| |  



Citizens’ Responsibility for Nanotechnology

This document includes the presentation of Ineke Malsch (MALSCH) used during the interview at the Internet TV programme NanoAlerta: www.nanotecnologiadoavesso.org

Newsletter #2

The second newsletter of the NANO2ALL project aims to promote the latest Nano2All activities and materials and also presents some news from other exciting initiatives. Please take a look on this issue at http://www.nano2all.eu/newsletters/news-2/index.html

S.NET Newsletter, February 2017

This Newsletter includes a highlight related to the S.NET 2016 conference, where an interactive session on Responsible Research and Innovation and effective dialogue approaches took place, contributing to set the agenda for NANO2ALL dialogues.

D3.1 Dialogue methodology

This document provides an overview of the dialogue methodology, clarifying the methodological options, and presents the specific methods and dialogue formats to be used. In addition, the document serves as a handbook for the science centres that will execute the dialogues, providing guidelines for facilitation to warrant deliberative quality.

D2.3 Online self-assessment tool

Is a manual explaining NANO2ALL’s dialogue methodology, serving as a handbook to execute the dialogues with guidelines for facilitation to warrant deliberative quality.

D2.2 Online Training Needs Survey Report

Consists of a report on the results of two short online surveys performed on small samples of science journalists and nano-researchers across the EU in order to have a brief overview of their awareness and knowledge on aspects such as nanotechnology, RRI, techniques for effective dialogue and stakeholders’ engagement and anticipating the future, and other stakeholders’ objectives, views and concerns on nanotechnology.

D2.1 Current RRI in Nano Landscape Report

Consists of a report that provides up-to-date information on how the EU and a selection of Member States deal with nanotechnologies from policy, research and societal engagement perspectives, as well as the levels of awareness and engagement of stakeholders (scientists/researchers, industry, journalists, policymakers and NGOs/CSOs) with RRI. Additionally, the report identifies and presents an overview of selected national and international dialogue activities conducted with respect to responsible research and innovation and nanotechnologies.

Toolkit for Ethical Reflection and Communication, by ObservatoryNano

The ethical debate on nanotechnology is large and tangled. It is often unclear what the right questions in this debate are, nor whether these questions are specific to nanotechnology in comparison with other emerging technologies. This Toolkit for ethical reflection and communication does not claim to provide a definitive picture of all options in the ethical debate on nanotechnology. Its aim is more modest: we wish to provide the reader with means to frame his own vision of the debate and to sharpen ethical awareness of the parties involved in the development of nanosciences and nanotechnologies. We hope that this will foster the dialogue between philosophy, science, industry, and society. The toolkit does not replace academic research on the subject†. It is our firm conviction that those who think about nanosciences and nanotechnologies are better equipped to do so with a notion of philosophical ethics. This is because the views elaborated over centuries can enable the construction of an argument to respond to new problems and because philosophical reflection itself will suggest new lines of questioning.

Download this document here.

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.

View all details about this paper here.

The Nano2All project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme, under the Grant Agreement Number 685931.
This website reflects only the author's view and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.


Connect with us

| |  

Our Facebook