Posted on 02/20/2008 9:39:32 AM PST by MetaThought
Is nanotechnology morally acceptable?
For a significant percentage of Americans, the answer is no, according to a recent survey of Americans' attitudes about the science of the very small.
Addressing scientists in Boston today (Feb. 15, 2008) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences communication, presented new survey results that show religion exerts far more influence on public views of technology in the United States than in Europe.
"Our data show a much lower percentage of people who agree that nanotechnology is morally acceptable in the U.S. than in Europe," says Scheufele, an expert on public opinion and science and technology.
Nanotechnology is a branch of science and engineering devoted to the design and production of materials, structures, devices and circuits at the smallest achievable scale, typically in the realm of individual atoms and molecules. The ability to engineer matter at that scale has the potential to produce a vast array of new technologies that could influence everything from computers to medicine. Already, dozens of products containing nanoscale materials or devices are on the market.
In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable. In European surveys that posed identical questions about nanotechnology to people in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology. In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology, and in France 72.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology.
"There seem to be distinct differences between the United States and countries that are key players in nanotech in Europe, in terms of attitudes toward nanotechnology," says Scheufele.
Why the big difference?
The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion: "The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives. The importance of religion in these different countries that shows up in data set after data set parallels exactly the differences we're seeing in terms of moral views. European countries have a much more secular perspective."
The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In short, researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, says Scheufele.
He conducted the U.S. survey with Arizona State University (ASU) colleague Elizabeth Corley under the auspices of the National Science Foundation-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU.
The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology, says Scheufele, explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.
"They still oppose it," he says. "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed."
The new study has critical implications for how experts explain the technology and its applications, Scheufele says. It means the scientific community needs to do a far better job of placing the technology in context and in understanding the attitudes of the American public.
The survey was undertaken in the summer of 2007 by the UW-Madison Survey Center and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.
I think it’s bogus.
Technology is neutral, it’s what you do with it that requires values beyond the scientific.
Thank God we still have some of those values left.
What’s troubling to you?
The survey itself? Or the conclusions drawn from it?
I think this article is crap and the poll for that matter. I think most Americans don’t even know what nanotechnology is or how they as consumers already use this technology. Faith in God does not make someone stupid as this article implies.
I do not see why nanotechnology would be troubling on religious grounds. To me it isn’t much different from injecting drugs or vaccines. If they ever come up with something that will scrub plaque from arteries I will be right in line to make use of it.
Damn. You’ll believe anything, appparently.
It’s bullsh!t.
Just another Evil Evangelical article. We're in a transitional phase where BDS is being transferred to EDS.
I’d like to see the details of this survey. Bet there were buzz words involved.
This is obvious. Europeans look at the U.S. as though they were a bunch of Puritans. We are going down the road of Sodom and Gomorrah but not as fast as Europe. We’re just nipping at their heels heading for the same destination.
“The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In short, researchers are viewed as “playing God” when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, says Scheufele. “
Yes, those that are not humanists but true Christians see differences in technology use and measure it against their Christian or perhaps humanistic beliefs.
This example of “stem cell research” fails to distinguish between embryonic and adult stem cell research. There is a world of difference between the two. Of course articles like this don’t want you to even know there is a difference.
Christians and others KNOW the difference between ADULT stem cells and EMBRYONIC stem cells and their views are shaped by the Bible or other moral sources. I can only speak for Christians that are Bible based - EMBRYONIC stem cells are fertilized eggs - little humans. We don’t believe in “playing God” with fertilized human eggs that when implanted into a human could turn into a pregnancy - IVF - these are the SAME kinds of eggs that create an IVF pregnancy. It is morally WRONG to use embryonic stem cells for self serving means other than result of an human life. On IVF, Christians differ whether this is “playing God” - so yes their beliefs do enter into moral issues.
OTOH, ADULT stem cells is where ALL the progress and successes have been accomplished. To the dismay of the pharms/ anti rejection drugs are not needed. You are using your OWN stem cells. I have yet to meet anyone that had a moral issue with that. It is IMPOSSIBLE to tame EMBRYONIC stem cells - they are immature and you cannot make them do something. It’s hard to explain but their design doesn’t allow you to manipulate what they do whereas ADULT stem cells, mature is where there is more flexibility.
So,yes, none of this is surprising unless you have no moral boundaries - then it might be a huge surprise that others do have moral boundaries - that are not self serving at any price.
I’d be interested in reading how these survey questions were phrased.
Frankly, the ‘morality’ of nanotechnology is a concept that doesn’t occur to me.
What little I know of it, I do think it’s dangerous, but what isn’t?
Evangelicals...taking the blame others won’t take.
I think it’s bogus too.
Religious people don’t have problems with nanotechnology. They have serious issues with stem cell research that require the death of a fertilized egg because of the sanctity of human life.
In my opinion this professor is really really small.
>>The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion...<<
Baloney.
I am a professing Christian fundamentalist. I am a Creationist and think Macro-evolution is a silly theory that has to morph itself every time new evidence presents itself while the same evidence just solidifies the body of evidence proving Creation.
I think cloning of humans is immoral.
But nanotech? It is based on the science of discovering how God assembles things and using that knowledge to manipulate creation in the same way we maniuplate it to create steel, aluminum, grafted branches into fruit trees, create new dog breeds, etc.
Some “christians” are indeed sheep - but not in a good way. They read that they should be “innocent as doves” but seem to have missed the “wise as serpents” part.
But that kind of intellectual lazyness exists in all human subcultures.
>>The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities.<<
Not to me the aren’t. They are completely separate issues.
This study was made up by some Grad students smoking their bongs.
Nanotechnology is just another step in our technological advancements - standing on the shoulders of those that came before us, and using our God given gifts of curiosity and reason.
Cloning, Embryonic 'research', harvesting organs from the young and fetuses -- sure, lots of folks are going to blanch at this branch of so-called science. But this study is trying to blur the distinction between the sanctity of human life (who are made in the image of God), and general advancements in technology.
Yes, another bogus study probably well funded by tax-dollar derived grants...
I don't think Christ had any qualms about how "big" technology had to be to be "moral".
>>The answer, Scheufele believes...<<
Here is the subtle kernal upon which the rest of the article is based and where he hopes the reader will give him permission to editorialize about goofy Christians.
And the key word is “believes”. Unfortunately he does not back it up with supporting evidence. It is a Big Fat Claim (BFC). It is a powerful tool IF you support it. But without something compelling to back it up, it is to be intellectually ignored. The article offers nothing to back it up. It only goes forward to editorialize on its BFC.
The article, as it stands, is tripe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.