Religion is said to be the driving influence behind Americans’ low moral opinion of nanotechnology, according to a researcher who surveyed public opinion on science and technology.
Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences, and a colleague found in their study that only 29.5 percent of respondents from a sample of 1,015 adult Americans agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.
When the survey was conducted in European countries, who are reportedly also key players in nanotechnology, the results were strikingly different.
In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent accepted nanotechnology on moral grounds. That percentage climbed higher in France where 72.1 percent of survey respondents expressed no moral qualms about the technology.
Scheufele presented results from the 2007 summer survey on Friday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 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 professor said religion accounts for distinct differences between the moral opinion of Americans and Europeans in regard to nanotechnology.
"The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives," said Scheufele .
"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."
Merriam-Webster defines nanotechnology as "the art of manipulating materials on an atomic or molecular scale especially to build microscopic devices."
The use of nanotechnology ranges from innovative devices such as electricity-generating fabrics to diagnosis devices that detect early signs of brain cancer. But its application to controversial fields like embryonic stem cell research is where it draws its critics.
According to Scheufele, Americans with strong religious convictions lump together nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research as means to enhance human qualities.
Researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, he said.
Scientists involved in stem cell research often draw the stem cells from days-old embryos, resulting in its destruction. This practice has been widely criticized by conservative Christians who have ethical objections to the purposeful destruction of the embryos which they consider tantamount to killing human life.
Many Christian advocate groups have asked the U.S. government to instead provide further funding for adult stem cell research, which has resulted in numerous therapies whereas research involving embryos has produced none. They have also asked the scientific community to explore non-embryonic alternatives for stem cells including a recent breakthrough technique that re-programs an adult cell to possess embryonic-like qualities.
The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology, added Scheufele, are not a question of ignorance of the technology. Although survey respondents are well-informed of nanotechnology and its application, "they are still rejecting it based on religious beliefs," he said.
"The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed," said Scheufele.
But the new study has critical implications for how experts explain the technology and its applications, according to the professor, who believes the scientific community should re-evaluate the way they place 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.
Comments
"Americans Reject Morality of Nanotechnology on Religious Grounds"
Well Americans are largely ignorant of science, much less actually knowing what nanotechnology means.
lewr2,
Any technology can be involved with a moral issue depending on what it is used for. However, the technology by itself is not moral or immoral, it simply is.
As Christians, our morality must come from the Bible. That is the standard. As far as I know there is no passige explicitly condemning any kind of technology. The only exception being putting that technology before God which is a form of idolatry.
Knight: Nano technology can certainly be a moral issue depending on what it is being used for.
Merkin: Science does in fact state life begins at conception, and all life IS important. Now, whether you want to agree with that, that's a different story.
As a side not, I suppose that one could state that your life isn't important. Would that be true?
GMG: Right now I believe the only thing nanotechnology has been used for is protective coatings (stain resistant fabrics, paints and the like). Someone correct me if I'm wrong please.
Ahhhh, so it's a theoritical situation he's talking about then. Still and all, it would seem useful to find a cure for viruses for, say, the common cold somewhere along the way.
Just for the record - all of my knowledge of nanotechnology came from an issue of Scientific American - so it is laymens knowledge at best.
AgentOrange - I have a feeling that survey vastly overrated the amount of knowledge people have of nanotechnology.
GMG: Nano-machines (molecular machines) could theoretically be implanted in your bloodstream to clear out your arteries (it would be no more invasive than getting a shot or at worst getting an IV). Nanotechnology per se doesn't necessarily have anything to do with embryonic stemcell research (sorry for the spelling in this one!) :)
agentorange -
"IE they will drink Nyquil to cure their cold, but nanotechnology to clear out their arteries…..no no no, NOW that is taboo."
What are you talking about? What nanotechnology to clear out arteries? Or are you just being facetious. And btw, NyQuil doesn't cure a cold.
Ifeelfine72,
Yes, I’ve heard that joke before in ‘The Pursuit of Happyness’. Still the message rings clear. USE YOUR BRAIN =).
No, you’re right I am not religious at all. Though, I think if there is a god (I was agnostic growing up and most of my life), the certain thing he wouldn’t want us doing is not using our own gifts of reason, logic, and intellect to improve our quality of life.
To argue that god created you with a magnificent brain, which one ends up denying to use for their own and humanities good is the height of horrid logic. I think part of the reason why religion in general has a hard time accepting new technology is it possibly jeopardizes the validity of some of their claims. After all, if science can cure all that ails us, praying to god to remove your cancer will become as antiquated as thinking the earth is flat.
I agree, if you aren’t open to new technology and find objection to it, then they should live like the Amish and that I am fine with. If they don’t wont technology in their lives, fine, don’t use it. If they’re going to walk the walk about certain technology being taboo, then they should define this ‘fine line’ that they wont cross, or take a path like the Amish and reject any new technology. Any compromise in between makes them look hypocritical., IE they will drink Nyquil to cure their cold, but nanotechnology to clear out their arteries…..no no no, NOW that is taboo.
While biology does technically say that life begins at conception, it doesn't mean that "life" is important at conception. So what if a cell is technically living? That doesn't mean that we have any moral commitments to it. Embryonic stem cells have no qualities that any rational person would consider human. They are more like yeast than children.
Topekan - Science doesn't say life starts at conception, many of us Christians happen to believe that but science doesn't make that distinction any more than it makes the moral judgment on the condemned on death row.
agentorange20 - There is a joke that I heard in church (of all places) years ago. It goes like this:
There was a huge flood in a village. One man said to everyone as they evacuated, "I'll stay! God will save me!" The flood got higher and a boat came, and the man in it said "Come on, get in!" "No" replied the man. "God will save me!" The flood got very high now and the man had to stand on the roof of his house. A helicopter soon came and the man offered him help. "No, God will save me!" he said. Eventually the man drown. He got by the gates of heaven and he said to God, "Why didn't you save me?" God replied, "For goodness sake! I sent a boat and a helicopter. What more do you want!"
I know you're not religious but God wants us to be smart and help ourselves and not be ignorant. To all the Christians out there: If science and technology are so scary, why not become Amish? Stop driving cars, get rid of your computer, only use homeopathic remedies - never go to an MD or DO, etc.
I fail to see how nanotechnology is a moral issue. I will not question the moral broblem of embryonic stem cell research. This issue is quite clear. However, there is no basis that I can see for rejecting nanotechnology on moral grounds. The argument of creating "materials that do not occur in nature" does not wash because there are many, many things we use every day that are not naturally occuring. (Anyone fill up their gas tank today? Did you use anything made of steel?)
Christians are not anti-science. Ignorance is.
Merkin,
Who is anti-science?
You evidently failed to closely read and understand the article.
"(regarding) nanotechnology('s) application to controversial fields like embryonic stem cell research is where it draws its critics."
"adult stem cell research... has resulted in numerous therapies whereas research involving
embryos has produced none. "
It would seem more "anti-science" to repeat desperate and futile attempts to use embryonic stem cells when adult stem cell research is actually producing results. What is this fascination with destroying life in the name of attempting to improve another existing life? What is at stake? A researcher becoming famous for achieving what seemed impossible? Sounds like a waste of resources to me.
How many more cures would we already have in hand, if these researchers stopped chasing their tails and actually directed their efforts towards a field that IS yielding results?
merkin,
"Fundamentalist" is supposed to be a pejorative, I suppose. However, any belief system has beliefs which are "fundamental", thus, anyone who holds those beliefs would be a "fundamentalist".
As far as Christians being anti-science, that's poppycock. The Protestant Reformation resulted in the age of enlightenment, wherein scientists investigated everything from gravity to light and then some in order to explain God's creation.
Objection to the use of embryonic stem cells has its basis in science. Science says that a human life starts at conception. Pretending that an embryo, a fetus, an elderly person or a comatose patient is not human is, itself, anti-science.
I hope I cleared that up for you.
Agentorange, just what is an 'xitan'? Sounds like a science fiction story, "Attack of the Xitans".