Science in society: Responsibilities and rights Genetic engineering: Human genes in other organisms...

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