Technologies related to biology, in particular nanotechnology and "neurotechnology," are among the major emerging research areas whose ethical implications engineers should consider more closely, concluded participants in a National Academy of Engineering (NAE) symposium in Washington, D.C. that concluded yesterday (October 15).

Although the engineering profession was one of the first to adopt a code of ethics, the field's focus has typically been on "microethical" issues—how individual engineers should deal with ethical dilemmas on the job—for example, conflicts of interest or duties to one's customer or employer, NAE President William Wulf told The Scientist.

"Macroethical" issues, such as how specific technologies affect society, which are typical fodder for biomedical ethicists, have not been emphasized in engineering education, via professional societies, or at the workplace, Wulf said.

"There's a gap in our understanding of macroethical issues," agreed coorganizer Deborah Johnson, a professor of applied ethics at the University of Virginia. "We're good at thinking about an individual engineer's problems, but not how those concerns affect the rest of the world."

Wulf, who sees macroethical issues as a major challenge for engineers in the 21st century, said that he would like to see a permanent ethics center at the NAE that might host a series of rotating visiting scholars.

Though one participant criticized the NAE symposium for offering little in the way of specific case studies, Wulf said that the meeting was intended to "get the conversation started" between ethics and engineering, to enable the disciplines to learn each other's vocabulary.

Particular attention was given to so-called small-scale technologies, specifically nanotechnology and neurotechnology. Speaker Paul Root Wolpe, chief bioethicist at NASA and a professor in the psychiatry department at the University of Pennsylvania, discussed the array of ethical issues related to the intersection of neuroscience and technology: the casual, increasingly common dispensing of all sorts of "lifestyle drugs" like Prozac and Viagra, the potential violation of one's privacy using increasingly accurate and revealing magnetic resonance imaging studies, and the effects of medical technological treatments like deep brain stimulators (for Parkinson patients) on personality.

Wolpe also considered the implications of merging animal and machine, a particularly timely issue in light of the widely publicized research published this week describing a brain implant that enabled monkeys to control a robotic arm with their thoughts. "There's very little talk on the ethical perspectives," Wolpe said of the report.

Although the research represents a promising early step for treatment of paralysis victims, Wolpe said that ethicists and engineers should think more about the psychological impact such technology would have on the patient's psyche and about the technology's potential to be used some day to forcibly control other human beings.

Nanotechnology is another research area in need of ethical scrutiny and careful definitions, said speaker George Khushf, of the Center for Bioethics at the University of South Carolina, whose group recently received a National Science Foundation award to study the societal and ethical implications of nanoscience.

Overly narrow definitions, said Khushf, have focused on ideas of "molecular manufacturing," bringing together components and knowledge to assemble "self-replicating nanobots." Overly broad definitions are catch-alls that group together any of several diverse small-scale technology projects and serve as strategies to attract funding.

In brainstorming breakout sessions, participants alluded to ethical issues arising from the development of "large-scale technologies"—everything from weapons to aerospace, sanitation, mass transit, and tissue engineering—as well as nanotechnology, neurotechnology, and other small-scale technologies like genetic engineering and biosensors.

Some suggested that researchers and ethicists should also consider the possibility of a "nanodivide" resulting from a disparity in access to nanotechnology. Others considered the potential problem of nano-pollution as well as the importance of educating the public about nanotechnology before the news media and entertainment industries expose laypeople to misinformation.

One group leader, electrical engineering professor Michael C. Loui of theUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, noted that nanotechnology, like many other small-scale technologies, necessitates "ongoing management," rather than a "one-time design... It's no longer acceptable to create a product, then let others deal with its consequences," Wolpe said, offering the paradigmatic example of nuclear weapons.

At the meeting's conclusion, participants discussed the possibility and feasibility of incorporating courses on micro- and macroethics into engineering education, perhaps as part of core curricula, although the prospect was considered challenging given engineering students' broad cultural diversity.