Abstract
In summarizing the main contributions of the book, this last chapter examines in what ways the approach discussed so far addresses the question, articulated in Chap. 1, of how to integrate normative sensitiveness in TA. It demonstrates in what way addressing the question of plausibility allows ethicists (as well as social scientists, bioethical committees, policy makers, technology developers, etc.) to address the normative questions that surround the issue of social desirability of emerging technologies with a broader set of visions wherein the material morality of artifacts, the worldviews of stakeholders and the dynamics of moral changes are spelled out. The chapter also considers the role of the “ethicist” in such processes and concludes by outlining some open questions for further research.
The subjects of our deliberation are such as seem to present us with alternative possibilities: about things that could not have been, and cannot now or in the future be, other than they are, nobody who takes them to be of this nature wastes his time in deliberation. (Aristotle- Rhetoric [1357a])
In order to avoid repetition, this conclusive chapter summarizes the main points of this book and offers final remarks, intentionally omitting references to the literature that has already been discussed in previous chapters. The reader interested in a discussion of the literature should consult Chaps. 1 and 2 of this book.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
When I am speaking of the “ethicist” I am not referring to a person with a specific disciplinary background, but a “humanist” engagement in the type of work described so far of exploring normative visions and creating preconditions for normative deliberation (See also Boenink 2013).
- 2.
The distinction between ethical debates and “real world” ethics is the starting point of the EU funded project “DEEPEN”. Its declared aim is to reach an “integrated understanding of the ethical challenges posed by emerging nanotechnologies in real world circumstances” (see http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/projects/deepen/Home/tabid/1871/Default.aspx) for an insightful discussion of this topic see Shelley-Egan 2011.
- 3.
See for example the third point made in Sect. 8.2.
- 4.
See for example article 5 of the Regulation REGULATION (EU) No 1291/2013, establishing Horizon 2020, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0104:0173:EN:PDF.
References
Aristotle. 1954. In Rhetoric, ed. W. Rhys Roberts. New York: Cambridge Univ Pr.
Boenink, Marianne. 2013. The multiple practices of doing ethics in the lab. In Ethics on the laboratory floor, ed. Simone van der Burg and Tsjalling Swierstra. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Genus, Audley, and Anne-Marie Coles. 2005. On constructive technology assessment and limitations on public participation in technology assessment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 17(4): 433–443. Routledge.
Grunwald, Armin. 2010. From speculative nanoethics to explorative philosophy of nanotechnology. NanoEthics 4(2): 91–101.
Grunwald, Armin. 2011. Responsible innovation: Bringing together technology assessment, applied ethics, and STS research, November. IET. http://run.unl.pt/handle/10362/7944
Keulartz, J., M. Schermer, M. Korthals, and T. Swierstra. 2002. Pragmatist ethics for a technological culture. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Nordmann, Alfred. 2007. If and then: A critique of speculative nanoethics. NanoEthics 1(1): 31–46.
Nordmann, Alfred. 2013. (Im)Plausibility2. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 9(2-3-4). Inderscience Publishers: 125–132.
Nordmann, Alfred, and Arie Rip. 2009. Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology 4(5). Nature Publishing Group: 273–274.
Shelley Egan, Clare. 2011. Ethics in practice: Responding to an evolving problematic situation of nanotechnology in society. Enschede: University of Twente.
Swierstra, Tsjalling, and Hedwig Molder. 2012. Risk and soft impacts. In Handbook of risk theory SE – 42, ed. Sabine Roeser, Rafaela Hillerbrand, Per Sandin, and Martin Peterson, 1049–1066. Dordrecht: Springer.
Thompson, Paul B. 2002. Pragmatism, discourse ethics and occasional philosophy. In Pragmatist ethics for a technological culture SE – 16, vol. 3, ed. Jozef Keulartz, Michiel Korthals, Maartje Schermer, and Tsjalling Swierstra, 199–216. Dordrecht: Springer. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lucivero, F. (2016). Building-Blocks for Ethical Assessments of Emerging Technologies. In: Ethical Assessments of Emerging Technologies. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23282-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23282-9_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23281-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23282-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)