Transcript Science in society: Obligations and rights

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
% of Respondents
Public and scientists’ intrinsic moral values:
GE animals fit with my basic moral principles
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
36
31
25 26
18
17
11
Strongly
agree
13
Agree
10
Neutral
Public
Disagree
Scientists
• Public n=968, AgR scientists n= 330
7
Strongly
disagree
Science Advocates
• Tend not to have intrinsic moral concerns regarding
the technology (or only weakly held concerns)
• Use extrinsic arguments (usually benefits and nonharm, 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 nonrational
– 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
% of Respondents
70
60
60
50
52
36
40
26
30
20
10
2001
3
8
2003
8
4
0
Totally support Conditionally Totally oppose
support
Don't know
NZers’ support/opposition to medical applications of GE
% of Respondents
Support for GE medical applications: 2001 vs 2003
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
62
57
2001
32
2003
16
14
7
Totally
support
Conditionally
support
Totally
oppose
8
3
Don't know
Need for case-by-case analysis for GE
products
% of Respondents
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
60
54
40
18
20
11
5
9
3
0
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Don't know
disagree
Fit of GE with NZers’ cultural and spiritual
beliefs
% of Respondents
Using GE technology fits with my cultural and
spiritual beliefs: 2001 vs 2003
48
50
40
33
30
2003
20
10
2001
27
27
14
11
4
5
12 10
4 4
0
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree
Don't
know
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