Of the Nano Futures currently discussed, the possibility of a nanotechnology-based disease detection system is perhaps the most attractive from a social standpoint.
Essentially, the Center for Nanotechnology in Society describes a scenario in which molecularly engineered proteins are injected into a patient, and the relative abundances of these proteins can be monitored on a daily basis. The proteins are constructed such that they react with different chemicals within the body and, therefore, act as an indicator of certain diseases or other health issues – like a nano-scale litmus test.
The authors write, “Since the Doc in a Box is detecting markers on the molecular level, users will be informed of a cold or flu before a sore throat or cough ever occur. With the ability of Doc in the Box to detect diseases pre-symptomatically, people will be able to get treatment before they feel the illness and far before it is too late to treat the disease. For cancer patients, there will be biological implications of cancer before a tumor develops and before the cancer has time to spread.”
Overall, there are very few reasons to be apprehensive about the development of this technology. Right now, early detection is the very best defense against cancer. So this, while perhaps not being a cure for cancer, may be the next best thing. And, naturally, cancer is just one of the potentially hundreds of diseases that these proteins could be tailored to detect.
Still, when developing policies regarding such accurate and early detection technologies, it must be ensured that it is being used in a responsible manner – one that does not interfere with personal privacy.
It is not difficult to imagine different corporations or companies screening their possible employee stock for genetic or other disorders with this technology.
Not surprisingly, although such practices are spreading worldwide, many employees and legal experts object to the role that health testing may play in the way the businesses operate; most are centrally concerned with the associated actions taken by employers based upon the results of such tests.
For instance, it is not straightforwardly clear whether terminating an employee based upon the results of their genetic tests is an ethically sound measure. Additionally, it may be a form of employment discrimination to eliminate one applicant based upon a genetic predisposition to some form of disease—after all, a predisposition fails to guarantee that the disease will ever manifest itself.
If such precedents can be found to be ethically sound, then other forms of discrimination may find their way into employer hiring practices. It is possible to imagine, for example, that one workplace environment might be more hazardous to people of African descent than people of European descent based upon their genetic make-ups. Would it therefore be justifiable to eliminate all African American applicants based merely upon their race?
We might further imagine that this position grows exponentially as an industrial super-employer in the United States; employing millions of workers and sustaining a substantial portion of the economy. So, could it ever be found to be ethical to categorically deny the African American’s entrance into this industry based purely upon genetic predisposition?
Some might contend that such circumstances are unlikely to ever arise, and they may be right. Yet, the notion that we should find one form of discrimination objectionable because it happens to be associated with race and another acceptable because it is more invisible in nature is a highly troubling position to take.
In order for the early disease detector to be utilized in a responsible manner, policies must be put in place that prohibit uses deemed by the public at large as unethical.
Let them know what you think: http://cns.asu.edu/nanofutures/blog.html
No comments:
Post a Comment