As nanotechnologies permeate our daily lives, it is increasingly important that we understand the ethical considerations of these innovations and to what extent scientists attend to these considerations. Guided by the theory of reasoned action and an extended version of that model that includes prior knowledge, sense of responsibility, and ethics involvement, we surveyed a sample of nanoscientists to explore their ethics information seeking and sharing. Path analyses support the theory of reasoned action as a useful framework. Findings suggest that making ethics information more available to scientists and redoubling social pressure to seek and share ethics information may help close the ethics-to-practice gap that exists today.
AllhoffF.LinP. (2006). What’s so special about nanotechnology and nanoethics?International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 20, 179-190. doi:10.5840/ijap200620213
2.
AllhoffF.LinP.MoorJ.WeckertJ. (2007). Nanoethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
3.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
4.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
BacchiniF. (2013). Is nanotechnology giving rise to new ethical problems?Nanoethics, 7, 107-119.
6.
BaltimoreD.BergP.BotchanM.CarrollD.CharoR. A.ChurchG.. . .YamamotoK. R. (2015). A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science, 348, 36-38. doi:10.1126/science.aab1028
7.
BeaudrieC. E.SatterfieldT.KandlikarM.HarthornB. H. (2014). Scientists versus regulators: Precaution, novelty & regulatory oversight as predictors of perceived risks of engineered nanomaterials. PLoS ONE, 9(9), e106365. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106365
BrownswordR. (2009). Nanoethics: Old wine, new bottles?Journal of Consumer Policy, 32, 355-379. doi:10.1007/s10603-009-9100-2
10.
ConstantD.KieslerS.SproullL. (1994). What’s mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research, 5, 400-421. doi:10.1287/isre.5.4.400
11.
CorleyE. A.KimY.ScheufeleD. A. (2015). Scientists’ ethical obligations and social responsibility for nanotechnology research. Science and Engineering Ethics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9637-1
12.
CorleyE. A.ScheufeleD. A.HuQ. (2009). Of risks and regulations: How leading U.S. nano-scientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11, 1573-1585. doi:10.1007/s11051-009-9671-5
13.
CutcliffeS. H.PenseC. M.ZvalarenM. (2012). Framing the discussion: Nanotechnology and the social construction of technology: What STS scholars are saying. NanoEthics, 6, 81-99. doi:10.1007/s11569-012-0149-z
14.
DarleyJ. M.LataneB. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377-383. doi:10.1037/h0025589
15.
Dentsu. (2006). Digitization changing the consumer purchasing process: From AIDMA to AISAS (Annual report for the year ended March31, 2006). Retrieved from http://www.dentsu.com/ir/data/pdf/AR2006_E6.pdf
16.
DillmanD. A.SmythJ. D.ChristianL. M. (2008). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
17.
European Commission. (2004). Towards a European strategy on nanotechnology. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
18.
FisherE. (2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics, 1, 155-165.
19.
ForsythD. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 175-184. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.1.175
20.
GagnéM. (2009). A model of knowledge-sharing motivation. Human Resource Management, 48, 571-589. doi:10.1002/hrm.20298
21.
GodmanM. (2008). But is it unique to nanotechnology? Reframing nanoethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 391-403. doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9052-y
22.
GordijnB.CutterA. M. (Eds.). (2014). In pursuit of nanoethics (Vol. 10). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
23.
GrunigJ. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In MossD.MacManusT.VerčičD. (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (Vol. 3, pp. 3-46). London, England: International Thompson Business Press.
24.
GrunwaldA. (2005). Nanotechnology: A new field of ethical inquiry?Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(2), 187-201. doi:10.1007/s11948-005-0041-0
25.
HaleJ. L.HouseholderB. J.GreeneK. L. (2002). The theory of reasoned action. In DillardJ. P.PfauM. (Eds.), The handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 259-288). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
HinesJ. M.HungerfordH. R.TomeraA. N. (1986). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1-8. doi:10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482
27.
HooperD.CoughlanJ.MullenM. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
HovickS. R.KahlorL.LiangM. C. (2014). Personal cancer knowledge and information seeking through PRISM: The planned risk information seeking model. Journal of Health Communication, 19, 511-527. doi:10.1080/10810730.2013.821556
30.
JohnsonS. (2009). The era of nanomedicine and nanoethics: Has it come, is it still coming, or will it pass us by?American Journal of Bioethics, 9(10), 1-2. doi:10.1080/15265160903178754
31.
KahanD. M. (2009). Nanotechnology and society: The evolution of risk perceptions. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 705-706. doi:10.1038/nnano.2009.329
32.
KahlorL. A. (2010). Prism: A planned risk information seeking model. Health Communication, 25, 345-356. doi:10.1080/10410231003775172
33.
KimJ.-N.GrunigJ. E. (2011). Problem solving and communicative action: A situational theory of problem solving. Journal of Communication, 61, 120-149. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01529.x
34.
KimJ.-N.GrunigJ. E.NiL. (2010). Reconceptualizing the communicative action of publics: Acquisition, selection, and transmission of information in problematic situations. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 4, 126-154. doi:10.1080/15531181003701913
35.
KimY.CorleyE. A.ScheufeleD. A. (2012). Classifying U.S. nano-scientists: Of cautious innovators, regulators, and technology optimists. Science and Public Policy, 39, 30-38. doi:10.3152/030234212X13113405157822
36.
MacnaghtenP.KearnesM. B.WynneB. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?Science Communication, 27, 268-291. doi:10.1177/1075547005281531
37.
MansteadA. S. R. (1999). The role of moral norm in the attitude–behavior relation. In TerryD. J.HoggM. A. (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 11-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
McGinnR. (2008). Ethics and nanotechnology: Views of nanotechnology researchers. NanoEthics, 2, 101-131. doi:10.1007/s11569-008-0040-0
39.
McGinnR. (2010). Ethical responsibilities of nanotechnology researchers: A short guide. NanoEthics, 4, 1-12. doi:10.1007/s11569-010-0082-y
40.
McGinnR. (2013). Discernment and denial: Nanotechnology researchers’ recognition of ethical responsibilities related to their work. NanoEthics, 7, 93-105. doi:10.1007/s11569-013-0174-6
41.
National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2008). Research and development leading to a revolution in technology and industry: Supplement to the president’s 2009 budget. Washington, DC: Author.
O’MathunaD. P. (2009). Nanoethics: Big ethical issues with small technology. London, England: Continuum.
49.
OmlorA. J.NguyenJ.BalsR.DinhQ. T. (2015). Nanotechnology in respiratory medicine. Respiratory Research, 16(1), 64.
50.
OwenR.MacnaghtenP.StilgoeJ. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751-760.
51.
PalmbergC.DernisH.MiguetC. (2009). Nanotechnology: An overview based on indicators and statistics (OECD Science, Technology, And Industry Working Paper No. 2009/07). OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/18151965
52.
PidgeonN.HarthornB. H.BryantK.Rogers-HaydenT. (2009). Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 95-98.
53.
PriestS. (2008). Biotechnology, nanotechnology, media, and public opinion. In DavidK.ThompsonP. B. (Eds.), What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs (pp. 221-234). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
54.
RasmussenA. J.EbbesenM.AndersenS. (2012). Nanoethics: A collaboration across disciplines. NanoEthics, 6, 185-193. doi:10.1007/s11569-012-0156-0
55.
RobisonW. (2011). Nano-technology, ethics, and risks. NanoEthics, 5, 1-13. doi:10.1007/s11569-010-0108-5
56.
RocoM.BainbridgeW. (Eds.) (2001). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
57.
RusbultC. E.Van LangeP. A. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351-375.
SatterfieldT.KandlikarM.BeaudrieC. E.ContiJ.HarthornB. H. (2009). Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 752-758.
60.
ScheufeleD. A.CorleyE. A.DunwoodyS.ShihT.-J.HillbackE.GustonD. H. (2007). Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 2, 732-734. doi:10.1038/nnano.2007.392
61.
ScottA.JeonS. H.JoyceC. M.HumphreysJ. S.KalbG.WittJ.LeahyA. (2011). A randomised trial and economic evaluation of the effect of response mode on response rate, response bias, and item non-response in a survey of doctors. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 126-138. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-126.
62.
SheppardB. H.HartwickJ.WarshawP. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325-343.
63.
SwierstraT.RipA. (2007). Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics, 1, 3-20. doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0005-8
Van der BurgS.SwierstraT. (Eds.). (2013). Ethics on the laboratory floor. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
66.
ViseuA.MaguireH. (2012). Integrating and enacting “social and ethical issues” in nanotechnology practices. NanoEthics, 6, 195-209. doi:10.1007/s11569-012-0162-2
67.
WoodS.JonesR.GeldartA. (2007). Nanotechnology, from the science to the social: The social, ethical, and economic aspects of the debate. Swindon, England: Economic and Social Research Council.
68.
YangZ. J.AloeA. M.FeeleyT. H. (2014). Risk information seeking and processing model: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 64, 20-41. doi:10.1111/jcom.12071
69.
YangZ. J.KahlorL. A.GriffinD. J. (2014). I share, therefore I am: A U.S.−China comparison of college students’ motivations to share information about climate change. Human Communication Research, 40, 112-135. doi:10.1111/hcre.12018
