In this study, we analyze the development conditions of and trends in Ukrainian scientific art during the ongoing war with the Russian Federation. Based on our own experience, we demonstrate how the emphasis, values, and goals of scientific art shift under martial law. We also highlight the challenges and difficulties faced by Ukrainian artists and researchers who found themselves in the occupied territories. Our own experience involves the promotion of the scientific and artistic project “Nanoart. Science is art” and its transformation into a socio-patriotic project “Nanoart. New symbolism of science.” We use this example to show how trends in art, culture, and science change very quickly under critical conditions. Art during the war has military and liberation themes, while artists and scientists during the war are warriors on the cultural and scientific fronts.

In this article, I share an anecdote about citizen science and use it to reflect on this rapidly growing field of scientific activity, its funding, and its governance. The paper focuses particularly on the epistemic and social challenges that accompany increasing demands for professionalization and institutionalization of the Citizen Sciences.

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are one of the first examples of nanotechnology, with a history of promising uses and high expectations. This paper uses the recent debate over their future to explore both ethical and value-laden statements which unsettle the notion of CNTs as a value-free nanotechnology and their regulation as purely a technical affair. A point of departure is made with the inclusion of CNTs on the Substitute-It-Now list by the Swedish NGO ChemSec, an assessment process that anticipates and complements the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation in Europe. An argument map is constructed to illustrate the core contention in the debate—should CNTs be substituted or not—which follows from a systematic literature review and content analysis of sampled journal articles. Nine arguments are articulated that bolster one of two camps: the pro-substitution camp or the contra-substitution camp. Beneath these arguments are a set of three implicit values that animate these two camps in prescribing competing interventions to resolve the dispute: (i) environmental protection and human safety, (ii) good science, and (iii) technological progress. This leads to a discussion around the regulatory problem of safeguarding conflicting values in decision-making under sustained scientific uncertainty. Finally, the study suggests further empirical work on specific nanomaterials in a pivot away from the abstract, promissory nature of nanotechnology and other emerging technologies in science, technology, and innovation policy. The examination of ethics and values is useful for mapping controversies in science and technology studies of regulation, even amongst experts in cognate research fields like nanomedicine and nanotoxicology.

Converging technologies require intelligent policy-making as they have significant capabilities to develop disruptive innovations. In this regard, future-oriented technology assessment is vital given the great uncertainty about the consequences of and barriers to accessing these technologies. However, few frameworks have been developed to evaluate converging technologies, and most of those have neglected the unique dimensions of these technologies. Therefore, this study aims to provide a policymaking framework for converging technology development. Accordingly, the proposed framework is designed through a meta-synthesis of previous technology assessment frameworks by considering the feasibility, challenges, and achievements of converging technologies development pathways (CTDPs) as the key factors. Then, the framework is implemented in a case study of Iran and an appropriate strategy for each converging technologies development pathway is proposed based on a quadruple matrix of achievements and challenges. The results show that in Iran, biotechnology and cognitive technologies have the highest and lowest development horizons, respectively; and surprisingly, the combined field of biotechnology-cognitive is the most promising pair combination of converging technologies.

In October 2015, the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety issued a Preliminary Opinion on Hydroxyapatite (nano). Past industrial experience with this material and participation in ISO/TC-229, Nanotechnologies, led me to submit comments on the Committee’s interpretations of physico-chemical properties, especially solubility, that in retrospect were also probing of the Committee’s collective understanding of nanomaterials. The Committee’s responses are examined against a background of other Opinions issued in the same time period. The expert’s role and responsibility, whether as an individual or a group member or in representing a scientific discipline, are examined through the concept of epistemic community taken from the public policy literature. A central theme is the Committee’s framing of chemical narratives such that its administrative procedures are projected onto the nanomaterial safety literature that is itself undergoing considerable investigation and revision. Inherent to this analysis is the singular role of toxicologists in the regulatory process. A related exchange by Australian and New Zealand colleagues is examined for its parallels to the SCCS actions, and there is a cursory discussion of later SCCS Opinions regarding Hydroxyapatite (nano).

As space travel and intentions to colonise other planets are becoming the norm in public debate and scholarship, we must also confront the technical and survival challenges that emerge from these hostile environments. This paper aims to evaluate the various arguments proposed to meet the challenges of human space travel and extraterrestrial planetary colonisation. In particular, two primary solutions have been present in the literature as the most straightforward solutions to the rigours of extraterrestrial survival and flourishing: (1) geoengineering, where the environment is modified to become hospitable to its inhabitants, and (2) human (bio)enhancement where the genetic heritage of humans is modified to make them more resilient to the difficulties they may encounter as well as to permit them to thrive in non-terrestrial environments. Both positions have strong arguments supporting them but also severe philosophical and practical drawbacks when exposed to different circumstances. This paper aims to show that a principled stance where one position is accepted wholesale necessarily comes at the opportunity cost of the other where the other might be better suited, practically and morally. This paper concludes that case-by-case evaluations of the solutions to space travel and extraterrestrial colonisation are necessary to ensure moral congruency and the survival and flourishing of astronauts now and into the future.

Gene drives are potentially ontologically and morally disruptive technologies. The potential to shape evolutionary processes and to eradicate (e.g. malaria-transmitting or invasive) populations raises ontological questions about evolution, nature, and wilderness. The transformative promises and perils of gene drives also raise pressing ethical and political concerns. The aim of this article is to arrive at a better understanding of the gene drive debate by analysing how ontological and moral assumptions are coproduced in this debate. Combining philosophical analysis with a critical reading of the gene drive literature and an ethnographic study of two leading research groups, the article explores the hypothesis that the development of and debate about gene drives are characterized by a particular intervention-oriented mode of coproduction. Based on the results of this exploration, we highlight the need for a broadening of the perspective on gene drives in which empirical, moral, and ontological concerns are addressed explicitly in their interplay rather than in (disciplinary) isolation from each other.

There are good theoretical rationales for considering germline gene editing (GGE) as a recommended and perhaps even necessary procedure for future long-term human space missions. This paper examines the arguments for applying GGE in a hypothetical future scenario where future parents living on Earth make decisions about applying GGE to their future children with the goal of allowing them to participate in space missions. The paper presents an ethical rationale for GGE. The paper also recognizes an area of potential moral controversy that is not so much related to the application of GGE itself, but to the risk of different perceptions of well-being by parents and children that may result in the need for genetically modified children to leave Earth against their will.

Hype over novel quantum technologies has prompted discussion on the likely societal impacts of the sector. Calls to ensure the responsible development of quantum technologies are complicated by a lack of concrete case studies or real-world examples of irresponsible quantum. At this stage, responsible quantum faces a situation reminiscent of the Collingridge dilemma. In this dilemma, the moment in which discussion on societal risks and benefits can be most impactful is also the time when the least information is available. The flipside of this challenge is an opportunity to build processes for examining the public good of quantum before the trajectory (and potential problems) of the sector become “locked in”. Recent work in this space has argued that quantum researchers and innovators must work with society to address uncertainties and concerns. By engaging quantum stakeholders and understanding their perspectives on responsibility, this paper seeks to support this proposition and enable further dialogue on responsible development and use of quantum technologies.

With the advent of synthetic biology, scientists are increasingly relying on digital sequence information, instead of physical genetic resources. This article examines the potential impact of this shift on the access and benefit-sharing (ABS) regime of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol. These treaties require benefit-sharing with the owners of genetic resources. However, whether “genetic resources” include digital sequence information is unsettled. The CBD conceives genetic resources as genetic material containing functional units of heredity. “Material” implies tangibility, and for some scholars, “functional units of heredity,” undefined in both treaties, mean full-coding sequences. This article argues that digital sequence information obtained from physical genetic resources, full-coding or not, should be treated as genetic resources. Literal construction of the CBD risks eroding its usefulness and the ABS regime. This is because through bioinformatics, sequence information can easily be obtained from genetic resources for utilization, without physically moving them or concluding ABS agreement with owners. The CBD must evolve with scientific progress also because sequence functionality depends on the state of knowledge. These arguments are vindicated by domestic ABS laws equating genetic information with genetic resources; Nagoya Protocol provisions deeming research exploiting the genetic composition of genetic resources as utilization of genetic resources; and CBD provisions requiring the sharing of benefits from the utilization of genetic resources. Moreover, treaty interpretation and case law demand that generic, scientific terms, such as “genetic resources” and “functional units of heredity” be interpreted in an evolutionary manner to capture scientific developments.