Showing papers in "Science and Engineering Ethics in 2009"
TL;DR: Present and anticipated methods for cognitive enhancement create challenges for public policy and regulation and raise a range of ethical issues.
Abstract: Cognitive enhancement takes many and diverse forms. Various methods of cognitive enhancement have implications for the near future. At the same time, these technologies raise a range of ethical issues. For example, they interact with notions of authenticity, the good life, and the role of medicine in our lives. Present and anticipated methods for cognitive enhancement also create challenges for public policy and regulation.
508 citations
TL;DR: The ethical issues involved in UMS design are grouped under two broad headings, Building Safe Systems and Designing for the Law of Armed Conflict, and a number of issues under each of these headings are identified.
Abstract: Unmanned systems in military applications will often play a role in determining the success or failure of combat missions and thus in determining who lives and dies in times of war. Designers of UMS must therefore consider ethical, as well as operational, requirements and limits when developing UMS. I group the ethical issues involved in UMS design under two broad headings, Building Safe Systems and Designing for the Law of Armed Conflict, and identify and discuss a number of issues under each of these headings. As well as identifying issues, I offer some analysis of their implications and how they might be addressed.
79 citations
TL;DR: Various strategies are introduced to augment the teaching of engineering ethics with the goal of encouraging engineers to serve as effective volunteers for community service.
Abstract: The creation of new technologies that serve humanity holds the potential to help end global poverty. Unfortunately, relatively little is done in engineering education to support engineers’ humanitarian efforts. Here, various strategies are introduced to augment the teaching of engineering ethics with the goal of encouraging engineers to serve as effective volunteers for community service. First, codes of ethics, moral frameworks, and comparative analysis of professional service standards lay the foundation for expectations for voluntary service in the engineering profession. Second, standard coverage of global issues in engineering ethics educates humanitarian engineers about aspects of the community that influence technical design constraints encountered in practice. Sample assignments on volunteerism are provided, including a prototypical design problem that integrates community constraints into a technical design problem in a novel way. Third, it is shown how extracurricular engineering organizations can provide a theory-practice approach to education in volunteerism. Sample completed projects are described for both undergraduates and graduate students. The student organization approach is contrasted with the service-learning approach. Finally, long-term goals for establishing better infrastructure are identified for educating the humanitarian engineer in the university, and supporting life-long activities of humanitarian engineers.
61 citations
TL;DR: The Hwang’s case is interpreted as a case study that might shed light on the worst aspects of highstakes global science and the often neglected benefits of “the social control of science”.
Abstract: This paper focuses on the infamous case of Hwang Woo Suk, the South-Korean national hero and once celebrated pioneer of stem cell research. After briefly discussing the evolution of his publication and research scandal in Science, I will attempt to outline the main reactions that emerged within scientific and bioethical discourses on the problem of research misconduct in contemporary biosciences. What were the ethical lapses in his research? What kind of research misconduct has been identified? How this kind of misconduct affects scientific integrity? How to avoid it? Focusing on these questions, the paper interprets the Hwang’s case as a case study that might shed light on the worst aspects of highstakes global science. This case presents a group of problems that might endanger scientific integrity and public trust. Regulatory oversight, ethical requirements and institutional safeguards are often viewed by the scientific community as merely decelerating scientific progress and causing delays in the application of treatments. The Hwang’s case represents how unimpeded progress works in contemporary science. Thus, the case might shed light on the often neglected benefits of “the social control of science”.
53 citations
TL;DR: It is argued that it is advisable to also consider the medical practice and the ways in which this practice is likely to change as an effect of the introduction of photoacoustic mammography into it.
Abstract: How can a realistic ethical imagination about the future of a technology take shape? This article contains a reflection which is based on the experiences of an embedded ethicist in the context of biophysical research conducive to the development of photoacoustic mammography, which is intended for the non-invasive detection of breast cancer. Imagination in this context already informs the activities of the biophysical researchers, but its role is limited: biophysical future scenarios concentrate on the technological advances that photoacoustics could bring about. In this article it is argued that it is advisable to also consider the medical practice and the ways in which this practice is likely to change as an effect of the introduction of photoacoustic mammography into it. On the basis of this more encompassing imaginative endeavor it is possible to get a clearer idea about how new technologies are able to contribute to human well being, which is informative for the setting of research-goals/priorities and a responsible implementation of new technologies into the world.
45 citations
TL;DR: The claim for a right to research is best understood, not as a guarantee for public support of science, but as a way to initiate public deliberation and debate about which sorts of inquiry deserve public support.
Abstract: Debates over the politicization of science have led some to claim that scientists have or should have a “right to research.” This article examines the political meaning and implications of the right to research with respect to different historical conceptions of rights. The more common “liberal” view sees rights as protections against social and political interference. The “republican” view, in contrast, conceives rights as claims to civic membership. Building on the republican view of rights, this article conceives the right to research as embedding science more firmly and explicitly within society, rather than sheltering science from society. From this perspective, all citizens should enjoy a general right to free inquiry, but this right to inquiry does not necessarily encompass all scientific research. Because rights are most reliably protected when embedded within democratic culture and institutions, claims for a right to research should be considered in light of how the research in question contributes to democracy. By putting both research and rights in a social context, this article shows that the claim for a right to research is best understood, not as a guarantee for public support of science, but as a way to initiate public deliberation and debate about which sorts of inquiry deserve public support.
36 citations
TL;DR: This article defends three interconnected premises that together demand for a new way of dealing with moral responsibility in developing and using technological artifacts - that humans increasingly make use of dissociated technological delegation, and that the initial aims alter and outcomes are often different from those intended.
Abstract: This article defends three interconnected premises that together demand for a new way of dealing with moral responsibility in developing and using technological artifacts. The first premise is that humans increasingly make use of dissociated technological delegation. Second, because technologies do not simply fulfill our actions, but rather mediate them, the initial aims alter and outcomes are often different from those intended. Third, since the outcomes are often unforeseen and unintended, we can no longer simply apply the traditional (modernist) models for discussing moral responsibility. We need to reinterpret moral responsibility. A schematic layout of a model on Social Role-Responsibility that incorporates these three premises is presented to allow discussion of a new way of interpreting moral responsibility.
34 citations
TL;DR: The significance of scientific researchers, policy makers and representative consumer groupings in public reasoning towards a better public policy framework for debate about technological development is indicated.
Abstract: Despite the amount of public investment in nanotechnology ventures in the developed world, research shows that there is little public awareness about nanotechnology, and public knowledge is very limited. This is concerning given that nanotechnology has been heralded as ‘revolutionising’ the way we live. In this paper, we articulate why public engagement in debates about nanotechnology is important, drawing on literature on public engagement and science policy debate and deliberation about public policy development. We also explore the significance of timing in engaging the public, and we make some suggestions concerning how to effectively engage publics. Our conclusions indicate the significance of scientific researchers, policy makers and representative consumer groupings in public reasoning towards a better public policy framework for debate about technological development.
31 citations
TL;DR: An in-depth analysis of past and present publishing practices in academic computer science is presented to suggest the establishment of a more consistent publishing standard and a list of basic principles that should be adopted in any computer science publishing standard are concluded.
Abstract: This article presents an in-depth analysis of past and present publishing practices in academic computer science to suggest the establishment of a more consistent publishing standard. Historical precedent for academic publishing in computer science is established through the study of anecdotes as well as statistics collected from databases of published computer science papers. After examining these facts alongside information about analogous publishing situations and standards in other scientific fields, the article concludes with a list of basic principles that should be adopted in any computer science publishing standard. These principles would contribute to the reliability and scientific nature of academic publications in computer science and would allow for more straightforward discourse in future publications.
31 citations
TL;DR: Although new detection tools are available for universities and journals to detect questionable images, this article explores why these tools have not been embraced and sanctions imposed against guilty researchers.
Abstract: A growing number of research misconduct cases handled by the Office of Research Integrity involve image manipulations. Manipulations may include simple image enhancements, misrepresenting an image as something different from what it is, and altering specific features of an image. Through a study of specific cases, the misconduct findings associated with image manipulation, detection methods and those likely to identify such manipulations, are discussed. This article explores sanctions imposed against guilty researchers and the factors that resulted in no misconduct finding although relevant images clearly were flawed. Although new detection tools are available for universities and journals to detect questionable images, this article explores why these tools have not been embraced.
28 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: It may be more appropriate and effective to use a combination of non-traditional legal tools including norms, codes of conduct, restrictions on publication, and scientist-developed voluntary standards to regulate problematic scientific research.
Abstract: Scientific research is subject to a number of regulations which impose incidental (time, place), rather than substantive (type of research), restrictions on scientific research and the knowledge created through such research. In recent years, however, the premise that scientific research and knowledge should be free from substantive regulation has increasingly been called into question. Some have suggested that the law should be used as a tool to substantively restrict research which is dual-use in nature or which raises moral objections. There are, however, some problems with using law to restrict or prohibit certain types of scientific research, including (i) the inherent imprecision of law for regulating complex and rapidly evolving scientific research; (ii) the difficulties of enforcing legal restrictions on an activity that is international in scope; (iii) the limited predictability of the consequences of restricting specific branches of scientific research; (iv) inertia in the legislative process; and (v) the susceptibility of legislators and regulators to inappropriate factors and influence. Rather than using law to restrict scientific research, it may be more appropriate and effective to use a combination of non-traditional legal tools including norms, codes of conduct, restrictions on publication, and scientist-developed voluntary standards to regulate problematic scientific research.
TL;DR: The notion of cyberethics of co-operation can be theoretically grounded and the sustainable design of society, social, and socio-technological systems is important.
Abstract: The task of this paper is to ground the notion of cyberethics of co-operation. The evolution of modern society has resulted in a shift from industrial society towards informational capitalism. This transformation is a multidimensional shift that affects all aspects of society. Hence also the ethical system of society is penetrated by the emergence of the knowledge society and ethical guidelines for the information age are needed. Ethical issues and conflicts in the knowledge society are connected to topics of ecological and social sustainability. For information ethics and cyberethics, the sustainable design of society, social, and socio-technological systems is important. In this context the notions of sustainability and co-operation are discussed. Based on these categories, the approach of cyberethics of co-operation can be theoretically grounded.
TL;DR: The design and development of an internet based interactive Simulator for Engineering Ethics Education is described, which places students in first person perspective scenarios involving different types of ethical situations.
Abstract: Societal pressures, accreditation organizations, and licensing agencies are emphasizing the importance of ethics in the engineering curriculum. Traditionally, this subject has been taught using dogma, heuristics, and case study approaches. Most recently a number of organizations have sought to increase the utility of these approaches by utilizing the Internet. Resources from these organizations include on-line courses and tests, videos, and DVDs. While these individual approaches provide a foundation on which to base engineering ethics, they may be limited in developing a student’s ability to identify, analyze, and respond to engineering ethics situations outside of the classroom environment. More effective approaches utilize a combination of these types of approaches. This paper describes the design and development of an internet based interactive Simulator for Engineering Ethics Education. The simulator places students in first person perspective scenarios involving different types of ethical situations. Students must gather data, assess the situation, and make decisions. This requires students to develop their own ability to identify and respond to ethical engineering situations. A limited comparison between the internet based interactive simulator and conventional internet web based instruction indicates a statistically significant improvement of 32% in instructional effectiveness. The simulator is currently being used at the University of Houston to help fulfill ABET requirements.
TL;DR: Though Miller and Selgelid offer many useful observations and insights, they fail to clearly define the most important term in their article—“dual use”, which may encourage scientists and policymakers to overlook some types of dangerous research.
Abstract: Dear editors:
The threat of terrorism has alerted many investigators, scholars, policy analysts, and politicians to the fact that the same piece of scientific research can often be used for good or malevolent purposes. The anthrax attacks in the autumn of 2001, the pursuit of weapons of mass destructions by terrorist organizations, and the publication of several articles related to enhancing the virulence of deadly pathogens, have created a sense of urgency to developing policies to regulate and control research with the potential for harm. In 2003, the National Research Council coined a term, “dual use research,” to describe the problem of preventing harmful uses of biotechnology research, and an entire literature has emerged devoted to this topic (National Research Council 2003).
In an article published in Science and Engineering Ethics in 2007, Miller and Selgelid provide an excellent overview of the ethical and political dilemmas related to dual use research in biology, some basic policy options for overseeing dual use research, and some advantages and disadvantages of these options (Miller & Selgelid 2007). They consider key issues, such as controlling access to materials and technologies, providing training for investigators, weighing the risks and benefits of publishing dual use research, and safeguarding freedom of inquiry. Though Miller and Selgelid offer many useful observations and insights, they fail to clearly define the most important term in their article—“dual use.”
A clear definition of “dual use” is necessary for effective oversight of research that can have harmful consequences. The definition should be neither too narrow nor too wide in scope. If the definition is too narrow in scope, e.g., if it focuses only on research involving a select class of biological or chemical agents, then it may encourage scientists and policymakers to overlook some types of dangerous research. One of the most controversial examples of dual use research did not involve research with dangerous microorganisms or chemicals but was an article describing a mathematical model of contaminating the U.S. milk supply (Wein & Liu 2005). The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) found out about the article prior to its publication in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and asked the journal to not publish it. PNAS editors met with DHHS officials and heard their concerns about the article. They decided to publish the article despite its national security risks because, in their judgment, the benefits of publication far outweighed its risks, since the article contained information that would help public health agencies prevent or mitigate a terrorist attack (Alberts 2005). There are other types of dangerous research that might be overlooked if “dual use” is limited to particular experiments involving only dangerous microbes or chemicals, such as research that could be used to damage buildings or infrastructure, or disrupt computer networks or electric power grids.
If the definition of “dual use” is too wide in scope, however, it may be needlessly applied to relatively benign areas of science that only have a remote chance of being used by terrorists or others to cause harm. Assigning too much research to the category of “dual use” would impose additional administrative burdens on scientists, which would interfere with progress and innovation. Scientists already have to deal with sizeable administrative and regulatory burdens related research, such as approvals for human research or animal experiments, biosafety requirements, financial audits, and so on (Steneck 2007). Most scientists would not welcome the additional red tape associated with institutional or government oversight for dual use research.
The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity has proposed a definition of “dual use research of concern” as “research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied by others to pose a threat to public health, agriculture, plants, animals, the environment, or materiel” (National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity 2008). While this definition is helpful, two key terms, “reasonably anticipated” and “threat”, require further clarification. What does it mean to “reasonably anticipate” an outcome? Must one believe the outcome has a non-zero chance of occurring? A 5% chance? A 10% chance? And what is a threat? Must a threat involve the loss of at least one human life? Ten lives? One hundred lives? A million dollars in economic losses? Ten million dollars? One hundred million? Questions like these must be addressed to limit the scope of the definition and apply it to specific cases.
Developing a clear and coherent definition of “dual use research” is an important task for ethics and public policy, but it is beyond the scope of this letter. Perhaps Miller and Selgelid and other scholars can tackle this problem in the future.
TL;DR: The potential for dual use of research in the life sciences to be misused for harm raises a range of problems for the scientific community and policy makers.
Abstract: The potential for dual use of research in the life sciences to be misused for harm raises a range of problems for the scientific community and policy makers. Various legal and ethical strategies are being implemented to reduce the threat of the misuse of research and knowledge in the life sciences by establishing a culture of responsible conduct.
TL;DR: This paper evaluates how the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice is received by those it is supposed to govern and provides recommendations for guiding effective implementation through an assessment of one particular code of conduct in one particular institute.
Abstract: Widespread enthusiasm for establishing scientific codes of conduct notwithstanding, the utility of such codes in influencing scientific practice is not self-evident. It largely depends on the implementation phase following their establishment—a phase which often receives little attention. The aim of this paper is to provide recommendations for guiding effective implementation through an assessment of one particular code of conduct in one particular institute. Based on a series of interviews held with researchers at the Department of Biotechnology of Delft University of Technology, this paper evaluates how the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice is received by those it is supposed to govern. While respondents agreed that discussion of the guiding principles of scientific conduct is called for, they did not consider the code as such to be a useful instrument. As a tool for the individual scientific practitioner, the code leaves a number of important questions unanswered in relation to visibility, enforcement, integration with daily practice and the distribution of responsibility. Recommendations are provided on the basis of these questions. There is more at stake than merely holding scientific practitioners to a proper exercise of their duties; implementation of scientific society codes of conduct also concerns the further motives and value commitments that gave rise to their establishment in the first place.
TL;DR: It is argued that morally problematic Ethnographic research of public behavior can derive from research practice that includes a tendency to collapse the distinction between harm and moral wrong and a failure to take account of recent work on ethical issues in privacy.
Abstract: It is not unusual for researchers in ethnography (and sometimes Institutional Review Boards) to assume that research of “public” behavior is morally unproblematic. I examine an historical case of ethnographic research and the sustained moral outrage to the research expressed by the subjects of that research. I suggest that the moral outrage was legitimate and articulate some of the ethical issues underlying that outrage. I argue that morally problematic Ethnographic research of public behavior can derive from research practice that includes a tendency to collapse the distinction between harm and moral wrong, a failure to take account of recent work on ethical issues in privacy; failure to appreciate the deception involved in ethnographers’ failure to reveal their role as researchers to subjects and finally a failure to appropriately weigh the moral significance of issues of invasion of privacy and inflicted insight in both the research process and subsequent publication of research.
TL;DR: Four plays which illustrate ethical themes relevant to engineers and which could be used as a resource for engineers who wish to explore ethical topics and their relationship with professional practice are described.
Abstract: This paper describes four plays which illustrate ethical themes relevant to engineers and which could be used as a resource for engineers who wish to explore ethical topics and their relationship with professional practice. The plays themselves have been chosen because a character in the play is involved in engineering activities. Each play is analysed to highlight some of the ethical issues the play raises. Often ethical topics are presented in abstract terms but the plays relate ethical issues to individuals and individual actions in specific situations that connect either directly or figuratively to practical situations engineers find themselves in. The paper describes how the resources have or could be used in an educational programme.
TL;DR: The task of governing the uses of dangerous knowledge is daunting, and there is little evidence that the authors have the will or the wisdom to do it well.
Abstract: Growing powers to manipulate human bodies and minds, not merely to heal disease but to satisfy desires, control deviant behavior, and to change human nature, make urgent questions of whether and how to regulate their use, not merely to assure safety and efficacy but also to safeguard our humanity Oversight in democratic societies rightly belongs to the polity, not merely to self-appointed experts, scientific or ethical Yet the task of governing the uses of dangerous knowledge is daunting, and there is little evidence that we have the will or the wisdom to do it well
TL;DR: A variety of characterizations of bioethics and bioethicists in relation to forbidding science are explored, particularly on human pluripotent stem cell research.
Abstract: It has been argued that bioethicists too often tend to represent the interests of scientists and not of the broader polity. Indeed, bioethicists seem predisposed to discard the voices and viewpoints of all but the cognoscenti. Focusing particularly on human pluripotent stem cell research, this commentary explores a variety of characterizations of bioethics and bioethicists in relation to forbidding science. Rather than proselytizing or prohibiting, bioethicists should work in partnership with scientists and publics to craft scientifically well-informed and morally sophisticated debates about forbidding science.
TL;DR: This paper will elaborate on these to two opposing views on technology development taking the recent debate on the implementation of biofuels as a case example.
Abstract: In the perception of technology innovation two world views compete for domination: technological and social determinism. Technological determinism holds that societal change is caused by technological developments, social determinism holds the opposite. Although both were quite central to discussion in the philosophy, history and sociology of technology in the 1970s and 1980s, neither is seen as mainstream now. They do still play an important role as background philosophies in societal debates and offer two very different perspectives on where the responsibilities for an ethically sound development of novel technologies lie. In this paper we will elaborate on these to two opposing views on technology development taking the recent debate on the implementation of biofuels as a case example.
TL;DR: A crucial guidepost for exploring both uncharted areas of constitutional law should be whether restrictions on scientific research or communication truly implicate fundamental individual rights or instead primarily concern issues of general social welfare.
Abstract: Whether the US Constitution guarantees a right to conduct scientific research is a question that has never been squarely addressed by the United States Supreme Court. Similarly, the extent to which the First Amendment protects the right to communicate the results of scientific research is an issue about which there is scant judicial authority. This article suggests that a crucial guidepost for exploring both these uncharted areas of constitutional law should be whether restrictions on scientific research or communication truly implicate fundamental individual rights or instead primarily concern issues of general social welfare—issues that in a democracy are properly decided by the representative branches of government or their delegates, not by the judiciary.
TL;DR: It is argued here that weapons innovation always introduces costs, and that these costs cannot be determined in advance of going to war, so the proportionality principle is inapplicable prospectively.
Abstract: Just wars are supposed to be proportional responses to aggression: the costs of war must not greatly exceed the benefits. This proportionality principle raises a corresponding ‘interpretation problem’: what are the costs and benefits of war, how are they to be determined, and a ‘measurement problem’: how are costs and benefits to be balanced? And it raises a problem about scope: how far into the future do the states of affairs to be measured stretch? It is argued here that weapons innovation always introduces costs, and that these costs cannot be determined in advance of going to war. Three examples, the atomic bomb, the AK-47 and the ancient Greek catapult, are given as examples. It is therefore argued that the proportionality principle is inapplicable prospectively. Some replies to the argument are discussed and rejected. Some more general defences of the proportionality principle are considered and also rejected. Finally, the significance of the argument for Just War Theory as a whole is discussed.
TL;DR: The results confirm the usefulness of the current practice of creating BCs by medical universities, medical institutes and regional chambers of physicians and dentists but rationalization of the workload for individual BCs is necessary.
Abstract: The Polish equivalents of Research Ethics Committees are Bioethics Committees (BCs). A questionnaire study has been undertaken to determine their situation. The BC is usually comprised of 13 members. Nine of these are doctors and four are non-doctors. In 2006 BCs assessed an average of 27.3 +/- 31.7 (range: 0-131) projects of clinical trials and 71.1 +/- 139.8 (range: 0-638) projects of other types of medical research. During one BC meeting an average of 10.3 +/- 14.7 (range: 0-71) projects of medical research were assessed (2006). The amendment of Polish laws according with Directive 2001/20/EC caused a percentage increase in BCs which assessed less than 20 projects per year (16% vs. 33% or 42% in 2003 vs. 2005 or 2006 respectively, p < 0,05). The results confirm the usefulness of the current practice of creating BCs by medical universities, medical institutes and regional chambers of physicians and dentists but rationalization of the workload for individual BCs is necessary.
TL;DR: The results showed that self-citations rose as much as +23.98% while intra-citing declined up to −5.80% over the observed period, while the retrospective impacts and influences of these observations were discussed in this study.
Abstract: For academic research outcomes, there is an increasing emphasis on the bibliometric scorings like the journal impact factor and citations when the assessment of the scientific merits of research or researchers is required. Currently, no known study has been conducted to explore the bibliographical trends of the subject category of multidisciplinary sciences as indexed by the annual Journal Citation Reports of the Thomson Scientific. The effect of journal self-citations and intra-citing within a discipline to the bibliometric data computation can be confounding. In this study, six journals were selected from the multidisciplinary sciences subject category where the trend of self-citations and intra-citing were analysed. These journals were chosen as they published more than 450 citable articles in the year 2007 and had available bibliometric data for a 10-year period. The results showed that self-citations rose as much as +23.98% while intra-citing declined up to −5.80% over the observed period. The retrospective impacts and influences of these observations were also discussed in this study.
TL;DR: Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat was one of the most distinguished scientists and peace campaigners of the post second war period and his views on the moral responsibilities of the scientist are outlined.
Abstract: Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat was one of the most distinguished scientists and peace campaigners of the post second world war period. He made significant contributions to nuclear physics and worked on the development of the atomic bomb. He then became one of the world’s leading researchers into the biological effects of radiation. His life from the early 1950s until his death in August 2005 was devoted to the abolition of nuclear weapons and peace. For this he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, together with Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs (that he helped found) in 1995. His work in this area ranked with that of Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell and this article is an attempt to summarise his life, achievements, but in particular outline his views on the moral responsibilities of the scientist. He is a towering intellectual figure and his contributions to mankind should be better known and more widely understood.
TL;DR: It is possible to show that although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far moreGHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic, and reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them.
Abstract: Ethics requires good science. Many scientists, government leaders, and industry representatives support tripling of global-nuclear-energy capacity on the grounds that nuclear fission is "carbon free" and "releases no greenhouse gases." However, such claims are scientifically questionable (and thus likely to lead to ethically questionable energy choices) for at least 3 reasons. (i) They rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), perhaps in part because flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content. (ii) They underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used. (iii) They inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies. Once scientists take account of (i)-(iii), it is possible to show that although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far more GHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic. Although there may be other, ethical, reasons to support nuclear tripling, reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them.
TL;DR: Engaging the public on nanotechnology issues has clearly become a high priority over recent years and the increasing amount of social science research feeding into public engagement should improve the quality of what is being undertaken.
Abstract: As Kyle and Dodds point out in Science and Engineering Ethics issue 15, engaging the public on nanotechnology issues has clearly become a high priority over recent years and the increasing amount of social science research feeding into public engagement should improve the quality of what is being undertaken (Kyle and Dodds 2009). But should we now turn the gaze of research closer towards the organisations undertaking engagement, and try to understand them and their values as well as we are seeking to understand those of the public? The Australian Office of Nanotechnology (AON) is charged with undertaking community engagement activities, seeking to encourage an informed debate based on balanced and factual information. This has included information exchange and education programs, underpinned by ongoing public attitude research to best understand the Australian public. One lesson that has been gained by the Office from working with partners in the OECD, and through exposure to experts like Professor Arie Rip of the Netherlands, is that many engagement activities don’t really find many things new, and many have trouble translating their engagement outcomes into actual policy outcomes when not all key stakeholders have buy-in to the process (OECD 2008). Having undertaken a series of nationwide community forums on nanotechnology, providing information and hearing from the public, a key challenge identified in Australia was how to engage with the unengaged, rather than the already engaged— who tend to make up the audiences for such events. It can also be difficult to attract and maintain public interest in a debate being conducted between interest groups, particularly when it degenerates into polarised extremes of those passionately for
TL;DR: To be accountable, credible and effective, self-regulation must be inclusive and multidisciplinary, publicly engaged, sufficiently disinterested, operationally integrated with institutional goals, and must implement a genuine consensus among scientists and the public.
Abstract: To be a functional alternative to government regulation, self-regulation of science must be credible to both scientists and the public, accountable, ethical, and effective. According to some, serious problems continue in research ethics in the United States despite a rich history of proposed self-regulatory standards and oversight devices. Successful efforts at self-regulation in stem cell research contrast with unsuccessful efforts in research ethics, particularly conflicts of interest. Part of the cause for a lack of success in self-regulation is fragmented, disconnected oversight, and failure to embody genuine scientific and public consensus. To be accountable, credible and effective, self-regulation must be inclusive and multidisciplinary, publicly engaged, sufficiently disinterested, operationally integrated with institutional goals, and must implement a genuine consensus among scientists and the public. The mechanisms of self-regulation must be sufficiently broad in their oversight, and interconnected with other institutional forces and actors, that they do not create fragmented solutions.