Politics and Conflict at the Margins:
The Unexplored Middle Ground of Emerging Technologies

  Debra Bennett-Woods
  Regis University

The evolving convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, and a range of related scientific disciplines provides rich ground for controversy when considering the potential impact on the human condition. As is the case with many issues in bioethics, the voices that have come to dominate this conversation are those most passionately in support of, or in opposition to, those very outcomes. Nowhere is this more evident than the language such commentators use to describe each other, including: "neo-luddites," "bio-cons," "techno-conservatives," "techno-skeptics," "libertarian extropians," "techno-utopians," and possibly two of the most disturbing classifications -- "human racists" and "eco-fascists."

Yet the vast majority of people do not fit neatly into any of these categories. As a result, the voices of the middle become either lost in the din or silenced from the start by the well-meaning-but-polarizing overstatement, misinformation, and hyperbole of the impassioned "experts" at the margins.

What is most striking is the extent to which so much of the dialogue ignores history and oversimplifies the realities of the present human condition. For example, opponents of human bioenhancement technologies assert that the very nature of what it means to be human will either change dramatically or simply disappear as we evolve into a new species of biologically complex cybercreatures.¹ An alternative charge assumes that, since only the rich will be able to afford their own re-engineering, humanity will descend from the "haves' and "have-nots" into the "enhanced" and "unenhanced," perpetuating social inequalities at a level never before experienced.²

On the other hand, proponents of these same technologies downplay any potential dangers, claiming that such technological breakthroughs are simply more evidence of the unique human ability to master his/her environment and to evolve his/her own human potential accordingly. Furthermore, these technological breakthroughs cannot help but solve the majority of existing social problems by reducing or reversing environmental degradation, eliminating the human suffering caused by disease and aging, and creating higher orders of community to overcome global conflict.

These extreme "either/or" scenarios, leave a lot of space in the middle that needs to be explored in the spirit of common sense, solid information and analysis, and the realities of the human experience. Perhaps the greatest question to ponder first is not what is likely to change about human beings, but what is not likely to change.

The ability to think faster and more creatively will not guarantee that we will think more critically. The ability to live longer will not guarantee that we live better or more happily. The ability to increase our strength, speed, and sensory input will not make us more compassionate, caring, or generous. Plugging our brains directly into the Internet will not make us any more discerning about the content we select. More sophisticated weapons will not make war any more sensible or humane as a means of resolving conflict. Technology cannot guarantee that we will be any less competitive or self-serving, or any more insightful and virtuous.

On the other hand, trying to draw moral or political boundaries around technologies raises many legitimate questions. Is there a difference between seeking the cure for cancer and a "cure" for aging? If doubling the average human life span from 40 years to 80 years was a good idea, why not double it again? Where does one draw the line between "repairing" and "enhancing" basic human abilities? Doesn't all technology enhance human performance to some extent? Why would injecting a nano-enhanced red blood cell alter human nature any more than placing a patient on oxygen or a respirator? How is the adoption of new biotechnologies that make children healthier and smarter inconsistent with what parents have always done to ensure the happiness and success of their children? Leon Kass proposes what has come to be termed the "Yuck Factor" test for emerging technologies,³ yet proponents of technology are quick to point out how dozens of now commonly accepted technologies initially failed the "Yuck" test or engendered other apocalyptic predictions.

So how do we find enough common ground to proceed with a meaningful and productive dialogue? What, perhaps, we can agree upon is that nanotechnology and its technological cousins have the potential to significantly alter the human condition. Nanotechnology will solve problems as well as create them. Common sense and experience also tell us that nanoscale research and development will continue somewhere. There is really no historical precedent for simply shutting down an avenue of discovery that promises both tremendous advancement in basic knowledge and economic advantage. Furthermore, most everyone agrees that the pace of research, development, and subsequent military and commercial applications is likely to increase exponentially over a relatively short period of time.

Taken together these assumptions require responsible dialogue -- now. To the extent that conferences are happening, books are being published, and policies are being proposed, the dialogue has begun, albeit among a rather narrow audience. The challenge is to move it outside this limited audience and to keep it from devolving into the divisive realm of the culture wars engendered by issues such as stem-cell research and genetically modified foods. In doing so, there are at least three strategic criteria necessary for successfully achieving enough common ground to guide such a constructive dialogue, followed by at least three morally relevant directions the dialogue must flow.

In Criterion One, the dialogue must be embraced first by the scientists and engineers working in these fields, along with some level of accountability for how their work is funded, transferred, regulated, and applied. The assumption that science is an unqualified good needs to be replaced with "responsible and accountable science" is an unqualified good in most circumstances.

Criterion Two, in this same vein, requires that corporations and governments also must embrace the dialogue, weighing benefits and risks with the transparency required for socially responsible business decisions and constructive policy-making. We have been made increasingly aware of the vast impacts unscrupulous corporations can have on our social and economic well being, as well as the gridlock that ensues when trying to regulate in retrospect once the genie is out of the bottle. The business community and political leaders will both benefit to the extent that we manage to be responsibly strategic in our pursuit of these technologies.

And finally, Criterion Three mandates that the dialogue and decision-making focus on three important directions, directions upon which we should all be able to agree are ethically and pragmatically important at some level.⁴

First, we must address the question of community consent. The pace of change, the complexity of the process, and the magnitude of the potential impacts require some level of societal informed consent if we are to avoid knee-jerk responses that translate into see-saw politics, widespread social dissatisfaction and fear, or policy paralysis when negative impacts surface. This means a shared responsibility for transparency and balanced reporting of everything from basic research and potential applications to the ongoing study of impacts.

Second, and in support of the first direction, we must be more innovative in the creation and widespread conduct of scenario-based, anticipatory risk/benefit analyses that address both the short and long terms. The phrases "it's impossible to predict" and "we'll deal with that if it happens" must not be uttered. Data repositories, computer simulation and modeling capabilities, and basic tools of strategic and business planning must be mobilized to allow for faster and more accurate predictions and impact assessments.

And, third, we must address the questions of social justice raised by everything from economic disruptions in the global work force, to economic and practical access to new technologies, and to compensation for those who are directly harmed by untoward environmental damage. The potentials for economic disruptions are real and can only exacerbate the currently increasing global unrest due to unequal distribution of not just wealth but simple human well-being.

If nanotechnology represents unprecedented potential for technological advancement, then it also represents unprecedented opportunity for the evolution of political and social dialogues that better represent the pace and complexity of the modern human enterprise. It is not an easy path, but it is a challenge that will test that innate part of our humanity - our enduring will not just to survive, but to thrive.

Deb Bennett-Woods, Ed. D., is an associate professor and the Director of the Department of Health Care Ethics in the Rueckert-Hartman School for Health Professions at Regis University. She is also a Fellow of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society. Her current teaching and scholarly interests emphasize the area of emerging technologies, with particular attention to the health care industry, and she is currently authoring a book entitled Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society, forthcoming in late 2007. This commentary was presented at the Nano and Bio in Society Conference, held in Chicago in March 2006 during a session entitled "Politics and Future of the Human Condition."

¹ See Ramez Naam, More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement (2005) and James Hughes, Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future (2004).
² See Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (2002).
³ See Leon R Kass, The Wisdom of Repugnance, 216 NEW REPUBLIC 17-26 (1997).
⁴ See Deb Bennett-Woods & Erik Fisher, Nanotechnology and the IRB: A New Paradigm for Analysis and Dialogue (2004), available at http://www.csi.ensmp.fr/WebCSI/4S/download_paper/download_paper.php?paper=bennet.pdf (presented in the session entitled "Nanotechnology: Risk, Rhetoric and Imagination" at the joint meeting of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology and Society for Social Studies of Science in Paris, France).