Sci Eng Ethics DOI 10.1007/s11948-013-9494-8 ORIGINAL PAPER
Why Should Nanoscience Students be Taught to be Ethically Competent? Anna Julie Rasmussen • Mette Ebbesen
Received: 30 July 2013 / Accepted: 4 November 2013 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract During the education of scientists at the university level the students become more and more specialized. The specialization of the students is a consequence of the scientific research becoming specialized as well. In the interdisciplinary field of nanoscience the importance of specialization is also emphasized throughout the education. Being an interdisciplinary field of study the specialization in this area is not focused on scientific disciplines, but on the different branches of the research. Historically ethics has not been a priority in science education, however, in recent years the importance of such teachings has been highly recognize especially in medicine, biotechnology and engineering. The rapid development, the many new and unknown areas and the highly specialized focus of nanotechnology suggest the importance of having ethically competent researchers. In this article the importance of ethical competence in nanoscience research is argued for by an example of a dilemma that could occur in a research project. The dilemma is analyzed using two different ethical views, generating two different choices for action. It is seen that the dilemma can have more than one solution and that ethical competence can help in justifying the choice of solution in a specific situation. Furthermore it is suggested that a way to reach this competence is through education in ethics incorporated into the nanoscience education curriculum.
A. J. Rasmussen (&) M. Ebbesen Department of Culture and Society, Centre for Bioethics and Nanoethics, Aarhus University, Jens Chr. Skous Vej 5, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] A. J. Rasmussen Interdisciplinary Nanoscience Centre, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark
123
A. J. Rasmussen, M. Ebbesen
Keywords Ethics of nanotechnology Ethics teaching Ethical competence Ethics in research Reflective equilibrium Scientific social responsibility
Introduction Most science curriculums involve some kind of ethics teaching. But is it really relevant for science students, who are on a journey to become highly specialized researchers, to spend valuable time to learn something that seems to be very far away from their discipline? In the literature it seems that the importance of teaching ethics is highly recognized in the case of educating engineers (Canney and Bielefeldt 2012; Colby and Sullivan 2008; Pfatteicher 2001; Devon 1999; Barakat and Jiao 2010; Khan and Agajanian 2012; Whitbeck 1995). In engineering education it has long been recognized that more than technical skills are needed for an engineer to do his/her job. Already in 1996, the so called ‘Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) engineering criteria’ was approved by the ABET board of directors. Included in these criteria is a set of eleven outcomes that all engineering baccalaureate graduates should possess. In addition to five so called hard or technical skills, this set also includes six professional skills which are related to social responsibility, ethics being one of them (Shuman et al. 2005). The fact that these professional skills are included on the same level as the hard or technical skills, shows that the professional skills are considered to be just as important in the education of engineers. The importance of the professional skills could be explained by the fact that engineers have a huge impact on society and people’s lives in terms of the technology, techniques and machines they develop. They therefore have a responsibility that these technologies, techniques and machines serve society and its people in the best way possible. To be able to educate engineers living up to this responsibility the education of engineers provides the technical knowledge and capabilities as well as the understanding of the societal context in which the engineers operate. However, are these skills important in science education as well? Is it important to educate ethically competent scientists? Should scientists be experts in ethics as well as within their scientific research field? The importance of educating ethically competent science students has to do with the importance of educating responsible scientists that are aware of their role in society. Science influences society and vice versa and nonscientists have increasing interest in the validity of the claims in science. It matters what problems scientists chose to solve and how. The mutual influence between science and society gives the scientist a responsibility that goes beyond the collection of data and knowledge, much like the one an engineer has. Because of this mutual influence the data and knowledge collected and the theories developed by the scientist have a great impact on society and people’s lives just as the technologies and techniques developed by the engineers. Thus scientists also have a responsibility to society. Furthermore, the increasing engagement of society and the public in discussions of the meaning and usefulness of science is no good if it is a one-way street. As to the scientists, they have a responsibility to ensure that
123
Nanoscience Students
the non-scientific public (lay people) eschews any easy criticism or naive enthusiasm in the pursuit of informed consideration. For scientist to live up to their social responsibility and engage in public debates, they need to be able to reflect on the social character of their profession and the proper roles of science in the complexity of society and to understand that the ability of science to help society is not to be taken for granted (National Academy of Science et al. 1995). Part of this ability is ethical competence and this is one of the reasons why teachings in ethics are of extreme importance in the education of responsible scientists and researchers. Even though the literature recognizes the importance of ethics teaching, the reason for the importance is often only implicit and the focus is mostly on the ‘how’ instead of the ‘why’. The focus of this article is on the question ‘Why teach ethics to nanoscience students?’ We will try to answer this question by arguing for the importance of having ethically competent scientific researchers. First, we will attempt to define the term ‘ethical competence’ and explain how it is used in this article. Next, we argue for the importance of having ethically competent scientists through a concrete example where an ethically competent scientist would be able to justify his/her actions more thoroughly than a scientist without such competence.
Ethical Competence: What It is and How to Obtain It The term competence suggests the ability to meet a certain standard or qualification to complete a certain task. The concept involves more than theoretical knowledge, it also involves the ability to complete the task or the job in practice (Eriksson et al. 2007). In many areas and professions (for example business, engineering, nurses and physicians) ethical competence is debated. Especially, the question of what role codes, guidelines, rules and regulations should play in this competence is an object of discussion. With more and more ethical codes and regulations in science there is a tendency to regard these as the main focus of ethical competence, making a scientific researcher with knowledge of the codes for good research (for example Merton’s norms (Merton 1973)) and the different guidelines and regulations about how to work in the lab and how to treat equipment and animals or samples ethically competent. However, some argue (Eriksson et al. 2007), and we tend to agree here, that to be ethically competent one needs more than knowledge of the various codes, guidelines and regulations. Eriksson et al. (2007)1 identify three problems regarding ethical competence as equal to the knowledge of guidelines: The first one being the interpretation problem which concerns the gap between rules and the practice they are to regulate. In practice a person always has to apply a set of rules to a certain situation and different people will interpret the same set of rules differently. An understanding of the ethics underlying the rules is necessary to avoid the rules seeming inconsistent or inconclusive. The second is the multiplicity problem which 1
The issues and arguments are concerned with ethical competence in health care, but can be argued to be relevant for scientific research as well.
123
A. J. Rasmussen, M. Ebbesen
is concerned with the lack of a well-defined authority relation between different rules. If there is not some sort of hierarchy between the rules, then conflicts with other normative sources—such as other guidelines, the law, peoples’ own conception etc.—cannot be solved and the rules will be useless. Again, some sort of understanding of the underlying ethical principle or theory is needed to be able to order the rules and meaningfully apply them. The third problem is the legalization problem which concerns the risk of letting legal rules replace ethical reflections and considerations. Taking the rules as given and stressing solely the regulatory framework we risk forgetting that it is the professional that has the responsibility and end up blindly following rules instead of assessing the specific situation. We believe, in agreement with the above (Eriksson et al. 2007), that ethical guidelines have to be applied to real life situations and in this application the guidelines should be interpreted in different ways dependent on the detailed situation, the person handling the situation etc. If various sets of codes, guidelines and regulations are followed blindly, ethical reflections are ignored and navigating in the ethical problems that arise in research becomes difficult, time consuming and a waste of precious time. An ethically competent scientist has the ability to analyze the situation using different ethical theories or principles, identify their differences and decide why one is more appropriate to follow than another.2 Thus, to be ethically competent requires knowledge of ethical codes and regulations, but requires more than this knowledge. It requires awareness of ethical problems and the ability to identify and analyze them, find different solutions and decide what solution to go with. In health care a suggested solution to the problem with too much focus on rules and guidelines in ethical competence has been to turn to virtue ethics (Eriksson et al. 2007). In this theory, instead of having a cardinal principle from which we can take guidance and direction in our actions, the primary concern is what kind of person we should be. The basis being that a good person performs morally good actions. This implies that ethical competence is not something you can be taught in a classroom; rather it is developed by following a good example. (This resembles the apprentice and master relation which used to be a widely used practice in the training of scientists). One of the problems using virtue ethics as the solution in health care, pointed out by Eriksson et al. (2007) and also relevant in our case of scientific research, is that ethical competence is turned into a question of unreflective ‘common sense’ or tacit knowledge. If such tacit knowledge and apprenticeship replaces all acquaintance with ethical principles, codes and guidelines, the scientist might end up ignoring ethical judgments altogether or making poorly reflected and/ or inconsistent ethical decisions. To be ethically competent requires more than following a virtuous example. It requires the scientist to be able to identify and use moral theories and be aware that that is what he/she is doing. Furthermore, in science we can no longer rely on the master and apprentice relation for giving the students the needed skills. Since the ‘masters’ have many other duties to attend to (grant applications, documentation of research etc.) they are now spending less and less time in the lab with the students who therefore have to 2
A suggestion to the process of making such a decision will be explained later.
123
Nanoscience Students
look to other sources for guidance in their everyday work. Thus we need to come up with another way of providing the students with the ethical competence they need. One way could be through teachings in ethics incorporated into the curriculum of the science education (Eisen and Berry 2010). The primary goal of such teachings should be to educate socially responsible scientists who by means of their ethical competence are able to act deliberately in situations of moral conflicts. For many scientists themselves, their lack of ethical competence is regarded (and used) as a main reason for not participating in ethical discussions of their work. They do not feel able to do so (Costa et al. 2011; Wolpe 2006). As argued in previous work (Rasmussen et al. 2012), the participation of nanoscientists in the ethical debate on nanoscience could help make the debate more relevant for society and thereby more influential. Thus teaching ethics to nanoscientists for them to become ethically competent could help the debate on nanoethics. Being ethically competent and thereby able to analyze ethical problems in their work gives the scientist the ability to reflect on the process of the decision and thereby justify his/ her actions in the research. To illustrate the importance of being able to recognize and assess ethical problems as a scientific researcher when having to make a decision, an example of a problem is analyzed from two different ethical view points below. The differences in the analysis are highlighted and which analysis is most useful in the specific situation is discussed. Furthermore, it will be explained how an ethically competent scientist would act in such a situation. Example of an Ethical Problem in Nanoscientific Research3 A researcher in nanotoxicology is working with a specific type of nanoparticle (NP) which is very promising in many different applications. Among other things, these NPs have been shown to be very useful in preventing skin cancer, making sunscreen see through and thereby more easy to convince people to use (Osmond and McCall 2010; Wang et al. 2010). During the research into the characteristics and toxicology of these NPs the researcher discovers that these are very toxic (in terms of mortality) when applied to a human lung cell line (Lin et al. 2009). However, a lot of other studies have been done showing other results.4 First of all this situation touches upon a very basic problem in scientific research, namely the question of what to do with inconclusive results. In this particular situation it could be argued that the researcher should try to find the cause of the inconsistency in the results and if possible work on eliminating or minimizing this. This is an example of what could be called research ethics5 and this is of major importance in the ethical competence of scientists. In the prominent literature on the 3
The following example is taken from nanoscience, however, the problem might occur in other sciences as well and in that case the analysis and conclusions might also apply to these sciences.
4
It should be noted that even though this example is based on research done, the situation is hypothetical.
5
Ethical guidelines regarding for example the design and implementation of research involving human experimentation, animal experimentation, various aspects of academic scandal, including scientific misconduct (such as fraud, fabrication of data and plagiarism) etc.
123
A. J. Rasmussen, M. Ebbesen
topic of teaching ethics to scientists it is often questions in the area of research ethics (such as: How should anomalous data be treated? How do values influence research? How should credit for scientific accomplishments be allocated? What are the borderlines between honest error, negligent error, and misconduct in science?) that are presented as the ethical questions that scientists should learn how to deal with (National Academy of Science et al. 1995). However, ethics play a larger role in science than the role of research ethics. To illustrate this let us expand the case study a little more: The researcher is often confronted by people outside his/her field of study (friends, family, the media and other groups) and has to decide if and (if yes) how to communicate his/her results. This gives him/her an ethical problem of what to communicate and how.6 The researcher can choose a range of different actions, the most obvious ones being: (1) Not to communicate the results of the research, (2) state that the NPs are toxic, (3) explain the results in details including all the other studies done on these NPs, (4) explain that the NPs could constitute a risk, but that this is dependent on further research.7
Ethical Analysis In the following, the problem will be analyzed using two different ethical theories. It will not be an exhaustive analysis; however, it will be thorough enough for the purpose here, namely to emphasize the differences in the results from the analysis. The two ethical theories used here will be Utilitarianism and an ethics of rights (Kantianism). Utilitarian View In this view the main goal is to count the positive versus the negative consequences of an action in terms of the total well-being of every person affected in a specific situation. In the problem stated above the analysis would be the negative and positive consequences of the different possible actions that the researcher carries out when he/she communicates his/her results. Here, the consequences of each of the four actions, (1) to (4), mentioned in the end of the previous section (‘example of an ethical problem in nanoscientific research’) will be listed and weighed in order to find the ethical thing to do. 1.
Choosing not to communicate the results could lead to the use of these NPs in for example sunscreen providing people with a way of protecting themselves
6
This dilemma of how to communicate the results of one’s research outside the specialized scientific journals does not only apply to researchers in the area of toxicology. It applies in all areas of (nano)scientific research. Furthermore it should be noted that depending on the audience in question the choice of communication content and method would be different. In this example the communication to lay people through media is chosen.
7
There would be more possible actions for the researcher to take than the four mentioned here, however, these four will serve as a basis of the analysis done below.
123
Nanoscience Students
2.
3.
4.
from skin cancer. No excess fear will be associated with these NPs thus more people will use it and less people will get skin cancer. Also the research can continue without getting interrupted or pushed in a certain direction, thus letting the researcher find out more about the possible toxic effect before communicating anything. On the other hand, not explaining the results could lead to unlimited use of these NPs and the risk could end up bigger and maybe also more difficult to handle due to lack of knowledge. A single toxic response to a product containing these NPs could end up putting a stop to all the research because of this lack of knowledge. This would not only mean bad consequences for the ones that had the toxic response, but it would also render the fight against skin cancer worse off. The second possible action would be to just state that these NPs are toxic. This is the exact opposite to the first possibility and therefore the consequences will also be the opposite: Stating that these NPs are toxic could create a fear and a panic, but could also help gather knowledge about this possible risk. If the researcher explained the complexity of the results, it would be less likely that people would jump to conclusions about the NPs being toxic or not. It could provide the explanation for why more thorough investigations are needed and thereby give a broader view on the matter. It could lead to safer use of the NPs. On the other hand, explaining the results in detail would be a lot of work for the researcher especially if the explanation had to be understandable for people outside the researcher’s area of expertise. This option is what the researcher would do in a scientific article published in a peer reviewed journal. However, the likelihood that such an article can be read by people not working in the specific field of interest is very slim. Thus such an explanation would either lead to indifference and thereby the same as if the researcher had not explained anything. Or the lack of understanding what is going on, might cause people to panic in the same way (or worse) as in the case where the NPs are stated to be toxic with no further explanation. By explaining the results and at the same time emphasizing that the NPs do not necessarily constitute a risk, trying to provide a complex explanation without too much detail, the researcher could avoid panic and at the same time warn decision makers about the possible risks of using these NPs for specific purposes. Putting emphasis on the importance of further, more detailed and more comprehensive studies and not on the results themselves could be a way to make sure that the benefits of the NPs are fully reached without unnecessary risks. The problem with this solution is the difficulty of deciding how much details and complexity that needs to be explained and what the difference is between a necessary and unnecessary risk.
Judging from the analysis above the action with the least negative consequences is action number four. Even though it could be argued that another action provides more positive consequences, in practice the balance between consequences is not necessarily equal. It is for example often shifted towards the negative consequences,
123
A. J. Rasmussen, M. Ebbesen
meaning that a negative consequence should always weigh more than a positive. This imbalance is due to an imbalance between a moral obligation to do good and a moral obligation not to harm. The obligation not to harm is stronger because it does not demand any action; rather it is a demand to stay passive. Since it is less demanding to stay passive than to act, more ethical conviction is needed for having an obligation to do good (bring about positive consequences) than to avoid harm (avoid negative consequences) (Beauchamp and Childress 2013). It is this shift of the balance that provides us with action number four as the moral thing to do. It should be noted that one of the points that has been criticized about Utilitarian theory is that one cannot account for all possible outcomes of an action and the same could be argued in the analysis above; that not all possible outcomes have been taken into account. We argue, however, that in the problem described above the outcomes analyzed are the most likely ones. Ethics of Rights View Choosing the ethically right action from the point of view of the ethics of rights requires another kind of analysis. In this theory what matters are not the consequences of the action, but the character of the action itself. One version of rights ethics requires that one, through one’s actions, always treats other people as being worthy of respect. Again the four different actions will be analyzed, but this time not by looking at the consequences, but solely at the action itself: 1.
2. 3.
4.
Not communicating the results could be argued to be the same as lying which is not treating people with respect. By withholding information from people, the researcher removes the possibility for them to make up their mind about the results. Thus he/she makes a choice for them and thereby does not respect their right to make their own choice. According to Kant’s philosophy, which is one of the influential theories in the ethics of rights, lying goes against the fundamental principle—categorical imperative—and is hence absolute forbidden. Thus this option would not be moral according to the ethics of rights. Stating that the NPs are not toxic in spite of the results would be lying and therefore not moral. By explaining the results in every detail the researcher would be giving people the opportunity to make an informed choice. This is showing respect for the others’ ability to make their own choice as human beings with worth in themselves (worthy of respect). By choosing which details of the results to communicate and by leaving some out the researcher again makes decisions on behalf of the people that he/she is communicating the results to. And again this is not treating people as worthy of respect.
Looking at the problem this way, one comes up with another solution than before, namely action number three. The two ethical theories used here as examples seem to be (and have been argued to be) incompatible. However, a third way of looking at ethics, that we will just mention briefly, has tried to unite parts of these two theories in one approach. This
123
Nanoscience Students
approach is called principlism and operates with four non-hierarchically structured principles that are weighed differently dependent on the situation (Beauchamp and Childress 2013). Through a similar analysis as the one done with the other two theories using this approach, action number three would be concluded as the ethical one.
Conclusion of the Analysis So now we have analyzed the same problem using two different ethical views and have come up with two different solutions. This could be argued to show that the ethical analyses are useless and do not provide any answers. One way of solving this is to take a pragmatic approach: If we look at it from a practical point of view, choosing between the two different actions provided by the two analyses is doable. In practice action number three would require way too many resources from the researcher, the people getting the information and everyone else that might be involved in the process. And thus in practice the researcher would have to leave some information out and only communicate what is necessary for the understanding of the level of complexity of the situation (action number four). So in practice it does matter what action is chosen even if there seems to be more than one solution and in this practical situation it seems like the utilitarian analysis reaches the most (practically) sensible one. An objection to such a pragmatic approach could be that it is not satisfactory to use a non-ethical perspective to decide between ethical theories. To avoid this, a better method could be what is called ‘reflective equilibrium’. Instead of using an all theoretical ‘top-down’ approach, which in our example gave us two answers to the same problems, or a solely practical ‘bottom-up’ method which, as mentioned, could be unsatisfactory, reflective equilibrium could be used as an alternative (Beauchamp and Childress 2013). Through this method abstract and general ethical theory (or principles) (what Rawls terms ‘considered judgment’), paradigm cases and practical issues are considered in the reflection on the specific situation involving an ethical problem. In theory every relevant piece of information is considered and the result is coherence between the theory/principle, which might be modified from its original wording, and the action taken in the specific situation. The process of reflective equilibrium is continuous and a stable equilibrium is never really reached since new ethical problems rise continuously causing new reflections (Rawls 1999). If we return to the analysis of our case, it could be argued that even though the ethics of rights view seems to point to action number three as the ethical choice, we can, through reflective equilibrium, realize that we might have to modify our theory: Because the public cannot be expected to understand all the scientific data of the study action number three could result in confusion and panic and therefor it would not be the ethical choice according to the ethics of rights after all. Thereby we reach the same conclusion as with the Utilitarian analysis. However, in a different situation something else than a practical concern, such as a paradigm case or a
123
A. J. Rasmussen, M. Ebbesen
strong ethical principle, could have had a larger say and using reflective equilibrium could have lead us to another conclusion. The procedure that the ethically competent scientist8 will follow to reach the above conclusion will involve the following steps: First, he/she will identify the possible actions in the situation (in the above example called actions 1–4). Secondly, he/she will perform an ethical analysis using different approaches in ethics to get a varied and well-reflected picture of the situation. During the analysis the scientist might encounter additional possible actions to the ones he/she identified in the first step. These actions should be incorporated into the analysis as well. The ethical analysis will provide the scientist with one or more possible actions from which to choose. The third step in the procedure is the choice of action. This choice should be based on the specific situation in question and should take into account relevant practical concerns, ethical principles/theories, previous similar situations etc. Doing the analysis will help the scientist to clarify these concerns and the options. This will help him/her in making the decision a conscious, well-reflected decision which again will help to justify his/her action9. Going through this procedure when encountering an ethical problem in his/her research will further develop and hone the scientist’s ethical competence. This means that the more ethical problems the scientist encounters the better he/she becomes in detecting the problems. Thus the importance is to make sure the science students achieve the skill through the education and thereby have it when they start their research.
The Role of Ethical Competence in Science To be able to perform the analysis above requires what we have called ethical competence. Different ways of obtaining ethical competence are argued for in the literature. In this article three approaches have been discussed: (1) Detailed knowledge of rules, regulations and guidelines, (2) The master and apprentice approach (virtue ethics) and (3) Teaching ethical theory and practice to science students. According to the third approach ethical competence is a skill that needs to be learned and trained. Not just through the observations of a master, but through teaching and practice such as lectures on ethical theory and analysis of case studies as well as analysis of cases in the students’ own research. For a scientist to be able to do an ethical analysis he/she needs training in doing so and to be able to analyze and compare different ethical theories and principles the scientist needs to be aware of different theories and principles in this area. Awareness of such theory and of one’s own competence in doing an ethical analysis and making ethical decisions might be 8
The procedure is explained as done by an individual scientist, however, often the scientist will be part of a research group and the discussions and decisions will be made in this group.
9
A problem could arise here in terms of the criteria that the scientist bases his/her decision on. It could be argued that there is a risk that the scientist will always chose the action that allows for most research or the action that is the cheapest or the action that is the easiest. This, however, is a larger discussion that we will not address here, our point being only that the ethical competence will give the scientist the ability to make a well-reflected and justifiable decision. Whether we agree with the decision or not is another matter.
123
Nanoscience Students
a big step on the way to make scientists see ethical problems, discussions and decisions as part of their job in research, thus leading to socially responsible scientists (Costa et al. 2011; Wolpe 2006). Most science curriculums have some sort of embedded ethics. However, this is often limited to research ethics and the broader role of ethics in science focused on in this article, is not emphasized. To obtain ethical competence the understanding of the role of ethics before (obtaining permission to do a project from an ethics committee), during (how ethical decisions influence the line of research) and after (how the obtained technology or knowledge is used) a research project is of major importance and should be emphasized to the students through the teaching in ethics. Such skills and competences could be achieved through teaching and training in ethics throughout the education of science students by for example seminars related to the science teachings, separate courses in ethics, as well as making ethical analysis and discussions part of the individual and group projects the students work on throughout their studies. Specific decisions about the proportion, breadth, and specificity of the teaching should be taken by an interdisciplinary team of experts from both the science and ethics perspectives and preferably together with experts in teaching as well. This would ensure that the teaching is relevant in terms of the science and in terms of what the students are to use the ethics for and in terms of the students getting a basic understanding of and knowledge in ethics. Ethically competent scientists would thus have a basic knowledge in ethical theory and through case studies and analysis of problems in their own work have acquired skills in detecting and analyzing situations which contain ethical problems. However, they will not be experts in ethics and therefor they will at times meet problems that they cannot solve with their own limited set of tools. In such a situation a scientist without ethical competence would make a decision based on ‘common sense’ or chance and maybe even without noticing the problem. An ethically competent scientist would instead be able to detect an ethical problem, appreciate the complicated nature of the situation and realize that his/her tools do not suffice in this situation. He/she would therefore try and get help from an expert in ethics and because of his/her training by an interdisciplinary team he/she would know where to find such an expert. The ethically competent scientist might even embed an ethicist in the science lab (Fisher et al. 2006) in research projects of a certain character to make sure possible complicated ethical problems can be dealt with by collaborating with an expert in this field. Finding a balance between training scientists in ethics and embedding ethicists in scientific projects is of major importance when discussing how to incorporate nanoethics in nanoscience. However, this is a huge discussion that goes beyond the scope of this article. We argue that no matter how this balance should be, it is important that the disciplines working together understand and respect one another (Rasmussen et al. 2012) and therefore it would be an advantage when embedding an ethicist in a science lab, not only that the ethicist knows about the science, but also that the scientists collaborating with the ethicist understand basic ethical theory and practice, in other words: That they are ethically competent.
123
A. J. Rasmussen, M. Ebbesen
Conclusion The analysis in this article shows that there are ethical problems that arise during research and that it is important to be aware of these and to solve them in the best way possible. This highlights a responsibility of the researchers to detect these problems, categorize them as ethical and seek out the best way to get them solved in order to carry out the research in a responsible way. This could involve calling in experts in the field of ethics such as philosophers. However, this article shows that there is another way to go, namely by teaching nanoscience students ethics, socially responsible researchers are educated who possess ethical competence. Thereby making them, not experts in ethics, but able to detect an ethical problem and be aware of the complexity of such a problem and the importance of solving it, not relying solely on ‘common sense’, but realizing the need to analyze and solve the problem maybe in collaboration with people with different skills and expertise. This will be how an ethically competent researcher would deal with a situation like the one described in this article. And that is what is needed to solve the situation in a responsible way for the good of the research itself and for society as a whole. Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the role of Professor Svend Andersen in the developement and discussion of this paper.
References Barakat, N., & Jiao, H. (2010). Proposed strategies for teaching ethics of nanotechnology. Nanoethics, 4, 221–228. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Canney, N. E., & Bielefeldt, A. R. (2012). A model for the development of personal and professional social responsibility for engineers. Conference paper. American Society for Engineering Education. http://search.asee.org/search/click?query=ac?2012-3889&title=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asee.org% 2Ffile_server%2Fpapers%2Fattachment%2Ffile%2F0002%2F2543%2F2012_ASEE_ERM_Final_ Paper.pdf&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asee.org%2Ffile_server%2Fpapers%2Fattachment%2Ffile %2F0002%2F2543%2F2012_ASEE_ERM_Final_Paper.pdf&spaceId=asee.org&index=asee.org& charset=&mimeType=application%2Fpdf. Accessed April 24, 2013. Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2008). Ethics teaching in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 327–338. Costa, H. S., Sethe, S., & Olsson, A. S. (2011). Scientists’ perception of ethical issues in nanomedicine: A case study. Nanomedicine, 6(4), 681–691. Devon, R. (1999). Towards a social ethics of engineering: The norms of engagement. Journal of Engineering Education, 88, 87–92. Eisen, A., & Berry, R. M. (2010). The absent professor: Why we don’t teach research ethics and what to do about it. The American Journal of Bioethics, 2(4), 38–49. Eriksson, S., Helgesson, G., & Ho¨glund, A. T. (2007). Being, doing and knowing: Developing ethical competence in health care. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5, 207–216. Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Mistream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26, 485–496. Khan, A. S., & Agajanian, A. (2012). Nanotechnology: Teaching ethical and social implications in a STS course. Conference paper. American Society for Engineering Education http://search.asee.org/ search/click?query=ac?2012-4784&title=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asee.org%2Ffile_server%2Fpapers %2Fattachment%2Ffile%2F0002%2F2734%2FSTS_Paper_Khan_ASEE_2012_FINAL_AC.pdf&url= http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asee.org%2Ffile_server%2Fpapers%2Fattachment%2Ffile%2F0002%2F2734
123
Nanoscience Students %2FSTS_Paper_Khan_ASEE_2012_FINAL_AC.pdf&spaceId=asee.org&index=asee.org&charset= &mimeType=application%2Fpdf. Accessed April 24, 2013. Lin, W., Xu, Y., Huang, C.-C., Ma, Y., Shannon, K. B., Chen, D.-R., et al. (2009). Toxicity of nano- and micro-sized ZnO particles in human lung epithelial cells. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11, 25–39. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science (pp. 267–268). Chicago: Chicago University Press. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine. (1995). On being a scientist: Responsible conduct in research, 2nd edn. The National Academies 500 Fifth St. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001. Osmond, M. J., & McCall, M. J. (2010). Zinc oxide nanoparticles in modern sunscreens: An analysis of potential exposure and hazard. Nanotoxicology, 4(1), 15–41. Pfatteicher, S. K. A. (2001). Teaching vs. preaching: EC2000 and the engineering ethics dilemma. Journal of Engineering Education, 90, 137–142. Rasmussen, A. J., Ebbesen, M., & Andersen, S. (2012). Nanoethics—A collaboration across disciplines. Nanoethics, 6(3), 185–193. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (revised ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Shuman, L. J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET ‘‘professional skills’’—Can they be taught? Can they be assessed? Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 41–55. Wang, S. Q., Balagula, Y., & Osterwalder, U. (2010). Photoprotection: A review of the current and future technologies. Dermatological Therapy, 23, 31–47. Whitbeck, C. (1995). Teaching ethics to scientists and engineers: Moral agents and moral problems. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1(3), 299–308. Wolpe, P. R. (2006). Reasons scientists avoid thinking about ethics. Cell, 125, 1023–1025.
123
Why Should Nanoscience Students be Taught to be Ethically Competent? Anna Julie Rasmussen • Mette Ebbesen
Received: 30 July 2013 / Accepted: 4 November 2013 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract During the education of scientists at the university level the students become more and more specialized. The specialization of the students is a consequence of the scientific research becoming specialized as well. In the interdisciplinary field of nanoscience the importance of specialization is also emphasized throughout the education. Being an interdisciplinary field of study the specialization in this area is not focused on scientific disciplines, but on the different branches of the research. Historically ethics has not been a priority in science education, however, in recent years the importance of such teachings has been highly recognize especially in medicine, biotechnology and engineering. The rapid development, the many new and unknown areas and the highly specialized focus of nanotechnology suggest the importance of having ethically competent researchers. In this article the importance of ethical competence in nanoscience research is argued for by an example of a dilemma that could occur in a research project. The dilemma is analyzed using two different ethical views, generating two different choices for action. It is seen that the dilemma can have more than one solution and that ethical competence can help in justifying the choice of solution in a specific situation. Furthermore it is suggested that a way to reach this competence is through education in ethics incorporated into the nanoscience education curriculum.
A. J. Rasmussen (&) M. Ebbesen Department of Culture and Society, Centre for Bioethics and Nanoethics, Aarhus University, Jens Chr. Skous Vej 5, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] A. J. Rasmussen Interdisciplinary Nanoscience Centre, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark
123
A. J. Rasmussen, M. Ebbesen
Keywords Ethics of nanotechnology Ethics teaching Ethical competence Ethics in research Reflective equilibrium Scientific social responsibility
Introduction Most science curriculums involve some kind of ethics teaching. But is it really relevant for science students, who are on a journey to become highly specialized researchers, to spend valuable time to learn something that seems to be very far away from their discipline? In the literature it seems that the importance of teaching ethics is highly recognized in the case of educating engineers (Canney and Bielefeldt 2012; Colby and Sullivan 2008; Pfatteicher 2001; Devon 1999; Barakat and Jiao 2010; Khan and Agajanian 2012; Whitbeck 1995). In engineering education it has long been recognized that more than technical skills are needed for an engineer to do his/her job. Already in 1996, the so called ‘Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) engineering criteria’ was approved by the ABET board of directors. Included in these criteria is a set of eleven outcomes that all engineering baccalaureate graduates should possess. In addition to five so called hard or technical skills, this set also includes six professional skills which are related to social responsibility, ethics being one of them (Shuman et al. 2005). The fact that these professional skills are included on the same level as the hard or technical skills, shows that the professional skills are considered to be just as important in the education of engineers. The importance of the professional skills could be explained by the fact that engineers have a huge impact on society and people’s lives in terms of the technology, techniques and machines they develop. They therefore have a responsibility that these technologies, techniques and machines serve society and its people in the best way possible. To be able to educate engineers living up to this responsibility the education of engineers provides the technical knowledge and capabilities as well as the understanding of the societal context in which the engineers operate. However, are these skills important in science education as well? Is it important to educate ethically competent scientists? Should scientists be experts in ethics as well as within their scientific research field? The importance of educating ethically competent science students has to do with the importance of educating responsible scientists that are aware of their role in society. Science influences society and vice versa and nonscientists have increasing interest in the validity of the claims in science. It matters what problems scientists chose to solve and how. The mutual influence between science and society gives the scientist a responsibility that goes beyond the collection of data and knowledge, much like the one an engineer has. Because of this mutual influence the data and knowledge collected and the theories developed by the scientist have a great impact on society and people’s lives just as the technologies and techniques developed by the engineers. Thus scientists also have a responsibility to society. Furthermore, the increasing engagement of society and the public in discussions of the meaning and usefulness of science is no good if it is a one-way street. As to the scientists, they have a responsibility to ensure that
123
Nanoscience Students
the non-scientific public (lay people) eschews any easy criticism or naive enthusiasm in the pursuit of informed consideration. For scientist to live up to their social responsibility and engage in public debates, they need to be able to reflect on the social character of their profession and the proper roles of science in the complexity of society and to understand that the ability of science to help society is not to be taken for granted (National Academy of Science et al. 1995). Part of this ability is ethical competence and this is one of the reasons why teachings in ethics are of extreme importance in the education of responsible scientists and researchers. Even though the literature recognizes the importance of ethics teaching, the reason for the importance is often only implicit and the focus is mostly on the ‘how’ instead of the ‘why’. The focus of this article is on the question ‘Why teach ethics to nanoscience students?’ We will try to answer this question by arguing for the importance of having ethically competent scientific researchers. First, we will attempt to define the term ‘ethical competence’ and explain how it is used in this article. Next, we argue for the importance of having ethically competent scientists through a concrete example where an ethically competent scientist would be able to justify his/her actions more thoroughly than a scientist without such competence.
Ethical Competence: What It is and How to Obtain It The term competence suggests the ability to meet a certain standard or qualification to complete a certain task. The concept involves more than theoretical knowledge, it also involves the ability to complete the task or the job in practice (Eriksson et al. 2007). In many areas and professions (for example business, engineering, nurses and physicians) ethical competence is debated. Especially, the question of what role codes, guidelines, rules and regulations should play in this competence is an object of discussion. With more and more ethical codes and regulations in science there is a tendency to regard these as the main focus of ethical competence, making a scientific researcher with knowledge of the codes for good research (for example Merton’s norms (Merton 1973)) and the different guidelines and regulations about how to work in the lab and how to treat equipment and animals or samples ethically competent. However, some argue (Eriksson et al. 2007), and we tend to agree here, that to be ethically competent one needs more than knowledge of the various codes, guidelines and regulations. Eriksson et al. (2007)1 identify three problems regarding ethical competence as equal to the knowledge of guidelines: The first one being the interpretation problem which concerns the gap between rules and the practice they are to regulate. In practice a person always has to apply a set of rules to a certain situation and different people will interpret the same set of rules differently. An understanding of the ethics underlying the rules is necessary to avoid the rules seeming inconsistent or inconclusive. The second is the multiplicity problem which 1
The issues and arguments are concerned with ethical competence in health care, but can be argued to be relevant for scientific research as well.
123
A. J. Rasmussen, M. Ebbesen
is concerned with the lack of a well-defined authority relation between different rules. If there is not some sort of hierarchy between the rules, then conflicts with other normative sources—such as other guidelines, the law, peoples’ own conception etc.—cannot be solved and the rules will be useless. Again, some sort of understanding of the underlying ethical principle or theory is needed to be able to order the rules and meaningfully apply them. The third problem is the legalization problem which concerns the risk of letting legal rules replace ethical reflections and considerations. Taking the rules as given and stressing solely the regulatory framework we risk forgetting that it is the professional that has the responsibility and end up blindly following rules instead of assessing the specific situation. We believe, in agreement with the above (Eriksson et al. 2007), that ethical guidelines have to be applied to real life situations and in this application the guidelines should be interpreted in different ways dependent on the detailed situation, the person handling the situation etc. If various sets of codes, guidelines and regulations are followed blindly, ethical reflections are ignored and navigating in the ethical problems that arise in research becomes difficult, time consuming and a waste of precious time. An ethically competent scientist has the ability to analyze the situation using different ethical theories or principles, identify their differences and decide why one is more appropriate to follow than another.2 Thus, to be ethically competent requires knowledge of ethical codes and regulations, but requires more than this knowledge. It requires awareness of ethical problems and the ability to identify and analyze them, find different solutions and decide what solution to go with. In health care a suggested solution to the problem with too much focus on rules and guidelines in ethical competence has been to turn to virtue ethics (Eriksson et al. 2007). In this theory, instead of having a cardinal principle from which we can take guidance and direction in our actions, the primary concern is what kind of person we should be. The basis being that a good person performs morally good actions. This implies that ethical competence is not something you can be taught in a classroom; rather it is developed by following a good example. (This resembles the apprentice and master relation which used to be a widely used practice in the training of scientists). One of the problems using virtue ethics as the solution in health care, pointed out by Eriksson et al. (2007) and also relevant in our case of scientific research, is that ethical competence is turned into a question of unreflective ‘common sense’ or tacit knowledge. If such tacit knowledge and apprenticeship replaces all acquaintance with ethical principles, codes and guidelines, the scientist might end up ignoring ethical judgments altogether or making poorly reflected and/ or inconsistent ethical decisions. To be ethically competent requires more than following a virtuous example. It requires the scientist to be able to identify and use moral theories and be aware that that is what he/she is doing. Furthermore, in science we can no longer rely on the master and apprentice relation for giving the students the needed skills. Since the ‘masters’ have many other duties to attend to (grant applications, documentation of research etc.) they are now spending less and less time in the lab with the students who therefore have to 2
A suggestion to the process of making such a decision will be explained later.
123
Nanoscience Students
look to other sources for guidance in their everyday work. Thus we need to come up with another way of providing the students with the ethical competence they need. One way could be through teachings in ethics incorporated into the curriculum of the science education (Eisen and Berry 2010). The primary goal of such teachings should be to educate socially responsible scientists who by means of their ethical competence are able to act deliberately in situations of moral conflicts. For many scientists themselves, their lack of ethical competence is regarded (and used) as a main reason for not participating in ethical discussions of their work. They do not feel able to do so (Costa et al. 2011; Wolpe 2006). As argued in previous work (Rasmussen et al. 2012), the participation of nanoscientists in the ethical debate on nanoscience could help make the debate more relevant for society and thereby more influential. Thus teaching ethics to nanoscientists for them to become ethically competent could help the debate on nanoethics. Being ethically competent and thereby able to analyze ethical problems in their work gives the scientist the ability to reflect on the process of the decision and thereby justify his/ her actions in the research. To illustrate the importance of being able to recognize and assess ethical problems as a scientific researcher when having to make a decision, an example of a problem is analyzed from two different ethical view points below. The differences in the analysis are highlighted and which analysis is most useful in the specific situation is discussed. Furthermore, it will be explained how an ethically competent scientist would act in such a situation. Example of an Ethical Problem in Nanoscientific Research3 A researcher in nanotoxicology is working with a specific type of nanoparticle (NP) which is very promising in many different applications. Among other things, these NPs have been shown to be very useful in preventing skin cancer, making sunscreen see through and thereby more easy to convince people to use (Osmond and McCall 2010; Wang et al. 2010). During the research into the characteristics and toxicology of these NPs the researcher discovers that these are very toxic (in terms of mortality) when applied to a human lung cell line (Lin et al. 2009). However, a lot of other studies have been done showing other results.4 First of all this situation touches upon a very basic problem in scientific research, namely the question of what to do with inconclusive results. In this particular situation it could be argued that the researcher should try to find the cause of the inconsistency in the results and if possible work on eliminating or minimizing this. This is an example of what could be called research ethics5 and this is of major importance in the ethical competence of scientists. In the prominent literature on the 3
The following example is taken from nanoscience, however, the problem might occur in other sciences as well and in that case the analysis and conclusions might also apply to these sciences.
4
It should be noted that even though this example is based on research done, the situation is hypothetical.
5
Ethical guidelines regarding for example the design and implementation of research involving human experimentation, animal experimentation, various aspects of academic scandal, including scientific misconduct (such as fraud, fabrication of data and plagiarism) etc.
123
A. J. Rasmussen, M. Ebbesen
topic of teaching ethics to scientists it is often questions in the area of research ethics (such as: How should anomalous data be treated? How do values influence research? How should credit for scientific accomplishments be allocated? What are the borderlines between honest error, negligent error, and misconduct in science?) that are presented as the ethical questions that scientists should learn how to deal with (National Academy of Science et al. 1995). However, ethics play a larger role in science than the role of research ethics. To illustrate this let us expand the case study a little more: The researcher is often confronted by people outside his/her field of study (friends, family, the media and other groups) and has to decide if and (if yes) how to communicate his/her results. This gives him/her an ethical problem of what to communicate and how.6 The researcher can choose a range of different actions, the most obvious ones being: (1) Not to communicate the results of the research, (2) state that the NPs are toxic, (3) explain the results in details including all the other studies done on these NPs, (4) explain that the NPs could constitute a risk, but that this is dependent on further research.7
Ethical Analysis In the following, the problem will be analyzed using two different ethical theories. It will not be an exhaustive analysis; however, it will be thorough enough for the purpose here, namely to emphasize the differences in the results from the analysis. The two ethical theories used here will be Utilitarianism and an ethics of rights (Kantianism). Utilitarian View In this view the main goal is to count the positive versus the negative consequences of an action in terms of the total well-being of every person affected in a specific situation. In the problem stated above the analysis would be the negative and positive consequences of the different possible actions that the researcher carries out when he/she communicates his/her results. Here, the consequences of each of the four actions, (1) to (4), mentioned in the end of the previous section (‘example of an ethical problem in nanoscientific research’) will be listed and weighed in order to find the ethical thing to do. 1.
Choosing not to communicate the results could lead to the use of these NPs in for example sunscreen providing people with a way of protecting themselves
6
This dilemma of how to communicate the results of one’s research outside the specialized scientific journals does not only apply to researchers in the area of toxicology. It applies in all areas of (nano)scientific research. Furthermore it should be noted that depending on the audience in question the choice of communication content and method would be different. In this example the communication to lay people through media is chosen.
7
There would be more possible actions for the researcher to take than the four mentioned here, however, these four will serve as a basis of the analysis done below.
123
Nanoscience Students
2.
3.
4.
from skin cancer. No excess fear will be associated with these NPs thus more people will use it and less people will get skin cancer. Also the research can continue without getting interrupted or pushed in a certain direction, thus letting the researcher find out more about the possible toxic effect before communicating anything. On the other hand, not explaining the results could lead to unlimited use of these NPs and the risk could end up bigger and maybe also more difficult to handle due to lack of knowledge. A single toxic response to a product containing these NPs could end up putting a stop to all the research because of this lack of knowledge. This would not only mean bad consequences for the ones that had the toxic response, but it would also render the fight against skin cancer worse off. The second possible action would be to just state that these NPs are toxic. This is the exact opposite to the first possibility and therefore the consequences will also be the opposite: Stating that these NPs are toxic could create a fear and a panic, but could also help gather knowledge about this possible risk. If the researcher explained the complexity of the results, it would be less likely that people would jump to conclusions about the NPs being toxic or not. It could provide the explanation for why more thorough investigations are needed and thereby give a broader view on the matter. It could lead to safer use of the NPs. On the other hand, explaining the results in detail would be a lot of work for the researcher especially if the explanation had to be understandable for people outside the researcher’s area of expertise. This option is what the researcher would do in a scientific article published in a peer reviewed journal. However, the likelihood that such an article can be read by people not working in the specific field of interest is very slim. Thus such an explanation would either lead to indifference and thereby the same as if the researcher had not explained anything. Or the lack of understanding what is going on, might cause people to panic in the same way (or worse) as in the case where the NPs are stated to be toxic with no further explanation. By explaining the results and at the same time emphasizing that the NPs do not necessarily constitute a risk, trying to provide a complex explanation without too much detail, the researcher could avoid panic and at the same time warn decision makers about the possible risks of using these NPs for specific purposes. Putting emphasis on the importance of further, more detailed and more comprehensive studies and not on the results themselves could be a way to make sure that the benefits of the NPs are fully reached without unnecessary risks. The problem with this solution is the difficulty of deciding how much details and complexity that needs to be explained and what the difference is between a necessary and unnecessary risk.
Judging from the analysis above the action with the least negative consequences is action number four. Even though it could be argued that another action provides more positive consequences, in practice the balance between consequences is not necessarily equal. It is for example often shifted towards the negative consequences,
123
A. J. Rasmussen, M. Ebbesen
meaning that a negative consequence should always weigh more than a positive. This imbalance is due to an imbalance between a moral obligation to do good and a moral obligation not to harm. The obligation not to harm is stronger because it does not demand any action; rather it is a demand to stay passive. Since it is less demanding to stay passive than to act, more ethical conviction is needed for having an obligation to do good (bring about positive consequences) than to avoid harm (avoid negative consequences) (Beauchamp and Childress 2013). It is this shift of the balance that provides us with action number four as the moral thing to do. It should be noted that one of the points that has been criticized about Utilitarian theory is that one cannot account for all possible outcomes of an action and the same could be argued in the analysis above; that not all possible outcomes have been taken into account. We argue, however, that in the problem described above the outcomes analyzed are the most likely ones. Ethics of Rights View Choosing the ethically right action from the point of view of the ethics of rights requires another kind of analysis. In this theory what matters are not the consequences of the action, but the character of the action itself. One version of rights ethics requires that one, through one’s actions, always treats other people as being worthy of respect. Again the four different actions will be analyzed, but this time not by looking at the consequences, but solely at the action itself: 1.
2. 3.
4.
Not communicating the results could be argued to be the same as lying which is not treating people with respect. By withholding information from people, the researcher removes the possibility for them to make up their mind about the results. Thus he/she makes a choice for them and thereby does not respect their right to make their own choice. According to Kant’s philosophy, which is one of the influential theories in the ethics of rights, lying goes against the fundamental principle—categorical imperative—and is hence absolute forbidden. Thus this option would not be moral according to the ethics of rights. Stating that the NPs are not toxic in spite of the results would be lying and therefore not moral. By explaining the results in every detail the researcher would be giving people the opportunity to make an informed choice. This is showing respect for the others’ ability to make their own choice as human beings with worth in themselves (worthy of respect). By choosing which details of the results to communicate and by leaving some out the researcher again makes decisions on behalf of the people that he/she is communicating the results to. And again this is not treating people as worthy of respect.
Looking at the problem this way, one comes up with another solution than before, namely action number three. The two ethical theories used here as examples seem to be (and have been argued to be) incompatible. However, a third way of looking at ethics, that we will just mention briefly, has tried to unite parts of these two theories in one approach. This
123
Nanoscience Students
approach is called principlism and operates with four non-hierarchically structured principles that are weighed differently dependent on the situation (Beauchamp and Childress 2013). Through a similar analysis as the one done with the other two theories using this approach, action number three would be concluded as the ethical one.
Conclusion of the Analysis So now we have analyzed the same problem using two different ethical views and have come up with two different solutions. This could be argued to show that the ethical analyses are useless and do not provide any answers. One way of solving this is to take a pragmatic approach: If we look at it from a practical point of view, choosing between the two different actions provided by the two analyses is doable. In practice action number three would require way too many resources from the researcher, the people getting the information and everyone else that might be involved in the process. And thus in practice the researcher would have to leave some information out and only communicate what is necessary for the understanding of the level of complexity of the situation (action number four). So in practice it does matter what action is chosen even if there seems to be more than one solution and in this practical situation it seems like the utilitarian analysis reaches the most (practically) sensible one. An objection to such a pragmatic approach could be that it is not satisfactory to use a non-ethical perspective to decide between ethical theories. To avoid this, a better method could be what is called ‘reflective equilibrium’. Instead of using an all theoretical ‘top-down’ approach, which in our example gave us two answers to the same problems, or a solely practical ‘bottom-up’ method which, as mentioned, could be unsatisfactory, reflective equilibrium could be used as an alternative (Beauchamp and Childress 2013). Through this method abstract and general ethical theory (or principles) (what Rawls terms ‘considered judgment’), paradigm cases and practical issues are considered in the reflection on the specific situation involving an ethical problem. In theory every relevant piece of information is considered and the result is coherence between the theory/principle, which might be modified from its original wording, and the action taken in the specific situation. The process of reflective equilibrium is continuous and a stable equilibrium is never really reached since new ethical problems rise continuously causing new reflections (Rawls 1999). If we return to the analysis of our case, it could be argued that even though the ethics of rights view seems to point to action number three as the ethical choice, we can, through reflective equilibrium, realize that we might have to modify our theory: Because the public cannot be expected to understand all the scientific data of the study action number three could result in confusion and panic and therefor it would not be the ethical choice according to the ethics of rights after all. Thereby we reach the same conclusion as with the Utilitarian analysis. However, in a different situation something else than a practical concern, such as a paradigm case or a
123
A. J. Rasmussen, M. Ebbesen
strong ethical principle, could have had a larger say and using reflective equilibrium could have lead us to another conclusion. The procedure that the ethically competent scientist8 will follow to reach the above conclusion will involve the following steps: First, he/she will identify the possible actions in the situation (in the above example called actions 1–4). Secondly, he/she will perform an ethical analysis using different approaches in ethics to get a varied and well-reflected picture of the situation. During the analysis the scientist might encounter additional possible actions to the ones he/she identified in the first step. These actions should be incorporated into the analysis as well. The ethical analysis will provide the scientist with one or more possible actions from which to choose. The third step in the procedure is the choice of action. This choice should be based on the specific situation in question and should take into account relevant practical concerns, ethical principles/theories, previous similar situations etc. Doing the analysis will help the scientist to clarify these concerns and the options. This will help him/her in making the decision a conscious, well-reflected decision which again will help to justify his/her action9. Going through this procedure when encountering an ethical problem in his/her research will further develop and hone the scientist’s ethical competence. This means that the more ethical problems the scientist encounters the better he/she becomes in detecting the problems. Thus the importance is to make sure the science students achieve the skill through the education and thereby have it when they start their research.
The Role of Ethical Competence in Science To be able to perform the analysis above requires what we have called ethical competence. Different ways of obtaining ethical competence are argued for in the literature. In this article three approaches have been discussed: (1) Detailed knowledge of rules, regulations and guidelines, (2) The master and apprentice approach (virtue ethics) and (3) Teaching ethical theory and practice to science students. According to the third approach ethical competence is a skill that needs to be learned and trained. Not just through the observations of a master, but through teaching and practice such as lectures on ethical theory and analysis of case studies as well as analysis of cases in the students’ own research. For a scientist to be able to do an ethical analysis he/she needs training in doing so and to be able to analyze and compare different ethical theories and principles the scientist needs to be aware of different theories and principles in this area. Awareness of such theory and of one’s own competence in doing an ethical analysis and making ethical decisions might be 8
The procedure is explained as done by an individual scientist, however, often the scientist will be part of a research group and the discussions and decisions will be made in this group.
9
A problem could arise here in terms of the criteria that the scientist bases his/her decision on. It could be argued that there is a risk that the scientist will always chose the action that allows for most research or the action that is the cheapest or the action that is the easiest. This, however, is a larger discussion that we will not address here, our point being only that the ethical competence will give the scientist the ability to make a well-reflected and justifiable decision. Whether we agree with the decision or not is another matter.
123
Nanoscience Students
a big step on the way to make scientists see ethical problems, discussions and decisions as part of their job in research, thus leading to socially responsible scientists (Costa et al. 2011; Wolpe 2006). Most science curriculums have some sort of embedded ethics. However, this is often limited to research ethics and the broader role of ethics in science focused on in this article, is not emphasized. To obtain ethical competence the understanding of the role of ethics before (obtaining permission to do a project from an ethics committee), during (how ethical decisions influence the line of research) and after (how the obtained technology or knowledge is used) a research project is of major importance and should be emphasized to the students through the teaching in ethics. Such skills and competences could be achieved through teaching and training in ethics throughout the education of science students by for example seminars related to the science teachings, separate courses in ethics, as well as making ethical analysis and discussions part of the individual and group projects the students work on throughout their studies. Specific decisions about the proportion, breadth, and specificity of the teaching should be taken by an interdisciplinary team of experts from both the science and ethics perspectives and preferably together with experts in teaching as well. This would ensure that the teaching is relevant in terms of the science and in terms of what the students are to use the ethics for and in terms of the students getting a basic understanding of and knowledge in ethics. Ethically competent scientists would thus have a basic knowledge in ethical theory and through case studies and analysis of problems in their own work have acquired skills in detecting and analyzing situations which contain ethical problems. However, they will not be experts in ethics and therefor they will at times meet problems that they cannot solve with their own limited set of tools. In such a situation a scientist without ethical competence would make a decision based on ‘common sense’ or chance and maybe even without noticing the problem. An ethically competent scientist would instead be able to detect an ethical problem, appreciate the complicated nature of the situation and realize that his/her tools do not suffice in this situation. He/she would therefore try and get help from an expert in ethics and because of his/her training by an interdisciplinary team he/she would know where to find such an expert. The ethically competent scientist might even embed an ethicist in the science lab (Fisher et al. 2006) in research projects of a certain character to make sure possible complicated ethical problems can be dealt with by collaborating with an expert in this field. Finding a balance between training scientists in ethics and embedding ethicists in scientific projects is of major importance when discussing how to incorporate nanoethics in nanoscience. However, this is a huge discussion that goes beyond the scope of this article. We argue that no matter how this balance should be, it is important that the disciplines working together understand and respect one another (Rasmussen et al. 2012) and therefore it would be an advantage when embedding an ethicist in a science lab, not only that the ethicist knows about the science, but also that the scientists collaborating with the ethicist understand basic ethical theory and practice, in other words: That they are ethically competent.
123
A. J. Rasmussen, M. Ebbesen
Conclusion The analysis in this article shows that there are ethical problems that arise during research and that it is important to be aware of these and to solve them in the best way possible. This highlights a responsibility of the researchers to detect these problems, categorize them as ethical and seek out the best way to get them solved in order to carry out the research in a responsible way. This could involve calling in experts in the field of ethics such as philosophers. However, this article shows that there is another way to go, namely by teaching nanoscience students ethics, socially responsible researchers are educated who possess ethical competence. Thereby making them, not experts in ethics, but able to detect an ethical problem and be aware of the complexity of such a problem and the importance of solving it, not relying solely on ‘common sense’, but realizing the need to analyze and solve the problem maybe in collaboration with people with different skills and expertise. This will be how an ethically competent researcher would deal with a situation like the one described in this article. And that is what is needed to solve the situation in a responsible way for the good of the research itself and for society as a whole. Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the role of Professor Svend Andersen in the developement and discussion of this paper.
References Barakat, N., & Jiao, H. (2010). Proposed strategies for teaching ethics of nanotechnology. Nanoethics, 4, 221–228. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Canney, N. E., & Bielefeldt, A. R. (2012). A model for the development of personal and professional social responsibility for engineers. Conference paper. American Society for Engineering Education. http://search.asee.org/search/click?query=ac?2012-3889&title=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asee.org% 2Ffile_server%2Fpapers%2Fattachment%2Ffile%2F0002%2F2543%2F2012_ASEE_ERM_Final_ Paper.pdf&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asee.org%2Ffile_server%2Fpapers%2Fattachment%2Ffile %2F0002%2F2543%2F2012_ASEE_ERM_Final_Paper.pdf&spaceId=asee.org&index=asee.org& charset=&mimeType=application%2Fpdf. Accessed April 24, 2013. Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2008). Ethics teaching in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 327–338. Costa, H. S., Sethe, S., & Olsson, A. S. (2011). Scientists’ perception of ethical issues in nanomedicine: A case study. Nanomedicine, 6(4), 681–691. Devon, R. (1999). Towards a social ethics of engineering: The norms of engagement. Journal of Engineering Education, 88, 87–92. Eisen, A., & Berry, R. M. (2010). The absent professor: Why we don’t teach research ethics and what to do about it. The American Journal of Bioethics, 2(4), 38–49. Eriksson, S., Helgesson, G., & Ho¨glund, A. T. (2007). Being, doing and knowing: Developing ethical competence in health care. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5, 207–216. Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Mistream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26, 485–496. Khan, A. S., & Agajanian, A. (2012). Nanotechnology: Teaching ethical and social implications in a STS course. Conference paper. American Society for Engineering Education http://search.asee.org/ search/click?query=ac?2012-4784&title=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asee.org%2Ffile_server%2Fpapers %2Fattachment%2Ffile%2F0002%2F2734%2FSTS_Paper_Khan_ASEE_2012_FINAL_AC.pdf&url= http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asee.org%2Ffile_server%2Fpapers%2Fattachment%2Ffile%2F0002%2F2734
123
Nanoscience Students %2FSTS_Paper_Khan_ASEE_2012_FINAL_AC.pdf&spaceId=asee.org&index=asee.org&charset= &mimeType=application%2Fpdf. Accessed April 24, 2013. Lin, W., Xu, Y., Huang, C.-C., Ma, Y., Shannon, K. B., Chen, D.-R., et al. (2009). Toxicity of nano- and micro-sized ZnO particles in human lung epithelial cells. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11, 25–39. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science (pp. 267–268). Chicago: Chicago University Press. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine. (1995). On being a scientist: Responsible conduct in research, 2nd edn. The National Academies 500 Fifth St. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001. Osmond, M. J., & McCall, M. J. (2010). Zinc oxide nanoparticles in modern sunscreens: An analysis of potential exposure and hazard. Nanotoxicology, 4(1), 15–41. Pfatteicher, S. K. A. (2001). Teaching vs. preaching: EC2000 and the engineering ethics dilemma. Journal of Engineering Education, 90, 137–142. Rasmussen, A. J., Ebbesen, M., & Andersen, S. (2012). Nanoethics—A collaboration across disciplines. Nanoethics, 6(3), 185–193. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (revised ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Shuman, L. J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET ‘‘professional skills’’—Can they be taught? Can they be assessed? Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 41–55. Wang, S. Q., Balagula, Y., & Osterwalder, U. (2010). Photoprotection: A review of the current and future technologies. Dermatological Therapy, 23, 31–47. Whitbeck, C. (1995). Teaching ethics to scientists and engineers: Moral agents and moral problems. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1(3), 299–308. Wolpe, P. R. (2006). Reasons scientists avoid thinking about ethics. Cell, 125, 1023–1025.
123
