Beyond Feasibility: Why Ethics Is Important for Bionanotechnology

Since Richard Feynman imagined arranging atoms one by one in 1959 to current research in nanoscience and (bio)nanotechnology, scientific progress continues to feed societal expectations. Increasingly, we read about new scientific developments in (bio)nanotechnology that could bring solutions to vexing problems in human existence. Radical extension of life expectancy, human-machine interface, and nano-devices for targeted drug delivery represent only few examples of the p?tential applications of nanotechnology. These emerging technologies have tremendous applications and could enhance the quality of life of many people. However, they also raise important social, ethical and legal/regulutory questions. With the pressure to pursue scientific progress in order to find solutions to pressing human problems, the dangers of unreflectively developing (bio)nanotechnology lurks around the corner.

Clearly we cannot stop scientific and technological progress. It is part of human nature to explore and conquer the infinitely big (space) and the infinitely small (nanoworld). This quest for knowledge, however, is not limited to the understanding of novel properties of matter at the nanoscale. Ultimately the application of basic scientific knowledge to practical problems is always connected to human ends and goals. Hence, it is the exploitation of these novel phenomena at the nanoscale that requires a critical inquiry beyond the “imperative of Feasibility”. Without clearly enunciating the hidden assumptions and the metaphysics of the (bio)nanotechnology project, we run the risk of killing the project itself and missing the opportunity to harvest its p?tential benefits (nanoscale biostructures [artificial bones, tissue engineering and cell therapy]; new types of drugs, either based on the human genome or structural genomics or biomimetics; targeted drug delivery; nanobots [sensors to monitor body parameters such as pulse, blood pressure, etc.]; nanomaterials; various types of nano-devices [neuro-digital interfaces])

George Santayana warns us that “those who ignore history are destined to repeat it”. Recent history from the GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) experiment taught us that “easibility” is not necessarily synonymous with commercial success and public acceptance of new technologies. Desp?te the p?tential benefits of GMOs (crops more resistant to diseases and climate; more productive farm animals; more productive lands, production of vaccines and medicines, etc.) the public is concerned about GMOs, especially in the European context. The reasons are multiple. There is a concern about the safety and the possible unintended consequences (toxicity, Frankenfood, etc.) of genetically modified organisms once they are introduced in the food chain. Another concern is about the environment, in which genetic mutation could spread and would result in the tampering with nature (“Playing God” argument). Finally there is the question of labelling (label indicating whether the product was genetically modified), which is not required in some countries, including the United States. However, some activists argue that consumers have the right to know the process of fabrication and the ingredients of the products they buy. In addition, they contend that the public should be more involved in debates concerning the development of new products. This is not to say that the public has not been part of the discussion. As Alexandra Plows and Michael Reinsborough remarks in their contribution to this volume, “the necessity for better public engagement, are not new frames at all, but are increasingly louder, and perhaps better heard….” However, they also point out that the current emphasis is on the necessity for “up?tream public engagement” which means an early dialogue between the scientific community and relevant parties.

The lack of early public involvement has led to bad PR on the part of the scientific community and created fear in the mind of many citizens. Ultimately, this situation led to an economic and scientific failure (in the sense of the marketability of the products of scientific development). In short, the lack of transparency on the part of the scientific community and the failure to involve the public “up?tream” produced fear and mistrust. What seems imperative in order to avoid the same situation in relation to bionanotechnology is to p?t forward publicly a plan for a responsive development of nanotechnology. As Mihail C. Roco and William Sims Bainbridge from the National Science Foundation (NSF) point out, “proper attention to the ethical issues and societal needs” can result in the beneficial outcomes for the industry, society and human life. If well informed, the public and the politicians will be willing to finance and support new technologies. Therefore, it seems essential to have an open debate that includes scientists, politicians, the public, etc. early on with regards to the ethical, legal and social implications of bionanotechnology so as to avoid past mistakes.