Survey

Dear colleague,

Thank you for taking the time to fill in the survey on assessing ethical impacts of (not) sharing nanosafety data. I assume that you have viewed my online presentation on it during the XX International Seminar on Nanotechnology, Society and Environment on 18 October 2023. If not, perhaps you can take a moment to read this poster on ethical impacts of (not) sharing nanosafety data.

The presented results are based on my ethical expert judgement of the seriousness of a number of relevant issues found in literature. In addition, some draft recommendations are presented to balance trade offs between different values which are at stake. The ethical impact assessment procedure calls for comparing my estimates with the perceptions of stakeholders on the seriousness of the issues, and also to consider stakeholder recommendations for remediating expected negative ethical impacts. Therefore, your answers are a valuable part of my research.

The survey is anonymous. If you would like to receive a copy of the final results, please request this by e-mail to ineke@ethicschool.nl

Kind regards,

Ineke Malsch

Question A: How severe do you consider each issue to be? (0-5)

Benchmark:

0 = No, I don’t think it is applicable. This nanomaterial or nanoproduct has no effect on this ethical issue.

1 = minor. The effects are very unlikely and/or have very low potential strength – examples: the frequency of this ethical impact is less than once in 100 years, or only few people are likely to be affected temporarily and reversibly, or the new technology does not significantly worsen or improve ethical impacts caused by existing alternatives.

2 = moderate. The effects are unlikely and/or have mild potential strength - examples: this ethical impact may happen a few times in a lifetime, or few people are likely to be affected mildly for a long time or irreversibly, or many people are likely to be affected temporarily and reversibly, or the new technology noticeably worsens or improves ethical impacts caused by existing alternatives.

3 = medium. The effects are substantially likely and/or have substantial potential strength – examples: this ethical impact is expected to occur several times in a lifetime, or at least a few people are likely to be affected substantially for a long time or irreversibly, or the new technology substantially worsens or improves ethical impacts caused by existing alternatives.

4 = strong. The effects are likely and / or have high potential strength: this ethical impact will occur frequently, or many people are likely to be affected strongly for a long time or irreversibly, or the new technology seriously worsens or improves ethical impacts caused by existing alternatives.

5 = severe. The effects are very likely and/or have very high potential strength – examples: the high ethical impact occurs permanently, or many people are affected strongly and irreversibly, or (if negative) fundamental human rights are violated, or largescale societal disruption is expected.

Neem contact met ons op

1. Not sharing nanosafety data prolongs health inequalities

2. Not sharing nanosafety data infringes on the human right to know about health risks

3. Not sharing nanosafety data slows down evidence based regulation of nanomaterials

4. Not sharing nanosafety data slows down the limiting of environmental impacts of nanomaterials

5. Not sharing nanosafety data delays the emergence of in silico risk assessment and extends the use of animal testing

6. Not sharing nanosafety data delays the sound management of chemicals throughout their life cycle (SDG 12.4)

7. Restricting sharing nanosafety data which could be misused by others may negatively affect academic freedom

8. Sharing nanosafety data impacts on intellectual property rights when researchers in resource-poor settings are nudged into sharing hard-won nanosafety data

9. Researchers in resource poor settings could be disadvantaged if forced to share their data

10. Some nanosafety data could be misused for biological or chemical weapons

11. Misinterpretation of insufficiently verified nanosafety data could contribute to environmental, health and safety risks, and be used to support false claims

12. The costs of sharing nanosafety data could prevent societally-useful science from being done

What do you think of the following recommendations?

I. To overcome the trade-off between public health and social justice, take into account the wider laboratory environment and engage with less resourced researchers

II. To overcome the trade-off between open data and dual use, share the responsibilities with other stakeholders and focus on everyday research practices

III. Management of research organisations producing nanosafety data should Raise awareness of research integrity principles and train researchers in best practices

IV. Managers & nanosafety researchers collaborating with researchers in developing countries and freelance researchers should Implement The TRUST Code – A Global Code of Conduct for Equitable Research Partnerships, DOI: 10.48508/GCC/2018.05

V. Researchers using animal testing should comply with the 3Rs: Reduce the number of tests, Refine the testing procedure, Replace animal testing with other methods (in vitro, in silico)

Contact: ineke@ethicschool.nl

Adres: postbus 455, 3500 AL Utrecht, NL