the NNI-supported work on EHS and About this Report education has been substantial. References to the other social and ethical issues in core NNI documents are usu- If nanoscale science and engineering is ally limited to a few sentences at the end going to be the platform for the next revo- of a section addressing the other aspects of lution in technology and industry (or if it responsible development. An example of even approaches this status), as many of its this is in The National Nanotechnology proponents claim, then it will be socially Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and ethically revolutionary as well. We and Recommendations of the National cannot wait to address the ethical issues Nanotechnology Advisory Panel: “Finally, associated with emerging nanotechnolo- there is an expanding need for activities gies until the dust has settled from inno- that are focused on ethical, legal and other vation and commercialization. If our goal societal implications beyond just the en- is to maximize nanotechnology as a social vironmental and health effects. The NNI good—to have it contribute, as far as pos- should participate in appropriate dialogues sible, to human flourishing in socially just with stakeholders, beyond the research and environmentally sustainable ways— and technical communities” (President’s then the social and ethical issues associated Council of Advisors on Science and with emerging nanotechnologies must be Technology 2005, p. 43). The document identified. In addition, they must, as far as does not indicate what the implications possible, be addressed concurrently with, are, who the stakeholders and communi- and must mutually inform, technology de- ties are, how dialogue might take place, velopment and commercialization. what the dialogues are intended to accom- The social and ethical issues associated plish or how attention to the implications with emerging technologies are determi- or dialogues might inform the nanotech- nate—i.e., it is possible to clearly identify

¹ The most thorough consideration of them within the NNI is Roco and Bainbridge (2005). See also Roco and Bainbridge (2001). 12

them. They are immediate—i.e., it is not • dispels common misconceptions about too soon to begin considering them. They the social and ethical issues associated are distinct—i.e., not reducible to other as- with emerging nanotechnologies; pects of responsible development. They are significant—i.e., crucial to responsible devel- • provides a typology of the social and opment of nanotechnology. And they are ethical issues associated with emerging actionable—i.e., steps can be taken now by nanotechnologies and identifies several actors, including those in government, to issues within each type; address them. The purpose of this report is to describe the salience of these issues and • discusses in detail one paradigmatic to draw attention to them by articulating issue of each type to illustrate signifi- what they are, why they matter and what cant features of the issues within the is involved in addressing them. To this end, type; and the report: • emphasizes how social and ethical • identifies the crucial roles of ethics in issues intersect with government func- responsible development of technology; tions and responsibilities. Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Ethics and Emerging Nanotechnologies 13

II. Ethics and Emerging Nanotechnologies

Ethics as Restraint and garding them must be adjudicated (or common ground identified) if the goal for Aspiration nanotechnology is to be well understood. Many ethicists are, and long have been, Ethics, particularly as it relates to technology, engaged in this project. is usually associated with prohibitions and restraints. This is unfortunate. Although part of 2. Ethical analysis and social science research its purview is proscription, ethics is also aspira- on the relationship between society and tional. It involves identifying how to make our technology, both in general and as it in- way in the world well, what to strive for and volves emerging nanotechnologies in par- the ideals that we set before ourselves, as indi- ticular, can not only identify opportuni- viduals and as societies, and that we attempt ties for nanotechnology to accomplish the to live up to and measure ourselves against. goal but also anticipate (and help resolve) So while the ethics of nanotechnology does impediments to its doing so. This can be involve prohibitions and restraints, that is not accomplished by identifying societal and nearly the whole, or even the most important environmental problems that nanotech- part, of it. Nor is it where ethical reflection on nological innovation might help address, nanotechnology is best begun. It should begin identifying non-technical barriers that may by reflecting on what we, as a society, should prevent nanotechnology from achieving want from emerging nanotechnologies, name- what it otherwise could and developing ap- ly, that they contribute to human flourishing in so- proaches to overcome these barriers in ways cially just and environmentally sustainable ways. other than, but complementary to, technological innovation—e.g., involving institu- Roles of Ethics in tional structures, public and private policies and individual and cultural practices. For Responsible Development example, nanotechnology has tremendous potential for helping the global poor—the If this (or something close to it) is the appro- approximately 2.5 billion people who live priate goal, there are several roles for ethics in on less than $2 ppp/day. However, there the development, application and dissemina- are significant non-technological barriers tion of nanotechnology. to its doing so, including lack of research infrastructures in developing nations, lack 1. Ethical reflection and discourse can il- of incentives for researchers in developed luminate the goal by helping elucidate nations to work on pro-poor technolo- what justice, human flourishing and sus- gies, intellectual property restrictions, inef- tainability amount to. These concepts are fective or inefficient distribution systems, neither obvious nor uncontested. They incompatibility with the conditions and must be clarified and disambiguated and, lifestyles of those whom the technologies to the extent possible, disagreements re- are intended to benefit and inadequate 14

regulatory capacities. Identifying, analyz- public or regulatory reactions that might ing and developing effective strategies for impede development or commercialization addressing these and other barriers requires of desirable nanotechnologies. the tools, resources and expertise of the social sciences and ethics. 4. Ethical capacity—i.e., tools and resources that assist individuals and organizations 3. Ethics can provide standards for assessing to make ethically informed decisions— prospective nanotechnologies. Nanoscale is crucial to society’s ability to adapt ef- science and technology includes diverse re- fectively to emerging nanotechnologies. search areas and types of application—e.g., Ethical capacity involves, for example, energy, agriculture, computing, medicine, professional codes of conduct, ethical weapons, textiles, building materials and frameworks, well-developed case stud- environmental remediation. The ethical ies and historical precedents and indi- profiles of emerging nanotechnologies are viduals and organizations with expertise therefore various. Some emerging fields or and experience identifying, analyzing applications might be just, sustainable and and addressing relevant ethical issues. compassionate; others might be reckless, Governmental capacity (e.g., resources, shortsighted, unsustainable or unneces- expertise, commitment, institutional sary. Compare a synthetic biology research design, legal authority, public trust and project situated within a biological defense access to information) and social capac- program sited in an urban center with an ity (e.g., educational institutions, media industry-funded research project to de- and communications, public interest/ad- velop carbon nanotube–enabled memory vocacy organizations, forums for public chips sited in a suburb. Both projects in- discourse and professional organizations) volve nanotechnology, but their ethical are critical to the responsible develop- profiles differ along (at least) the following ment of emerging nanotechnologies. dimensions: objectives, risks, benefits and Because of the limited domain of gov- beneficiaries, control, oversight, regulation ernment activity and authority in com- and degree to which they involve a con- parison with the factors relevant to tech- troversial moral practice. The former raises nological innovation and impacts, and sanctity-of-life issues, biological weapons because the exercise of ethical and social issues, public health and safety issues, public capacity often precedes, precipitates and funding issues and transparency/oversight guides government responsiveness, ethi- issues that the latter does not. Case-by-case cal capacity is critical as well. For exam- assessment is thus as important with respect ple, the voluntary moratorium on certain to ethics as it is with respect to EHS. Social forms of genetic research by members of and ethical evaluations of nanotechnology the molecular biology community in the must be research, technologyand applica- 1970s raised the salience of the issues, en- tion-specific. Such evaluations can contrib- abled further reflection and responsive- ute to more informed decision making re- ness to them by the research community garding resource allocations and policy and and precipitated governmental action in regulatory designs, as well as help avoid the form of National Institutes of Health Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Ethics and Emerging Nanotechnologies 15

(NIH) guidelines and efforts to devel- Ethical Issues vs. Ethical op expertise in identifying, analyzing and addressing issues as they arise (i.e., Implications bioethics). This is a report on the ethical issues asso- 5. Ethics may help identify limits on ciated with emerging nanotechnologies, how the goal ought to be pursued. broadly construed to include goals, oppor- Some means are not ethically accept- tunities, complications, barriers and limits. able, even if their ends are worthwhile. It is not a report on the ethical implications This is why medical research involving of nanotechnology (the preferred NNI ter- human subjects must be regulated, for minology), which are not yet determined. example. Good intentions and a laud- The implications are what is at stake, and able goal are not sufficient to ensure what those concerned with responsible ethically acceptable practice. development hope in some measure to shape by addressing the issues. Likewise this is not a report on the ethical challenges of nanotechnology, since emerging nanotechnologies present as much in social and ethical opportunities as in potential social and ethical problems, and ethics is as much aspirational as proscriptive. 16

III. Three Misconceptions about Social and Ethical Issues

There are several common misconceptions disseminated.² If the practice of nanotech- regarding the social and ethical issues as- nology is socially and ethically innocuous sociated with emerging nanotechnologies (or at least no worse than what came be- that obscure their significance to respon- fore) and the nanotechnologies themselves sible development. This section discusses largely do not yet exist (or at least have not three of the most influential and wide- been effectively commercialized), then the spread of these issues. social and ethical considerations must remain indeterminate. This line of reasoning is mistaken for two Too Soon to Tell reasons. First, the social and ethical issues associated with emerging nanotechnologies A 2006 review of the NNI conducted by need not be unique to nanotechnology in the National Research Council states that, order to merit concern and attention. There “Currently, ethical considerations specific may be issues that are familiar but that none- to nanotechnology have not come into theless need to be addressed because of their focus.… Although near-term and tangible social and ethical significance. Indeed, be- ethical concerns related to use of nano- cause of the distinctive properties of nanotechnology have yet to be determined, it scale materials, the functionalities and prod- is not too early now to think about how ucts that nanoscale science and technology to inform, communicate with, and engage enable or the rate and volume of innovation the public to ensure broad consideration associated with accelerating nanoscale sci- of what responsible development of nano- ence and engineering efforts, some of these technology might entail from a societal issues may be exacerbated by nanotechnol- perspective (National Research Council ogy. Second, there are resources for making 2006, pp. 87-88). reasonable predictions about what the social This common “too soon to tell, but let’s and ethical issues associated with nanotech- keep our eyes open” position is premised nology are likely to be: experience with on two claims. The first is that there is previous emerging technologies and the nothing socially or ethically problematic challenges they posed; information about about the capacity to characterize, control the characteristic features of nanotechnol- and construct on the nanoscale or the pro- ogy; information about the particular social, cesses involved—i.e., the practice of nano- cultural and institutional contexts in which scale science and engineering. The second nanotechnologies are being developed, im- is that relatively few products containing plemented, disseminated and regulated; and engineered nanoscale particles, processes information about the time line for the ap- or devices have been developed, let alone plication and commercialization of many produced in large volumes and widely types of products and devices incorporat-

² The number of products on the market that incorporate nanotechnology is steadily increasing (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies 2008). Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Three Misconceptions about Social and Ethical Issues 17 ing nanotechnology. These are, in fact, the adjust and identify, prevent, mitigate and same resources that are being drawn on to remediate undesirable and unintended EHS anticipate and respond to possible EHS and effects. education challenges and opportunities as- The kernel of truth to this moralized sociated with emerging nanotechnologies. variation of “science creates, industry ap- What these considerations have in com- plies and society adapts” is that people living mon is that they involve reflecting on more in industrialized nations today live health- than just the practice and products of nano- ier, longer, more secure, more comfortable technology. The social and ethical issues can lives than did people at any other time in be identified only by considering both the human history, and technology contributes characteristic features of nanotechnologies enormously to this. Life expectancy in the and the features of the contexts into which United States for individuals born in 2005 is they are emerging. When this is done, many 78 years; in 1900, it was 47 (National Center of the social and ethical issues associated for Health Statistics 2003, 2007). The ma- with nanotechnology come into focus. jority of United States citizens have reliable access to basic resources—water, sanitation, The Inevitable Goodness electricity, shelter and food—and most have substantial additional economic resources of the Nanotechnology (for example, in 2001 United States citi- Revolution zens spent U.S.$25 billion on recreational watercraft [Easterbrook 2003] and in 2002 A second misconception is premised on the United States citizens spent U.S. $180 bil- view that technological innovation is inexo- lion at health and personal care stores rable—or even accelerating at an exponen- [United States Census Bureau 2004]). tial rate—and so, too, are the benefits that However, technological innovation is accompany it. Given this, emphasizing the only part of the story. First, technology’s social and ethical issues (in this case iden- potential as a social good (as opposed to an tified with limits and restraints) associated individual or class good) often has been re- with nanotechnology innovation is at best alized only after significant social and ethi- futile and at worst detrimental, since any- cal issues have been addressed. Moreover, thing that might slow nanotechnology’s in- addressing these issues has often been ardu- evitable arrival impedes its contribution to ous. It has required novel laws and regula- the social good. To promote the social good, tions (e.g., environmental and workplace- it is best to promote innovation, application safety laws), the creation of government and dissemination in as unencumbered, un- agencies (e.g., the Department of Labor fettered and unregulated a way as possible, [DOL] and the Environmental Protection while also preparing for the coming techno- Agency [EPA]) and whole new areas of logical upheaval. The role of responsible de- ethics (e.g., environmental ethics, business velopment, then, is to educate people about ethics and medical ethics), as well as ro- nanotechnology, promote public acceptance bust social movements to push for reforms of it, facilitate commercialization of prod- (e.g., the environmental movement and the ucts and prepare people and institutions to labor movement). It takes great social (not 18

merely technological or industrial) effort Change 2007). Furthermore, even if these and, often, sacrifice to maximize the good basic human-health and life challenges are from technology while minimizing the met, there remain quality-of-life costs (e.g., bad. Moreover, technological innovation is fewer wilderness areas, diminished natural not the only cause of longer life spans and beauty and less biological and cultural di- increased material comfort. Innovations in versity), as well as the detrimental effects on political, economic and other social systems, non-human animals and other organisms. institutions and arrangements have been Third, from a global perspective, the pe- significant, as have been changes in belief riod of rapid technological innovation be- systems, values and worldviews (each which ginning with the industrial revolution has has often been intertwined with technolog- not been nearly as beneficial: 1.1 billion ical innovation). people in less economically and technologi- Second, it is uncertain whether the ben- cally developed nations lack access to po- efits associated with the accelerated rate of table water; 2.6 billion lack access to basic technological innovation that has occurred sanitation; and 2.5 billion live on less than since the industrial revolution are sustain- $2 ppp/day, with 980 million living on less able. Technology has enabled systems of than U.S. $1 ppp/day (United Nations 2006, production and patterns of consumption that 2007). In addition, the problems of pollu- have drawn down Earth’s natural capital— tion and toxic waste are acute in parts of the i.e., natural resources, living systems, biodi- developing world, as industrialized nations versity and the capacity for them to be re- have increasingly sought to pass environ- plenished—at an incredible rate. Moreover, mental costs on to developing countries and associated ecological and agricultural prob- as developing nations race to industrialize lems have arisen with remarkable rapidity and exploit natural resources without ad- and on a global scale—e.g., pollution and equate protection or regulatory structures. toxics (in air, water, soil and products), cli- Moreover, those with the least resources mate change (which already is resulting in (and thus the least means to respond to en- environmental refugees, agricultural dis- vironmental hardship) tend to live in the ruptions and biodiversity loss) and food most environmentally tenuous areas, e.g., insecurities (Worldwatch Institute 2004, polluted places and low ground. Particularly 2007; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment with respect to subsistence agriculture/ 2005; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate aquaculture communities, when support- Change 2007). It may be, as many maintain, ing environments are compromised—e.g., that further technological innovation will water tables drop, extended droughts occur, remedy these. But at this point, that con- sea levels rise or coral reefs die—social sys- viction is rooted more in faith than in fact, tems can be undermined and environmental since individual consumption levels continue refugees created. to increase both domestically and globally, Finally, even if, from a general history of with associated decreases in natural capital technology perspective, technological in- and increases in pollution and greenhouse novation accelerates over time, which tech- gas emissions (Worldwatch Institute 2007, nologies emerge at what time, how they are 2004; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate disseminated, and who has access to them Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Three Misconceptions about Social and Ethical Issues 19 are shaped by social and political features, with various stakeholders and the public e.g., funding priorities, funding availabil- about the Government’s efforts to address ity, research constraints, programmatic de- societal concerns. Without such commu- cisions and intellectual property policies. nication, public trust may dissipate and Moreover, from the individual perspective, concerns based on information from other i.e., the perspective of a person’s lived expe- sources, including the entertainment indus- rience and his/her social situatedness, which try, may become dominant (President’s is the perspective from which meaning and Council of Advisors on Science and value are derived, the details of technologi- Technology 2005, pp. 42-3). cal innovation and dissemination are significant, and these are responsive to social, It is a common view, even among those institutional and political activities often who advocate strongly for social and ethical motivated and justified by social and ethical research, that its primary function is to help considerations. Therefore, marginalizing at- secure public acceptance of nanotechnolo- tentiveness and responsiveness to nanotech- gies and ensure nanotechnology’s integra- nology’s social and ethical dimensions is not tion into the national and global economies justified, even if technological innovation is by demonstrating that “societal concerns” (in some sense) inevitable. are being addressed. However, this conception of the appropriate or primary role for The Point Is to Secure attentiveness to social and ethical issues is belied by several of the considerations al- Public Acceptance ready discussed—e.g., their significance in the past and an inclusive conception of eth- A primary objective of the NNI’s respon- ics. Research on social and ethical issues can sible development program is to promote identify opportunities for nanotechnologies public acceptance of nanotechnology: to contribute to human flourishing in just and environmentally sustainable ways, an- Support for the continued advancement ticipate potential barriers to its doing so, and of nanotechnology research, and eventual suggest approaches (technological, social integration of nanotechnology into con- and institutional) for overcoming them. sumer products and useful applications, will There are significant social and ethical depend heavily on the public’s acceptance of dimensions to public outreach, discourse nanotechnology. Governments around the and education. Their effectiveness depends world must take a proactive stance to ensure in part on scientists and development re- that environmental, health and safety searchers’ ability to discuss nanotechnol- concerns are addressed as nanotechnology ogy accurately and in effectively framed research and development moves forward in ways. It is also important that such discus- order to assure the public that nanotechnol- sions be open, accessible, inclusive and fair. ogy products will be safe… In addition to Moreover, as with EHS issues, public en- its coordinating role, the NNI, through the gagement and education in nanotechnology [National Nanotechnology Coordination involve authority, responsibility, relative Office], should vigorously communicate social influence, power and control, public 20

policy and regulation (which always involve what is possible, what is feasible and what is comparative value judgments), distributions required to achieve certain economic and of burdens and benefits (distributive justice), technological ends. They thereby play a cru- decision-making processes (procedural jus- cial informational role. But knowledge of tice) and informed consent/voluntariness what can and cannot be done, and of what (autonomy). In these respects, social and is and is not required to do it, is quite dif- ethical issues are implicated in and insepa- ferent from knowledge of what ought and rable from the other aspects of responsible ought not be done. What ends should be pri- development. Nevertheless, as indicated oritized, how resources should be allocated above, the social and ethical issues are not in pursuit of those ends and what constraints exhausted by these factors or otherwise re- should be placed on how those ends ought ducible to public education, addressing EHS to be pursued are ethical and social questions concerns and promoting smooth commer- to be addressed in the public and political cialization of nanotechnology. spheres (where, in a liberal democratic po- Furthermore, treating social and ethical litical system, outcomes are open-ended and research (and public engagement) as primar- actors are not excluded on the basis of their ily an educational or public relations enter- worldviews), not economic and technologi- prise fails to appreciate the limits of science cal decisions to be worked out in boardrooms and industry. Although the scientific com- or laboratories. They depend on value judg- munity has technical expertise and industry ments and conceptions of the good—areas in has economic expertise, neither necessarily which business acumen and scientific knowl- has expertise in the social and ethical issues edge afford no special privilege. So while sci- associated with technological innovations or entists and industry leaders may be “elite” in the standing to claim to represent the public’s their knowledge of the science and business views about them. They are not empowered of nanotechnology, they are not necessarily to make decisions about where we ought, or “elite” with respect to the social and ethical ought not, aim our material resources and issues associated with nanotechnology, and it technology in the future or about what lim- in no way justifies marginalizing the social its we ought to place on our efforts to get and ethical issues raised by researchers and there. Science and industry experts have an the concerned public by casting them pri- important role to play in discussions about marily as barriers to be overcome in securing these issues. They are well positioned to see commercialization and public acceptance. Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Typology of the Issues 21

IV. Typology of the Issues

Typologies divide and organize conceptual not responsible for the problem, in the sense terrain. Most typologies are conventional that it is not the cause of the problematic and programmatic. This one is no different. feature of the social context that gives rise to It is a typology, not the typology, of the so- them. Nevertheless, when nanotechnology cial and ethical issues.³ The considerations is introduced into those contexts, it becomes that have guided its development are that implicated in them. In many cases, it can be it illuminate the full range of issues (inclu- reasonably expected that nanotechnology siveness), that the types are clear and distin- will exacerbate the problem because of the guished by significant features (e.g., time distinctive properties of nanoscale materials, line, familiarity, determinacy or regulatory the functionalities and products that nano- relevance), that the types are neither too scale science and technology enable or the gross (and too few) nor too fine (and too rate and volume of innovation associated many) to be helpful in organizing discourse with accelerating nanoscale science and enon them and that it reflect ongoing discus- gineering efforts. However, the problematic sions on the issues. The types are not mu- features sometimes also provide opportuni- tually exclusive—a particular issue might ties, insofar as nanotechnologies may con- fall within more than one type—and some tribute to addressing them. aspects cut across all the types—e.g., evalu- Because nanotechnology is a general- ations of risks, power relations and societal use, enabling technology, and there are (governmental, social and ethical) capacity. so many problematic features of the social contexts into which it is emerging, its as- The Typology sociated social context issues are legion and their range is expansive. They include, • Social Context Issues for example, unequal access to health care, • Contested Moral Issues inequalities in education, unequal access • Technoculture Issues to technology, inadequate information se- • For m of Life Issues curity/privacy protection, inefficiencies in • Transformational Issues intellectual property systems, inadequate protections of individual autonomy (in domains such as labeling and human subjects Social Context Issues research), under-representation of women and minority groups in engineering and Social context issues arise from the interac- academia, shortsighted agricultural prac- tion of nanotechnologies with problematic tices and policies, unfair tariffs and trade features of the social or institutional contexts agreements, inadequate incentives and re- into which they are emerging. With these sources to develop pro-poor technologies, issues, nanoscale science and technology is inadequate consumer-safety protection,

³ The conceptual terrain covered by this typology does not include legal issues or workplace and professional ethics (e.g., lab ethics or publishing ethics). 22

conflicts of interests among regulators and realizing particularly compelling or contro- researchers, inadequate research oversight versial instantiations of them. (for example, with respect to biodefense labs), insufficient corporate accountabil- Technoculture Issues ity, externalization of pollution and health costs, unequal exposure to environmental burdens, lack of transparency and account- Technoculture issues arise from problem- ability in military research and diminish- atic aspects of the role of technology with- ing public trust in industry and govern- in the social systems and structures from mental institutions. These are social and which, and into which, nanotechnologies ethical issues for nanotechnology because are emerging. Technology is not separable they are relevant to the extent to which from society. Nevertheless, robust critiques nanotechnology will contribute to human of particular aspects of the relationship and flourishing in just and sustainable ways. particular roles afforded technology within modern industrialized society have been developed. These include, for example, over- Contested Moral Issues reliance on technological fixes to manage problematic effects (rather than addressing Contested moral issues arise from nano- underlying causes of those effects), overes- technology’s interaction with or instan- timation of our capacity to predict and con- tiation of morally controversial practices or trol technologies (particularly within com- activities—i.e., those that a substantial num- plex and dynamic biological systems), the ber of citizens believe should be prohibited. tendency to favor control-oriented alterna- Contested moral issues can involve research tives over less technologically sophisticated and engineering practice (e.g., nanoscale and accommodation alternatives, techno- science and engineering tools and tech- logical mediation of our relationship with niques) or what nanoscale technologies en- and experience of nature (and associated able in application (e.g., products and uses). marginalization of natural values), privileg- Examples of contested moral practices and ing elite-controlled quantitative risk assess- activities in which nanoscale science and ment over more-inclusive and precautionary technology are (or are likely to be) impli- approaches to determining responsiveness cated include genetic modification of living to uncertainties associated with emerging organisms, the use of embryonic stem cells technologies and overconfidence that tech- and chimeras in research, synthetic biology, nology will provide solutions to any prob- constructing artificial organisms, weapons lematic side effects associated with techno- development (e.g., chemical and biological), logical innovation. gene patenting (and bioprospecting) and As with social context and contested modification of human nature (e.g., geneti- moral issues, technoculture issues are not cally or pharmacologically). As with social unique to nanotechnology. However, nano- context issues, contested moral issues often scale science and technology is distinctive are not unique to nanotechnology, although because it involves the capacity to precisely in some cases nanotechnology might enable characterize, design and control matter at Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Typology of the Issues 23 the atomic and molecular levels. As a result, terfacing, these trends are likely to continue nanotechnology may be particularly suscep- and new possibilities are likely to emerge. tible to many technoculture issues. Form of life issues are likely to arise in environmental domains as well. Material Form of Life Issues sciences already have developed artificial alternatives (or artificial sources) for many resources and goods previously extracted Form of life issues arise from nanotech- from natural systems and organisms. This nology’s impacts on social standards, prac- trend, too, is likely to accelerate given the tices and institutions—e.g., family struc- capacity of nanoscale science and engineer- tures, social networks and life trajectories. ing to characterize materials and design and Social norms are often predicated on facts construct them at the atomic, molecular and about, or particular understandings of, the macro-molecular level. human situation—i.e., the human person, As the case of human health and longev- our relationships with each other and our ity demonstrates, the disruption and recon- relationships to the natural environment. figuring of social norms can be beneficial. Emerging nanotechnologies are likely to Nevertheless, it requires adaptation and re- alter that situation. sponse, which can be accomplished more or As discussed earlier, technological in- less smoothly and successfully. As with the novation and dissemination has changed issue types previously described, form of life what reasonably can be considered a long, issues are not new with nanotechnology, but healthy, comfortable life. If nanotechnol- nanotechnology is likely to realize novel ogy (or nanomedicine, in particular) is able and compelling versions of them. to deliver close to what has been prom- ised, the norms associated with human flourishing will see further modification. Transformational Issues Moreover, as in the past, increased longevity and expectations for healthfulness will Transformational issues arise from nano- have significant impacts on family norms technology’s potential (particularly in com- and structures (e.g., care responsibilities), bination with other emerging technologies, life plans or trajectories (e.g., when people such as biotechnology, information technol- get married) and social and political insti- ogy, computer science, cognitive science and tutions (e.g., Social Security). robotics) to transform aspects of the human Nanotechnology might also have a sig- situation and not merely, as with form of life nificant impact on sociability. Information issues, modify some parameters. This might technologies have already altered forms and be accomplished by significantly altering the conceptions of social interaction. New types kind of creatures that we are, reconstituting of forums have been created (e.g., online), our relationship to the natural environment, and physical proximity has become less creating self-aware and autonomous artifi- crucial. As nanoscale technologies increase cial intelligences (i.e., artifactual persons) memory and processing power and enable or developing robust alternative environ- new modes of information exchange and in- ments (e.g., virtual worlds that are as rich, 24

immersive and socially complex as the phys- biomachine enhancements of our physical, ical world). cognitive and psychological capabilities (or In such cases, novel ethical terrain the introduction of novel capabilities) sig- would be introduced or some prominent nificantly beyond the range attainable by aspect of our ethical landscape would need technologically unassisted people; direct to be reconfigured or reconceived—e.g., integration of human and machine intelli- what it means to be human (human na- gences; artificial intelligences that pass the ture), personal identity (psychological and Turing test; and nanoassemblers or nano- metaphysical), the moral status of (some) bots that would enable rapid molecular artifacts, what constitutes embodiment and manufacture of macro-scale objects. These emplacement and the constituents of our would also raise substantial social context flourishing (e.g., what is valuable or mean- issues (e.g., access to technology), form of ingful in life). life issues (e.g., effects on democratic insti- Examples of the types of technologi- tutions), technoculture issues (e.g., disaffec- cal accomplishment that would give rise to tion with our biological selves) and contest- transformational issues, should they be re- ed moral issues (e.g., the appropriateness of alized, include genetic, pharmacological or transcending biological “limits”). Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Social Context Issues 25

V. Social Context Issues

Social context issues arise from nanotechnology’s interaction with problematic features of the social contexts into which it is emerging. After focusing on one illustrative social context issue—environmental justice—several significant features of social context issues in general are discussed.

Scenario: Manufacturing Nanotechnology

In order for the benefits of nanotechnology to be realized, nanomaterials and products containing nanotechnology must be manufactured at a high rate, in a high volume, with high reliability and at reasonable cost. Because of the distinctiveness of many of these materials and products, innovative nanoproduction and nanomanufacturing processes that are not easily (or inexpensively) incorporated into existing manufacturing and production facilities are required. As a result, a substantial new manufacturing infrastructure—one that includes everything from production of basic nanomaterials through finished products, as well as process and end-of-life waste disposal—must be established. Because of social, economic and institutional factors currently in place, the majority of the new facilities are sited in or near low-income and high-minority communities, ensuring that members of those communities are disproportionately exposed to the environmental (and attendant health) hazards associated with nanoscale particle releases into the environment. In addition, these communities, where traditional manufacturing and processing facilities also are disproportionately sited, experience less frequent and less thorough site reclamation and redevelopment than do other communities as out-of-date facilities cease operations.

Environmental Justice burdens—i.e., commodities, experiences and wealth, the production of which generates the environmental burdens. Not all com- Distributive environmental justice concerns munities are equally exposed to environ- the allocation of environmental burdens and mental burdens. Low-income communities, benefits. Environmental burdens are land which receive fewer of the environmental uses, facilities or activities that diminish the benefits, and high-minority communities quality of a community’s environment— are disproportionately exposed to undesir- e.g., agricultural waste streams, industrial able land uses: pollution, toxic-waste sites, incinerators, waste transfer stations, refineries, transpor- For 2000, neighborhoods within 3 kilome- tation depots, mine tailings and sewage- ters of commercial hazardous waste facili- treatment facilities. Environmental benefits ties are 56 percent people of color whereas are the goods associated with environmental non-host areas are 30 percent people of color. 26

Thus, percentages of people of color as a The Issue: Environmental whole are 1.9 times greater in host neighborhoods than in non-host areas.… Poverty Justice and rates in the host neighborhoods are 1.5 times Nanotechnology greater than non-host areas and mean annual household incomes and mean owner-occupied What does the unequal and unjust distribu- housing values in host neighborhoods are tion of environmental burdens have to do 15% lower (Bullard et al. 2007). with nanotechnology? Nanotechnology is not the cause of the distribution of environ- The situation is starker in some mental burdens and benefits, and the capac- places than in others. For example, in ity to design, control and construct on the Massachusetts, low-income communities nanoscale is not inherently unjust. When (median annual income less than $39,525) the features and practice of nanotechnology face a cumulative exposure rate to haz- are considered, environmental justice does ardous facilities and sites that is 2.5 to 4 not appear to be a nanotechnology issue. times greater than that of higher-income However, it is not possible to identify communities, and communities with high the social and ethical dimensions of nano- minority populations (greater than 25 technology by considering nanotechnology percent) face a cumulative exposure rate in itself, abstracted from its social context. that is over 20 times greater than that of Nanotechnology is emerging into a con- communities with low minority popu- text in which inequalities in environmen- lations (less than 5 percent) (Faber and tal burdens are allowed, and in many ways Krieg 2005, pp. 9-10). In Massachusetts, enabled and encouraged, by social institu- as in the nation, race is significant above tions and practices. Moreover, it is clear and beyond class when it comes to expo- that many nanotechnologies and nanoman- sure to environmental burdens. ufacturing processes will generate both The distribution of environmental bur- environmental burdens and environmental dens and benefits is not only unequal but benefits. Given the current social context, also unjust. Nearly every theory or concep- these are likely to perpetuate or exacerbate tion of justice would endorse the following environmental injustice. Therefore, re- principle of justice: “Justice increases when sponsible development of nanotechnology the benefits and burdens of social coopera- is incomplete if it does not address the issue tion are born more equally, except when of environmental justice. moral considerations or other values justify greater inequality” (Wenz 2007, p. 58). Theories and conceptions of justice differ Addressing Environmental in their accounts of what justifies inequal- Injustice ity. Nevertheless, none endorses race, eth- nicity or class as a basis for inequality or Responsible development of nanotech- unequal treatment, which are the factors at nology requires addressing the causes of issue in the case of unequal exposure to en- environmental injustice. Among the pri- vironmental burdens. mary causes are pollution and its resultant Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Social Context Issues 27 health effects. Some nanotechnologies and sions, zoning and land-planning legacies nanomanufacturing processes might be from segregation, racism in job hiring and developed and disseminated in forms or advancement, NIMBY (“not in my back- ways that could help mitigate these causes. yard”) effects, differential political influ- Nanotechnologies might provide cleaner ence, redlining in insurance and lending energies, reduce pollution and waste out- practices, discriminatory use of restrictive puts associated with production of some covenants and corporate influence and the types of consumer goods, provide highly marginalization of local communities in efficient and effective environmental re- land use decisions. mediation, vastly improve environmental Nanotechnology (and science and en- monitoring and data collection and dra- gineering more generally) cannot ad- matically improve prevention, detection dress these factors. They require social and treatment of diseases, including “en- and political response. For example, in vironmental illnesses” such as asthma and 1994 President Clinton issued an ex- many cardiovascular diseases. ecutive order titled “Federal Actions to Whether nanotechnologies and nano- Address Environmental Justice in Minority manufacturing processes exacerbate or al- Populations and Low-Income Populations” leviate environmental injustice depends that calls for “each Federal agency [to upon, for example, which nanotechnologies make] achieving environmental justice and nanomanufacturing processes are real- part of its mission by identifying and ad- ized, how they are implemented, dissemi- dressing, as appropriate, disproportionately nated and situated (and who or what fac- high and adverse human health or environ- tors determine these), who controls them mental effects of its programs, policies and and what sorts of oversight and regulations activities on minority populations and low- pertain to them (and how effectively these income populations in the United States” are enforced). These are not merely tech- (Clinton 1994). Effective implementation nology design or risk management issues, of this order would significantly advance since policy, regulation, industry standards, environmental justice efforts. However, education, social activism, social expecta- according to the EPA’s Office of Inspector tions, economics and the values and com- General and the U.S. Commission on Civil mitments of the people involved (among Rights, the EPA has not yet integrated en- many other factors) are also relevant. So vironmental justice into its core mission, while nanotechnology might contribute to and the relevant agencies and administra- addressing environmental injustice, social tions have not developed a comprehensive context is crucial to whether it in fact does strategic plan for implementing the order so. (Office of Inspector General 2004; United Moreover, the causes of environmen- States Commission on Civil Rights 2003). tal injustice extend well beyond pollution Efforts to address environmental in- and its health effects, which do not at all justice would also be advanced by imple- explain the unequal distribution. In the menting aggressive toxics reduction man- United States, these include the role of dates (e.g., strict command-and-control cost-benefit analysis in facility siting deci- limits; comprehensive toxics substitution 28

programs or programs that require pollut- Beyond Environmental ers to pay the health and ecosystem services costs of their pollution); shifting the Justice burden of proof to industry to establish that chemicals used are safe (the “No data, Environmental justice’s intersection with no market” principle); establishing more nanotechnology is not anomalous. There comprehensive Toxics Release Inventory are all manner of problematic features reporting requirements; increasing green of obtaining social contexts that are rel- chemistry research and implementation evant to the implementation, dissemina- support at both the state and federal levels; tion, control, oversight, responsibility for, adopting green procurement policies at the access to, protection from, benefits and state and federal levels; standardizing life burdens of and decision making regarding cycle analysis and end-of-life (or cradle- nanotechnology. Moreover, the distinctive to-cradle) considerations in technology features of nanoscale science and technol- and production process designs (e.g., by ogy, the functionalities and products they incorporating them into industry and pro- enable and the rate and volume of inno- fessional standards, as well as engineering vation are likely to exacerbate many of curricula) and in regulatory and funding these. As a result, the social context issues as- review (at state and federal agencies); en- sociated with nanotechnology are legion. They couraging participation of local commu- include: nities in zoning and industrial permitting processes (e.g., by curbing the power of • differential access to medical care and corporations associated with their person- medical technologies; hood status); incentivizing community- • educational inequalities; oriented brownfields remediation and redevelopment; more effectively enforcing • inadequate information security/pri- anti-discrimination laws in areas such as vacy protections; employment and lending (and requiring • inefficiencies in intellectual property only disparate impact, rather than intent, systems; to establish discrimination); improving collaboration among environmental jus- • inadequate individual autonomy tice and environmental organizations; and protections; increasing private foundation funding for • under-representation of women and environmental justice initiatives. minority groups in engineering and The above is not a set of individually nec- academia; essary or jointly sufficient conditions for ensuring that nanotechnology reduces, rather • unsustainable agricultural policies and than exacerbates, environmental injustice. practices; But it does indicate the scope of the challenge • unfair tariffs, subsidies and trade associated with developing nanotechnology agreements; in a responsible way with regards to environmental justice. • inadequate consumer safety protection; Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Social Context Issues 29

• conflicts of interests for regulators or or marginal issues. Addressing them is researchers; crucial in determining the extent to which nanotechnology will contribute • externalization of pollution and health to human flourishing in socially just costs; and environmentally sustainable ways. • inadequate biodefense/military re- Moreover, they are neither secondary search oversight; and to nor in the service of the other aspects of responsible development. • inadequate governmental capacity (e.g., resources, expertise, commit- 4. Responding to these issues requires rem- ment, institutional design, legal au- edying the problematic features of the social thority, public trust, communication, contexts. They cannot be addressed by access to information). technology design and risk management alone, although these sometimes Comments on Social can contribute to resolving them. Context Issues 5. These issues are actionable. They are determinate, both in their content and, 1. These issues are determinate. They arise often, their causes. As a result, they fre- from features of obtaining social con- quently are determinate in their remedy texts. Moreover, in many cases, such as as well, since researchers, practitioners environmental jutice, researchers have and policy makers can develop well- determined many of the factors (attitu- informed (and often well-established) dinal, social, economic, institutional, policies, programs, practices and other legal, environmental and so on) that responses to address them. give rise to them. There is no need to wait until nanotechnology matures to 6. These issues intersect with government func- identify social context issues. tions. Social context issues do not always start and end with government. They 2. These issues merit immediate atten- involve non-governmental institutions, tion. They are determinate and arise social practices and individual attitudes from problematic features of obtain- and behaviors as well. However, they ing social contexts, so they ought to often substantially involve state, federal be attended to now, even independent or local government authority, activ- from nanotechnology. However, their ity and responsibility. As a result, they immediacy is amplified by nanotech- often cannot be adequately addressed nology, insofar as it might exacerbate without considerable government en- them. They are opportunities for ac- gagement and investment (e.g., aware- complishing anticipatory and proac- ness, commitment, personnel, resourc- tive respon-sible development. es, policy and regulation), well beyond current levels. 3. These issues are significant to responsible development. They are not minor 30

7. The work of social scientists and ethicists research and development program or is crucial to identifying and studying otherwise contribute to shaping govern- these issues and in developing in- ment policy and regulatory capacity. At formed policies and other actions for present, although social and ethical re- addressing them. Moreover, because search on emerging nanotechnologies these issues extend beyond science and is supported by the NNI, it is not clear technology, comprehensive responsi- how (or whether) this research will have ble development will require engaging an impact on research or governmental researchers (inclusive of universities, activities. public interest groups, government and professional organizations) who One possible response to this expansive specialize in social research and ethical conception of responsible development analysis in areas such as agriculture, might be that the problematic features that environment, medicine, business, gen- give rise to social context issues are too der, race, public health, global health, ubiquitous, too institutionally and cultur- education and government. ally entrenched and too multifaceted to reasonably expect that they could be re- 8. Addressing these issues requires that the solved. Many of these issues are difficult NNI substantially expand its “other social and and recalcitrant. However, the scope and ethical issues” efforts. It is not just that more depth of the challenges involved demand research (and researchers) are required that we do what we can to address them. than currently are involved. The scope To conclude that we ought not concern of issues being studied and addressed, as ourselves with them because they cannot well as the range of expertise of those be fully resolved would be to commit the involved in the research need consider- perfectionist fallacy. As with EHS issues, able expansion. Moreover, mechanisms the point of considering and responding to need to be established through which social and ethical issues is to make as much consideration of social and ethical issues progress as possible, even as perfect respon- can inform the science and technology sible development is impossible. Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Contested Moral Issues 31

Vi. Contested moral Issues

Scenario: Research at the Boundaries of Life Forms

As the tools and techniques of nanoscale science and technology continue to improve, research involving artificial organisms, synthetic biology, genetically modified organisms and chimeras (human-animal hybrids) accelerates. Just as awareness of this research is becoming more widespread, a group interested in pushing the boundaries of the science decides to introduce synthetic life forms into themselves. During the ensuing media cov- erage it is discovered that the Army has been introducing genetically modified bacteria into soldiers in an attempt to increase their resistance to illness when deployed. It is also learned that university researchers, supported by government funding, have synthesized novel strains of the polio virus. Several public interest groups and political constituen- cies begin to organize against this nearly entirely unregulated “life-meddling” research, arguing that this sort of research should not be done or, if it is done, that it should not take place near population centers or be introduced to humans, thereby exposing the public unknowingly and without their consent. Researchers in these fields find themselves on the defensive as efforts are made to restrict not only these research programs but all programs using the tools and techniques that made them possible. The political and regulatory uncertainty affects funding availability, as well as researchers’ decisions about where to focus their work, and causes considerable resources (researchers, students, private funding) to be relocated to other countries. The result is a substantial deceleration of cutting-edge research in these areas, and a further diminishing of the United States’ competitive advantage in emerging science and technology.

Research on Novel Life any biomolecules found in living cells. The vision is to “engineer living technologies, Forms which will be robust, autonomous, adap- tive and even self-replicating, if necessary” Research involving artificial organisms, (American Association for the Advancement synthetic biology, chimeras and genetic of Science 2008). modification, each of which already employs Synthetic biology makes use of genetic nanoscale science and engineering tools and (and other) materials from modern biologi- technologies, is advancing. Researchers at cal life forms to design and construct novel Los Alamos National Laboratory have re- organisms. A prominent vision for synthetic ported creating “self-replicating cells as- biology is to develop an ever-expanding sembled from nonliving organic and inor- inventory of standard genomic parts and ganic matter.” These artificial organisms are procedures that engineers can draw from to nanoscale in size, around 1 million times construct life forms with the desired func- smaller than bacteria, and do not contain tionalities. Among recent, and high-profile, 32

events in the field are the genomic (or chro- in male meadow voles [Lim et al. 2004]). mosomal) reconstruction of a Mycoplasma With respect to chimera research, after bacterium, accomplished by the J. Craig a three month public consultation, the Venter Institute (Gibson et al. 2008), and the United Kingdom’s Human Fertilisation and synthesis of a polio virus by State University Embryology Authority is permitting re- of New York at Stony Brook researchers search using cytoplasmic hybrids, which in- (Cello et al. 2002). As with artificial organ- volves inserting human DNA into an empty isms, basic research in synthetic biology is non-human animal egg. These embryos not merely of scientific interest. The intent must be destroyed within 14 days and are is to create organisms that can perform use- prohibited from being implanted in a womb. ful functions, such as “manufacturing” vac- Other chimera research, such as that involv- cines, chemicals and energy (e.g. hydrogen, ing fertilizing a non-human egg with human biofuels, or oils), coding information, or sperm, has not been approved (Human supplementing our immune systems. Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Genetically modified mice have been United Kingdom 2008). The United States, engineered with capacities well beyond in contrast, does not have a comprehensive those of non-genetically modified mice federal policy regarding such research, al- with respect to physical capabilities (e.g. though the use of federal funding for it is strength [Lee 2007; Barre et al. 2007] and prohibited, and President Bush, in his 2006 endurance [Wang et al. 2004]), cogni- State of the Union Address, proposed mak- tive capabilities (e.g. memory, learning, ing such research illegal (Bush 2006). and problem solving [Tang et al. 1999; Tools, techniques, and applications of Routtenberg et al. 2000; Wang et al. nanoscale science and engineering increas- 2004; Tan et al. 2006]), longevity (up to ingly are employed in all of these research 65% longer lifespan [Conti 2006; Longo fields, enabling them and contributing sub- and Finch 2003]), and perception (e.g. stantially to their development. Without trichromatism [Smallwood et al. 2003]). nanotechnology, much of the research The last of these was accomplished by the being done would not be possible and their replacement of a single mouse gene with a prospects for the future would not be near- single human gene that encodes for a type ly so bright. of cone photoreceptor not normally pos- sessed by mice (mice are usually bichro- The Issue: The Sanctity of matic). Genetic alteration of non-human animals has not been restricted to mice Life Forms? and has included behavioral traits. For example, pair bonding male meadow voles All these research programs push at the (which normally are not pair bonding) boundaries of life forms. They alter life were engineered by inserting into their forms at their most basic (i.e., genetic) level; genome a gene responsible for pair-bond- they create novel life forms that would not ing behavior in prairie voles. (The gene otherwise exist; or they combine aspects of encodes for a receptor for the hormone va- different life forms that would not otherwise sopressin, which is not otherwise present be integrated. This is morally contested ter- Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Contested Moral Issues 33 rain. These activities involve human design, Beyond the Sanctity of Life intention, purpose, control and property in a domain where many believe they do not Forms belong. Objections to them are expressed in terms such as “unnatural,” “disrespect- Sanctity of life form issues are not the only ful,” “hubris,” “domination,” “profane” and contested moral issues associated with “playing God.” The bases of these objections nanotechnology. Other contested research are various; some are religious and some are areas and applications in which nanoscale not. They include, for example, conceptions science and technology now play a role, or of life forms (in general or instantiated in likely soon will, include: individual organisms) on which they are not materials to be manipulated for human • biological and chemical weapons; ends, conceptions of stewardship toward living things that these practices breach and • human embryonic stem cell research consequentialist concerns regarding possible (and associated therapeutics); detrimental effects—social, public health • human enhancement; and and environmental—of such research and the attitudes that countenance it. • gene patenting and bio-prospecting. Counterarguments to these concerns include emphasizing the prospective ben- Comments on Contested efits of the technologies for humanity and, in many cases, for the environment, Moral Issues as well as highlighting respects in which the technologies are similar to (or only an 1. These issues are not applicable to all nano- extension of) other research programs and technologies. They apply to particular fields technologies that are now widely accept- of research, types of research programs ed—e.g., hybridization, in vitro fertiliza- and applications. They do not apply, for tion and vaccinations. Appeals are also example, to the use of nanoscale science made to the value and rights of individual and technology in paints, memory chips, liberty and autonomy—e.g., that people textiles, tennis rackets, solar panels and ought to be able to engage in the activities water filters. of their own choosing, as long as they do not harm anyone else. In addition, objec- 2. These issues are determinate and immediate. tions to the research are criticized on the In most cases, these are ongoing issues grounds that their bases are not scientific; into which emerging nanotechnologies that they are not informed by a proper have been introduced, although nano- understanding of the techniques and tech- scale science and engineering frequently nologies involved or that the principles to enable or accelerate research programs or which they appeal would render almost technologies that raise them. all technological innovations in medicine and agriculture unethical, thereby dem- 3. These issues often involve contrary world- onstrating the absurdity of the principles. views—i.e., sets of values and beliefs that 34

inform conceptions of the human situa- empirical or metaphysical claims that can tion, diagnoses of the challenges associ- be articulated, engaged and evaluated. ated with that situation and prescrip- Consensus on these issues is not likely, tions regarding appropriate responses to and many advocates (on both sides) are those challenges. They usually are not dogmatic and entrenched. Nevertheless, merely disagreements about facts that can the issues themselves are not intractable, be resolved through further research or ineffable or otherwise beyond the domain education. of productive inquiry and discourse.

4. Concerns regarding morally contested 7. Concerns regarding controversial moral research and applications may have merit. It practices cannot justifiably be excluded from is not the case that anything is permissible social and political discourse. Among the as long as it advances science and technol- fundamental principles of a liberal demo- ogy. This is why there is regulation and cratic society such as the United States oversight of human subjects research, for is that ideas not be excluded from social example. It is possible that some contro- and political domains on the basis of the versial research programs and applications worldviews from which they emerge. have morally problematic dimensions or This is manifest in the protection of free- pose unjustified and unacceptable risks. dom of thought, speech, religion and assembly, as well as voting rights. That 5. Concerns regarding morally contested some worldviews are not “scientifically research and applications typically are informed,” as commonly understood in not based on ignorance or misunderstanding. science and technology communities, is In the case of sanctity-of-life-form is- not justification for their being margin- sues, what is found objectionable—i.e., alized in public policy and regulatory creating, substantially altering or inte- discussions, even regarding science and grating different life forms at the genetic technology. level—often is distinctive of the research. Moreover, understanding how cytoplas- 8. These issues are appropriately addressed in mic hybridization is accomplished or social and political domains. They cannot be the tools involved in recombinant DNA resolved in laboratories or boardrooms. techniques is not needed to determine The scientific community has techni- whether these activities offend some cal expertise and industry has economic moral commitment. expertise. However, members of these communities do not, in virtue of that ex- 6. Concerns regarding controversial moral pertise, have special insight on contested practices are substantive. They are not moral issues or standing to represent the merely expressions of disapproval or re- public’s views about them. pugnance. They often reflect beliefs about the proper use and limits of science and 9. These issues are actionable. They are technology that are grounded in a robust immediate and identifiable, and sev- worldview. They therefore involve value, eral governmental bodies have author- Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Contested Moral Issues 35

ity to set policy and develop regula- and delays in realizing social, environmental tions regarding them—e.g., Congress, and economic opportunities. the National Science Foundation The case of embryonic stem cell re- (NSF), NIH, the U.S. Department of search perhaps provides a better model, Agriculture, the Department of Energy one in which moral concerns were raised, (DOE) and DOD. Action is also pos- widely considered and, through appropri- sible by those in the research commu- ate mechanisms and institutions, have in- nity. In the case of synthetic biology, formed research practice and public policy. some members of the research com- Actions by the federal executive branch— munity are already advocating for stan- in the form of restricting research funding dards and regulation. to a limited number of stem cell lines—that were in part motivated by moral consid- The challenge regarding contested moral erations have been an impetus for private issues is how to proceed productively—i.e., (e.g., Harvard) and state (e.g., California) in ways that, as far as possible, respect liberal initiatives to make resources available for democratic principles, encourage adjudica- less-restricted embryonic stem cell re- tion and identification of common ground, search. It has led scientists to look for alter- and do not unnecessarily or unjustifiably native methods for cultivating pluripotent slow innovation, commercialization or real- stem cells or otherwise advancing stem cell ization of social and environmental goods. A research in ways that would avoid the moral cautionary precedent is genetically modified concerns, and some significant successes (GM) crops. Social and ethical concerns re- toward that end have been reported (e.g., garding GM crops themselves (e.g., sanctity altering adult skin cells so that they exhibit of life forms) and their implementation (e.g., some stem cell–like properties). The fed- corporate control, absence of responsiveness eral funding restriction might have slowed to public input, lack of labeling/choice and research and innovation involving embry- inadequate regulatory oversight) have been, onic stem cells, but it has not stymied it (or and largely continue to be, misunderstood regenerative medicine more generally), and or ignored by scientific and industry com- it might have resulted in some research ca- munities, who tend to mistakenly attribute pacity relocating overseas, but the United public resistance almost exclusively to mis- States maintains a competitive advantage. information about the crops’ environmental Moreover, it has precipitated widespread and human-health risks. Meanwhile, en- public dialogues regarding the issue across trenched opponents of GM crops have failed a wide range of forums—e.g., statewide to acknowledge that different GM crops, campaigns around ballot initiatives, science like different nanotechnologies, often have museum forums, town hall discussions different ethical profiles in terms of, for ex- with congressional representatives, civic ample, objectives, benefits (and beneficia- and religious group meetings and com- ries), risks (and who is exposed to them), mentaries in professional journals. These control and oversight. The perpetual lack have, in turn, prompted new policy and of recognition and engagement, from both regulatory activities—for example, addi- sides, has contributed to substantial losses tional state initiatives (e.g., Massachusetts’ 36

biotech initiative) and congressional action respects, at least, the case suggests how to reverse the federal funding restriction. contested moral issues can be productively This is not to endorse either the moral addressed within a liberal, democratic, considerations that have been raised re- federalist system. Morally contested issues, garding embryonic stem cell research or including those associated with emerging the NIH’s funding restrictions on the nanotechnologies, need not result in in- basis of those concerns. Rather, it is to tractable entrenchment that is contrary to highlight aspects of the experience that realizing nanotechnology’s potential as a appear to have been constructive. In those social good. Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Technoculture Issues 37

Vii. technoculture Issues

Technoculture issues arise from problematic aspects of the role of technology within the social systems and structures from which, and into which, nanotechnologies are emerging. Technology is not separable from society. Nevertheless, robust critiques of particular aspects of the relationship and particular roles afforded technology within modern industrialized societies have been developed. After focusing on one prominent technoculture issue—the techno-fix—several significant features of technoculture issues in general are discussed.

Scenario: Nanotechnology, Genomics and Asthma in Upper Manhattan

Twenty-five percent of children in Harlem and Washington Heights (upper Manhattan) suffer from asthma. In response, the NIH, through the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences’ (NIEHS) Genes, Environment and Health Initiative (GEI) and Environmental Genome Project (EGP), initiates an environmental health, genetics and tox- icogenomics project. The project aims to identify any genetic variations, or polymorphisms, that contribute to asthma susceptibility among members of the community and thereby to elucidate the underlying genetic component of the elevated incidence. This information will then be used to develop effective prevention and treatment strategies particularized to those polymorphisms and to inform environmental regulations. Recent advances in nanoscale science and technology in the areas of genomics, toxicology and bio-monitoring are touted as enabling this sort of public health research to be done with unprecedented precision, efficiency and effectiveness. The NIH promote the initiative as an environmental justice project since the affected population is predominantly African American and Latino. Nevertheless, many environmental justice activists in the community are wary. They are concerned about possible stigmatization of individuals and communities when they are identified as possessing “faulty genes.” They are concerned about the cost and availability of any resultant medical preventions or treatments, given the number of families in the neighborhoods who do not have comprehensive health insurance. They view the project, which was developed without substantive input from the communities, as being contrary to principles of environmental justice, which emphasize community-driven agendas. But most of all, they are concerned that the effort is misplaced. The problem is not primarily genetic; it is primarily environmental. It stems from the prevalence of a variety of asthma triggers in homes and schools, and, in particular, that 75 percent of the diesel bus depots in Manhattan are located in these neighborhoods, their exhaust resulting in elevated levels of fine particulate (including some nanoscale) exposures. In their view, addressing this obvious and well-established contributing environmental factor (e.g., through re-siting, cleaner vehicles or enforcement of existing regulations concerning exhaust levels and idling) would be easier, more cost-effective, more immediate and more likely to succeed in reducing asthma rates than the genomic approach. 38

The Techno-Fix exhaust levels and idling) that would address the underlying social, economic, policy, This scenario is an elaboration on an ac- lifestyle or cultural causes that give rise to tual case. Three-quarters of Manhattan’s it. In industrial nations there is a widespread bus depots are located in the high-minority tendency to favor techno-fixes, particularly communities of Harlem and Washington with respect to agricultural, environmental Heights, resulting in elevated diesel exhaust and human-health challenges. In agricul- particulate levels in those areas. The high ture, the herbicide and pesticide treadmill particulate levels are widely recognized as a that enables perpetuation of industrial agri- major contributing factor to high childhood culture (with its attendant ecological and so- asthma rates in the communities. These cial costs—e.g., biodiversity loss, depletions rates average around 25 percent, which is of water resources, pollution of waterways well above the national and New York City and displacement of subsistence farmers in norms (Nicholas et al. 2005). A New York developing nations and family farmers in City–based environmental justice advocacy developed nations) is considered a paradig- group, West Harlem Environmental Action matic techno-fix. With respect to environ- (WE ACT) has co-sponsored, with NIEHS mental challenges, the tendency to pursue and others, a Genes and Justice sympo- technological solutions to problems such sium series, intended to explore the possi- as species population declines (e.g., captive bilities and challenges involving community breeding and assisted migration/relocation) health, race and rights associated with ge- and climate change (e.g., carbon sequester- netic research in general and initiatives such ing and ocean iron seeding), rather than to as GEI and EGP in particular (West Harlem alter lifestyles or modes of production (e.g., Environmental Action 2007). Each of the consumption, pollution and development concerns described in the scenario are varia- patterns) exemplifies the favoring of tech- tions of concerns raised by activists who no-fixes. In medicine, prioritizing pharma- attended the initial symposium (DiChiro cological intervention over lifestyle changes 2007). Moreover, nanoscale science and (e.g., with respect to high cholesterol and technology is expected to make significant heart disease) illustrates the tendency to- contributions in the areas of genomics re- wards techno-fixes, as do aspects of the cur- search, environmental monitoring, health rent genomics preoccupation. monitoring and diagnosis and prevention The objections raised to the genomics and treatment of environmental diseases. program in this scenario exemplify cri- The environmental genomics program tiques of techno-fixes generally. Techno- described in the scenario is a techno-fix. fixes, because of their narrowness, are sus- It prioritizes the development and use of ceptible to unanticipated and undesirable emerging technologies (and technological ecological, agricultural and social conse- innovation, generally) that address the det- quences. They tend to focus on managing rimental effects associated with some prac- undesirable effects rather than on elimi- tice (in this case, environmental pollution) nating underlying causes. As a result, they over alternative responses (e.g., re-siting or often do not solve the problem, but rather enforcing existing regulations concerning enable perpetuation of the problematic Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Technoculture Issues 39 practices. Moreover, they often depend for or eliminate pollution, solve world hunger their success upon our ability to control the and global health crises, remediate fresh effects of technology in complex biological water shortages, provide indefinite amounts systems (organism and ecological), as well of cheap, reliable, clean energy and enable as on our capacity to find new technologi- longer, healthier lives are routine. One rea- cal solutions for whatever undesirable side son to be cautious about these claims is that effects the latest technological fix might many of these applications are in areas where have. Furthermore, they often crowd out, techno-fixes are pervasive—e.g., agricul- draw resources from or are used as justi- ture, environment and medicine. Another fication for not pursuing alternatives that, reason for caution is that when claims about although less technologically sophisticated, nanotechnology’s potential for addressing may be more cost-effective, more immedi- social or environmental problems are made, ate, more likely to succeed and less suscep- the primary focus is the distinctive features tible to unintended undesirable effects. of nanoscale science and engineering or the products they enable. The broader political, The Issue: Nanotechnology economic and cultural factors are rarely ac- knowledged, let alone addressed. Consider, as Techno-Fix? for example, nanotechnology’s often cited potential to contribute significantly to im- Many nanotechnologies are susceptible to proving the lives of the global poor. Among being developed as techno-fixes. One rea- the potential barriers to its doing so are lack son for this is how nanotechnology is often of research infrastructures in developing conceptualized. With nanotechnology, it is nations, lack of incentives for researchers often is intimated, we have accomplished in developed nations to work on pro-poor control of matter at the basic, atomic level. technologies, intellectual property restric- We can design and construct with precision. tions, high capital costs associated with We can collect and process increasingly de- nanotechnology research, ineffective or tailed and comprehensive data, thereby al- inefficient distribution systems, incompat- lowing us to better understand problems ibility with the conditions and lifestyles of at both the systemic and molecular levels. those who the technologies are intended to More than ever, environmental, health, and benefit (e.g., lack of access to parts, exper- even many social problems can be conceived tise or reliable energy) and inadequate regu- and approached as engineering problems. latory capacities. Technologies that could This engineering-oriented conceptualiza- be beneficial to the global poor often never tion of environmental and social problems get deployed because they are not created, and confidence in our capacity to design, they are not in a form well fitted to people’s monitor, predict and control with detail and needs, living conditions or culture or they precision may encourage deploying nano- are not manufactured and disseminated be- technologies as techno-fixes. cause of policy, infrastructure or cost con- The rhetoric around emerging nanotech- straints. How the technologies are deployed nologies exacerbates this concern. Claims is also crucial. The fact that nanotechnologies regarding how nanotechnology will reduce are being developed that increase available 40

supplies of useful or potable water, for ex- researchers and policy makers, may contribute ample, does not ensure that those technologies to its being developed and disseminated in al- will be social or environmental goods. If they ternative, more promising ways. This is a case, are deployed in ways that enable cultivation of like many social context issues, where atten- water-intensive crops in arid locations or en- tiveness to ethical issues is not a matter of pro- courage population migrations to unsustain- hibition, but of identifying how to maximize able locations, they may perpetuate or create the potential of emerging nanotechnologies. problems, rather than resolve them. Finally, for many of the global poverty problems that nanotechnologies might address, there may be Beyond the Techno-Fix less technologically sophisticated, more cost- effective, more immediate and more likely to Technoculture issues often are interrelated succeed alternatives. and manifest in combination, and many of This is not to claim that nanoscale science the aspects of emerging nanotechnologies that and technology is inherently problematic be- render it susceptible to techno-fix concerns cause it is a “deep,” “reductive” or “control- expose it to other technoculture concerns as oriented” technology. Nor is it to claim that well. Among the technoculture issues that may nanotechnologies in these fields or with these be appropriate to nanotechnology include: applications are necessarily techno-fixes, that they should not be promoted or that they • tendency to favor technological fixes will not deliver on their potential to be so- over comprehensive solutions; cial goods. Emerging nanotechnologies can be included as part of integrated approaches • tendency to treat problematic effects to responding to social, environmental and rather than address their underlying human health challenges that address as well causes; the underlying social, institutional, cultural or • techno-hubris, or overestimation of our economic causes. The problem of the techno- ability to predict and control tech- fix is not with emerging technologies (includ- nology (particularly within complex ing emerging nanotechnologies) as such, but systems); with the ways in which they are sometimes promoted and deployed—i.e., proffered as • techno-determinism, or overstatement magic bullets or used to treat symptoms of of the extent to which technology some problematic practice, thereby enabling it drives history; to continue. When developed in these ways, • techno-optimism, or overconfidence they often are ineffectual and inefficient; they in the inevitable goodness of technol- worsen the situation in the long run. ogy and its capacity to solve social and So while a techno-fix “advisory” is appro- environmental problems; priate to nanotechnology, whether it is in fact developed and deployed as a techno-fix re- • alienation from nature—i.e., detrimen- mains to be seen. It is not forgone, and aware- tal technological mediation of interac- ness of its susceptibility, as well as the difficul- tions and relationships between people ties associated with techno-fixes on the part of and nature; Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Technoculture Issues 41

• commodification of nature and margin- issues. For example, government action alization of non-economic values; and could help overcome several of the barriers that prevent nanotechnology from • privileging elite-controlled risk assess- realizing its potential to help address ment (rather than inclusive or precau- global poverty—e.g., through foreign tionary approaches) to determining aid programs (such as the U.S. Agency responsiveness to uncertainties associ- for International Development and the ated with technology. Millennium Challenge Corporation), changes in intellectual property systems Comments on (e.g., humanitarian exceptions or novel patent types) and funding priorities. Technoculture Issues 5. Many aspects of these issues are actionable. 1. These issues are immediate and determinate. They are immediate and identifiable, They concern features of the relationship and, as indicated above, several govern- between technology and society. The is- ment bodies have authority to set policy sues are not new with nanotechnology, and develop regulations relevant to them. but in many cases emerging nanotech- Non-governmental action on many of nologies may exacerbate them or realize them is also possible—e.g., incentivizing them in particularly stark forms. pro-poor research by providing funding (as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 2. These issues demonstrate the signifi- has done), infusing science and engineer- cance of individual and cultural attitudes ing curricula with STS (science, technol- or tendencies to the extent to which ogy and society) modules and refraining emerging nanotechnologies promote from enforcing patents with respect to human flourishing in just and sustain- humanitarian uses. able ways. 6. These issues are not necessarily applica- 3. Many of these issues substantially inter- ble to all nanotechnologies. Whether they sect with social context issues. The extent apply to particular fields of research, to which nanotechnology is developed types of research programs and applica- and deployed as a techno-fix depends tions depends upon the particular fea- not only on the properties of the tech- tures of the technologies, how they are nologies themselves but also on strate- implemented, what their objectives are, gies for implementation, who controls who controls them and what oversight them and what oversight capacity is in measures are in place, for example. place, for example. Technoculture issues concern cultural 4. Many of these issues intersect with govern- orientations and individual attitudes and mental functions and responsibilities, since beliefs about technology and its relationship these are often relevant to the broader to society. With respect to these, others (in- contextual factors that give rise to the cluding government) cannot and ought not 42

directly intercede. As a result, while aspects table. But it does suggest that some techn- of many technoculture issues are directly oculture issues may be especially difficult to actionable, others are only indirectly so address, both in general and with respect to (through education, for example). This does responsible development of emerging nano- not imply that they are intractable or inevi- technologies in particular. Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Form of Life Issues 43

Viii. form of life Issues

Scenario: Virtual Socialization

Advances in nanoscale science and technology enable computing power to continue to grow exponentially, making possible increasingly robust, dynamic and complex virtual environments. In combination with other technologies, these advances also enable novel computer interfacing technologies that make the experience of virtual environments increasingly immersive. The expansion in the range and depth of social experiences and opportunities afforded by virtual reality results in more people shifting more of their interpersonal lives—e.g., recreation, friendship, romance, commerce, creative arts, education, and religious practice—into virtual environments. The impacts of this increase in virtual sociability are twofold. First, there is a diminishing effect on non- virtual social interaction. More time and resources expended in virtual environments is correlated with less time and resources expended on non-virtual social activities—e.g., civic groups, enrichment courses, volunteer activities, political involvement, church groups, cultural events and relaxation with friends and family. Second, there is a value- enhancing effect on virtual social interactions. The more time and resources one invests in virtual social relationships, affiliations and initiatives, the more meaningful these things become in one’s life. As a result of these shifts, conceptions of what constitutes a socially rich human life—and the significance of physical proximities and relationships in it, in particular—begin to be reconsidered, as do other prominent aspects of human sociability, such as community, identity, embodiment and emplacement.

Virtual Reality more than 65,000 acres (up from 64 acres in 2003), and new land is continually being added and developed (there is also an active Virtual reality is a present and steadily ex- resale market in virtual real estate) (Second panding reality. The most prominent virtual Life 2008). The activities that take place in world is Second Life, operated by Linden Second Life include everything from busi- Lab. Second Life has more than 12 million ness meetings to dancing and community residents or avatars (an avatar is a user’s vir- organizing to gaming; and the institutions tual self or persona), with thousands of new established range from universities to fan residents joining each day. There are over 15 clubs and newspapers to support groups. million U.S. dollars’ worth of Linden dol- There are entrepreneurial, commercial, rec- lars in circulation in Second Life, and there reational, political, romantic, educational was U.S. $22 million in economic activ- and professional opportunities and experi- ity in the fourth quarter of 2007. The vir- ences on offer in Second Life. It is a socially tual landscape of Second Life encompasses diverse and rich environment. 44

Second Life is not the only virtual world. cal lenses, visualization masks, whole-body- Others include There and Activeworlds, motion capture and direct brain-machine and, to a considerable extent, massively interfaces. Several of these are likely to multiplayer online role-playing games such incorporate nanoscale technologies—e.g., as The Sims Online and World of Warcraft. sensors and circuits—in their design. Moreover, architectures or platform types other than a single site or gateway maintained The Issue: Virtual Reality by a single entity (as is the case with Second Life and World of Warcraft) and to which and Sociability an avatar is confined are being pursued. For example, a network of virtual worlds across The expansion of virtual reality already has which an avatar can travel could be estab- precipitated normative issues both internal lished, or individuals could construct virtual to virtual reality and at the interface be- reality just as individual websites (and the tween virtual and non-virtual (or physi- links between them) constitute the substan- cal) reality. Within virtual reality, issues of tive content of the Internet. governance and authority associated with The richness and complexity of vir- determining what activities are inappropri- tual environments are limited by avail- ate or ought to be proscribed are increas- able computing (memory and processing) ingly common. For example, Linden Lab power. Because of heat and size constraints, occasionally makes “unilateral” decisions conventional semiconductor chips are ap- regarding Second Life regulation and pol- proaching their performance limits with icy—e.g., eliminating gambling, shutting today’s processing speeds. Therefore, to ex- down banks (following a case of fraud) tend Moore’s law—that the number of tran- and eliminating particular avatars for dis- sistors that can be placed on an integrated ruptive or prohibited behavior. Many resi- circuit doubles every two years (and that dents object to this model of governance integrated circuits double in performance as authoritarian and anti-democratic. Some every 18 months)—researchers are increas- would prefer a model on which governance ingly looking to nanoscale technologies (i.e., policy, regulation and enforcement) such as carbon nanotube transistors, molec- is accomplished though institutions (usu- ular memory, magnetic computing, optical ally distributed, rather than centralized) computing and, ultimately, quantum com- designed and administered within Second puting. There have been successes at many Life by residents, while others have advo- companies—e.g., Nanosys, Nantero, Intel, cated for a third-party mediation model AMD and IBM—with feature sizes below for dispute resolution. Issues of standards 45 nanometers having been accomplished. (with respect to operating platforms and Research and innovation on interfac- economic policy, for example) and gover- ing technologies is also advancing. Already, nance across virtual worlds have also been Voice Over IP is available in many virtual raised as some operators look to make ava- worlds, including Second Life. Interfacing tars portable across virtual worlds. As these technologies in development that might be examples indicate, new norms concerning adopted by virtual reality users include opti- a broad range of relationships and activities Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Form of Life Issues 45 within this novel social sphere are needed e-mail and Facebook—have had a substan- and being negotiated. There are social, tial impact on how people spend time to- political and ethical dimensions to these gether and communicate with each other, norms and negotiations, just as there are as well as relationship development (and with their counterparts in physical reality. durability), forms of intimacy and expec- At the intersection of virtual and non- tations, for example. There is no reason to virtual reality, questions are being raised re- believe that virtual reality will not also have garding the extent to which norms and in- such impacts, particularly given the novelty stitutions of physical reality have authority of the forms and conditions of social in- in virtual reality and, if they do, how their teraction it enables. Although it is difficult authority applies. For example, do civil and to identify in advance what the particular criminal courts have jurisdiction in virtual challenges and issues might be, given the reality? What constitutes a person’s right of distinctive features of the forms of socia- privacy, “bodily” integrity or personal au- bility that virtual reality structures, the is- tonomy in virtual reality? Does economic sues raised are likely to involve conceptions activity in virtual reality need to be reported of social identity (including embodiment), to the Internal Revenue Service? Do intel- the meaning of community (and of being a lectual property policies have force in virtu- good citizen of it), the significance of physi- al reality? Some of these questions have been cal familiarity and proximity to relationship introduced into the U.S. justice system. In quality and intimacy and the resources and one case, a former Second Life resident filed skills that constitute social capability. More suit against Linden Lab claiming that it il- generally, if virtual reality enables forms of legally confiscated thousands of U.S. dollars’ sociability that approach the fulfillment and worth of property that he had accumulated meaningfulness of those in physical reality, in Second Life (Bragg vs. Linden Research, what can reasonably be considered a socially Inc. and Philip Rosedale 2007). In another rich human life will be considerably more case, the plaintiff (a company that develops diverse than it is now. products for sale in Second Life) claims that the defendant (originally named in the case Beyond Virtual Reality and by his avatar and who has since defaulted) pirated and illegally sold unauthorized cop- Sociability ies of a successful Second Life product (Eros LLC vs. Robert Leatherwood and John 1–10 Nanotechnology’s possible impacts on the Does 2007). human situation and on the social and ethi- In addition to norms internal to virtual cal norms predicated on it are not limited reality and at the interface between virtual to those associated with virtual reality. and non-virtual reality, norms regarding Nanotechnology is a general-use techno- interpersonal relationships in human life as logical platform, and its collective effects such might be challenged as participation on the human person, our interpersonal in virtual reality expands. Past technologi- relationships and our environmental rela- cal innovations that structure forms of so- tionship are likely to be significant, and the cial interaction—e.g., telephone, television, form of life issues that result are likely to 46

be diverse. For example, if nanomedicine uation and resultant form of life issues. helps extend the normal human life span These issues do not concern obtaining even five or ten healthful years, norms of features of nanotechnology or its cul- human flourishing will need to be recon- tural situatedness to the same extent as sidered and there will be significant im- do social context issues, technoculture pacts on family norms and structures (e.g., issues and contested moral issues. care responsibilities), life plans or trajectories (e.g., when people marry) and social 4. Because they can be difficult to antici- and political institutions (e.g., Medicare). pate, these issues often are less immediate, de- If nanoscale materials increasingly provide terminate or actionable than social context artificial alternatives to material goods for- or contested moral issues. Nevertheless, merly supplied by natural environments in some cases it will be possible to pre- and devices containing nanoscale technol- emptively identify and take action on ogies further mediate our encounters with these issues—e.g., regarding the impacts nature, norms predicated on our relation- of greater longevity and expectations ship with nature (e.g., regarding consump- about healthfulness on Social Security tion and nature experience) will need to be and Medicare. reconsidered. 5. These issues are not always, or even usu- Comments on Form of ally, social problems. The changes to the human situation brought about through Life Issues nanotechnology will often be desirable or beneficial—e.g., longer, more health- 1. Nanoscale science and engineering en- ful lives through nanomedicine. But able innovation across a wide range of even in cases where the impacts are de- fields and applications, including every- sirable, adapting norms to them can be thing from communication to agricul- accomplished more or less effectively, ture and medicine to sporting goods. and is thus a significant component of Therefore, the collective impacts of nano- responsible development. technology on the human situation are likely to be multifaceted and substantial. 6. Many of these issues intersect with government functions and responsibilities, 2. Technology structures and influences particularly where they have implica- human activities, experiences, relation- tions for public policy or programs. ships and modes of thought. Therefore, Medicare and Social Security are clear the form of life issues that arise from nano- examples of this. These programs are technology’s impact on the human situation predicated on the citizenry maintain- are likely to be diverse and, in some cases, ing constant longevity and expectations profound. of healthfulness. When the human situation changes, existing policies and 3. It will often be difficult to identify in advance programs may need to be adjusted to the particular impacts on the human sit- remain viable and to accomplish their Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Form of Life Issues 47

intended aims or new policies and pro- identifying what the impacts are likely to be, grams may need to be developed. evaluating whether or not they are desirable and determining how practice, policy and Emerging nanotechnologies are likely regulation might influence them. Doing so, to have a significant impact on the human in appropriately inclusive and democratic situation and to contribute substantially to ways, is part of making informed decisions structuring human activities, relationships regarding adoption, policy and regulation, and experiences. Proactive responsible de- and is as much a part of responsible devel- velopment of nanotechnology therefore re- opment as is effective adaptation as issues quires, in cases where prediction is possible, materialize. 48

iX. Transformational Issues

Transformational issues arise from nanotechnology’s potential (particularly in combination with other emerging technologies, such as biotechnology, information technology, computer science, neuroscience, cognitive science and robotics) to transform aspects of the human situation (not merely, as with form of life issues, alter some of its parameters) in ways that introduce novel ethical terrain or require reconfiguring or reconceiving some prominent aspect of our ethical landscape (not merely modifying obtaining social and ethical norms).

Scenario: Cognitive Enhancement

As the U.S. population ages and life spans extend, research on diagnosing and treating cognitive degeneration accelerates. Enabled by nanoscale science and technology, several therapies are developed. Initially, these include pharmaceuticals, regenerative medicine and brain stimulation. Subsequently, as the genetic contributions to cognitive degeneration and the underlying biological mechanisms and pathways are increasingly elucidated, somatic and germline genetic therapies—e.g., modifying or introducing genes that encode for increases in brain-tissue growth, neural connectivity, neurochemicals or neurotransmitters—become possible. The Food and Drug Administration reviews several of these drugs, devices and therapies, finds them to be safe and effective and approves them for therapeutic purposes. However, because the new therapies also have an impact on underlying biological mechanisms associated with learning, memory and problem solving, many of them also have cognitive enhancement potentials. Although not developed, intended or approved for non-therapeutic purposes, they are prescribed and used off-label. Early adopters are seen as enjoying not only increased in- trinsic goods associated with cognitive capacities (e.g., knowledge and understanding) but also as being advantaged with respect to many competitive and positional goods (e.g., employment and admissions to educational institutions). A competitive surge in the use of non-therapeutic cognitive enhancement technologies (including genetic interventions) ensues among those with access to them and resources to pay for them. The effects of this widespread, but differential adoption of cognitive enhancement technologies are multidimensional. On the biological dimension, evolved (or given) human biology—i.e., human nature—is being altered. On the capacity dimension, those who are enhanced have abilities others lack. On the social justice dimension, pre-existing economic and educational inequalities are exacerbated. On the social outlook dimension, no longer is everyone considered roughly equal in terms of cognitive capability. On the self-conception dimension, human biology is seen as involving constraints to be overcome rather than as enabling human goods. On the perspectival dimension, those who are cognitively enhanced experience the world differently. Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Transformational Issues 49

On the Threshold modification has been achieved across a broad range of capacities. They have been of (Radical) Human engineered to be physically high func- Enhancement? tioning (in terms of strength and endurance), cognitively high functioning (in Enhancement of our cognitive, physi- terms of memory, learning and problem cal, perceptual or psychological capacities solving), long-lived (up to 65 percent lon- through technology is ubiquitous. Education ger life spans) and perceptually augmented technologies, computational devices, nutri- (trichromatic rather than bichromatic). tional supplements, steroids, pharmaceu- Moreover, radical enhancement has not ticals, communication systems and optical been limited to mice. For example, male lenses are each a type of human enhance- meadow voles, which typically are not ment technology. There is nothing about pair bonding, have been made so by the human enhancement technologies per se insertion of the genes that are responsible that makes them radical. What distinguishes for pair-bonding behavior in male prairie radical enhancement from routine enhance- voles. Also, brain-machine interfaces have ment is that the former involves alteration been accomplished with owl and rhesus of some system/process, or introduction of macaque monkeys that enable them to some novel system/process, that augments control a robotic arm and a robot’s walk- some core biological capability significantly ing (even over the Internet) by manipu- beyond the range of capacity attainable by lating their brain states (Carmena 2003; technologically unassisted human beings or Blakeslee 2008). introduces a capacity not had by techno- Similar brain-machine interface tech- logically unassisted human beings. Radical nologies have been used to enable tetraplegic enhancement technologies alter us in a way humans to interface with computers to move that gets at the kind of creature that we are. a cursor, open e-mail, play a video game and Several considerations collectively sug- draw figures (Hochberg et al. 2006). This is gest that it is not too soon to begin con- one type of advanced human therapeutic that sidering the social and ethical dimensions may have radical enhancement applications, of radical human enhancement: successful but it is not the only one. Nootropics, phar- attempts to radically enhance non-human maceuticals that increase the brain’s supply species (often involving nanoscale science of neurochemicals (e.g., neurotransmitters, and technology); significant gains in ad- enzymes or hormones), increase oxygen sup- vanced therapeutics that may have enhance- ply to the brain or stimulate nerve growth ment potentials (often involving nanoscale in the brain, are a promising therapeutic for science and technology); ongoing research cognitive disabilities and neural degradation, programs related to human enhancement and may have cognitive enhancement po- (including those funded by the United tential. Regenerative medicine, therapeutics States government); and the willingness of (e.g., involving stem cells) that generate new people to enhance themselves. tissue to repair damaged, diseased or miss- As previously discussed, radical en- ing organs or new cells to treat degenerative hancement of mice by means of genetic diseases, may have longevity enhancement, 50

as well as physical and cognitive enhance- and interact with human cells and the nervous ment, potential. Cochlear and retinal im- system, begin to replace and regenerate body plants, therapeutics for deafness and retinal parts and build machines and other products degeneration, could lead to perceptual en- with finesse suitable for direct interaction with hancement possibilities as researchers better human tissue and the nervous system (Roco understand how to build devices that effec- 2004, p. 3). tively integrate with those systems. Bionic limbs, currently used as replacements for lost This assessment was made in the con- limbs, have the potential to become bionic text of NSF’s NBIC (nanotechnology, bio- enhancements. Transcranial magnetic stimu- technology, information technology and lation and electrical deep-brain stimulation, cognitive science) convergence program, which have demonstrated some therapeutic which is a basic research and applied science potential for depression, psychological dis- program (with a societal implications com- orders, head trauma and semi-consciousness, ponent) that aims to employ “converging may have psychological or cognitive augmen- technologies integrated from the nanoscale tation potential as well. In addition, the sort [to] achieve tremendous improvements in of genetic enhancements that have already human abilities, and enhance social achieve- been realized in other species could also be ment” (Roco and Montemagno 2004, p. realized in human beings. This is not an vii). Among the “key visionary ideas” of the exhaustive review of advanced therapeutics NBIC program are “expanding human cog- with enhancement potentials, and it is not in- nition and communication” and “improving tended to serve as a set of predictions regard- human health and physical capabilities” with ing which enhancement technologies will be technologies located both inside and out- realized or applied. It is a representative list of side the body (Roco and Bainbridge 2002, possibilities that collectively suggests that the p. 17). According to Roco, “Converging technological capability for radical human technology products for improving human enhancement is not science fiction, but sci- physical and mental performance (brain ence in the making. connectivity, sensory abilities, etc.)” should This is further evidenced by claims by be realized in one generation and “evolution prominent and mainstream scientists and transcending human cell, body, and brain” technologists. Mihail Roco, Senior Advisor will be realized in (a cautious) n generations for Nanotechnology at NSF and chair of (Roco 2004, p. 6). the National Science and Technology NSF’s NBIC program is not the only Council’s Subcommittee on Nanoscale research program funded by the U.S. gov- Science, Engineering and Technology, has ernment with substantial human enhance- described the current state of the science ment potential. The Defense Advanced as follows: Research Project Agency (DARPA) has an ongoing soldier enhancement research Accelerated improvement of human perfor- program. It aims to develop, for example, mance has become possible at the individual pharmaceuticals, device implants, exoskel- and collective levels. We have arrived at the etons and genetically engineered organ- moment when we can measure signals from isms that will enable soldiers that feel less Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Transformational Issues 51 pain, require less sleep, heal more quickly, Social and Ethical have amplified physical abilities, are more thoroughly networked, are closely moni- Dimensions of Radical tored both physiologically and psycholog- Human Enhancement ically in real time and have stronger intes- tinal fortitude. Radical human enhancement raises an In addition, there appears to be wide- array of social context, social norm, con- spread interest in human enhancement, as tested moral and technoculture questions: well as willingness to take on risks, and even break rules, to attempt it. This is evidenced • For the person undergoing an enhance- by the non-therapeutic use of technologies ment, what are the risks associated with such as anabolic steroids, human growth the process? hormones and modinafil (an anti-narco- • Would it be beneficial or detrimental to lepsy drug used to maintain wakefulness). become radically enhanced? These and other moderate enhancement technologies are prevalent not only among • Is there something problematic about the competitive athletes (from high school desire to become radically enhanced? to the professional level) and other people • Should parents have the legal right to who want to raise their performance levels radically enhance their children? (e.g., modinafil is reportedly used by United States Air Force pilots to maintain alertness) • Is it morally permissible for parents to but also among ordinary citizens who want radically enhance their children (and, if to feel a bit stronger or live a bit longer. so, should they do so)? Hundreds of thousands, and perhaps mil- • Should parents ever be required to radi- lions, of U.S. citizens, including between 1 cally enhance their children? and 2 percent of 10th and 12th graders, use anabolic steroids for non-therapeutic pur- • How would radical human enhancement poses each year (United States Sentencing affect obtaining familial relationships, Commission 2006). As the widespread use institutions and norms? of elective (non-therapeutic) cosmetic sur- • How would radical human enhancement gery indicates—there were nearly 11 mil- impact obtaining social norms, practices, lion cosmetic procedures in the United organizations and institutions beyond States in 2006—many people accept the the family? risks associated with substantial technological interventions in return for the prospect • Overall, would widespread radical of superficial benefits (American Society of human enhancement have good or bad Plastic Surgeons 2006). social consequences? These considerations collectively suggest • Would radical human enhancement that it is not premature to begin considering impair or promote justice? the social and ethical issues associated with radical human enhancement technologies. • How would radical human enhancement alter our relationship to the environment 52

and non-human organisms? ethical profiles (e.g., brain-machine interfacing through implantable devices vs. increased • Does radical human enhancement vio- longevity through regenerative medicine vs. late reasonable moral constraints regard- cognitive enhancement through germline ing appropriate use of technology? genetic engineering). • How should radical human enhance- These issues are complex, compel- ment be regarded or regulated in differ- ling and crucial to responsible develop- ent competitive domains (e.g., sports, ment of emerging human enhancement job market or education admissions)? technologies. Even so, they do not fully capture the ways in which radical human • Can the military require radical en- enhancement technologies are potentially hancement of soldiers? transformational. • How should radical human enhancement research be funded? The Issue: Transformational • How should radical human enhance- Dimensions of Radical ment research be regulated? Human Enhancement • Should attempts at radical human enhancement be regulated? If so, how? Technologies are transformational if their • How should dual-use technologies (i.e., adoption would require reconfiguring some therapeutic technologies with enhance- prominent aspect of our ethical landscape or ment potentials) be regulated in both the would open novel ethical terrain. Radical research and commercialization stages? human enhancement is transformational in both of these senses. • How ought these issues be approached Ethics, at its most basic, concerns how within a liberal democratic society? creatures like us ought to go about a world like ours. There has been, and continues to be, Many of these issues (which are a represen- considerable disagreement about the kind of tative sampling, not an exhaustive account- creatures we are—from soul endowed and in ing) are interconnected. Moreover, each the image of God to complex biomechanical gives rise to a number of crucial sub-issues— systems to blank slates. These disagreements e.g., regarding quantification and decision are ethically significant. Different accounts making about risks or resolving the concep- of the human person support different con- tion and principles of justice operative in the ceptions of the human ethical situation and, relevant domains. In addition, as formulated, from there, different prescriptions for how we each concerns radical human enhancement in ought to live. Nevertheless, they are disagree- general; in practice, by contrast, these ques- ments about how things are and about mate- tions need to be raised regarding different rial that informs ethical reflection. They are types, modes and methods of radical human not disagreements about how things ought enhancement (and combinations thereof). to be. What is novel about the ethics of radi- This is because different radical human en- cal human enhancement is that the kind of hancements will have different social and creatures we are is not taken as a given, i.e., Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Transformational Issues 53 a stable backdrop against or a foundation on Beyond Radical Human which ethics is done. It is itself the subject of ethical, not just descriptive (scientific or meta- Enhancement physical), inquiry. The ethics of radical human enhancement concerns the types of creatures that we Radical human enhancement technologies ought (or want) to be. Ethical capacity for radical are not the only potentially transformative human enhancement therefore requires devel- technologies in which nanoscale science and oping frameworks for effectively evaluating technology would play a crucial role. Others candidate changes to human nature, as well include: as resources to help people and organizations navigate this novel terrain—e.g., individuals • autonomous, self-aware artificial with expertise, professional codes, regulations, intelligences; educational resources (such as courses and case • nanobots or nanoassemblers that would studies) and consultation services. enable rapid molecular manufacture of In addition, the adoption (and even the macroscale objects; prospect of adoption) of radical human enhancement technologies would compel re- • integrating technologies that would ef- thinking familiar aspects of our ethical situa- fectively merge human and machine tion. In particular, it raises questions regarding intelligence and/or virtual and non-virtual conceptions of humanness (or what it means to reality; and be human) and personhood (or what it means • robust regenerative medicine or combina- to be an individual person): tions of technologies that would enable perpetual (or nearly so) protection, repair • Is radical human enhancement contrary to and rejuvenation of the human body and or an expression of human nature? brain. • Would a radically enhanced person remain human? Among the prominent aspects of our ethical situation that technologies such as these • Would a radically enhanced person retain would reconfigure are: human dignity? • Would personal identity (metaphysical and • humanness or what it means to be human; psychological) be retained through radical • personal identity or what constitutes the human enhancement? same person over time (psychologically • Does radical human enhancement ren- and metaphysically); der a person artifactual or biologically • the moral status of some artifacts; transcendent? • the constituents of flourishing or what is In these respects, radical human enhance- good, valuable and meaningful in life; and ment technologies are paradigmatic transfor- • mortality. mational technologies. 54

Comments on is not too early to begin cultivating preliminary social, ethical and even government ca- Transformational Issues pacity. Some social and ethical capacity is, in fact, slowly developing—e.g., articles in the 1. These issues are less immediate and less de- professional and public literatures, advocacy terminate than the other types of issues. groups and think tanks, professional ethi- The technologies that would give rise to cists and relevant case studies and precedents them do not yet exist, even in cases where (e.g., steroids and human growth hormones there are general research trajectories to- in sport). In addition, there is some demon- ward them. In some cases, it is contested strated awareness of the possibility and signifi- whether the technologies are possible. cance of radical human enhancement within the federal government. The 21st Century 2. These issues should not preoccupy research Nanotechnology Research and Development on, discussion about and responsiveness to Act requires attentiveness to radical human other social and ethical issues. Although enhancement, noting that “the activities of the less sensational in some respects, the program shall include… ensuring that ethical, other issue types—which in many legal, environmental and other appropriate so- cases are determinate, immediate and cietal concerns, including the potential use of actionable—are nevertheless crucial to nanotechnology in enhancing human intelli- responsible development. gence and in developing artificial intelligence which exceeds human capacity, are considered 3. These issues should not be dismissed. The during the development of nanotechnology” technologies that would realize them (United States Congress 2003). Awareness are, according to many researchers, pos- within the Department of Defense is evi- sible. If they are realized, they will have denced by DARPA’s soldier enhancement pro- considerable, indeed transformational, gram and awareness within NSF is evidenced social and ethical impacts. Therefore, by its NBIC program, both of which suggest attentiveness to them is appropriate. If some awareness within the executive branch. it appears that some may be realized So while there does not appear to be signifi- in a reasonably short time (as has been cant attentiveness or engagement on the part suggested regarding radical human en- of most potentially relevant regulatory bod- hancement), an anticipatory response is ies—e.g., the Food and Drug Administration needed within a similar timeframe. and state medical boards—there is some engagement among many involved in emerging Transformational issues are, in general, less science and technology policy and research. actionable than the other issue types. This is a With respect to transformational issues that result of their relative indeterminacy and lack appear more distant, some preliminary capac- of immediacy. This is not to claim that they ity development is, perhaps, also possible—for are not at all actionable. For example, even if example, through scenario work and discourse regulatory or policy action regarding radical on whether particular transformations would human enhancement would be premature, it be desirable or ought to be pursued. Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues Conclusion: The Opportunity 55

X. Conclusion: The opportunity

Many of the social and ethical issues asso- It is possible to do better, and the NNI ciated with emerging nanotechnologies are affords as good an opportunity to address determinate, immediate, distinct, signifi- many of the issues as is likely to present it- cant and actionable. Consideration of and self. First, within the NNI there is a substan- responsiveness to them are needed now in tial and apparently genuine commitment to order to anticipate and proactively address, promoting nanotechnology as a social good, as far as possible, potential negative aspects as well as recognition that considerable ef- of emerging nanotechnologies, as well as forts in support of responsible development to identify and promote opportunities for are necessary to do so. Second, there is some nanotechnology to contribute to human recognition within the NNI that there are flourishing in just and sustainable ways. significant social and ethical issues above This is precisely the justification for includ- and beyond public outreach, infrastruc- ing responsible development as an objective ture and workforce development and EHS within the NNI. that need to be addressed. Social and ethi- However, the anticipatory model for re- cal issues do at least find mention in core sponsible development sought by the NNI NNI documents, and there has been some does not yet fully exist. As with nanoscale effort within the NNI to identify them science and technology, there are some (Roco and Bainbridge 2001, 2005). Third, pieces in place, some resources from which there is recognition within the NNI that to draw (e.g., experiences with previous significant policy and regulatory changes emerging technologies and expertise in may be needed to build adequate govern- relevant areas), dedicated and capable re- ment capacity for achieving responsible de- searchers (in academia, government, non- velopment. It is not often that the federal governmental organizations and elsewhere) government openly encourages and sup- and ambitious and laudable goals. This is ports rethinking the organization, author- true of all aspects of responsible develop- ity, resources, mandates and approaches of ment—education and outreach, EHS and its frontline regulatory and policy agencies, other social, ethical and legal issues—and many of which intersect with or are impli- it is a reason why nanotechnology is as ex- cated in social and ethical issues. Fourth, the citing and challenging from a humanities NNI is a comprehensive research program and social science perspective as it is from a along several dimensions—e.g., the number science and engineering perspective. Thus of government agencies involved, the num- far, the effort to develop effective responses ber of disciplines involved and the types of to social and ethical issues associated with research (basic, applied, social, scientific) emerging nanotechnologies has been in- being pursued. The NNI has already de- adequate—stymied by misconception of veloped intraand interagency coordination what the issues are, why they are crucial to (e.g., the Interagency Working Group on responsible development and how to pro- Nanotechnology Environmental and Health actively address them. Implications) and coordinators (e.g., the 56

National Nanotechnology Coordination technology, government, environment and Office) to help avoid redundancy, define re- society; while emerging nanotechnologies search needs and share data, for example. offer a unique opportunity to make social Taken together, these factors suggest (not just technological) progress through that the NNI affords a unique opportunity broad, innovative, forward-looking re- to take a broad, critical and constructive sponsible development. These are opportu- perspective on the relationship between nities not to be missed. Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues References 57 references

American Association for the Advancement Clinton, W. J. 1994. Executive Order 12898: of Science. 2008. Assembling Life From Federal Actions to Address Environmental Scratch, http://www.aaas.org/news/ Justice in Minority Populations and Low- releases/2005/1208protocell.shtml Income Populations, www.epa.gov/compliance/ American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2006. resources/policies/ej/exec_order_12898.pdf 2000/2005/2006 National Plastic Surgery Conti, B., Sanchez-Alavez, M., Winsky-Sommerer, Statistics: Cosmetic and Reproductive Procedure R., Morale M. C., Lucero, J., Brownell, S., et al. Trends, http://www.plasticsurgery.org/media/ 2006. Transgenic Mice with a Reduced Core Body statistics/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/ Temperature Have an Increased Life Span. Science, security/getfile.cfm&PageID=23628 314: 825-28, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/ Barré, L., Richardson, C., Hirshman, M., reprint/314/5800/825.pdf Brozinick, J., Fiering, S., Kemp, B. et al. 2007. DiChiro, G. 2007. Indigenous Peoples and Genetic Model for the Chronic Activation of Biocolonialism: Defining the ‘Science of Skeletal Muscle AMP-Activated Protein Kinase Environmental Justice’ in the Century of the Leads to Glycogen Accumulation. American Gene. In Sandler, R. and Pezzullo, P., eds., Journal of Physiology, Endocrinology and Environmental Justice and Environmentalism (pp. Metabolism, 292: E802-11, http://ajpendo. 251-84). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/3/E80 Easterbrook, G. 2003. The Progress Paradox. New 2?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULT York, NY: Random House. FORMAT=&author1=fiering&searchid=1&FI Eros LLC vs. Robert Leatherwood and John 1-10 RSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcet Does. 2007. 8:2007-cv-01158. United States ype=HWCIT District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Blakeslee, S. 2008, January 15. Monkey’s Thoughts Division, http://dockets.justia.com/docket/ Propel Robot, a Step That May Help Humans. court-flmdce/case_no-8:2007-cv-01158/case_id- New York Times, http://www.nytimes. 202603/ com/2008/01/15/science/15robo.html Faber, D. and Krieg, E. 2005. Unequal Exposure Bragg vs. Linden Research, Inc. and Philip to Ecological Hazards 2005: Environmental Rosedale. 2007. 2:06-cv-04925. United Injustices in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. States District Court, Eastern District of Northeastern University: The Philanthropy Pennsylvania, http://www.nylawyer.com/ and Environmental Justice Research Project, adgifs/decisions/101507robreno.pdf http://www.barrfoundation.org/usr_doc/ Bullard, R., Mohai, P., Saha, R., and Wright, B. Unequalexposurefullreport2005.pdf 2007. Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty, 1987- Gibson, D., Benders, G., Andrews-Pfannkoch, C., 2007. Cleveland, OH: United Church of Christ, Denisova, E., Baden-Tillson, H., Zaveri, J., et al. http://www.ucc.org/justice/pdfs/toxic20.pdf 2008. Complete Chemical Synthesis, Assembly, Bush, G. W. 2006. State of the Union Address by and Cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium Genome. the President, http://www.whitehouse.gov/ Science, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ stateoftheunion/2006/ abstract/1151721 Carmena, J., Lebedev, M., Crist, R., O’Doherty, Hochberg, L., Serruya, M., Friehs, G., Mukand, J., Santucci, D., Dimitrov, D., et al. 2003. J., Saleh, M., Caplan, A., et al. 2006. Neuronal Learning to Control a Brain-Machine Interface Ensemble Control of Prosthetic Devices by a for Reaching and Grasping by Primates. PLoS Human with Tetraplegia. Nature, 442: 164-71, Biology, 1: 193-208, http://biology.plosjournals. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/ org/archive/1545-7885/1/2/pdf/10.1371_ n7099/abs/nature04970.html journal.pbio.0000042-L.pdf Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Cello, J., Paul, A., and Wimmer, E. 2002. Chemical United Kingdom. 2008. HFEA Statement on Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Licensing of Applications to Carry Out Research Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Using Human-Animal Cytoplasmic Hybrid Template. Science, 297: 1016-18, http://www. Embryos, http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/1640.html sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/297/5583/1016 58

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, D.C.: 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Synthesis National Academies Press, http://www.nap.edu/ Report, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- catalog.php?record_id=11752. report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Nicholas, S., Jean-Louis, B., Ortiz, B., Northridge, Lee, S. 2007. Quadrupling Muscle Mass in Mice M., Shoemaker, K., Vaughan, R., et al. 2005. by Targeting TGF-ß Signaling Pathways. PLoS The Harlem Children’s Zone Asthma Initiative ONE, 2: E789, http://www.plosone.org/ Addressing the Childhood Asthma Crisis in article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal. Harlem: The Harlem Children’s Zone Asthma pone.0000789 Initiative. American Journal of Public Health, Lim, M., Wang, Z., Olazábal, D., Ren, X., 95: 245-49, http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/ Terwilliger, E., and Young, L. 2004. Enhanced full/95/2/245 Partner Preference in a Promiscuous Species by Office of Inspector General, Environmental Manipulating the Expression of a Single Gene. Protection Agency. 2004. EPA Needs to Nature, 429: 754-57, http://www.nature.com/ Consistently Implement the Intent of the nature/journal/v429/n6993/full/nature02539. Executive Order on Environmental Justice. html Report No. 2004-P-00007. Washington, D.C.: Longo, V. and Finch, C. 2003. Evolutionary EPA. Medicine: From Dwarf Model Systems to President’s Council of Advisors on Science Healthy Centenarians? Science Magazine, 299: and Technology. 2005. The National 1342-46, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/ Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: content/abstract/299/5611/1342 Assessment and Recommendations of the Maynard, A. 2006. Nanotechnology: A Research National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. Strategy for Addressing Risk. Washington Washington, D.C.: PCAST, http://www.nano. D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International gov/FINAL_PCAST_NANO_REPORT.pdf Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Nanotechnologies, http://www.nanotechproject. Wilson International Center for Scholars. org/process/files/2707/77_pen3_risk.pdf 2009. A Nanotechnology Consumer Products Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Inventory, http://www.nanotechproject.org/ Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current inventories/consumer State and Trends. Washington, D.C.: Island Roco, M. 2004. Science and Technology Integration Press. for Increased Human Potential and Societal National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Outcomes. In Roco, M., and Montemagno, C., Disease Control and Prevention. 2007. Deaths: eds., The Coevolution of Human Potential and Preliminary Data for 2005, http://www. Converging Technologies (pp. 1-16). New York, cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/ NY: The New York Academy of Sciences. prelimdeaths05/prelimdeaths05.htm Roco, M. and Bainbridge, W. S., eds. 2005. National Center for Health Statistics, Centers Nanotechnology: Societal Implications— for Disease Control and Prevention. 2003. Maximizing Benefits for Humanity. Arlington, Life Expectancy at Birth, at 65 Years of Age, VA: NSET/NSF, http://www.nano.gov/nni_ and at 75 Years of Age, According to Race societal_implications.pdf and Sex: United States, Selected Years 1900– Roco, M., and Bainbridge, W. S. 2002. Overview. 2001, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/ In Roco, M., and Bainbridge W. S., eds., tables/2003/03hus027.pdf Converging Technologies for Improving Human National Research Council, Committee for Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Review of the Federal Strategy to Address Information Technology and Cognitive Science Environmental, Health, and Safety Research (pp. 1-27). Arlington, VA: NSF/DOC, http:// Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials. www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/1/ 2008. Review of the Federal Strategy for NBIC_report.pdf Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Roco, M., and Bainbridge, W. S., eds. 2001. Health, and Safety Research. Washington, D.C.: Societal Implications of Nanoscience and National Academies Press, http://www.nap.edu/ Nanotechnology. Arlington, VA: NSET/NSF, catalog/12559.html. http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET. National Research Council, Committee to Review Societal.Implications/nanosi.pdf the National Nanotechnology Initiative. 2006. A Roco, M., and Montemagno, C. 2004. Preface. Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National In Roco, M. and Montemagno, C., eds., Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues References 59

The Coevolution of Human Potential and 12898 and Title VI as Tools for Achieving Converging Technologies (pp. vii-viii). New Environmental Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. York, NY: The New York Academy of Sciences. Commission on Civil Rights, http://www.law. Routtenberg, A., Cantallops, I., Zaffuto, S., umaryland.edu/Marshall/usccr/documents/ Serrano, P., and Namgung, U. 2000. Enhanced cr2003X100.pdf Learning after Genetic Overexpression of a Brain United States Congress. 2003. 21st Century Growth Protein. Proceedings of the National Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. Academy of Sciences, 97: 7657-62, http://www. Public Law 108-153, http://frwebgate.access.gpo. pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/13/7657 gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_ Second Life. 2008. Economic Statistics, http:// public_laws&docid=f:publ153.108 secondlife.com/whatis/economy_stats.php United States Sentencing Commission, Steroids Smallwood, P., Ölveczky, B., Williams, G., Working Group. 2006. 2006 Steroids Report, Jacobs, G., Reese, B., Meister, M., et al. 2003. http://www.ussc.gov/USSCsteroidsreport0306. Genetically Engineered Mice with an Additional pdf Class of Cone Photoreceptors: Implications for Wang, H., Ferguson, G., Pineda, V., Cundiff, the evolution of color vision. Proceedings of the P., and Storm, D. 2004. Overexpression of National Academy of Sciences, 100: 11706-11, Type-1 Adenylyl Cylace in Mouse Forebrain http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/100/20/11706 Enhances Recognition Memory at LTP. Nature Tan, D., Liu, Q., Koshiya, N., Gu, H., and Alkon, Neuroscience, 7: 635-642, http://neuro.bcm. D. 2006. Enhancement of Long-Term Memory edu/mnjc/papers/storm%202004%20for%20 Retention and Short-Term Synaptic Plasticity journal%20club.pdf in cbl-b Null Mice. Proceedings of the National Wang, Y., Zhang, C., Yu, R., Cho, H., Nelson, M., Academy of Sciences, 103: 5125-30, http:// Bayuga-Ocampoet, C., et al. 2004. Regulation www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0601043103v1 of Muscle Fiber Type and Running Endurance by Tang, Y., Shimizu, E., Dube, G., Rampon, C., PPAR. PLoS Biology, 2: E294, http://biology. Kerchner, G., Zhuo, M., et al. 1999. Genetic plosjournals.org/archive/1545-7885/2/10/ Enhancement of Learning and Memory in Mice. pdf/10.1371_journal.pbio.0020294-L.pdf Nature, 401: 63-69, http://www.nature.com/ Wenz, P. 2007. Does Environmentalism Promote nature/journal/v401/n6748/abs/401063a0.html Injustice for the Poor? In Sandler, R. and United Nations. 2007. Millennium Development Pezzullo, P., eds., Environmental Justice and Goals Report 2007. New York, NY: UN, http:// Environmentalism (pp. 57-84). Cambridge, MA: www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/mdg2007.pdf MIT Press. United Nations. 2006. Millennium Development West Harlem Environmental Action. 2007. Genes Goals Report 2006. New York, NY: and Justice: A Community Symposium on UN, http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/ Health, Race and Rights, http://www.weact.org/ Resources/Static/Products/Progress2006/ genesandjustice/index.html MDGReport2006.pdf Worldwatch Institute. 2007. Vital Signs 2007-2008. Unites States Census Bureau. 2004. Health and New York, NY: Norton. Personal Care Stores: 2002, http://www.census. Worldwatch Institute. 2004. State of the World 2004: gov/prod/ec02/ec0244i06t.pdf Special Focus, The Consumer Society. New York, United States Commission on Civil Rights. NY: Norton. 2003. Not In My Backyard: Executive Order

Acknowledgments

Research for this report was supported by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, the National Science Foundation (under Grant No. NSE-0425826 and Grant No. SES-0609078) and the Northeastern University Department of Philosophy and Religion. The author thanks David Rejeski, Evan Michelson, Patrick Polischuk, Patrick Lin and Christopher Bosso for their helpful comments and sugges- tions and Tamara Garcia, Miles Klein and Christopher Smith for their research assistance. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Lee H. Hamilton, President and Director

Bo a r d o f Tr u s t e e s Joseph B. Gildenhorn, Chair David A. Metzner, Vice Chair

Pr i v a t e Ci t i z e n Me mb e r s Robin B. Cook, Donald E. Garcia, Bruce S. Gelb, Sander Gerber, Charles L. Glazer, Susan Hutchison, Ignacio E. Sanchez

Nanotechnology: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars The Social and Ethical Issues One Woodrow Wilson Plaza 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20004-3027 Ronald Sandler

T 202.691.4000 F 202.691.4001 www.wilsoncenter.org/nano www.nanotechproject.org

This publication has been printed on 100% recycled Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies is supported Pen 16 paper with soy-based inks. by The Pew Charitable Trusts january 2009