An ethical analysis of a prospective new paradigm of life: Nanotechnology-enabled human beings within the framework of principlism

Nanotechnology (NT)-enabled disease-free life is a form of reconstruction of the human body that promises a paradigm shift toward a new form of human existence in an imaginable life. However, as human reconstruction may be within the limits of the concept of "human enhancement," it is not clear to what extent "enhanced humans" will be ethically acceptable or desired. This study discusses the ethical implications of NT-embedded enhanced humans and this new imaginable life. First, ethical concerns arising from the existence of a grey zone of certain dilemmas regarding benefits and possible/unpredicted risks are addressed in terms of the four main principles of bioethics. Then, we focus on the ethical problems in human nano-enhancement. Finally, we study the methods of analyzing these ethical problems within the framework of principlism to conceive a comprehensive and coherent bioethical understanding.

Embedding Ethical Impact Assessment in Nanosafety Decision Support

Nanotechnology is a key enabling technology, which is developing fast and influences many aspects of life. Nanomaterials are already included in a broad range of products and industrial sectors. Nanosafety issues are still a matter of concern for policy makers and stakeholders, but currently, there is no platform where all stakeholders can meet and discuss these issues. A comprehensive overview of all the issues in one single dashboard presenting the output of a decision support system is also lacking. This article outlines a strategy for developing one innovative part of a modular decision support system, designed to support the work of a new Risk Governance Council (RGC) for nanomaterials which will be established through the combined efforts of the GOV4NANO, NANORIGO, and RiskGONE H2020 projects. This new module will consist of guidelines for Ethical Impact Assessment (EIA) for nanomaterials and nanoenabled products. This article offers recommendations for adapting the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) prestandard on Ethical Impact Assessment CWA (CEN Workshop Agreement) 17145-2:2017 (E), to fit into the more-encompassing decision support system for risk governance of nanomaterials within the RiskGONE project.

Devices of Responsibility: Over a Decade of Responsible Research and Innovation Initiatives for Nanotechnologies

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has come to represent a change in the relationship between science, technology and society. With origins in the democratisation of science, and the inclusion of ethical and societal aspects in research and development activities, RRI offers a means of integrating society and the research and innovation communities. In this article, we frame RRI activities through the lens of layers of science and technology governance as a means of characterising the context in which the RRI activity is positioned and the goal of those actors promoting the RRI activities in shaping overall governance patterns. RRI began to emerge during a time of considerable deliberation about the societal and governance challenges around nanotechnology, in which stakeholders were looking for new ways of integrating notions of responsibility in nanotechnology research and development. For this reason, this article focuses on nanotechnology as the site for exploring the evolution and growth of RRI.

Returning to the Patent Landscapes for Nanotechnology: Assessing the Garden that It Has Grown Into

The patent landscape, like a garden, can tell you much about its designers and users; their motivations, biases, and general interests. While both patent landscapes and gardens may appear to the casual observer as refined and ordered, an in-depth exploration of the terrain is likely to reveal unforeseen challenges including, for example, alien species, thickets, and trolls. As this Chapter illustrates, patent landscapes are dynamic and have been forced to continually evolve in response to technological innovation. While emerging technologies, such as biotechnology and information communication technology have challenged the traditional patent landscape, resulting in the pruning of certain elements here and there, the overarching framework and design has largely remained intact. But will this always be the case? As the field of nanotechnology continues to evolve and mature, the aim of this Chapter is to map how the technology has evolved and grown within the confines of existing structures and underlying foundation of the patent landscape and the implications thereof for the technology, industry, and the public more generally. The Chapter concludes by asking the question whether the current patent landscape will be able to withstand the ubiquitous nature of the technology, or whether nanotechnology, in combination with other emerging technologies, will be a catalyst for governments and policy makers to completely redesign the patent landscape.

Just a Cog in the Machine? The Individual Responsibility of Researchers in Nanotechnology is a Duty to Collectivize

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) provides a framework for judging the ethical qualities of innovation processes, however guidance for researchers on how to implement such practices is limited. Exploring RRI in the context of nanotechnology, this paper examines how the dispersed and interdisciplinary nature of the nanotechnology field somewhat hampers the abilities of individual researchers to control the innovation process. The ad-hoc nature of the field of nanotechnology, with its fluid boundaries and elusive membership, has thus far failed to establish a strong collective agent, such as a professional organization, through which researchers could collectively steer technological development in light of social and environmental needs. In this case, individual researchers cannot innovate responsibly purely by themselves, but there is also no structural framework to ensure that responsible development of nanotechnologies takes place. We argue that, in such a case, individual researchers have a duty to collectivize. In short, researchers in situations where it is challenging for individual agents to achieve the goals of RRI are compelled to develop organizations to facilitate RRI. In this paper we establish and discuss the criteria under which individual researchers have this duty to collectivize.

Creating Inquiry Between Technology Developers and Civil Society Actors: Learning from Experiences Around Nanotechnology

Engaging civil society actors as knowledgeable dialogue partners in the development and governance of emerging technologies is a new challenge. The starting point of this paper is the observation that the design and orchestration of current organized interaction events shows limitations, particularly in the articulation of issues and in learning how to address the indeterminacies that go with emerging technologies. This paper uses Dewey's notion of 'publics' and 'reflective inquiry' to outline ways of doing better and to develop requirements for a more productive involvement of civil society actors. By studying four novel spaces for interaction in the domain of nanotechnology, this paper examines whether and how elements of Dewey's thought are visible and under what conditions. One of the main findings is that, in our society, special efforts are needed in order for technology developers and civil society actors to engage in a joint inquiry on emerging nanotechnology. Third persons, like social scientists and philosophers, play a role in this respect in addition to external input such as empirically informed scenarios and somewhat protected spaces.

Scientists' Ethical Obligations and Social Responsibility for Nanotechnology Research

Scientists' sense of social responsibility is particularly relevant for emerging technologies. Since a regulatory vacuum can sometimes occur in the early stages of these technologies, individual scientists' social responsibility might be one of the most significant checks on the risks and negative consequences of this scientific research. In this article, we analyze data from a 2011 mail survey of leading U.S. nanoscientists to explore their perceptions the regarding social and ethical responsibilities for their nanotechnology research. Our analyses show that leading U.S. nanoscientists express a moderate level of social responsibility about their research. Yet, they have a strong sense of ethical obligation to protect laboratory workers (in both universities and industry) from unhealthy exposure to nanomaterials. We also find that there are significant differences in scientists' sense of social and ethical responsibility depending on their demographic characteristics, job affiliation, attention to media content, risk perceptions and benefit perceptions. We conclude with some implications for future research.

Standardising Responsibility? The Significance of Interstitial Spaces

Modern society is characterised by rapid technological development that is often socially controversial and plagued by extensive scientific uncertainty concerning its socio-ecological impacts. Within this context, the concept of 'responsible research and innovation' (RRI) is currently rising to prominence in international discourse concerning science and technology governance. As this emerging concept of RRI begins to be enacted through instruments, approaches, and initiatives, it is valuable to explore what it is coming to mean for and in practice. In this paper we draw attention to a realm that is often backgrounded in the current discussions of RRI but which has a highly significant impact on scientific research, innovation and policy-namely, the interstitial space of international standardization. Drawing on the case of nanoscale sciences and technologies to make our argument, we present examples of how international standards are already entangled in the development of RRI and yet, how the process of international standardization itself largely fails to embody the norms proposed as characterizing RRI. We suggest that although current models for RRI provide a promising attempt to make research and innovation more responsive to societal needs, ethical values and environmental challenges, such approaches will need to encompass and address a greater diversity of innovation system agents and spaces if they are to prove successful in their aims.

Caring for nanotechnology? Being an integrated social scientist

One of the most significant shifts in science policy of the past three decades is a concern with extending scientific practice to include a role for 'society'. Recently, this has led to legislative calls for the integration of the social sciences and humanities in publicly funded research and development initiatives. In nanotechnology--integration's primary field site--this policy has institutionalized the practice of hiring social scientists in technical facilities. Increasingly mainstream, the workings and results of this integration mechanism remain understudied. In this article, I build upon my three-year experience as the in-house social scientist at the Cornell NanoScale Facility and the United States' National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network to engage empirically and conceptually with this mode of governance in nanotechnology. From the vantage point of the integrated social scientist, I argue that in its current enactment, integration emerges as a particular kind of care work, with social scientists being fashioned as the main caretakers. Examining integration as a type of care practice and as a 'matter of care' allows me to highlight the often invisible, existential, epistemic, and affective costs of care as governance. Illuminating a framework where social scientists are called upon to observe but not disturb, to reify boundaries rather than blur them, this article serves as a word of caution against integration as a novel mode of governance that seemingly privileges situatedness, care, and entanglement, moving us toward an analytically skeptical (but not dismissive) perspective on integration.

A matter of accuracy. Nanobiochips in diagnostics and in research: ethical issues as value trade-offs

The paper deals with the introduction of nanotechnology in biochips. Based on interviews and theoretical reflections, it explores blind spots left by technology assessment and ethical investigations. These have focused on possible consequences of increased diffusability of a diagnostic device, neglecting both the context of research as well as increased accuracy, despite it being a more essential feature of nanobiochip projects. Also, rather than one of many parallel aspects (technical, legal and social) in innovation processes, ethics is considered here as a ubiquitous system of choices between sometimes antagonistic values. Thus, the paper investigates what is at stake when accuracy is balanced with other practical values in different contexts. Dramatic nanotechnological increase of accuracy in biochips can raise ethical issues, since it is at odds with other values such as diffusability and reliability. But those issues will not be as revolutionary as is often claimed: neither in diagnostics, because accuracy of measurements is not accuracy of diagnostics; nor in research, because a boost in measurement accuracy is not sufficient to overcome significance-chasing malpractices. The conclusion extends to methodological recommendations.

Framework for the analysis of nanotechnologies' impacts and ethical acceptability: basis of an interdisciplinary approach to assessing novel technologies

The genetically manipulated organism (GMO) crisis demonstrated that technological development based solely on the law of the marketplace and State protection against serious risks to health and safety is no longer a warrant of ethical acceptability. In the first part of our paper, we critique the implicitly individualist social-acceptance model for State regulation of technology and recommend an interdisciplinary approach for comprehensive analysis of the impacts and ethical acceptability of technologies. In the second part, we present a framework for the analysis of impacts and acceptability, devised-with the goal of supporting the development of specific nanotechnological applications-by a team of researchers from various disciplines. At the conceptual level, this analytic framework is intended to make explicit those various operations required in preparing a judgement about the acceptability of technologies that have been implicit in the classical analysis of toxicological risk. On a practical level, we present a reflective tool that makes it possible to take into account all the dimensions involved and understand the reasons invoked in determining impacts, assessing them, and arriving at a judgement about acceptability.

Nanotechnology, neuromodulation & the immune response: discourse, materiality & ethics

Drawing upon the American Pragmatic tradition in philosophy and the more recent work of philosopher Karen Barad, this paper examines how scientific problems are both obscured, and resolved by our use of language describing the natural world. Using the example of the immune response engendered by neural implants inserted in the brain, the author explains how this discourse has been altered by the advent of nanotechnology methods and devices which offer putative remedies that might temper the immune response in the central nervous system. This emergent nanotechnology has altered this problem space and catalyzed one scientific community to acknowledge a material reality that was always present, if not fully acknowledged.

Why should nanoscience students be taught to be ethically competent?

During the education of scientists at the university level the students become more and more specialized. The specialization of the students is a consequence of the scientific research becoming specialized as well. In the interdisciplinary field of nanoscience the importance of specialization is also emphasized throughout the education. Being an interdisciplinary field of study the specialization in this area is not focused on scientific disciplines, but on the different branches of the research. Historically ethics has not been a priority in science education, however, in recent years the importance of such teachings has been highly recognize especially in medicine, biotechnology and engineering. The rapid development, the many new and unknown areas and the highly specialized focus of nanotechnology suggest the importance of having ethically competent researchers. In this article the importance of ethical competence in nanoscience research is argued for by an example of a dilemma that could occur in a research project. The dilemma is analyzed using two different ethical views, generating two different choices for action. It is seen that the dilemma can have more than one solution and that ethical competence can help in justifying the choice of solution in a specific situation. Furthermore it is suggested that a way to reach this competence is through education in ethics incorporated into the nanoscience education curriculum.

The ethical and legal implications of nanotechnologies: a preliminary survey to picture the perceptions of law students and medical students

PURPOSE

The aim of this preliminary survey was to picture the current knowledge and opinions of law students and medical students about nanotechnologies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected in June 2012 by interviews with 60 students of the University of Camerino (Macerata, Italy) defined as "jurist population" and 159 medical students of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (Rome, Italy) defined as "medical population".

RESULTS

The Authors found that both law and medical students have some knowledge on what nanotechnologies are; with regards to the ethical issues and risks perception, both categories indicated that nanotechnologies generate bioethical issues. Nevertheless, a high percentage of respondents believed that neither existing technologies nor nanotechnologies pose risks for human health. Opinions on regulation of nanotechnologies are instead different.

CONCLUSIONS

These preliminary findings underlined the ambiguity surrounding nanotechnologies both concerning the bioethical dimension and risks perception and their regulation. These early data therefore showed a need of additional reflection on these technologies that should be investigated more in detail; moving from students, future scientists and regulators, these data could contribute to clarify the debate on them.

Mega-sized concerns from the nano-sized world: the intersection of nano- and environmental ethics

As rapid advances in nanotechnology are made, we must set guidelines to balance the interests of both human beneficiaries and the environment by combining nanoethics and environmental ethics. In this paper, I reject Leopoldian holism as a practical environmental ethic with which to gauge nanotechnologies because, as a nonanthropocentric ethic, it does not value the humans who will actually use the ethic. Weak anthropocentrism is suggested as a reasonable alternative to ethics without a substantial human interest, as it treats nonhuman interests as human interests. I also establish the precautionary principle as a useful situational guideline for decision makers. Finally, I examine existing and potential applications of nanotechnology, including water purification, agriculture, mining, energy, and pollutant removal, from the perspective of weak anthropocentrism using the precautionary principle.

Nanoethics in a nanolab: ethics via participation

A participant-observer who is both informed and interested in ethical issues, and is embedded within a nanotechnology research and development facility may be able to influence the ethical awareness of researchers in nanotechnology, and tease out the societal implications of the work being conducted. Two inter-disciplinary methods were employed: (1) regular involvement in the technical and scientific research at the facility by the participant-observer, and (2) repeated interactions and discussions between the participant-observer and the scientists. As a result of this qualitative approach, an ethics questionnaire was developed and tested. This questionnaire has been incorporated into the admissions procedures for researchers as they commence use of the nanotech facility. The questionnaire highlights the importance of ethical issues in nanotechnology research and draws researchers into an engagement with possible ethical consequences and with future societal implications of their work.

Socio-ethical education in nanotechnology engineering programmes: a case study in Malaysia

The unique properties of nanotechnology have made nanotechnology education and its related subjects increasingly important not only for students but for mankind at large. This particular technology brings educators to work together to prepare and produce competent engineers and scientists for this field. One of the key challenges in nanotechnology engineering is to produce graduate students who are not only competent in technical knowledge but possess the necessary attitude and awareness toward the social and ethical issues related to nanotechnology. In this paper, a research model has been developed to assess Malaysian nanotechnology engineering students' attitudes and whether their perspectives have attained the necessary objectives of ethical education throughout their programme of study. The findings from this investigation show that socio ethical education has a strong influence on the students' knowledge, skills and attitudes pertaining to socio ethical issues related to nanotechnology.

Researcher views about funding sources and conflicts of interest in nanotechnology

Dependence in nanotechnology on external funding and academic-industry relationships has led to questions concerning its influence on research directions, as well as the potential for conflicts of interest to arise and impact scientific integrity and public trust. This study uses a survey of 193 nanotechnology industry and academic researchers to explore whether they share similar concerns. Although these concerns are not unique to nanotechnology, its emerging nature and the prominence of industry funding lend credence to understanding its researchers' views, as these researchers are shaping the norms and direction of the field. The results of the survey show general agreement that funding sources are influencing research directions in nanotechnology; many respondents saw this influence in their own work as well as other researchers' work. Respondents also agreed that funding considerations were likely to influence whether researchers shared their results. Irrespective of their institutional affiliation or funding status, twice as many researchers as not considered financial conflicts of interest a cause for concern, and three times as many respondents as not disagreed financial conflicts of interest in nanotechnology were uncommon. Only a third was satisfied with the way that conflicts of interest are currently managed and believed current procedures would protect the integrity of nanotechnology research. The results also found differences in views depending on researchers' institutional affiliation and funding status.

Does nanotech have a gender?

Gender is less of an issue in nanotechnology than in other areas of science and technology but, as Chris Toumey explains, public attitudes to nanotech do depend on gender.

An empirical examination of the current state of publically available nanotechnology guidance materials

As part of "Nanodiagnostics and Nanotherapeutics: Building Research Ethics and Oversight," an empirical search was conducted to identify publicly available resources that guided understanding about human subjects issues in nanomedicine or nanotechnology including policy statements, guidance documents, or consent forms. The authors conducted 5,083 internet searches and analyzed 175 documents. Results show that very little guidance is publicly available and most documents focused on occupational and environmental concerns.

Adding to the mix: integrating ELSI into a National Nanoscale Science and Technology Center

This paper describes issues associated with integrating the study of Ethical, Legal and Social Issues (ELSI) into ongoing scientific and technical research and describes an approach adopted by the authors for their own work with the center for nanophase materials sciences (CNMS) at the Oak Ridge national laboratory (ORNL). Four key questions are considered: (a) What is ELSI and how should it identify and address topics of interest for the CNMS? (b) What advantages accrue to incorporating ELSI into the CNMS? (c) How should the integration of ELSI into the CNMS take place? (d) How should one judge the effectiveness of the activity? We conclude that ELSI research is not a monolithic body of knowledge, but should be adapted to the question at hand. Our approach focuses on junctures in the R&D continuum at which key decisions occur, avoids topics of a purely ethical nature or advocacy, and seeks to gather data in ways that permit testing the validity of generalization. Integrating ELSI into the CNMS allows dealing with topics firmly grounded in science, offers concrete examples of potential downstream applications and provides access to the scientists using the CNMS and their insights and observations. As well, integration provides the opportunity for R&D managers to benefit from ELSI insights and the potential to modify R&D agendas. Successful integration is dependent on the particular ELSI question set that drives the project. In this case questions sought to identify key choices, information of value to scientists, institutional attributes, key attributes of the CNMS culture, and alternatives for communicating results. The opportunity to consult with scientists on ELSI implications is offered, but not promoted. Finally, ELSI effectiveness is judged by observing the use to which research products are put within the CNMS, ORNL, and the community of external scholars.

Nanoethics and the breaching of boundaries: a heuristic for going from encouragement to a fuller integration of ethical, legal and social issues and science : commentary on: "Adding to the mix: integrating ELSI into a National Nanoscale Science and Technology Center"

The intersection of ELSI and science forms a complicated nexus yet their integration is an important goal both for society and for the successful advancement of science. In what follows, I present a heuristic that makes boundary identification and crossing an important tool in the discovery of potential areas of ethical, legal, and social concern in science. A dynamic and iterative application of the heuristic can lead towards a fuller integration and appreciation of the concerns of ELSI and of science from both sides of the divide.

Envisioning emerging nanotechnologies: a three-year panel study of South Carolina citizens

This article reports results from a three-year panel study of a nonrandom sample of 76 South Carolina citizens, recruited from a variety of walks of life, and their impressions of emerging nanotechnology. This discussion focuses on material from depth interviews conducted alongside a baseline opinion and awareness inventory at the beginning of the study, the most intensive data-gathering phase. These results are placed in the context of data from three additional surveys conducted at about equal intervals over the three years, plus exit interviews from 21 of the 34 individuals who completed the entire study. The results give insight into popular thinking about technology but little indication of strong emerging concerns, a trajectory of amplification of those concerns, or opinion polarization over time, despite some awareness of risks and potential ethical dimensions. Nanotechnology may stand out more as an example of risk attenuation than of risk amplification, consistent with most results from national surveys.

Corporate social responsibility for nanotechnology oversight

Growing public concern and uncertainties surrounding emerging technologies suggest the need for socially-responsible behavior of companies in the development and implementation of oversight systems for them. In this paper, we argue that corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an important aspect of nanotechnology oversight given the role of trust in shaping public attitudes about nanotechnology and the lack of data about the health and environmental risks of nanoproducts. We argue that CSR is strengthened by the adoption of stakeholder-driven models and attention to moral principles in policies and programs. In this context, we examine drivers of CSR, contextual and leadership factors that influence CSR, and strategies for CSR. To illustrate these concepts, we discuss existing cases of CSR-like behavior in nanotechnology companies, and then provide examples of how companies producing nanomedicines can exhibit morally-driven CSR behavior.

The social, moral & ethical issues raised by nanotechnology in the field of medicine

The areas in medicine that are and will be influenced by nanoscale science and technology are stem cell research, genetic modification of human beings and the construction of artificial organisms. A non-negotiable moral imperative is the fact that the law is under an obligation to uphold the sanctity and integrity of the human genome which encapsulates humankind's basic genetic inheritance and thereby the human heritage of our species. The research possibilities opened up by nanoscience will push the current boundaries of life forms, because they alter life forms at their most basic (viz genetic) level. They empower scientists to create novel life forms that would not otherwise exist and they combine aspects of different life forms that would not otherwise be integrated. These groundbreaking areas of research place the scientists and their work in an area of moral quicksands. Research involving human design and modification places those scientists in a domain where current morality indicates they do not belong. They are literally 'playing God'.

Nanotechnologies, bioethics and human dignity

Nanoscale science, research, and technology present a complex set of circumstances. First of all, this field involves many different subjects, including biology, chemistry, physics, and environment sciences. Secondly, although scientists are working increasingly at a molecular level, nanotechnology is about much more than a reduction of scale. Indeed, nanoscience and Nanotechnologies offer an unprecedented ability to control and manipulate nature, offering hope for progress. Ethical perspectives vary considerably in this field, but commentators and researchers share a concern about a specific worrisome issue: the lack of appropriate ethical and legal principles and processes (associated with issues including health risks, human body manipulation, and private life violation), to guide nanotechnological R&D, commercialization, and final use. Some authors partially reject this concern by suggesting that Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies do not constitute an autonomous category, and that they are instead just the operative result of combining other traditional areas of study. However the nanotechnological debate brings up the semantic and content issues of bioethics and foments a contentious discussion emphasizing human dignity. Issues include enhancement versus therapeutic intervention, traceability versus privacy, and societal benefits versus risks. From these preliminary considerations, we will move on to discuss (I) the traditional, although still controversial, relationship between bioethics and human dignity, and (II) return to the subject of nanotechnology. We will discuss how today in Europe, although still indefinite, the principle of respect for human dignity is a welcomed contributor to "ethical vigilance" about the uncertain development of new nano-scale technologies. We will also note how U.S. strategy in this regard is simply lacking and appears only as a purely discursive "key issue in long term ".

Nanomaterials and the environmental risk: is there some room left for ethics and law?

How legitimate may be the concern posed by the nanotechnologies for health and environment,this effort for reaching a better knowledge of the biotoxicity of nanomaterials is not enough. As Pr Didier Sicard noted, we believe that the ethical reflection should not be the good conscience that may help science in getting rid of social fears. But the ethical reflection is there also to discuss taboo issues in the perspective of a better societal understanding.

Nanotechnology and environmental ethics

It seems that the relation between human and nature is not direct, but mediated by the technology. Therefore, it seems that characteristics of the technology defines the relation. If this is true, the problem is whether new technology always makes new relation or not. In this paper I take a brief look at the relation between technology in general and the environmental crisis from the ethical perspective. And then, I investigate the concept of responsible development and the principle of stewardship that is adopted in two reports concerning nanotechnologies. Through these explorations, an ethical stance on the application of nanotechnology is proposed.

The nanotech R&D situation in Japan and ethics of nanotechnology

The aim of this paper is to introduce some characteristics of the historical as well as current situation of nanotech research and development in Japan in particular including regulations, and to discuss how ethical issues of nanotechnology should be addressed or how the ethics of nanotechnology should be constructed to fit the situation. The first part will center around the strength and weakness of Japan's nanotech R&D (research and development) and new circumstances which nanotechnology has prompted in Japan and alongside which nanotechnology has arrived (especially interdisciplinarity). The following prescriptive argument will, based on the descriptive account, question how to address ethical issues of nanotechnology, taking into consideration the nature of nanotech R&D, namely continuity, uniqueness, international dimension and political intervention, citing the example of the pharmaceutical industry. I will argue that international cooperation in the form of mutual reference to, replication of and the integration of guidelines and regulations, can enhance cost-effectiveness to ensure the comprehensiveness of regulatory measures.

Navigating the patent landscapes for nanotechnology: English gardens or tangled grounds?

The patent landscape, like a garden, can tell you much about its designers and users: their motivations, biases, and general interests. While both patent landscapes and gardens may appear to the casual observer as refined and ordered, an in-depth exploration of the terrain is likely to reveal unforeseen challenges including, for example, alien species, thickets, and trolls. As this chapter illustrates, patent landscapes are dynamic and have been forced to continually evolve in response to technological innovation. While emerging technologies such as biotechnology and information communication technology have challenged the traditional patent landscape, the overarching framework and design have largely remained intact. But will this always be the case? The aim of this chapter is to highlight how nanotechnology is challenging the existing structures and underlying foundation of the patent landscape and the implications thereof for the technology, industry, and public more generally. The chapter concludes by asking the question whether the current patent landscape will be able to withstand the ubiquitous nature of the technology, or whether nanotechnology will be a catalyst for governments and policy makers for overhauling the current landscape design.

The coming era of nanomedicine

This essay presents some general background on nanomedicine, particularly focusing on some of the investment that is being made in this emerging field. The bulk of the essay, however, consists of explorations of two areas in which the impacts of nanomedicine are likely to be most significant: diagnostics and medical records and treatment, including surgery and drug delivery. Each discussion includes a survey some of the ethical and social issues that are likely to arise in these applications.

Outlining ethical issues in nanotechnologies

Nanotechnologies are an expression of the human ability to control and manipulate matter on a very small scale. Their use will enable an even and constant monitoring of human organisms, in a new and perhaps less invasive way. Debates at all levels--national, European and international--have pointed out the common difficulty of giving a complete, clear definition of nanotechnologies. This is primarily due to the variety of their components, to the fact that there is not just one technology but several. The most significant medical applications of nanotechnologies are in the diagnostic and the therapeutic fields, eg biosensors and molecular imaging, providing diagnosis and drug delivery with no invasive methods involved. Like any other emerging field, such technologies imply new possibilities for improving health but, on the other hand, they are still at an experimental stage and therefore should be implemented under rigorous safety testing before going on general release. For this purpose, the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) of nanotechnologies have been elaborated by study groups, in order to develop solutions before the results of the tests are diffused into medical practice. The aim of this paper is to define some of the ethical issues concerning biomedical applications and to evaluate whether there is a need for new or additional guidelines and regulations.

Avoiding empty rhetoric: engaging publics in debates about nanotechnologies

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.