Interdisciplinary Studies of Ethical and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology

1. Interdisciplinary Studies of Ethical and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology

2. “…social sciences should (must) be placed in the heart of the discussion of nanotech development and not at the periphery as a second level ‘input’ of nanotechnology and nanoscience research and development” Quote from Fabrice Jotterand (Rice university), at The NanoEthics 2005 meeting of the University of South Carolina (USC)Columbia, SC. United States. March 2-5, 2005

3. The Goal of the Project • To develop an interdisciplinary platform for discussion between Nanoscientists and scientists within Social sciences • And to combine scientific imagination with critical search for sources of uncertainty and ignorance within and on the border of nanoscience.

4. Nanotechnology • One of the unexplored frontiers of science • We expect our body of knowledge to be improved

5. Nanotechnology • Implies that the assumptions we use today will may be incomplete or wrong • Various scientists may have experience skills or other tacit knowledge that indicate where the uncertainties may be • But this is hard to bring into the decision-making processes

6. Some aspects of uncertainty • How is the scientists perception of their own knowledge, and the uncertainties in nanotechnology? • In the presence of uncertainty ideology & values will play a role; what are the dimensions in the debate? • On the background of this I want to investigate alternative approaches to present decision-making tools.

7. Aspect 1: Knowledge and Uncertainties • Map the present knowledge and the perceived uncertainties • The scientists’ perception of the quality of their own knowledge • New knowledge and insights may emerge as a result of the interdisciplinary discussions

8. Knowledge and uncertainties • Two way learning process between the scientists • The aim is not to create consensus, but to make explicit the differences in perception of uncertainty and knowledge.

9. Aspect 2: the discourse • Long term prediction of science and technology and its implication is profoundly inexact. • Our experiences are scarce • The questions are in part normative • We can not avoid let our decisions be influenced of beliefs about the general working of the world

10. The discourse • Literature study (policy documents, NGOs and stakeholders, scientific work, media and the public) • What are the dimensions of the debate?

11. The discourse • What do they disagree about (really)? • Can expect to find perceptions such as: Techno optimism/pessimism, the importance of types of values, beliefs of predictability, focus on political agenda, perception of the future, reductionism/anti-reductionism etc

12. Aspect 3:Practical decision-making • PP makes it possible to make decisions based on uncertainty. • Damage has to be identified and perceived as likely from a scientific point of view

13. Aspect 3:Practical decision-making • No good in complex situations and radical uncertainty • Some fear that PP will not be able to protect us against an development of our society that we do not want, or from harm. • Now that we are aware of uncertainty, we need to recognise our responsibility also when the real consequences are unknown • How do we do this?

14. Workshop/participation -challenges • Practical arrangement of workshop –time consuming to the ones involved – how make people participate? • How to reach all the ones that want to participate? • How to avoid groups from feeling left out? • What about extreme positions?

15. Workshop/participation - challenges • What if nobody want to be involved – what if there is no engagement or interest? • Technically difficult • How to avoid people fall into locked positions in discussions? • How to create ownership to the outcome of workshop/participation?