AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION
HORIZON
SCANNING SUB-GROUP
NOTE
OF A MEETING ON 24 APRIL 2001
AT
THE HUB, EDINBURGH
WITH
MEMBERS OF THE
ENGINEERING
GENESIS WORKING GROUP OF THE
SOCIETY
RELIGION AND TECHNOLOGY PROJECT
OF
THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND
Note:
These are the views of the sub-group, not necessarily those of the full
Commission
John Eldridge
Michael
Northcott
Julie Hill
(Convenor)
ChiChi
Iweajunwa
Derek Langslow
Roger Turner
Anne Packer
(Secretary)
1.
Julie Hill welcomed the members of the Engineering Genesis
Working Group of the Society, Religion and Technology Project (SRT) of the
Church of Scotland for an informal discussion.
She outlined the origin of the AEBC and described the horizon scanning
group’s work, which was one of the three major work-streams for the Commission
within its strategic overview of biotechnology for agriculture and the
environment. The group aimed to publish
a paper by the end of 2001. The AEBC
group welcomed the opportunity for discussions with the Church of Scotland
group, which had the benefit of considerable experience. AEBC would particularly welcome input on
particular aspects to keep in mind during its work.
2.
Donald Bruce described the work of the Church of Scotland
SRT Project since its establishment in 1970, using slides which are attached as
an annex to this note. The Engineering
Genesis working group was set up in December 1993 to study the ethical and
social implications of genetic engineering in animals, plants and
micro-organisms, which were seen as an important emerging issue in technology.
3.
The group's approach follows SRT's pattern of many years,
seeking a constructive means of dialogue on contentious issues. The group brought together a broad range of
expertise and members with diverse views. Its approach was to establish a
multi-faceted understanding of the issues, drawing from the range of
specialisms. Rather than seeking
consensus, it gave space to examine different perspectives, seeing where
agreement and disagreement existed, and exploring the values and assumptions
which underlay the various viewpoints.
Donald Bruce said that in a number of ways the group prefigured the
concept of the AEBC. In its book
‘Engineering Genesis’, published by Earthscan in November 1998, the group
called for the setting up of such a body as AEBC. The book indicates areas of agreement but also presents mutual
critiques.
4.
The working group was currently working on a revised edition
of ‘Engineering Genesis’, which cover the same issues but would take especial
account of developments over GM food and ecological risk and in applications
relating to developing countries such as vitamin A rice.
5.
The book was aimed at the general public, and the SRT
Project has also submitted reports to the Church of Scotland General Assembly.
There had been reports on patenting and on cloning in 1997, and GM food in
1999. A report on GM animals would be
submitted for the next Assembly in May 2001. In order to make policy
recommendations to the church, Donald Bruce had made specific interpretations
on some issues where the book had left options open.
Issues
discussed
6.
Donald Bruce said they had identified some key value
criteria which people frequently used to evaluate genetic modification of crops
and foods. These are set out in
paragraph 6 of the annex.
7.
He also explained how, on the basis of the group's work, he
had developed the concept of biotechnology as a social contract, particularly
in relation to its future directions. Societal approval of what scientists
proposed was no longer something to be taken for granted. Trust was
conditional. Society seemed prepared to accept a sensitive new developments on
technology provided certain conditions were fulfilled. Some of these conditions are described in
paragraph 7 of the annex.
8.
Some of the points raised in general discussion were:
·
The group consider that intrinsic ethical values in relation
to genetic modification were very important and not to be dismissed. They found
that they are likely to be held as much by scientists in supporting genetic
modification as objectors in opposing it.
It was not a question of one being rational and the other irrational,
but of different modes of rationality - instrumental and value-based reasoning
were in themselves equally rational.†
·
Thus, ethical questions frequently emerged when people initially
thought issues were simply technical ones, for example in patent applications,
where some held intrinsic concerns about intellectual property applied to genes
and to living organisms.
·
Similarly, food for the developing world was not just a
question of what are the best techniques to grow food to meet the demands of a
growing population. Wider issues of access to land and food, poverty, inequity
and maldistribution were all highly relevant.
·
There could also be intrinsic problems with balance of power
in relation to the promotion of genetic modification.
·
An ideology of ‘genetic essentialism’ was sometimes
associated with views that it was intrinsically wrong to do genetic
modification. This holds that people should not interfere in principle with
genetic make-up because this was part of the essence of the organism. It
differs from a view which asks what is the function
of the gene in the organism, and evaluates interference on the functional harm
or benefit it causes.
·
In the debates on crops, social science researchers drew the
distinction between ‘value based’ and ‘interest based’ frameworks. ‡
If someone approaches an issue on the basis of whether they perceive it
to be in their interests, they may be moved in their opinion, either way, by
arguments about benefits or harms. If they approach the issue on a value basis,
however, they were much less likely to be changed by being told that something
they objected to on principle was "good for them". The biotechnology industry had tended to
ignore the fact that people often had unspoken fundamental assumptions, and had
reacted to what were value based concerns about GM crops as if they had been
interest based.
·
Many people had become suspicious of scientists and
politicians in this area, which raised questions of how to generate or
reconstruct trust.
·
It was important to encourage understanding of issues in the
media, to broaden the debate – understanding the context reduced the tendency
to demonise issues.
·
People had talked about the ‘intrinsic value’ of animals at
the AEBC public meeting the previous day. There seemed to be no common
framework for evaluation of acceptability.
People had a range of views about what health, pain, dignity and
‘naturalness’ mean in the context of animal welfare. Some people were also beginning to consider what the intrinsic
value of plants might mean. The group's
work had considerable thought to the extent to which changing the attributes of
both farm and experimental animals could be an affront to dignity, whether or
not pain was involved. The recent example of GM primates took this question
even further.
·
There would be substantial environmental issues if there
were GM insects.
·
It could be useful to consider the ‘positive agenda’ for
biotechnology, perhaps looking at the most positive developments that might
come.
·
There are other sustainable ways of doing agriculture that
have been ignored in the current tendency to polarise the debate into
GM/conventional vs organic. There may
in future be a greater emphasis on different forms of extensive farming.
·
More work could be useful on people’s perception, and why
some issues seemed not to be perceived in advance and then caused considerable
uncertainty and ambivalence.
·
Discussing GM in relation to the third world raised complex
issues. There could be an argument for
providing a platform in the developed world for products and traits which could
be needed in the third world like stress and disease tolerance crops or
increased yields, but which are not needed here. Some developments were coming from within countries
themselves. Each country, however,
contained different voices from people with very different interests. It was important to be clear in whose
interests GM developments would be made.
The Rockefeller foundation was active in making available for the third
world intellectual property regarding GM developments which was held by
industrial countries.
9.
Donald Bruce and Joyce Tait offered to send some reports
prepared by the Church of Scotland project and by SUPRA (Scottish Universities
Policy Research and Advice network) to the AEBC group for information. Closing the meeting, Julie Hill thanked
everyone attending for participating in a very fruitful exchange of ideas.
AEBC
Secretariat
ANNEX: TEXT OF PRESENTATION GIVEN BY DR DONALD BRUCE
ENGINEERING GENESIS
Ethical Issues in the Genetic Engineering in Animals, Plants and Micro-Organisms
Overview
of the Study
Dr Donald M.
Bruce
Society,
Religion and Technology Project, Church of Scotland
Set up in 1970
by the Church of Scotland, with a full time scientific director
To explore
ethical issues arising from current technology
To engage
scientists and technologists in discussion on the ethical and social implications
of their work
To present
well independent, informed and balanced views to policy makers, Government, EU,
etc.
To stimulate
discussion within the Church & in civil society
Dr Mike Appleby, BSc, PhD
Senior
Lecturer in animal welfare, Edinburgh University.
Prof. David Atkinson, BSc, PhD, FIBiol,
MIEEM, MIPSS
Deputy
Principal, Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh.
Mrs Ann Bruce, BSc, MSc, Dip AIM
(Co-editor, Researcher and Secretary)
Scientific
Administrator Roslin Institute
Dr Donald Bruce, BSc, PhD, Dip.Th
(Co-editor, Convenor)
Director:
Society, Religion and Technology Project, Church of Scotland.
Prof. John Eldridge, BSc, PhD
Professor
of Sociology, Glasgow University.
Rev. Dr
Michael Northcott, BA, MA, PhD
Reader in Christian Ethics &
Practical Theology, Edinburgh University
Prof. Joyce Tait, BSc, PhD
Visiting
Professor, Research Centre for Social Sciences, Edinburgh University
Prof. Ian Wilmut, OBE, BSc, PhD
Principal
Investigator, BBSRC Roslin Institute, Edinburgh
Prof. Michael Wilson, BSc, PhD, MIBiol,
CBiol
Deputy
Director, Scottish Crop Research Institute, Invergowrie.
Prof. Peter Wilson, CBE, FRSE, MSc,
PhD, FIBiol
General
Secretary, Royal Society of Edinburgh
1. Pseudomonas - genetically modified soil bacteria
2. Abiotic Stress - genetically modifying
plants for harsh environments
3. Novel oils from genetically modified oilseed
4. Medical proteins from plants, using
genetically modified plant viruses
5. Genetically modified insect viruses as
pesticides
6. Genetically Modified Tomatoes
7. BST - boosting milk yields with hormones
produced in genetically modified bacteria
8. Pharmaceuticals from milk - producing
pharmaceuticals in sheep milk
9. Xenotransplantation - organ transplants from
genetically modified pigs
10. Modelling
human disease - genetically modified mice as models of human diseases
11.
Dolly mixture - cloning by nuclear transfer to improve genetic engineering in
animals
Chapter 3 Underlying issues and ethical perspectives on genetic
engineering
Chapter 4 Genetic Engineering and Animal Welfare.
Chapter 5 Weighing up Animal Ethics and Human Benefit
Chapter 6 Transgenic Food
Chapter 7 Environmental risks from genetically modified organisms
Chapter 8 Patenting and Biotechnology
Chapter 9 Genetic Engineering and the Third World
Chapter 10 The Social Context of Genetic Engineering
Chapter 11 Final Reflections
1. the need to evaluation
of intrinsic ethical questions as well as consequential ones
2. the ethical
significance of mixing genes across species
3. the promise of
genetic engineering is more variable than it might appear
4. the use and
suffering of animals, in new and also existing practices
5. the difficulty
of balancing medical research against animal use
6. the
significance of transgenic material in food, and the need to label as such
7. the balance of
technological and "traditional" approaches to agriculture
8. the importance
of wider ecological concerns, not merely the main intended effect
9. the balance of
environmental and other benefits and relatively unpredictable hazards
10. at what level
of knowledge can risk regulation can become less precautionary?
11. the effect of
gradualism - making major unintended changes by small logical steps
12. the role of
commercial drivers in genetic engineering, e.g. in patenting and food
13. the
polarisation of views on whether living organisms should be patented
14. the role of
social and political power structures in the direction of biotechnology
15. the importance
of recognising the underlying value systems of the different players
16. the tendency
to an unjust sharing of costs and benefits, and of winners and losers
17. the difficulty
of applying genetic engineering to the needs of developing countries
18. the need for
greater discussion and public accountability
19. the need for a
statutory biotechnology ethics commission
6. Key Value Criteria used to Evaluate GM Foods
·
Theological/philosophical - is switching genes just wrong?
·
Ideological - industrial vs organic agriculture
·
Risk - what is being precautionary enough?
·
Scientific
rationality - technological progress
·
Commercial -
economic growth, jobs, competition
·
Resource - helping to feed the world
·
Development - global justice for the poor
·
Control / Participation - who decides / against what
criteria?
Society
is prepared to accept a sensitive new technology and adjust somewhat to its
demand, provided certain conditions are fulfilled
·
Familiarity: is it familiar and understood, socially
embedded?
·
Values: does it uphold or challenge basic values
·
Comparison: has something like it gone wrong before ... or
proved reliable?
·
Control: how much do we feel in control of the risk?
·
Trust: how much do we trust those in control,
·
Shared vision: How much do we share their values,
motivations, goals?
·
Voluntary or imposed risk?
·
Frequency of risk: if it’s too frequent it’s unacceptable
·
Magnitude of risk: much greater aversion to high consequence
risks
·
Immediacy of risk: is it noticeable or creeping up
insidiously?
·
Tangible Benefits to Consumer
·
Unfamiliar and sensitive
·
Challenged basic values about genes and species
·
Suspicion of unnecessary scientific tampering
·
Risk compared with BSE or ecological accidents
·
Not in control and no trust in those who are
·
Suspicion of commercial motivation
·
No choice: risk unavoidable
·
Imposed risk with no tangible benefit
* Bruce, D. M. (2002) A Social Contract for Biotechnology- Shared Visions for Risky Technologies? J. Agric.Food Ethics, in preparation.
Bruce, D. M. (2002) Playing Dice with Creation, in Szerszynski, B. and Deane-Drummond, C. (eds) “Reordering Nature”, T&T Clark, Edinburgh (in press)
† Bruce, D. and A. (1998) Engineering Genesis, chaps.3 and 10, Earthscan, London
‡ Tait, J. E. (2001) More
Faust than Frankenstein: The European Debate about Risk Regulation for
Genetically Modified Crops, J. Risk Research (in press)
Dr
Donald M. Bruce
Society,
Religion and Technology Project
Church
of Scotland
John
Knox House, 45 High Street,
Edinburgh
EH1 1SR, Scotland
Tel.:
+44 131 556 2953
Fax
: +44 131 556 7478
E-mail
: srtp@srtp.org.uk
Website
: http://www.srtp.org.uk
