Abstract

Significant efforts have been made to define ethical responsibilities for professionals engaged in nanotechnology innovation. Rosalyn Berne delineated three ethical dimensions of nanotechnological innovation: non-negotiable concerns, negotiable socio-cultural claims, and tacitly ingrained norms. Braden Allenby demarcated three levels of responsibility: the individual, professional societies (e. g. engineering codes), and the macro-ethical. This article will explore how these definitions of responsibility map onto practitioners' understanding of their responsibilities and the responsibilities of others using the nanotechnology innovation community of the greater Phoenix area, which includes academic researchers, investors, entrepreneurs, manufacturers, insurers, attorneys, buyers, and media. To do this we develop a three-by-three matrix that combines Berne's three dimensions and Allenby's three levels. We then categorize the ethical responsibilities expressed by forty-five practitioners in semi-structured interviews using these published dimensions and levels. Two questions guide the research: (i) what responsibilities do actors express as theirs and/or assign to other actors and; (ii) can those responsibilities be mapped to the presented ethical frameworks? We found that most of the responsibilities outlined by our respondents concentrate at the professional society + non-negotiable and professional + negotiable intersections. The study moves from a philosophical exploration of ethics to an empirical analysis, exploring strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the existing nanotechnology innovation network. This opens the door for new practitioners to be introduced in an effort to address responsibilities that are not currently recognized.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)231-241
Number of pages11
JournalNanoEthics
Volume6
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2012

Fingerprint

Innovation
Nanotechnology
responsibility
nanotechnology
innovation
Macros
Responsibility
Nanoethics
entrepreneur
investor
moral philosophy
engineering
interview
society
community

Keywords

  • Applied ethics
  • Nanotechnology
  • Practitioner
  • Responsibility

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Philosophy
  • History and Philosophy of Science
  • Management of Technology and Innovation

Cite this

Practitioners' Views on Responsibility : Applying Nanoethics. / Foley, Rider W.; Bennett, Ira; Wetmore, Jameson.

In: NanoEthics, Vol. 6, No. 3, 12.2012, p. 231-241.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{56a17e2e245c400987c3fa81cad0a1c8,
title = "Practitioners' Views on Responsibility: Applying Nanoethics",
abstract = "Significant efforts have been made to define ethical responsibilities for professionals engaged in nanotechnology innovation. Rosalyn Berne delineated three ethical dimensions of nanotechnological innovation: non-negotiable concerns, negotiable socio-cultural claims, and tacitly ingrained norms. Braden Allenby demarcated three levels of responsibility: the individual, professional societies (e. g. engineering codes), and the macro-ethical. This article will explore how these definitions of responsibility map onto practitioners' understanding of their responsibilities and the responsibilities of others using the nanotechnology innovation community of the greater Phoenix area, which includes academic researchers, investors, entrepreneurs, manufacturers, insurers, attorneys, buyers, and media. To do this we develop a three-by-three matrix that combines Berne's three dimensions and Allenby's three levels. We then categorize the ethical responsibilities expressed by forty-five practitioners in semi-structured interviews using these published dimensions and levels. Two questions guide the research: (i) what responsibilities do actors express as theirs and/or assign to other actors and; (ii) can those responsibilities be mapped to the presented ethical frameworks? We found that most of the responsibilities outlined by our respondents concentrate at the professional society + non-negotiable and professional + negotiable intersections. The study moves from a philosophical exploration of ethics to an empirical analysis, exploring strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the existing nanotechnology innovation network. This opens the door for new practitioners to be introduced in an effort to address responsibilities that are not currently recognized.",
keywords = "Applied ethics, Nanotechnology, Practitioner, Responsibility",
author = "Foley, {Rider W.} and Ira Bennett and Jameson Wetmore",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1007/s11569-012-0154-2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "231--241",
journal = "NanoEthics",
issn = "1871-4757",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Practitioners' Views on Responsibility

T2 - Applying Nanoethics

AU - Foley, Rider W.

AU - Bennett, Ira

AU - Wetmore, Jameson

PY - 2012/12

Y1 - 2012/12

N2 - Significant efforts have been made to define ethical responsibilities for professionals engaged in nanotechnology innovation. Rosalyn Berne delineated three ethical dimensions of nanotechnological innovation: non-negotiable concerns, negotiable socio-cultural claims, and tacitly ingrained norms. Braden Allenby demarcated three levels of responsibility: the individual, professional societies (e. g. engineering codes), and the macro-ethical. This article will explore how these definitions of responsibility map onto practitioners' understanding of their responsibilities and the responsibilities of others using the nanotechnology innovation community of the greater Phoenix area, which includes academic researchers, investors, entrepreneurs, manufacturers, insurers, attorneys, buyers, and media. To do this we develop a three-by-three matrix that combines Berne's three dimensions and Allenby's three levels. We then categorize the ethical responsibilities expressed by forty-five practitioners in semi-structured interviews using these published dimensions and levels. Two questions guide the research: (i) what responsibilities do actors express as theirs and/or assign to other actors and; (ii) can those responsibilities be mapped to the presented ethical frameworks? We found that most of the responsibilities outlined by our respondents concentrate at the professional society + non-negotiable and professional + negotiable intersections. The study moves from a philosophical exploration of ethics to an empirical analysis, exploring strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the existing nanotechnology innovation network. This opens the door for new practitioners to be introduced in an effort to address responsibilities that are not currently recognized.

AB - Significant efforts have been made to define ethical responsibilities for professionals engaged in nanotechnology innovation. Rosalyn Berne delineated three ethical dimensions of nanotechnological innovation: non-negotiable concerns, negotiable socio-cultural claims, and tacitly ingrained norms. Braden Allenby demarcated three levels of responsibility: the individual, professional societies (e. g. engineering codes), and the macro-ethical. This article will explore how these definitions of responsibility map onto practitioners' understanding of their responsibilities and the responsibilities of others using the nanotechnology innovation community of the greater Phoenix area, which includes academic researchers, investors, entrepreneurs, manufacturers, insurers, attorneys, buyers, and media. To do this we develop a three-by-three matrix that combines Berne's three dimensions and Allenby's three levels. We then categorize the ethical responsibilities expressed by forty-five practitioners in semi-structured interviews using these published dimensions and levels. Two questions guide the research: (i) what responsibilities do actors express as theirs and/or assign to other actors and; (ii) can those responsibilities be mapped to the presented ethical frameworks? We found that most of the responsibilities outlined by our respondents concentrate at the professional society + non-negotiable and professional + negotiable intersections. The study moves from a philosophical exploration of ethics to an empirical analysis, exploring strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the existing nanotechnology innovation network. This opens the door for new practitioners to be introduced in an effort to address responsibilities that are not currently recognized.

KW - Applied ethics

KW - Nanotechnology

KW - Practitioner

KW - Responsibility

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870456097&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84870456097&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11569-012-0154-2

DO - 10.1007/s11569-012-0154-2

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 231

EP - 241

JO - NanoEthics

JF - NanoEthics

SN - 1871-4757

IS - 3

ER -