I think, the purposes of this response, that the answer is no. Bio-ethicists, or even techno-ethicists in general, are a small subset of the population at large. A very small subset, if the set we’re talking about is the set of all technoogy users. The set of all computer users, for instance, is in the billions. So, soon, will be the set of all nanotech users and biotech users. The chances that a small community of a few thousands or even a few tens of thousands will correctly anticipate and codify all the diverse good and bad applications and unintended consequences of nanotechnology is one that I find shockingly naive on its very face.

It simply can’t be done.

Now, as I said, I don’t want to castigate the notion of thinking ahead while we actually have that luxury, for once. But I fear even more the consequences of the ethicists effectively trying to stake out a pre-emptive veto on emerging technologies, which would effectively require their communal blessings on every major idea. That won’t work anyway, and will also lead to the ethcists simply being ignored.

What to do?

Given that I think technological ethics is a necessarily reactive field, perhaps the best policy is to make that reaction as quick and wise a reaction as possible– to tighten the loop, as it were. What would be the best way to make that happen?

Please keep up the communications; it’s much appreciated.

Dan Johnson