Georges A. Legault

The Social and Ethical Acceptability of NBICs for Purposes of Human Enhancement: Why Does the Debate Remain Mired in Impasse?

The emergence and development of convergent technologies for the purpose of improving human performance, including nanotechnology, biotechnology, information sciences, and cognitive science (NBICs), open up new horizons in the debates and moral arguments that must be engaged by philosophers who hope to take seriously the question of the ethical and social acceptability of these technologies. This article advances an analysis of the factors that contribute to confusion and discord on the topic, in order to help in understanding why arguments that form a part of the debate between transhumanism and humanism result in a philosophical and ethical impasse: 1. The lack of clarity that emerges from the fact that any given argument deployed (arguments based on nature and human nature, dignity, the good life) can serve as the basis for both the positive and the negative evaluation of NBICs. 2. The impossibility of providing these arguments with foundations that will enable others to deem them acceptable. 3. The difficulty of applying these same arguments to a specific situation. 4. The ineffectiveness of moral argument in a democratic society. The present effort at communication about the difficulties of the argumentation process is intended as a necessary first step towards developing an interdisciplinary response to those difficulties.

Moral Arguments in the Debate over Nanotechnologies: Are We Talking Past Each Other?

How are we to understand the fact that the philosophical debate over nanotechnologies has been reduced to a clash of seemingly preprogrammed arguments and counterarguments that paralyzes all rational discussion of the ultimate ethical question of social acceptability in matters of nanotechnological development? With this issue as its starting point, the study reported on here, intended to further comprehension of the issues rather than provide a cause-and-effect explanation, seeks to achieve a rational grasp of what is being said through the appeals made to this or that principle in the range of arguments put forward in publications on the subject. We present the results of the study’s analyses in two parts. In the first, we lay out the seven categories of argument that emerged from an analysis of the literature: the arguments based on nature, dignity, the good life, utility, equity, autonomy, and rights. In the second part, we present the background moral stances that support each category of argument. Identifying the different categories of argument and the moral stance that underlies each category will enable a better grasp of the reasons for the multiplicity of the arguments that figure in discussions of the acceptability of nanotechnologies and will ultimately contribute to overcoming the tendency towards talking past each other that all too often disfigures the exchange. Clarifying the implications of the moral arguments deployed in the debate over nanotechnologies may make it possible to reduce the confusion observable in these exchanges and contribute to a better grasp of the reasons for their current unproductiveness.

Nanotechnologies et principe de précaution

Depuis le milieu du XXe siecle, les progres technologiques n’ont cesse de soulever autant des promesses d’avenir que des craintes pour l’environnement et les generations futures. Dans ce contexte, le principe de precaution est apparu d’abord comme interpellation morale devant les nouveaux dangers, ensuite comme principe juridique international et, enfin, comme droit communautaire en Europe et droit constitutionnel en France. Comment comprendre le principe de precaution, ses forces et ses limites, notamment avec le developpement actuel des nanotechnologies ? L’objectif poursuivi dans cet ouvrage interdisciplinaire est de contribuer a apporter une reponse eclairee et nuancee. Dans un premier temps, il aide a comprendre, du point de vue philosophique, ce que signifie aujourd’hui appeler un principe pour gouverner l’action et a saisir, par une etude interdisciplinaire, la geometrie variable du principe de precaution dans ses usages moraux et legaux. Dans un second temps, il cherche a mieux definir la force legale du principe de precaution en droit quebecois et canadien en comparaison avec le droit communautaire europeen a partir des cas de l’utilisation de nanomateriaux dans divers produits et en analysant la place de la precaution dans l’autorisation des brevets. Les auteurs de cet ouvrage esperent ainsi participer au dialogue entre les perspectives americaines et europeennes sur le principe de precaution et sur le choix du meilleur encadrement du developpement des nanotechnologies.

Support for the Development of Technological Innovations: Promoting Responsible Social Uses

How can technological development, economic development, and the claims from society be reconciled? How should responsible innovation be promoted? The “responsible social uses” approach proposed here was devised with these considerations in view. In this article, a support procedure for promoting responsible social uses (RSU) is set out and presented. First, the context in which this procedure emerged, which incorporates features of both the user-experience approach and that of ethical acceptability in technological development, is specified. Next, the characteristic features of the procedure are presented, that is, its purpose, fundamental orientation, and component parts as experimented by partners. Third, the RSU approach is compared with other support approaches and considered in term of how each approach assumes responsible innovation. Briefly, the RSU procedure is a way of addressing the issue of responsible innovation through an effective integration of social concerns.

Nanoengineering: Ethical Issues and Social Governance

Abstract The ethical issues raised by nanoengineering stem from the social reaction to bioengineering and challenge researchers, governments, and regulators. In this chapter, we focus on the differences between, on one hand, distinguishing between environmental, health, and safety issues and ethical, legal, and social issues, and, on the other hand, conducting an integrated analysis of ethical, environmental, economic, legal, and social (NE3LS) issues in nanotechnology. We show these approaches’ distinct modes of risk and impact determination, risk and impact assessment, and adoption of stances on technologies’ social acceptability. Further, we discuss the relationship between the natural sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences. This discussion helps clarify the challenges involved in the social communication of risk and the public discussion of the social acceptance of nanotechnology. Finally, it helps in understanding the gap between Europe and America regarding the social and democratic governance of the development of nanotechnologies.

Les codes de déontologie et d'ethique aux confins de l'éthique et du droit *

Codes of ethics and Codes of deontology are proliferating in various domains. This paper investigates this social phenomenon by analyzing these codes, how they are justified and how they are applied. This analysis shows that two conflicting approaches are at work in this particular form of social regulation. The first approach is grounded in the traditional, legal sanction of human conduct. The second approach, notwithstanding the legal framework present at its inception, assumes that ethical advances are possible through the recogniton and adoption of shared values. Awareness of this tension between the two approaches to the social regulation of occupational activity sheds light on one aspect of modern legal criticism: the dominance of law over all other forms of social regulation.