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

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

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

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

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

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

Intrinsic moral values and emotion 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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

NZers’ support/opposition to food applications of GE

NZers’ support/opposition to medical applications of GE

Need for case-by-case analysis for GE products

Fit of GE with NZers’ cultural and spiritual beliefs

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