1 Introduction

In this brief essay, I will chart the development, over the period 2005–2025, of the research area of ethics of emerging technologies, with special attention to one of the founding articles for this domain, Jim Moor’s 2005 publication “Why We Need Better Ethics for Emerging Technologies” (Moor, 2005). Two decades before this publication, Moor’s seminal 1985 article “What is computer ethics?” (Moor, 1985) helped establish the field of computer ethics, now commonly called digital ethics. His 2005 article similarly introduced ethics of emerging technologies as a new focus within applied ethics.

I will begin by sketching the state of the art in research in the ethics of technology in the early 2000s. Next, I will outline how Moor’s article highlights major societal challenges stemming from new technological revolutions, critiques the limitations of existing ethics of technology in addressing these challenges, and presents his recommendations for advancing the field. This will be followed by an account of the development of the ethics of technology since Moor’s article was published. I will argue that Moor’s article accurately foresaw the pressing need for a more robust ethics of technology and demonstrate how the field has evolved to address the challenges he identified.

2 Emerging Technology and Ethics in the Early 2000s

In 2004, when Moor was writing his 2005 essay, the world stood on the cusp of transformative technological advancements. It was the beginning of the social web (Web 2.0), with Facebook launching in 2004, and the beginning of the smartphone revolution, with the gold standard, the iPhone, still three years away from launch. Few people were on social media, few owned smartphones, and cloud computing, blockchain, and advanced AI did not yet exist. In other fields, we were also at the beginning of a technological revolution. Nanotechnology, neurotechnology, and 3D printing were emerging technologies in their early stages, and genetic technologies and renewable energy technologies were more mature but had major developments still ahead.

By 2004, computer ethics had emerged as a recognizable field, with its own journals, associations, and conference series (Bynum, 2017; Müller, 2022). However, this field was limited to digital technologies. Other technologies were studied in fields of applied ethics that did not have a distinct focus on technology: biomedical technologies in bioethics, environmental technologies in environmental ethics, and neurotechnologies in neuroethics. In addition, the field of philosophy of technology also engaged with ethical issues, often with a focus on technology in general, as in Hans Jonas’s study of moral responsibility in the technological age (Jonas, 1984), Albert Borgmann’s critique of modern technologies disconnecting humanity from meaningful living (Borgmann, 1984), and Kristin Schrader-Frechette’s ethical critique of technological risk assessments (Schrader-Frechette, 1991).

Four observations can be made regarding ethical studies of technology at this time. The first one is that there was not really a coherent field of ethics of technology; rather, ethical studies of technology were scattered over a number of fields of applied ethics and philosophy.

Second, in part as a consequence of the fragmented state of the field, little effort had been directed at the development of methods and approaches for ethical investigations of technology or specific technologies. Mostly, standard approaches of applied ethics were used. Such approaches examine a morally controversial practice, such as euthanasia, cloning, hacking, or the use of nuclear energy, and perform an ethical analysis and evaluation of it. Typically, this involves three steps (Brey, 2000). First, the morally controversial practice is defined, with initial observations on the ethical concerns it raises. Second, the practice is examined and contextualized through conceptual analysis and fact-finding. Finally, ethical principles and theories are applied to evaluate the practice, potentially offering recommendations for the future.

Importantly, this standard approach applies just as effectively to practices without a technological focus as it does to those centered on technology. In it, technology is just a factor that enables or shapes human practices, and technology is not something that requires its own methods of ethical analysis. By the late 1990s, however, interest grew in specialized approaches to technology ethics, particularly in computer ethics. Deborah Johnson introduced a sociotechnical systems perspective highlighting the interplay of technology and social systems (Johnson, 1994). Batya Friedman proposed value-sensitive design to integrate human values into computer system design (Friedman et al., 2006). Philip Brey developed disclosive ethics to uncover value tendencies in computer technology (Brey, 2000). These were relatively new proposals at the time, but they did not yet have a large uptake and were not specifically directed at emerging technologies.

A third observation about ethical studies of technology in the early 2000s is that they were mostly focused on mature technologies and existing technological practices rather than on emerging technologies. For example, computer ethics focused on topical issues like privacy and security risks, the ethics of hacking, free speech online, and the digital divide, all of which were applied to relatively new but fully operational and widely used information technologies. There was good reason to devote significant attention to such issues, since many of these technologies were still relatively new and their ethical issues not yet well understood. But it was on current technologies that the focus was on ethics of technology, not only in computer ethics, but certainly also in other fields of applied ethics The focus of technology ethics, however, was primarily on current technologies, not just in computer ethics but also in other areas of applied ethics. As a consequence, ethics of technology in the early 2000s was mostly reactive, responding to technological developments that had already taken place, as opposed to proactive, seeking to influence innovation at its earliest stages.

A fourth observation is that the ethics of technology in the early 2000s was largely academic. That is, it was largely practiced by academics (ethicists and ethically minded scientists and engineers) and was not well integrated into the development, governance, and application of technology. Policymakers were not paying much attention to scholarly work on the ethics of technology, nor were many ethicists actively trying to shape policy. This is not to say that scholars were not interested in having an impact beyond their discipline. They usually were. However, it appears that existing approaches and institutional arrangements were not at a point where this impact could be successfully made.

3 Jim Moor’s Pivotal 2005 Essay

Jim Moor’s 2005 essay on the need for better ethics of emerging technologies can now, with the benefit of hindsight, be seen as a landmark publication written at a pivotal moment. The ethics of technology was a relatively new research area, but it was fragmented, did not pay much attention to methodology, had limited societal impact, and was mostly reactive rather than proactive in its approach to technology. Moor addressed these shortcomings in a publication that set an agenda for the future.

In this essay, Moor argues that while we are still in the middle of the digital revolution, we are at the cusp of three more technological revolutions with profound ethical consequences: genetic technology, nanotechnology and neurotechnology. Moreover, he claimed, it is to be expected that these revolutions will be mutually reinforcing. For an adequate response to these challenges, Moor argues, we need much better approaches to ethics. Moor then proceeds to present a number of ideas for improving methods in the ethics of technology, though he stops short of presenting a full-blown approach. His publication can therefore be understood as agenda-setting for a new approach to ethics research rather than as presenting a new approach.

Moor’s paper addresses all four of the mentioned shortcomings of the ethics of technology. First, he addresses the need for ethics to focus on emerging technologies, including their early stages of development. As he says, ethics should be proactive rather than reactive. He emphasizes that technological revolutions come in stages and that there is work to do even in the early stages. We cannot wait until technological revolutions have been fully realized, only then to address the ethical issues that have materialized.

Second, he critiques the fragmentation within the field of technology ethics, advocating for a shift from analyzing specific technologies to addressing the broader issue of emerging technologies as a whole. He emphasizes the need to enhance ethical frameworks to meet this challenge, arguing that new technologies cannot be considered in isolation. The technological revolutions that are in progress, he argues, concern technologies that will be converging and interlocking. Digital technology, neurotechnology, nanotechnology, and genetic technology will not emerge separately but will integrate in various ways. We therefore need general strategies to address their ethical aspects.

Third, he addresses the methodological shortcomings of ethics of technology and calls for improvement. Given the important challenges ahead of us, Moor argues, we cannot do “ethics as usual”. Specifically, better ethical thinking is needed based on solid information about the nature of technologies and their likely impacts, and better ethical action by means of a proactive approach. He suggests three specific improvements in ethics. The first is to practice ethics as a dynamic process in which emerging technologies are iteratively assessed as they unfold over time. The second is to practice ethics in a multidisciplinary way, in collaboration with scientists, engineers, and social scientists. The third is to develop more sophisticated approaches to ethical analysis that go beyond the standard ethical theories used in applied ethics. Approaches are needed that provide more guidance for concrete technological developments.

This brings us to the final shortcoming in the ethics of technology that is being addressed by Moor: its academic nature and lack of interaction with policy. By shifting the focus from ethical issues with specific technological devices or applications to the ethical assessment of technological revolutions, Moor aligns ethics more closely with policy. He does so by shifting the focus of ethical analysis to the systemic impacts of technology on society and long-term consequences, which are central concerns of policymaking. Ethicists with this orientation will be better able to inform proactive policies designed to manage risks and promote benefits.

In conclusion, Moor’s 2005 article presents a timely agenda that aims to establish the ethics of emerging technologies as a central area of ethical research. It highlights key challenges, critiques weaknesses in existing approaches, and offers recommendations for progress. In the next section, we will examine the advancements in the ethics of emerging technologies since its publication, assess the extent to which Moor’s agenda has been addressed, and evaluate the continued relevance of his insights.

4 Ethics of Emerging Technologies Since 2005

Before examining how the ethics of emerging technologies has evolved since 2005, let us first consider the technological revolutions that have occurred since then. Moor’s assessment was largely correct: the period after 2005 saw revolutionary advancements with profound economic and societal impacts. The digital revolution continued, spawning sub-revolutions such as social media, smartphones, cloud computing, the Internet of Things, and artificial intelligence. Genetic technology also experienced groundbreaking developments. While nanotechnology and neurotechnology have not been as transformative as anticipated, they have advanced significantly. Additionally, revolutions emerged in renewable energy, electrification, additive manufacturing, and 3D printing. All these technologies have increasingly converged, with digital technologies often enabling and integrating with other revolutionary innovations.

Ethicists had certainly responded to these technological developments and had evolved their methods and approaches. However, the response has not only come from ethicists. Since 2005, international organizations and national governments have increasingly recognized the need for ethical technology governance and have stimulated collaborative efforts to this effect. This includes organizations like the United Nations, European Union, OECD, World Economic Forum, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and G7/G20. Moreover, a multi- and transdisciplinary research area has emerged, responsible innovation, an area that is a joint effort of several academic disciplines (ethics, science, engineering, social science) in collaboration with nonacademic stakeholders, including governmental agencies, international organizations, industry stakeholders, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (Gianni et al., 2019).

Of the mentioned technologies, nanotechnology was one of the earliest to catch international attention. The U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative, which started in 2000, made significant funding available to address ethical, legal, and societal implications (ELSI), which inspired similar programs in other parts of the world, including in Europe and Japan. Ethical studies of genetic technology already took place in the 1990s and before but accelerated with the rise of gene editing and the CRISPR revolution in the early 2010s. Major funding agencies, such as the US National Institute of Health and the EU’s Horizon 2020, allocated funding for research on gene editing ethics. Ethics of neurotechnology started taking off in the 2010s, spurred on by advances in brain-computer interfaces, neuroprosthetics, and cognitive enhancement technologies such as Neuralink.

In the late 2000s, the explosion of data collection and storage capabilities driven by cloud computing and social media led to funding for research on the ethics of big data and responsible data governance, due to concerns about privacy, surveillance, data ownership, and algorithmic bias. This was followed by regulatory action, including the 2018 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU and the 2018 California Consumer Privacy Act. In addition, technology companies started implementing internal ethics boards to address data use. By the mid-2010s, the AI revolution raised similar concerns and was responded to by major initiatives to develop responsible and trustworthy AI. Many national governments and international organizations issued ethics guidelines for AI, and the EU passed the AI Act to address risks to safety, rights, and societal values stemming from AI. Numerous funding programs and research initiatives focused on AI ethics were launched, while many technology companies and international organizations appointed AI ethicists to guide responsible development and governance.

These developments have vastly increased funding for research in the ethics of technology and have changed the field. But have they changed it in a way that addresses the four shortcomings in the ethics of technology that were identified earlier and that Moor wanted to overcome? Let us take these four issues in turn. The first concern was the focus on mature technologies, with too little attention given to emerging technologies. This concern has been met by the big shift in focus to emerging technologies that has taken place since 2005. Most research in the ethics of technology nowadays focuses on emerging technologies. This shift stems from the significant technological revolutions that have occurred since 2005, prompting research funders and ethicists to prioritize and invest in ethics research in response to these advancements.

The second concern was that the ethics of technology was a fragmented field. This has changed in part. Most ethicists of technology still tend to specialize in specific technologies, and many journals, conference series, and academic organizations in the field remain focused on particular areas, limiting interaction among scholars. However, there has been a notable shift toward shared methods and approaches, as will be discussed next, along with increased interaction among specialized researchers due to the growing integration and convergence of different technologies.

A third concern was the lack of good methods and approaches for the ethics of technology. There has been substantial progress in the development of methods. New methods were developed that often had the following characteristics:

  1. (1)

    Anticipation and foresight. Instead of focusing on current technologies and their social consequences, these methods aimed to anticipate future technologies and their social consequences, using methods like foresight analysis, scenario building, and risk assessment.

  2. (2)

    A proactive approach to technology and innovation. Instead of being reactive to new technologies, these methods aimed to proactively guide and shape emerging technologies and their implementation. This includes a focus on guiding and shaping key practices in technological innovation, including design, deployment, use and regulation.

  3. (3)

    Multidisciplinarity. Methods are often multidisciplinary in nature, incorporating research data or research methods from social sciences, science, and engineering, or involving collaboration between ethicists, social scientists, scientists, and engineers.

  4. (4)

    Engagement of stakeholders. There is an emphasis on the active inclusion of all stakeholders—industry, policymakers, civil society, end-users, and the public—in technological innovation. This ensures that diverse perspectives shape decision-making, aligning innovations with societal values and needs. Also recommended is stakeholder involvement in ethics research, making ethical evaluations and recommendations more democratic and actionable.

  5. (5)

    Focus on technology governance. Technology governance is the steering between different sectors (government, industry, civil society) of the development of technology. The ethics of emerging technologies often centers on the question of how such governance can be conducted in ethically and responsibly. This requires not only the inclusion of ethical principles and approaches in governance processes, but also the implementation of new, collective and distributed models of responsibility, early engagement of stakeholders, and the implementation of proactive, anticipatory approaches.

Let us consider some specific methods and approaches that were developed since 2005. Several anticipatory methods for ethical assessment were developed, including anticipatory technology ethics (Brey, 2012), ethical impact assessment (Wright, 2011; Reijers et al., 2016; Brey et al., 2022), the technomoral change approach (Boenink et al., 2010), and ethical technology assessment (Grunwald, 2011). Ethical impact assessment, specifically, has caught the attention of policymakers and other technology actors. This approach combines foresight methods with methods of applied ethics to anticipate and assess potential ethical impacts of emerging technologies. The approach of value-sensitive design (Friedman et al., 2006) has inspired other approaches, such as design for values (Van den Hoven et al., 2015) and ethics by design (Brey & Dainow, 2024), which are frequently utilized to promote the responsible development and innovation of emerging technologies. Anticipatory governance approaches aim to facilitate the responsible oversight and management of emerging technologies, including foresight, stakeholder engagement, and proactive policymaking (Guston, 2013; OECD, 2024). Participatory and stakeholder engagement approaches specify how stakeholders can and should be involved in decision-making processes for responsible innovation (Cotton, 2014).

Since 2005, there has also been the emergence of a multidisciplinary research area, responsible innovation (RI) (or responsible research and innovation, RRI), which aims to align research and innovation processes with societal needs, values, and expectations to ensure that technological advancements contribute to sustainable, inclusive, and ethical outcomes (Stilgoe et al., 2013; Gianni et al., 2019). This research area involves collaboration between ethicists, social scientists, scientists and engineers, and nonacademic actors, including stakeholders from industry, government, and civil society. It focuses on technology governance, adopts a proactive and anticipatory approach, and emphasizes stakeholder engagement.

Overall, it can be concluded that substantial progress has been made in developing new methods and approaches for the ethics of emerging technologies. In addition, contemporary approaches align with Moor’s three methodological recommendations: they adopt a dynamic perspective on ethics, are frequently multidisciplinary, and extend well beyond traditional applied ethics by incorporating tailored assessment methods specifically designed for emerging technologies.

A fourth and final concern with the ethics of technology in 2005 was that it was too academic and not policy-oriented. It should be clear from the preceding discussion that a big shift has taken place away from traditionally academic research to policy-oriented research. Part of the reason for this shift is that most funding programs for projects in the ethics of technology are policy-driven and require a contribution to policy. In addition, the increased interest in responsible technology governance has resulted in many companies, governments, and international organizations hiring ethicists as part of their staff.

5 Conclusion

Ethics of emerging technologies evolved as a distinct research area in the late 2000s, 2010s, and 2020s. During this period, the field of ethics of technology progressed from childhood to adolescence. It experienced significant growth and shifted its focus from established mature technologies to innovative emerging technologies. It became less fragmented, more proactive, more multidisciplinary, and more policy-focused, significantly enhancing its influence on technological innovation and technology policy. In doing so, it successfully met the challenge outlined in Jim Moor’s seminal 2005 article: to shift its focus from mature technologies to 21st-century emerging technologies, and to address their rapid development and transformative impact through adaptable, forward-looking, multidisciplinary, and policy-oriented approaches.