No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
NBIC-Convergence and Technoethics: Common Ethical Perspective
Abstract
Technoethics is a new, but rapidly developing field of ethical reflection of technoscience. It can claim to unite the various ethical projections of the science and technology development in a common approach. One of the starting points of understanding this role of technoethics may be NBIC-convergence. The ethical dimensions of the NBIC-projects is represented in these sub-areas of applied ethics as a nanoethics bioethics, neuroethics and ICT ethics. In this article particular attention is paid to the biomedical field, which is a prime example of innovative high technology, as well as the interaction of different types of ethics.
... Los laboratorios de investigación y las aulas integran de la ciencia y la ingeniería desde la nanoescala y en la mejora del aprendizaje. En resumen, a partir de estas agrupaciones se identificaron diferentes relaciones entre la convergencia con la nanotecnología, las líneas de investigación de la convergencia, disponibilidad de talento humano, sistemas semánticos, la mejora del desempeño humano, aceleración de productos y servicios innovadores, sinergias de la convergencia, libertad cognitiva, la integración de la ciencia y la ingeniería, relaciones interdisciplinarias NBIC, gobernanza para estas tecnologías, problemas éticossociales y la convergencia del conocimiento y la tecnología en beneficio de la sociedad (Schneider y Veugelers, 2010;André, 2017;Giraudo et al., 2019;Grebenshchikova, 2018;Frochot et al., 2020). ...
El presente artículo tuvo como propósito presentar los resultados de una revisión sistemática que busca caracterizar el desarrollo del emprendimiento de base tecnológica (EBT) y su contribución en la evolución de la perspectiva tecnocientífica de la convergencia de la nanotecnología, la biotecnología, la infotecnología y la cognotecnología (NBIC). El análisis se orientó a partir del uso del algoritmo SAP Tree of Science, encaminado al procesamiento de referencias de los documentos sistematizados. Para ello,se revisó la literatura de sesenta y nueve artículos publicados entre 2000-2021 en la colección principal de Web of Science con los índices Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) y Emerging
Sources Citation Index (ESCI). Los documentos más relevantes dieron cuenta de cómo las universidades se convierten en el catalizador entre estudiantes emprendedores, docentes, investigadores e inversionistas que trabajan mancomunadamente en el desarrollo de proyectos de alto valor con elevados niveles de especialización. El punto de encuentro con la convergencia tecnocientífica se observa en la necesidad de equipos de trabajo multidisciplinarios, integración de redes de trabajo colaborativo y financiación en las etapas de su desarrollo. Asimismo, la unión entre ciencia y negocios se acelera en la medida que se disminuye el tiempo entre la innovación y el impacto empresarial. Se concluye que la educación se convierte en la principal estrategia de transferencia de tecnología que conecta a los emprendedores con las tecnologías de la convergencia debido al requerimiento de altos niveles de conocimiento especializado.
... It should be emphasized that on the whole, there are no either large-scale sociological stu dies of public perception of digitalization ideologemes and real processes by the Russian citizens in the Russian sociology or foreign works in this area. Nevertheless, there are a number of authors who study the issues related to the technological development of society whose works are devoted to the socio-humanitarian aspects of convergent technologies and technoscience (Aseeva, 2015(Aseeva, , 2016(Aseeva, , 2017, sociology and cyberspace interfaces (Romanovsky, 2000 ), the crisis of technological civilization and innovative development (Kamensky & Boev, 2015), the socio-humanitarian expertise of biomedical innovations (Aseeva & Budanov, 2015), the ethical aspects of NBIC-Convergence (Grebenshchikova, 2016), the new paradigm of sociology in a complex society (Kravchenko, 2012a(Kravchenko, , 2012b, sociocultural transformations of global modernization (Matveeva & Sarapul'tseva, 2019), the answer to the question regarding the mechanism of humanitarian visuality (Kurasawa, 2015), digital culture issues (Rius-Ulldemolins, Pecourt, & Arostegui, 2019), Big data in sociological analysis of the text (Cointet & Parasie, 2018), digital health issues and medical innovation (Lennon et al., 2017), sociology of privacy (Anthony, Campos-Castillo, & Horne, 2017), case studies of digital media (Fero, 2015), cultural cyber-utopianism (Rius-Ulldemolins, 2015), etc. ...
Разноаспектные социологические исследования, проводимые во всех регионах Российской Федерации, могут и должны стать научной базой для формирования социальной политики, позволяющей смягчить возрастающие негативные явления в обществе. Изучение причин возникновения тенденций углубления или ослабления признаков дифференциации общества, международного опыта государственного и общественного реагирования на негативные и позитивные социальные индикаторы, общегосударственных и региональных практик реагирования социума на различные глобальные изменения, связанные с цифровизацией, COVID-2020, реформированием системы образования, повышением роли села в общественной системе разделения труда, – важнейшие направления фундаментальной и прикладной социологической науки. В сборнике представлены доклады более чем 800 социологов по разноаспектным проблемам традиций и инноваций в социальном развитии регионов. Материалы сборника будут интересны научным работникам, студентам и аспирантам, преподавателям и экспертам в области социологии, а также руководителям и аналитикам в сфере государственного и регионального управления.
... It should be emphasized that on the whole, there are no either large-scale sociological stu dies of public perception of digitalization ideologemes and real processes by the Russian citizens in the Russian sociology or foreign works in this area. Nevertheless, there are a number of authors who study the issues related to the technological development of society whose works are devoted to the socio-humanitarian aspects of convergent technologies and technoscience (Aseeva, 2015(Aseeva, , 2016(Aseeva, , 2017, sociology and cyberspace interfaces (Romanovsky, 2000 ), the crisis of technological civilization and innovative development (Kamensky & Boev, 2015), the socio-humanitarian expertise of biomedical innovations (Aseeva & Budanov, 2015), the ethical aspects of NBIC-Convergence (Grebenshchikova, 2016), the new paradigm of sociology in a complex society (Kravchenko, 2012a(Kravchenko, , 2012b, sociocultural transformations of global modernization (Matveeva & Sarapul'tseva, 2019), the answer to the question regarding the mechanism of humanitarian visuality (Kurasawa, 2015), digital culture issues (Rius-Ulldemolins, Pecourt, & Arostegui, 2019), Big data in sociological analysis of the text (Cointet & Parasie, 2018), digital health issues and medical innovation (Lennon et al., 2017), sociology of privacy (Anthony, Campos-Castillo, & Horne, 2017), case studies of digital media (Fero, 2015), cultural cyber-utopianism (Rius-Ulldemolins, 2015), etc. ...
Background
Neuroethics entails investigations of neurocognitive mechanisms of morality and ethics; and studies and address of the ethical issues spawned by the use of neuroscience and its technologies to investigate cognition, emotion and actions. These two principal emphases, or what have been called “traditions” of neuroethics both mirror traditional bioethical discussions (such as debates about the safety of technological and pharmaceutical advances and ethical implications of new scientific and technological discoveries), and engage discourse about neuroscientific investigations of (proto-moral and moral) cognition, emotions and behaviors, and what such findings may mean for human beliefs and conduct - from the individual to the political levels.
Given the growth, range, and rapid maturation of the field of neuroethics we provide an iterative, four-part document that affords a repository of international papers, books, and chapters that address the field in overview, and present discussion(s) of more particular aspects and topics of neuroethics. This first installment lists reviews and overviews of the discipline, and broad summaries of basic developments and issues of the field.
Methods
To systematically survey the neuroethics literature, searches were performed by accessing 11 databases, 8 additional literature depositories, and 4 individual journal searches using indexing language for National Library of Medicine (NLM) Medical Subject Heading databases. Searches and assurance against overlapping coverage were conducted using the RefWorks citation management program.
Results
Overview, review and reflections upon the history and multicultural perspectives of neuroethics were obtained and relevant listings from international journals, books, and book chapters are provided. Part I will be followed by three installments that will address a): the neuroscience of morality and ethics, including discussions of free will, and personal autonomy; b) “second tradition neuroethics”, to include specific ethical issues in neuroscience; clinical neuroethics; and c) neuroethics education/training; neuroethics and society; neuroethics and law; neuroethics and policy; and international neuroethics.
A central problem of the attempt to bring to bear ethical ideas to technology, in particular information and communication technology is that it tends to arrive too late. It would clearly be desirable to have a better understanding of future technological developments in order to allow ethical considerations to influence design and implementations of technology. At the same time, the unavoidable contingency of future developments provides a fundamental limit to what we can know about the future. The current paper explores how this problem can be addressed. It provides a framework of technical developments that one can reasonably expect to materialise in the medium term future (10 to 15 years) and ethical issues that are currently expected to arise. This is done by analysing current European research funding documents with a view to exploring the trends, purposes, applications, artefacts, ethical issues, and governance structures that the European Commission foresees. The overall aim of the paper is to provide the conceptual basis of this framework.
In recent years, two distinct trajectories of bioethical inquiry have emerged: neuroethics and nanoethics. The former deals
with issues in neuroscience, whereas the latter deals with issues in nanoscience and nanotechnology. In both cases, the ethical
inquiries have coalesced in response to rapidly increasing scientific and engineering developments in each field. Both also
present major issues for contemplation in bioethics. However, the questions are (1) how different are the ethical issues raised,
and (2) is it beneficial for neuroethics and nanoethics inquiries to proceed on often-divergent trajectories by ethicists
who otherwise might never interact? If, for example, ethical inquiry occurs only within the disciplinary confines of their
predominant area(s) of science (which now seems to be the case) or by overlooking prior discussions in other scientific realms
(like genetics), then the opportunity for a richer, more comprehensive discourse may be lost. I argue that this (1) is a disservice
to bioethics, (2) is antithetical to some of the aims of bioethical inquiry, and (3) encourages the reductionism bioethicists’
claim that is counterproductive.
There might not be a specific nano-ethics, but there definitely is an ethics of new & emerging science and technology (NEST),
with characteristic tropes and patterns of moral argumentation. Ethical discussion in and around nanoscience and technology
reflects such NEST-ethics. We offer an inventory of the arguments, and show patterns in their evolution, in arenas full of
proponents and opponents. We also show that there are some nano-specific issues: in how size matters, and when agency is delegated
to smart devices. Our overall approach is a pragmatist ethics, and we conclude that struggle (and learning) might be more
productive than models emphasizing consensus.
Continuous developments in information and communication technologies (ICT) have resulted in an increasing use of these technologies in the practice of medicine and in the provision of medical care. This paper presents a series of perspectives from different areas of expertise on some of the ways in which ICT has changed the social picture in respect of the practice of medicine. The aim of the paper is to provide a context for further debate, in the form of a Panel Session, where the issue of Human Choice and Computing can be discussed with reference to a set of specific scenarios. The authors of this paper represent a wide variety of disciplines including law, ethics, medicine, philosophy and computer science, thus bringing a broad perspective to begin the discussions. The aim of the session is to provoke further discussion, encouraging input from other disciplines respresented by the participants, with a view to identifying the level of human choice in a social arena, which has at its heart a vulnerable community. In this environment, and in this era, the socialâ?? in social informatics has never been more important. Full Text at Springer, may require registration or fee
Technoscience is often perceived as an expression of the primacy of utilitarian values that would take over the field of pure and disinterested science . A number of scientists deplore that the age of science for its own sake is coming to an end, that technologyhas overtaken science. This common view expressed by active scientists is shared by cultural historians. In a paper describing technoscience as a cultural phenomenon, Paul Forman comes to a similar conclusion. He argues that technoscience is a reversal of the values attached to science. Whereas modernity was characterized by the high cultural rank of science and scientists, postmodernity is characterized the loss of confidence and tustworthiness of scientists. Modernity, accroding to Forman rested on the primacy of science to and for technology, post-modernity is characterized by the the primacy of technology over science. The modern assumption that scientfic research would bring about not only knowledge but technological applications in addition, has been superseded in the 1980s according to Formann, and basic research is no longer considered as a key source of technologial innovation. Forman also points to this technological turn is the science studies which more and more identified science and technology.
I would like to discuss this interpretation from the case study of converging technologies. By converging technologies I first refer to the current research programs launched in various countries. More precisely I refer to the US program entitled Converging technologies for improving human performances launched in 2002 and the European program CTEKS (Converging technologies for the European Society) launched in 2004. They are especially relevant because science is not even mentioned as they seem to focus exclusively on technology. Should we consider these programmes as the confirmation of Forman’s claim about the primacy of technology over science ?
In a preliminary conceptual analysis I will try to disentangle the notion of technoscience from the vague connotation of utilitarianism. Then I will consider to what extent the views and values attached to converging technologies express a prinacy of technology over science. For this purpose it is useful to distinguish between converging technologies as national research programs and the daily practices of research in which technologies converge. I will argue that the views and values that active scientists attach to their research can deeply differ from that of policy makers. However in no case can technosccience be described as a primacy of technology over science.
Over the last 30 years, an amassing body of work has focused on ethical dimensions of technology in a variety of contexts impacting society. This purpose of this paper is to trace the emergence of this new interdisciplinary field by exploring its conceptual development, important issues, and key areas of current technoethics’ scholarship. The first part of this paper introduces key concepts and provides a skeletal description of its historical background and rationale. The second part of this paper identifies key areas and issues in technoethics in an effort to help inform scholarship in technoethics. This paper is based on the premise that it is of vital importance to encourage dialogue aimed at determining the ethical use of technology, guarding against the misuse of technology, and formulating common principles to help guide new advances in technological development and application to benefit society.
Daniel Callahan, a cofounder of the Hastings Center in 1969, has been writing books and articles in the field of bioethics for some 45 years. Trained as a philosopher, but as someone who spent time early in his career as an editor, he has always aimed to do solid work in ethics but also to reach a broad public audience. Although he has aimed for a breadth of audience, he has not less aimed for a breadth of subjects in bioethics. This collection of essays manifests his interest in literate writing while also moving among a wide array of ethical issues. Some of his earliest essays focused on the advent and rise of the Center and the field of bioethics; on the tension between liberal individualism (manifest in the dominance of autonomy in the field) and that of communitarianism (reflecting the tradition of the common good); and on the interdisciplinarity in his own work and its importance for bioethics. The concept of health, its nature and scope, was an early interest and came to be a recurrent theme in his work over the years. That interest quickly moved to a consideration of the goals and ends of medicine and, in particular, to the place of death in human life and medicine--and in medicine's modern pursuit of lethal disease as, seemingly, its highest de facto goal. He came to question that goal, seeking a better balance between care and cure, stressing the importance of a public discussion of death itself if end-of-life care was to achieve its potential in helping people to die a peaceful death, and all the more necessary (and difficult) in caring for terminally ill demented patients. It was only a short move from those issues to matters of resource allocation and rationing, issues that came to dominate his later career. His rejection of an open-ended ideology of medical progress-a core value of American medicine and health care-where there is no limit to medical ambition in extending life, poses a basic obstacle to a health care system that aims to be equitable while also economically sustainable. He soon discerned how difficult it is to have a discussion in America of aging and rationing, of limiting the use of expensive technologies, and of the need to accept death and aging as fundamental, inevitable features of human finitude. The political struggles between a government-oriented and market-oriented vision of health care reform and the role of individual autonomy and a dominant role for market freedom in medical decision making and resource allocation were irresistible topics. A fascination with technological innovation and its centrality to American culture since its earliest days has been a consistent thread running through his work over the years. How is medical technology best assessed for its effectiveness? Is sperm donation and in vitro fertilization a good development? Why does the control of health care costs have so much in common with the constant increase in automobiles? Those are just some of the issues taken on in this collection of essays, reflecting not only a career marked by constant cultural and ethical examination but equally by the pleasure of restlessly moving from topic to topic.
Annotation This engaging and readable book provides an introduction to consciousness that does justice both to the science and to the philosophy of consciousness, that is, the mechanics of the mind and the experience of awareness. The book opens with a general discussion of the brain and of consciousness itself. Then, exploring the areas of brain science most likely to illuminate the basis of awareness, Zeman focuses on the science of sleep and waking and on the science of vision. He describes healthy states and disorders-epilepsy, narcolepsy, blindsight and hallucinations after stroke-that provide insights into the capacity for consciousness and into its contents. And he tracks the evolution of the brain, the human species, and human culture and surveys the main current scientific theories of awareness, pioneering attempts to explain how the brain gives rise to experience. Zeman concludes by examining philosophical arguments about the nature of consciousness. A practicing neurologist, he animates his text with examples from the behavioral and neurological disorders of his patients and from the expanding mental worlds of young children, including his own. His book is an accessible and enlightening explanation of why we are conscious.
According to several recent studies, a big chunk of college students in North America and Europe uses so called 'smart drugs' to enhance their cognitive capacities aiming at improving their academic performance. With these practices, there comes a certain moral unease. This unease is shared by many, yet it is difficult to pinpoint and in need of justification. Other than simply pointing to the medical risks coming along with using non-prescribed medication, the salient moral question is whether these practices are troubling in and of themselves. In due consideration of empirical insights into the concrete effects of smart drugs on brain and behavior, our attempt is to articulate wherein this moral unease consists and to argue for why the authors believe cognitive enhancement to be morally objectionable. The authors will contend that the moral problem with these practices lies less in the end it seeks, than in the underlying human disposition it expresses and promotes. Some might ask, what is wrong with molding our cognitive capacities to achieve excellence, get a competitive edge, or, as the whim takes us? In all of these occasions, the usage of smart drugs serves a certain goal, a telos. The goal is, broadly speaking, this: outsmarting opponents in an arms race for limited resources and thereby yielding a competitive edge. In plain words: competition is valued higher than cooperation or solidarity. What is wrong with striving for this goal? The authors submit that the question whether people really want to live in a society that promotes the mentality 'individual competition over societal cooperation' deserves serious consideration. In developing their answer, the authors draw on an 'Ethics of Constraint' framework, arguing that widespread off-label use of smart drugs bears the risk of negative neural/behavioral consequences for the individual that might, in the long run, be accompanied by changing social value orientations for the worse.
Over the last 30 years, an amassing body of work has focused on ethical dimensions of technology in a variety of contexts impacting society. This purpose of this paper is to trace the emergence of this new interdisciplinary field by exploring its conceptual development, important issues, and key areas of current technoethics' scholarship. The first part of this paper introduces key concepts and provides a skeletal description of its historical background and rationale. The second part of this paper identifies key areas and issues in technoethics in an effort to help inform scholarship in technoethics. This paper is based on the premise that it is of vital importance to encourage dialogue aimed at determining the ethical use of technology, guarding against the misuse of technology, and formulating common principles to help guide new advances in technological development and application to benefit society .
1. Background We stand at the threshold of a New Renaissance in science and technology, based on a comprehensive understanding of the structure and behavior of matter from the nanoscale up to the most complex system yet discovered, the human brain. Unification of science based on unity in nature and its holistic investigation will lead to technological convergence and a more efficient societal structure. In the early decades of the twenty-first century, concentrated effort can bring together nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and new humane technologies based in cognitive science. With proper attention to ethical issues and societal needs, the result can be a tremendous improvement in human abilities, societal outcomes and quality of life. Rapid advances in convergent technologies have the potential to enhance both human performance and the nation's productivity. Examples of payoffs will include improving work efficiency and learning, enhancing individual sensory and cognitive capabilities, revolutionary changes in healthcare, improving both individual and group efficiency, highly effective communication techniques including brain to brain interaction, perfecting human-machine interfaces including neuromorphic engineering for industrial and personal use, enhancing human capabilities for defense purposes, reaching sustainable development using NBIC tools, and ameliorating the physical and cognitive decline that is common to the aging mind. This report addresses several main issues: What are the implications of unifying sciences and converging technologies. What should be done to achieve the best results over the next 10 to 20 years? What visionary ideas can guide research to accomplish broad benefits for humanity? What are the most pressing research and education issues? How can we develop a transforming national strategy to enhance individual capabilities and overall societal outcomes ? These issues were discussed on December 3-4, 2001, at the workshop on Convergent Technologies to Improve Human Performance, and in contributions submitted after that meeting for this report. The phrase "convergent technologies" refers to the synergistic combination of four major "NBIC" (Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno) provinces of science and technology, each of which is currently progressing at a rapid rate: (a) nanoscience and nanotechnology; (b) biotechnology and biomedicine, including genetic engineering; (c) information technology, including advanced computing and communications; and, (d) cognitive science, including cognitive neuroscience. Accelerated scientific and social progress can be achieved by combining research methods and results across these provinces in duos, trios, and the full quartet. Figure 1 shows the NBIC tetrahedron, in which each field is represented by a vertex, each pair of fields by a line, each set of three fields by a surface, and the entire union of all four fields by the volume of the tetrahedron. This progress is expected to change the main societal paths, towards a more functional and coarser mesh instead of the less organized and finer one we have now.
This Article considers the influence and implications of the application of genetic technologies to definitions of disease and to the treatment of illness. The concept of "geneticization" is introduced to emphasize the dominant discourse in today's stories of health and disease and the social construction of biological phenomenon is described. The reassurance, choice and control supposedly provided by prenatal genetic testing and screening are critically examined, and their role in constructing the need for such technology is addressed. Using the stories told about prenatal diagnosis as a focus, the consequences of a genetic perspective for and on women and their health care needs are explored.
The newborn has protective mechanisms against most overstimulation through the special sense modalities. By contrast, he is forced to react with stereotyped motion when his reflexes, e.g., the 'walking' and placing reflexes, are elicited through 'exercises' and at times even beyond the normal prevalence of the 'walking' reflex (until 8 wk of age). This interferes with the normal newborn's phases of motor quiescence and of reflex inhibition probably due to cortical inhibition. Questions are raised about long range neurological implications of such an overemphasis on the lowest level of motor integration at a time when not even the pyramidal tracts have matured sufficiently to make voluntary walking possible. Clinical observations by Simpkiss and Raikes pointed to detrimental effects of too early use of 'baby walkers' even at 3 mth of age.
As with all newborns, picking a name is a difficult and contentious task. One of the most animated debates at the close of the NMTF conference was about the appropriateness of the label “Neuroethics.” Some claimed it was an unfortunate name for this fledgling field, because ethics is the purview of philosophers, while the field clearly needs the concerted interaction of policy makers, lawyers, journalists, and the public, as well as the philosophers and neuroscientists. Others suggested that “Neuroethics” was ill-chosen because ethics excluded nonethicist philosophers and other humanists. I disagree on both counts. “Neuroethics” is a name well-chosen for a number of reasons. First, it is concise, catchy, and evocative. Second, it is a sad misconception of all too many that ethics is merely an academic exercise of philosophers. Rather, our ability to think and act ethically is arguably one of the defining things of what it is to be human: it is an inclusive rather than an exclusive term. Part of what it is to be a scientist, a doctor, a lawyer, a politician, or a journalist is to execute one's office in accordance with the values of one's profession and the society at large. Witness the Hippocratic oath, the courtroom oath, the swearing in before taking office, and the injunction not to fabricate stories or data. Ethics should therefore not be a domain foreign to nonethicist professionals. Moreover, in the time of Plato and Aristotle, it was considered imperative for every citizen to have a moral education and to take part in the ethical deliberations of society. It is perhaps reflective of some of the ills in our society that ethics is thought to be a philosopher's concern and not the common man's. But this is not a misconception we should yield to—it is an invitation to reeducate the public that ethics is a forum that needs the participation of everyone. Rather than capitulate to a narrow view of what ethics is and who it concerns, we should embrace the dialectical model of the NMTF meeting and demonstrate that ethics is as broad and inclusive a category as any.We should not merely pay lip-service to this inclusiveness. Neuroethics has the potential to be an interdisciplinary field with wide-ranging effects. However, because it ultimately impinges on the well-being of the individual and our society, it is not a study that can or should be undertaken in the ivory tower. It is imperative that neuroethicists take part in a dialogue with the public. To make this possible, however, it is important in the short term to strive for “neuroliteracy” of the public and the media. We must make a concerted effort to make the subtleties of neuroscientific research accessible to the lay public via the media and refrain from the current practice of feeding it sound bites. For it is only with a nuanced understanding of the science, and a renewed trust in the goals of neuroscientists, that real progress will be made on these difficult issues. In the last few months, we have heard just the first noises of such a dialogue. As Dana Foundation executive director Francis Harper aptly noted at the close of NMTF, “You can call it what you want, but the neuroethics train has left the station.”
This contribution focuses on two claims advanced by the proponents of the project of "Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance." Firstly, it is maintained that this project represents something genuinely new and quite unique. Secondly, it is argued that the future prospects of the project are extraordinarily positive. In order to critically assess both claims this paper first focuses on the question of whether there is actually anything genuinely new about the project of improving human performance by means of converging NBIC technologies. In addition it is analyzed whether the project warrants that we be optimistic about its future prospects.
Towards a technoethics
- M Bunge
Bunge, M. (1977). Towards a technoethics. Monist, 60(1), 96-107. doi: 013410.5840/monist19776
Community as healing: pragmatist ethics in medical encounters
- D M Hester
Hester, D. M. (2001). Community as healing: pragmatist ethics in medical encounters. Rowman & Littlefield.
Exploring the role of dedicated online biotechnology news providers in the innovation economy
- M Morrison
- L Cornips
Morrison, M., & Cornips, L. (2012). Exploring the role of dedicated online biotechnology news providers in the
innovation economy. Science, Technology & Human Values, 3(37), 262-285. doi:10.1177/0162243911420581
Her main research interest is the ethical problems of technoscience, especially biotechnological innovations. She is the author of over 60 papers and the book
Elena Grebenshchikova is Head of the Centre of Scientific-Informational Research on Science, Education and
Technology, Institute for Scientific Information on Social Sciences of Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia
and associate professor at the Department of Bioethics, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University,
Moscow, Russia. Her main research interest is the ethical problems of technoscience, especially biotechnological
innovations. She is the author of over 60 papers and the book "Transdisciplinary Paradigm: Science-Innovations-Society" (2012).