1. Value Judgments, Ethics, and LCA of Nanomaterials Kevin C. Elliott Department of Philosophy University of South Carolina

2. Overview Value Judgments and LCA Considering Burdens of Proof Contributing to Broader Deliberations

3. Value Judgments I am using the term ‘value judgments’ fairly broadly, to refer to decisions that involve weighing the importance of multiple considerations in the absence of decisive rules or algorithms –Science is full of such decisions: choosing research projects and methodologies, characterizing and evaluating the quality of data, interpreting results, weighing multiple bodies of evidence The considerations, or “values,” that influence these judgments don’t always have to be ethical or social, but I will be focusing on judgments that do have ethical or social ramifications

4. Value Judgments Some of the value judgments associated with LCA are relatively obvious: –Deciding to pursue a consequential or an attributional assessment –Choosing the functional unit and the system boundaries –Determining categories of environmental impacts to assess –Deciding, if making a recommendation, how to weigh the importance of different environmental impacts

5. Value Judgments I want to highlight some more subtle value judgments that arise especially when making recommendations for future research that can inform LCA of nanomaterials: –How should we prioritize materials (or manufacturing processes, etc.) to study? Should we focus on those that are likely to be used most widely? Or should we focus on those that seem likely to have the greatest environmental impact? Or should we emphasize those that are easiest to study (and perhaps to yield generalizable data)?

6. Value Judgments Some other decisions: –Do we call for studies of highly purified, homogeneous materials, or rather mixtures of materials that might be more relevant to predicting effects from waste streams? –What principles should guide the choice of biological models? Should we aim especially for ecological relevance? Or should we place more emphasis on simpler and better understood model organisms? –What sorts of human and environmental effects should we prioritize? For example, how high a priority are developmental and reproductive effects, versus information about acute toxicity?

7. Images from: http://focusonnature.be/keywords/water?page=1; http://www.lrn.usace.army.mil/op/cor/rec/fishing.htm;http://focusonnature.be/keywords/water?page=1http://www.lrn.usace.army.mil/op/cor/rec/fishing.htm http://www.mblaquaculture.com/content/organisms/daphnids.phphttp://www.mblaquaculture.com/content/organisms/daphnids.php; http://mysciencefairproject.net/About_Me.php

8. Burdens of Proof In situations of particularly serious uncertainty, deciding where to place the burden of proof (and what level of evidence is needed to overcome that burden) becomes especially significant –Should decision makers start with the presumption that particular classes of nanomaterials are more, less, or equally environmentally friendly in comparison with current products? –Are there “streamlined” approaches to LCA that could provide adequate information in the near future? These decisions are laden with ethical and social judgments (e.g., about how much we would like to discontinue current practices or how much we value the services that new nanoproducts could offer)

9. Broader Deliberations Many contributors to the social and ethical literature on nanotechnology regard this as a unique opportunity to introduce new technologies in a more transparent, socially responsive manner The recent National Citizens’ Technology Forum (NCTF) provides a good example of these efforts

10. Broader Deliberations An overview of the NCTF: –Consisted of 6 groups located around the country, including a total of 74 individuals –Each group met face-to-face for two days at the beginning and at the end of the process –They received background reading materials –All 74 individuals interacted online 10 times over the course of a month and had the opportunity to develop questions for experts, who joined some of the discussions –Each group developed a final report with recommendations

11. Broader Deliberations Many commentators have argued that these deliberative exercises should address more specific issues that are relevant at present I think that it is worth considering whether there are social issues associated with LCA that merit inclusion in such venues –For example, considering what to think about nanotechnologies that could replace valuable materials from developing countries –Or, perhaps, considering how to weigh the importance of various categories of environmental impacts –Or considering how to frame the burden of proof for shifting to new nanoproducts

12. Conclusion I encourage reflection on three issues: –Attention to value judgments, especially those that arise when we call for particular sorts of future research –Burdens of proof and standards of evidence when responding to uncertainty –Subjects that merit broader deliberation, such as social consequences of adopting particular nanomaterials