|
by Simon G. Best
Scientists accept the need to communicate and interpret newfound knowledge in ways that can be widely understood. They want to engage in ethical, legal and regulatory debate on its implications. They are part of society and, as such, share its need to establish restrictions on the application of science.
But they want the judgments made in setting these restrictions to be based on sound science, not on fear and misunderstanding.
Through the years, medical technologies including anaesthesia, vaccination, blood transfusion and organ transplantation have all been controversial. Scientists engaged in public discussions as these became understood, accepted and eventually embraced, and society developed a consensus on the ethics of their use.
More recent breakthroughs have included the discovery of genetic engineering in 1974 and the making of Dolly in 1997. For both, the scientific community led the way in calling for time out to consider the practical implications. This resulted in a voluntary moratorium in the mid-1970s and clear statements from the Roslin Institute and the Biotechnology Industry Organization on the day Dolly's birth was announced that human reproductive cloning should be banned.
There is ample evidence that the vast majority of scientists today are open, thoughtful and cautious about the implications of their work. So why do new scientific breakthroughs trigger so much fear?
Fear typically peaks between a major announcement and the first conclusive demonstration that the new learning can be applied responsibly and safely for significant human benefit. When a breakthrough stretches the limits of the theoretically possible, many people and social institutions react as if scientists and their industrial partners share a strong and irresistible urge to propel society to those limits by indiscriminately pursuing all potential applications—both undesirable and desirable.
A media-fueled debate ensues and speculation runs wild in a pervading atmosphere of fear. This continues until a concrete demonstration of safe, effective and responsible use is achieved, at which point the debate narrows in on the ethics involved in the benefit-to-risk trade-offs of the application in question. The bubble of fear deflates, and media and public attention move on.
During this period of limbo, many of the objections and issues raised (e.g., safety or environmental impact concerns) as "ethical" are not strictly so. The arguments are not universal. In the United States, the stem-cell debate remains in limbo. In the UK, GM foods are the controversy while the stem-cell debate has been resolved.
Homo sapiens is the most powerful species on the planet, with the greatest ability to modify our world for worse or better, and we are deeply afraid of the implications. Fear is blocking us from accepting the responsibilities that this power brings. We must have the desire, determination and appropriate humility to explore the challenges of using our power wisely to build a better and more sustainable future.
The global protest movement constantly reinforces a sense of pessimism and guilt about being human, seeking a renunciation of human power and potential instead of a determined effort to demonstrate that we are worthy of it.
Fear and pessimism are the legacy of a limited though very serious litany of instances in which science and technology were applied to the detriment of humanity. It is unfortunate that we learned lessons the hard way from Nazism's atrocities, and the post-WWII era when new technologies were used for the Cold War and consumer goods without sufficient "pause for thought" about their potential to damage the environment. The lessons have certainly been learned, however, and have been embedded in the rightfully demanding regulatory processes put in place in the early 1970s to determine technology's impact on human health and the environment.
Scientific applications to challenges such as food production, disease eradication, cleaner and more energy-efficient industrial processes and vaccination have saved and enhanced billions of lives. For the vast majority of humans, the balance sheet of the 20th century is positive. It is equally clear—and unfortunate—that most people don't focus on this fact.
The biotechnology industry is confident that if responsible scientific inquiry is allowed to thrive, we can develop and apply tools to make the world a better place for all. The industry, government and people should continue to be humble and thoughtful but not fearful. We will continue to look before we leap.
Many of the key insights from bioscience support a new moral vision of the interdependence of all life in a world in which deep similarities and common interests outweigh superficial differences. It is in this spirit that bioethics provides reassurance for a "not so brave" new world.
Simon G. Best is CEO of Ardana Bioscience Ltd. and chairman of BIO's Bioethics Committee.
| 
Printer Friendly