Rosalia AZZARO - CERIS Marina BALDI - IBIMET CNR Rome

1. National Research Council BIOETHICS, EDUCATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS Rosalia AZZARO - CERIS Marina BALDI - IBIMET CNRRome

2. This presentation is a summa of two communications at different places: European Youth Event “All different – All equal” (by Conseil of Europe) in St Petersburg – Sept 2006, given by Dr R. Azzaro 6th Conference of the European Meteorological Society in Ljubljana – Sept 2006, given by Dr M. Baldi

3. All people know that in the present world it is important the dissemination and understanding of scientific results, not only by politicians and by decision makers, but also by the general public at all levels of education. Several initiatives of Public Understanding of Science, are more often promoted by different Institutions. although, in my opinion, there is a lack of adoption of proven and successful methodologies.

4. The Committee on Bioethics played an important role in keeping the debate on Science , Ethics and Society. By assessing different scientific questions - from experimentation on animals to the use of stem cells - both from a scientific and a moral point of view, a conviction emerged: that the study and elaboration of complex argumentations were nearly useless, if we couldn’t “transmit” the message.

5. I am a researcher of philosophy, but as member of this Committee for many years, I felt the responsibility to have a major role also in promoting Projects of Public Understanding of Science. • Two events have been organized in Rome by CNR/Ceris, whose I was the coordinator: • CLISCET :Climate, Science and Ethics, 1thDecember 2004 • LEDER: Alterum non laedere?, 13th March 2006 http://www.ceris.cnr.it/Bioetica.html

6. These initiatives, started also from the consideration that there is a lack not only of links between scientific policy and science, with a subsequent lack of counseling and advertising, but also a lack of trait-d’union between the scientific community on one side and media, society and institutions on the other side. CLISCET LEDER http://www.ceris.cnr.it/Bioetica.html

7. But as a matter of fact, those meetings are the result of an idea born during my studies in philosophy and ethics of research. The ethic answer born from the aim at making the protagonists of the debate: scientists, decision makers, as well as the public opinion and particularly those representing the future of science, i. e. young people, conscious of problems and possible solutions. “Philosophia nos docet non solum verum et bonum, sed etiam intelligentiam rerum utilium ad vitam beatam”* * SENECA

8. Do two cultures have inevitably to exist? • Science and philosophy need one another: • so that science shall be not only rational but also wise, fully human… • and so that philosophy shall be alive and at service of life • That is what we are trying to do.

9. From the Italian Constitution: • Art. 9: “Republic promote cultural development and scientific research and technology” • Art. 33: “Arts and Science are free as well as their teaching” • Art. 4 : “Every citizen has the duty, according to personal potential and individual choice, to perform an activity or a function that contributes to the material or spiritual progress of society”.

10. However, does the reference to the moral or “spiritual progress” of society belong to the concept of “laicity” of State? • The rule of lawis in service of the total, not only material of human being, which is subsistent rightl* • * A. Rosmini, the best italian Philosopher of XIX century

11. 3) Manhood’s moral progress stands behind in comparison with scientific achievements?

12. By means of an original but well-adopted model of PUS, our Project given young people the opportunity for transmitting scientific information and reflecting from an ethical point of view. Because…“the cause of humanity is better served if science allies itself to conscience”, by using “the power of intellects and consciences” (speech of His Holiness Pope John Paul II at the UNESCO House, 1980). The scientists of tomorrow need to become acquainted with a propositional idea of ethics in the scientific research, i.e. not only do not make all that is possible from a technical point of view, but also searching and doing all that is possible for the common well-being of the global community.

13. Dissemination process is necessary in order not only to supply to the lack of correct information, but also to help to answer the question: “What can be done by the Community and by the single citizen?”, this question being the most urgent and requiring a global approach, leading to the adoption of the more suitable adaptation of research policies at national and international levels.

14. A confirmation thereof arrived from the 6th Framework Programme of EU (2002-2006), which included a specific Action Plan on “Science and society”, with activities “to encourage the development of harmonious relations between science and society and the opening up of innovation in Europe as a result of the establishment of an informed dialogue between researchers, industrialists, political decision-makers and citizens”.

15. In the FP7th of UE (2007-2011), we find the chapter Science in society: “With a view to building an effective and democratic European Knowledge society, the aim of this section of the FP7 proposal is to stimulate the harmonious integration ofscientific and technological endeavour, and associated research policies in the European social structure, by encouraging a Europe-wide reflection and debate on science and technology, and their relation with society and culture”. The initiative undertaken in this field will provide support to a number of actions, “for enhancing citizen trust in science”.

16. But we notice that the general trend seems to have changed: this is no more a question of activating a virtuous circle of dialogue and constructive relationships between partners equal in dignity (science, institutions, society); but of a communication “in one sense”: from the scientific world towards “the others”, who play a passive role of reflection, in order to understand the importance, and more than that, the necessity of scientific research for a “democratic European society”. 6thFramework Programme of UE (2002-2006) …to encourage the development of harmonious relations between science and society… …informed dialogue between researchers, industrialists, political decision-makers and citizens”. FP7 of UE (2007-2011) … to stimulate the harmonious integration of scientific and technological endeavour, and associated research policies … by encouraging a reflection on … science and technology, and their relation with society and culture”.

17. “Research on new renewable energies, solutions for world hunger and food security; projects against environmental pollution; food and water for everybody, North and South of the world; three big diseases to defeat (cancer, HIV, malaria) … All these are realizable objectives; we must believe in them and give full power to science»”*. This message is evident. But which relation has ethics to that? Should we give full liberty to science? *Umberto Veronesi, Corriere della Sera, 22nd September 2005.

18. Many people think, as we do, that as to scientific issues of common interest, a real democratic participation is necessary. Of course, scientific results cannot be submitted to citizens’ judgement! However, at the same time it’s true that “the obligation to account to authorities and citizens for a correct use of resources and results obtained in the research has become mutual not only between science and politics, but also with regard to civil society”*. When we say “obligation” and “to account for” (= “res pondere”, i.e. responsibility) we are speaking about morality and ETHICS. *Azzaro R., Questions of Ethics: Science and Society, in The El Dorado of the new Biology. Prometheus, Franco Angeli Ed., 2003, p. 134 .

19. But…as a matter of fact, people don’t trust politicians, scientists and mass media! The FP7 of EU wants to promote “improved communication between the scientific world and the wider audience of policy-makers, the media and the general public”. Now, this is considered as a key point necessary for a retrieval of attention and trust, from citizens: from a simple understanding of scientific facts, to the necessity of an active participation and a conscious ethical debate.

20. National Research Council Some more about our CNR/CERIS Projects of PUS LEDER Libertà ed Etica Della Ricerca CLISCET Climate: Science and Ethics

21. To experiment a methodology of Public Understanding of Science (PUS) which helps: To explain what are really scientific questions To favour direct connection between scientists, institutions and public To favour personal meditation about ethical questions To suggest and accept the better solution. Common objectives

22. Methodology • The adopted methodology has the following structure: • first contacts with italian and international high schools, through cultural attaché of interested Embassies, namely those of USA, UK, France, España; • Meetings and agreements with teachers of one class in each school; • dispensation via e-mail of a 1th Questionnaire, in order to evaluate scientific acknowledgment and personal opinions on bioethics topics, which will be treated; • scientific information on the same topics by means of telematic documentation; • activating on demand of discussion groups on the treated topics; • meeting and debate at the CNR headquarter between scientists and public with active participation of students; • dispensation via e-mail of a 2nd Questionnaire in order to survey the different steps of learning and possible variations of interest and opinions; • Data analysis and pubblication of results by CNR researchers.

23. Society and Institutions have responsability to understand science and scientific results Scientists have to explain to the Public and to the Institutions their results It is necessary to disseminate correct information and understanding of results Understanding of Science can help in the direction of a better society What is Public Understanding of Science?

24. Public Understanding of Science BUT the understanding of science, even if considered as an important factor for “being better citizens”, is seen as an “optional element” rather than a responsibility to be taken by society and institutions.

25. Specific Goals of CLISCET and LEDER • To understand the problem and possibly what is necessary to do • To activate relationship between science, society, institutions • To favour meditation on responsible and common solutions to questions posed by theethics ... why ethics?

26. Why ethics? • To explain the problem and what is necessary to do = • To activate direct and positive relationship = • To help towards responsible solutions = • ethichs of information • to assume responsability • to work for common benefit They are all ethics issues

27. What is ethics (in relation to science) The word int-elligence, as knowledge, come from  “INTUS – LEGERE” INTUS = INSIDE, LEGERE = TO READ … it is to read inside (to understand): as the Science does … it is to read inside in the human being: as moral philosophy … to will the true/good which has been seen Ethics is…“INTELLIGENCE WHICH LOVES” (Dante, Rosmini) Because ethics desires the real good, for itself and for everybody. Ethics is for human being. It is the first value for humans. Ethics is a “friendly light” (Newman)

28. Methodology adopted Public Event

29. Participating Schools • Total: 148 students (age 16-19) 69 males, 79 females • 4 italian high schools • 3 international high schools (US, France, Spain)

30. Speakers at the public Event of CLISCET • Chair: Dr Mario Tozzi geologist, scientific writer • Mariano Barriendos Vallvé, Professor at the University of Barcelona, Spain • Vittorio Canuto, Professor at the Columbia University, New York • Franco Prodi, Professor at University of Ferrara and Director of ISAC-CNR • Mario Tassone, deputy Minister of Transportation and President of the Committee on Innovation and Development

31. Three main GOALS 1 – To check the degree of knowledge on the specific topic 2 – Sensibilization on Science and Ethics 3 - To promote participation of science, society and institutions

32. To inform correctly, and actively, i.e. not only through the media: this is the first step towards the solution of a problem. Analysis of 2 questions: Information sources Kyoto protocol Objective 1To check the degree of knowledge on a specific topics

33. 1 TV o2 Newspapers o 3 Magazines o 4 Scientific Journals o 5 Radio o 6 Internet o 7 Friends o 8 Family o9 School o 10 Museiums and library o 11 Environmental associations o 12Associations of consumers o Information sources on SCIENCE and CLIMATE

34. Information sources Questionnaire 1 Questionnaire 2

35. What is the Kyoto protocol? • True False Don’t • know • An agreement on the reduction of GHG o o o • - A specific law on climate o o o • - A final resolution to eliminate the greenhouse effect o o o

36. Answer n.1: An agreement on the reduction of GHG

37. What is your interest in:Alto MedioBasso1.Science and technology oo o2. Politics of scienceoo o3. Climate changeooo4. Environmental Issuesooo5. Renewable energy sourcesooo6.Relationship between institutions, science and society oo o7.Developing Coutries ooo Objective 2 - Sensibilization on science and ethics

38. Objective 2 - sensibilization on science and ethics Questionnaire 2 Questionnaire 1

39. Objective 3 To promote communication and participation Science, society and Institutions have common VALUES Q Values of Science (points: 1 to 5) - Autonomy o - Credibility o - Social usefulness o - Generality of results o - Respect of human beings o - Assistance to developing Countries o - Economic productivityo - Security of applicationso - Cultural progresso

40. Values of science Questionnaire 1 Questionnaire 2 1th (red) = more important

41. Questionnaire 2 Themes to be treated in a future project 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Energy and consumption Artificial insemination and quality of life Sustainable development Staminal cells And clonation Food security And emergency male female Preferences expressed by male and female

42. Some Considerations……. Cost of each project • Conference Room: offered free of charge by CNR • Coffee break: 5000 EUR • Travel expenses for speakers 3500 EUR • Consumables 500 EUR Total 9000 EUR • + Lot of work for students and cooperation of Professors • + … a lot of work for us to: • Organize • Convince schools and Institutions • Fight with bureaucracy

43. Another event…….. XV Week of Scientific & Technologic Culture Science at the top: excellent laboratories in extreme environment Ministero dell’Istruzione dell’Università e della Ricerca CNR 2005

44. Several Considerations…The experiment was succesfull. There was a positive and active answer. Students have learned that: - it is important to get the correct information - scientists can give answer, however the answers are not final - it is necessary to focus on the relationship beteeen science and institutions.This new method works, however it is necessary to work more on it OK: there are more elements to work on in order to improve it.Another Project has been carried out in 2006:LEDER

45. LEDER – Alterum non ledere? Responsabilità e futuro della scienza Public Event Istituzioni coinvolte CNR Istituto sull’Impresa e lo Sviluppo (CERIS - Roma) Istituto di Tecnologie Biomediche (ITB) Istituto di Biometeorologia (IBIMET) Istituto sull’Inquinamento Atmosferico (IIA) Istituto di Scienze dell’Atmosfera e del Clima (ISAC) ISS Settore Documentazione, Unità di Bioetica Scuole Roma Liceo Classico “Dante Alighieri” Liceo Scientifico “J.F. Kennedy” Liceo Scientifico “Einstein” Liceo Scientifico “E. Torricelli” Lycèe “Chateaubriand” Liceo “M. Cervantes” Istituto Tecnico Aeronautico “F. De Pinedo” Campobasso Istituto di Istruzione Superiore “S. Pertini” Lecce Istituto Tecnico Attività Sociali “G.Deledda” Aula Marconi Piazzale Aldo Moro, 7 Roma, 13 Marzo 2006 Ore 9.00 Con il patrocinio di: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Comitato Nazionale per la Bioetica Relatori Ivo Allegrini, Direttore IIA – Cnr Rosalia Azzaro,CERIS – Cnr Caterina Casarano, Onlus Italia solidale Giuseppe Cipolloni, già Min. Plen. MAE Roberto De Mattei, vice Presidente Cnr M.Luisa Di Pietro, Istit. Bioetica UCSC Vittorio Mathieu, Univ. Torino e CNB Luca Pani, ITB – Cnr Carlo Petrini, ISS - Unità di Bioetica Bruno Silvestrini, CNB S.E. Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Cancelliere della Pontificia Accademia delle Scienze Paolo Vezzoni, ITB - Cnr Responsabile scientifico Rosalia Azzaro, Cnr-Ceris tel. 06 4993 7854 r.azzaro@ceris.cnr.it

46. Participating Schools • 8 italian high schools • 4 international high schools (US, UK, France, Spain) • Total: 212 students (age 16-19) 99 males, 113 females

47. Speakers at the public Event of LEDER Ivo Allegrini, Direttore IIA – Cnr Rosalia Azzaro,CERIS – Cnr Caterina Casarano, Onlus Italia solidale Giuseppe Cipolloni, già Min. Plen. MAE Roberto De Mattei, vice Presidente Cnr M.Luisa Di Pietro, Istit. Bioetica UCSC Vittorio Mathieu, Univ. Torino e CNB Luca Pani, ITB – Cnr Carlo Petrini, ISS - Unità di Bioetica Bruno Silvestrini, CNB S.E. Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Cancelliere della Pontificia Accademia delle Scienze Paolo Vezzoni, ITB - Cnr

48. 1. Genome and new medicaments: …Genetic researches will offer us new methods of medical treatments. Which relation with environment and individual, collective and economic interests has this new approach, personalized to “gene as medicament”? SUBJECT 1 Genome and new medicaments:

49. 2. Genetics and procreation: …Why free scientific activity should keep itself within certain limits as regard to human embryo? And what’s the reason why people apply to artificial procreation: are there environmental and cultural reasons besides the genetic ones? SUBJECT 2 10. How could you describe a human embryo? other a growing cell clot a living substance available for a good purpose “one of us” in the first stages of development a human being who is worthy of respect 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 65% of young people expressed a great consideration for human embryo: 38% a human being who is worthy of respect 27% “one of us” in the first stages of development. On the contrary, for 31% of interviewed people, embryo is “a living substance available for a good purpose” (17%) or only “a growing cell clot “ (14%).

50. 3. Environment and development 16.“Many countries improved their economies, while Africa moves back: what stops its development? SUBJECT 3