Post 10: Specific Ethical Question

My field of interest is in Nanotechnology.  The ethical question I would like to address is whether a precautionary principle should be used in nanotechnology regulations.  Mainly how strict a precautionary principle should be.

"The Precautionary Principle demands the proactive introduction of protective measures in the face of possible risks, which science at present -- in the absence of knowledge -- can neither confirm nor reject."


In the realm of nanosciences, the normal laws of physics no longer apply.  At the level below 50 nanometers, materials have different properties than at larger scales.  There are uncertainties on how the materials will act at that level which may call for a regulation of technological advances in the nano scale.


Argument For Strict Regulation
The strongest version of the precautionary principle would be to require a product be 'proven to be safe' before it is introduced.

This version would require a burden of proof to those who wish to introduce a new technology.  They would need to prove without a doubt that the product is safe before it is introduced.

Argument for Less Strict Regulation
A weaker version would simply require evidence of safety.

This version allows the technology to be introduced unless they could be shown to be unsafe.

My Position
I believe there should be a less strict regulation in place for technological advances in nanoscience.  There is a lack of full scientific certainty in nanoscience but that shouldn't call for a strict regulation.  This would slow down the production and advances in the field.  The question "how much proof is necessary" is key.  How do you prove a product to be 100% safe? It's extremely difficult to think of any product that is 100% safe.

Citations

Wolf, Clark.  Case Study:  Nanotech Regulation and the Precautionary Priciple. Print.


http://www.crnano.org/precautionary.htm

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp2.html