Science in society: Responsibilities and rights

1. Science in society: Responsibilities and rights Genetic engineering: Human genes in other organisms Technologies, Publics and Power. Akaroa, Feb 04 Bruce Small, AgResearch

2. Overview • Responsibilities of science to society • Respect for cultural, spiritual, ethical values • The role and importance of human emotion • 2 types of argument: intrinsic and extrinsic • Psychological variables: relativism / non-relativism, social / emotional proximity • Rights of science in society • Right to challenge current societal values • Temporal, spatial, cultural, mutability of values • New knowledge may change cultural, spiritual, ethical values • Balance • Social research, current values, direction of change, empirical data • GE context: placing human genes in other organisms

3. GE controversy: human genes in other organisms • Transgenic animals • AgR – hMBP transgenic cattle – multiple sclerosis • PPL – AAT transgenic sheep – cystic fibrosis • Bacteria • Insulin - diabetes • Factor VIII – haemophilia A • Factor IX – haemophilia B • HGH – short stature and aging • EPO - anaemia

4. Two types of argument in GE debate: Intrinsic & Extrinsic (Appleby, 1999; Straughan, 1995) • Intrinsic • Moral value of the technology – irrespective of consequences – concern with ‘means’ rather than ‘ends’ • Beliefs about right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable • Cultural, spiritual, ethical • ‘Ought statements’ – neither true nor false • Not open to direct scientific investigation

5. Two types of argument in GE debate: Intrinsic & Extrinsic • Extrinsic • Moral value of consequences of technology application – concern with ‘ends’ rather than ‘means’ • Have an ethical and a scientific component • Scientific component – physical and social effects – what “is” or “will be” - Open to scientific investigation • Ethical component – moral principles used to evaluate effects – e.g., benefit, non-harm, justice, autonomy – derived from culture, spiritual or moral beliefs

6. Relativism / Non-relativism (Forsyth, 1992) • Non-relativist • Circumstances (extrinsic outcomes) cannot mitigate for intrinsic moral objections • Relativist • Intrinsic moral objections may be mitigated by circumstances e.g., extrinsic benefits

7. Intrinsicmoralvaluesandemotion • Individuals gain their intrinsic moral values from the culture/religion, sub-group in which they are raised or are socially immersed • Intrinsic moral values are a core component of an individual’s self-image and identity, providing personal meaning and a framework for evaluating experience • Being core to their self image and identity, people have strong emotional attachments to their intrinsic moral values

8. Intrinsic moral values and emotion • Recent psych theory and research supports moral intuitionist view (e.g. Haidt, 2001, Haidt et al 1993; Green et al 2001) • Moral judgement strongly linked to emotional response (the “yuk” response, the “feel good” response) • Rationalisation often occurs as a post hoc construction • At minimum - emotions play role in moral judgement and are inextricably linked to moral values

9. Social/Emotional proximity – to beneficiaries or victims of an issue • Proximity to victim/beneficiary affects moral evaluation of issue (Jones, 1991; Jones & Huber, 1992; Ma, 1996) • Support for hMBP cattle from MS and family and medical carers

10. GE: Public concerns vs scientist advocates’ concerns • Public hierarchy of concerns about GE • Micro-organisms – least concern • Plants • Animals • Humans – most concern • (Eurobaraometer, 1991; Hamstra & Smink, 1996; Hoban et al., 1992) • Scientists’ hierarchy of concerns (Small, 2003) • Animals – least concern • Plants • Micro-organisms – most concern

11. Public and scientists’ intrinsic moral values: GE animals fit with my basic moral principles • Public n=968, AgR scientists n= 330

12. Science Advocates • Tend not to have intrinsic moral concerns regarding the technology (or only weakly held concerns) • Use extrinsic arguments (usually benefits and non-harm, sometimes justice or other cultural values)

13. Public Opponents • Usually have strong intrinsic moral reservations about the technology • For many (i.e., non-relativists) intrinsic objections primary - extrinsic arguments of benefits irrelevant • May also use extrinsic arguments (usually harms, non-benefit, but also injustice, lack of autonomy or violation of other cultural values). • May use extrinsic arguments as rationalisation to justify intrinsic moral values

14. Science GE advocates claim • Public opponents’ arguments are emotional and non-rational • therefore irrelevant to science decision-making • But • this ignores the importance of emotion, and its connection with culture, morality and spirituality in human lives • Implies science advocates of GE are rational and non-emotive about GE issues

15. Emotion is important • To be human is to be both emotional and rational • Emotional impacts of technology are very important to an agent • Respect for agents involves respecting their emotional states • Science has a responsibility to acknowledge and respect emotional wellbeing of public by appropriately incorporating the cultural, moral and spiritual values of society in science research • Necessary to maintain public trust

16. Mutability of cultural, spiritual, ethical values • Cultures change and evolve across time and place as do their intrinsic moral values – neither absolute or universal • Values may differ and be in conflict between cultures, or between groups within a culture, or within a single culture over time • New knowledge (including science and technology) may contribute to the evolution of cultural, spiritual and ethical values • Galileo and Darwin

17. The right to challenge received wisdom • For scientific progress it is essential that the propositions of science are open to challege from new knowledge • Perhaps an important criteria for cultural, spiritual and ethical evolution is that these beliefs too are open to challenge from new knowledge – including science

18. Balance • Science needs to find an appropriate balance between its responsibility to respect the emotional well-being of members of the public and their intrinsic mores, and its right to challenge them • Hence necessary to understand society’s intrinsic moral values and the direction in which they are evolving • Thus the need for open engagement, dialogue, debate and social research

19. NZers’ support/opposition to food applications of GE

20. NZers’ support/opposition to medical applications of GE

21. Need for case-by-case analysis for GE products

22. Fit of GE with NZers’ cultural and spiritual beliefs

23. Conclusions • Responsibilities of science to society • Recognition of the importance of human emotion • Research reflects respect for cultural, spiritual, ethical values Balanced by • Rights of science in society • Recognition of mutability of values • Right and role to challenge current values Currently • Public social mores are against GE but changing values appear headed in the direction of qualified acceptance of the technology i.e., case-by-case acceptance or rejection