httpbst.sagepub.comSociety Bulletin of Science, Techn.docx

http://bst.sagepub.com
Society
Bulletin of Science, Technology &
DOI: 10.1177/0270467606295003
2006; 26; 451 Bulletin of Science Technology Society
Mette Ebbesen, Svend Andersen and Flemming Besenbacher
Ethics in Nanotechnology: Starting From Scratch?
http://bst.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/6/451
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
National Association for Science, Technology & Society
can be found at:Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society
Additional services and information for
http://bst.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://bst.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://bst.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/6/451#BIBL
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
(this article cites 33 articles hosted on the Citations
© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for
commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at UNIV OF DAYTON on May 3, 2007
http://bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.nasts.org
http://bst.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
http://bst.sagepub.com/subscriptions
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
http://bst.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/6/451#BIBL
Ethics in Nanotechnology:
Starting From Scratch?
Mette Ebbesen
Svend Andersen
Flemming Besenbacher
University of Aarhus
AUTHORS’ NOTE: This article benefited from discussions at
the Nano Ethics Conference, University of South Carolina,
March 2005,
and at the annual conference of Societas Ethica (the European
Society for Research in Ethics), Salzburg, Austria, August
2005, where
earlier versions of the article were presented.
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society Vol. 26, No. 6,

December 2006, 451-462
DOI: 10.1177/0270467606295003
Copyright © 2006 Sage Publications
Research in nanotechnology has advanced rapidly
in recent years. Several researchers, however, warn
that there is a paucity of research on the ethical, legal,
and social implications of nanotechnology, and they
caution that ethical reflections on nanotechnology lag
behind this fast developing science. In this article, the
authors question this conclusion, pointing out that the
predicted concrete ethical issues related to the area of
nanotechnology are rather similar to those related to
the area of biotechnology and biology that have been
considered by ethicists since the 1970s. Hence, a
knowledge base has already been acquired from ethi-
cal reflections on biotechnology and biology, which
may be a good starting point and foundation for a dis-
cussion of ethical reflections on nanotechnology. The
authors argue that a promising approach is the use of
basic ethical principles as a method to analyze ethical
issues of nanotechnology.
Keywords: nanotechnology; ethics; biotechnology;
basic ethical principles
It was recently stated by Mnyusiwalla, Daar, and
Singer (2003) that there is a paucity of thorough pub-
lished research on the ethical, legal, and social impli-
cations of nanotechnology and that ethical reflections
lag behind this fast developing science. They reached
this conclusion from a survey of databases revealing
that rather few articles on the ethical and social impli-
cations of nanotechnology have been published. They
furthermore warned that the public and governments
may possibly latch onto the fictitious dangers of nan-

otechnology if the scientists involved in nanotechnology
research do not take the lead in airing the ethical and
social implications.
In view of the fact that only a few articles on the eth-
ical reflections of nanotechnology have been published
so far, the purposes of this article are (a) to investigate
whether this implies that the discussion of concrete
ethical issues in the area of nanotechnology must start
from scratch, (b) to identify the ethically relevant fea-
tures of nanotechnology, (c) to analyze which ethical
theories may be used to assess concrete ethical prob-
lems of nanotechnology, and (d) to discuss how to inte-
grate the discipline of ethics into the interdisciplinary
approach of nanotechnology.
Nanotechnology:
An Interdisciplinary Science
Reports and articles often distinguish between
nanoscience and nanotechnology. Nanoscience is the
fundamental study of phenomena and the manipulation
of matter at the atomic, molecular, and supramolecular
levels, at which properties differ significantly from
those at a larger scale. As such, nanoscience forms the
knowledge base for nanotechnology, the design, char-
acterization, production, and application of structures,
devices, and systems that have novel physical, chemi-
cal, and biological properties by controlling shape and
size at the nanometric scale. Integration with other
length scales will often be important to technological
applications. However, in this article, we use the term
nanotechnology as a collective term encompassing the
various branches of nanoscience and nanotechnology.

The leading industrialized countries consider
research in nanotechnology to be vital to economic
and technological competitiveness in the 21st cen-
tury, and it is said that nanotechnology may lead to
the next industrial revolution. Therefore, research in
nanotechnology has advanced rapidly in recent years.
The visions of nanotechnology are to advance broad
societal goals, such as better health care, increased
productivity, and improved comprehension of nature
(Roco, 2003). Nanotechnology is expected to have
an even greater impact on the development of society
than did the introduction of semiconductor chips,
simply because nanotechnology is envisioned to find
important uses in many other areas besides electron-
ics and information technology. Examples of how
nanotechnology may affect society in the future are
specific drugs with significantly reduced side effects
delivered from nanoparticles, new nanostructured
and functionalized biocompatible materials for
implants, optical nanostructures for ultra-high-speed
communication, the biological production of materi-
als, and new catalysts for environmental and energy
technology (Ministry of Science, Technology, and
Innovation, Denmark, 2004).
Research on the nanoscale is not novel: Scientists
have studied atoms and molecules for more than a cen-

tury. The novelty of nanotechnology lies in the ability
of scientists to synthesize and characterize well-defined
nanostructures with unique functional properties. To
fully capitalize the visions in the areas of nanotechnol-
ogy, it is advantageous to work with teams that bring
together interdisciplinary expertise. Nature itself is
indeed the most consummate nanoscientist, and lessons
learned from biology in relation to molecular self-
assembly may have significant implications for the
design of nanoclusters for drug delivery or the design of
tomorrow’s nanoelectronics. The goal of many national
nanocenters is thus to establish a framework in which
leading-edge expertise in physics, chemistry, molecular
biology, health sciences, electronics, engineering, and
materials science cooperate, share knowledge, and
develop a culture beyond traditional disciplinary
boundaries to explore and fulfill some of the visions
and goals within the nanoarea. To fully capitalize the
dreams and societal goals of nanotechnology, it is also
important to establish close collaboration between
research groups at universities and the private industrial
sector to bring new nanoproducts to market.
Governments throughout the world, particularly in the
United States, European Union, and Japan, financially
support the new emerging area of nanotechnology
and the transfer of knowledge from academia to the
industrial sector through interdisciplinary research pro-
grams, and the public funding of nanotechnology has
increased dramatically worldwide during the past few
years (Roco, 2003).
However, some politicians and researchers claim
that nanotechnology cannot be characterized by point-
ing to scale alone (European Commission/National
Science Foundation, 2000; Khushf, 2004). Also, it has

been noted that “at the nanoscale, physics, chemistry,
biology, materials science, and engineering converge
toward the same principles and tools” (National Science
Foundation, 2001, p. 1). This implies that within the new
emerging nanoarea, the relationship between the
sciences is more symmetrical, as opposed to the past,
when more hierarchical or reductionist approaches
were often considered, as pointed out by the American
philosopher George Khushf (2004; Wilson, 1998). In
the past, physics was considered to be the base, chem-
istry was built on the base, and biology drew on
physics and chemistry. Last, the humanities and the
social sciences were built on biology. The grand goal
of reductionism was the unity of science, whereby the
higher levels of the hierarchy (i.e., the humanities and
the social sciences, biology, and chemistry) were
reduced to the lowest level: physics. Reality might then
be understood in terms of physics alone. Within the
area of nanotechnology, the relationship between the
sciences is more symmetrical: Biology is still informed
by physics and chemistry, and biology and medicine
seek a “molecular approach.” Physicists and chemists,
however, also look to biology, not only to seek new
problems and applications but also to better understand
fundamental aspects within their own research areas.
Khushf pointed out that within nanotechnology, the
metaphors of hierarchy and reduction are exchanged
for that of bridging between the different disciplines.
Internationally, the goal is also to integrate the
humanities and the social sciences in this emerging
interdisciplinary nanotechnological approach. To
achieve this goal, many governments have called on
studies in risk assessments, social science aspects, and
ethical considerations in parallel with the more tradi-
tional nanotechnology research proposals. In reports

published by the European Commission (2004) and
the National Science Foundation (2001), it appears
that one of the aims of integrating the social sciences
and the humanities is to develop transparency and
public debate about the implementation of nanotech-
nology to achieve widespread public acceptance of the
huge societal goals of nanotechnology. This accep-
tance relies on public trust, which may be achieved
through transparency and debate. According to the
American report (National Science Foundation, 2001),
research on societal implications and ethics will boost
452 BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY /
December 2006
the success of nanotechnological initiatives and help
take advantage of the new technology sooner, better,
and with greater confidence. Thus, the assumption is
that by enlightening and educating the public, trust and
thereby acceptance are more easily achieved.
However, the reports do not focus on the possibility
that this enlightenment may also cause skepticism.11
We object to the narrow apprehension that the func-
tion of the humanities and the social sciences consists
only of achieving public trust concerning nanotechnol-
ogy. We believe that philosophy and ethics have a crit-
ical function regarding the implementation of new

technologies, which for instance encompasses asking
fundamental questions such as, What impact will this
new technology have on humanity? What is a good
life? Will this new technology affect the realization of
a good life? What kind of society do we want? and
How does this new technology relate to that kind of
society? (And the list could easily be extended.)
Must the Ethical Discussion of
Nanotechnology Start From Scratch?
Mnyusiwalla et al., of the University of Toronto Joint
Centre for Bioethics, published an article in 2003 on the
ethical and social dimensions of nanotechnology. The
Canadian researchers conducted a survey of databases
and revealed a paucity of citations on the ethical or
social implications of nanotechnology, and from this
they concluded that ethical reflections on nanotechnol-
ogy lag behind this fast developing science. Their liter-
ature search was performed using Applied Science and
Technology Abstracts, Institute of Physics Online
Journals, and the Institute for Scientific Information
Web of Science. The search encompassed literature
from 1985 to September 2002. The databases were
searched for articles containing nanotechnology as a
keyword. The citations found were then screened for
the keywords ethics and social implications. According
to Mnyusiwalla et al., the research revealed that “while
the number of publications on nanotechnology per se
has increased dramatically in recent years, there is very
little concomitant increase in publications on the
subject of ethical and social implications to be found in
the science, technology, and social sciences literature”
(p. R10). Mnyusiwalla et al. chose to search Applied
Science and Technology Abstracts and Institute of
Physics Online Journals, which are narrow, covering

fields as physics, engineering, chemistry, computers,
and metallurgy. Nevertheless, by using the Institute for
Scientific Information Web of Science, they broadened
their search, because this database apparently covers
most fields of science, including ethical and social
implications.
We question whether from the fact that only a few
articles on ethical reflections on nanotechnology have
been published so far, one can infer that no reflections
on ethical issues of nanotechnology have yet taken
place. And furthermore, we question whether this
implies that the discussion of concrete ethical issues in
the area of nanotechnology must start from scratch.
Mnyusiwalla et al. (2003) were undoubtedly right
in making their claim that only a few articles specifi-
cally on ethical issues of nanotechnology have been
published so far (Figure 1). In this section, however,
we argue that the conclusion they drew rests on the
false premise that nanotechnology causes quite new
and unique ethical problems. We believe that a
number of ethical aspects of genetics, biotechnology,
and environmental science parallel ethical issues in
nanotechnology.
If we take a closer look at nanotechnology, a
number of problems related to ethics appear (Table 1).
In the first place, we want to speak about ethically rel-
evant features (i.e., features that raise ethical ques-
tions). By “ethical questions,” we very generally mean
questions about acting rightly and wrongly.
We will show that even though ethical questions of
nanotechnology may be more complex than ethical

questions of biotechnology, fundamentally the same
general ethical principles are at stake within the two
fields. One needs to make a clear distinction between,
on one hand, the types of ethical problems and the
principles for assessing them and, on the other hand,
the concrete analysis of assessment. We claim that a
reasonably sound knowledge base has already been
acquired in the field of biotechnology that can be
extended to nanotechnology. A number of examples
show that.
The ethically relevant features of nanotechnology
listed in Table 1 fall into three groups: risk problems
(Items 1 to 4), privacy problems (Items 5 and 6), and
problems of transhumanism (Items 7 and 8). None of
these can be regarded as unknown hitherto. Risk and
privacy problems are by no means new but are well
known within a number of areas. Transhumanism is a
rather new concept, but it is not totally unknown
either. To show that the ethical problems themselves
are not new, we point to parallels within the fields of
biotechnology, biology, and genetics.
As for risk problems, one can draw parallels
between the fear of the uncontrolled spread of GM
crops and the prospects of the runaway proliferation
of self-replicating nanosystems and the uncontrolled
Ebbesen et al. / ETHICS IN NANOTECHNOLOGY 453

function of nanorobots (nanobots). GM corn was seen
as an alternative to spraying crops with pesticides.
However, a controversy over GM crops was triggered
in 1999, when scientific correspondence was pub-
lished in Nature claiming that GM corn could harm the
beautiful and already endangered monarch butterfly,
and the public to this day remains skeptical of GM
crops (Losey, Rayor, & Carter, 1999; Schuler, 2004).
The discussion of the possible toxic nature of
nanoparticles may be compared with the discussion of
the toxicity of asbestos, which has continued for years
(Nel, Xia, Mädler, & Li, 2006). Breathing high levels
of asbestos fibers for a long period of time may result
in scarlike tissue and cancer in the lungs (Donaldson &
Tran, 2004). Most reports on nanotechnology stress
the importance of investigating the possible toxic
nature of nanoparticles. A few studies have been per-
formed on the impact of carbon nanotubes on lung tis-
sue by instilling a suspension of single-wall carbon
nanotubes into the lungs of mice and rats. The carbon
nanotubes clump together into bundles and induce
interstitial inflammation and scar tissue (Lam, James,
McCluskey, & Hunter, 2004; Warheit et al., 2004).
However, these studies were preliminary. Researchers
agree that further investigation is essential to explore
the possible toxicity of nanoparticles (Service, 2003).
The fear of biological warfare and terrorism caused
by nanotechnology is not only a future issue but of cur-
rent interest, especially since the terrorist attacks in the
United States on September 11, 2001, and the subse-
quent mail deliveries of anthrax powders.

Concerning privacy problems, the fact that nan-
otechnology could lead to an invasion of privacy as a
result of improved communication capabilities is also
a currently discussed issue, because people can be
reached by cell phones and the Internet 24 hours a
day. Also, a number of sophisticated devices for mon-
itoring people are already in use. But of course the
ethical problem of the invasion of privacy could grow
if nanotechnology leads to the spread of spying
nanomicrophones in the environment.
As for problems of transhumanism, one can draw a
parallel between the ethical issues of the enhancement
of human capabilities and transhumans caused by nan-
otechnology and the issue of genetic enhancement.
Since the first experiments in gene therapy in cell
cultures in the 1980s, ethicists have warned that gene
therapy may lead to the enhancement of normal char-
acteristics. Instead of treating diseases, gene therapy
may be used to design human beings with a reduced
need to sleep, increased life spans, or an increased abil-
ity to remember (Walters & Palmer, 1997, pp. 99-142).
December 2006
ISI Web of Science
1
10
100
1000

1
9
8
0
1
9
8
2
1
9
8
4
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
8
1
9
9
0
1
9
9
2
1

9
9
4
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
8
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
Year
C
it
a
ti
o
n
s

Bioethics Nanotechnology and ethics
Genetics and ethics
Biotechnology and ethics
Environmental ethics
(A)
PubMed
1
10
100
1000
10000
1
9
8
0
1
9
8
2
1
9
8

4
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
8
1
9
9
0
1
9
9
2
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
8

2
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
Year
C
it
a
ti
o
n
s
Genetics and ethics
(B)
Philosopher's Index

1
10
100
1000
1
9
8
0
1
9
8
2
1
9
8
4
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
8
1
9
9

0
1
9
9
2
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
8
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
Year
C
it

a
ti
o
n
s
Genetics and ethics
(C)
Figure 1. Survey of Three Databases: (A) Institute for
Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science, (B) PubMed, and
(C) Philosopher’s Index. The following keywords were used:
bioethics, nanotechnology and ethics, genetics and ethics,
biotechnology and ethics, and environmental ethics. The search
encompassed literature published from 1980 to 2003.
The parallels drawn between ethically relevant
features of nanotechnology and currently analyzed

ethical issues show that the possible ethical problems
of nanotechnology are not new and unique. The ethi-
cal issues of biotechnology and biology described
above have been considered by researchers within the
area of ethics and by ethical boards since the estab-
lishment of the academic discipline of bioethics dur-
ing the 1970s and 1980s.22 Thus, the fact that only a
few articles dealing specifically with ethical reflec-
tions on nanotechnology have been published so far
does not imply that the ethical discussion of nan-
otechnology must start from scratch.
To discuss how to profit from the parallels shown,
we now investigate the number of publications on eth-
ical problems related to genetics, biotechnology, and
environment, instead of exploring whether articles
specifically dealing with the ethical aspects of nan-
otechnology have been published. After that, we
demonstrate the types of ethical analysis, known from
bioethics, that can be applied to nanotechnology.
A survey of three databases was performed
(Figure 1). The search encompassed literature pub-
lished from 1980 to 2003. First, the very broad
Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science,
which covers most fields of science, was searched.
Second, PubMed, covering fields such as genetics,
biotechnology, medical science, and ethical issues
related to these fields, was searched. Third, the
Philosopher’s Index, covering the fields of philoso-
phy and ethics, was searched. The survey revealed a
general pattern of an average increase in the publica-
tion of articles on bioethics in general in the past 20
years. Furthermore, we found a general pattern of an
average increase in publications on ethical aspects of
genetics, biotechnology, and environmental science.

The survey suggests a general increase in research
on bioethics and thereby also an increase in research
on ethical aspects of nanotechnology. Hence, the eth-
ical discussion of nanotechnology does not have to
start from scratch, because a knowledge base has
already been acquired from ethical reflections on
biotechnology and biology.
How to Analyze Ethical Problems
of Nanotechnology?
In this section, we argue that a promising approach
to the ethics of nanotechnology is so-called princi-
plism (i.e., the claim that a limited number of basic
ethical principles are generally accepted). We show
that in the ethically relevant features of nanotechnol-
ogy mentioned above (risk problems, privacy prob-
lems, and problems of transhumanism), the general
ethical principles of respect for autonomy, integrity,
beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice are at stake
(Tables 1 and 2).
Concerning risk problems (Table 1, Items 1 to 4) the
American bioethicists Tom L. Beauchamp and James F.
Childress (2001) showed that the evaluation of risk in
relation to probable benefits can have the character of
risk-benefit analysis. They used the definition of risk as
possible future harm, with harm defined as a setback
to interests, particularly in life, health, and welfare
(pp. 195, 199). In the field of biomedicine, the term
benefit commonly refers to something of positive value,
such as life or health. Risk-benefit relations may be
conceived in terms of the ratio between the probability
and magnitude of an anticipated benefit and the proba-
bility and magnitude of an anticipated harm (p. 195).

The terms harm and benefit, as defined above, are eth-
ically relevant, because ethical obligations or principles
Table 1. Ethically Relevant Features of Nanotechnology
The literature (Drexler, 1986; Gorman, 2004; National Science
Foundation, 2001; Rickerby, 2004; Robison, 2004; Satava,
2002)
focuses mainly on the hypothesis that the introduction of
nanotechnology could lead to (in a nonprioritized order)
1. the runaway proliferation of self-replicating nanosystems
(ethical issues: risk-benefit analysis, beneficence,
nonmaleficence),
2. the uncontrolled function of nanobots (ethical issues: risk-
benefit analysis, beneficence, nonmaleficence),
3. possible toxicity of nanoparticles dispersed in the
environment (ethical issues: risk-benefit analysis, beneficence,
nonmaleficence),
4. biological warfare and terrorism (ethical issues: risk-benefit
analysis, beneficence, nonmaleficence),
5. the invasion of privacy as a result of improved
communication capabilities (ethical issues: respect for
autonomy and integrity),
6. the invasion of privacy as a result of dispersed nanosensing
structures (e.g., microphones) in the environment (ethical
issues: respect
for autonomy and integrity),
7. enhancement of human capabilities (ethical issues:
transgression of the limits of ethics), and
8. transhumans caused by the incorporation of nanostructures
and nanomachines in the human body (how many nano-
prosthesis will

make you non-human?) (ethical issues: transgression of the
limits of ethics).
to inflict no harm (nonmaleficence) and to promote
good (beneficence) are generally accepted (p. 4).
The ethical concern of privacy (Table 1, Items 5
and 6) is closely connected to the ethical principles
that one ought to respect the autonomy and integrity of
persons. Autonomy means self-determination, and as
an ethical principle, the respect for autonomy means
that in questions concerning one’s own life, one has the
right to make one’s own decisions. Integrity is a
closely related concept referring to a person’s sphere
of experiences, information, and so on, into which no
one else has the right to intrude. These matters of
integrity can be issues of autonomy. However, it makes
sense to speak of respect for integrity also in the case
of human beings who are not able to exercise auton-
omy. The principle of respect for integrity is then to the
effect that, prima facie, no one has the right to have
access to information that is very intimately linked to
the life and identity of a human being.
Problems of transhumanism (Table 1, Items 7 and 8)
represent perspectives of changing human beings fun-
damentally. Today nano- and biotechnology are

applied in health care to prevent and cure diseases.
However, the concept of transhumanism indicates the
use of nanotechnology to transgress the limits of
humanity. To those limits belong aging and mortality,
emotional bonds to other humans, and the perceptual
relation to other creatures. Regarding transhumanism,
we need to make some distinctions. It is one thing to
improve the life conditions of human beings within the
limits that define humanity. It is something quite dif-
ferent to improve human beings as such, to “upgrade”
them by transgressing these limits. This distinction
means that in this section on transhumanism, we do
not consider the improvement of life conditions by
nanotechnology; we consider only the improvement of
human beings as such. To change human beings fun-
damentally could involve, for instance, removing
aging, making humans immortal, or enhancing intelli-
gence, sensibility, and perception far away from what
we know—and have known as long as humans have
expressed themselves about their lives—as human.
Ethics presupposes that the moral agent is a human
being and thereby that we exist within the limits of
humanity. With transhumanism, we will transgress the
limits of humanity and thereby the limits of ethics.
Thus, analyzing problems of transhumanism, we can
no longer use ethical concepts such as autonomy,
integrity, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice.
It should be noted that in addition to the ethical
issues pointed out above, there are societal implica-
tions at stake in relation to nanotechnology, such as
December 2006

Table 2. Brief Formulation of the Ethical Principles of Respect
for Autonomy, Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Justice, and
Integrity
Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress
The Principle of Respect for Autonomy
• as a negative obligation: Autonomous actions should not be
subjected to controlling constraints by others
• as a positive obligation: This principle requires respectful
treatment in disclosing information, probing for and ensuring
under-
standing and voluntariness, and fostering autonomous decision
making.
This principle does not count for persons who are not able to act
autonomously (e.g., infants, drug-dependent patients). However,
these persons are instead protected by the principles of
beneficence and nonmaleficence (Beauchamp & Childress,
2001, p. 64).
The Principle of Beneficence
• one ought to prevent and remove evil or harm;
• one ought to do and promote good; and
• one ought to weigh and balance the possible goods against the
possible harms of an action (Beauchamp & Childress, 1989, pp.
194-195; Beauchamp & Childress, 2001, pp. 115, 165-176).
The Principle of Nonmaleficence
One ought not to inflict evil or harm. More specifically, one
ought not to hurt other persons mentally or physically
(Beauchamp &
Childress, 2001, pp. 113-119).

The Principle of Justice
Beauchamp and Childress (2001) examined several
philosophical theories of justice, including egalitarian theories,
which empha-
size “equal access to the goods in life that every rational person
values (often invoking material criteria of need and equality)”
(p. 230). Beauchamp and Childress proposed that “society
recognize an enforceable right to a decent minimum of health
care
within a framework for allocation that incorporates both
utilitarian and egalitarian standards” (p. 272). (Utilitarian
theories empha-
size “a mixture of criteria for the purpose of maximizing public
utility”; p. 230).
Jacob Rendtorff and Peter Kemp
The Principle of Respect for Integrity
The definition of integrity includes the following moral
dimensions:
• integrity as a created and narrated coherence of life, as a
wholeness and completeness of a life story that must not be
violated, and
• integrity as a personal sphere for experiences, creativity, and
personal self-determination (Rendtorff & Kemp, 2000, pp. 38-
45).
prioritizing and the commercialization of science,

public trust and transparency in relation to new tech-
nologies, and the question of who should gain from
nanotechnology. For instance, do we have a responsi-
bility to developing countries? Thus, an ethical prin-
ciple of justice is at stake.
The Theoretical Foundation of
the Ethical Principles
The ethical principles at stake within nanotechnol-
ogy can be part of various ethical theories. In our argu-
ment, we follow the bioethical theory of principles of
Beauchamp and Childress (2001), because it contains
most of the relevant principles (Table 2). According to
Beauchamp and Childress, a dialectic relationship
exists between ethical principles and concrete ethical
problems: The emergence of new ethical problems
provokes a critical analysis and possibly a reformula-
tion of the ethical principles. Because of the dialectic
relationship, this reformulation may provoke a modi-
fied view of actual ethical problems. In this way, the
examination of ethical problems is a process, not an
application of rigid ethical principles (pp. 398-399).
Hence, it is in agreement with Beauchamp and
Childress’s theory to use practical ethical problems of
nanotechnology as a starting point to analyze which
ethical principles are at stake in the actual case. This
analysis may lead to a modification of the ethical prin-
ciples because of the dialectical relationship between
principles and practice.
Beauchamp and Childress (2001) believed that the
principles of their theory (respect for autonomy, benefi-
cence, nonmaleficence, and justice) find support across
different cultures. Hence, they claimed that the princi-
ples are part of a common cross-cultural morality (p. 4).

Thus, as these principles are general acknowledged,
they are not specific to bioethics.
According to Beauchamp and Childress (2001), no
principle ranks higher than others. Which principles
are set aside in an actual situation is context dependent.
Beauchamp and Childress considered the four princi-
ples to be, prima facie, binding (i.e., they must be ful-
filled unless they conflict on a particular occasion with
equal or stronger principles). This type of principle is
always binding unless a competing moral obligation
overrides or outweighs it in a particular circumstance.
Beauchamp and Childress wrote,
Some acts are at once prima facie wrong and prima
facie right, because two or more norms conflict in
the circumstances. Agents must then determine what
they ought to do by finding an actual or overriding
(in contrast to prima facie) obligation. (p. 14)
Thus, agents must locate the best balance of right and
wrong by determining their actual obligations in such
situations by examining the respective weights of the
competing prima facie obligations (the relative weights
of all competing prima facie norms). Beauchamp and
Childress wrote, “What agents ought to do is, in the
end, determined by what they ought to do all things
considered ” (p. 15).
An example of applying Beauchamp and Childress’s
(2001) theory in the field of nanotechnology could be
an ethical assessment of the use of nanobots or
nanosensors for the early detection of disease and the
delivery of therapeutic agents (Satava & Wolf, 2003).
The vision is that nanobots may be able to seek out tar-

gets within the body (e.g., a cancer cell) and perform
treatment. The treatment delivered by the nanobots
may be that of releasing a drug in a localized area, thus
minimizing the potential systemic side effects of gener-
alized drug therapy (e.g., chemotherapy) (Haberzettl,
2002; Satava, 2002; Satava & Wolf, 2003). The target-
ing mechanisms of nanobots may include the potential
for the detection of physiological changes in the envi-
ronment of the nanobots that trigger the treatment.
Such mechanisms are likely to include the use of
nanoscale biosensors and other sensing or detection
mechanisms, which may also be used as diagnostic
tools (Haberzettl, 2002). A nanosensor used as diag-
nostic tool or drug deliverer could, for instance, be a
sensor able to detect biological changes due to tumor
development and metastasis indicated by the increased
production of proteolytic enzymes or the loss of
expression of, for example, the epithelial cell-cell
adhesion molecule E-cadherin. Thus, rather than indis-
criminate destruction in a large area or systemically, as
is done in chemotherapy, the results of targeted drug
delivery may be the delivering of drugs with ultrahigh
precision to specific organs, tissues, and cells (Satava
& Wolf, 2003). However, drug delivery in general is
not trivial, and much research needs to be performed in
this field. In this actual case, to make an ethical assess-
ment, one should balance the risks of nonmaleficence
caused by the nanobots’ going “out of control,” the pos-
sible beneficence obtained by the treatment of serious
disease, and the respect for the autonomy of the patient.
Hence, the principles of nonmaleficence, beneficence,
and respect for autonomy are in conflict, and the agents
must consciously determine which prima facie princi-
ples are set aside in the actual situation. In the latest
edition of their book Principles of Biomedical Ethics,

Beauchamp and Childress specified conditions that
should be fulfilled to allow one prima facie principle to
weigh heavier than another (pp. 19-20). Furthermore,
they described how to specify the principles (pp. 15-
19). The British professor of applied bioethics Ben
Mepham (1996, pp. 154-169) developed a practical
way of applying Beauchamp and Childress’s theory
called an “ethical matrix.” This approach describes
how to move from the general level of the principles to
the level of practical questions (Kaiser, 2005).
We believe, then, that most of the ethical problems
raised by nanotechnology so far are covered by
Beauchamp and Childress’s (2001) principles (Tables 1
and 2). However, the analysis of concrete ethical prob-
lems of nanotechnology shows that the ethical consid-
erations of respect for privacy and human integrity are
also important with regard to nanotechnology (Tables 1
and 2). Therefore, the bioethical theory of Beauchamp
and Childress should probably be supplemented by the
principle of respect for human integrity to add help in
this field.33 In line with this, the Danish philosophers
Jacob Rendtorff and Peter Kemp (2000, pp. 38-45)
pointed out that the principle of respect for autonomy is
too narrow to protect human beings with regard to bio-
medical and biotechnological development. They per-

formed an analysis of the present European legal
culture of human rights and argued that the principle of
respect for autonomy should be supplemented by the
principles of respect for dignity, integrity, and vulnera-
bility to grasp more aspects than autonomy with regard
to the protection of the human being.
Even though Beauchamp and Childress’s (2001)
theory is prominent within bioethics, it is of course also
subject of much philosophical discussion (Beauchamp,
1995, 2000; DeGrazia, 1992; Ebbesen, 2002; Engelhardt,
1998; Hedgecoe, 2004; Holm, 1995; Lustig, 1992,
1998; O’Neill, 2001; Richardson, 2000; Strong, 2000).
As an example, in an attempt to criticize philosophical
bioethics in general, the British sociologist of science
and technology Adam M. Hedgecoe (2004) focused on
the bioethical theory of Beauchamp and Childress,
because principlism is the dominant way of doing
bioethics. Hedgecoe accused traditional philosophical
bioethics of giving a dominant role to idealized, ratio-
nal thought and of tending to exclude social and cul-
tural factors. He criticizes principlism for the use of
abstract universal principles without empirical evi-
dence, for concentrating on developing and justifying
theories, and for paying little attention to the practical
use of those theories. Hedgecoe summed up,
Because of this refusal to come to terms with empir-
ical research in the way in which ethical decision
making actually takes place in the clinic, bioethics
faces a difficult gap that must be bridged if it is to
remain a relevant and serious discipline. (pp. 126)
As an alternative to principlism, Hedgecoe defended
the position of the so-called critical bioethics, in which

the results of empirical research feed back to challenge,
and even undermine, the theoretical framework of
bioethics.
However, we do not think that this critique of
Beauchamp and Childress’s (2001) theory is well
founded. As pointed out above, according to Beauchamp
and Childress, a dialectic relationship exists between
ethical principles and ethical problems: The emergence
of new ethical problems provokes a critical analysis and
possibly a reformulation of the ethical principles.
Because of the dialectic relationship, this reformulation
may provoke a modified view of actual ethical problems
(Beauchamp & Childress, 2001, pp. 398-399). Hence,
the principles of Beauchamp and Childress are not
rigid, but changeable. In his article “A Defense of the
Common Morality,” Beauchamp (2003) stressed the
importance of empirical research on the ethical princi-
ples. Furthermore, to improve the bioethical theory of
principles by making it concordant with practice, we are
currently, in dialogue with Beauchamp, performing a
qualitative empirical investigation of the use of the four
principles by molecular biologists and physicians in
their daily work (Ebbesen & Pedersen, forthcoming).
According to Beauchamp and Childress, there is no
straightforward movement from principles to particular
judgments. Principles are only the starting points and as
such general guides for the development of norms of
appropriate conduct. The principles need to be supple-
mented by paradigm cases of right action, empirical
data, organizational experience, and so on (Beauchamp
& Childress, 2001, p. 2). Beauchamp and Childress
wrote that rights, virtues, and emotional responses are
as important as principles for ethical judgment (p. 14).
To point to the four principles, therefore, is by no means
the final word about the ethics of nanotechnology.

Given the fact that we do not know what form
nanotechnology will take in the future and therefore
what kinds of ethical issues will emerge, we are confi-
dent that the open-endedness of Beauchamp and
Childress’s theory makes it appropriate for conceptual-
izing emerging ethical issues of nanotechnology.
Because of the dialectic relationship between theory
and practice, the emergence of new ethical problems of
nanotechnology may provoke a reformulation of the
ethical theory, making it concordant with the future
practice of nanotechnology. We are convinced that
the open-ended theory of Beauchamp and Childress is
December 2006
sufficiently sensitive to the dynamics of the field of
nanotechnology to adequately address emerging ethical
issues within the area. The sensitivity of Beauchamp
and Childress’s theory can be illustrated by the changes
they have made since the first edition of their theory in
1979 (Beauchamp & Childress, 1979). Beauchamp and
Childress have taken their critics to account during the
past 25 years by incorporating their comments and sug-
gestions and simultaneously by publishing articles to
discuss their theory (Beauchamp, 1995, 2000, 2003).
The critique of Beauchamp and Childress’s (1979) first

edition of the method is, among other things, that they
emphasized theory more than practice and that they
stressed procedure more than practical wisdom (King
& Churchill, 2000; Strong, 2000). Beauchamp and
Childress (2001) got beyond these points of critique by
combining principlism with the ethics of virtue and a
form of casuistic theory in their latest edition of the
work. In addition, the first edition of the method was
accused of lacking a general rule on how to balance the
principles if they conflict (DeGrazia, 1992; Holm,
1995). Beauchamp and Childress tried to address this
by introducing a demand for impartiality and further-
more by making Henry S. Richardson’s (2000) theory
of specification and the model of reflective equilib-
rium44 (Daniels, 1979; Rawls, 1971) part of their
method.
How to Integrate Ethics in the Research
Process of Nanotechnology?
In conclusion, we tentatively raise the question of
how to integrate ethical reasoning in the research process
of nanotechnology.
For that purpose, we distinguish between different
contexts of ethics: (a) personal ethics, (b) political
ethics, and (c) professional ethics. By “personal
ethics,” we mean the ethics of issues belonging to the
personal lives of individual humans. For instance, a
woman carrying a child with Down’s syndrome (and
her partner) may regard abortion as morally wrong,
even though the termination of pregnancy is legally
permitted in this case. Political ethics consists of the
norms and principles that typically lie at the founda-
tion of legislation. In democratic societies, the princi-
ples of autonomy and justice are part of the political

ethics on which all or most citizens agree. Finally, by
“professional ethics,” we mean the ethics of a specific
profession containing standards of conduct that are
generally acknowledged by practitioners of the pro-
fession. The special roles and relationships in which
members of a specific profession are placed may
require specific rules or guidelines (Beauchamp &
Childress, 2001, p. 5). Ethical codes of conducts for
doctors or nurses are typical examples.
We believe that nanotechnologists have a duty to
take part in ethical discussions within both the profes-
sional and the political contexts. Nanotechnologists are
not only practitioners of a profession dealing with eth-
ically relevant matters. They are also citizens with a
special expertise, creating a specific responsibility. In
both cases, ethical reflection requires interdisciplinary
cooperation between scientists, technologists, and ethi-
cists. A more pragmatic reason is that governments
require studies in risk assessments, social sciences, and
ethics in connection with research proposals. To make
such cooperation possible, there is a need for establish-
ing interdisciplinary nanotechnological research cul-
tures in which the humanities and the social sciences
are integrated. Some nanoscience centers already
include sociologists and ethicists.55
Certainly, substantial technical problems are con-
nected with the vision of such interdisciplinary coop-
eration on “nanoethics.” Scientists and ethicists speak
different languages, but we are convinced by
Beauchamp and Childress (2001) that the four princi-
ples reflect common morality. Therefore, they form a
promising platform for the interdisciplinary dialogue.

Conclusion
By considering predicted concrete ethical problems
of nanotechnology, we have pointed out that the ethi-
cal challenges of nanotechnology are very similar to
the ethical challenges of biotechnology and biology
and that the ethical problems of these fields have been
analyzed by researchers within the area of ethics and
by ethical boards since the establishment of the acad-
emic discipline of bioethics during the 1970s and
1980s. The reflections in this article suggest that even
though only a few articles dealing specifically with
the ethical issues of nanotechnology have been pub-
lished so far, it does not imply that the discussion of
concrete ethical issues must start from scratch,
because a knowledge base has already been acquired
from the ethical reflections on biotechnology and
biology. This knowledge base may be a good starting
point and foundation for a discussion of ethical reflec-
tions on nanotechnology.
The analysis of concrete ethical problems shows
that general ethical principles such as respect for
autonomy, integrity, beneficence, nonmaleficence,
and justice are at stake within nanotechnology. These
ethical principles are part of various ethical theories.

For instance, some of the ethical principles are
included in the bioethical theory of principles of
Beauchamp and Childress (2001). The analysis sug-
gests the use of a modified version of Beauchamp and
Childress’s bioethical theory to assess ethical prob-
lems within the field of nanotechnology. This field will
certainly develop in the future. But so will the modifi-
cations of ethics.
Notes
1. In reports on nanotechnology (National Science
Foundation, 2001; Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and
Sciences, 2004) it appears that research on the ethical and social
implications of nanotechnology should be performed to ensure
that nanotechnology does not suffer the same destiny as geneti-
cally modified (GM) food, which has been boycotted by the
public. The assumption is that if the public is enlightened and
educated in natural science and technology, they will perceive
the
positive implications that nanotechnology will have on society,
and the public will then accept nanotechnology (National
Science
Foundation, 2001). However, empirical studies show that public
regard for new technologies depends on more than just enlight-
enment and education in scientific aspects of the technologies.
Public perception depends among other things on political ide-
ologies, moral perceptions, and risk assessments (Gaskell et al.,
2003; Marris, 2001; Sjoeberg, 2004). We can learn from these
studies that information on nanotechnology should contain more
than simply scientific and technological facts; it should also
address the ethical and social implications of nanotechnology.
The public might then judge nanotechnology critically and in an
informed manner. Researchers stress that there must be broad
and

genuine public engagement in determining the scope and possi-
ble future of nanotechnology (William-Jones, 2004).
2. Two courses of events may have created the foundation for
the establishment of the discipline of bioethics. In the area of
science, a series of developments were made during the 1960s
and
1970s, such as dialysis treatment, organ transplantation, and
inten-
sive care involving the use of respirators. In the 1970s gene
splic-
ing was developed, and the first child was born as a result of in
vitro fertilization. These series of events caused new, difficult
ques-
tions, such as, Is it defensible to remove organs from a person
who
is brain dead? Is it defensible to modify human genes in somatic
or
germ line cells? Historically, the Nuremberg trials, which pre-
sented horrifying accounts of medical experimentation in
concen-
tration camps, and the subsequent Helsinki Declaration on the
protection of human subjects, have had enormous influence on
the
establishment of ethical boards and committees worldwide.
3. Beauchamp and Childress did consider the ethical issue of
privacy. According to their conviction, the justification of the
moral rule of respect for privacy is based on the principle of
respect for autonomy. Beauchamp and Childress wrote,
We often respect persons by respecting their autonomous
wishes not be observed, touched, or intruded upon. On this
account, rights of privacy are valid claims against unautho-
rized access that have their basis in the right to authorize or
decline access. These rights are justified by rights of

autonomous choice that are correlative to the obligations
expressed in the principle of respect for autonomy. In this
respect, the justification of the right to privacy parallels the
justification of the right to give an informed consent. (p. 296)
Hence, according to Beauchamp and Childress, the moral rule
of privacy is restricted to autonomous persons. In line with
Beauchamp and Childress, we believe that the ethical concern of
privacy is closely connected to the ethical principle that one
ought
to respect the autonomy of persons. However, we think that
persons who are not able to exercise autonomy also have a right
to
privacy. To protect these persons, we believe that the principle
of
respect for autonomy must be supplemented by the principle
of respect for integrity. By integrity, we mean a person’s sphere
of
experiences, information, and so on, into which no one else has
the
right to intrude. These matters of integrity are broader than
issues
of autonomy, and therefore the principle of respect for integrity
also adheres to persons who are not able to exercise autonomy.
The
principle of respect for integrity is, then, to the effect that,
prima
facie, no one has the right to have access to information that is
very
intimately linked to the life and identity of a human being.
(Even
though Beauchamp and Childress addressed the virtue of
integrity,
they focused their analysis on the integrity of physicians, not on
the

integrity of patients or human subjects; pp. 35-37.)
4. In the latest edition of their work, Beauchamp and Childress
(2001) defended a model in which the direction of justification
is
reciprocal. No level of abstraction has a fundamental
epistemolog-
ical status. Dialectics takes place between theory and practice.
If a
disagreement occurs, for instance, between a specific judgment
and a superior principle, one tries to get past this disagreement
with
the help of analysis and critical examination of both the
judgment
and the principle. This may provoke a redefinition of the
content of
the principle or a revised judgment. By such an analysis, one
can
reach a reflective equilibrium, in which the specific judgment
cor-
responds to a superior principle. Such equilibrium can be
reached
only in periods; new problems will emerge demanding critical
analyses of both the principles and the judgments. This makes
the
analysis of ethical problems a process. The concept of reflective
equilibrium originates from John Rawls’s (1971) theory of
justice
and was also worked through by Norman Daniels (1979).
5. An example of an interdisciplinary nanotechnological
research network is the Frontiers Network of Excellence, funded
by European Union’s Sixth Framework Programme. The
network
consists of 12 partners from all over Europe researching in
physics, chemistry, materials science, electronics, molecular

biol-
ogy, and health sciences. To integrate the social sciences and
the
humanities in the interdisciplinary network, it is stressed that a
sociologist and an ethicists are part of the network. At
Cambridge
University, one of the partners, the sociologist Robert
Doubleday
has a postdoctoral position. He has a background in chemistry
and sociology. The University of Aarhus, also a member of the
network, has employed an ethicist, Mette Ebbesen, who has
degrees in molecular biology, philosophy, and ethics.
References
Beauchamp, T. L. (1995). Principlism and its alleged competi-
tors. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 5(3), 181-198.
Beauchamp, T. L. (2000). Reply to Strong on principlism and
casu-
istry. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 25(3), 342-347.
Beauchamp, T. L. (2003). A defense of the common morality.
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 13(3), 259-274.
December 2006

Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1979). Principles of bio-
medical ethics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1989). Principles of
biomed-
ical ethics (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of
biomed-
ical ethics (5th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Daniels, N. (1979). Wide reflective equilibrium and theory
accep-
tance in ethics. Journal of Philosophy, 76, 257-282.
DeGrazia, D. (1992). Moving forward in bioethical theory:
Theories, cases, and specified principlism. Journal of Medicine
and Philosophy, 17, 511-539.
Donaldson, K., & Tran, C. L. (2004). An introduction to the
short-term toxicology of respirable industrial fibres. Mutation
Research, 553, 5-9.
Drexler, E. (1986). Engines of creation: The coming era of nan-
otechnology. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Ebbesen, M. (2002). The golden rule and bioethics: A reflection
upon the foundation of ethics. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping
University Electronic Press. Available at http://www.ep.liu.se/
exjobb/cte/2002/001/
Ebbesen, M., & Pedersen, B. D. (forthcoming). Using empirical
research to formulate normative ethical principles in biomed-
icine. Journal of Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy.
Engelhardt, H. T., Jr. (1998). Critical care: Why there is no

global bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 23(6),
643-651.
European Commission. (2004). Towards a European strategy for
nanotechnology. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
European Commission/National Science Foundation. (2000).
Proceedings of Joint EC/NSF Workshop on Nanotechnologies,
Toulouse, 19-20 October 2000. Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation.
Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Jackson, J., Howard, S., &
Lindsey, N. (2003). Climate change for biotechnology? UK
public opinion 1991-2002. AgBioForum, 6(1&2), 55-67.
Gorman, M. E. (2004). Societal dimensions of nanotechnology
as
a trading zone: Results from a pilot project. In D. Baird, A.
Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the nanoscale
(pp. 63-77). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.
Haberzettl, C. A. (2002). Nanomedicine: Destination or
journey?
Nanotechnology, 13, R9-R13.
Hedgecoe, A. M. (2004). Critical bioethics: Beyond the social
science critique of applied ethics. Bioethics, 18(2), 120-143.
Holm, S. (1995). Not just autonomy—The principles of
American
biomedical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 21(6), 332-338.
Kaiser, M. (2005). Assessing ethics and animal welfare in
animal
biotechnology for farm production. Revue Scientifique et
Technique, 24(1), 75-87.

Khushf, G. (2004). The ethics of nanotechnology: Vision and
val-
ues for a new generation of science and engineering. In
National Academy of Engineering, Emerging technologies
and ethical issues in engineering: Papers from a workshop,
October 14-15, 2003 (pp. 29-56). Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
King, N., & Churchill, L. (2000). Ethical principles guiding
research on child and adolescent subjects. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 15(7), 710-724.
Lam, C., James, J. T., McCluskey, R., & Hunter, R. L. (2004).
Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in mice 7
and
90 days after intratracheal instillation. Toxicological Sciences,
77,
126-134.
Losey, J. E., Rayor, L. S., & Carter, M. E. (1999). Transgenic
pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature, 399, 214.
Lustig, B. A. (1992). The method of “principlism”: A critique
of the
critique. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 17(5), 487-510.
Lustig, B. A. (1998). Concepts and methods in recent bioethics:
Critical responses. Journal of Medicine and Bioethics, 23(5),
445-455.
Marris, M. (2001). Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the
myths. EMBO Reports, 2(7), 545-548.
Mepham, B. (1996). Food ethics. London: Routledge.
Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Denmark.

(2004). Technology foresight on Danish nanoscience and nan-
otechnology. Copenhagen: Author.
Mnyusiwalla, A., Daar, A. S., & Singer, P. A. (2003). “Mind the
gap”: Science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology,
14, R9-R13.
National Science Foundation. (2001, March). Societal implica-
tions of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Available at: http://
www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/
nanosi.pdf
Nel, A., Xia, T., Mädler, L., & Li, N. (2006). Toxic potential of
materials at the nanolevel. Science, 311(5761), 622-627.
O’Neill, O. (2001). Practical principles & practical judgment.
Hastings Center Report, 31(4), 15-23.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Rendtorff, J., & Kemp, P. (2000). Basic ethical principles in
European bioethics and biolaw, Vol. 1: Autonomy, dignity,
integrity and vulnerability. Copenhagen, Denmark: Centre for
Ethics and Law.
Richardson, H. P. (2000). Specifying, balancing, and
interpreting
bioethical principles. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy,
25(3), 285-307.
Rickerby, D. G. (2004). Risks and ethical challenges of nan-
otechnology in healthcare. In Nanotechnologies: A prelimi-
nary risk analysis on the basis of a workshop 1-2 March 2004
(pp. 127-131). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

Robison, W. (2004). Nano-ethics. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, &
J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the nanoscale (pp. 285-301).
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.
Roco, M. C. (2003). Broader societal implications of nanotech-
nology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 5, 181-189.
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2004). How
big can small actually be? Study group on the consequences
of nanotechnology. Amsterdam: Author.
Satava, R. M. (2002). Disruptive visions: Moral and ethical
chal-
lenges from advanced technology and issues for the new genera-
tion of surgeons. Journal of Surgical Endoscopy, 16, 1403-1408.
Satava, R. M., & Wolf, R. K. (2003). Disruptive visions:
Biosurgery. Journal of Surgical Endoscopy, 17, 1833-1836.
Schuler, E. (2004). Perception of risks and nanotechnology. In
D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering
the nanoscale (pp. 279-284). Amsterdam, the Netherlands:
IOS Press.
Service, R. (2003). Nanomaterials show signs of toxicity.
Science, 300(5617), 243.
Sjoeberg, L. (2004). Principles of risk perception applied to
gene
technology. EMBO Reports, 5, S47-S51.
Strong, C. (2000). Specified principlism: What is it, and does it
really resolve cases better than casuistry? Journal of Medicine
and Philosophy, 25(3), 323-341.

Walters, L., & Palmer, J. G. (1997). The ethics of human gene
therapy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Warheit, D. B., Laurence, B. R., Reed, K. L., Roach, D. H.,
Reynolds, G.A.M., & Webb, T. R. (2004). Comparative
pulmonary toxicity assessment of single-wall carbon nan-
otubes in rats. Toxicological Sciences, 77, 117-125.
William-Jones, B. (2004). A spoonful of trust helps the
nanotech
go down. Health Law Review, 12(3), 10-13.
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge.
New
York: Vintage.
Mette Ebbesen is a PhD student and research assistant
at the Centre for Bioethics and Nanoethics and the
Interdisciplinary Nanoscience Center, University of Aarhus,
Denmark. Her research interests are the ethical and societal
implications of nano- and biotechnology.
Svend Andersen is a professor of ethics and the philosophy
of religion. He is the chairman of the Centre for Bioethics
and Nanoethics Board, University of Aarhus, Denmark. His

main research interests are bioethics and the relation
between religious and secular ethics.
Flemming Besenbacher is a professor of nanoscience and
physics. He is director of the Interdisciplinary Nanoscience
Center, University of Aarhus, Denmark. His research inter-
ests are nanoscience and surface science.
December 2006
<<
/ASCII85EncodePages false
/AllowTransparency false
/AutoPositionEPSFiles true
/AutoRotatePages /None
/Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%)
/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated 050SWOP051 v2)
/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error
/CompatibilityLevel 1.3
/CompressObjects /Off
/CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true
/PassThroughJPEGImages true
/CreateJDFFile false
/CreateJobTicket false
/DefaultRenderingIntent /Default

/DetectBlends true
/ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged
/DoThumbnails false
/EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedJobOptions true
/DSCReportingLevel 0
/EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1
/ImageMemory 1048576
/LockDistillerParams true
/MaxSubsetPct 100
/Optimize false
/OPM 1
/ParseDSCComments true
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
/PreserveCopyPage true
/PreserveEPSInfo true
/PreserveHalftoneInfo false
/PreserveOPIComments false
/PreserveOverprintSettings true
/StartPage 1
/SubsetFonts true
/TransferFunctionInfo /Apply
/UCRandBGInfo /Remove
/UsePrologue false
/ColorSettingsFile ()
/AlwaysEmbed [ true
]
/NeverEmbed [ true
]
/AntiAliasColorImages false
/DownsampleColorImages true
/ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/ColorImageResolution 300
/ColorImageDepth -1
/ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000

/EncodeColorImages true
/ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterColorImages true
/ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/ColorACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/ColorImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
>>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 300
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
>>

/GrayImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
>>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 1200
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict <<
/K -1
>>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]

/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated 050SWOP051
v2)
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org)
/PDFXTrapped /Unknown
/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000
/Description <<
/FRA
<FEFF004f007000740069006f006e00730020007000650072006d
0065007400740061006e007400200064006500200063007200e90
0650072002000640065007300200064006f00630075006d006500
6e00740073002000500044004600200064006f007400e90073002
0006400270075006e00650020007200e90073006f006c00750074
0069006f006e002000e9006c0065007600e9006500200070006f00
75007200200075006e00650020007100750061006c0069007400e
90020006400270069006d007000720065007300730069006f006e
00200061006d00e9006c0069006f007200e90065002e002000490
06c002000650073007400200070006f0073007300690062006c00
65002000640027006f00750076007200690072002000630065007
300200064006f00630075006d0065006e00740073002000500044
0046002000640061006e00730020004100630072006f006200610
0740020006500740020005200650061006400650072002c002000
760065007200730069006f006e002000200035002e00300020006
f007500200075006c007400e9007200690065007500720065002e
>
/JPN
<FEFF3053306e8a2d5b9a306f30019ad889e350cf5ea6753b50cf3
092542b308000200050004400460020658766f830924f5c621030

59308b3068304d306b4f7f75283057307e3059300253705237664
2306e753b8cea3092670059279650306b4fdd306430533068304c
3067304d307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a30674f5c621030573
05f00200050004400460020658766f8306f002000410063007200
6f0062006100740020304a3088307300200052006500610064006
5007200200035002e003000204ee5964d30678868793a3067304d
307e30593002>
/DEU
<FEFF00560065007200770065006e00640065006e00200053006
90065002000640069006500730065002000450069006e00730074
0065006c006c0075006e00670065006e0020007a0075006d00200
0450072007300740065006c006c0065006e00200076006f006e00
20005000440046002d0044006f006b0075006d0065006e0074006
5006e0020006d00690074002000650069006e0065007200200068
00f60068006500720065006e002000420069006c0064006100750
066006c00f600730075006e0067002c00200075006d0020006500
69006e00650020007600650072006200650073007300650072007
40065002000420069006c0064007100750061006c0069007400e4
00740020007a0075002000650072007a00690065006c0065006e0
02e00200044006900650020005000440046002d0044006f006b00
75006d0065006e007400650020006b00f6006e006e0065006e002
0006d006900740020004100630072006f0062006100740020006f
0064006500720020006d00690074002000640065006d002000520
065006100640065007200200035002e003000200075006e006400
20006800f600680065007200200067006500f600660066006e006
50074002000770065007200640065006e002e>
/PTB
<FEFF005500740069006c0069007a00650020006500730074006
1007300200063006f006e00660069006700750072006100e700f5
00650073002000700061007200610020006300720069006100720
0200064006f00630075006d0065006e0074006f00730020005000
44004600200063006f006d00200075006d0061002000720065007
3006f006c007500e700e3006f00200064006500200069006d0061
00670065006d0020007300750070006500720069006f007200200
0700061007200610020006f006200740065007200200075006d00
610020007100750061006c0069006400610064006500200064006

500200069006d0070007200650073007300e3006f0020006d0065
006c0068006f0072002e0020004f007300200064006f0063007500
6d0065006e0074006f0073002000500044004600200070006f006
40065006d0020007300650072002000610062006500720074006f
007300200063006f006d0020006f0020004100630072006f00620
0610074002c002000520065006100640065007200200035002e00
30002000650020007300750070006500720069006f0072002e>
/DAN
<FEFF00420072007500670020006400690073007300650020006
9006e0064007300740069006c006c0069006e0067006500720020
00740069006c0020006100740020006f007000720065007400740
0650020005000440046002d0064006f006b0075006d0065006e00
74006500720020006d006500640020006800f8006a00650072006
5002000620069006c006c00650064006f0070006c00f80073006e0
069006e006700200066006f00720020006100740020006600e500
20006200650064007200650020007500640073006b00720069006
600740073006b00760061006c0069007400650074002e00200050
00440046002d0064006f006b0075006d0065006e0074006500720
020006b0061006e002000e50062006e006500730020006d006500
640020004100630072006f0062006100740020006f00670020005
20065006100640065007200200035002e00300020006f00670020
006e0079006500720065002e>
/NLD
<FEFF004700650062007200750069006b002000640065007a006
500200069006e007300740065006c006c0069006e00670065006e
0020006f006d0020005000440046002d0064006f00630075006d0
065006e00740065006e0020007400650020006d0061006b006500
6e0020006d00650074002000650065006e00200068006f0067006
500720065002000610066006200650065006c00640069006e0067
0073007200650073006f006c007500740069006500200076006f0
06f0072002000650065006e002000620065007400650072006500
2000610066006400720075006b006b00770061006c00690074006
500690074002e0020004400650020005000440046002d0064006f
00630075006d0065006e00740065006e0020006b0075006e006e0
065006e00200077006f007200640065006e002000670065006f00
700065006e00640020006d006500740020004100630072006f006

20061007400200065006e00200052006500610064006500720020
0035002e003000200065006e00200068006f006700650072002e>
/ESP
<FEFF0055007300650020006500730074006100730020006f007
000630069006f006e006500730020007000610072006100200063
007200650061007200200064006f00630075006d0065006e00740
06f0073002000500044004600200063006f006e0020006d006100
79006f00720020007200650073006f006c00750063006900f3006e
00200064006500200069006d006100670065006e0020007000610
0720061002000610075006d0065006e0074006100720020006c00
61002000630061006c006900640061006400200061006c0020006
9006d007000720069006d00690072002e0020004c006f00730020
0064006f00630075006d0065006e0074006f00730020005000440
046002000730065002000700075006500640065006e0020006100
6200720069007200200063006f006e0020004100630072006f006
20061007400200079002000520065006100640065007200200035
002e003000200079002000760065007200730069006f006e00650
07300200070006f00730074006500720069006f00720065007300
2e>
/SUO
<FEFF004e00e4006900640065006e00200061007300650074007
5007300740065006e0020006100760075006c006c006100200076
006f0069006400610061006e0020006c0075006f0064006100200
05000440046002d0061007300690061006b00690072006a006f00
6a0061002c0020006a006f006900640065006e002000740075006
c006f0073007400750073006c00610061007400750020006f006e
0020006b006f0072006b006500610020006a00610020006b00750
0760061006e0020007400610072006b006b007500750073002000
730075007500720069002e0020005000440046002d00610073006
90061006b00690072006a0061007400200076006f006900640061
0061006e0020006100760061007400610020004100630072006f0
06200610074002d0020006a00610020004100630072006f006200
610074002000520065006100640065007200200035002e0030002
0002d006f0068006a0065006c006d0061006c006c006100200074
0061006900200075007500640065006d006d0061006c006c00610
02000760065007200730069006f006c006c0061002e>

/ITA
<FEFF00550073006100720065002000710075006500730074006
500200069006d0070006f007300740061007a0069006f006e0069
00200070006500720020006300720065006100720065002000640
06f00630075006d0065006e007400690020005000440046002000
63006f006e00200075006e00610020007200690073006f006c007
5007a0069006f006e00650020006d0061006700670069006f0072
0065002000700065007200200075006e006100200071007500610
06c0069007400e00020006400690020007300740061006d007000
610020006d00690067006c0069006f00720065002e00200049002
00064006f00630075006d0065006e007400690020005000440046
00200070006f00730073006f006e006f0020006500730073006500
720065002000610070006500720074006900200063006f006e002
0004100630072006f006200610074002000650020005200650061
00640065007200200035002e00300020006500200076006500720
0730069006f006e00690020007300750063006300650073007300
6900760065002e>
/NOR
<FEFF004200720075006b0020006400690073007300650020006
9006e006e007300740069006c006c0069006e00670065006e0065
002000740069006c002000e50020006f007000700072006500740
07400650020005000440046002d0064006f006b0075006d006500
6e0074006500720020006d006500640020006800f800790065007
20065002000620069006c00640065006f00700070006c00f80073
006e0069006e006700200066006f0072002000620065006400720
0650020007500740073006b00720069006600740073006b007600
61006c0069007400650074002e0020005000440046002d0064006
f006b0075006d0065006e00740065006e00650020006b0061006e
002000e50070006e006500730020006d006500640020004100630
072006f0062006100740020006f00670020005200650061006400
65007200200035002e00300020006f0067002000730065006e006
500720065002e>
/SVE
<FEFF0041006e007600e4006e00640020006400650020006800e
4007200200069006e0073007400e4006c006c006e0069006e0067
00610072006e00610020006e00e40072002000640075002000760

069006c006c00200073006b006100700061002000500044004600
2d0064006f006b0075006d0065006e00740020006d00650064002
0006800f6006700720065002000620069006c0064007500700070
006c00f60073006e0069006e00670020006f00630068002000640
0e40072006d006500640020006600e50020006200e40074007400
7200650020007500740073006b00720069006600740073006b007
60061006c0069007400650074002e0020005000440046002d0064
006f006b0075006d0065006e00740065006e0020006b0061006e0
02000f600700070006e006100730020006d006500640020004100
630072006f0062006100740020006f00630068002000520065006
100640065007200200035002e003000200065006c006c00650072
002000730065006e006100720065002e>
/ENU
<FEFF00550073006500200074006800650073006500200073006
5007400740069006e0067007300200066006f0072002000630072
0065006100740069006e006700200050004400460020006600690
06c0065007300200066006f00720020007300750062006d006900
7300730069006f006e00200074006f00200054006800650020005
3006800650072006900640061006e002000500072006500730073
002e0020005400680065007300650020007300650074007400690
06e0067007300200063006f006e00660069006700750072006500
6400200066006f00720020004100630072006f006200610074002
000760036002e0030002000300038002f00300036002f00300033
002e>
>>
>> setdistillerparams
<<
/HWResolution [2400 2400]
/PageSize [612.000 792.000]
>> setpagedevice

httpbst.sagepub.comSociety Bulletin of Science, Techn.docx

httpbst.sagepub.comSociety Bulletin of Science, Techn.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to httpbst.sagepub.comSociety Bulletin of Science, Techn.docx

Similar to httpbst.sagepub.comSociety Bulletin of Science, Techn.docx (19)

More from adampcarr67227

More from adampcarr67227 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

httpbst.sagepub.comSociety Bulletin of Science, Techn.docx