A Basis for Action - Commission de l'éthique de la science et de la ...

Position Statement of the Commission de l'éthique de la science et de la technologie
The debate on these emerging practices has only just begun, and the Commission will address these
issues in more detail in its upcoming work on neuroscience. 269 In the meantime, it urges an open dialog
on these questions so clear positions can be taken on the values that should guide technological
development and on what it means to be human and a member of a society defined in time and space.
Humankind’s relationship with nature
As with self-perception and the way each person defines him or herself as human beings, the increasing
development and use of nanotechnology-derived products could help change the way people look at
the environment, both individually and collectively. In a technologized world where the artificial and
natural meet and intermingle, certain philosophical guideposts have proven vital. Jean-Pierre Dupuy
stresses that “the problem is no longer knowing to what extent we can ‘transgress nature’,” but that the
very notion of transgression is losing its meaning. Humankind will no longer encounter anything but a
world made in the likeness of its own artificial creations.” 270
Humanity’s relationship with nature has changed a lot over the centuries. After being dominated by
nature and the elements for a large part of its history, humankind has managed to better grasp the
world around it and objectify—as well as partially control—its environment through developments in
science and philosophy.
With science comes not only knowledge that influences the ability of each person to act, but also an
understanding of the effects of their actions on the environment. The notion of responsibility is
important in this regard, and it is essential to remember that the power to affect the elements comes
with a responsibility for the consequences.
Increasingly, philosophers and environmentalists are working on a way to determine the values,
attitudes, and behaviors humans demonstrate toward animals, natural objects, and even the biosphere.
Such reflections are part of the relatively recent discipline of environmental ethics. As Luc Bégin
observes, for some specialists environmental ethics is an extension of sorts of traditional ethics, while
others see it as an entirely new school of thought with a very unique approach. 271
The value a society attributes to the environment (i.e., flora, fauna, ecosystems, etc.) will dictate, in part,
the actions taken to preserve it (e.g., decontaminating sites so that plants and animals can flourish there
once more) or to minimize the direct or indirect effects of a lifestyle that may prove harmful to the
environment (e.g., by limiting the use of vehicles or by making them more energy efficient).
There are three conceptual models in environmental ethics. The first is utilitarian, i.e., nature’s value
derives only from its usefulness to humankind. This is a highly anthropocentric school where
269 Op. cit.
270 Jean-Pierre DUPUY, “Le problème théologico-scientifique et la responsabilité de la science,” Les effets sur le
rapport à la nature (effets ontologiques), 2004 [online] http://formes-symboliques.org/
article.php3?id_article=66. [Our translation]
271 Luc BÉGIN, “Éthique environnementale,” in Gilbert Hottois and Jean-Noël Missa (dir.), Nouvelle encyclopédie de
bioéthique. Médecine. Environnement. Biotechnologie, Brussels, Éditions DeBoeck Université, 2001, p. 399.
Chapter 3 – Nanotechnology: Ethical Concerns 67