The ethics of invention

Obvious examples are easy to bring to mind. For instance, the modern transportation systems that enable us to shrink the world, but at the same time pollute the planet or result in accidents. Of course nobody in their right mind would look at these downsides and wish the car, plane or train uninvented. However, as technology becomes ever more sophisticated, its presence in the most personal aspects of our lives has raised ever more tricky questions. A particularly interesting example of this arose in conversation with the man on this month's cover, Professor Hugh Herr. When he was discussing his hope to create bionic technologies that could overcome psychological as well as physical impairment, the question of ethics was inevitably raised. Not only were the uses to which such an invention could potentially be put worrying, but so were the ramifications of permanently altering personality and behaviour. Professor Herr responded reasonably that such an approach was surely preferable to the current treatment of disorders with imprecise chemicals with side effects and that ethical issues would have to be a question for lawmakers rather than engineers and scientists. However, the question of what responsibility the inventor holds for their invention's application lingers. Ultimately, of course, such a question is unfair. We cannot reasonably ask engineers to curb their inventiveness because of some imponderable use to which their invention may or may not be put. However, what is interesting about these questions (and, more pertinently, the frequency with which they arise) is that they suggest a growing nervousness about technological progress and the increasingly intimate role it plays in our lives. It is right, of course, to be cognisant of the potential dangers posed by technology, but at the same time it is crucial that we do not allow these dangers to obscure the usually much greater benefits. After all, there is no such thing as a bad technology, only a bad application.