Conversations About Responsible Nanoresearch

There is currently a strong focus on responsible research in relation to the development of nanoscience and nanotechnology. This study presents a series of conversations with nanoresearchers, with the ‘European Commission recommendation on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research’ (EC-CoC) as its point of departure. Six types of reactions to the document are developed, illustrating the diversity existing within the scientific community in responses towards this kind of new approaches to governance. Three broad notions of responsible nanoresearch are presented. The article concludes by arguing that while the suggestion put forward in the EC-CoC brings the concept of responsible nanoresearch a long way, one crucial element is to be wanted, namely responsible nanoresearch as increased awareness of moral choices

The notion of ‘responsible development’ in new approaches to governance of nanosciences and nanotechnologies

This PhD dissertation looks at the development of nanosciences and nanotechnologies (nanoST), a field that has gained tremendous political and economic momentum in the first decade of the 21st century. It is also a field that has provided a frame for timely discussions and explorations of governance of emerging technology, in light of its potential to change social and environmental structures both for better and worse. The aim of this dissertation has been to understand better if, and in what way, new approaches to the governance of science could lead to ‘responsible development’ of nanoST, as commonly claimed. Through four empirical studies the research has searched for responsible practices in a) the research-field of Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects (ELSA) of nanoST, b) participatory exercises, c) uninvited public debate, and d) a code of conduct for nanoresearch. While the extent to which such new approaches to governance are succeeding individually has been a topic of much debate, one of the contributions of this dissertation is that it has studied four different practices as part of the same research project. The first paper is based upon a text study of ELSA literature, where 244 texts were systematised according to four key categories; Governance, Science, Perception and Philosophy. Most of the texts clearly raised questions from more than one category, and led to the conclusion that cross-category literature provided a potential for nanoELSA to develop into a more creative and integrated field. In the second paper, I studied the representations of nanoST in Norwegian newspapers, to get a sense of the perspectives available for those not particularly seeking out information about new technologies. The main conclusion of this study was that the dominating representations fail to constitute nanoST as a matter of concern, and that more voices and viewpoints about nanoST are desired in the public sphere. The third paper makes and analyses the claim that tensions stemming from unresolved theoretical conflict manifest as problems for the emerging practice of participatory approaches. It argues that for public engagement to prove successful, basic questions related to why, when, who, where and how should be openly confronted, as choices in relation to each one of these questions have consequences for the available choices in the others. In the fourth paper the European Commission ‘recommendation on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research’ is used as a frame for a series of conversations with nanoresearchers about the notion of responsible nanoresearch. Three different interpretations of the notion of responsible nanoresearch are suggested and discussed. The paper conclude that sensitivity towards own values and moral choices is as important as dialogue and communication for nanoST research to be truly responsible. In studying these different approaches, two overall conclusions are drawn. The first is that new approaches to governance have indeed provided an important step in the right direction towards a more ‘responsible development’. The level of reflexivity and willingness to debate the notion of responsibility across the sectors of nanoresearch in itself constitutes a more responsible practice. Responsible development of nanoST can never mean a guarantee of ‘good’ nanoST for all. Rather, it involves acknowledging precisely how this is unachievable. The broad focus and debate about the governance of nanoST has initiated processes where this is beginning to be more widely recognized. Secondly, mindfulness – in the sense of ongoing questioning of given ‘instructions’ and actions against personal values – is identified as a rather neglected aspect in the effort towards a responsible development of nanoST. As a supplement to deliberation and dialogue between roles, individuals who can challenge their roles themselves – the instructions and institutions –are necessary when faced with a scientific and technological development that may change more rapidly than the instructions and institutions can adapt