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.

Report on the Rome seminar

The Ethics & Polemics seminar took place in Rome on 11 July 2001.

Although the title of the debate was ‘Ethics and Polemics’, the main focus was science communication – a relatively new concept in Italy. There was a broad consensus that, as long as the public is kept informed of developments, it is acceptable for the practice of science to proceed with minimal checks and balances. What discussion there was on ethics focused on the idea that ethics is a nebulous area – “every society and every person has its own set of rules”.

This focus on the public understanding of science reflected growing concern among scientists in Italy that funding for thorny issues, such as genetics, is suffering due to negative public perceptions of the field. As one biotechnology professor said, “Funding for genetic research is being downsized because of public perceptions, guided by misrepresentation in the media.” The public’s perception of ethics in science clearly has the potential to have an effect on scientists’ work.

The discussions between talks were brief. A member of the Green Party noted that nobody on the panel represented civil society, and that this was a pattern common to most scientific committees. However, Paola de Paoli, who summed up, noted the general enthusiasm for the speeches and the debates.

Several key themes emerged from the discussions:

1. “The scientist has a responsibility to inform” (Giovanni Berlinguer). Colin Blakemore cited a recent Wellcome/MORI survey which showed that, although scientists want to be involved in communication and feel it is their responsibility, few so far had done anything substantial in this area. As one floor member said, “our instruments for managing the consequences of science are way behind the progress of science.” Some felt science had a public relations problem (“nobody loves us”) and needed spin doctors. To counter this, Professor Blakemore suggested better communication training, and building reward structures into the careers of scientists, so that speaking to people is not seen as taking up valuable time in the laboratory which could be spent advancing a career.

2. “I have a love/hate relationship with science.” (Colin Tudge) Linked to information is risk. Colin Blakemore feels scientists should discuss the possibility of risks and a floor member suggested that scientists should endeavour to quantify risks. If the public is given information on risks, it then has to take responsibility for its own decisions, and the onus will then move from science to the public. If science is honest, people will trust it; if it jumps the gun and attempts to reassure the public on the basis of limited evidence (as in the BSE case), it will come unstuck. However, politicians played the leading role in the presentation of BSE risks – can scientists trust politicians and the media not to distort their pronouncements?

The dichotomy between risk and benefits was also discussed – why do people smoke or use mobile phones while at the same time railing against GMOs?

3. The media’s role is crucial. Scientists should bring the media on board in their communication efforts. Vivienne Parry, a News of the World journalist, said that “the sensationalist media doesn’t help – educating the public is not editors’ top priority,” and Dick Alford, Director of the British Council in Italy said, “Science can be trivialized when it gets into the public arena.” As a genetics professor noted, Italian students are leaving Italy to go and study abroad - as a consequence of reduced funding caused by media manipulation of the public. Does the media have the responsibility to inform and educate the public?

4. “Scientists are at the service of society because it is the progress of humanity which is their goal” (Professor Scarascia Mugnozza). Colin Tudge said that consumers should drive science: Whereas doctors respond specifically to a patient’s complaint, biotechnologists, for example, decide something is wrong with agriculture and set about putting it right – with no consultation. Should science be driven solely by public demand?

Others, however, thought that scientists should be given freedom to research – “without freedom there is no creativity” (Giovanni Berlinguer) – and that politicians, and not scientists themselves, should be responsible for the application of their discoveries.

5. “The feedback loop [between science, technology and capital investment] has meant that science has become the handmaiden of industry.” (Colin Tudge). Research is expensive and governments have begun to leave the funding of science to private industry. The latter wants science that boosts its own, not humanity’s interests, so poor-country diseases like malaria go untreated. Giovanni Berlinguer proposed that the international community should step in in such cases, and that an increase in government funding is needed to correct market failures. As he said, “Big business is destructive because it is absent, not because it is present,” which raises the issue of the desirability of business involvement in the public sphere.

6. “Fewer laws, more policing.” (Giovanni Berlinguer) The need for regulation was a prominent theme. Industrialist Sergio Dompé lauded the US’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is a trusted, reliable institution which efficiently intervenes in many areas. He suggested Italy look to the FDA model – industry does not want to act in an unregulated way but wants to know the rules and how far it can go. Giovanni Berlinguer called for controls to be set in a democratic way. Berlinguer was questioned on the ethics of Professor Antinori’s human cloning pronouncements. He thought that he should be free to develop knowledge provided it does not violate the laws of Italy, but conducting 300 experiments (the number of failed experiments carried out before the ‘birth’ of Dolly the Sheep) on humans would be “criminal”. Professor Antinori, frustrated by the laws of Italy, is taking his experiments elsewhere. Does globalisation mean that international laws are required to ensure ethical science practice?

Report on the e-debate

The e-debate was hosted and moderated by River Path Associates. Invitations to the e-debate were sent to individual scientists, science communicators, members of pressure groups and members of the general public, as well as all those who had attended or spoken at the Rome seminar. The debate ran from 13-27 July. There were a total of 208 participants from around the world, and a total of 25 posts.

In his contribution to the e-debate Vincenzo Lungagnani cited the opening page of the United Nations Human Development Report 2001 which states that: “Throughout history, technology has been a powerful tool for human development and poverty reduction.” Recent controversies over issues such as stem cell research, testing on animals, fertility treatment and genetically modified organisms threaten to blunt this tool. Some scientists are rising to this challenge by openly debating the issues – ethics, public understanding of science and science’s understanding of the public are taking up increasing amounts of scientists’ time and energy. The e-debate which followed the Rome seminar tackled all of these issues and, while it raised many further questions, signs of consensus emerged as the debate progressed.

The first problem, enunciated by Luciano Caglioti, was to find a broadly accepted definition of ethics. Who should decide what is ethical? How can ethical standards be applied across different cultural boundaries? What, indeed, does the word ‘ethics’ mean? Vincenzo Lungagnani made a first stab at a definition: “Ethics is a branch of philosophy concerned with how humans should decide what is morally right or wrong.” Or there was the more pragmatic view from Douglas Eagleson: “Ethics – the proper thing to define an ethical act is a lack of researcher worry over complete public disclosure.” Lungagnani’s subsequent modification of his first definition - “Ethics is an instrument to distinguish right and wrong directions when decisions are taken” – combines the two approaches.

The importance and the potential of science are not in doubt. As Howie Firth says, “We have to recognise science and technology as a major driving force that shapes our world, and seek to control it for human betterment.” In his introduction to the Rome seminar, Professor Gian Tommaso Scarascia Mugnozza, had said that: “Scientists should be convinced that they are at the service of society because it is the progress of humanity which is their goal.” The e-debate uncovered some concern that not all scientists felt this way. Howie Firth for instance suggested that publishing papers, gathering research grants and accumulating citations may be more important to some scientists than the betterment of humanity.

Indeed where there is no check to ensure that individual scientists consider ethical or other questions around their research, speculation may fill the gap. As Rosalia Azzaro suggested, the public feels that “everyone considers only their own interests and their own ideological convictions (rather than the common good).” And even if it is accepted that the science itself may be neutral, its application is often seen to be influenced by those who fund it. Howie Firth suggested that many scientists have a “vague belief” that science is intrinsically good and that any harmful consequences are a problem for others to worry about. Steve Fuller encapsulates the dilemma facing those who expect humanity-enhancing work from scientists: “No particular moral commitment seems to follow from the fact that one is a scientist.”

On a purely pragmatic level we may be seeing a shift, whereby public approval is viewed as an essential part of the overall mandate required to conduct research, leading to greater emphasis on the need to acknowledge public concerns. One of the speakers from the floor at the Rome seminar – a biotechnology professor – has experienced the fallout from popular antagonism towards his work: “Funding for genetic research [in Italy] is being downsized because of public perceptions, guided by misrepresentation in the media.” Rosario Azzaro underlined such experience by highlighting the growing public mistrust of scientists. Steve Fuller, once again, summed up the problem that all the publicity around science has created for scientists:

“Unfortunately, scientists are not prepared for the indirect consequences of all this publicity, namely, the public starts to have its own views about science and wants to participate more directly in how its money is spent, its environment is treated etc.”

One key issue raised in the e-debate was the complexity of judging scientific endeavour in ethical terms. Some saw the problem in the context of a fundamental relationship between science and society. Howie Firth for instance, blamed the application of science for getting the human race into “arguably the most serious mess it has ever been in.” Rosario Frasca highlights possible unintended consequences as an obstacle facing ethical judgments: “All scientific discoveries bring good and bad – there is no scientific discovery, however sensational and revolutionary, which hasn’t been applied in a different way from its original intention.” Arriving at a credible, concrete decision that can be applied across various interest and particularly faith groups is also problematical. At the time of the discussion there was some controversy over a letter from the Pope to President Bush on the subject of the use of stem cells in publicly funded research. Saliem Fakir crystallised the quandary thus:

“If he says no, he makes some people [those with illnesses that may be cured as a result of the research] suffer and will have little control over the research the private sector does. If he says yes, he faces the wrath of the religious constituency, and has the danger of spawning a new industry in ‘embryo farming’.”

Colin Tudge pinpointed the utilitarian approach as the reason for this confusion. He suggests its primary failing lies in our inability to anticipate unintended consequences and the inevitable negative impact that all technologies have on some individuals. Instead there may be an important space to bring religion - that bête noire of many scientists - into the discussion of ethics. Tudge suggested that the main tenets of the great prophets – personal humility, respect for fellow beings and a sense of reverence for the Universe – will help the appropriate “ethical course” to become clear. Azzaro also praised the efforts of the Catholic Church in particular to engage in the debates, taking the view that it is primarily concerned with the “defence of humankind and the humanity of civil societies”.

While some are keen to involve all sectors in the decision-making process, many remain unsure who should decide what is ethical. Currently, it is governments that make the rules as, notes Steve Fuller, scientists themselves have failed to come up with their own version of the medical profession’s Hippocratic Oath. Speaker Sergio Dompé had suggested at the seminar that industry would benefit from regulation, which paradoxically would enhance its freedom to practice. Laura Guidoni agreed that scientists would benefit in a similar way. There are problems with regulation, however, as several contributors noted the difficulty of applying ethical codes across cultural boundaries, as well as the aforementioned problem of unintended long-term consequences. Saliem Fakir says that without regulatory institutions chaos would reign, but he then broadens the debate by proposing “vigorous debate and discussion by different interest groups in society” as an alternative.

Many contributors agreed that improved education was essential to improvement in thinking and therefore a better, more comprehensive open debate on ethical issues. Colin Tudge and Howie Firth echoed Aristotle: “If we get attitude right, the rest follows.” Firth in particular bemoaned scientists’ lack of training in thinking processes, which means that scientists “take up their posts with a mix of attitudes that have never been subjected to critical challenge and definition.” Others suggested that all of society would benefit from better thinking processes. Gary Kass, of the UK’s Office of Science and Technology, says people should be taught to negotiate their way through ‘spin’ and Geoffrey de Brito highlighted the need for improvement rather than revolution: “Rather than teach about ethics, teach effective thinking processes. People have confronted ethical questions for thousands of years, there’s no reason to reinvent the wheel.” Sherman Rosefeld makes this theme more specific, saying that all stakeholders – from scientists to the media to schoolchildren – need to “develop their skills of identifying, raising and discussing the ethical issues and dilemmas relating to the advances of modern science and technology.” Rosemary Goddard Svendsen believes this improved thinking can underpin effective regulation.

Whereas improvement in thinking and education found a broad consensus amongst participants, no clear conclusions were forthcoming on how it might be advanced in practical terms. It was generally agreed that taking the public into account was crucial. Interestingly, there was some disparity of views as to how that should be best approached. For some like Rosalia Frasca, the problem lies in getting the message from the scientist to the public, suggesting that all research institutions should have public relations offices, while Steve Fuller advocated institutional mechanisms for dialogue with the public. Others echoed Colin Blakemore’s idea that science should endeavour to understand and engage with all segments of the public, working together to help science to progress without detriment to society. In the end there was a sense that the first move is for scientists themselves – a point summed up by Howie Firth in the final contribution to the debate:

“Science is characterized on the one hand by an extreme belief in rational thought in its practice, but by a glaring absence of any systematic approach to the attitudes and values of its practitioners – not to mould them in any specific direction but simply to bring them out into the open and give the individuals the skills and the opportunity to reflect on them.”

Appendix 1 - e-debate contributions

The full contributions to the e-debate can be found, in date order, below. In all there were 25 contributions from Italy and from a range of other countries, including United Kingdom, USA, South Africa, and Denmark.

Day 1: 13 July

====================

Luciano Caglioti

====================

One of the first problems we meet when we talk about "ethics", is to define what is meant and the scope of the word. It implies judgments based on values. I cannot answer with certainty "what is ethical and what is not". It is also difficult to define who is entitled to judge.

The danger is that the issue is developed only by people from the ethical field who end up considering themselves owners of the choices through a process of successive co-option on committees, conferences and different initiatives. As an example of the total difficulty of definition of the terms of the problem, you only have to think of the age distribution in industrialized and developing countries.

In the first we have few children, a large group of middle-aged people, and many old people. In the developing countries we have very many children, relatively few of middle age and still fewer old. This is due to a series of factors like the improvement of food, medicine, of living conditions, hygiene. All factors that all of us would judge just and ethical, but which unbalance the human species and are at the origin of the demographic explosion that has taken place since the industrial revolution. Is the demographic distribution of Italy more ethical than in Bangladesh? Can anyone answer?

While these problems are debated, it is well to remember that knowledge constitutes one if not the only, absolute value for humankind. In every time and every place man has tried to know more. The development of knowledge mustn't be hampered by undefined ethical criteria which is also possibly arbitrary and / or debatable. I believe that we have to adopt a criteria of healthy pragmatism which takes account of the quantitative dimension of the phenomena, as well as the qualitative one.

If technologies are developed enabling a person of 80 years to have children, it will be necessary to estimate how many octagenarians, among the six billion of the total worldwide population will actually want to do this: we mustn't reason on the basis of rare examples but on the rule of the norm.

We need to keep research free, also for the necessity to avoid a reproduction of paradoxical situations such as in nuclear research: populations oppose nuclear power plants, while the production of nuclear

military weapons prospers. The concrete danger is that of encouraging the development of military application but blocking development for civil purposes which are those objects and situations which the majority consider useful.

====================

Saliem Fakir

IUCN-SA

South Africa

====================

While it might be fair to say that ethics is a nebulous concept, and that every society has its own view of what constitutes an ethical conduct, it does not therefore preclude the view that there should be no

discussion on issues of ethics.

Take for example the animal rights movement. The movement gained greater impetus due to the radical ethical writings of Peter Singer, who is from Monash University in Australia. But, today, his doctrine on animal rights is embraced by many people all over the world.

In fact, the ethical views he propounds are themselves contentious, because there are many people in poor rural areas who are dependent on their survival by having the right to capture wild animals for food, clothing, and other needs.

Should this doctrine also hold total sway over the need in some circumstances to experiment with animals where there is no alternative?

====================

Dr. Sherman Rosefeld

Department of Science Teaching

Weizmann Institute of Science

Rehovot

Israel

====================

School students, as well as the general public, definitely need to be exposed to the ethical issues which are part and parcel of the enterprise of modern science and technology.

But this caveat raises a problem: most science teachers (and most scientists) have little or no background in ethical discourse. Even science journalists -- who by the nature of their work are closer to the interface of modern science and ethics -- could gain a great deal from training in this field.

So the obvious question is: What is the nature of ethical discourse and what are effective pedagogical approaches to teaching its application to different issues in science and technology, and to different audiences?

It seems to me that there is a growing need for everyone -- from the scientist, engineer science educator and science journalist to the general public and school students of all ages -- to develop their

skills of identifying, raising and discussing the ethical issues and dilemmas relating to the advances of modern science and technology.

Day 2: 16 July

====================

Douglas Eagleson

Gaitherburg

MD, USA

====================

The question of ethics and the practice of science is not a debatable issue if the people who practice the science are the people who are practiced upon. The risks and rewards would be certainly be communicated very nicely to this new public.

The history of medical practice is rife with example after example of scientists unable to judge the ethics of their work for the very reason that this is not generally the case, except in rare instances of

self-experimentation. A practice looked at with revulsion by the scientific elite.

====================

Dr Robert J. Hunter FAA FRACI

Colloidal Dynamics Pty Ltd

School of Chemistry

University of Sydney

====================

There is no conflict between the preparedness of people to take the risk of smoking cigarettes and using mobile phones and their objection to the introduction of genetically modified food.

The first two are voluntary risks and the risk taker believes he or she gains something in return for the risk taken. In the case of GM foods the risk is borne by the community but they see little direct benefit.

The reduction in cost is just invisible (and probably benefits only the large food processors and supermarkets.)

People have strong aversions to any product or process, which has a risk of causing global fallout or global catastrophe, or one, which could impact negatively on future generations. There are a number of potential risks associated with GM that fall into those categories.

No matter how small such risks are in objective terms they loom large in the public mind. See the book by Paul Slovic "The Public Perception of Risk" (Earthscan Press (2000)) for details of the concept of 'dread'.

====================

Saliem Fakir

Director IUCN-SA

South Africa

====================

Perhaps more a response to Luciano Caglioti statements.

Only when our own interests are affected do we not want any niggly or interfering codes of conducts to be introduced. I do not believe anywhere in the world one will find initiatives being absolutely free,

especially if they have potential impacts on third parties.

Banks in my country are the most regulated, by the feduciary. This simply because banks deal with other people's money, and if not regulated there is the risk of exploitation, which we have experienced

in our micro-lending sector.

So I don't agree with his view of an approach that advocates absolute freedom, or that ethical comprises are not possible. The fact remains we have ethical notions both in national levels and in our individual lives.

Day 3: 17 July

====================

Vincenzo Lungagnani

Lecturer of Biotech Legislation & Bioethics

University of Milano Bicocca,

Italy

====================

What about trying to establish a few points of consensus, on top of fostering endless and diverging polemics?

Let's start with a definition of ethics. I suggest the following. "Ethics is a branch of philosophy concerned with how humans should decide what is morally right or wrong". The key concept of this

definition is that decisions are continuously to be taken by individuals and that to decide whether it is morally justifiable not to do something is equally as crucial as to decide whether it is not morally justifiable to do it (Asilomar 1975).

In other words, the ethical judgement should be concentrated on the scope of decisions to be taken and not aimed at setting arbitrary limits to them: with reference to modern biotechnology, the all-singing all-dancing "precautionary principle" is obviously not concerned with ethical issues.

====================

Rosemary Goddard Svendsen

Writer on animal welfare issues in European law

Denmark

====================

The welfare of animals used in research is an ethical issue which overlaps with several themes raised in this discussion. For example, it is affected by the ability or otherwise of scientists to communicate

with the public; it is incorporated into regulation of research at European and national levels; it is also of media interest because of its public and political sensitivity, not least the more sensational and

deeply regrettable behaviour of some so-called animal rights supporters whose violent activities damage the possibilities for debate.

EU legislation, attempts to address the ethical issues by laying down basic rules for the care and use of animals, but also by instituting a cost-benefit evaluation of experimental procedures to ensure that

suffering is not caused unnecessarily and that the benefits of a proposed experiment are at least commensurate with the "cost" to the animals involved.

The law requires use of alternative methods without live animals where available, but for various reasons these are not always employed in practice. Unfortunately, the ethical evaluation which underpins the authorisation of research involving live animals is sometimes poorly understood by those who must apply it and often unknown to the general public.

====================

Rosemary Goddard Svendsen

Writer on animal welfare issues in European law

Denmark

====================

There are more than 650 strains of genetically modified mouse known to European research, but their usefulness or otherwise as research models has hardly been objectively assessed, in relation to the cost in animal life and suffering involved in creating and maintaining such strains.

Furthermore, it is difficult to identify the scale and type of any welfare problems these animals may have when most countries do not quantify transgenic animal use separately from that of other animals - merely lumping it together with all other use of mice, pigs, fish, etc.

In relation to commercial use of transgenic animals, two recent Eurobarometer polls indicate a basic public dislike of gene modification in animals, but more readiness to accept it in the cause of

pharmaceutical production than food animal production.

Some questions to ponder:

- how can we improve the ethical evaluation underpinning the authorisation of research using live animals?

- how can we ensure that development of transgenic animals is thoroughly considered by the community as a whole, nationally and internationally?

- how do we avoid reducing the animals involved from the status of sentient beings (accorded to them in 1999 by a Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty on European Union) to that of an instrument in the cause of scientific curiosity or the search for new ways to make money?

Day 4: 18 July

====================

Steve Fuller

Professor of Sociology

University of Warwick

====================

The appeal to "ethics" in debates about science is a euphemism for the fact that scientists do not constitute a moral community. Rather, they are a bunch of people with some common training. Hence, their actions must be constrained and evaluated by external moral standards.

Despite the best efforts of such politically diverse characters as J.D. Bernal, Karl Popper, and Joseph Rotblat, scientists have never been able to agree on a version of the "Hippocratic Oath" that would underwrite a collective ethic. Indeed, no particular moral commitments seem to follow from the fact that one is a scientist.

A scientist can build nuclear bombs and still be a scientist, though perhaps not a very moral person. Perhaps we need to return to an older guild mentality which would link ideals of technical competence with a sense of propriety about when, where, and how that competence should be deployed.

Day 5: 19 July

====================

Douglas Eagleson

Gaithersburg

USA

====================

The question of ethics in this debate has been defined as the act of applying ethics to the research scientist. I can use this definition, but the average person thinks of ethics as, "what is good versus bad". The layman uses a simple definition, we are using the philosophical definition of ethics, as an "absolute good versus bad".

If this is not clear to everyone then the result will be a certain kind of confusion in communication. Some will seek to tell the researcher the proper definition of good work practices. Others will try to tell you that the researchers are not being good.

What is the dilemma for a philosopher that wants to clarify the course of action? How to ensure that everyone is communicating their intentions?

Why not use an altered absolute definition such as: ethics- the proper thing to define an ethical act is a lack of researcher worry over complete public disclosure, without hiding something like the fact that

researchers do not want to be ethical.

It is absolute in the same sense as the common philosophical definition of ethics. My definition states the ethical consequences of reality, as the proper form of an analysis of an ethical instance.

====================

Geoffrey deBrito

Global Citizen

California

====================

Rather than teach about ethics, teach effective thinking processes. People have confronted ethical questions for thousands of years, there's no reason to reinvent the wheel.

Day 6: 20 July

====================

Saliem Fakir

Director

IUCN-SA

South Africa

====================

Luciano Caglioti asks important questions about what can be considered ethical and who should be judged? Perhaps his question is meant to suggest that because it cannot be answered, therefore there is no point in the exercise. In reality though we invest these powers of ethical deliberation and judgment on our institutions. If we want research to be conducted we seek permission from regulatory authorities, and implicitly by doing so we recognise the authority and the norm setting functions of such an authority. The reason why we vest so much energy on the authority of institutions is that if we do not engage these processes we are likely to have chaotic situations. This is not conducive for

research, and its major consequence will be incessant conflict. Either ethics can be imposed from above, by a few people who have power, or ethics is an outcome of a vigorous debate and discussion by different interest groups in society.

====================

Rosario Frasca

National Institute of Insurance Against Accidents at Work

Rome

====================

It's fashionable today to have an ethical code for acts and standards, which in the debate is called third person ethics and of the external observer. It is this ethical code which stirs up the most controversy because it is difficult, if not impossible, to apply a single rule to all different cultures. An observation on polemics, the second word of the debate: third person ethics can generate controversies arising from different cultural systems whereas if the point of reference is first person ethics we are more likely to find convergence between the different cultures of the world because in the end we are all human beings.

When we speak about ethics, we speak of good and evil. Human beings are not able to know absolute good and evil. It's illusory to pretend that in science we can find the font of absolute certainties. All scientific discoveries bring good and bad, there is no scientific discovery, however sensational and revolutionary, which hasn't been applied in a different way from the original intention, the striking example being atomic energy. Good and evil are the ultimate aim of man's actions: man is the subject of ethics, not science or communication. And the ultimate aim is the common good of all humanity and not only part of it. Ethics cannot be a set of standards given from above which everyone must

conform to. It is rather the action of the free man faced with choices he must make.

====================

Laura Guidoni

Istituto Superiore di Sanita' (Advanced Institute for Health)

Rome

====================

- Science is neutral. Are we not all part of the civic community, in which the consequences of our own actions in relation to the rights of others must be considered and, today more than ever, also those of

future generations?

- Science is neutral, but what about its applications? Is it not the case that funding, including public funding, is often aimed at reaching practical objectives and applications based on market considerations?

- Could adhesion to a deontological code, shared world-wide, meet scientists' need to advance freely towards the advancement of knowledge, while observing the principle of respect for others and for future generations?

====================

Rosalia Azzaro

www.isrds.rm.cnr.it

====================

1. it is possible to reach ethical judgments for which rationality is necessary but not sufficient;

2. as humans and rational beings, these judgments, although valid and founded ("values" and principles") are not absolute; they may be affected by other goals;

3. ethics is for man, not vice versa: the ethical "minimum" with its greatest objective is therefore the protection of every living thing, which also constitutes the common point of departure for the processing of ethics.

Today the bioethical debate seems to have run into the grounds of mistrust, about the possibility of reaching common ethical criteria which can guide operational choices at national and international level. It has reached a point of mutual diffidence, between those active in scientific research, in the production of goods and products, in the management of public resources, in the dissemination and communication of information, in the protection of consumers and the environment. Such mistrust on the part of the public is extended to all the categories I have mentioned, because of the conviction that everyone considers only their own interests and their own ideological convictions (which may be legitimate but is less than ethical) rather than the common good, and shows respect for possible scientific and ethical truths rather than for those who are defenceless and whose voices are not heard.

It follows that the lack of a real effort to agree common ethical objectives is clearly a cause of social disintegration and civil decline. In the same way, the efforts to engage with bioethical issues by religions, and primarily the Catholic church, should be lauded rather than being excluded a priori from the debate as if they were "guilty" of representing "personal" positions or the "interests of God", instead of the defence of humankind and the humanity of civil societies.

Day 7: 23 July

====================

Vincenzo Lungagnani

Lecturer of Biotech Legislation & Bioethics

University of Milano Bicocca,

Italy

====================

I have suggested a definition of ethics, which is neither accepted nor refused.

I will try again in simpler terms: "Ethics is an instrument to distinguish right and wrong directions when decisions are taken". The corollary of this definition is that many human decisions are neither good or bad by themselves (e.g. cloning human embryo cells) and that the ethical judgement has to be shifted from the subject to the scope of the decision.

This definition of ethics would hopefully focus the debate on human behaviour instead of criticizing situations.

====================

Howie Firth

Director, Centre for the Communication of Science,

Moray College

====================

It's very easy for a discussion of this nature to get quite abstract and academic. I start from the following four facts:

(1) The human race is in a mess - arguably the most serious mess that it has ever been in.

(2) A major driving force in getting it into this mess has been its application of science and technology.

(3) If it is going to get out of this mess, it will have to learn how to deploy science and technology to the primary purpose of finding solutions for the human race's current problems.

(4) So far, there are few signs of this.

These facts have been staring us in the face for some time. Not everybody accepts them. You might for instance believe instead that the main aim of your scientific work should continue to be the publication

of papers or the gathering of research grants or the accumulation of citations or whatever other immediate end you feel should take priority.

On the other hand, you might take the view that in the situation we find ourselves in, it is time that we started to ask ourselves what we want science and technology to do for us, rather than continuing to scrabble around trying to cope with the string of issues that it continues to dump on our plate, unbidden.

If you take the latter view, then the question of ethics does not become an abstract debate, but rather a practical approach to survival. How do we find mechanisms to start us thinking about the direction we are headed in, and to start us thinking about possible ways to change that direction?

Day 8: 24 July

====================

Gary Kass

Adviser Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology

House of Commons

London

====================

As ethics are inevitably individual, it might well be best to develop skills in critical thinking. To understand that 'a message' (including this one!) is rarely entirely without some form of bias, is itself a

valuable end. To teach people the art of identifying 'spin', and triangulating between 'truths' so as to point at a 'better' (but never perfect) understanding would be even better!

====================

Colin Tudge

Science writer and speaker at the Rome seminar

====================

The whole modern approach to ethics is wrong. There is too much focus on particularities, at the expense of general principles. There is too great a tendency to form committees of 'experts' from various disciplines, who are supposed to reach some form of consensus -- a consensus that is supposed to represent wisdom.

Modern discussants tend simply to assume, too, that a utilitarian view is good enough: that a technology is acceptable if the perceptible benefits outweigh the perceived risks. Yet utilitarianism is clearly inadequate. In principle, a technology might be wrong even if it does seem to bring net

benefit in the short term. Thus many feel that genetic engineering of babies is hubristic (Greek) or blasphemous (Jewish) -- and hubris and blasphemy are religious concepts that must be taken seriously yet are clearly not utilitarian. Unfortunately, clerics, rabbis, or mullahs who feature in ethical debates too often focus on particular points of their own theology, which again is usually unhelpful.

Aristotle argued that what must underpin all ethical positions is attitude. Get the attitude right, and all else will follow. All the great prophets of all great religions work in just this way. They may sometimes outline particular codes of behaviour, but in general they seek to define appropriate emotional response. In practice, Moses, Christ, Mohammed, and all the great Eastern philosophers advocated the same approach to life, which was summarised in the 19th century by the Hindu mystic, Ramakrishna.

They all advocate personal humility; respect for fellow, sentient beings, whether human or otherwise; and a sense of reverence for the Universe as a whole.

Apply these three basic rules of thumb to any of the modern biotechnologies, and the ethical course generally becomes obvious. For example, it begins to seem reasonable and proper to apply genetic therapies to people who are truly suffering, perceive themselves to be suffering (for example from

cystic fibrosis), and who ask to be helped. But it emerges as an act of supreme arrogance (neither humble nor respectful) to prescribe the genes of another human being, as would be implied by human cloning, or genetic manipulation to 'improve' what nature has already provided, as in the 'designer baby'.

====================

Steve Fuller

Professor of Sociology

University of Warwick

====================

In fact, 'science communication' is already very successful in Britain, which has the world's largest per capita readership of popular science books, an excellent national science museum, and many fine science-based television programmes.

Unfortunately, scientists are not prepared for the indirect consequences of all this publicity, namely, the public starts to have its own views about science and wants to participate more directly in how its money is spent, its environment is treated, etc.

It's a bit like how the Protestant Reformation resulted from the mass printing of the Bible. People came up with their own interpretations - including ones that contested established authority. The real problem with scientific communication today is not that scientists are not effectively communicating or the public is not listening. Rather, there are no institutional mechanisms for scientists to interact with the public in policy-relevant ways.

Good examples of what I would propose are the 'consensus conferences' or 'citizen juries' that have been tried so successfully across the world. A good link to these can be found at http://www.loka.org/pages/panel.htm.

Day 9: 25 July

====================

Vincenzo Lungagnani

Lecturer of Biotech Legislation & Bioethics

University of Milano Bicocca,

Italy

====================

Let's look at some of Howie Firth's four "facts".

(1) The human race is in a mess.

How is "mess" measured? I don't remember or know any previous time in human development characterised by higher ethical indicators.

(2) A major driving force in getting it into this mess has been its application of science and technology.

Page 1 of the recent UN Human Development Report 2001 states that "throughout history technology has been a powerful tool for human development and poverty reduction".

In general, good scientists & technologists are raising the level of knowledge in their field of competence: I do not see anything ethically wrong in that.

====================

Howie Firth

Director, Centre for the Communication of Science

Moray College

====================

I completely agree with Colin Tudge about the importance of attitude in ethics - that if we get attitude right, the rest follows.

And unfortunately, this is where the training of scientists is so lacking. We get trained in specific aspects of doing science, but not in thinking about it. And so we take up our scientific posts with a mix of attitudes that have never been subjected to critical challenge and definition. In fact, they are usually just prejudices with no rational basis.

I find that if you probe a little, there are more than a few prejudices there, and some quite disturbing ones. For instance, there is all too often a vague belief among many of us that science is intrinsically good and that any harmful consequences are in some way a problem for other people. Or a belief that science is the only way to truth and that any other approach is inferior or invalid.

Those who train each new generation work hard at getting the skills right in the actual scientific activities, but nobody works on the attitudes. And this runs through all levels.

So science is characterised on the one hand by an extreme belief in rational thought in its practice, but by a glaring absence of any systematic approach to the attitudes and values of its practitioners - not to mould them in any specific direction but simply to bring them out into the open and give the individuals the skills and the opportunity to reflect on them.

Day 10: 26 July

====================

Rosario Frasca

National Institute of Insurance Against Accidents at Work

Rome

====================

The scientist has the responsibility of research and to inform referents about his research. He answers for the actions and the results of that which he controls. The responsibility to inform the citizen is that of the scientific journalist and not of the scientist.

Every research institution should have a public relations office dealing with the press and the public. The activities of these offices should be carried out by competent, specialized and responsible persons. The ethics of science research, the ethics of communication means that each one of us needs to have a sense of responsibility in what we do, in recognizing one's own limits and not invading areas in which one is not competent.

The responsibility cannot be moved from the person (scientist or communicator) to abstract categories (science, the media, the public): everyone has the duty to act to the best of one's ability, with

prudence, loyalty and sincerity, inspired by ethic principles which are shared by all humanity.

====================

Howie Firth

Director, Centre for the Communication of Science,

Moray College

====================

In reply to Vincenzo Lungagnani, indicators measuring the extent of the global mess we are in include destruction of environment, consumption of non-renewable resources, and levels of human poverty, malnutrition and disease. We must hope that his 'high ethical indicators' will lead to rising recognition of the problem, but unfortunately that doesn't alter its existence.

Certainly science and technology have given us - or some of us – the good things of life, but we can't cherry-pick. The totality of their impact has been to take us from the small, scattered communities of the Neolithic to the industrialised overpopulated world of today, with all the consequences.

That doesn't mean that science and technology, or we practitioners, are in some way intrinsically unethical or immoral. It does however mean that we have to recognise science and technology as a major driving force that shapes our world and to seek to control it for human betterment, rather than simply letting ourselves be taken along with it, wherever it leads.

Meanwhile I very much like his definition of ethics ("Ethics is an instrument to distinguish right and wrong directions when decisions are taken."). It's clear and practical and one more benefit I've had from the present discussion - for which many thanks to the organisers and participants!

About River Path Associates

River Path Associates is a knowledge consultancy which provides research, strategic counsel and creative solutions to private and public sector clients. Recent clients range from the World Bank and the United Nations to One 2 One, the Royal Society and Harvard University.

All River Path work can be found in our online library (www.riverpath.com). For more information, please contact Mick Fealty at mick@riverpath.com or on (+44) 1202 849993

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

A Consumer View

Summary

Summary