River
Path Associates
August
2001
Talk 1 - From the Researcher’s Point of
View, Maurizio Iaccarino 9
Talk 2 - Science’s Understanding of the
Public, Colin Blakemore 17
Talk 3 - From the Industrialist’s Point of
View, Sergio Dompe’ 21
Talk 4 - A Consumer View, Colin Tudge 25
Talk 5 - Reconciling Ethics and Science, Giovanni Berlinguer 29
Report on the Rome seminar 35
Report on the e-debate
37
Appendix 1 – e-debate contributions 41
About River Path Associates 57
Not everything that is
scientifically possible and technologically feasible is necessarily desirable or
admissible. There are aspects of the advance of know-how and technology which
are making us question our basic values and principles on life, and our
obligations towards future generations. Notable examples are cloning and
aspects of genetic engineering, GMOs, personal privacy in relation to certain
applications of information technology, climate change and its effect on the
global environment.
The ethical impact and
consequences of scientific and technological progress have recently been
particularly visible in the areas of genetics and biotechnology, but we face
the unknown in trying to anticipate developments in, for example,
neurosciences, virtual technology, or even robotics and artificial
intelligence.
The questioning of values
and principles is daily gaining support and recognition at world level, and is
shared by many Europeans. There is a need to share understanding on certain
rules and issues in this area in Europe. The Ethics and Polemics debate was
organized by the British Council to consider the interface between politics,
science and ethics - with the rights of the citizen, also a consumer of
products and information, at its centre. The debate aimed to examine and share
experience on how Italy and the UK are responding to the need to define rules
and principles, while taking into account cultural and ideological differences
and how this affects decision-making.
The debate began with a
seminar held at the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche in Rome on
11 July 2001. Five talks by leading members of both the Italian and British
scientific communities were interspersed with discussion from the floor.
The day after the seminar, an e-debate began, where the issues raised in Rome were debated by a large international audience.
This report provides summaries
of the talks given in Rome; a brief report on the main issues raised in the
discussions in Rome; a report on the e-debate; and the full contributions to
the e-debate.
|
From the
Researcher’s Point of View
Maurizio
Iaccarino
Talk 1
From the
Researcher’s Point of View
Maurizio
Iaccarino
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 17th 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.
Science’s
Understanding of the Public
Colin
Blakemore
|
Science’s
Understanding of the Public
Colin
Blakemore
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
Sergio
Dompe’
From the
Industrialist’s Point of View
Sergio
Dompe’
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.