Environmental and technology ethics

1. Environmental and technology ethics Uncertainty, risk and precaution

2. GMOs; The areas of ethical concern • Consequences for the welfare of humans, animals and the environment • Uncertainty and potential irreversibility • Social and economic consequences • Contribution to sustainable development? • Wider and equal consideration of benefits and risks • Implications for the responsibility of scientists • Acknowlegdement of uncertainty • Conflict of interest

3. Case study; GMOs • Main assumptions; • Initiatives to approach risk-associated hypotheses are badly needed. • Present risk and safety assessment is too narrow to cope adequately with risk. • The PP is needed in risk governance. • There is a need to address the importance of the scientists´ responsibility. • Extended peer communities is needed.

4. The relevance of the PP • In the preamble of the Norwegian Gene Technology Act (1993) • In the new EU directive on deliberate release of GMO (2001/18/EC) • The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000) • Communication from the EU commission (2000) • PP is one of the centrale principles of ”sustainability”

5. The PP applied to GMOs • Scientific evidence/reasonable ground for concern • At present there are low certainty and low consensus • Scientists disagree • Different framings of the studies and choices of methods • Significance of low probability events • Potential hazards related to lack of gene targeting, to gene transfer from GMOs and of secondary effects • How to handle early-warnings? • Different interpretation about the relevance of the ecological impacts and on the research needed

6. The PP applied to GMOs • Scientific evidence is a qualitative term which may cause problems; • Determines the boundaries of risk window • Underplay uncertainty • Hides away alternative scenarios • Scales down the complexity to manageable proportions? • Reasonable ground for concern involves scientific based concerns, but do also raise problems; • How to differ between speculations and scientifically based concerns / plausible hypothesis?

7. Identify threats of harm • EU; env. RA is on direct and indirect effects, immediate, delayed effects, cumulative, long term effects • Cartagena protocol; to protect and conserve biodiversity • NGT; harm to health and environment, sustainability, ethical and societal aspects • Lack of definition of terms • Who should be involved in defining harm?

8. Identify threats of harm • Protection of the environment may serve different purposes • Antropocentric /ecocentric context • How to prioritise between values? • The value of nature • Economic growth versus saving species • No greater harm than conv. agri./ organic • How to define unanticipated effects? • Not considereded in the RA • Not based on hypothesis -involves observation?

9. The burden of proof • Is shifted to the proponent / developer / notifier • But need maybe to be further improved • Peer-review by experts • Testing by independent research institutions • Proactive / Safety first initiatives that involves identification of risk aspects by involving stakeholders • Feedback process that influences the frames and scope of research

10. The role of science • Context generates risk? • Resarch inititated depends on what effects are important to detect • The null hypothesis and the framework problem • Snowdrop lectin, the monarch, UK farmland trials? • Complicated versus complexity • Systemthinking / a gene ecology perspective • Uncertainty analyses • NUSAP versus W&H

11. Conclusion (?) • Many problems -few answers • Need of a more precautionary motivated science? • Influence the choice of hypothesis and methods • Broad problem framing • Acknowledge risk, uncertainty and complexity • Examination of alternatives to reach the same goals • ………………etc…...