Nanotechnology represents, in part, a technological revolution in the sense that it allows highly innovative applications of various areas of the physical and life sciences. The development of nanotechnology and nanoscience, however, intensifies challenges to the traditional understanding of how to pursue scientific and technological knowledge. Science (in its broad meaning) can no longer be construed simply as the ideal of the quest for truth (i.e., “pure science”). Science, through its technological applications, has become the source of economic power and, by extension, political power. Science, with its political implications, has entered what John Ziman calls the era of “post-academic science.”

In this paper, I argue that nanotechnology is a cardinal exemplar of this politicization, that is, the convergence of science, technology, politics, and economics for social and governmental purposes. At the same time, I assert that this new scientific ethos offers the possibility of a better integration of ethical and philosophical reflections at the core of scientific and technological development.

Imagine your body is populated by billions of respirocytes capable of delivering 236 times more oxygen than your natural red blood cells. These mechanical, micron sized spheres are appropriately programmed by your physician to meet your personal requirements, be it the treatment of anemia or the enhancement of your physical abilities. Robert Freitas’ vision of such artificial blood cells comprised of nanometer-scale components was published in 1998 in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and was the first medical nanorobot design paper to be published.

The fact that this proposal for a future blood substitute was accepted as worthy of publication in a scientific journal, despite the inventor's explicit statement that such a device could not be built at the time, clouds the criteria upon which an informed opinion about the feasibility of such devices could be formed. In that respect, the idea of respirocytes formidably testifies to the current “blurring of fact and fiction” occurring in the field of nanotechnology.

The United States federal government anticipates that nanotechnology will be the platform for the next technological and industrial revolution. The vision of its ongoing National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is “a future in which the ability to understand and control matter on the nanoscale leads to a revolution in technology and industry.” The idea that nanotechnology is revolutionary has reached the public. In one public survey, over three-quarters of respondents answered correctly that “experts consider nanotechnology to be the next industrial revolution of the U.S. Economy.”

Labeling nanotechnology as “revolutionary” promotes a general attitude towards nanotechnology by trading on a common line of reasoning: technological revolutions are constituted by significant technological progress; technological progress enables comfort, ease, health, longevity, security and wealth; therefore, technological revolutions are social goods. Thus, to claim that nanotechnology is revolutionary invites a positive socio-ethical evaluation of it, not just a positive scientific or technological one.

Like biotechnology before it, nanotechnology is beginning to provoke opposition from environmentalists concerned about the ethics of the development and application of nanotechnologies. Given the lack of data on environmental health and safety regarding how nanoparticles might impact the environment and effect the health of the human body, some environmentalists have called for limits on the production of nanoproducts until more research can be done to prove their safety. On the other side, while nanotech scientists and engineers agree that additional study of possible harmful effects is in order, they argue it would be unethical to turn our backs on what nanotechnology may do to help clean up the environment and improve health. They argue that a ban on nanomaterials would be shortsighted.

A number of recent reports and overviews on the ethical and societal problems of nanotechnology present a public that is polarized about nanotechnology. Very little responsible analysis can be found between those poles for two reasons. First, the debate about the highly controversial notion of molecular manufacturing introduced by Eric Drexler shaped much of the early discussion. Second, the polarization can be seen as a consequence of uncertainty about nanotechnology compounded by cognitive barriers. A reporter to UNESCO acknowledges that “…Assessments of nanotechnology tend to radically diverge…These radically diverging assessments that have thus far dominated the debate on nanotechnology seem to be due to a lack of common ground.” The “lack of common ground” is not unprecedented in the history of technology, and scientists rightfully fear a new “GMO debacle.”

Federal funding of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has averaged roughly $1 billion annually for the last three years, from 2004 to 2006. Society is poised to see more realistic nano-scale devices enter the marketplace, along with futuristic depictions of nanotechnology. For this reason, serious thought must be given to the societal impact of nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology is a subject about which we know less than we should, but probably more than we think we do at first glance. Like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's “known unknowns,” we have learned enough to know what we should be concerned with. Glimmers of risk cropped up recently when German authorities recalled a bathroom cleansing product, “MagicNano,” that purported to contain nanosized particles (NSPs) and was on the market for only three days. More than one hundred people suffered severe respiratory problems – six of whom were hospitalized with pulmonary edema. Although a subsequent analysis of MagicNano found that the nanoliquid ingredient morphed in the production into “supersized” (not nanosized) particles, the recall nonetheless turned a white hot spotlight on the risk of NSPs. Latching onto the risks posed to workers producing materials using nanotechnology, the Washington Post has labeled nanotechnology a “seat-of-thepants occupational health experiment.”

There is much we do not know about nanotechnology. Despite its tremendous promise, nanotechnology today is mostly forecast and fervent hope. Predictions that spending on nanotechnology will increase from current levels of $13 billion to more than $1 trillion by 2015 are no more than that – simply predictions. Hopes that nanotechnology will be an essential part of solving the globe's energy, food, and water problems should be tempered by recalling a century of revolutionary technologies that failed to live up to their early promise such as nuclear energy, supersonic airplanes, or gene therapy. Many other questions continue to nip at nanotechnology's heels, not the least of which are debates about what is and is not technically feasible. Despite these uncertainties, we can have complete confidence in one aspect of nanotechnology's future – it will be subject to a host of regulations.

In recent times, optimistic views have been advanced about the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science and the way in which this so-called “NBIC convergence” could and should be used to enhance human performance, such as to improve our sensory, motorial and/or cognitive abilities, as well as our moods and physical appearance. These ideas have been elaborately developed and presented in several “NBIC workshops” in the US. This contribution focuses on two claims made by the proponents of the NBIC convergence. First, it is argued that the project of “Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance” represents something genuinely new and quite unique. Second, it is maintained that the future prospects of this project are extraordinarily positive. In order to critically assess these two claims I will first focus on the question of whether there is indeed anything genuinely new about the project of improving human performance by means of converging NBIC technologies. Next I will analyze whether the project warrants that we be optimistic about its future prospects.

Many believe that nanotechnology will be disruptive to our society. Presumably, this means that some people and even whole industries will be undermined by technological developments that nanoscience makes possible. This, in turn, implies that we should anticipate potential workforce disruptions, mitigate in advance social problems likely to arise, and work to fairly distribute the future benefits of nanotechnology. This general, somewhat vague sense of disruption, is very difficult to specify – what will it entail? And how can we responsibly anticipate and mitigate any problems? We can't even clearly state what the problems are anticipated to be. In fact, when we move from sweeping policy statements to more concrete accounts, nanotechnology seems to bifurcate into two divergent streams: one is fairly continuous with current developments, extending extant science in a quantitative way; the other is radically new, and includes science fiction-like dreams of molecular manufacturing and assemblers, with their utopian (or dystopian) scenarios of absolute plenty (or runaway self-replication). In these cases, “disruption” takes on the valence of Huxley's brave new world.

There is growing recognition of the need to understand societal impacts of nanotechnology. Global interest in nanotechnology implies many nations will see a need to seek out advantages for military use. Militarization will inevitably include consideration of both offensive and defensive goals. This presents emerging implications for military forces in the near future, and will greatly influence the nature of warfare and peacekeeping in the distant future. The development of nanotechnology creates possibilities for both beneficial opportunities and adverse consequences as a result of application to the military strategies of both large and small nations.

The promise of nanotechnology for military and security roles derives from several innate characteristics. For example, further improvements in sensors are expected and already there are numerous reports of successful developments in research and development. Material properties can be tailored on a fine scale through nanomachining, scanning force microscopy, molecular self-assembly, and other techniques.

In August 2005, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative “think tank” and advocacy organization, filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against the Louisiana Attorney General challenging the legality of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). If successful, this lawsuit could lead to the unraveling of one of the most significant opportunities to improve public health in United States history.

Under the MSA, forty-six states agreed to end their litigation against the four largest tobacco companies in the United States, who in turn agreed to pay the states an estimated $206 billion. The CEI alleges that the MSA is unconstitutional. Specifically, the suit alleges that the MSA established a cartel under which the states receive monetary payments and the four major tobacco companies are insulated from price competition – and that this arrangement violates the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

To promote informed reproductive decisions, prenatal carrier testing is offered to women and couples to provide information about the risk of having a child with one or more genetic conditions. Tay Sachs Disease (TSD) was one of the first conditions for which prenatal carrier testing was developed. Today, many additional conditions can be tested for, depending on prospective parental interest, family history, or ethnicity. Interestingly, most individuals and couples do not request prenatal carrier information prior to conception, and carrier testing early in gestation allows only a narrow set of reproductive options. Programs have been designed to increase preconception testing, with variable success. One of the more successful attempts to increase preconception carrier testing uptake internationally has been to offer it to adolescents in high schools.

Firearms were associated with 30,136 deaths in the United States in 2003; of these, 11,920 were homicides. For every firearm homicide, there are four people who suffer non-fatal firearm assaults. Like many other consumer products in the US, most guns are initially sold to the public through a network of retail dealers. Persons in the business of selling firearms must obtain a federal firearm dealer's license. There were more than 54,000 federally licensed gun dealers in the United States in 2005, though this reflects a seventy-eight percent decline since 1994. Some states also require a state license to sell firearms.

Licensed firearm dealers are an important source of guns for criminals and gun traffickers. In one analysis of gun trafficking investigations conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), licensed dealers accounted for a plurality of all guns diverted to the illegal market.

A serious risk associated with some treatments for infertility is multiple birth pregnancy. The term “supernumerary pregnancy” aptly conveys the idea of too much or too many in this context: too many fetuses developing in the womb to secure a reasonable probability of a good outcome for each. A supernumerary pregnancy can occur, for example, when infertility is treated by the aggressive use of ovulation-stimulating hormones. If pregnancy is then achieved either naturally or artificially, or if large numbers of eggs are retrieved, fertilized in vitro, and then transferred to the uterus in a single cycle, the risk of supernumerary pregnancy is increased. Egg donation coupled with artificial insemination, or straight embryo donation, followed in each case by the transfer of more than two or three embryos to the uterus can also increase the risk for supernumerary pregnancy.

In July of 2004, Cambodian sex workers staged a protest of an HIV prevention trial set to enroll 900 sex workers in Phnom Penh, charging the study planners with exploitation. The Cambodian study was one of a series of international clinical trials sponsored by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Gates Foundation) testing the safety and efficacy of tenofovir (Viread), an antiretroviral drug produced by Gilead Sciences, Inc., to prevent HIV transmission. To date, two of these international studies have been closed and one is suspended, prompting calls for re-examination of the ethics of HIV prevention trials.

The promise of personalized medicine and the quest for a greater understanding of the genetic basis of disease has transformed the research enterprise. The Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D., recently predicted “that comprehensive, genomics- based health care will become the norm, with individualized preventive medicine and early detection of illnesses.” This excitement about the potential scientific and clinical advances that may come from genomics- based research has led several NIH institutions to launch initiatives for genome-wide association studies (GWAS), calling on researchers and institutions to utilize the new DNA analysis technologies to study the genetic variation between individuals with a particular illness and healthy controls.

When a health care professional contacts a health care attorney for advice about how to deal with a medical error involving a patient, what is the most ethically appropriate response? Honesty is the best policy; the ethical health lawyer should advise the client to tell the patient the truth. This advice is neither naïve nor impractical, as we will show. More importantly, it is without question the right thing to do for a number of sound reasons. It may not be a natural inclination or an easy task to accomplish; several countervailing factors discourage health professionals from telling patients the truth about medical errors. However, we will argue that resistance to truthful disclosure can and should be overcome by rational arguments that also take into consideration the psychodynamics of the patient-health professional relationship.