IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v109y2012i4p583-598.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethics in Nanotechnology: What’s Being Done? What’s Missing?

Author

Listed:
  • Louis Lu
  • Bruce Lin
  • John Liu
  • Chang-Yung Yu

Abstract

Nanotechnology shows great promise in a variety of applications with attractive economic and societal benefits. However, societal issues associated with nanotechnology are still a concern to the general public. While numerous technological advancements in nanotechnology have been achieved over the past decade, research into the broader societal issues of nanotechnology is still in its early phases. Based on the data from the Web of Science database, we applied the main path analysis, cluster analysis and text mining tools to explore the main research fronts and hierarchical structure of these societal issues. We found that the research studies fell into four categories: “General Toxicity and EHS (Environment, Health and Safety),” “Medicine and Cytotoxicity,” “Assessment and Regulation,” and “Environment and Ecotoxicity.” These research studies have disclosed much information about the potential effect of nanotechnology on public health and the environment. Relatively speaking, the studies on the assessment, regulation, preventive solutions, and environmental protection are just emerging. This finding indicates that an abundance of effort should be conducted on these emerging themes to maximize the benefits of nanotechnology while minimizing its potential harm. The implications for various parties in this domain are also presented. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Louis Lu & Bruce Lin & John Liu & Chang-Yung Yu, 2012. "Ethics in Nanotechnology: What’s Being Done? What’s Missing?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(4), pages 583-598, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:109:y:2012:i:4:p:583-598
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1432-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10551-012-1432-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-012-1432-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bo Jarneving, 2005. "A comparison of two bibliometric methods for mapping of the research front," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 65(2), pages 245-263, November.
    2. Chris Groves & Lori Frater & Robert Lee & Elen Stokes, 2011. "Is There Room at the Bottom for CSR? Corporate Social Responsibility and Nanotechnology in the UK," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(4), pages 525-552, July.
    3. Steven A. Morris & G. Yen & Zheng Wu & Benyam Asnake, 2003. "Time line visualization of research fronts," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(5), pages 413-422, March.
    4. Henry Small, 1999. "Visualizing science by citation mapping," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 50(9), pages 799-813.
    5. Henry Small, 2003. "Paradigms, citations, and maps of science: A personal history," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(5), pages 394-399, March.
    6. S. Phineas Upham & Henry Small, 2010. "Emerging research fronts in science and technology: patterns of new knowledge development," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 15-38, April.
    7. Kirsten Martin & R. Freeman, 2004. "The Separation of Technology and Ethics in Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 353-364, September.
    8. Yoshiyuki Takeda & Yuya Kajikawa, 2009. "Optics: a bibliometric approach to detect emerging research domains and intellectual bases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(3), pages 543-558, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ion Georgiou & Joaquim Heck, 2021. "The emergence of problem structuring methods, 1950s–1989: An atlas of the journal literature," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 756-796, November.
    2. Vincent C. Ma & John S. Liu, 2016. "Exploring the research fronts and main paths of literature: a case study of shareholder activism research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 33-52, October.
    3. João Guerreiro & Paulo Rita & Duarte Trigueiros, 2016. "A Text Mining-Based Review of Cause-Related Marketing Literature," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 111-128, November.
    4. Chuang, Thomas C. & Liu, John S. & Lu, Louis Y.Y. & Lee, Yachi, 2014. "The main paths of medical tourism: From transplantation to beautification," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 49-58.
    5. Bongsug (Kevin) Chae & Eunhye (Olivia) Park, 2018. "Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): A Survey of Topics and Trends Using Twitter Data and Topic Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, June.
    6. Chen, Kaihua & Zhang, Yi & Fu, Xiaolan, 2019. "International research collaboration: An emerging domain of innovation studies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 149-168.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shuo Xu & Liyuan Hao & Xin An & Hongshen Pang & Ting Li, 2020. "Review on emerging research topics with key-route main path analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 607-624, January.
    2. Félix Moya-Anegón & Benjamín Vargas-Quesada & Victor Herrero-Solana & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Elena Corera-Álvarez & Francisco J. Munoz-Fernández, 2004. "A new technique for building maps of large scientific domains based on the cocitation of classes and categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(1), pages 129-145, September.
    3. Mu-hsuan Huang & Chia-Pin Chang, 2015. "A comparative study on detecting research fronts in the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) field using bibliographic coupling and co-citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2041-2057, March.
    4. Cobo, M.J. & López-Herrera, A.G. & Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F., 2011. "An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 146-166.
    5. Small, Henry & Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Identifying emerging topics in science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1450-1467.
    6. Yi-Ming Wei & Jin-Wei Wang & Tianqi Chen & Bi-Ying Yu & Hua Liao, 2018. "Frontiers of Low-Carbon Technologies: Results from Bibliographic Coupling with Sliding Window," CEEP-BIT Working Papers 116, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEP), Beijing Institute of Technology.
    7. Xuefeng Wang & Shuo Zhang & Yuqin liu, 2022. "ITGInsight–discovering and visualizing research fronts in the scientific literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6509-6531, November.
    8. Liu, Yunmei & Yang, Liu & Chen, Min, 2021. "A new citation concept: Triangular citation in the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    9. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    10. Reindert K. Buter & Ed. C. M. Noyons & Anthony F. J. Raan, 2011. "Searching for converging research using field to field citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 325-338, February.
    11. Mu-Hsuan Huang & Chia-Pin Chang, 2014. "Detecting research fronts in OLED field using bibliographic coupling with sliding window," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1721-1744, March.
    12. Chaker Jebari & Enrique Herrera-Viedma & Manuel Jesus Cobo, 2021. "The use of citation context to detect the evolution of research topics: a large-scale analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 2971-2989, April.
    13. R. Fileto Maciel & P. Saskia Bayerl & Marta Macedo Kerr Pinheiro, 2019. "Technical research innovations of the US national security system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 539-565, August.
    14. Ivan Jarić & Jelena Knežević-Jarić & Mirjana Lenhardt, 2014. "Relative age of references as a tool to identify emerging research fields with an application to the field of ecology and environmental sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 519-529, August.
    15. Martin G. Moehrle, 2010. "Measures for textual patent similarities: a guided way to select appropriate approaches," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 95-109, October.
    16. Belussi, Fiorenza & Orsi, Luigi & Savarese, Maria, 2019. "Mapping Business Model Research: A Document Bibliometric Analysis," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(3).
    17. Ali Gazni & Fereshteh Didegah, 2016. "The relationship between authors’ bibliographic coupling and citation exchange: analyzing disciplinary differences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 609-626, May.
    18. Pin Li & Guoli Yang & Chuanqi Wang, 2019. "Visual topical analysis of library and information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1753-1791, December.
    19. Cai, Fang & Zheng, Wen-Jiang & Zhang, Xiao & Ji, Jiu-Ming & Zhou, Wei-Xing, 2019. "Comparing selection strategies for engineering research hotspots," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 534(C).
    20. Mu-Hsuan Huang & Chia-Pin Chang, 2016. "A comparative study on three citation windows for detecting research fronts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1835-1853, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:109:y:2012:i:4:p:583-598. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.