Emerging Conceptual, Ethical and Policy Issues in Bionanotechnology (Philosophy and Medicine)

Emerging Conceptual, Ethical and Policy Issues in Bionanotechnology

Philosophy and Medicine VOLUME 101 Founding Co-Editor Stuart F. Spicker

Senior Editor H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., Department of Philosophy, Rice University, and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas Associate Editor Lisa M. Rasmussen, Department of Philosophy, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina Editorial Board George J. Agich, Department of Philosophy, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio Nicholas Capaldi, College of Business Administration, Loyola University, New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana Edmund Erde, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Stratford, New Jersey Christopher Tollefsen, Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina Kevin Wm. Wildes, S.J., President Loyola University, New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana

For other titles published in this series , go to www.springer.com/series/6414

Fabrice Jotterand Editor

Emerging Conceptual, Ethical and Policy Issues in Bionanotechnology

Editor Fabrice Jotterand University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas, USA

ISBN 978-1-4020-8648-9

e-ISBN 978-1-4020-8649-6

Library of Congress Control Number: 2008928519 © 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed on acid-free paper 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 springer.com

Contents

Introduction Beyond Feasibility: Why Ethics Is Important for Bionanotechnology ..................................................................................... Fabrice Jotterand

3

Knowledge Production in Nanotechnoscience The World View of Nanotechnology – Philosophical Reflections ................ Andreas Woyke

13

Nanomachine: Technological Concept or Metaphor? .................................. Xavier Guchet and Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent

27

No Future for Nanotechnology? Historical Development vs. Global Expansion .............................................. Alfred Nordmann

43

Ethics and (Bio)Nanotechnology Bionanotechnology: A New Challenge for Ethical Reflection? ..................................................................................... Christoph Baumgartner

67

Nanoparticles: Risk Management and the Precautionary Principle ..................................................................... Armin Grunwald

85

Anticipating the Unknown: The Ethics of Nanotechnology ......................... 103 Joseph C. Pitt

v

vi

Contents

Applications of Nanotechnology in the Biomedical Sciences: Small Materials, Big Impacts, and Unknown Consequences ....................... 117 Audy G. Whitman, Phelps J. Lambert, Ossie F. Dyson, and Shaw M. Akula Public Policy and (Bio)Nanotechnology Nanobiotechnology and Ethics: Converging Civil Society Discourses .............................................................. 133 Alexandra Plows and Michael Reinsborough Allotropes of Fieldwork in Nanotechnology .................................................. 157 Christopher Kelty Law, Regulation and the Medical Use of Nanotechnology ........................... 181 Kenneth A. DeVille Human Enhancement and (Bio)Nanotechnology Stage Two Enhancements ................................................................................ 203 George Khushf Nanotechnology, the Body and the Mind ....................................................... 219 M. Ellen Mitchell Nanotechnology and Human Flourishing: Toward a Framework for Assessing Radical Human Enhancements..................................................................................... 239 Ronald Sandler Author Index..................................................................................................... 255 Subject Index .................................................................................................... 261

Beyond Feasibility: Why Ethics Is Important for Bionanotechnology Fabrice Jotterand

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 potential 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/regulatory 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 potential 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 “feasibility” is not necessarily synonymous with commercial success and public acceptance of new technologies. Despite the potential 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 University of Texas at Dallas, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX

F. Jotterand (ed.) Emerging Conceptual, Ethical and Policy Issues in Bionanotechnology, © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

3

4

F. Jotterand

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 “upstream 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 “upstream” produced fear and mistrust. What seems imperative in order to avoid the same situation in relation to bionanotechnology is to put 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.

The Structure of the Volume This volume provides a critical overview of the nature of nanotechnology (and its applications in the biomedical sciences, i.e. bionanotechnology) and the philosophical and ethico-legal issues it raises. This collection of 13 articles represents an exploration by scholars from various disciplines (philosophy, anthropology, law, social sciences, psychology, and natural sciences) in North America and Europe. The book contains four major parts respectively entitled (1) Knowledge Production in Nanotechnoscience; (2) Ethics and (Bio)Nanotechnology; (3) Public Policy and (Bio)Nanotechnology; and (4) Human Enhancement and (Bio)Nanotechnology. In the first section, authors examine the nature of nanotechnology as a scientific project and critically reflect on its philosophical underpinnings. The next section

Beyond Feasibility: Why Ethics Is Important for Bionanotechnology

5

introduces the readers to a new area of investigation that explicitly addresses the ethics of nanotechnology/bionanotechnology. More specifically, it examines the theoretical framework(s) necessary to sustain rich ethical reflections at the core of the development of nanotechnology. The third section expands on the ethics of nanotechnology/bionanotechnology but focuses on legal and public policy issues and how the public perception of nanotechnology could ultimately shape policies and regulations. Ultimately these three perspective (the nature of nanotechnology, ethical approaches and regulatory issues) will shape and frame the discourse on nanobiotechnology. The final section focuses on how scientific progress could affect humans through enhancement technologies and critically assesses whether such progress actually contributes to human flourishing. It is important to recognize that other areas (military, economics, politics, etc.) deserve careful and critical examination. However, a comprehensive approach that would include such analysis is beyond the scope of this volume. The focus of this work is on the application of nanotechnology in the biomedical sciences.

Knowledge Production in Nanotechnoscience In the first article, Andreas Woyke shows how an “intensification of a technocratic view of nature” influences our present understandings of science and the world. He argues that nanotechnology is not just a step forward in the development of science and technology. It is a scientific project with deep philosophical and metaphysical assumptions, which lead to a new understanding of science itself. Furthermore, in this new order of things, Woyke shows how human beings are absent, relegated to a subsidiary role. The removal of human agency is problematic because it provides a one-sidedness to the new technological paradigm. Humans are no longer controlling technology but are rather spectators of its development. The result is a new world view in which ethical, social and ecological issues are ignored. In response, Woyke suggests that our reflections should move toward a holistic philosophy of nature and an integrative anthropology. In so doing, he contends, we set the necessary framework for a responsible development of nanotechnology. The essay by Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and Xavier Guchet aims at clarifying the concept of technology and the “machine metaphor” in relation to nanotechnology and critically looks at Eric Drexler’s concept of molecular assemblers. The authors first examine the differences between classical machines (Cartesian automata) and complex machines (in Von Neumann’s sense). One of the main differences is that in classical machines the constructor controls each part and determines their specific aims. On the other hand, complex machines are autonomous because their behaviour is not uniquely determined by the designer. To a certain degree complex machines are unpredictable and escape human control. Against this background Bensaude-Vincent and Guchet ask whether Drexler’s molecular assemblers fall under the Cartesian/classical or complex machine category. In their final analysis, they critique Drexler’s concept of molecular assemblers

6

F. Jotterand

on the basis that he applies the characteristics of macro-machines to nanomachines. In addition they point out that the chemical and physical properties (stickiness, viscosity, and Brownian motion) at the nanoscale are different from the ones at the macro level. Hence, Drexler’s model is intrinsically inadequate because inapplicable. More importantly they note that Drexler uses the two notions of machines, that is, nanobots operating like industrial robot (Cartesian/classical machines) and nanobots as self-replicators (complex machines) without clearly outlining why his methods make molecular assemblers complex machines (selfreplicator nanobots). While recognizing the problem related to Drexler’s vision of molecular assemblers, Bensaude-Vincent and Guchet do not reject the idea of bottom-up fabrication. Molecular assemblers, they argue, will be possible only in so far as they emulate “the design principles of nature”. This means that engineering at the nanoscale can only come out of biology. Bensaude-Vincent and Guchet suggest that a plausible alternative to Drexler’s molecular assemblers is Jones’ concept of “soft machines” (nanomachines designed according to biological principles). The reason is that the physical and chemical properties (Brownian motion, stickiness, and viscosity) at the nanoscale are the necessary milieu for soft machines to operate but a barrier to Drexler’s molecular assemblers. The final article of this section looks at the future(s) of nanotechnology. Bluntly, Alfred Nordmann argues that we cannot predict its future. All we can say is that it is “a horizon of expectation in which something unheard-of or unspeakable will appear”. While other scholars envision various futures for nanotechnology (Armin Grunwald: prudence; Jean-Pierre Dupuy: catastrophisme éclaire; and George Khushf: hope), Nordmann thinks we should simply abandon any speculative reflection on its future. Our analysis (whether at the political, environmental or ethical levels) should not focus on future generations or future developments (what he calls “nanotechnology’s expansion in historical time”), but should favour nanotechnology’s “territorial conquest or expansion into space.” In so doing, Nordmann thinks that a critical stance towards nanotechnology would frame our reflections in terms of the particular “claims made upon our bodies and the environment that structures our actions.” This, he recognizes, is an outrageous idea but has already been achieved in studies on technosciences, which are concerned with the acquisition of present capabilities to solve technical problems.

The Ethics and (Bio)Nanotechnology The second chapter examines the ethical implications of nanotechnology and the type of theoretical framework necessary to sustain a meaningful ethical analysis. Interestingly, in the previous sections Woyke and Nordmann partially refers to moral concerns about nanotechnology. Woyke stresses the necessity to integrate anthropological considerations in the development of nanotechnology. Nordmann’s framework for a critical stand towards nanotechnology likewise includes considerations

Beyond Feasibility: Why Ethics Is Important for Bionanotechnology

7

about our bodies and the environment. What this suggests is that the production of knowledge does not occur in a moral vacuum, but inherently assumes particular values. Hence the importance of ethics in science and technology. In the first essay, Christoph Baumgartner asks whether the emergence of nanotechnology raises novel and unique ethical issues, and whether we need a comprehensive analysis of these issues. In his analysis, Baumgartner clearly answers negatively. The field of nanotechnology does not justify the creation of a new discipline called “nanoethics.” He points out that all major issues raised by nanotechnology are characteristic of other areas of biotechnology and, therefore, nanotechnology is only part of a continuum of reflections that began with other types of technological and scientific advancements. However, because of the enabling and transformative nature of nanotechnology, Baumgartner contends that we need a comprehensive assessment of its ethical implications. In addition, he points out that our critical investigation should go “beyond the methodological and conceptual framework of biomedical ethics”. The merging of biotechnology with the environment and human nature requires that our ethical reflections encompass biomedical ethics, social ethics and environmental ethics. The precautionary principle is often invoked as a tool to assess risks of emerging technologies. In his essay, Armin Grunwald addresses the question of whether we should use the precautionary principle as a tool for risk management analysis strategies in relation to nanotechnology. After providing an overview of the potential risks associated with nanotechnology and an introduction into the precautionary principle, Grunwald critically assesses its applicability with regards to nanotechnology. He contends that classical risk assessment (i.e., the precautionary principle) is not applicable to nanotechnology. The application of the precautionary principle requires strong scientific evidence (as opposed to the possibility of hazards) of the hazardous impact of nanoparticles. Such data is still missing because nanoparticles and nanomaterials have different properties at the nanoscale and further risk assessment is required. For Grunwald, unless we gather the necessary data concerning the potential impact of nanoparticles on the environment and human health the precautionary principle is inadequate for risk assessment. The third essay, by Joseph Pitt, is more ambitious because its author asserts that pragmatism is the only moral theory helpful with regards to the ethics of (bio)nanotechnology. The reason is that the development of any technology is always in relation to the improvement of the human condition. We develop certain technologies with specific practical problems in mind that hinder our ability to fully experience the Good Life. Hence, Pitt argues that the integration of practical concerns within the framework of the Good Life can only take place with reference to pragmatism. It is the only moral theory that allows a techno-ethical vision of human life. In the final article of this section, Audy G. Whitman, Phelps J. Lambert, Ossie F. Dyson and Shaw M. Akula provide reflections from scientists working on the application of nanotechnology in medicine. Its authors point out that nanotechnology holds many promising applications that could change and improve our quality of life, but warn us that without proper precautions nanotechnology could become destructive to humans and their environment. They likewise support a responsible

8

F. Jotterand

development of nanotechnology that is open to public scrutiny, honest and does not take shortcuts as to its ethical implications. They point out that without adequate reflections on its ethical ramifications in the biomedical sciences, and a strong commitment to take seriously the responsibilities that come with such scientific endeavour, “nanotechnology may prove to become detrimental.”

Public Policy and (Bio)Nanotechnology Earlier I pointed out that one of the major causes for rejecting GMOs was the lack of transparency and public involvement. The third chapter looks specifically at the public perception and the regulation of (bio)nanotechnology. The first essay, by Alexandra Plows and Michael Reinsborough addresses the issue of public discourse in the face of the emergence of technological uncertainties. The birth of the field of nanotechnology created a specific “epistemic culture” among scientists, which finds its counterpart in another “epistemic culture” oriented toward criticizing it – what Plows and Reinsborough call “a critique of the politics of technology”. Their essay traces the emergence of these counter movements, particularly within the European context. Interestingly, Plows and Reinsborough remark that these movements are not anti-technology per se. Many activists are aware of the potential benefits of converging technologies, but they also recognize the danger of letting the industry and corporations have sole control over these technologies. One might question the validity of the practices or motives behind the actions of activists yet these counter movements point to an important issue: civil society should have a more important role (“upstream public engagement”) on the regulation of emerging technologies, which is exactly what the promoters of GMOs failed to do. In the next article, Christopher Kelty examines the distinctive contribution anthropology (especially socio-cultural anthropology) could make to the study of nanotechnology, and analyzes recent research done by anthropologists on the subject of nanotechnology, the environment and human health. In particular the author contends that anthropology can make an important contribution because scientific and technological development necessarily includes human concerns (human safety, values, etc.) Finally, Kenneth A. DeVille looks at the regulation of bionanotechnology and the current legal system. In particular, the author questions the ability of the current legal system to regulate bionanotechnology. While DeVille recognizes that existing laws provide enough information to ensure safe utilization of nanotechnology in the biomedical sciences, he also argues that additional regulatory safeguards will be necessary. For instance, in the United States, drugs and devices are approved and regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, “medical nano-products” are neither drugs nor devices but the merging of the two and therefore stand outside the FDA jurisdiction. Other issues that will require further regulations include the adjustment of the period for assessing limitations and risks

Beyond Feasibility: Why Ethics Is Important for Bionanotechnology

9

of “nanoremedies” due to the nature of nanoparticles (size and mobility in the human body) and tort litigation. In the later case, although nanotechnology will raise complex and novel issues, most cases will use the current doctrines of negligence (medical malpractice) and product liability. However, how a plaintiff will demonstrate that a physician did not use the standard of care and caused damages by negligence will be more complicated in relation to nanotechnology. Due to the innovative dimension of nanotechnology, the idea of standard of care will change drastically. In short, innovative technologies will require the incorporation of new bodies of laws into current regulations so as to reflect the transformative dimension of nanotechnology.

Human Enhancement and (Bio)Nanotechnology Potential changes are not limited to legal/regulatory aspects. Ultimately transformation could occur within our own bodies. Among the most radical applications of nanotechnology, human enhancement represents the most controversial issue. While the idea of enhancing human capacities is not novel per se, current technology allows us to enter the Cyborg age. One can predict that in the next few years we will witness an increasing number of experiments involving human subjects and machines (human-machines interface, brain – computer interface). As such, the essay by George Khushf anticipates these new developments in science and technology. He draws a distinction between early stages of the enhancement debate and the current stage. The latter is different in kind (at the core of human existence and its environment) and poses various challenges unknown so far. Because of the particularity of these challenges, which call into question previous ethical and policy debate on emerging technologies, society at large should foster new “cultural and intellectual resources” for our reflections on these issues. The next paper, by M. Ellen Mitchell, explores the psychological implications of a spectrum of real and potential nano-biomedical advances, with a particular emphasis on the area of enhancement. She reviews various biomedical applications in the past and present advances in nanotechnology. In her analysis, she notices a profound difference between past and present technological developments. Contrary to past concerns about the use and misuse of technology, current analyses should focus on the “intended purposes, the pervasiveness, and the invasiveness” of technology. Mitchell recognizes the transformative power of current technology. Hence, she argues that our efforts should primarily be on the impact of technology on humans (identity and functionality) and their environment, rather than potential misuse. Specifically she reviews three specific areas relevant to the discussion on human enhancement: (1) executive functioning (higher order brain activities such as judgment, attention, planning, etc.); (2) self-regulation (bodily functions, mood, behaviour, thought, feeling, or violence); and (3) capacity for delay and overall strength of negative capability (inability to cope with postponement). According to Mitchell,

10

F. Jotterand

novel nano-devices or drugs will impact these three areas of human psychology. However, she points out that the variations in individuals and the complexity of the human mind make it difficult to establish a normative approach to human enhancement. In addition, whether these advances are “life enhancing” is also a difficult issue that requires thoughtful reflections. The final essay of the volume addresses the issue of human enhancement in relation to human flourishing. Ronald Sandler argues that focusing on what is constitutive of human nature is misguiding because it does not provide any clue as to what is acceptable or unacceptable in relation to enhancement. Rather the question should be framed in terms of which “deviations from our form of life are desirable” and whether the risks involved are acceptable.

Concluding Remarks Undeniably, nanotechnology and its applications in the biomedical sciences could provide new opportunities that could change and improve our way of life. Industrial applications, and the development of procedures and devices in medicine, generate great hopes for the resolution of social issues (e.g., pollution, energy) and the improvement of the human condition (e.g., the curing of diseases). As with other technological innovations that create ethical controversies, how to establish consensus is an important and difficult task. In addition, how to provide the condition for collaboration between the various participants in the research and development of nanotechnology and those individuals concerned with regulations, public policy and ethical standards is an important task that will require further analysis. Ultimately, however, more fundamental questions to raise are why do we want to, and by which means do we achieve particular goals through science and technology (i.e., bionanotechnology). Theses questions are not addressed specifically in this work due to its limited scope but will require careful attention for a responsible development of bionanotechnology.

The World View of Nanotechnology – Philosophical Reflections Andreas Woyke*

Abstract Philosophical implications of the current nanotechnology boom are not limited to possible problems in ethics. They result essentially from a new understanding of science, which is orientated toward applicability, and from an intensification of a technocratic view of nature in the context of visionary programs. For the integration of nanotechnological discovery in the great context of the history of science and ideas are relations prepared to synthetic chemistry and to the paradigm of progress in modern times. The instrumental comprehension of nature, which show us the leading-ideas of nanotechnology, leads to the question as to which influence they could have on existing views of science and world. Possible answers to this question are outlined by a look at the ontological character of nano-objects, and by references to the one-sidedness of the view of nature, which is founded in the nanotechnological scenarios of the future.

Keywords Nanotechnological visions, world views of nanotechnology, technological progress, philosophy of nature, chemistry, novelty, responsibility

Philosophical Aspects of Nanotechnology Nanotechnology offers new technical possibilities and contexts of application through the manipulation of structures on the nanometer-scale (1 nm = 10−9 m). Crucial for the investigation of this field, which ranges between molecular physics and chemistry (>0.1 to 100 nm to