EXTRAORDINARY SESSION

WORLD COMMISSION ON THE ETHICS OF

SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNOLOGY

(COMEST)

UNESCO House, Paris, France27-28 June, 2006

LIST OF COMEST MEMBERS – JUNE 2006

MembersMr Khalid Abdulla AL-ALI (Qatar)Mr Ruben APRESSYAN (Russian Federation) Mrs Pilar ARMANET ARMANET (Chile), Chairperson of COMESTMr Somsak CHUNHARAS (Thailand) Mrs Midge DECTER (United States of America)Mr Cheick Modibo DIARRA (Mali) Mr Jun FUDANO (Japan)Mr Diego GRACIA (Spain) Mr Johan HATTINGH (South Africa) Mrs Tafeeda JARBAWI (Palestine)Mrs Marta KOLLÁROVÁ (Slovak Republic)Mr Ulrich Heinz Jürgen KÖRTNER (Austria)Mr Luiz Hildebrando PEREIRA DA SILVA (Brazil) Mr Alain POMPIDOU (France) Mrs Leila SETH (India) Mr Sang-yong SONG (South Korea)Mrs Nadja TOLLEMACHE (New Zealand) Mr Xu ZHIHONG (People’s Republic of China)

Ex-Offi cio MembersChairperson of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IBC)Chairperson of the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IGBC)Chairperson of the International Council for Science (ICSU)Chairperson of the International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies (ICPHS)Chairperson of the International Social Science Council (ISSC)Chairperson of the Pugwash Conference on Science and World AffairsChairperson of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO (IOC)Chairperson of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere (MAB)Chairperson of the International Social Sciences Programme on Management of Social Transformations (MOST)Chairperson of the International Hydrological Programme Intergovernmental Council (IHP)Chairperson of the International Geological Correlation Programme (IGCP)

Executive SecretaryMr Henk TEN HAVE (UNESCO)

LIST OF COMEST MEMBERS - JUNE 2006

REPORT OF THE SESSION

Address by the Chairperson of COMEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Opening of the session by the Director General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Presentation of COMEST Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Presentation of COMEST activities

and workplans 2006-2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Discussion of the activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Ethics around the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

UNESCO Global Ethics Observatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Ethics of Outer Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Nanotechnologies and Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Ethics Education Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Code of Conduct for Scientists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Environmental Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Avicenna Prize. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

New Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Next meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Published in 2007by the United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP

Composed and printed in the workshops of UNESCO

© UNESCO 2007Printed in France(SHS-2007/WS/2)

REPORT OF THE SESSION

Address by the Chairpersonof COMEST

The Chairperson of COMEST, Mrs Pilar Armanet Armanet, opened the extraordinary session by welcoming the participants, especially the six new COMEST members. She outlined the purpose of the meeting, which was to provide members of the Commission an opportunity to discuss COMEST’s upcoming workplans and the means of implement-ing these plans. Mrs Armanet briefly described the mandate of the Commission and presented the main guidelines for its actions. She evoked the adop-tion of a more regional approach, the study of new prospective questions, the incorporation of innova-tive implementation methodologies, and the enlarge-ment of COMEST interlocutors, as some of the factors encouraging broader diffusion and enhanced effectiveness of COMEST actions. The Chairperson underlined that the work achieved so far by COMEST had clearly shown that UNESCO was the ideal plat-form for addressing the important challenges faced by society regarding ethics of science and technol-ogy, thus contributing to the creation of a culture of responsibility and dialogue. The Chairperson then invited the Director General to take the floor.

Opening of the session bythe Director General

The Director General, Mr Koïchiro Matsuura, welcomed those attending the COMEST extraor-dinary session and thanked the COMEST members for their contributions to UNESCO’s work in the field of ethics of science and technology. He thanked, in particular, the Chairperson of COMEST for her commitment to making COMEST more policy and action oriented. The Director General explained that the extraordinary session was convened to introduce the six new members to UNESCO and the Commission, as well as to offer an occasion for discussing UNESCO’s ongoing and future work in the area of ethics of science and technology, and establishing the means of implementing these work plans. He mentioned various activities planned for

the 2006-2007 biennium, emphasizing the impor-tance of ethics teaching, capacity building, and awareness raising initiatives. The Director General celebrated the development of new methodologies and working tools, such as the GEObs databases, the Ethics Education Programme, and the rotating conferences programme, and indicated that new ways of involving individual COMEST members more directly in these activities should be identified. He also underlined the crucial role of COMEST in encouraging the elaboration and promotion of principles in the field of environmental ethics and science ethics, as well as enhancing the visibility of UNESCO’s activities in the ethics of science and technology. Finally, the Director General recalled the General Conference’s request for continued reflec-tion on the question of science ethics with a view to submit a report to the Executive Board at its 175th session. Regional consultations with UNESCO’s National Commissions, policy-makers, and scien-tific organizations were carried out, with the active participation of COMEST members, in order to develop a framework of ethical principles for science upon which codes of conduct could be founded. The Director General underlined the role of COMEST in providing guidance to UNESCO and Member States in the area of ethics of science and technology, and concluded by thanking once again the members of COMEST for their commitment to this mission.

Presentation of the Membersof COMEST

Mrs Pilar Armanet Armanet, Chairperson of COMEST and Ambassador of Chile to France, as well as to UNESCO, warmly welcomed the new COMEST members. She then invited COMEST members to introduce themselves.

His Excellency Dr Zola Sydney Skweyiya, Minister of Social Development of South Africa, introduced himself as Chairperson of the International Social Sciences Programme on Management of Social Transformations (MOST), one of the five UNESCO intergovernmental scientific programmes having statu-tory recognition as ex officio members of COMEST.

7

Mrs Cinzia Caporale, Chairperson of the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IGBC), is a professor of bioethics and the Vice-President of the Italian National Committee of Bioethics.

Mr Diego Gracia introduced himself as a specialist in psychiatry and a professor of history of medicine and bioethics at the Complutense University of Madrid. He works particularly in the field of ethics of respon-sibility and ethics of science.

Mr Jun Fudano, Director of the Applied Ethics Centre for Engineering and Science at Kanazawa Institute of Technology (KIT) in Japan, briefly presented his work as professor of history of science and technology and professor of science and engineering ethics.

Mrs Midge Decter, author and editor, is member of the Board of Trustees of the Fund for the Education of Young Women in Sciences and Engineering in the United States.

Mrs Leila Seth described herself as a lawyer having left her position as Chief Justice of a state in India to devote herself entirely to human rights work. Mrs Seth pointed out that she was very honoured to have taken part in COMEST activities for 7 years so far.

Mr Sang-yong Song presented himself as having a background in history of philosophy and biology. Former professor in history and philosophy of science and technology and member of COMEST for 3 years, he has also been involved in work related to the elabo-ration of codes for scientists and engineers.

Mr Ulrich Heinz Jürgen Körtner introduced himself as an ethicist and a professor in theology. He is also Head of the Institute for Ethics and Law in Medicine of the University of Vienna and member of the Austrian Bioethics Committee.

Mrs Nadja Tollemache presented herself as a lawyer by training having taught for many years at university. She developed an interest in questions related to ethics when she became a member of the Health Research Council of New Zealand Ethics Committee that she chaired for 6 years. Since then, Mrs Tollemache has

maintained close working relationships with several international committees dealing with ethics.

Mrs Tafeeda Jarbawi introduced herself as a chemist currently working in the area of nanotechnology. She is also Director of the Ramallah Women’s College, an institution specializing in technical education for paramedics, with the inclusion of ethics teaching in its curricula for about 15 years.

Mr Khalid Abdulla Al-Ali is an associate professor of human genetics in the Department of Biological Science and Director of the Foundation Programme of Qatar University. He is also a member of the Arab Committee for Science and Biotechnology Ethics of ALECSO. As a new COMEST member, he hopes to contribute actively to its activities.

Mr Johan Hattingh introduced himself as a professor of philosophy specializing in different areas of applied ethics. Head of the Unit for Environmental Ethics at the University of Stellenbosch (South Africa), he is particularly interested in issues related to this field.

Mrs Nouzha Guessous-Idrissi indicated that she took part in the COMEST extraordinary session in her capacity as Chairperson of the International Bioethics Committee (IBC). Medical biologist by training, Mrs Guessous-Idrissi is a former professor at the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy of University Hassan II, Casablanca. She is also a founding member of the Ethics Committee for Biomedical Research of the university and member of the Moroccan Association for Bioethics.

Mr David T. Pugh, introduced himself as an ex officio member in his capacity as Chairperson of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO (IOC). As applied ethics have major implications in areas such as environment and ocean-ography, Mr. Pugh expressed his deep interest in the work developed by COMEST. He mentioned, as a case in point, the utility of the report on the precau-tionary principle elaborated by COMEST two years before. Lastly, he excused himself for not being able to participate in all the Commission’s debates, as the Executive Board of the IOC was being held during the same period.

8

Mr Luiz Hildebrando Pereira da Silva, Scientific Director of the Tropical Medicine Research Centre in Brazil, is a medical doctor specializing in molecu-lar biology and genetics. Living and working in the endangered Amazonian forest, he is confronted daily with the harmful effects of the violence exerted by nature on the communities living in the area, as well as aggressions suffered by the environ-ment and the climate at a global level. He is thus particularly interested in issues concerning environ-ment ethics.

Mr Somsak Chunharas is a medical doctor by training. Currently working as senior advisor to the Department of Health of the Ministry of Public Health of Thailand and also as the Secretary General of the National Health Foundation, an NGO, he has a rich and broad experience in ethics. He is also the former Director of the Thai Program on Bioethics and Advanced Biomedical Research, and member of the ethical conduct subcommittee of the Thai Medical Council.

The Chairperson recalled that the Bureau of COMEST consists of Mr Song, Mr Hattingh, and Mr Pompidou. The Executive Secretary, Mr Henk ten Have, communicated the excuses of the five absent COMEST members, Mr Ruben Apressyan, Mr Cheick Modibo Diarra, Mr Alain Pompidou, Mr Xu Zhihong, and Mrs Marta Kollárová. He conveyed his congratulation on the presence of a substantial number of the 11 ex officio COMEST members, whose participation reinforced the multi-disciplinary and plural character of COMEST. He thanked in particular His Excellency Dr Zola Sydney Skweyiya, Minister of Social Affairs and Development of South Africa and Chairperson of the International Social Sciences Programme on Management of Social Transformations (MOST); Mrs Nouzha Guessous-Idrissi and Mrs Cinzia Caporale, Chairpersons of the IBC and the IGBC respectively; Mr David Pugh, Chairperson of the IOC; Mrs Khin Ni Ni Thein, representative of the IHP; and Mr Carthage Smith, representative of the ICSU. Finally, he transmitted the excuses of the Chairpersons of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere (MAB) and the Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, who could not attend the session.

Presentation of COMEST activities and workplans 2006-2007

The Executive Secretary briefly presented the history of UNESCO’s work in ethics of science and technol-ogy, explaining that this program started with bioethics and have been gradually broadened. He described the mandate and composition of COMEST, as well as the procedure of selection of its members. COMEST is an intellectual forum for the exchange of ideas and experiences, and its main roles include the promotion of dialogue between scientific communities, decision-makers, and the public at large; advising the Director General and the Member States on the orientation of UNESCO’s programme in ethics of science and technol-ogy; and detecting the early signs of risk situations. The Executive Secretary recalled that the ongoing review of UNESCO’s Sciences Major Programmes would likely have significant repercussions for COMEST. Thus, it was important to reinforce and improve its relevance. From its composition and mandate, COMEST is an interdisciplinary body located at the frontier of UNESCO’s Major Programmes II (Natural Sciences) and III (Social and Human Sciences).

The Executive Secretary gave an overview of ongo-ing activities and programmes in ethics of science and technology, explaining the various fields of action and working methods. He first described the statutory sessions of COMEST, enriched by a youth forum since the session held in Berlin in 2001, as well as by a regional ministerial conference since the session held in Rio de Janeiro in 2003, and the extraordinary meetings. Then, he presented a series of activities aimed at reinforcing the capacities of Member States, which is considered a priority during the present biennium. The Ethics Education Programme, Ethics around the World, Global Ethics Observatory and Documentation Centres, as well as UNESCO Chairs, contributed to the diffusion of the Organization’s work in the area of ethics of science and technology; made specific databases and systematized information available to the scientific communities, policy-makers, and particularly the public at large; and contributed to the training of young scientists in ethics, in particular in developing countries and countries in transition, through, for instance, the elaboration of adapted train-

9

ing tools and resources. Lastly, he highlighted the Avicenna Prize as the only international prize reward-ing the activities of individuals and groups in the field of ethics of science.

The Executive Secretary then detailed the principal topics of COMEST’s work as ethics of outer space, science ethics, and environmental ethics, specifying that these would be presented and discussed in depth during this meeting. The promotion of ethical consid-erations in space activities would focus on awareness raising and international co-operation. With regards to science ethics, the Executive Secretary explained the new approach adopted following the decision of the 33rd General Conference not to mandate a feasibility study on the elaboration of an international declaration on science ethics that could serve as a basis for ethical codes of conduct for scientists. The Executive Secretary also recalled that Member States had expressed their will to see UNESCO’s actions focusing, during the present biennium, on the applica-tion and diffusion of existing normative instruments, as well as on capacity-building and awareness raising, rather than on developing standard-setting activities. He then outlined the activities for environmental ethics, specifying that although this is a new and very complex issue, COMEST could consider providing an advice on the matter to the Director General for the 34th Session of the General Conference to be held in October 2007. Lastly, the Executive Secretary presented the activities within the programme’s research frame-work, within which COMEST explored new subjects in ethics of science and technology, such as the ethics of nanotechnologies.

The Chairperson of the IGBC commented on the collaboration experience between the IBC and the IGBC, emphasizing that it was particularly enrich-ing, and that lessons learned could be extended to COMEST so that it could also benefit from collabo-rations with similar intergovernmental bodies. In this sense, she asked for details concerning the ways in which COMEST interacted with governments. The Executive Secretary responded that after each session of COMEST, a report is prepared on its work as well as recommendations to the Director General of UNESCO, who will in turn submit the report to the governing bodies of the Organization. Thus, Member

States could react regularly to the recommendations of COMEST. He pointed out that a body similar to the IGBC that is constituted by Member States’ repre-sentatives and in charge of adopting recommendations of COMEST does not currently exist. COMEST had until now never worked on elaborating normative instruments due to the fact that its main task is to explore particularly complex and new issues.

With regards to the work developed by COMEST regarding fresh water use, Mrs Khin Ni Ni Thein stated that the IHP have constituted an expert committee to work on issues concerning ethics and governance related to fresh water. Five prestigious universities are already associated to this project, which aims to produce a publication on the matter. The representa-tive from IHP wondered about the possibilities of collaboration between this committee of experts and COMEST. The Chairperson committed herself to explore with COMEST members the modality of an eventual co-operation. It was also requested that such an exploration extend to how external institutions or committees could collaborate with COMEST. The Executive Secretary pointed out that the statutes of COMEST have designated a certain number of insti-tutions and organizations that are likely to take part in the Commission’s work as ex officio members, or as observers. With any other organization or institu-tion, the co-operation should be necessarily specific and subjugated to a particular topic or question. The modalities of co-operation should then be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Referring to the working methods, one member requested information concerning how often COMEST members are informed about the activi-ties in progress. The Chairperson pointed out that COMEST works throughout the entire year and was not only limited to statutory or extraordinary meet-ings. The Executive Secretary clarified that COMEST members are regularly informed through GEObs, but formal communication are less frequent. He also recalled the importance of COMEST members’ individual involvement in the preparation and the implementation of COMEST activities in the field, for example within the frameworks of the rotating conferences and reflections on specific issues carried out by ad hoc groups of experts.

10

11

DISCUSSION OF THE ACTIVITIES

Ethics around the World

The Executive Secretary presented the Ethics around the World framework, within which 16 ethics confer-ences had been organized since March 2004. Through these rotating conferences, information about the work of COMEST and the activities of UNESCO in ethics of science and technology was dissemi-nated, awareness raining materials were distributed, intensive contacts with professionals and experts of the countries were established, and networks involving this target audience were created. The conferences were planned in co-operation with inter-ested Member States and were generally organized with the support of the National Commissions for UNESCO. Several tools have been prepared and are regularly updated in order to facilitate the realization of these conferences. COMEST members played an essential role in developing this series of conferences, particularly in terms of organization and proposal of contents. The Executive Secretary thanked Mr Jens Erik Fenstad, former Chairperson of COMEST, for his participation in the meetings held in the Hague, Vilnius, Ankara, Seoul, Djakarta, and Lisbon; Mr Song, whose efforts had contributed to the success of the meeting in Seoul and who also partici-pated in the conferences held in Beijing, Shanghai, and Manila; Mr Apressyan, who took part in the conference held in Moscow; and Mrs Tollemache, who collaborated in the organization of the Dunedin conference. Lastly, the Executive Secretary announced that although most of the conferences organized prior to the adoption of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights in October 2005 had been primarily focused on issues related to the declaration, other subjects that are more relevant to

COMEST could be placed on the agenda of future meetings, such as ethics teaching, science ethics, or environmental ethics.

Members of COMEST were then invited by the Chairperson to share their experiences and reflec-tions concerning their participation in the rotating conferences within the Ethics around the World programme. A question was raised regarding the possibility of eventual private sector funding of the rotating conferences. The Executive Secretary pointed out that this kind of issues should be treated with caution in order to avoid any conflict of inter-ests and to preserve the responsibility and indepen-dence of COMEST. The Chairperson of the IBC suggested that rotating conferences should address issues concerning ethics of science and technology and bioethics simultaneously. Several participants stressed the importance of COMEST’s efforts in developing mechanisms such as the Ethics around the World programme to encourage more direct interaction not only with governments but also with local communities of experts and scientists, as well as with the public at large. The Chairperson of the IBC supported this position, emphasizing that civil society participation in ethical debates is necessary in many countries where ethical issues related to science and technology are often treated with suspi-cion. The idea of preparing a common letter from COMEST, IBC and IGBC encouraging countries to organize rotating conferences was advanced by the Chairperson of the IGBC. While stressing the importance of efforts to raise awareness, she pointed out that since UNESCO is an intergovernmental organization, the actions and recommendations of COMEST are ultimately addressed to the Director

12

General and Member States. The Chairperson of COMEST indicated that the Ethics around the World conferences were organized on the initia-tive of interested Member States, with UNESCO limiting its role to providing assistance in the orga-nization, determining the contents, recommending the choice of experts, and other related substantial matters. COMEST members are expected to play an increasingly important role in diffusing the informa-tion from these conferences amongst national experts and interested persons at the local and regional levels, possibly promoting the organization of such a conference in their own country. Several members noted the usefulness of the presentations put at their disposal in order to facilitate their participa-tion in the rotating conferences, and expressed their wish for more of such communication tools. The Chairperson of COMEST pointed to the existence of regularly updated presentations in English, French, and Spanish.

UNESCO Global Ethics

Observatory

A presentation on the content of the UNESCO Global Ethics Observatory (GEObs) system launched in December 2005 was given by the Secretariat. The GEObs puts a network of global databases in bioethics and other areas of applied ethics such as environmental ethics, science ethics, engineer-ing ethics and technology ethics at the disposal of specialists and the general public. Currently, three databases on ethics experts, ethics institutions, and ethics teaching programs are already acces-sible online and a fourth database on ethics related legislation and guidelines is under construction. The GEObs aims to facilitate the establishment of ethical infrastructures and promote international co-operation around the world by offering a platform upon which new activities could be initiated. This network of databases would be of great utility for Member States interested in formulating informed policies or reinforcing their infrastructures in the area of ethics. It would also be of particular use for individuals and institutions looking for partners or seeking to design ethics teaching curricula, especially

in developing countries. It was also underlined that the GEObs is available in all the six official languages of UNESCO. A regional centre was established in Vilnius (Lithuania) to assist with processing GEObs data in Russian. The establishment of additional regional centres to support the GEObs in Arabic, Spanish and Chinese is in progress. The participants were also invited to contribute to expand the infor-mation contained in the databases, and to share with the Secretariat any comments or suggestions on improving the system.

COMEST members stressed that many interest-ing practical applications can be generated from this innovative system. With regards to the “Who’s who in ethics” database, several speakers wondered about the criteria used to determine expertise in ethics. Thus, the question regarding the recognition of scientific articles published in national reviews in languages other than English was raised. The Executive Secretary clarified that in order to be vali-dated by the system, at least the titles of the publica-tions should be translated into English. To encourage the diffusion of the system and the use of the data-bases by a large public, the Chairperson of the IGBC proposed to employ more open criteria of selection so that as many scientists, ethicists and other profes-sionals interested in applied ethics as possible can be included in the databases. The Chairperson of the IBC pointed out that since the consideration of ethics as an academic discipline was relatively recent, recog-nition by peers or by the scientific community could be conceived as an additional indicator for evaluating expertise. She also evoked the possibility of including a new sub-heading aggregating different agents such as activists, nongovernmental organizations or self-proclaimed institutions in ethics within the frame-work of the GEObs database on ethics experts. Even if these non-traditional actors do not have the neces-sary academic recognition in ethics, they often play a major role at the international level, in particular with regard to awareness raising activities. In addition, one member expressed his concern regarding the poten-tial responsibility of UNESCO with respect to the competence and professionalism of the experts listed in the GEObs databases, while pointing out that a number of experts are subject to political, religious, or ideological influences, and consequently could not

13

be considered as neutral. The issue of the instrumen-talisation of science for political interests was also raised during the debate and one member wondered about the influence that governments could poten-tially exert on the content of GEObs. The Executive Secretary clarified that recognized ethics expertise was a necessary condition for inclusion in the data-base on ethics experts. However, the qualification of experts are reviewed using multiple and relatively flexible criteria such as recent publications or works in applied ethics, involvement in ethics research proj-ects and teaching programs, and the level and extent of experience with ethics in the individual’s educa-tional and professional background. Thus, activists or managers of associations having solid experience and background in ethics of science and technology would likely be included in the GEObs. It was also pointed out that the intellectual orientations and opinions of the experts included in the database were not scrutinized because this cannot be considered an objective selection criterion.

Concerning the database on ethics related legislation and guidelines, in response to the requests of several members, the Executive Secretary explained that this database will collect examples and descriptions of ethics related legislation and guidelines introduced within various countries and institutions worldwide in order to facilitate access to such information, potentially resulting in the development of compara-tive studies. He also informed COMEST that a team of ten experts will be meeting in September 2006 to analyse collected information and reflect upon the structure of the database. A suggestion was also made to include normative instruments and the guiding principles adopted at the international level in this database, as these items reflect a certain consensus on issues related to applied ethics and have been trans-lated into various languages. It was also proposed that directives, recommendations, and other texts from the European Union be included in the database. The Executive Secretary took note of these suggestions while stressing the importance of ensuring that the network of databases fulfil the requirement of plural-ism and reflect the cultural diversity of UNESCO. The greatest care will be taken to ensure that GEObs does not promote a particular approach, be it regional, ideological, or moral.

Ethics of Outer Space

The Executive Secretary briefly presented the programmes planned for the 2006-2007 biennium aimed at promoting the ethical consideration of space activities. Priority would be given to awareness rais-ing and international co-operation, in particular with the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) through co-participa-tion of SHS/EST and SC/GEO in all sessions of the Committee and its two subcommittees. In addition, he indicated that the Division of Ethics of Science and Technology would co-organize with the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Institut du Droit de l’Espace et des Telecommunications of the University of Paris 11 a symposium on “Legal and Ethical Framework for Space Exploration.” Scheduled for October 2006, this conference would have a simi-lar format to the previous symposium on “Legal and Ethical Framework for Astronauts in Space Sojourns”, the proceedings of which were published in June 2006.

Nanotechnologies and Ethics

Mr Fudano, member of the ad hoc expert group on ethics and nanotechnology established in 2005, presented the subject and explained the contents of the Outline of a Policy Advice on Nanotechnologies and Ethics elaborated by the Secretariat on the basis of the conclusions of the two expert group meet-ings. He briefly presented the history of the subject, explaining that the issue of nanotechnology and ethics was first explored by COMEST during its 3rd Ordinary Session held in Rio de Janeiro in December 2003. He then indicated that nanotechnologies raised important ethical issues; the possible benefits and harms are being increasingly discussed, as well as its implications for international relations in science and technology policies. The “nano-boom” phenomenon and massive investments carried out in this field in many countries can be attributed to the importance of these impacts. With regards to the working meth-odology, Mr Fudano recalled that COMEST had adopted a three-stage strategic approach. In the first phase, an ad hoc expert group reviewed the state-

14

of-the-art in ethical considerations of nanotechnolo-gies. These reflections had given rise to a collection of papers that would be published in the book “Nanotechnologies: science, ethics and policy issues” as well as to the identification of opportunities for international actions that UNESCO could undertake. Based on the draft policy document incorporating an advice to the Director General, COMEST would have to decide whether the two subsequent phases would be implemented. The second phase entails circulating the document amongst a selected group of scientists and relevant partners of UNESCO in order to test the relevancy of the identified potential actions. The third phase includes more intense consultations involving policy makers to optimize the political feasibility of the international actions identified in the two previous phases before forwarding the recommendations to the General Conference. Mr Fudano then presented the content of the “Outline of a Policy Advice on Nanotechnologies and Ethics,” starting with the central characteristics of nanotechnologies as defined by the expert group. Nanotechnologies embed several sciences and technologies, and have an interdisciplin-ary and trans-disciplinary dimension, which contrib-uted to the existing problem of terminology with various definitions in use. Nanotechnologies also have the potential to generate promising applications across multiple fields such as in medicine, energy, manufac-turing, and communication. Mr Fudano detailed four types of actions that UNESCO could develop regard-ing nanotechnologies and ethics: awareness raising, education, research, and policy development. With regards to raising awareness, an early, informed, inter-disciplinary, and public debate is required in order to avoid backlash and public mistrust. Concerning education, UNESCO could play a guiding role in the development of specific strategies and programmes targeting students, specialists in sciences and social sciences, and the public at large. UNESCO could also promote research policies on nanotechnologies to address existing uncertainties within the body of knowledge, requiring additional technical and scien-tific studies as well as in the fields of social sciences, ethics, philosophy, and law. The potential links between nanotechnologies and development should also be analysed in depth, from a holistic approach founded on a constant dialogue between the various branches of sciences. It is on the basis of this interdis-

ciplinary research exploring the values associated with nanotechnologies, as well as through participative debates and awareness raising activities that informed policies can be formulated. Mr Fudano indicated that UNESCO could also initiate a consultative process aimed at identifying voluntary guidelines that can be used to constitute an ethical framework for countries, corporations, and scientific organisations, as well as to inspire national regulations. Finally, Mr Fudano raised the issue of the possible creation of National Commissions or Committees on ethics of science and technology to deal with all emerging technologies, instead of only with nanotechnologies.

COMEST members expressed concerns vis-à-vis the important ethical issues raised by nanotechnologies, including: the potential toxicity of nano-engineered particles; the development of military applications; the environmental impact; the applicability of the precautionary principle; and the risks in products and applications that involve direct human contact. It was indicated that the acceleration of the scientific developments on nanotechnologies, combined with the multiplication of its possible applications in fields as varied as agriculture, medicine, and manufacturing, makes access to a global, comprehensive, and updated knowledge on the subject very difficult, even within the scientific community. Several members pointed out that at this stage COMEST is in a delicate situ-ation in terms of taking a stand on nanotechnologies due to the fact that the majority of its members have insufficient understanding of the risks and potential benefits of nanotechnologies. In this sense, the impos-sibility and undesirability of impeding the accel-eration of scientific and technological discoveries were also evoked. Several options were proposed to collect and systematically organize updated, detailed, and comprehensive information on the applications of nanotechnologies: co-organizing a specialist confer-ence with ICSU; following-up on the work developed by a high level group recently created at the European level; planning a series of rotating conferences; and the collection of additional documentation produced at the local level through the National Commissions for UNESCO. Mr Carthage Smith, representative of ICSU, highlighted an international conference tackling the issues raised by nanotechnologies orga-nized by ICSU and United Kingdom Royal Society

15

of Science. He invited COMEST to explore possible modalities of co-operation in this initiative, which was welcomed by many members.

It was reaffirmed that an early, informed, interdisciplin-ary, and public debate on the ethical issues raised by nanotechnologies is vital. It was also emphasized that as many relevant interlocutors as possible, including scientists, ethicists, philosophers, policy-makers, and society as a whole should be included in these discus-sions. The Chairperson of the IBC pointed out the urgency of launching such a debate in order to avoid possible manipulations and distortions, particularly in the media, as well as misunderstandings amongst the general public, as had been the case with geneti-cally modified organisms. Some members stressed the importance of ensuring that the benefits and not only potential risks of nanotechnologies are duly consid-ered within the framework of the debates.

Moreover, it was indicated that nanotechnologies would impact every country, including developing countries, some of which would turn to UNESCO for advice in terms of formulating and implementing actions and policies in this field. Considering that the few intergovernmental organizations currently addressing nanotechnologies are not universal in nature, and none of these organizations are dealing with the emerging ethical issues of this field as their core purpose, the majority of the members agreed that the issues related to ethics and nanotechnologies are appropriately placed within the mandate of COMEST. It was stressed that UNESCO will likely play a lead-ing role in this area, ensuring that the perceptions and interests of developing countries are duly considered. The Chairperson of the IGBC insisted on the impor-tance of tackling this subject creatively from a global perspective, guaranteeing a real dialogue between the various cultures and visions of the world.

Concerning UNESCO’s opportunities for action, it was indicated that the emphasis should be put on the promotion of research, awareness raising, and educa-tion, at least in this stage. The Chairperson of the IBC suggested that attention should be accorded to the diffusion of general principles adopted by Member States regarding bioethics within the framework of awareness raising activities, as many of these prin-

ciples could also guide the development of nanotech-nologies and its applications.

With regards to working methods, one member suggested treating the various issues that COMEST is working on, including nanotechnologies, with a more global and integrated approach. Considering that generally the same values guided COMEST’s work regarding environmental ethics, science ethics, and outer space ethics, a more comprehensive approach would enable better coordination of the activities developed in each area and generate more synergies. The Chairperson of the IGBC pointed out that in the event that COMEST decides to address the issues related to ethics and nanotechnologies, it would be extremely important to involve governments in order to legitimise any action undertaken in a particularly delicate field. Referring to the possible establishment of National Commissions or Committees on ethics to deal with all emerging technologies, especially within the framework of nanotechnologies, she also suggested assigning this function to existing ethics committees.

The Chaiperson of COMEST stated that the points raised in this meeting would be synthesized. She also observed that a consensus seemed to have emerged about the relevance of tackling the ethical issues raised by nanotechnologies within the Commission. However, it is apparent that this was a particularly delicate subject. Thus, the continuation of delibera-tion and the organization of complementary consulta-tions were essential. A COMEST document advising UNESCO to work on the field of ethics and nano-technologies based on the Outline of a Policy Advice on Nanotechnologies and Ethics would be elabo-rated. The outline would be submitted to COMEST at its 5th Ordinary Session in order to finalize the content of a Policy Advice to the Director General of UNESCO.

Ethics Education Programme

The Executive Secretary introduced the programme with a brief overview of the activities implemented thus far. The Ethics Education Programme was estab-lished on the basis of the recommendation made

16

by COMEST in its report The teaching of ethics, published in December 2003, with the long-term objective of reinforcing and increasing the capacities of Member States in the area of ethics education.

In order to facilitate the development and implemen-tation of teaching programs, a mapping of experts in ethics teaching together with a sampling of teaching programs have been undertaken. This activity is intricately linked to the development of the GEObs. Five special forms have been developed to collect standardised and comparable data concerning teach-ing activities, and distributed amongst the selected experts. Three regional meetings have also been organized in Budapest, Moscow, and Split, bring-ing together experts of East and Central Europe to share their experiences concerning the contents, methods, and materials employed in teaching differ-ent areas of ethics. The experts discussed the forms, validated them, and provided valuable informa-tion to be incorporated into the GEObs database. Following the expert meetings, the final versions of the program descriptions have been further vali-dated by the Secretariat. The Executive Secretary pointed out that these meetings also facilitated the creation of networks amongst ethics teachers and experts within the same region who had not had the occasion to exchange ideas before, and provided the foundation for expanding activities in ethics teach-ing within the region. Furthermore, a new series of regional meetings of experts in ethics teaching will be organised in the Arab region from autumn 2006 in order to continue the mapping of teaching programs.

He stated that the establishment of documentation centres to provide adequate information and materi-als from a particular region and in the official work-ing language used in that region was another area of concern. Following the establishment of a Regional Information and Documentation Centre in Vilnius in 2004, the establishment of a specific centre for the Arab region was planned for this biennium. With regards to UNESCO Chairs, the Executive Secretary asserted the need to re-evaluate all existing mecha-nisms and to establish a follow up procedure before creating Chairs in the area of ethics of science and technology. However, two Chairs of Bioethics were

approved in 2006 for Brasilia (Brazil) and Washington DC (USA) using a new approach.

The Executive Secretary briefly explained the work undertaken by the Advisory Expert Committee for the Teaching of Ethics to set standards and criteria for ethics teaching programs. The Committee, composed of experts from IBC, COMEST, the World Medical Association (WMA), The Third World Academy of Science (TWAS), and a representative of the UNESCO Chairs, was working on the elaboration of a proposal for a core curriculum in bioethics, using the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights as a basis. Once drafted, the proposal would be tested in consultations with external experts, vali-dated, and then distributed.

With regards to the elaboration and diffusion of teach-ing resources, the Executive Secretary mentioned the work carried out by the UNESCO Chair in Haifa and an expert team in Buenos Aires, supported by the Division of Ethics of Science and Technology. He also stated that the reports and booklets produced by the Division were widely disseminated. Finally, the Executive Secretary stated that, while the activities in ethics teaching during the 2004-2005 biennium had primarily focused on East and Central Europe and Latin America, priority would be given to the Arab region and Asia in the 2006-2007 biennium, and later to Africa.

Code of Conduct for Scientists

The Executive Secretary presented the history of the subject and detailed the activities developed by UNESCO in this field. He indicated that in response to a request by Member States, UNESCO had initially taken an interest in codes of conduct for scientists as a mode to counter the risks of bioterror-ism. Gradually, the potential field of implementation expanded and other ethical questions external to science, such as the increasing political and economic pressures undergone by scientists, were considered in connection with this subject. The essential issue was then to consider the rules that could contribute to sensitize scientists about possible harmful uses of science and to generate broader awareness within

17

the scientific community (possibly modelled after the Hippocratic Oath). The Executive Secretary recalled that following the deliberation carried out by COMEST and the ad hoc group of experts, at its 4th Ordinary Session held in Bangkok in March 2005, COMEST endorsed the strategy to prepare a feasibility study on the elaboration of an international declaration on science ethics that could serve as a basis for the formulation of ethical codes of conduct for scientists by Member States or national professional organizations. He then explained that this process was interrupted when Member States clearly expressed that UNESCO’s action for the remainder of this biennium and next biennium should focus primarily on the diffusion and implementation of adopted normative instru-ments and the development of capacity-building and awareness raising activities, rather than on the production of new normative instruments. In this context, the 33rd General Conference decided not to endorse the proposed feasibility study, but requested the Director General “to pursue reflec-tion on the question of science ethics.” In order to follow the directives given by Member States, a new 3-pronged strategy had been adopted. The first prong entails launching international and regional consultations involving COMEST members as well as scientists, ethicists, and policy-makers to identify relevant topics which UNESCO could address from an international perspective. Simultaneously, the Division of Ethics of Science and Technology collected and prepared an initial analysis of existing Codes of Conduct in various scientific and profes-sional areas across different countries and regions to identify gaps that require UNESCO’s interven-tion. Finally, UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers adopted in 1974 by the 18th General Conference should be reviewed to determine if it should be updated. This docu-ment contained some paragraphs concerning science ethics, and thus deserved to be studied by COMEST to explore possible mechanisms for follow-up. The Executive Secretary outlined the following options: updating the document; making it better known and more effective in practice; or using it as a basis for the elaboration of a new document explicitly referring to ethical principles. Lastly, the Executive Secretary reminded COMEST that the 33rd General

Conference dictated that a report on the question of science ethics be presented to the 175th Session of the Executive Board to be held in the autumn 2006. The report should include COMEST’s recom-mendations concerning science ethics and should be adopted within the framework of this extraordinary session.

Mr Sang-yong Song presented the preliminary results of the international and regional consultation meet-ings designed to provide useful inputs for the devel-opment of an advice by COMEST regarding science ethics and Codes of Conduct for Scientists. He indi-cated that UNESCO was invited to present its activi-ties on science ethics to the representatives of ALLEA (All European Academies), with members from 52 Academies of Science around Europe. A meeting was also organized in Europe, three in Asia, and one in Latin America. Various COMEST members have been involved in this consultation process which will continue throughout 2006. Meetings were also envisioned for Africa and the Arab States in 2007. Mr Song explained that the discussions, guided by the Secretariat’s questionnaire and his background document, were primarily focused on the question of follow-up to the Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers of 1974. Topics that were intensely debated include the commercialisation of scientific and technological discoveries, the economic pressures undergone by scientists, and the questions related to intellectual property. Mr Song indicated that although most of the meetings reached similar conclusions, some specificity appeared depending on the region. The principal divergence in conclu-sions centred on the need for elaborating a universal framework of ethical principles for science upon which codes of conduct could be grounded. The four meetings carried out in Asia and Latin America recog-nized such a need by consensus. However, during the meeting held in Geneva, some participants expressed their opposition to the development of any norma-tive action in this field, and argued that such reflec-tion should not be pursued within the framework of UNESCO at this stage.

The Chairperson of the IBC requested some clari-fications concerning the conclusions of the analysis of existing codes of conduct and codes of ethics.

18

The Executive Secretary stated that the interim analysis would be available soon. He explained that it was complicated to obtain general conclusions as different statements from various disciplines have different approaches and scopes, and are governed by different values although they may have similar titles. Moreover, there was ambiguity in several codes with regards to the nature of the code and its enforcement. The Executive Secretary recalled that this is an ongoing process and that the collection of codes would be increased in order to cover as many different disciplines and as many regions as possible, thus providing a broader picture. Some members expressed doubts about the effectiveness and perti-nence of a more thorough involvement by COMEST in the field of codes of conduct. It was claimed that the proliferation of comprehensive codes of conducts in many disciplines have not proved to be sufficient to prevent misconducts. They questioned the utility of developing a framework of ethical prin-ciples for science. On the other hand, it was high-lighted that a framework of ethical principles for science promoted by UNESCO could be useful to foster the setting up of codes of conduct in countries where they are rare or non-existent, including some developed countries such as Japan, and could also enhance the modification and updating of existing codes according to general international guidelines. Moreover, it was emphasized that since researchers should apply such ethical guidelines in their daily work not as members of a particular profession but as members of humankind, a universal and interna-tional approach was required. Thus, it was stated that UNESCO is the appropriate forum to elaborate a framework of ethical principles for science from a global and multicultural perspective.

COMEST members underlined the importance of implementation and stated that an emphasis should be put on ensuring the application of existing codes. It was suggested that research on the differ-ent mechanisms of implementation developed at national or regional level should be encouraged, and the results should be diffused widely as they may serve as orientation guidelines. The issue of possible coercive enforcement mechanisms or organs to ensure the respect of codes of conduct was raised, recognizing that these mechanisms are difficult to

implement. It was also suggested that awareness raising activities should be developed to better inform the general public about the existence and contents of codes of conduct as a way to promote their application.

Concerning the Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers, adopted by the Member States in 1974, it was stressed that its main objective was the recognition and protection by signatory States of individual rights for researchers. Thus, the Recommendation could not be converted into a code of conduct. However, it was emphasized that this normative statement contained some interesting references to the ethical obligations of researchers that have been agreed internationally. One member pointed out that the text was still accurate and rele-vant in many countries as scientists are still in a very weak position, and recognition of the rights stated in the Recommendation is needed. The impor-tance of ensuring that the Recommendation does not become purely a formality without content, and the need to promote its reactivation with the aim of reinforcing its implementation by Member States that adopted it 30 years ago were also high-lighted. One member suggested the possibility of adapting the text to reinforce its moral strength, and emphasizing the aspects related to the ethical obligations of researchers by annexing an explana-tory document signed by COMEST. In recogniz-ing the importance of the 1974 Recommendation, the Chairperson of the IGBC argued that the text should be used as a basis for reflection to elaborate a new statement, or at least deeply revised, as its main concern is definitely not related to science ethics. She also emphasized the importance of having a reli-able text in which COMEST’s actions in this field could be grounded.

It was agreed that every action considered by UNESCO in the field of science ethics would need an early and wide consultation process involving different stakeholders and the public. The issue of the essential role of the professionals and institutions exploiting knowledge produced by scientists was raised. Thus, to be effective, an eventual framework of ethical principles for science should be addressed to researchers, and also to publishers, sponsors, and

19

policy-makers. A member stated that the focus of such a framework should not only be on individual scientists but also on collective networks. Raising awareness among scientists, researchers, policy makers, funding entities, publishers, and the public at large, as well as the development of education programs were identified as the main areas of inter-vention for UNESCO.

The Chairperson of COMEST suggested a formu-lation of COMEST’s recommendation concerning the codes of conduct for scientists addressed to the Director General and for submission to the Executive Board. The following text was adopted by consensus:

Taking into account the resolution 39 of the General Conference, mandating further reflections on the issue of science ethics and scientists responsibility, COMEST recommends the following to the Director-General:

1. Member States should be reminded of the principles adopted by them in the 1974 Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers, and this instrument, together with the Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge, should be taken as a general reference for future works.

2. An assessment, from an ethical perspective, of the implementation of previous work of UNESCO in this area was deemed necessary, especially the 1974 Recommendation and the Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge.

3. The work that has been undertaken by UNESCO so far, such as the collection of codes of conduct worldwide, the critical and comparative analysis of existing codes, as well the elaboration of educational tools should be supported and encouraged.

4. Further international reflections and consultations should be carried out and fostered in order to identify a general ethical framework to guide scientific activity that will cover other stakeholders beyond the focus on scientists.

5. UNESCO, with the advice of COMEST, should work out such a general ethical framework.

6. The subsequent elaboration and/or implementation of specific codes of conduct for scientists should rely on Member States and the scientific community.

7. In this regard, it is necessary to set up a wide partici-patory process, involving all stakeholders as well as the society at large with a view to initiate actions in relevant sectors in the society.

Environmental ethics

The Executive Secretary introduced the subject, highlighting specific work undertaken by COMEST in several areas of moral concern related to the envi-ronment, such as energy and fresh water, bringing together scientific knowledge and expertise, as well as social and ethical analyses. COMEST decided to focus more explicitly on environmental ethics by adopting a 3-step strategy to ensure that moral dimensions are specifically and properly addressed. First, a group of ethicists were charged to establish the state-of-the-art in environmental ethics and to identify the possibilities for international action by UNESCO in this field. Furthermore, each ethi-cist of the group contributed a paper for the book Environmental Ethics and International Policy that would be published before the end of 2006, offering a panorama of the main issues raised in environ-mental ethics, simultaneously raising awareness on such issues. The Executive Secretary recalled that the Draft Policy Advice on Environmental Ethics submitted to COMEST was elaborated by the Bureau on the basis of propositions by the expert group, taking into consideration the discussions held in the 4th Ordinary Session of COMEST in Bangkok, and incorporating written comments sent by COMEST members. He explained that this document was the starting point for the next two steps, which are consultations with scientific communities and consultations with policy-makers, with the objective of assessing the feasibility, oppor-tunity, and urgency of the proposal for interna-tional action. Thus, COMEST could decide, in the framework of the extraordinary session, to final-ize the text and elaborate a draft policy advice on environmental ethics that could be used in further consultations. The Executive Secretary stated that

20

previous discussions clearly pointed out that envi-ronmental ethics is a complex issue. However, none of the numerous international actions and declara-tions adopted to protect and sustain the environ-ment specifically addressed its moral dimensions. Thus, UNESCO could effectively contribute to this issue by filling an existing lacuna. The Executive Secretary recalled that, following the consultation process, COMEST could consider to adopt a final policy advice addressed to the Director General of UNESCO during its 5th Ordinary Session to be held in Africa. This advice may be submitted to the 34th General Conference of UNESCO in the autumn of 2007. He stated that COMEST could also decide to orientate UNESCO’s action in environmental ethics in different scopes of activity, mainly normative action, education, capacity-build-ing, and awareness raising.

Mr Hattingh, member of the expert group, offered an overview of the content of the Draft Policy Advice on Environmental Ethics submitted to COMEST. He recalled that the final formulation wasn’t yet fixed. Thus, the following discussion would allow COMEST members to determine if they could agree with the general tone of the draft, and to collect editorial comments and content suggestions. Mr Hattingh stressed that the members of the expert group were aware that environmental ethics remains a sensitive area of applied ethics in which many points of divergence persisted. However, they managed to define possible points of consensus about basic concerns and shared principles, and to formulate on this basis a series of proposals concerning normative action, capacity building, and awareness raising. They did it on a theoretical level, through the elaboration of a book, but also in a practical way, as the draft policy advice shows. Mr Hattingh briefly presented the aim and structure of the draft policy advice and explained the choice made by the drafters to give an opera-tional or functional definition of environmental ethics, rather than a theoretical definition that could have been seen as ideological. He pointed out that six fundamental principles of environmental ethics and five implementation principles (that could be understood as examples of practical interpreta-tions or applications of the former) were formu-

lated in the draft. These principles, which aim to contribute to the development of different forms of normative actions, could be adopted as a whole or separately. Concerning the first of the fundamental principles that reads “every form of life should be respected, regardless of its utility to human beings”, Mr Hattingh stressed that its final objective was to grant some moral consideration to life and living beings independently of their usefulness to human beings. Other fundamental principles mentioned in the draft document were the “respect for biodiver-sity,” “safeguarding the sustainable biosphere,” and the “principle of earth as global commons.” The expert group identified these as points of departure for a comprehensive reflection on environmental ethics. The “principle of environmental justice” attempted to formulate the right to a healthy envi-ronment and the correlative responsibility towards environmental protection of every human, as well as the idea that rights and duties should be shared in an equitable way. Mr Hattingh pointed out that further studies were needed in order to clarify this principle and noticed that the wordings of the suggested formula would probably need to be refined. Concerning the “precautionary prin-ciple,” he recalled that the definition proposed in the draft document was based on the working definition adopted by COMEST and included in the Precautionary Principle Report published in March 2005 (page 14), to which the phrase “other living beings” have been added. The applicability of this principle on the environmental field was linked to the fact that human activities had an increasingly irreversible and uncertain impact on the environment.

Mr Hattingh then listed the implementation prin-ciples mentioned in the draft policy advice. The practical applications or consequences of the funda-mental principles quoted were: “rights of future generations”; “environmental ethics as a shared responsibility”; “practical implication of respect for life,” expressed for example in the ethical principle of the “burden of proof”; “principle of contrac-tion and convergence,” referring to the emission of gases contributing to the greenhouse effect; and the “principles about war and the environment,” identifying war as a major threat to the environ-

21

ment. Concerning the proposals for capacity-build-ing, the expert group identified various possibili-ties such as setting up national and international environment ethics committees; developing systems for complexity management and interdisciplinary studies to improve the assessment of the impact of human activities on the environment; develop-ing cooperation with international, regional, and national organizations; formulating and implement-ing education programs; promoting an in-depth study of the ethical implications of global warming; institutionalizing a “guardian” to advocate the inter-ests of future generations; developing local conser-vation ethics, specially with reference to indigenous knowledge; and auditing policies as regards for their contribution to sustainable development. Finally, Mr Hattingh listed a series of practical proposals to raise awareness, namely encouraging research on financial and political incentives; promoting instru-ments to better understand the meaning of “sustain-ability”; promoting alternative paradigms of thought and action to address environmental challenges; compiling environment ethics reports on a regular basis and setting up an international conference to exchange ideas; and make the developing countries’ discourses on environmental ethics better heard.

Some general critiques were expressed concerning the tone and content of the Draft Policy Advice on Environmental Ethics. One member asserted that the draft text wasn’t neutral enough, containing ideolog-ical statements on serious controversial issues. It was argued that, on this basis, the idea that the proposed principles could be adopted as a whole or separately became meaningless. One member said that, in practice, the causes producing damages to the envi-ronment and the mechanisms to prevent them were uncertain, and rejected the idea that environment has a finished existence. He also pointed out that it was necessary to be careful with hidden political agendas in public advocacy and asked for humility in the analysis of the environmental question. The issue of anthropocentric versus bio-centric perspectives was a subject of controversy amongst COMEST members. Most of them expressed the thought that the text should avoid confusion by adopting a more anthropocentric view. However, some members pointed out that one of the main interests of the

draft document was precisely that it offered an alternative to the classical utilitarian approach to the environment. With regards to the principle of respect for all life, human and non-human, it was emphasized that priority given to human life above other forms of life should be clearly pointed out. The idea of environmental balance couldn’t justify giving the same moral consideration to human life and other forms of life, such as animal life. In this sense, it was argued that a distinction should be clearly made between true respect for human life and esteem for other forms of life. Otherwise, this kind of statement could weaken the moral principle regarding the utmost importance of human dignity and human rights. It was also stressed that, as there were no criteria for dealing with the principle concerning respect for all life; it would be extremely difficult to implement. One member added that the articulation of this fundamental principle with the proposed implementation of the “burden of proof” might create important problems as it could be easily misinterpreted as establishing an obligation to justify every action of non-respect of non-human life. Mr Hattingh explained that, in the view of the discussions of the expert group, the recognition of this principle implied in practice making necessary choices between different forms of life and thus, it did not mean that all living beings are to be consid-ered of equal value or that an unconditional right of life was recognized for all of them. He also recalled that, if agreed, the principle could be a source of various interpretations as is usual in international public law. Mr Hattingh suggested exploring within the framework of COMEST other formulations of the principle that could express the compromise between the recognition of a general respect to all forms of life, the possibility of giving priority to a particular form of living being when it’s needed, and the positive statement of human’s right and dignity.

Concerning the fundamental principle related to biodiversity, it was said that the wording should be stronger to promote the protection of and not only the respect for biodiversity. Some members indicated that, in their view, the applicability of the precautionary principle in the field of environ-mental ethics could be problematic for a number of Member States. Concerning the implementation

22

principle on war and the environment, one member suggested extending it to reflect the fact that in addi-tion to war being a major threat to the environment, environmental issues are also causes of wars.

The importance of pursuing the reflection on environ-mental ethics in the framework of the Commission and of advising UNESCO to include this crucial theme in its programming was highlighted. However, the need for a review of the wording of the draft policy advice to clarify the meaning of the principles proposed was also emphasized. In this sense, some members suggested the elaboration of a terminology based on consensus. COMEST members recog-nized the efforts made by the expert group in the elaboration of the draft. The representative of ICSU emphasized that this document has the potential to stimulate further necessary debate. The importance of involving scientists and decision-makers in the following phases, as well as of promoting a larger debate involving different stakeholders including civil society organisations and the public at a large was highlighted.

The Chairperson of COMEST proposed a conclu-sion based on consensus, taking into account the agreement concerning the relevance and the oppor-tunity for UNESCO to work on this issue. As such, COMEST should pursue the reflection on environmental ethics. There was a general agree-ment on the feasibility of the proposals concerning capacity-building and awareness-raising activities. An important reflection involving multiple stake-holders should be carried out with regards to the formulation of fundamental and implementation principles of environmental ethics, and COMEST would actively contribute to this task. The draft policy advice on environmental ethics would be modified to incorporate written comments to be sent by COMEST members. COMEST would discuss the new version of the draft policy advice in its ordinary session planned in Africa and, in the meantime, consultations with other stakeholders would be conducted. Conclusions proposed by the Chairperson were unanimously accepted. In order to avoid confusion and misunderstandings, the Chairperson of the IBC suggested that the docu-ment be re-titled as a “draft reflection document

on the opportunity to launch an action on environ-mental ethics”.

Avicenna Prize

The next jury will meet during the COMEST session in Africa. The Executive Secretary recalled that the Avicenna Prize was created with the aim of increas-ing international awareness of the importance of ethics in science. He urged members to help make the prize better known at the local level and to encourage their countries to submit applications. The Executive Secretary pointed out that due to a modification of the COMEST statutes, members of the jury will hence-forth be elected for a 6-year mandate. He proposed to renew the mandate of the previous jury composed of Mrs Armanet, Mr Hattingh, and Mr Song. The composition of the jury was adopted by acclamation.

New initiatives

The Chairperson invited the members to introduce new potential topics of study that could be submit-ted during the 5th Ordinary Session of COMEST. She indicated that during the Bureau meeting held in February 2006, biometrics and robotics were suggested. A proposal concerning technology for development was raised. It was also proposed that ethical issues (especially privacy) related to the possi-bility of tracking people through a combination of different existing communication technologies should be studied. The Chairperson stated that this question was related to the discussions concerning the codes of conduct for scientists, as well as to COMEST’s anticipatory approach to technology and its potential uses in order to guarantee a positive use of the prod-ucts of science and technology research. Issues related to cognitive science, neuroscience, neurophysiology, and brain science were also raised. It was stated that this branch of sciences posed some problems in terms of terminology and that divergences between differ-ent countries existed. The Chairperson of the IGBC claimed that most of these issues should be studied in the framework of the IBC and IGBC sessions as they were directly related to bioethics. One member stressed that there was a completely new dimension

23

concerning brain science, a field characterized by the permanent interferences between fields such as tech-nology, science, medicine, and biology, as reflected in research efforts to connect computer with living material. The Chairperson of COMEST stated that these were border areas where collaboration between different bodies would be extremely useful.

Next meetings

The Executive Secretary and Chairperson announced that the next ordinary session of COMEST would take place in Dakar, Senegal, probably in December 2006. The jury of the Avicenna Prize for Ethics in

Science would also meet then. A youth forum and a ministerial meeting would be organized. The ordinary session of COMEST would also offer an oppor-tunity to bring together West African scientists to discuss issues of particular relevance for the region. The Chairperson congratulated the Secretariat on its work and the COMEST members entrusted the Secretariat with the preparation of the agenda for the Dakar meeting. The Chairperson expressed her satis-faction concerning the results of the present meeting and promised a very fruitful meeting in Dakar. The Executive Secretary transmitted salutations addressed to the COMEST members by the Assistant Director General, Mr Pierre Sané, and his intention to follow closely the activities of the Commission.