Information Technology Research Ethics

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511498725.018

17 - Information Technology Research Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 July 2009

Dag Elgesem

Edited by

Jeroen van den Hoven and

John Weckert

Show author details

Dag Elgesem: Affiliation:
Professor Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen, Norway
John Weckert: Affiliation:
Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South Wales

Book contents

Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Are there moral reasons for restricting information technology research? Let me start the discussion of this question by way of three examples of cases where it has been argued that research in this area should be restricted for ethical reasons.

In his article, ‘Why the future doesn't need us,’ written in response to Kurzweil (1999) and published in Wired, renowned computer scientist Bill Joy warns of the dangers of both the intended and unintended consequences of research into the area of the combinations of genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR). There is a new kind of risk of accidents, Joy argues, because ‘robots, engineered organisms and nanobots share a dangerous amplifying factor: They can self-replicate.’ Therefore, accidents with these technologies ‘can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups…. Thus we have the possibility not just of weapons of mass destruction but of knowledge-enabled mass destruction (KMD), this destructiveness hugely amplified by the power of self-replication’ (Joy 1999, p. 3).

Apart from the specific risks that this kind of research gives rise to, the other aspect of the problem with this research, Joy warns, is that a ‘dream of robotics is that we will gradually replace ourselves with our robotic technology, achieving near immortality by downloading our consciousness.’

Type: Chapter
Information: Information Technology and Moral Philosophy , pp. 354 - 375

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498725.018 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baltimore, D. 1979. Limiting science: A biologist's perspective, in Holton, G. and Morison, R. S., (Eds), Limits of scientific inquiry. New York: Norton, pp. 37–45.Google Scholar

Boden, M. A. 1987. Artificial intelligence: Cannibal or missionary?AI and Society, 1, 1, 17–23.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brock, D. W. 1998. Cloning human beings: An assessment of the ethical issues pro and con, in Nussbaum, M. C. and Sunstein, C. R. (Eds.), Clones and clones: Facts and fantasies about human cloning. New York: Norton, pp. 141–164.Google Scholar

Bruckman, A. 2002. Ethical guidelines for research online. Retrieved June 18, 2005 from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/ethics/.

Clark, A. 2003. Natural-born cyborgs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

European Parliament. 1995. Directive 95/46/EC on The protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data, adopted October 24 1195, Official Journal, 281, pp. 31–50, Brussels.

Jeffrey, R. 1956. Valuation and acceptance of scientific hypotheses. Philosophy of Science, 23, 3, 237–246.CrossRef Google Scholar

Joy, B. 1999. Why the future doesn't need us. Wired, 8, 4. Retrieved June 28, 2005 from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html.Google Scholar

Kitcher, P. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kurzweil, R. 1999. The age of spiritual machines. New York: Textere.Google Scholar

McCarthy, J. 1993. Review of Artificial intelligence: A general survey. Retrieved August 15, 2005 from http://www.formal.stanford.edu/jmc/reviews/lighthill/lighthill.html.

Merton, R. 1973. The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

NESH. 2003. Research ethics guidelines for Internet research. National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities, Oslo.

Niiniluoto, I. 1993. The aim and structure of applied research. Erkenntnis, 38, 1–21.CrossRef Google Scholar

O'Neill, O. 1996. Towards justice and virtue. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Parnas, D. L. 1987/1990. Professional responsibility to blow the whistle on SDI, in Ermann, M. D.. (Eds.), Computers, ethics, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 359–371.Google Scholar

Posner, R. A. 2005. Catastrophe, risk and response. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Proctor, R. N. 1991. Value-free science?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. 2002. The collapse of the act/value distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Raatikainen, P. 2006. The scope and limits of value-freedom in science, in Koskinen, H., Pihlström, S., and Vilkko, R. (Eds.), Science – A Challenge to Philosophy? (Scandinavian University Studies in the Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 27). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Rudner, R. 1953. The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments. Philosophy of Science, 20, 1, 1–6.CrossRef Google Scholar

Scanlon, T. 1975. Academic freedom and the control of research, in Pincoffs, E. L., (Ed.), The concept of academic freedom. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 237–254.Google Scholar

Scanlon, T. M. 1979/1995. Freedom of expression and categories of expression, in Stewart, R. M. (Ed.), Readings in social and political philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 152–170.Google Scholar

Scanlon, T. 1990. Content regulation revisited, in Lichtenberg, J. (Ed.), Democracy and mass media. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 331–354.CrossRef Google Scholar

Scriven, M. 1972/1994. The exact role of value judgments in science, in Erwin, E., Gendin, S., and Kleinman, L. (Eds.), Ethical issues in scientific research. New York: Garland, pp. 51–64.Google Scholar

Shrader-Frechette, K. 1994. Ethics of scientific research. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R. 2003. Why societies need dissent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Tran⊘y, K. E. 1988. The moral import of science. S⊘reidgrend: Sigma.Google Scholar

Wright, H. 1963. Norm and action. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Weber, M. 1949. The methodology of the social sciences. Translated by E. A. Shils and H. A. Finch. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar

Weckert, J. 2003. Lilliputian computer ethics, in Moor, J. H. and Bynum, T. W. (Eds.), Cyberphilosophy. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 271–279.Google Scholar

Weizenbaum, J. 1976. Computer power and human reason. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar