ORIGINAL PAPER

Beyond Conversation: Some Lessons for Nanoethics

Arianna Ferrari & Alfred Nordmann

Received: 26 July 2010 /Accepted: 26 July 2010 /Published online: 17 August 2010# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract One of the aims of the DEEPEN projectwas to deepen ethical understanding of issues relatedto emerging nanotechnologies through an interdisci-plinary approach utilizing insights from philosophy,ethics, and the social sciences. Accordingly, part of itsfinal report was dedicated to the question of what wasaccomplished with regards to this aim and whatfurther research is required. It relates two insights:Nanotechnologies intensify the ambivalence of ongo-ing, long-term developments; and yet, our intuitionsand received story-lines fail us as a guide to ethicaland political matters concerning nanotechnologies.

Keywords Limits of knowledge and control .

Designing human and material nature .

Co-production of responsibility . Risk/hope analysis .

Power of technoscience

It is unusual as well as risky to formulate lessons fornanoethics in an academic setting. They smack ofarrogance and provoke a more or less defiant criticalresponse. And indeed, the following pages offerlessons only in the sense of policy recommendationsfor funding of research on hitherto under-exploredethical dimensions of nanotechnology. Like all policy

recommendations, these are constrained by precon-ceived notions of what policy makers are likely tounderstand and support. But there is also a moreinteresting and more concrete meaning in whichlessons are to be drawn here. In light of Jean-PierreDupuy’s analysis, the five lay narratives that wereidentified by the DEEPEN-project are not adequate toserve as a heuristic for ethical inquiry [7, 8]. But evenif none of the narratives can do this, Dupuy’s critiqueof the five opens up a space for critical reflection thatindicates directions for future research. Befitting thefinal report of a three-year research project, the“lessons for nanoethics” thus explore the heuristicpotential of Dupuy’s critique. The following pagesreproduce the report rather faithfully. It documents thefinal stage, for now, in a process of mutual learning.For the present context, it has been slightly shortenedand amended here and there.1

A Point of Departure

Ethics is part of the nanotechnology phenomenon.Even as disagreements persist regarding the precisescope and definition of ‘nanotechnology,’ this much is

Nanoethics (2010) 4:171–181DOI 10.1007/s11569-010-0098-3

1 The final report of the DEEPEN project was considerablymore substantial than what follows in these pages. Aside fromthe “Lessons for Nanoethics” (first published as [12]) it offered“Lessons for Public Policy” [6]. We would like to thank allDEEPEN project-partners and Sarah Davies, in particular, fortheir contributions to the drafting and editing process.

A. Ferrari (*) :A. NordmannInstitute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis(ITAS), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT),Karlsruhe, Germanye-mail: ariannaml.ferrari@googlemail.com

for sure: Ethics has become a kind of lingua francafor everyone who engages with nanotechnologies.When many different stakeholders come together totalk about promises and expectations, policy andfunding priorities, opportunities and risks, regulationand voluntary codes, hopes and fears, foresightand governance of nanotechnologies, their sharedlanguage revolves around public concerns, ethicalissues, and common values like safety, well-being,transparency, accountability, and trust. Here, ‘ethical’is just another word for what is valued or found good,and one might say that ethics provides the platform orstage on which policy makers, consumer advocates,scientists, industry representatives, environmentalistscome together.

What is happening on that stage? It is here that theDEEPEN project offers two complementary perspec-tives: On the one hand, we see the re-enactment of aclassic morality play where deeply entrenched experi-ences and concerns come to the fore as nanotechnologyintensifies our ambivalence about technological prog-ress in general. These powerful concerns along withthe five ancient and modern narratives tend to beoverlooked by those who focus on the novelty andspecificity of ‘nanoethics.’ They have been brought tolight by the DEEPEN partners who engaged inempirical work and elicited concerns from lay publics,from scientists and industry representatives [7]. Onthe other hand, we see a contemporary problem-playfull of uncertainty and indecision. Those who are re-enacting a classic morality play have to wonderwhether it stills speaks to the world we live in today.Where one does not even know for sure whether oldassumptions can be carried forward to confront thechallenges of nanotechnology, research is neededto elucidate our current technological condition. Thefollowing pages suggest some avenues for doing so.

Nanoethics in the Real World

The Woodrow Wilson Center recently issued a state-ment onNanotechnology Oversight which sets the goalfor responsible development of nanotechnology in afairy-tale universe:

Scientists have given and will continue to giveus vast marvels, capable of producing technol-ogies of great power. Each of these marvels,

including nanotechnology, comes in a treasurechest of riches and a Pandora’s box of evils.The challenge of the new century […] is to usethe treasure while keeping shut the lid on thePandora’s box. It is a daunting challenge, butone that can be met. ([5], 24)

This is a fair description of what stakeholders aspireto on that shared platform of ethics: Responsibledevelopment of nanotechnology consists in the effortto separate good from evil, riches from curses. Andamong those who are asked to engage with nano-technologies, including European publics, some aremore confident than others that this mythical,heroic,somewhat simple-minded feat can be accomplished.Promoters and enactors of nanotechnology join togetherwith the expectation that ‘this time we can get it right’,that nanotechnology can be ‘safe by design’ and maythus prove to be the safest technology yet, that thebenefits of nanotechnology are many and its risksmanageable [18]. Where DEEPEN has engaged laypublics in Portugal and the UK, it encountered morecautious attitudes that are informed by historicalexperience with technical and social change, withpromises of liberation that created new dependencies,with technological benefits and risks that never seemto be quite evenly distributed. The analysis of theseattitudes by Sarah Davies and Phil Macnaghten showsthat the promises associated with nanotechnologiesintensify ambivalence about technological change: fiveclassical themes reappear in nanotechnological guise.

1. The ancient ambivalence of desire is expressed bythe theme ‘be careful what you wish for.’ In faceof the seductive promise of nanotechnologies, itexpresses the moral concern that getting exactlywhat we want may not be good for us in the end.For example, if we were to find a nanotechno-logical fix for the problem of global warming,might this not heighten our dependency ontechnology and patterns of consumption thatmaintain us on a course that remains unsustain-able in the long run?

2. The fear of evil is conjured by the theme‘Pandora’s Box.’ In face of the temptation toimagine perfect technical control of moleculesand societal problems alike, people warn ofunsettling uncertainties, dangers, and even catas-trophe. For example, the uncertainties regardingtoxicological properties may lead to another

172 Nanoethics (2010) 4:171–181

asbestos-story or, worse yet, to catastrophicallycascading environmental effects.

3. The notion of the sacred is invoked by the theme‘messing with nature.’ In face of the possibility ofre-designing nature according to our needs, itexpresses the moral concern that one should notwithout due consideration disrupt an establishedorder of the world with its sacred divisions, forexample, of the living and the non-living, oforganism and artefact.

4. The modern condition of alienation is given voicein the theme ‘kept in the dark.’ Even in face ofmeasures to assure inclusiveness and transparency,people still feel powerless, unaware of decision-making and the drivers of nanotechnologicaldevelopment. In particular, the very fact that it isdifficult to see a dark side of nanotechnologysuggests that there is a story that is not being told.

5. The critique of exploitation reappears in the theme‘the rich get richer.’ In face of the pervasive notionthat nanotechnology will open new worlds ofconsumption and even an age of global abundance,people are concerned about the realities of injusticeand inequality that characterize our culture ofcommerce and consumption, globally and locally.

Close engagement by Clare Shelley-Egan and ArieRip with industry and scientific stakeholders bringsfurther themes to light.2 In particular, the followingtheme stands out:

6. The uncertainties of agency and accountabilityemerge in the process of ‘responsible development.’In face of an open invitation to all societal actorsthat they can share in the responsibility for thedevelopment of nanotechnology, these actors beginto wonder what their scope of influence and agencyreally is: What does it mean to take responsibilitywhen there are no clear assignments of account-ability, when there is no clarity in decision-makingprocesses, and a silent perpetuation of a division ofmoral labour between enactors of nanotechnologyand those who provide ethical reflection?

Especially the first three, but perhaps all six themessuggest that engagement with ethical dimensions ofnanotechnology resembles a classic morality play.

Accordingly, nanoethics is not at the present timeanother version of applied ethics along the lines ofmedical ethics, environmental ethics, neuroethics, orbioethics. As opposed to nanoethics, these establishedfields of applied ethics encounter value conflictsand bring ethical principles to bear on them in orderto determine a reasonable course of action. Mostattempts to model nanoethics after these fields ofapplied ethics take a speculative route or run upagainst the paucity of problems posed by nanotech-nology at its current stage of development. In contrastand as in a morality play, we propose to conceivenanoethics as a way of casting our hopes andaspirations within the storyline of an accomplishedlife and a flourishing commonwealth. This wouldinclude close attention to the ways in which westruggle to come to terms with the current regimeof technoscientific promising [10]. This struggleinvolves a wealth of cultural resources and historicalexperiences that we are bringing to the table, but itmay also involve the discovery that these resourcesare inadequate to the task at hand.3 And as in amorality play, the moral point of view is rehearsed,reiterated, and reaffirmed in a somewhat ritualisticfashion by variation and repetition. By performingthis play again and again, one becomes habituated toa certain way of appreciating and evaluating theambivalence towards nanotechnology and its promiseof intensifying the role of technology in our dailylives and social world.

With these six storylines a narrative repertoirebecomes visible which links current experience andclassical themes. This finding resonates with TsjallingSwierstra and Arie Rip’s notion of NEST-ethics [22]and with a criticism of extant nanoethics thatmotivated the DEEPEN project in the first place[15]. Swierstra and Rip identify certain patterns thatreappear in the discussions of ‘new and emergingscience and technology (NEST)’, for example thepattern of claiming radical novelty and insisting at thesame time that the novel technologies are only moreof the same. In their account of nanoethics, oneshouldn’t really expect anything but the reappearanceof such familiar rituals—they allow publics to cometo terms with emerging technologies, and when theserituals are performed well this facilitates the soundintegration of nanotechnologies in society.2 These further themes are not considered in [8] which takes as

its point of departure the question of narratology and the ethicalsignificance of the accounts that are provided by lay publics. 3 For a review of different approaches to nanoethics see [11].

Nanoethics (2010) 4:171–181 173

The claim that nanoethical discourse is patternedlike a kind of ritual and not unlike the morality playdescribed above is confirmed by the fact that nano-ethical considerations appear to revolve around arather small set of standard questions. These concerninvasion and protection or privacy, safety fromphysical harm, the sacredness of ‘life’ and ‘humannature,’ the threshold between maintaining andaltering nature. The DEEPEN project began by askingwhether this set of questions could possibly beadequate to nanotechnologies—and it is evident fromthe identification of the six themes that it circum-scribes nanoethics far too narrowly.

Therefore, from the fact of the re-appearance offamiliar themes that are not at all specific to nano-technologies one should not infer that these are trivialor irrelevant. First, public concerns deserve to betaken seriously even where they do not follow thelead of a science-based, ‘rational’ identification ofrisk. They are not at all naïve but informed byhistorical experience with technological, economic,and social developments. They regard a changingworld through the lens of deeply ingrained values thathave withstood so far the test of time. Second, ithighlights that nanoethics is more than what iscaptured by checklists of rote concerns and that oneneed not exclusively hunt for novel and specificethical issues. The promises of nanotechnologyresonate with pervasive ethical and social sensibili-ties. Third, nanotechnologies do not necessarilyintroduce radically discontinuous challenges butintensify ongoing trends.4 They do so, for example,by insinuating themselves ever more subtly andimperceptibly into our daily lives, by describing moreand more social and biological processes in mecha-nistic and technological ways, by pushing ever furtherthe boundless promise that to every problem there is atechnological solution, or by fostering ever morepowerfully the hope that if only we manage to survivelong enough on this planet we might just be able tosustain a nano-enabled life-style of consumption andwaste forever. Fourth, the analysis confirms whatmany believe, namely that underneath all the hype,nanotechnology is business as usual. Accordingly, thelingua franca of ethics serves the purpose mainly of

bringing stakeholders together rather than that ofdiscovering grave ethical concerns that might stand inthe way of the further development of nanotechnol-ogies. As such, the DEEPEN findings so far might bevery useful for purposes of communicating nano-technologies and of addressing citizens’ concernsthrough thoughtful and transparent governance. Fifth,the analysis suggests that nanoethics does not concernthe identification, evaluation, and adjudication ofconflicts of value. Indeed, as a lingua franca thatattunes stakeholders to one another, ‘ethics’ onlyappears to assume a central position but is actuallyrelegated to the background: It is part of theenvironment in which nanotechnology might flourish,it accompanies scientific and technological develop-ments, and takes place entirely in a conversationalmode as concerns are expressed in open-ended waysbut no decisions need to be taken, no judgementsneed to be made, no conclusions need to be reached.5

Raising the Stakes

So far, the DEEPEN analysis has told only part ofthe story about nanoethics, though an importantpart it is. However, if nanotechnologies intensifyongoing trends and thereby heighten ambivalenceabout technical and social developments, thereought to be a way to go beyond the identificationand analysis of the six storylines or themes. It isquite possible, after all, that these trends havecreated the problems of global warming, resourcedepletion, environmental degradation, global inequity,industrial competitiveness—the problems, in otherwords, to which the next, nanotechnological stage ofresearch and development is supposed to provide thesolution. Paradoxically, perhaps, nanotechnologies con-tinue ongoing trends in order to clean up the mess thatwas created by them in the first place.

If this is so, how does one go beyond theidentification of storylines and beyond a merelyconversational mode of open-ended sharing of ethicalconcerns? And in particular, what role does philo-sophical reflection and critique have to play in this,what role social and political theory, what role the

4 See [14] for a report of expert discussions that focused on theintensification through nanomedicine of ongoing trends inbiomedical research and commercial development.

5 For a somewhat more extended critique of the “languagegame of responsible development” with its conversationalmode and language of concern, see [15].

174 Nanoethics (2010) 4:171–181

objectivity and normativity of ethical inquiry? Anexample may serve to illustrate how the nanotechno-logical intensification of existing trends presents agenuine, even novel challenge. For several decades,there have been many voices critical of the so-called‘medicalization’ of society (e.g. [4]). These address ageneral tendency to treat problems as if they were adisease or an affliction that has to be remedied.Behavioural differences, ageing processes, social andcultural phenomena are considered medical problemsthat require scientific and technological remediation.This is most notable in respect to newly defined con-ditions like attention deficit disorder, post-traumaticstress syndrome, or obesity. As in the therapeuticpractice of modern medicine, social and psychologi-cal health and disease are viewed technologically interms of perfect or defective functioning. Also, anincreasingly consumerist orientation in health carecontributes to an expansion of diagnostic categories.It is easy to see that medical nanotechnology willcontinue these trends as it allows for improvedmonitoring and measuring and as it thus providesmore indicators of departure from perfect functioning.The medicalization of society may well move into thehands of countless individual patients who nervouslymonitor and treat themselves for deviations fromnormalcy or optimality. What follows from thisobservation? If nanotechnologies continue ongoingtrends that have been observed for a long time, thechallenge would be to look for the motives and ideasthat support these trends, and so to ask what happensif nanotechnologies push them even further andperhaps to their limit (compare [14]).

Along similar lines, one can identify a trendtowards ‘ethicalization’ of technology and society[10, 13]. When issues of technological developmentare translated into questions of ethics, they appear toopen up to a broad audience, allowing a multitude ofconsiderations to be brought in. At the same time,however, they tend to lose their political character.Instead of provoking explicit negotiations amongelected representatives, they move into ill-definedfora such as ethics committees, expert commissions,citizen panels. The findings of these bodies are opento interpretation. It remains unclear whether and howthey are taken up by decision-makers especially whenthese have pre-conceived notions of what is a relevantethical issue in the first place. Rather than simply playinto and continue this trend, nanoethics needs to

delineate and sharpen issues in such a way that theycan return to the political arena.6 Accordingly, what isrequired is a conception of nanoethics that does notoperate in the service of ethicalization and that is notoriented in a speculative fashion towards an indefinitefuture in which imagined technical applications mightsee the light of day. Instead of gazing only at whatmight come out of nanotechnological research, nano-ethics needs to consider and evaluate what, concretely,goes into nanotechnological development. That is, itneeds to look at funding priorities, research programs,technological visions, long-term trends like medical-ization or ethicalization, old and new hopes, abstractand concrete fears (compare [16]).

However, to look at the assumptions that informthe development of nanotechnologies is not an easytask and requires that we go well beyond the themesthat were identified so far. The various stories aboutdesire, evil, and the sacred, the stories of alienation,exploitation, agency and responsibility are today’sstories primarily in the sense that they are part of therepertoire of stories and themes that we are used todraw upon. It appears, however, we draw on thisrepertoire also when we confront ideas and technicalprocesses that we do not comprehend as of yet, letalone genuinely understand. Ethical inquiry takes usto the point where the standard repertoire begins tofail us and where new questions need to be asked.

Jean-Pierre Dupuy shows, for example, that con-cerns about ‘messing with nature’ and the transgres-sion of sacred boundaries between the living and thenon-living fail to come to terms with nanotechnolog-ical ambitions. These ambitions consist primarily in adifferent way of thinking about technology: So far,engineering has always been based on the technician’sability to control nature, but now bottom-up engineeringseeks to harness processes of self-organization thatappear to be spontaneous and out of the immediatecontrol of the engineer. The envisioned nanotechnolog-ical engineer thus seeks to advance design goals bycontrolling the out-of-control. This entirely unfamiliarconception of engineering is reflected neither in roteconcerns about privacy and avoidance of harm, nor inthe repertoire of stories that are mobilized in discussions

6 This is not to say, of course, that genuine ethical issues aresubject to majority rule. It is only political issues that aresomehow relegated to a vaguely conceived sphere of ethicalconcern that need to be returned to the arena of politics bypreparing them for public contestation.

Nanoethics (2010) 4:171–181 175

of nanotechnology. But it is this conception of engi-neering, for example, that requires close scrutiny andethical inquiry.7 And if this conception of engineeringproves to be a conceit that cannot be reconciled withour expectations of technology and if it eludes standardprocedures for ascertaining the safety and reliability ofits functioning, this would be a sign that it is time toleave the conversational mode and seek a deliberativeresolution, one that should not exclude even amoratorium on certain kinds of nanoresearch.8

If the currently available nanoethical narrativestake the appearance of a classic morality play, this is asignal of helplessness. It seems that we don’t knowany better but to bring such mythical stories to bearon a new kind of socio-technical complexity thatchallenges us to expand the scope of ethical ques-tioning. We are in a situation in which the manystakeholders do the best they can even as they do notknow their way about.

The DEEPEN analysis of nanoethics in the realworld has therefore shown not only what concernsthere are and how these differ from the standard set ofrote concerns regarding emerging technologies. It hasalso shown that it is insufficient to rest content withethics as a lingua franca for an open-ended exchangeabout issues and concerns. If one begins to take theseissues and concerns seriously, the stakes will suddenlyappear high and a genuinely deliberative processneeds to begin, one that seeks a negotiated closure ofdebates on contested questions. With its Lessons forPublic Policy the DEEPEN project underscores theneed to answer the demands that have been created bypromises of inclusivity and transparency with regardto nanotechnology in society. For example, it calls fora move from conversational to more deliberative modesof engagement, and calls for new, more explicit andreflective ways of organizing responsibilities [6].

Signs of this impatience with ethics in a merelyconversational mode have begun appearing in variousplaces, particularly within the European Union. TheEuropean Commission proposed a contested Codeof Conduct for Responsible Nanoscience and Nano-technologies Research which questions the accepted

division of moral labor and suggests a renegotiationof the contract between science and society inparticular as it concerns assignments of responsibility(European [9]). Also, there has been profound unrestwithin the regulatory arena. The difficulties of fittingnanotechnologies in general, and nanoparticles inparticular into classical risk assessment schemes haveforced stakeholders to develop a new regime ofvigilance that includes observatories, codes of con-duct, stakeholder platforms, ELSA research and thusa host of alternative institutions and forms of gover-nance [2]. Counteracting such moves towards soft lawand voluntary codes, first legislative measures seek toaddress nanosilver as an anti-bacterial agent or nano-technologies in cosmetics and food.9

New Perspectives for Nanoethics

What insights can ethical inquiry produce in order torender visible and negotiable conflicts of value andmatters for policy deliberations? As opposed to theopen-ended collection of ethical concerns, the pro-posed perspectives for research provide a foundation inknowledge for foresight, public debate, and anticipatorygovernance—they provoke deliberative processes.Here, we indicate six perspectives for research that,literally, go beyond the repertoire of six storylines andthemes that were identified above. In all these cases wefind that behind the re-enactment of classic themes andconcerns, contemporary problems await analysis so thatinformed decisions about nanotechnology can bemade.10

7 For a more nuanced presentation of Dupuy’s discussion, seehis contribution to [8] of Nanoethics.8 For example, the use of biological properties for theconstruction of nanomaterials (virus-like molecules as nano-technological building blocks) deserve far more critical scrutinythan they have received so far.

9 The very formulation “nanotechnology in food and cosmetics”illustrate the difficulty of conceiving how nanotechnologieswork. The formulation suggests that nanotechnology is anisolable component or ingredient like all others of a compositematerial or device. (“Nanomaterials in cosmetics and food” doesnot do the trick either. The deep conceptual issue concerns theinnocuous word “in.”)10 Since we are adopting the constraint of looking for researchperspectives beyond the six themes identified in the context ofthe DEEPEN-project, there may well be other and morerelevant research perspectives than the ones presented here.For example, inclusion of further and more fitting stories intothe narrative repertoire may well suggest important avenues forresearch. Obvious candidates for this are the stories of DonJuan and Doctor Strangelove [8] or the ancient, modern, andcontemporary myths of Prometheus, the Golem, Frankenstein,and the Matrix (see [19]).

176 Nanoethics (2010) 4:171–181

Be Careful What You Wish for—And the Limitsof Knowledge and Control

Nanotechnology is said to become one of the definingtechnologies of the 21st century. Despite the fact thatthere are few applications of nanotechnology thathave actually made it to the market place as yet, thereare great expectations of revolutionary changes in theentire mode of production. Were it not for theseexpectations, no one would warn that we should becareful what we wish for – as if wishful thinkingmight produce desirable and undesirable realities. Inother words, the very concern that we should becareful what we wish for, is based on an implicit faithin the boundless possibilities of nanotechnologicalwish-fulfilment. This implicit faith takes variousforms. It appears in the assumption that there are somany potential benefits of nanotechnology thateveryone can be a beneficiary—and if everyonebenefits, no one needs to lose. Thus, the agenda of‘responsible development’ is motivated by a quest forwin-win situations [18]. This is not a bad thing,surely, unless one starts believing that these areliterally possible and therefore that one need notidentify the losers and those that carry a dispropor-tionate burden of risk. This implicit faith also takesthe form of believing that every societal or environ-mental or medical problem can be recast as a technicalproblem with a nanotechnological solution.

The idea of boundless technical possibility is notwithout precedent, of course. Previous generationslearned to disbelieve it in regard to electrification,behavioural engineering, and nuclear power. It is allthe more striking, therefore, that with nanotechnologyit reappears so forcefully. As a corrective to suchhubris, what is required is sustained reflection onlimits of technical control, be it control of molecularstructures at the nanoscale or the control of societalresponses to nanotechnology. Such a reflection wouldmitigate an exaggerated faith in our ability to shapethe world atom by atom, or in our ability to shapethe development of nanotechnology and make itsafe by design.

This research agenda on boundless desire and thelimits of control would include a historical componentto allow for a comparison of our current faith in whattechnology can do to earlier phases of techno-optimism. The reflection on the limits of controlenables a critical evaluation of the implicit desire to

‘live long enough to live forever,’ that is, to usetechnology primarily as a way to prop up the hope toextend indefinitely current patterns of production andconsumption.11 More importantly and immediately,perhaps, reflections on the limits of nanotechnologymay have a sobering effect on a discourse character-ized by hype and the unrealistic expectations itgenerates. By holding promoters of nanotechnologyaccountable for their claims, it makes a contributionto the ethics of promising and institutes ‘responsiblerepresentation’ of nanotechnologies as a prerequisitefor responsible development (compare [21]). Finally,it has been said that the difference between technol-ogy and magic is that technology struggles constantlyagainst material constraints, complexities, and theresistance of nature to fit our technical ideas, whereasmagicians use their tools to conjure a world thatconforms to our wishes [3]. A focus on limits of controlwill reassert the difference between technology andmagic and will do so by letting us appreciate thedifficulties of the task.

Pandora’s Box—And the Need for A Risk/HopeAnalysis

As Jean-Pierre Dupuy suggests, the story of Pandoradeals with the flipside of boundless desire. It isintertwined with the question of hope. By saying ‘yes’to hope, by saying ‘yes’ to technological innovationand its promise to solve global problems, by openingPandora’s box one might be joining rather thought-lessly a march forward that continues dangeroustrends where perhaps one should stop, reflect,prioritize.

Only on the face of it, then, the story of Pandora’sBox is one of fear of the physical or social dangersthat are inside the box. Instead, one needs to fearprimarily that the box will be opened because itcontains hope, especially the hope that technologywill solve the most pressing problems of contemporary

11 Ray Kurzweil’s invitation to live long enough to live foreverconcerns the question of immortality, literally. Here, we aresuggesting that this injunction also underwrites the belief in thewin-win situation of economic as well as ecological sustain-ability: If our societies live long enough to realize this win-winsituation, they will have found the technological fix to climatechange that allows them to go on forever. Needless to say,notions like these require critical scrutiny (e.g. [23]).

Nanoethics (2010) 4:171–181 177

societies.12 But given that hope is included in the boxalong with countless dangers, there is cause to wonderand worry when governments and societies are mostlyhoping for better technologies in the face of globalwarming, resource depletion, economic crises, prob-lems of an ageing society here, problems of starvationand genocide there.

In the case of nanotechnology, one of its moststriking features is that hardly anyone says ‘no’ to it.Famously, Pandora is a figure of seduction and her‘lure of the yes’ draws promoters and sceptics alike toaccept the invitation that they should join a broadlydefined, unobjectionable process that goes by thename ‘responsible development of nanotechnology’.It gives expression to the hope that all will be well, ifeveryone joins in with the belief that nanotechnolo-gies can and will be developed responsibly. In thisrespect, nanotechnology mirrors a more general trend.The environmental movement, for example, began byreminding us that we need to accommodate ourselves tolimits of growthwithin a finite world and scarce resources.Now, many environmentalists argue that they will onlybe heard if they say ‘yes’ to technological innovationand green technologies.13 The verdict is out on whichkind of environmentalist will prove to be right.

In addition to an economic, scientific, or technolog-ical benefit/risk analysis, what is needed is therefore aphilosophical risk/hope analysis.14 To the stories aboutpublic worries and concerns about nanotechnology onemight now go beyond the DEEPEN project to add thestories of hope and of the ambivalence, even dangers ofhope. By analyzing these stories, an expanded notion of‘risk’will come to the fore—a risk to self and communityas hopes are disappointed or basic tenets betrayed.

Messing With Nature—And the Paradigmof Designing Material or Human Nature

For decades, perhaps centuries philosophers, scientists,and enthusiasts of all kinds have taken a perverse

pleasure in contemplating the transgressive power ofscience and technology to undermine the sacred order ofthe world. This mixture of self-flattery and self-reproachpersists today and many nanoethical discussions aredrawn to contemplate attempts to fuse living and non-living matter, to blur the distinction between mind andmachine, artefact and organism, between that which isconstructed and that which grows. But here, inparticular, one might be asking whether lay publicsand academic philosophers alike are barking up thewrong tree.

As Martin Heidegger, Hannah Arendt, and Jean-Pierre Dupuy have pointed out, the order of natureceased being a sacred order a very long time ago.Indeed, we become blind to a striking, rather novelaspect of nanotechnology if we see it merely as a nextstep in a long history of scientists challengingfundamental categories, creating monstrous hybrids,or ‘playing God’. What is that novelty? In general,nanotechnologists do not claim a mastery of nature,do not play God, destroy one and create anotherworld. Instead, they assimilate nature to a verymundane human order by looking at nature as if itwere just another engineer who has designed a systemwith certain properties and traits. And in the eyes ofnano-engineers, nature is not necessarily a very goodengineer—it had to rely on evolution and could notbenefit from design. Yes, they argue, there are a fewtechnical tricks that we can learn from nature, but interms of efficiency nature leaves much to be desired.

Nanotechnologies can therefore be seen as atriumph of the paradigm of design. It advances theproject of designing material and human nature all theway up to societies—‘shaping the world atom byatom’ [1]. In the debates about human enhancementmany ethicists are currently worried by the ambitionto design human natur. However, it is first of all thenotion of the infinite plasticity and potentiality of allthings that calls for ethical inquiry, namely an inquiryinto the logic, hubris, and metaphysical program ofdesign.15

Kept in the Dark—And the Powerof Nanotechnoscience

When people worry that they are being kept in thedark, they raise the question of power. While

12 Dupuy’s critical discussion of the five story-lines served as aheuristic by opening up a wider space of reflection. However,within this space of reflection we do not always follow Dupuy’slead. Here, for example, we are only responding to one aspectof the story of Pandora’s box.13 This is a summary of the analysis provided by [18].14 Uffe Juul Jensen and Karin Christiansen (Aarhus University)have begun to pursue these questions. We thank them fordrawing our attention to this. 15 For tentative beginnings along these lines see [17].

178 Nanoethics (2010) 4:171–181

expressing their own feeling of powerlessness theyalso believe that there is a power that more or lessdeliberately misleads them. But where might welocate this power in respect to the development ofnanotechnologies, and where do the asymmetries ofthe powerless and the powerful appear? Here, theexperience of European citizens with regard to nano-technologies appears to be very different compared,for example, to the experience of South Americanfarmers with regard to the agricultural technologiesthat are introduced by global corporations. Thisdifference needs to be understood by way of a carefulanalysis of power in its various forms.

When European citizens feel that they are kept inthe dark, one cannot straightforwardly trace this backto a sinister conspiracy of corporations or politicalinterests. And if there are techniques of exclusion andinclusion at work, it is not apparent how theseoperate. After all, people express their powerlessnessin an environment that appears to be all aboutinclusiveness. It would seem that stakeholder meet-ings, consumer conferences, or public engagementexercises make an effort to make everyone’s concernsheard. So perhaps one needs to trace the feeling ofbeing kept in the dark to a general sense of uneasethat results from the very fact that power is nowherevisible. As in a hall of mirrors, power is everywhereand nowhere, and as in a hall of mirrors, it mightwork by drawing all of us into a dynamic ofconsumption and innovation as ends in themselves.This immersive or participatory conception of powermight have to be distinguished from those that arebased on violence or interest or discipline or control[18]. What needs to be understood is that in ourEuropean societies, there is nearly unanimous supportof nanotechnologies but that there is a lingeringunease even among those who join in.

The Rich Get Richer—And the Hidden Costof Nanotechnologies

On first sight, the notion that the rich always getricher expresses an elementary historical experience,namely that the benefits of even the most visionarynew technologies are distributed unevenly. Some getrich and others remain totally deprived and betweenthese extremes there are many ordinary citizens whoget a share of the benefits if they are willing to paythe price. However, this commonplace takes on a

special significance in light of promises that nano-technologies will produce global abundance, that withtheir help the United Nations’ millennium goals willbe met, that it can be safe by design and thereforecause no harm, that it can draw everyone together sothat everyone will be a beneficiary and no one a loser.

This lofty rhetoric is inspired by ideas of justice, ifonly in the sense that it envisions an equality ofunparalleled wealth. But all the while, this rhetoricmay harbor profound injustice, since no one takes thetime and effort to identify the cost that is associatedwith an investment in the development of nano-technologies.16 As Dupuy points out, it is a dream ofreason that celebrates the power not only to controlmolecules but also to guarantee the splendid future ofour societies, and this dream of reason has no patiencewith contingencies and externalities, with complexityand sheer bad luck—it has no patience, in otherwords, with human suffering. And this blindness iseven more pronounced when it comes to the sufferingof animals: some argue that nanotechnologicallyenabled analytic techniques will put an end to animaltesting, whilst at least in the short and medium termthey appear to increase [24]. Such asymmetries ofrhetoric and perception run ahead of the materialexploitation that may follow without careful attentionto losers and potentials for harm, and without dueconsideration of questions of justice.

Responsible Development—And the Co-Productionof Responsibility

The DEEPEN project considered the stories that arebeing told by European citizens, scientists, businessrepresentatives, and policy makers. But why does onetell stories at all, especially regarding issues in thepolicy arena? Stories are a way to represent how theworld works, how things came to be the way they are,who is to be praised and who to be blamed. However,

16 Knowledge gaps and the systematic difficulties of closingthem are frequently discussed regarding the health-impacts ofnanomaterials and of nanoparticles, in particular. This oftenleads to statements about the uncertain state of toxicologicalknowledge that takes knowledge about benefits for granted: “Inorder to realize the vast economic potential of nanotechnolo-gies, the questions regarding their risks need to be settled.”Here, a more symmetric approach would be in order. It asksalso regarding economic benefits how good the availableknowledge is and what the current as well as systematic limitsof knowledge are.

Nanoethics (2010) 4:171–181 179

one of the striking features of the nanotechnology-stories is that they fail to perform this role. They arestrangely in limbo, suspended in thin air, unable tolink nanotechnology to specific interests, social oreconomic drivers, or worldviews. Instead, they refervaguely to a world in which ‘innovation’ appears to bean end in itself. They do not assign praise and blame.

This feature of the stories is unsettling and drawsattention to the reasons why they fail to gain traction:Not only is the definition of nanotechnology all-encompassing, elusive, and diffuse, but so is the ideaof innovation and so is the notion of responsibilitywhen it is used too broadly. In the current context of‘responsible development of nanotechnology,’ everyoneis invited to assume responsibility for the developmentof nanotechnology. At the same time, however, peoplein positions of responsibility and power are transformedinto the paradoxical figures of stakeholders withoutacknowledged stakes. Cast in the role of a stakeholder ata public forum on nanotechnologies, scientists andbusiness representatives are supposed to act as individ-uals with opinions and concerns and not as advocates forpowerful interests. The stakeholders who join togetheras individuals speak only for themselves—they assumeresponsibility through mere participation but theycannot be held responsible for anything nanotechno-logical. In the meantime, the responsibility of decisionmakers and even the fact that decisions are being madedisappears behind the veil of ‘responsible development.’

It is paramount, therefore, to revisit the notions ofagency, responsibility, accountability, and thereby torender them more definite and meaningful. This is atask not just for philosophy but for new ways oforganizing responsibilities [20]. We observe, forexample, numerous strategies by policy makers,publics, and industry to meaningfully differentiategood and bad firms, where ‘good firms’ distinguishthemselves by assuming responsibility in credible ways.Might such a conception of responsible innovation ormight such new institutions of public vigilance serve todistinguish in a similar fashion good and bad gover-nance, good and bad research in nanotechnology?

Final Observation

The preceding analysis demonstrates that it is one thing toelicit the ethical intuitions or standard repertoires ofstakeholders, publics, or policy makers and quite another

to identify the challenges posed by emerging nano-technologies. As it turns out, the intuitions that arebrought to the table by most stakeholders and concernedpublics reflect assumptions about emerging technologiesthat are being challenged by the nanotechnologicalprograms and visions. Where our intuitions fail us as aguide in ethical and political matters, what is requiredfirst of all is improved understanding. This understandingbegins with the history and philosophy of nanoscienceand nanotechnologies, it includes an appreciation ofongoing social and cultural trends, as well as a normativeand empirical assessment of the visions that motivateresearch and the assumptions that underlie it.

References

1. Amato I (1999) Nanotechnology: shaping the world atom byatom. National Science and Technology Council, Washington

2. Bowman D, Hodge G, Maynard A (eds.) (2010) Internationalhandbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar

3. Cassirer E (1985) Form und Technik. In: Cassirer E (ed)Symbol, Technik, Sprache. Meiner, Hamburg, pp 39–92

4. Conrad P (2007) The medicalization of society: on thetransformation of human conditions into medical disorders.Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

5. Davies JC (2008) Nanotechnology oversight: an agenda for thenew administration. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies,Washington

6. Davies S, Macnaghten P, Kearnes M (eds) (2009) Reconfigur-ing responsibility: lessons for public policy (Part 1 of the reporton Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology). DurhamUniversity, Durham

7. Davies S, Macnaghten P (2010) Narratives of mastery andresistance: Lay ethics of nanotechnology. Nanoethics 4:(inthis volume)

8. Dupuy J-P (2010) The Narratology of Lay Ethics. Nanoethics4:(in this volume)

9. Commission E (2008) Commission recommendationof 07/02/2008 on a code of conduct for responsiblenanosciences and nanotechnologies research. EuropeanCommission, Brussels

10. Felt U, Wynne B et al (2007) Taking European knowledgesociety seriously. European Commission, Brussels

11. Ferrari A (2010) Developments in the debate on nano-ethics: traditional approaches and the need for new kinds ofanalysis. Nanoethics 4:27–52

12. Ferrari A, Nordmann A (eds) (2009) Reconfiguringresponsibility: lessons for nanoethics (Part 2 of the reporton Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology). DurhamUniversity, Durham

13. Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizenparticipation in governing science. Minerva 41:223–244

14. Nordmann A, Kohl T (rapporteurs) (2010) Ethical andsocietal aspects of nanomedicine. in nanomed: a report on

180 Nanoethics (2010) 4:171–181

the nanomedicine economic, regulatory, ethical and socialenvironment, 11–17

15. Nordmann A, Macnaghten P (2010) Engaging narrativesand the limits of lay ethics: introduction. Nanoethics 4:(inthis volume)

16. Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the Gap revisited. NatNanotechnol 4:273–274

17. Nordmann A (2010) Enhancing material nature. In:Kjølberg KL, Wickson F (eds) Nano meets macro: socialperspectives on nanoscale sciences and technologies. PanStanford, Singapore, pp 283–306

18. Nordmann A, Schwarz A (2010) Lure of the “Yes”: theseductive power of technoscience. In: Kaiser M, Kurath M,Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Governing futuretechnologies: nanotechnology and the rise of an assessmentregime. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 255–277

19. Pavlopoulos M, Grinbaum A, Bontems V (2010) Toolkitfor ethical reflection and communication on nanotechnology.CEA, Saclay, available at www.observatorynano.eu/project/catalogue/4ET/, accessed July 9, 2010

20. von Schomberg R (2010) Organising collective responsi-bility: on precaution, codes of conduct and understandingpublic debate. In: Fiedeler U, Coenen C, Davies S, Ferrari A(eds) Understanding nano and emerging technologies: avolume from the S.Net Society. IOS Press, Amsterdam

21. Shelley-Egan C (2010) The ambivalence of promisingtechnology. Nanoethics

22. Swierstra T, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics:patterns of moral argumentation about new and emergingscience and technology. Nanoethics 1:3–20

23. Vogt T (2010) Buying time—using nanotechnologiesand other emerging technologies for a sustainable future.In: Fiedeler U, Coenen C, Davies S, Ferrari A (eds)Understanding Nanotechnology. Philosophy, Policy andPublics. IOS Press, Amsterdam (in press)

24. Ferrari A (2008) The hyped nano and the stressedlaboratory animal. In: Nanotechnology: towards reducinganimal testing, 28–29 May 2008, The Royal Society,London. Institute of Nanotechnology, Post-Event Proceed-ings, CD-ROM

Nanoethics (2010) 4:171–181 181