You are on page 1of 11

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ETHICS*

by Enzo Russo and David Cove THE English philosopher, Francis Bacon wrote in 1597 Nam et ipsa scientia potestas esr (For knowledge itself is power). It is true that knowledge given to us by science is power because it allows us to apply laws and principles, to do something new, and to obtain new technological products. Human activity is the subject of ethical laws. I am allowed to run over someone in my car, because they are in my way and I am in a hurry? No, it is murder! Should I help a dying person and bring him to the nearest hospital in my car? Yes, it is a moral obligation! The car is a product of mechanical, chemical and electrical tech technology and it is itself neutral, it is the use we make it, it is our actions that are the subject of ethical imperatives. New science brings new technology. New technology can be used in a good or in a bad way. New science and its resulting technology therefore create new ethical problems. We must first recognize these ethical issues, and then we have to decide who is responsible for what. The development of science this century, and especially the development of genetics, has allowed the realization of many dreams but at the same it has created ethical problems which it will be a nightmare to solve. What must be avoided is what we call the German 1945 Syndrome. After the Second World War, after the murder of millions of people in the concentration camps, too many German people either said that they did not know anything about the Holocaust or that they had just been following orders. The first ethical imperative of a responsible citizen is to be informed about the possibilities opened by science and technology and their potential dangers. The second ethical imperative is to participate in decision making in an informed way, with personal action or political influence, in her/his own city and in the world. All human beings share the same boat, our planet. __________________ *REPRINTED FROM: Enzo Russo and David Cove, Genetic Engineering: Dreams and Nightmares ( W.H. Freeman: Oxford, 1995), pp. 202-213.

Is Democritus responsible for the atomic bomb?

There is much debate and sometimes confusion about who is responsible for the misuse or abuse of power given us by science and technology. We would like to present our beliefs on this subject by considering two examples; the atomic bomb and discrimination against people who carry defective genes. Democritus was the first to postulate that the whole world is particulate, proposing that there were four different atoms. Galileo founded modern science and the branch of physics known as mechanics. Henry Bequerel was awarded a Nobel prize in 1903, for his discovery in 1896 of the existence of radioactivity. Max Planck (Nobel prize 1918) discovered that energy is not a continuum but comes in packages called quanta. Albert Einstein (Nobel prize 1921) showed in 1906 that matter and energy were inter-convertible. Neils Bohr (Nobel prize 1922) presented the first model of an atom in 1913, composed of a nucleus containing protons and neutrons, around the sun. James Chadwick (Nobel prize 1935) discovered in 1930 the existence of neutrons. Otto Hahn (Nobel prize 1944) published a paper with Fritz Strasemann on the 6 January 1939, presenting evidence that the nucleus of the uranium atom could be split, when hit by a neutron, liberating a great amount of energy. Three weeks later, on 28 January 1939, a correspondent wrote in the New York Times:
American scientists heard today of a new phenomenon in physicsexplosion of atoms with a discharge of 200,000,000 volts of energy. Theoretical physicists attending a meeting sponsored by the Carnegie Institution of Washington and George Washington University said that Dr. Enrico Fermi of the University of Rome told yesterday that this had been accomplished by Dr. O. Hahn of Berlin. They said that it was too soon to discuss possible application of the new 200,000,000 volt force, which is thirty times more powerful than radium, but pointed out the fact that radium, it may be twenty or twenty -five years before the phenomenon could be put to practical use and it might not be practical at all said.

It is interesting to see how wrong was the prediction about how long it would take to apply the discovery practically, a new political situation saw to that. The Second World War started in 1939, and in 1941, following the surprise attack by Japan on the US fleet at Pearl Harbor, the USA joined the war. IN 1942, President Roosevelt started the Manhattan Project employing thousands of physicists and technicians to try to put Hahns discovery to practical use, to make an atomic bomb. On 6 August 1945, an American aeroplane dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, destroying much of the city and many of its inhabitants. Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, and on the same day Japan surrendered. In his autobiography Otto Hahn writes:
I was immensely shocked and depressed. The idea of the great misery of endless numbers of innocent women and children was almost unbearable to me . . . after a long evening full of discussions, tentative of explanation and self reproach, I was so

long evening full of discussions, tentative of explanation and self reproach, I was so nervous that Max von Laue and the people were seriously worried about me. (translated by the author)

Werner Heisenberg writes that they were indeed worried that Hahn might commit suicide. We can well understand the feelings of Otto Hahn, but who was really responsible for the atomic bomb? Democritus or the other scientists including Hahn, who had accumulated basic knowledge? The scientists who built the atomic bomb? President Roosevelt who started the Manhattan Project? President Truman who ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The pilots of the aeroplanes? The initiation of the Manhattan Project was justified by the fear that Nazi Germany would make an atomic bomb first and use it to overcome the free world. The use of the bomb was justified by the fact that the enemy, Japan, refused to surrender and was inflicting many casualties among American soldiers. It was claimed to be an act of self defense. We do not wish to discuss here if these justifications are morally acceptable or not, but we do think it is absolutely absurd to give any moral responsibility to any of the scientists who accumulated the basic knowledge, Democritus and Otto Hahn included. We now wish to consider the equivalent problem created by genetics. Gregor Mendel discovered the basic laws of the genetics in 1865. Thomas Morgan (Nobel prize, 1933) showed in 1908 that spontaneous mutations occurred in the fruit fly. One of his students, Hermann Muller (Nobel prize, 1946) discovered in 1927 that X-rays can change the nature of a gene and sometimes can destroy it. Oswald Avery, Colin McLeod and Maclyn McCartyr in 1944, finally showed that genetic information is written in the DNA. In 1953, James Watson (Nobel prize, 1962) and Francis Crick (Nobel prize, 1962) proposed the double helical structure of DNA, which could explain how genetical information could be duplicated and so transmitted from parent to offspring. In 1956, Salvador Luria (Nobel Prize, 1969), Mary Human, Giuseppe Bertani and Jean Weigle studied restriction and modification, leading to the discovery of restriction enzymes. The first restriction enzyme was discovered in 1970 by Hamilton Smith (Nobel prize, 1978). In 1977, Alan Maxam and Walter Gilbert (Nobel prize, 1980) and Frederick Sanger (second Nobel prize, 1980) devised two different ways to determine the sequence of a DNA molecule. In 1990, the Human Genome Project was initiated under the leadership of James Watson, with the aim of sequencing the human genome in 15 years. Many human genes have already been done, making it possible in some cases to determine if a person has a defective gene which will make them sick later in their life. Genetic screening, based on the accumulated basic knowledge of many scientists, has two different aspects.

On the one hand, as we described in Chapter II, molecular techniques can be used to screen couples who may both carry a defective gene, for example for cystic fibrosis, and to counsel them so they can decide whether they wish to have children. But on the other hand, genetic screening can be used to discriminate against those who have a defective gene, for example if they wish to obtain health insurance or employment. Already, 30 percent of all applicants for individual health insurance in the USA are denied cover on medical grounds. With more genetic technology in medicine, and the Human Genome Project is a big technological tool, it will be possible to screen many of the l5000 genes in The Code of the Codes, a book edited by Daniel Kevles and Leroyo Hood:
The consequences of the genetic revolution for individual health insurance are straightforward: people who are known to be at higher risk for genetic illness will be denied insurance or sold insurance that excludes the conditions most important to them. This problem is neither new nor unique to genetic diseases. Millions of Americans have long been unable to buy useful individual health insurance because of a medical history of, for example, diabetes, uncontrolled high blood pressure, cancer, serious obesity, HIV infection, or any of any of large number of other expensive ailments. The genetics revolution will not change the problem, but it will expand the number of people affected.

The same problem exists for employment. Employers could discriminate against people who will sick in the near future. A law was passed recently in the USA to protect people at high risk for medical costs, the American with Disabilities Act, but as Greely correctly writs:
Employment discrimination on the basis of race or sex has been illegal since 1964 under Title VII Rights Act, but few would argue that it has been eliminated. Legislation to ban discrimination based on health risks, genetic or otherwise, is likely to be even harder to enforce than Title VII, in light of the many and subtle ways employers could discriminate against those at higher risk.

The problem is with us and it is created by the technologies originated from genetics and molecular biology. Who is responsible for discrimination based on genetical knowledge? Mendel or any other geneticists who have accumulated the basic knowledge? The bosses of insurance companies, or their shareholders? The general public who are happy to keep the cost of their insurance to a minimum? Employers who discriminate? People who will be better paid if they do not have some defective genes? Certainly, once again, it is absurd, as all too often happens, to blame the scientists who accumulated the basic knowledge. Scientific knowledge can be used by society to do or make something, the same knowledge can be used in good or in bad ways. The knowledge that it is possible to split the nucleolus of uranium atom and liberate enormous energy, was used not only to make the atomic bomb, but for the production of electrical energy.
4

Today 17 percent of the worlds electrical energy is produced using nuclear reactors are good applications of the basic knowledge. In reality things are more complicated. We will leave historians to question whether it was moral to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We do not see a big difference from a moral point of view if a person is killed by an atomic bomb, a conventional bomb or a knife. The great difference is that the atomic bombs it is possible to wipe out humans by the million. On the other hand some claim that the existence of the atomic bomb created the longest period of peace in Europe in the last two millennia. The generation of electricity using nuclear reactors was considered to be the way to solve the energy crisis of humankind. After Chernobyl, more and more people are asking if the safety of the reactors is as good as the nuclear industry claims and if we can solve the problem of the disposal of radioactive waste. With knowledge of genetics we have the same dilemma. By cloning and sequencing human genes, it is possible to make medical products or to cure by gene therapy. By cloning and sequencing the very same genes, it is possible to advise potential carriers of defective genes. By cloning and sequencing the very same genes, it is possible discriminate, stigmatize, and make those who have the bad luck to carry defective genes poorer. It is not possible to do scientific research which will only lead to benefits. The moral obligation of scientists is to inform the general public of the possible ways that scientific knowledge can be used and misused. Decisions over how scientific knowledge is used are independent of the knowledge and should be taken independently. Each of us has the moral obligation to understand more about what scientists are learning, how this scientific knowledge can be transformed into technology, how these new technologies could be misused and what could be done to avoid this potential misuse. This is the price we have to pay for having eaten from the tree of knowledge, as we are reminded in Genesis. To stop scientific research is both impossible and unwise. To slow down technological `progress, may be very wise.

Science is necessary, technology not always There is a tendency, particularly in recent years, to couple basic science as closely as possible with technology. It is argued that if universities work in close contact with industry then it will be possible to produce new technological products such as medicines, diagnostic tests, new plant varieties, more quickly. More technology means more money, the country with better for everybody will have less unemployment, so more technology is better for everybody. This tendency to couple basic research with technology is very evident in genetics and genetic engineering. Many prominent university professors, with or without Nobel prizes, have set up or are consultants for biotechnological industries.
5

We believe that this trend is wrong and dangerous and we will now try to explain why. The unwritten dogma of western politicians since the Second World War is that social peace is only possible if there is a steady increase of a countrys Gross National Product (GNP). the GNP per person, world wide, increased by 3 percent in the years since. Politicians claim they want to be reelected that life if getting better for us every year. On the other side of the coin is the degradation of the environment. There were 2.5 billion human beings in 1950 and 5.3 billion in 1990, so the total increase in the world economy over these 40 years is about fivefold. Five times more economic activity, means much more air and water pollution, it means much more use of raw materials, and much more energy use. The rich countries are becoming richer and the poor countries poorer. In 1960 the 20 percent richest people in the world shared 70 percent of global income compared with the 2.3 percent shared by the 20 percent of poorest people. By 1989, the 70 percent had become 82 percent and the 2.3 percent value had declined to 1.4 percent. Even in the richer countries, the difference between the rich and poor is increasing. The result of the unwritten dogma of politicians, to increase GNP, has given relative social stability but it has increased enormously both environmental degradation and the distance between rich and poor. It is time to rethink the whole strategy, to reduce economic growth to zero or even to a negative value, and to seek a better distribution of wealth among people both in the same country and between different countries. The problem of a just distribution of wealth is not a scientific problem but a political one. The communist movement has tried to solve it for a hundred years but the results have been so miserable that many communist dictatorships have collapsed in recent years. Still it is in our interest to come to peace with each other and with the environment of our planet. It is a task that will demand wisdom, but once we decide to go in this direction then science can tell us which technology is feasible for the aim we want to pursue. Scientific knowledge is necessary because it reveals to us how the world is made and what is feasible; but let us remember that the laws of nature cannot be changed or created by politicians, that technology can be bad even if originally started with good intention. It is easy to find examples of technologies that have gone sour. The insecticide DDT was welcomed enthusiastically when it was introduced to combat insects that carried diseases such as malaria. It turns out to be undesirable since it accumulates in the food chain until it becomes dangerous to the health of animals and humans. It was used before enough research into its properties had been carried out. The chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are chemicals which are very good for refrigerators, but after their introduction and widespread use, it was found that they destroy the ozone layer surrounding the earth, which protects life on our planet from the UV light of the sun. Nuclear reactors seemed an excellent solution to the energy crisis until they turned out to be less safe that was assumed, and it also came to be realized that the disposal of the radioactive waste they produce is nearly
6

impossible. The list could be much longer, but we hope we have already made the simple point, even if a new technology is introduced with the best of intentions, it can develop into a threat. Are all the new technologies really necessary? Our century is the century of science and of the indiscriminate use of technology. Now that we have learned that the use of some technology can lead to undesirable consequences, we should be more cautious. We should not use chemicals whose action on life is unknown. More biological knowledge is necessary before we liberated into the environment substances that may turn out to be poisonous or induce disease. It is time that we thought seriously about the possible future effects of new technology. It was a wise decision of James Watson, as head of the Human Genome Project, to invest 3 percent of its funds to create a working group on its Ethical, Legal, and Social Implication (ELSI). The remit of the American ELSI Program in 1989 was to answer five general questions: What are the concerns to society and to individuals arising from the Human Genome Project? What specific questions in the broad area of ethics and law need to be addressed? What can we learn from precedents? What are possible policy alternatives and the pros and cons of each? How can we inform and involve the public and stimulate broad discussion? (from R. COOK-DEEGEN, 1994) It is also encouraging that some politicians have started to think seriously about how to break with the unwritten dogma dominating the modern world, until now. For example Al Gore in his book, Earth in the Balance has presented a Global Marshall plan to save our planet in the same way as the American Marshall plan boosted the reconstruction of Europe after the Second World War. He proposed five strategic goals:
1. The stabilizing of world population. 2. The rapid creation and development of environmentally appropriate technologies, especially in the fields of energy, transportation, agriculture, building construction, and manufacturing. 3. A comprehensive and ubiquitous change in the economic `rules of the road by which we measure the impact of our decisions on the environment. 4. The negotiation and approval of a new generation of international agreements. 5. The establishment of a cooperative plan for educating the worlds citizens about our global environment.

To achieve these goals a lot more basic science is necessary. Politicians and the general public must start to think about basic science as an investment in the future. Science creates a capital of knowledge that can be used when it is wise to do so. What are the principal ethical issues created by modern biology? The major ethical arising from recent advances in biological science are: Human embryo research The misuse of genetic screening The release of genetically engineered microbes, plants and animals into the environment The modification of genes in the human germ-line We will consider each of these issues in turn. Human embryo research has been the subject of extensive debate for some years. In some countries it is prohibited, in others it is not. The main problem is due to the lack of consensus on a basic human question: when does a fertilized human egg become a human being? This is a fundamental ethical question because a human being has human rights, including the right-to-life. The catholic Church and many other religious groups strongly oppose abortion. For them life starts from the fertilized egg, so abortion is murder, and for people with these beliefs, human embryo research is absolutely unacceptable. The USA is a country which since 1973 has had liberal abortion laws. The Supreme Court, in the case of Roe vs. Wade, ruled in 1973 that any woman has an unrestricted right to abort a foetus during the first 3 months of pregnancy. There are about 1.5 million legal abortions carried out in the USA each year. This being so, why should not some of these millions of aborted foetuses be used for research, instead of being incinerated? Such is indeed allowed in the USA, but other countries do not allow such research. This is, however, an ethical problem, to which scientific knowledge has little relevance. Biologically, there is nothing more special about a fertilized egg than an unfertilized one. Life is a continuum. Genetic screening is an issue that will continue to be discussed for many years to come. Points of issue include whether genetic screening of embryos should per permitted. This procedure allows the detection of a defective gene in an embryo. In many countries there is already a widespread programme to screen for the chromosome abnormality that leads to Downs syndrome. Gene technology will allow many more conditions to be screened. Ethical problems are also raised by the genetic screening of new-born babies. In some states of the USA, including Pennsylvania, every child born is screened for a battery of diseases including Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a disease which leads to death before the twenties and for which there is no cure known.

We think that this is a very dangerous practice not only because it can distress parents who have not asked to know the future of their children, but also because these genetic data have the potential to be misused by insurance companies and employers. This knowledge may stigmatize and marginalize people who had the bad luck to have a defective gene. In a human society, which so often mistrusts those who are different, a genetic passport can be a huge handicap. Perhaps President Lincoln would never have been elected, if his political adversaries could have publicized the fact that he had the `bad gene which causes the Marfan syndrome, a condition caused by the possession of a dominant autosomal gene which results in ocular, skeletal and cardiovascular abnormalities. On the other hand, some genetic tests like that for phenylketonuria (see Chapter 10) need to be carried out because there is an effective treatment which prevents its deleterious effects. We think, like several eminent human geneticists, that mandatory genetic tests should be allowed only in those cases where the genetic disease can be cured. The third problem arises from the genetic screening of adults. Such tests should never be mandatory, but only carried out with the consent of the individual, and even then the results should be kept secret. This is the only way to ensure that there is no discrimination against the carrier of defective genes. The release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment could cause unexpected environmental problems. We have already touched on this subject as it relates to genetically engineered plants in Chapter 8. We need to realize that it is possible to make combinations of genes in organisms in a way that would be impossible by natural selection. How do we decide if a transformed organism might upset the balance of ecology in a particular environment? Could for example, a bacteria, genetically engineered to eat it spilled in the sea, in a few years become a fish pathogen? Might the pathogenicity start slowly, like the effect of DDT, and then build up to cause a catastrophe? The second aspect of the release of genetically engineered organisms that has to be appreciated is that they are alive. In the case of chemicals which are found to have undesirable effects, it is possible to stop their use. Living organisms can reproduce themselves so stopping their use may not help. The only transformed organisms which should not be a threat are ones which require human help to survive. We do not know if all the thousands of organisms which have already been transformed have this peculiarity. The business of transforming genomes is exploding so rapidly that we do not have an overview of the problem. The last issue is the biggest of all. should we try to change or add genes in the human germ line, the cells in our bodies that have the potential to make gametes? Changes to the germ line therefore have the potential to be inherited. We should make it clear that is not yet possible, mainly for technical reasons, to transform human germ cells genetically. But what is not possible today can be possible next year or in 5 years. Predictions are very difficult to make in science. Therefore it is necessary to discuss this problem now. Many gene therapist believe that the best gene therapy is not one which modifies somatic cells but that, if it is technically possible, it would be better to modify the germ line. Genetically speaking
9

this may be correct, although many of the defective genes which affect humans arise as a result of new mutations and so `curing humans of mutant genes will not be as easy as might be thought. Many people fear that one a technique for modifying the germ line to treat genetic disease has been introduced, it will slowly start being used of other things. It is not immoral to have children with brown eyes so why can we not introduce the gene which makes eyes brown? Or inactive a gene or two so that a girl had fair hair. Why not introduce a gene which makes a boy 10 centimeters (4 inches) taller? To be resistant to alcohol would be a good thing, let us add that gene too. And what about the genes of intelligence, of courage, of sport achievement, resistance to asbestos, the gene of happiness? Do we want to change humankind? Who can decide which genes a future human being should have, the mother or the parents or the state or a committee of experts? Our new-found genetic knowledge raises questions for all of us that are so novel and fundamental that it is extremely difficult to know how the problem should be solve. Certainly, committees of experts are important to give advice but they should not make political decisions. There is also the problem that many prominent scientists are strongly involved in the biotechnology industry, and so their options may be biased. The medical profession is not a guardian of morals and even less a political institution. there are examples where the medical profession in some countries at some times has failed to uphold high moral values. Too many German doctors were willing to be involved in the Nazi eugenics programme. Less well known is the fact that the American Psychiatric Association until 1974, classified homosexuality as a mental diseases. The initiation of a programme that allows the genetic modification of the human germ line, even for the purposes of gene therapy, needs widely based and open discussion. The decision cannot be delegated to experts or to the medical profession. It is a political problem, but should it be left to politicians? Some issues are too big to be left to people who are often more concerned with re-election than with the future of society. Perhaps such important ethical issues should be decided by direct democracy. Should we use a Swiss style general referendum to decide on such an issue? The great advantage of this form of direct democracy is that everybody can participate in the public discussion for months before the referendum is held. The other advantage is that no one can say that she/he has no power in the matter. But would it ever be possible for the majority of people to be sufficiently informed to be able to vote rationally? There are after all many examples in history of the tyranny of the majority. Perhaps it is time for a novel form of democracy, in which decisions are taken only by those who can successfully complete a questionnaire that will test their background knowledge! We end with another quotation from the Bible:
10

The Lord God...said, The man has become one of us knowing good and evil; what if he now reaches out and takes fruit from the tree of life also, and eats it and lives for ever? So the Lord God banished him from the garden of Eden to till the ground...and he stationed the cherubim and a sword whirling and flashing to guard the way to the tree of life. (GENESIS, 3:22-24)

We must all now decide whether, having eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge, we wish to return to the Garden of Eden to take fruit from the tree of life, changing human genes in the hope of living for ever. ****

11

You might also like