science in society: responsibilities and rights genetic engineering: human genes in other organisms...
TRANSCRIPT
Science in society: Responsibilities and rights
Genetic engineering: Human genes in other organisms
Technologies, Publics and Power. Akaroa, Feb 04
Bruce Small, AgResearch
Overview
• Responsibilities of science to society– Respect for cultural, spiritual, ethical values
• The role and importance of human emotion• 2 types of argument: intrinsic and extrinsic• Psychological variables: relativism / non-relativism, social /
emotional proximity
• Rights of science in society– Right to challenge current societal values
• Temporal, spatial, cultural, mutability of values• New knowledge may change cultural, spiritual, ethical values
• Balance– Social research, current values, direction of change, empirical data
• GE context: placing human genes in other organisms
GE controversy: human genes in other organisms
• Transgenic animals– AgR – hMBP transgenic cattle – multiple sclerosis – PPL – AAT transgenic sheep – cystic fibrosis
• Bacteria– Insulin - diabetes– Factor VIII – haemophilia A– Factor IX – haemophilia B– HGH – short stature and aging– EPO - anaemia
Two types of argument in GE debate: Intrinsic & Extrinsic (Appleby, 1999; Straughan, 1995)
• Intrinsic– Moral value of the technology – irrespective of
consequences – concern with ‘means’ rather than ‘ends’
– Beliefs about right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable
– Cultural, spiritual, ethical– ‘Ought statements’ – neither true nor false– Not open to direct scientific investigation
Two types of argument in GE debate: Intrinsic & Extrinsic
• Extrinsic– Moral value of consequences of technology application
– concern with ‘ends’ rather than ‘means’– Have an ethical and a scientific component– Scientific component – physical and social effects –
what “is” or “will be” - Open to scientific investigation– Ethical component – moral principles used to evaluate
effects – e.g., benefit, non-harm, justice, autonomy – derived from culture, spiritual or moral beliefs
Relativism / Non-relativism (Forsyth, 1992)
• Non-relativist– Circumstances (extrinsic outcomes) cannot
mitigate for intrinsic moral objections
• Relativist – Intrinsic moral objections may be mitigated by
circumstances e.g., extrinsic benefits
Intrinsic moral values and emotion
• Individuals gain their intrinsic moral values from the culture/religion, sub-group in which they are raised or are socially immersed
• Intrinsic moral values are a core component of an individual’s self-image and identity, providing personal meaning and a framework for evaluating experience
• Being core to their self image and identity, people have strong emotional attachments to their intrinsic moral values
Intrinsic moral values and emotion
• Recent psych theory and research supports moral intuitionist view (e.g. Haidt, 2001, Haidt et al 1993; Green et al 2001)
• Moral judgement strongly linked to emotional response (the “yuk” response, the “feel good” response)
• Rationalisation often occurs as a post hoc construction
• At minimum - emotions play role in moral judgement and are inextricably linked to moral values
Social/Emotional proximity – to beneficiaries or victims of an issue
• Proximity to victim/beneficiary affects moral evaluation of issue (Jones, 1991; Jones & Huber, 1992; Ma, 1996)
• Support for hMBP cattle from MS and family and medical carers
GE: Public concerns vs scientist advocates’ concerns
• Public hierarchy of concerns about GE
– Micro-organisms – least concern– Plants– Animals– Humans – most concern– (Eurobaraometer, 1991; Hamstra & Smink, 1996; Hoban et
al., 1992)
• Scientists’ hierarchy of concerns (Small, 2003)– Animals – least concern– Plants– Micro-organisms – most concern
Public and scientists’ intrinsic moral values: GE animals fit with my basic moral principles
• Public n=968, AgR scientists n= 330
1113
25
10
36
17
31
26
18
7
0
5
10
1520
25
30
35
40
Stronglyagree
Agree Neutral Disagree Stronglydisagree
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Public Scientists
Science Advocates
• Tend not to have intrinsic moral concerns regarding the technology (or only weakly held concerns)
• Use extrinsic arguments (usually benefits and non-harm, sometimes justice or other cultural values)
Public Opponents
• Usually have strong intrinsic moral reservations about the technology– For many (i.e., non-relativists) intrinsic objections
primary - extrinsic arguments of benefits irrelevant
• May also use extrinsic arguments (usually harms, non-benefit, but also injustice, lack of autonomy or violation of other cultural values). – May use extrinsic arguments as rationalisation to
justify intrinsic moral values
Science GE advocates claim
• Public opponents’ arguments are emotional and non-rational – therefore irrelevant to science decision-making
• But – this ignores the importance of emotion, and its
connection with culture, morality and spirituality in human lives
– Implies science advocates of GE are rational and non-emotive about GE issues
Emotion is important
• To be human is to be both emotional and rational
• Emotional impacts of technology are very important to an agent
• Respect for agents involves respecting their emotional states
• Science has a responsibility to acknowledge and respect emotional wellbeing of public by appropriately incorporating the cultural, moral and spiritual values of society in science research
• Necessary to maintain public trust
Mutability of cultural, spiritual, ethical values
• Cultures change and evolve across time and place as do their intrinsic moral values – neither absolute or universal
• Values may differ and be in conflict between cultures, or between groups within a culture, or within a single culture over time
• New knowledge (including science and technology) may contribute to the evolution of cultural, spiritual and ethical values
• Galileo and Darwin
The right to challenge received wisdom
• For scientific progress it is essential that the propositions of science are open to challege from new knowledge
• Perhaps an important criteria for cultural, spiritual and ethical evolution is that these beliefs too are open to challenge from new knowledge – including science
Balance
• Science needs to find an appropriate balance between its responsibility to respect the emotional well-being of members of the public and their intrinsic mores, and its right to challenge them
• Hence necessary to understand society’s intrinsic moral values and the direction in which they are evolving
• Thus the need for open engagement, dialogue, debate and social research
NZers’ support/opposition to food applications of GE
Support for GE food applications 2001 vs 2003
3
52
36
88
60
26
4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Totally support Conditionallysupport
Totally oppose Don't know
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
2001
2003
NZers’ support/opposition to medical applications of GE
Support for GE medical applications: 2001 vs 2003
16
62
148
32
57
73
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Totallysupport
Conditionallysupport
Totallyoppose
Don't know
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
2001
2003
Need for case-by-case analysis for GE products
It is necessary to evaluate each potential application of GE on a case-by-case basis rather
than totally supporting or totally opposing all applications of GE
54
1811 5 9
30
20
40
60
Stronglyagree
Agree Neutral Disagree Stronglydisagree
Don't know% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Fit of GE with NZers’ cultural and spiritual beliefs
Using GE technology fits with my cultural and spiritual beliefs: 2001 vs 2003
4 5
27
12
48
411 14
33
10
27
4
0
10
20
30
40
50
Stronglyagree
Agree Neutral Disagree Stronglydisagree
Don'tknow
% o
f Res
pond
ents
2001
2003
Conclusions
• Responsibilities of science to society– Recognition of the importance of human emotion – Research reflects respect for cultural, spiritual, ethical values
Balanced by
• Rights of science in society– Recognition of mutability of values– Right and role to challenge current values
Currently
• Public social mores are against GE but changing values appear headed in the direction of qualified acceptance of the technology i.e., case-by-case acceptance or rejection