Teaching Small and Thinking Large: Effects of Including Social and Ethical Implications in an Interdisciplinary Nanotechnology Course

Abstract

One way to ensure that social and ethical implications (SEI) of nanotechnology research are taken into consideration early in research projects is to incorporate ethical concepts into university science education. In this paper, we describe an interdisciplinary nanotechnology university science course and the ways in which the opinions of students regarding the ethical implications of nanotechnology research were influenced by the course. From an SEI perspective, there is value in scientists being aware of the need to make explicit the uncertainties that always exist in scientific and technological research and development. By the end of the class, a majority of the students felt that risks and ethical issues are not well understood by scientists working in nanomaterials, and ethical training was recommended for these scientists. Findings from this study speak to the importance of this type of interdisciplinary class in preparing students for collaborative research and making them aware of issues important to the general public who someday will become consumers of products derived from nanotechnology research.

The reflexive scientist: an approach to transforming public engagement

“…Societal challenges to dominant techno-scientific agendas are themselves often regarded as significant political and policy challenges. Moreover, science and technology have wide-ranging effects on society, raising the question of who, in a democracy, should have decision-making power over this domain (Jasanoff 2003;Hagendijk 2004;Brown 2009;Winner 2010;Kitcher 2011). All of these political-economic dimensions can be expected to influence whether, why, and how scientists engage in outreach.…”

“…Fostering such skills would ideally be incorporated into science education curricula through high school, undergraduate, and post-graduate studies. This is not, however, a new suggestion (see, eg, Sadler et al 2006;Hoover et al 2009;Barakat and Jiao 2010;Pohl et al 2010) and is vulnerable to a number of problems, including school teachers feeling ill-prepared and lacking appropriate resources to tackle controversial issues; Bcrowded^science curricula at university; and the difficulties of instilling an orientation at odds with much of the rest of the curriculum.…”

Factors Influencing Postsecondary STEM Students’ Views of the Public Communication of an Emergent Technology: a Cross-National Study from Five Universities

“…Other researchers have examined ways in which to teach complex SEI of nanotechnology through science fiction (Berne & Schummer, 2005). There have been efforts to integrate education as to the ethical and risk/benefit impacts of science and engineering into formal educational settings (Hoover et al, 2009) as well as to engage scientists and engineers in science communication training in realworld informal settings (Webb et al, 2012). The fact remains that both 'inservice' and 'preservice' scientists and engineers see little value in the ability to communicate their findings to the general public and often have little concern for the perceptions of the ethical impacts of their work, although data is limited and varied (Besley, Kramer, & Priest, 2008;McGinn, 2008;Toth et al, 2011a).…”

Paradigm Lost: A Reasoned Review of the Literature on the Relationship between Ethics and Technological Innovation

“…[16] Hoover et al 2009 This paper describes an interdisciplinary nanotechnology university course and the ways in which the opinions of students regarding the ethical implications of nanotechnology research were influenced by this course.…”