Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

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.

Keywords

ethical science information seeking information sharing nanotechnology nanoethics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allhoff

Lin

(2006). What’s so special about nanotechnology and nanoethics? International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 20, 179-190. doi:10.5840/ijap200620213

Allhoff

Lin

Moor

Weckert

(2007). Nanoethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bacchini

(2013). Is nanotechnology giving rise to new ethical problems? Nanoethics, 7, 107-119.

Baltimore

Berg

Botchan

Carroll

Charo

R. A.

Church

. . .Yamamoto

K. R.

(2015). A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science, 348, 36-38. doi:10.1126/science.aab1028

Beaudrie

C. E.

Satterfield

Kandlikar

Harthorn

B. 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

Bennett-Woods

(2008). Nanotechnology: Ethics and society. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Brownsword

(2009). Nanoethics: Old wine, new bottles? Journal of Consumer Policy, 32, 355-379. doi:10.1007/s10603-009-9100-2

10.

Constant

Kiesler

Sproull

(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.

Corley

E. A.

Kim

Scheufele

D. 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.

Corley

E. A.

Scheufele

D. A.

(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.

Cutcliffe

S. H.

Pense

C. M.

Zvalaren

(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.

Darley

J. M.

Latane

(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 March 31, 2006). Retrieved from http://www.dentsu.com/ir/data/pdf/AR2006_E6.pdf

16.

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. 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.

Fisher

(2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics, 1, 155-165.

19.

Forsyth

D. 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.

Gagné

(2009). A model of knowledge-sharing motivation. Human Resource Management, 48, 571-589. doi:10.1002/hrm.20298

21.

Godman

(2008). But is it unique to nanotechnology? Reframing nanoethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 391-403. doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9052-y

22.

Gordijn

Cutter

A. M.

(Eds.). (2014). In pursuit of nanoethics (Vol. 10). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

23.

Grunig

J. E.

(1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In Moss

MacManus

Verčič

(Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (Vol. 3, pp. 3-46). London, England: International Thompson Business Press.

24.

Grunwald

(2005). Nanotechnology: A new field of ethical inquiry? Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(2), 187-201. doi:10.1007/s11948-005-0041-0

25.

Hale

J. L.

Householder

B. J.

Greene

K. L.

(2002). The theory of reasoned action. In Dillard

J. P.

Pfau

(Eds.), The handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 259-288). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Hines

J. M.

Hungerford

H. R.

Tomera

A. 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.

Hooper

Coughlan

Mullen

(2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.

28.

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. (2004). Too little too late? Government investment in nanotechnology. Fifth report of session 2003–2004. London, England: House of Commons. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/56/56.pdf

29.

Hovick

S. R.

Kahlor

Liang

M. 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.

Johnson

(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.

Kahan

D. M.

(2009). Nanotechnology and society: The evolution of risk perceptions. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 705-706. doi:10.1038/nnano.2009.329

32.

Kahlor

L. A.

(2010). Prism: A planned risk information seeking model. Health Communication, 25, 345-356. doi:10.1080/10410231003775172

33.

Kim

J.-N.

Grunig

J. 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.

Kim

J.-N.

Grunig

J. E.

(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.

Kim

Corley

E. A.

Scheufele

D. 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.

Macnaghten

Kearnes

M. B.

Wynne

(2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27, 268-291. doi:10.1177/1075547005281531

37.

Manstead

A. S. R.

(1999). The role of moral norm in the attitude–behavior relation. In Terry

D. J.

Hogg

M. A.

(Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 11-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

38.

McGinn

(2008). Ethics and nanotechnology: Views of nanotechnology researchers. NanoEthics, 2, 101-131. doi:10.1007/s11569-008-0040-0

39.

McGinn

(2010). Ethical responsibilities of nanotechnology researchers: A short guide. NanoEthics, 4, 1-12. doi:10.1007/s11569-010-0082-y

40.

McGinn

(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.

42.

National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2015). Benefits and applications. Retrieved from http://www.nano.gov/you/nanotechnology-benefits

43.

National Nanotechnology Initiative. (n.d.). Nanotechnology 101. Retrieved from http://www.nano.gov/nanotech-101/what

44.

National Nanotechnology Initiative Network. (n.d.). NNIN SEI research sites. Retrieved from http://www.nnin.org/society-ethics/sei-researchers-faculty/nnin-sei-research-sites

45.

National Science and Technology Council. (2007). The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Strategic plan—December 2007. Retrieved from http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_strategic_plan_2007.pdf?q=NNI_Strategic_Plan_2007.pdf

46.

National Science Foundation. (2015). $81 million to support new national nanotechnology coordinated infrastructure [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=136211

47.

National Science Foundation. (n.d.). NSF National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/nano/

48.

O’Mathuna

D. P.

(2009). Nanoethics: Big ethical issues with small technology. London, England: Continuum.

49.

Omlor

A. J.

Nguyen

Bals

Dinh

Q. T.

(2015). Nanotechnology in respiratory medicine. Respiratory Research, 16(1), 64.

50.

Owen

Macnaghten

Stilgoe

(2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751-760.

51.

Palmberg

Dernis

Miguet

(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.

Pidgeon

Harthorn

B. H.

Bryant

Rogers-Hayden

(2009). Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 95-98.

53.

Priest

(2008). Biotechnology, nanotechnology, media, and public opinion. In David

Thompson

P. 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.

Rasmussen

A. J.

Ebbesen

Andersen

(2012). Nanoethics: A collaboration across disciplines. NanoEthics, 6, 185-193. doi:10.1007/s11569-012-0156-0

55.

Robison

(2011). Nano-technology, ethics, and risks. NanoEthics, 5, 1-13. doi:10.1007/s11569-010-0108-5

56.

Roco

Bainbridge

(Eds.) (2001). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

57.

Rusbult

C. E.

Van Lange

P. A.

(2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351-375.

58.

Sarewitz

(2015). CRISPR: Science can’t solve it. Nature, 522, 413-414. doi:10.1038/522413a

59.

Satterfield

Kandlikar

Beaudrie

C. E.

Conti

Harthorn

B. H.

(2009). Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 752-758.

60.

Scheufele

D. A.

Corley

E. A.

Dunwoody

Shih

T.-J.

Hillback

Guston

D. H.

(2007). Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 2, 732-734. doi:10.1038/nnano.2007.392

61.

Scott

Jeon

S. H.

Joyce

C. M.

Humphreys

J. S.

Kalb

Witt

Leahy

(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.

Sheppard

B. H.

Hartwick

Warshaw

P. 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.

Swierstra

Rip

(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

64.

U.S. Government Printing Office. (2003). The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ153/html/PLAW-108publ153.htm

65.

Van der Burg

Swierstra

(Eds.). (2013). Ethics on the laboratory floor. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

66.

Viseu

Maguire

(2012). Integrating and enacting “social and ethical issues” in nanotechnology practices. NanoEthics, 6, 195-209. doi:10.1007/s11569-012-0162-2

67.

Wood

Jones

Geldart

(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.

Yang

Z. J.

Aloe

A. M.

Feeley

T. H.

(2014). Risk information seeking and processing model: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 64, 20-41. doi:10.1111/jcom.12071

69.

Yang

Z. J.

Kahlor

L. A.

Griffin

D. 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

Ethics Information Seeking and Sharing Among Scientists

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References