Talk 1

From the Researcher’s Point of View

Maurizio Iaccarino

Summary

Maurizio Iaccarino is Manager of Research for the Italian National Research Council at the International Institute of Genetics and Biophysics, Naples. He introduces the issue of ethics as a whole particularly in the spheres of society and business, both specialist and general. He uses the debate surrounding embryonic staminal cells to illustrate the compromises between practical gains and moral safeguards. He goes on to discuss the problems with enforcing moratoriums.

The term "ethics" comes from the Greek word "ethos" meaning custom, behaviour. Today its meaning is more or less equivalent to that of "morals", which comes from the Latin word "mos, moris" and also means custom or behaviour, but at a more personal level. The concept of ethics was originally proposed by Aristotle to discuss philosophical matters concerning everyday life: the "ethike theoria" deals with the study of human behaviour and the criteria on the basis of which decisions concerning human behaviour are evaluated. Today ethics are the part of philosophy that discusses the hierarchy of values. Certain moralists like Nietzsche, Santayana and Russell claim that ethical values are interpretations, deliberations or preferences and not principles that can be proven to be true or false. According to John Ziman, former Chairman of the Council for Science and Society, ethics is not an abstract discipline but it deals with the differences of opinion that are encountered when human values are faced with a new reality.

In a static society, subject to little change, values are well codified, usually by religion or by tradition. This is true for numerous societies of ancient times when nothing changed for centuries. When wars, invasions, the imposition of a new culture or religion took place, they usually led to discussions about the validity of traditional values. More recently, different events like the French or Russian revolutions in Europe, as well as colonialism in other continents, have upset the hierarchy of values more or less effectively. In the 20th century new technologies created through scientific progress have deeply changed our way of life and human relationships. Each time there is a change in the traditional customs or behaviours this is accompanied or followed by a discussion on the ethical values as well as on their reformulation. In the 50s and 60s ethical discussions dealt mainly with the use of physics and engineering for the constructions of new weapons. In the 70s and 80s the focus was on environmental problems. Today most discussions deal with the progress of biology and the consequences it has on all of us.

In this talk I wish to develop two themes:

1. Nowadays scientific and technological progress is rapid and, to a certain extent, upsetting, so that it is necessary to have ethical discussions in order to adapt the use of scientific knowledge, namely new forms of technology, to a general context, in agreement with the basic principles of the civilisation which the events take place.

2. Scientists should be concerned about the ethics of the use of scientific knowledge and deal with it, both in general terms and with reference to their own specific area.

Progress in knowledge requires a critical mind, free of prejudice and open to new ways of thinking. The rapid development of modern science since the times of Renaissance is mainly due to the belief that scientific theories should be independent of theological or religious convictions. In the 17^th and 18th century scientific knowledge was mainly exchanged through the Academies, which helped disseminating the new theories and thus accelerated progress. Subsequently, at the beginning of the 19th Century, there was a remarkable development in university teaching, which gave rise to academic research, also called "pure" research. Scientists were not interested in practicalities and were not concerned about the technological applications of the results of their research. They were free to choose the subject of their studies and obtained positions, or made their career, on the basis of the contributions they made to scientific progress. Scientists locked themselves away in ivory towers and proclaimed the neutrality of science, and stated that the advancement of knowledge cannot be considered good or bad and that science cannot be responsible for its applications, and even less for their use.

Industrial research was radically different. Although based on the same knowledge utilised as basic material for academic research, it had completely different aims and rules. The results were not owned by scientists, but were the property of the industries financing them. The aim was not to acquire new knowledge, but to produce objects to sell and to increase company profits. When ethical problems arose from the results of the research, they were considered to be the responsibility of the company and not of the scientists. These were asked not to worry about, or discuss, ethical problems. Researchers employed by industries had only one way out, namely to resign.

As a result, discussions concerning ethical problems were more or less absent in both categories of scientists. In the academic world scientists were indifferent to the possible consequences of their work and in the industrial world employers did not consider it appropriate for scientists to worry about ethical problems. Of course, the description I have just given of academic and industrial research is schematic and does not fully match the real world. Nevertheless, it exists in the minds of those that jointly command in our contemporary culture.

In recent times there have been substantial changes in the interactions between academic and industrial research, even in their definition. In the academic world scientists receive more financial resources than in the past, and these funds come from organizations that decide on the basis of social considerations, namely on the expected output of the research in terms of contributions to the solution of specific problems related to social needs, as for example health, food, energy etc. At the same time Universities and public research institutes encourage their scientists to request funds from industries and to patent their results. Therefore, if a research project is financed because it has a social value, it is obvious that decisions regarding the research priorities of a country must include ethical considerations. As a consequence, today it is pertinent and necessary to evaluate from an ethical point of view not only the use of scientific knowledge, but also its production. Moreover, scientists working on a research project of practical importance can no longer say that their research is neutral. Industrial research on the other hand has become much more sophisticated and the results obtained are often published in scientific magazines that previously only received contributions from researchers working in the public sector. This means that scientists working in the academy or in the industry have an increased intellectual interest in collaborating. These collaborations have become more frequent and are encouraged in most countries.

Scientists working in the public sector today, more than in the past, own patents or company shares, or consult with industries. Although this phenomenon is considered to be very useful, sometimes it causes conflicts of interest, like:

1. The possibility of using the resources of public institutions for private interests;

2. Unduly influence by the private sector on the establishment of priorities of public research;

3. Scientists having industrial collaborations may have differences of opinion in the use of public structures with respect to scientists receiving only public funds;

4. Graduate students sometimes worry that their advisor serves industrial interests and not educational ones;

5. It has become more difficult to obtain a scientific opinion from experts free of conflicts of interest. Therefore, the relationships between public and private research are the cause of further ethical issues, which are of importance not only for the research community, but for all sectors of society.

As an example of the necessity for ethical discussions I wish to recall the debate on the use of embryonic staminal cells (also called totipotent or stem cells). The proposal is to use human embryos to isolate staminal cells, which would then be grown and differentiated in vitro to produce specific cell lines, to be used to carry out a cell transplant, for example a transplant of "dopaminergic" neurons for the treatment of Parkinson's disease, or of pancreatic cells for the treatment of diabetes. This is a research proposal and not a working technology: it is not clear yet that the goal will be achieved easily, since the implantation of new cells in an organism may alter fine tuning mechanisms of cell interaction and the regulation of metabolic circuits. But the technical problem will be discussed only when and if it becomes pertinent. At present the discussions deal with the opportunity of starting specific research projects on cells from human embryos with the aim of achieving new knowledge for the purpose of curing diseases. In the USA embryonic stem cells can be studied if private financial resources are used, not with public funds. Therefore in the USA the discussions concern the use of public funds for research on these cells.

In Europe instead it is debated if to use stem cells from human embryos or not. The alternative to the use of embryonic staminal cells is to isolate them from the adults, or from the cord blood of new-born infants. However, the counter-argument is that results will be achieved in a shorter time if embryonic cells are used and moreover it is not clear that results may be achieved with adult cells.

The problem of advancing knowledge on stem cells of embryonic origin is a very sensitive one and it has caused many discussions. The issue of 25 February 2000 of Science magazine is devoted to this subject and reports opinion of scientists, philosophers, ethicists, lawyers, as well as that of patients' associations. The Coalition for Urgent Research, representing many patients organisations, is lobbying the Congress of the USA to release public funds for research on stem cells. Their arguments are reported in Science and illustrated in Table 1. The advancement of knowledge on human stem cells, so that they can be used in therapy, may benefit millions of people. Of course, also the private sector is interested in this research field, which promises to give important economic benefits. Table 2 reports a list of small biotechnology industries interested in the use of staminal cells.

The arguments against the use of staminal are summarised in Table 3. They essentially deal with the respect for human life, and for human dignity and, although I chose not to mention abortion, this issue is of course related and frequently mentioned in the context of discussions concerning the use of embryonic human stem cells. The establishment of a moratorium has been suggested several times.

I am convinced that this topic is so sensitive because we do not have an informed opinion and therefore we lack a common position of all sectors of civil society. A moratorium to suspend these research projects should be applied also to research using private funds, since to allow this research to continue is a true hypocrisy. Of course, no restriction should be imposed to research on adult staminal cells or embryonic stem cells isolated from animals. On the other hand, I think it would be difficult to establish this moratorium for several reasons:

· it should be respected all over the world and not only in some nations;

· it would be difficult to reach a consensus on the establishment of a moratorium since the patients associations and the industrial sector would certainly lobby for the continuation of this type of research;

· we should recognise that scientists have an intellectual, but also practical interest in achieving priority in the publication of original results that may be obtained more easily with embryonic versus adults stem cells, and with human versus animal cells;

· finally, a moratorium would not be an ethically neutral option, since it may delay the possibility of curing patients.

Although the imposition of a moratorium is probably not realistic it is necessary to find a solution that takes into account the ethical problems of all sectors of society. This requires that people are more conscious of the different aspects of the issue:

“Science sans conscience est la ruine de l'ame” (Rabelais, Gargantua et Pantagruel).

The use of staminal cells is only one example of the numerous ethical problems that we must face today because of the present fast rate of scientific progress and of the ensuing new technologies. Consequently, it is necessary that more attention is given to ethical problems concerning scientific matters and the use of new technology. A widespread commitment by everybody is necessary, because the solution to ethical problems deriving from the progress of science cannot be imposed by dogma of faith, or by law. On the contrary it is the civil society that must find an acceptable solution and indicate to the governments the road to follow, together with the opportune laws.

Unfortunately, the ethical commitment is insufficient at all levels of society and of the scientific community and, as I mentioned above, the conflicts of interest generated by the collaborations between scientists of the public and private sectors complicate the issue. It is therefore important that governments, public and private organisations distributing funds for research, scientific societies and the researchers themselves become more sensitive to this point. In the present situation of scientific research the idea of neutrality of science is no longer amoral, but immoral. Scientists are the first to receive information, sometimes years in advance, about the eventual dangers of using a certain type of scientific knowledge. I refer, for example, to Niels Bohr for the atomic bomb, to Paul Berg for genetic engineering, or to Ian Wilmut for the cloning of sheep. In the context of discussions about the ethics of the use of scientific knowledge scientists have a big responsibility, since they have direct knowledge of the techniques in question, as well as of their potentiality. Of course, these discussions should involve all sectors of society.

When I was Assistant Director General at UNESCO I organised in 1999 a World Conference on Science, where the governments discussed problems of Science and Society. They approved a document, the "Science Agenda - Framework for Action" containing a chapter on ethical issues. This document was approved after thorough consultation with all UNESCO member states and after informed discussion with their scientific communities. It can be considered, therefore a useful reference to deal with ethical problems.

How can we make the scientific world sensitive to an ethical commitment? I think it is necessary to start from the bottom, namely at the level of individual scientists. The most appropriate context in which to discuss about ethical issues is the annual meeting of specific Scientific Societies. I suggest that the participants to these conferences are asked to propose and discuss ethical commitments, and to decide whether it is necessary to make them obligatory for all members of that particular Scientific Society. Only in this way we can understand what are the most sensitive issues for researchers. In this way all the members of each Scientific Society can be made more sensitive to a specific ethical commitment covering a subject of their particular interest. Researchers, who are often university professors, would then be more prepared to inform their students about ethical problems. Later on, it will be possible to make a census of the commitments made by the various Scientific Societies and to be able to come to a more general conclusion at a national level, or even better, at the level of a specific international Scientific Society. In fact, the ethics of science are not a personal problem but a collective problem involving all scientists at a personal level but also institutions at all levels.

Talk 2

Science’s Understanding of the Public

Colin Blakemore

Summary

Colin Blakemore is Waynflete Professor of Physiology at the University of Oxford, where he is also Director of the Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience. He has been President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1997-98) and President of the British Neuroscience Association (1997-2000), and will become Chairman of the British Association in 2001. The following is a report of his presentation to the seminar in Rome. Colin suggests that there is an urgent need for science to communicate more effectively with the public by way of improving science’s understanding of the public. If channels are not opened between the two communities then both will continue to be damaged.

Colin Blakemore reversed the traditional emphasis on the public understanding of science (PUS) and focused on science’s understanding of the public. He outlined the attempts made by British organisations like the Royal Society and the British Association to communicate with the public, as well as the increased prominence given to science communication by funding bodies such as the Wellcome Trust.

Despite all these efforts, however, “public confidence in science is in crisis.” He blamed this crisis on events such as BSE and the increased secrecy of science conducted by the private sector. But science itself is also at fault. Although scientists pay lip service to science communication, the fact that there is no reward structure in place for communicating with the public means that every moment spent away from the laboratory takes a minute away from progress towards a glittering career. Scientists, he said, want to have a dialogue with the public (as the results of a recent Wellcome Trust/MORI poll indicate), but few have had any training in either public or media communication. He suggested that the new task must be to “improve science’s understanding of the public.”

Professor Blakemore then listed the big news stories of the last 15 years which have involved science – from BSE to Gulf War Syndrome to animal experimentation - and concluded that, “science is news, it is issues, it is politics.”

As well as learning about the needs of the public, scientists should learn more about other areas of science – “trained physicists, for example, are more likely to perceive and objectively assess the problems of GM foods than politicians or the general public.” The speech stopped short of expecting the public to know about or be interested in all areas of science. However, it is vital that the public knows mechanisms exist for dialogue. Professor Blakemore called for science to include NGOs, including radical campaigning groups in the debate. Some in the science establishment still want to exclude these groups from the debate, but he believes they are crucial if trust in science is to be improved.

Finally, he explained the efforts of the British Association in the science communication sphere, focusing on Scibars, where bars or pubs play host to open discussion of science issues between members of the public and scientists. This idea was quickly picked up on by the Italian press, and an article appeared in La Repubblica online the same day. He ended by quoting Cambridge zoologist Simon Maddrell, who recently said, “The separation of science and society

can no longer be tolerated without continuing damage to both.” Professor Blakemore feels that of the two, science stands to lose more.

Talk 3

From the Industrialist’s Point of View

Sergio Dompe’

Summary

Sergio Dompe’ has been President of Assobiotec since 1998 and Vice-President of EuropaBio since late 2000. He was awarded a Honoris Causa degree in Biotechnology in 1996. He makes the point that it should be those involved in the production of biotechnology rather than its research who should be discussing ethical implications. Industry should be relied upon to be progressive and creative and deal with the new ethical problems arising in society, and not collide with outdated principles; the potential progress in bioethics is insignificant compared to that of biological technologies. The industry should, therefore, govern itself and continue sensibly along the specific guidelines already in place.

Biotechnological R&D basically consists in applying science and technology to living matter (organisms and their constituents, products or models), to customise its characteristics in order to obtain new knowledge, goods and services. The entire process may be depicted as a tree-like structure, in which the main disciplines of biological research (that is, the roots) feed applications to ever more complex biological materials and forms of life: as we proceed towards the top of the tree, those who work in biotechnological R&D inevitably start interfering with human life, thus having to deal with the related ethical issues.

Bioindustry as such is probably not the most suitable “institution” to provide moral cues for an all-inclusive debate on bioethics, the definition and fields of competence of which change and broaden continuously within the so-called civil society. Rather, the enterprises actively involved in the use of modern biotechnologies should provide evidence of their commitment in terms of reasons and ethical behaviour with respect to the expectations of the society in which and for which they operate. Bioindustry as a whole should consider the ethical issues that biotechnologies pose in terms of individual and collective responsibility in the context of a society whose goal is presumably progress.

Indeed, the concept of ethical responsibility includes both the “negative” meaning of accepting the responsibility of past errors, but also the “positive” one of the commitment to make correct decisions for the future. Bioindustry working in the countries of the EU should be able to count on the fact that European society is progressive rather than conservative or downright reactionary and that, for this reason – precisely a progressive context – biotechnological experimentation and innovation is presumably fostered and encouraged. This hypothesis may prove to be wrong – at least in the short term and in certain economic and productive sectors of the EU – but it is, in this case, a political rather than an ethical issue.

Moreover, it must be acknowledged that many of the recent debates in the EU on the subject of “bioethics” tend to be negative and precautionary if not prohibitionist, instead of identifying the positive aspects of a responsible type of progress. Bioindustry must lay claim to its own “right to operate”, precisely on the basis of a fundamental ethical value of democratic societies: scientists engaged in biotechnological R&D must be seen as a progressive and creative body and, above all, one that is positively responsible for the quest for new knowledge, not removed from the present and future society but immersed in it.

In terms of “R&D ethics”, the main goal of bioindustry should consist in actively dealing with the new bioethical issues that arise in a progressive society, rather than collide with or try to compromise with the ethical values belonging to conservative ideologies and interests.

In broader, more general terms, the problem of combining freedom and control – which is not necessarily conflictual but certainly dialectic – is posed in terms of the capability for social verification of a technology that will strongly affect the primary needs of humanity (i.e. health and nutrition), and that might have consequences on the very substance of humanity and of the environments in which it lives. Indeed, many elements of the problem fall within the framework of “bioethical” topics, and it must be recognised that progress in modern bioethics is minimal compared to the potential progress of modern biological technologies in terms of application: an effort to link progress and conservation, innovative values and traditional values seems urgent and necessary.

The actors of this necessary evolution are many and each will have to bear the burden of its own set of responsibilities: bioindustry will have to take charge – for good or for bad – of its actions but, also at the level of social control, the notion of responsibility will have to consist first of all in making sensible decisions for the future.

Ethics and Polemics:

An e-debate for the British Council Italy

Table of Contents

Foreword 5

Foreword

The Talks

Talk 1

Summary

Talk 2

Talk 2

Summary

From the Industrialist’s Point of View

Talk 3

Summary