Nanoethics最新文献

Approaches aimed at regulating artificial intelligence (AI) include a particular form of risk regulation, i.e. a risk-based approach. The most prominent example is the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). This article addresses the challenges for adequate risk regulation that arise primarily from the specific type of risks involved, i.e. risks to the protection of fundamental rights and fundamental societal values. This is mainly due to the normative ambiguity of such rights and societal values when attempts are made to select, interpret, specify or operationalise them for the purposes of risk assessments and risk mitigation. This is exemplified by (1) human dignity, (2) informational self-determination, data protection and privacy, (3) anti-discrimination, fairness and justice, and (4) the common good. Normative ambiguities require normative choices, which are assigned to different actors under the regime of the AI Act. Particularly critical normative choices include selecting normative concepts by which to operationalise and specify risks, aggregating and quantifying risks (including the use of metrics), balancing value conflicts, setting levels of acceptable risks, and standardisation. To ensure that these normative choices do not lack democratic legitimacy and to avoid legal uncertainty, further political processes and scientific debates are suggested.

Applications of artificial intelligence (AI) bear great transformative potential in the economic, technological and social sectors, impacting especially future work environments. Ethical regulation of AI requires a relational understanding of the technology by relevant stakeholder groups such as researchers, developers, politicians, civil servants, affected workers or other users applying AI in their work processes. The purpose of this paper is to support relational AI discourse for an improved ethical framing and regulation of the technology. The argumentation emphasizes a widespread reembodied understanding of AI technology as critical requirement for capable ethical and regulatory frameworks. A sociotechnical perspective encourages the material interpretation of AI as reembodied adaptation of biological intelligence. Reviewing Cartesian dualism as motivating the disembodiment of human intelligence for its transfer to machines, the argumentation develops an integrated embodiment concept of AI in its mechanistic, naturalistic, combined AI and neuroethical, and relational contexts. This concept is discussed in relation to basic phenomenological and postphenomenological assumptions, and is applied to the example of AI-based neurotechnology potentially disrupting future work processes. Strengthening a human-centered approach, the presented concept for a reembodied understanding of AI technology enables better integrated ethical and regulatory debates, and improves social discourse and human agency in developing and regulating AI technology.

A wealth of literature and best practices on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) document how it can be implemented in projects. However, each project is too specific to simply replicate existing patterns. Especially in early projects with a high degree of uncertainty, where indicators and measures cannot be applied, the so-called provenance assessment as a methodological change of perspective makes it possible to assess the procedural quality of research by means of narratives. A clear picture of the challenges for European bio-economy projects is sought by mapping the broader debate on "RRI in practice" in the context of biotechnology. The SUSPHIRE project is used as a case study to show how project-specific narratives integrate and signify RRI. By unpacking various concepts of "responsibility" that are already present in the project narrative at an early stage, I will show how this assessment differs significantly from other attempts to "do RRI". It is precisely in the absence of other criteria that the assessment of provenance can bring to the fore the specific form(s) of responsibility inherent in the development of projects.

In March 2022 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a risk assessment of a recent animal gene editing proposal submitted by Acceligen™. The proposal concerned the possibility of changing the cattle genome to obtain a slicker, shorter hair coat. Using CRISPR-Cas9 it was possible to introduce an intentional genomic alteration (IGA) to the prolactin receptor gene (PRLR), thereby producing PRLR-SLICK cattle. The goal was to diminish heat stress in the cattle by enhancing their heat-tolerance. With regard to unintended alterations (i.e., off-target effects), the FDA stated that the IGA posed a low, but still present, risk to animal safety. The aim of this article is to present some initial insights into the welfare issues raised by PRLR-SLICK cattle by addressing the question: Do SLICK cattle have better welfare than non-SLICK cattle when exposed to heat stress? Two potential welfare concerns are examined. The first is pleiotropy, an issue that arises when one gene affects multiple traits. Given the pleiotropic nature of prolactin, it has been suggested that the IGA for SLICK cattle may also affect their hepatic and other functions. The second concern relates not primarily to direct effects on cattle health, but rather to the indirect risk that this more heat-tolerant animal would just be used in the livestock sector under farming conditions that are such that the net welfare improvement would be non-existent.

Representations of science and technology, embodied as imaginaries, visions, and expectations, have become a growing focus of analysis. These representations are of interest to normative approaches to science and technology, such as Hermeneutic Technology Assessment and Responsible Innovation, because of their ability to modulate understandings of science and technology and to influence scientific and technological development. This article analyses the culture of participation underlying the NanoKOMIK project and the representations and meanings of (nano)science and (nano)technology communicated in the two nano-fiction comic books created as part of the project: Dayanne and Murillo. The power of nanoscience (2016) and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017). The article argues that despite NanoKOMIK’s efforts to engage the public with (nano)science and (nano)technology, it reproduces non-binding modes of public participation and transmits socio-technical meanings that are instrumental in the social legitimisation of (nano)technology. More specifically, the analysis shows that NanoKOMIK’s comic books, in addition to not problematising the risks and conveying an eminently positive view of nanotechnology, also communicate certain ‘myth-conceptions’ of scientific activity and its products. For example, they convey an individualistic and linear vision of research and innovation and an instrumentalist and neutral (or ‘value-free’) view of technology. These findings highlight the importance of critically analysing the ‘cultures of participation’ that characterise and reproduce ‘participatory’ or ‘collaborative’ projects and the representations of (nano)science and (nano)technology that they perpetuate.

The study examines the creation of gene-edited infants from the perspective of biopolitics. Through an analysis at the level of “body-power”, we show that the infants are a product of an advanced stage of biopolitics. On the other hand, considering the level of “space-power”, we indicate that the mechanism of space deepens the governance of population through biopower, leading to real conflicts between past and future in the present. The infants can be seen as “heterotopias of mirrors”, where super-reality replaces the reality, culminating in a rational dilemma. We must also consider how to maintain our self-contemplation and naturalness when faced with the physical nature of humans and how to ensure that the state is fulfilling its role in regulating the use of gene-editing technology. Ultimately, we need to engage in a deeper rethinking and criticism of modernity to safeguard our values from being lost in the tide of modernization.

To put frameworks of Responsible Innovation and Responsible Research and Innovation (R(R)I) into practice, engagement methods have been developed to study and enhance technoscientific experts’ capacities to reflexively address value considerations in their work. These methods commonly rely on engagement between technoscientific experts and social scholars, which makes them vulnerable to structural barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration. To circumvent these barriers, we adapt Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR) for broader use within technoscientific communities. We call this adaptation: reflexive practitioner dialogues. While the primary aim of this article is to introduce and explain the methodological adaptation, we also analyze results from a pilot study with participants who are involved in research on contemplative practices such as mindfulness meditation. The analysis is guided by research questions that sought to assess whether and under what conditions the practitioner dialogues support reflexive and practical engagement with value considerations in participants’ work. The results indicate that reflexive practitioner dialogues can stimulate reflexive awareness of value conflicts and help re-direct decision-making responsively. We characterize the conditions facilitating such responsiveness as “value exnovators,” highlighting the oft-unacknowledged interpersonal relational practices that support collaborative engagement with value considerations. We suggest that “exnovation”—exposing the strengths of given practices for their improvement—can support R(R)I practices by directing analytical attention to their micro-level carriers.

Participants in the long-running bioethical debate over human germline genetic modification (HGGM) tend to imagine future people abstractly and on the basis of conventionalized characteristics familiar from science fiction, such as intelligence, disease resistance and height. In order to distinguish these from scientifically meaningful terms like "phenotype" and "trait," this article proposes the term "persemes" to describe the units of difference for hypothetical people. In the HGGM debate, persemes are frequently conceptualized as similar, modular entities, like building blocks to be assembled into genetically modified people. They are discussed as though they each would be chosen individually without affecting other persemes and as though they existed as components within future people rather than being imposed through social context. This modular conceptual framework appears to influence bioethical approaches to HGGM by reinforcing the idea of human capacities as natural primary goods subject to distributive justice and supporting the use of objective list theories of well-being. As a result, assumptions of modularity may limit the ability of stakeholders with other perspectives to present them in the HGGM debate. This article examines the historical trends behind the modular framework for genetically modified people, its likely psychological basis, and its philosophical ramifications.