Nanoscientists as Moral Agents

Moral Judgments in Nanoscale Research and Science

The evolving capacity for human mastery of matter carries with it the profound ethical implications of alterations to the nature of human life, as well as to our ecosystem. Scientific and engineering research in general are credited with solving many of humanity's worst problems, and also with sometimes worsening those problems or creating new, more formidable challenges to human well-being. As such, nanoscientists are expected to use their moral judgment in the assessment of consequences, as an important element of analysis, and as an essential component of decision making.

Cost-benefit analysis is typically used for these judgments, as it can be applied to the development of new products, materials, and processes. Yet it is not sufficient for moral agency. In fact, cost analysis alone can be a hindrance to the conscientious deliberation required to bring the agent into deep awareness of his or her work in a larger social/ecological context. Researchers from the Center for the Study of Mind suggest that what people take to mean “moral” is not necessarily so, personal taste and historical convention not withstanding. What is defined as “moral” arises from the moral intuitions of individual agents.

Of course, scientists themselves have long been aware of their function as moral agents, and of the requisite struggles this can incur. Noam Chomsky once said, “As soon as questions of will or decision or reason or choice of action arise, human science is at a loss.” Recently, a group of scientists composed an ethics code they hoped would address some of the more pressing responsibilities of scientists as moral agents in this technological age. They suggest that while it can be difficult, if not impossible, for a scientist to assess the consequences of his/her own research (especially given that scientists often have little control over their work) they must nevertheless make a sincere attempt to continually judge these consequences, and make these judgments known, refraining from research deemed unethical.

Moral Reflections of Nanoscientists

Discussions with nanoscientists on ethical judgments regarding their own research reveal a number of concerns. The first is related to time pressure. Laboratory work can take a great deal of time and can be difficult to control. Yet funding agencies require reporting at regular intervals of relatively short duration, with an ethical risk occuring in releasing results prematurely. While critical in assuring their continued financial support, the fast pace of funding/reporting cycles can compromise their work. Other pressure arise from competition to gain and hold a high status in the scientific community, which means releasing journal articles before others. High status brings the rewards of more grant money, which leads to larger labs with better and more equipment, more competitive opportunities for hiring graduate students to do the work, which in turn means more work can be done, producing faster results.

...