ethics in biotechnology

Ethics in Biotechnology

Why Ethics in Biotechnology

• New technology• Plurality of moral convictions• Divergent economic, political, and social

objectives• Growing sensitivity of the public• Doubts of the public about internal control

mechanism of scientific institutions and the scientific community to adequately consider moral implications of research and its consequences

• Complexity of ethical issues involved

Morale and Ethics?• „Morale″ ← Latin „mores″ : custom, habit... indicates the distinction between what is good and what is evil in the everyday life

• „Ethics″ ← Greek „ethos″ : tradition, habit... the philosophical study of the principles at the basis of morale

Etymology of the two words speaks one's mind:both ethics and morale are the result of the society's evolution towards "standard" behaviours.

Operational definition of morale:„... those standards everyone wants everyone to follow, even if everyone else´s following them means having to follow them oneself.″ (M. Davis)

Morale and Ethics

• MoralsEncompass all forms of human behaviour and action that is implicitly or explicitly aligned with values and norms

• Ethicsis the methodological reflection on morals and law, i.e. identification and consideration of values and norms with which we align our action

Morale & EthicsTHREE BASIS OF

RESTRAINT

level enforcement restriction example

LEGAL INSTITUTIONS USUALLY FREE, UNLESS RIGHTS

INVOLVED

Freedom to experiment, unless

illegalETHICAL GROUP AGREED BY THE

GROUPDo No (direct)

Harm (to patient)

MORAL SELF EVEN IF EVERYONE SAYS YES, I WILL

NOT

Will Refuse if there is

INDIRECT HARM

Bioethics

Bioethics: A discipline dealing with the ethical implications of biological research and applications

The Bioethical Challenge

Is Biotechnology Morally Acceptable?

Two Kinds of Ethical Arguments Used to Evaluate Concerns Over Biotechnology

• Extrinsic objections say the possible consequences of some biotech applications are objectionable, but others may be acceptable GMOs are wrong because risks outweigh benefits.

• Intrinsic objections say the process of biotechnology is objectionable in itself GMOs are wrong , no matter how great the benefits.

1. Extrinsic objections

A. Unsafe for consumers

“Frankenfoods”

2. Extrinsic objections

B. Unsafe for environments “superweeds”

–Herbicide resistance - canola gene flows into weedy relatives

–Bt toxin kills monarch butterfly larvae

Extrinsic objections C. Unfair to small farmers

“Rich get richer,poor get

poorer”

Vandana Shiva Monocultures of the Mind

she has established Navdanya, a movement for biodiversity conservation and farmers' rights

The Business of Science Challenge

Does the business of biotechnology corrupt the purpose and integrity of the process of the science?

Or can business and scientific partnerships be beneficial for society?

The Business of Science• Critics:– Focusing on profits contradicts the purpose of science - to

enhance or improve the quality of life– Biotechnology commodifies life and leads to reductionist

science

• Advocates:– The spiraling costs of R & D required to bring a product to

market justifies the closer ties of science and business– This relationship has been beneficial to society and has

contributed to the public good

Ethical arguments against GM foods

1. Extrinsic objections

2. Intrinsic objections

GM foods are wrong no matter how great the benefits may be.

Intrinsic objections

GM foods are wrong because it’s wrong to:

1. Play God2. Invent world changing

technology3. Cross species boundaries4. Reproduce by nonsexual

means5. Disrupt integrity, beauty,

balance of nature6. Harm sentient beings

Intrinsic objections

1. We should not play God

Intrinsic objections

1. Don’t play God

Counter-examples:

–High tech medicine

–God wants us to genetically engineer food

Intrinsic objections

2. We should not change the world through new technology

Intrinsic objections

2. No world-changing technology

Counter-example:Agriculture

Intrinsic objections

3. We should not cross natural species boundaries

Intrinsic objections

3. Don’t cross species

Counter-examples:• Mules• Hybrid wheat

Intrinsic objections

4. We should not use nonsexual means to reproduce

Intrinsic objections

4. Don’t reproduce nonsexually

Counter-examples:• GIFT and in vitro• Plant cuttings

Intrinsic objections to ag biotech

5. We should not disrupt the integrity, beauty and balance of creation

Intrinsic objections to ag biotech

5. Don’t disrupt nature

Problems:• An extrinsic objection• Is / ought problem

Intrinsic objections

6. We should not harm sentient beings

Intrinsic objections

6. Don’t harm sentient beings

Problems:• An extrinsic objection

• Meat-eaters accept harm to animals

Conclusion: Intrinsic objections are not sound

1. Playing God2. Invent world changing technology3. Cross species boundaries4. Reproduce nonsexually5. Disrupt integrity and beauty of nature6. Harm sentient beings

Extrinsic objections

• Unsafe for consumers? Food allergens, toxins

• Unsafe for environment?–Unintended effects on nontarget organisms–Gene flow, development of resistant weeds

• Unfair to small farmers? Rich get richer, poor get poorer

Extrinsic objections

•Are valid concerns

•Demand scientific and political attention

Extrinsic objections

•Support: Regulatory oversight on case-by-case basis•Do not support: a ban on all GM crops

Ethical arguments FOR GM foods

Potential to improve:– Diets in developing countries– Efficiency of food production– Safety and purity of food– Agricultural sustainability – Diversity of agro-ecosystems

Enhanced nutrition

Vitamin A RiceIron Enhanced RiceAmino Acid Balance

Insect resistance

• Bt corn– Insect resistance from

Bacillus thuringiensis– Non-toxic to humans– Target insect: corn borer– 40% U.S. Corn crop Bt– Potential to reduce

insecticide use

Disease resistance

• Potatoes• Squash• Tomatoes• Corn• Rice• Canola• Soybeans• Grapes• Cantaloupes• Cucumbers

Genetic engineering in microbes: enzymes

• Recombinant Chymosin – Enzyme used for cheese

making – Originally from calf stomach– Bovine gene expressed in

GRAS microbes– FDA approved 1990– Now used in 70% of U.S.

cheese

Recombinant amino acids

• Aspartame– Artificial sweetener– Made from aspartic acid

and phenylalanine– Used in 5,000 products

• Monosodium glutamate

Recombinant alpha amylase

• Used to make HFCS• Gras status in 1995• 10% U.S. corn crop

processed into syrups

The Challenge of Consumer Choice

Does society have an ethical obligation to maximize consumer knowledge and

choice?

Consumer Choice – The Issue of Labeling

• Advocates of consumer labeling criticize efforts NOT to label food containing genetically modified organisms. They argue: “If biotech foods are safe and risk free, then why are you afraid to let us know what we are buying?”

• Consumers with food allergies, vegetarians, and those with religious dietary restrictions have a right to know

• Consumers should be able to choose the type and quality of food they consume, and the production system they want to support with their food dollar

Consumer Choice –Opposition to Labeling

• Labeling is unnecessary because biotech foods contain genetic material from other natural products - nothing is added that does not already exist in nature

• Organic labeling standards exist. If you are opposed to consuming genetically modified food ingredients, simply buy organic!

• Labeling does not change consumer behavior

• Why must everyone pay for the cost of labeling that is demanded by a few?

Key Challenges of Agricultural Biotechnology

• Can we capture the potential benefits of agricultural biotechnology in a fair and equitable way for today’s and future generations?

• Can we balance the interests of human society and the environment using biotechnology?

• Can biotechnology contribute to sustainable agricultural systems?

• How should we frame the biotechnology issue?