PANEL DISCUSSION

THE VALUES THAT SHOULD GUIDE US IN MANAGING THE FAST-EXPANDING FRONTIER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

11 October  2007

Speakers:

Nick Bostrom, Director, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, UK Habiba Bouhamed-Chaabouni, Professor of Medical Genetics, Tunis University, Tunisia Julia Moore, Deputy Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, USA John Ryan, Director, Bionanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Center, Oxford University, UK Monique Canto-Sperber, Director, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris ; Vice President of France’s national Ethics Committee

Moderator:

Maria Livanos Cattaui, Member of the Board of Directors, Petroplus Holdings; Vice-Chairman, International Crisis Group, Switzerland

Do we have a moral obligation to keep human nature as it now is, asked Monique Canto-Sperber as she drew attention to the ethical dilemmas raised by the impact of rapid changes in science and technology. Learning, she pointed out, was a human activity - but what if people could simply download information into their brains?

The nature of human beings used to be accepted as unchangeable fact, and the idea of altering it was inconceivable. Now the concept of human engineering was widespread.

Changes have already occurred. Fifty years ago, for example, infertile people could not dream of having a child, whereas today it was common. The ethical dilemmas that arose from research and discovery carried benefits and risks, and it was now a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils, she said. Genetically modified crops, for example, could help poor countries, but might also carry risks.

Scientists had to give up the idea that their neutrality was axiomatic and accept that values were built into scientific activity.

Canto-Sperber outlined three principles for weighing up developments in science: respect for people, avoidance of inflicting deliberate harm, and not changing human life on earth. But given the new context in which science operated, she posed the question: “Can these three ethical principles be sufficient to maintain our trust in science? ”

Commenting on criticisms that scientists were ‘playing God,’ Nick Bostrom noted that past innovations, such as anaesthesia and  heart surgery, had often been criticised as unnatural. Maria Livanos Cattaui added to this list, citing workers who smashed the first steam engines as the work of the devil and the regulation in the early days of motorised transport when the horseless carriage had to be preceded by a man on foot waving a red flag.

John Ryan noted that many of the possibilities of what is often called ‘Frankenstein science’ were not in the distant future: “In the last month we have learned about the creation of new genes and a new chromosome,” he said.

The key issues were who controlled the new information and who gained. “What about the millions in the developing world who don’t benefit from new technologies?” he asked. Concern was also expressed about predictive gene testing, with potential conditions identified early in life, even before birth. Who had the right to access such information - individuals, employers, insurance companies?

Julia Moore saw the most far-reaching potential changes happening not in traditional areas of science but in the convergence of technologies. The results might be felt in a variety of areas, including low-energy desalination, memory improvement for people with Alzheimer’s and mental handicap, human body part repairs and significant increases in life expectancy to a norm of 100-120 years, “which would change the dynamics of society enormously.”

“ Rebuilding spinal cords – what a wonderful breakthrough for humanity that would be,” she commented.

Where changes threw up ethical dilemmas, she said, the solution lay in better education, not only in science but in civic engagement. Public engagement and joint responsibility – involving government, science, civil society, industry and the general public – were also advocated by other panellists. In the words of Habiba Bouhamed-Chaabouni : “ Nothing can stop the growth of science.” But, she added “there will be more engagement” between the scientific community and society. In order for this to happen, the public needed more knowledge. For their part, scientists had a responsibility to ensure that science did not run out of control.

Ryan agreed that shared responsibility was the right approach, but he emphasised that the gap between the scientific community and the public was increasing. It was vital to get the right balance: “Too cautious and we’ll lose the benefits, but we can’t allow people to go ahead willy-nilly,” he said.

After discussion of various advances, actual and potential, and how research should be directed and controlled, Livanos Cattaui sounded a note of caution. “Seldom have we ever stopped an avenue of human research and knowledge”, she commented. “It would be good if we were reasonable human beings – but we are not,” she added.

Her solution was not to stop the search for knowledge, but to surround it with institutions that put forward issues for the common good. And she closed the session with a warning, that often in the past “the biggest brains have caused the biggest problems. ”