|
PROFESSIONAL
ETHICS REPORT
|
| Volume
XVIII, Number 1, Winter 2005 |
| Editor:
Mark S. Frankel |
Deputy
Editor: Kristina Schaefer |
|
|
| Contributing
Authors: Jocelyn Bosco, Kai Hsiao, Tova Jacobovits, Adrianne Kroepsch, Steven
Nichols |
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
GENETIC TOWN HALLS: GENERATING INFORMED OPINIONS ABOUT REPRODUCTIVE GENETIC
TESTING
by
Joan Scott, M.S., C.G.C and Kathy Hudson, Ph.D.
Dr. Hudson is Director and Ms. Scott, Deputy Director, of the Genetics and Public
Policy Center at The Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute at The Johns Hopkins University and funded by The Pew
Charitable Trusts. The goal of the Center is to create the environment
and tools needed by key decision makers in both the private and public
sectors to carefully consider and respond to the challenges arising
from scientific advances in genetics. The Center does not advocate
for or against any policy position.
The
Genetic Town Hall: Making Every Voice Count
Public opinion plays an
important role in political debate and policy decision-making. Indeed,
it is impossible to read about any policy debate in the popular press
today without the results of a recently administered poll informing
us of how the public currently weighs in on the subject. But public
opinion research about science policy often is criticized. Individuals
are asked to comment on complex technologies and ethical issues about
which they may have little knowledge or few opportunities to consider
in depth. How reliable are such opinions and how much weight should
they be given when setting science policy?
This “information deficit model” of the
public’s understanding of science assumes a direct correlation between
scientific knowledge and attitudes. A more scientifically educated
public, it is assumed, would be more accepting of new technologies,
less distrustful of the scientific community and better equipped to
engage in informed policy discussions. Others, however, contend that
the public has a legitimate opinion to offer based on other areas
of knowledge and experiences which frame the context in which any
technology would be considered and used, and play important roles
in shaping attitudes. This contextualized view of the public’s understanding
of science suggests that consulting the public can lend much to the
quality of the policy debate. Public consultation gives policymakers
insight into public opinion and the values that shape those opinions.
A number of methods for obtaining more
robust public opinion have been described. The process known as “deliberative
democracy” provides participants with access to information about
the technology in question, opportunity to hear contrasting viewpoints
from “experts” about the issues raised and opportunity to deliberate
with fellow citizens. Elements important to a successful deliberative
engagement include broad and representative participation so that
participants have the opportunity to hear all viewpoints, accurate
and fairly balanced information, and ample opportunity to deliberate
about the issues with the experts and fellow citizens. Policymaker
involvement, either by being present during the deliberations or by
receiving reports of the deliberations, helps ensure that policymakers
can avail themselves of public opinion during the policy making process.
The Genetics and Public Policy Center
at The Johns Hopkins University, with funding from the Pew Charitable
Trusts, undertook a deliberative public engagement activity in six
American cities during the summer of 2004[1]. These sessions are detailed in our report, The
Genetic Town Hall: Making Every Voice Count. Participants considered issues about reproductive
genetic testing, including carrier testing, prenatal testing, and
preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Reproductive genetic testing
provides parents more options in having healthy babies; it also raises
troubling questions about future uses of testing technologies. Today,
for example, it is possible to test for certain genetic disorders;
tomorrow, it may be possible to test for genetic contributions to
characteristics such as intelligence.
Participants were asked to consider three issues
about reproductive genetic testing:
·
Are
there acceptable and unacceptable uses of reproductive genetic testing
and if so, what are those limits and who should set them?
·
Are
we doing everything we should to be sure the tests are safe and
accurate?
·
What
is the impact of our ability to select the characteristics of our
children on individuals, families and society?
The total 536 participants for the six town
halls came from diverse backgrounds[2] and
were recruited by local coordinators[3]
through a variety of outreach strategies including notices in high
traffic locations such as public libraries, churches, hospitals,
clinics and supermarkets; electronic e-vites to chambers of commerce,
trade associations, neighborhood associations and community discussion
or roundtable groups; targeted outreach to constituencies with varied
educational, socio-economic and racial backgrounds; and media ads
and news articles. Participants arrived at the Genetic
Town Halls with varying
levels of prior awareness of, and personal experience with, genetics.
Sixty-one percent of participants had heard about carrier testing
before participating in the Town Hall, 93 percent had heard of prenatal
testing and 47 percent had heard of PGD. Twenty-three percent either
had undergone genetic testing themselves or were related to somebody
who had.
In order to ensure that the presentation
was the same in each city, background information about the technologies
-- as well as commentaries from a diverse group of medical experts,
policymakers, bioethics scholars and the clergy --
were provided through a video series developed by the Center
entitled Chosen Children: Issues in Reproductive Genetic Technologies.
Participants were queried before, during and after the sessions to
document their opinions and how they changed following discussion.
The responses were recorded by an electronic keypad system provided
by Public Forum Institute, Inc.[4] that
generated instant response results viewable by the group as a whole.
Each 3-½ hour Town
Hall concluded with a panel discussion
of community leaders from a variety of backgrounds:
theologians, clergy, medical professionals, parents with firsthand
experience with reproductive genetic testing, elected officials, community
activists and industry representatives.
Setting
Limits
For
carrier testing, prenatal testing and PGD, Town Hall participants
were asked to consider whether and how any limits should be set. About
89 percent of participants felt that limits should be set for acceptable
and unacceptable uses of reproductive genetic technologies[5].
To identify acceptable uses of reproductive genetic testing, participants
were asked to indicate whether they strongly approved, approved, disapproved
or strongly disapproved of carrier testing, prenatal testing and PGD
in five situations:
·
testing
for a gene mutation associated with a fatal childhood disease;
·
testing
for a mutation associated with a tendency to develop a disease later
in life such as cancer;
·
testing
for a hypothetical gene associated with intelligence or strength;
·
testing
for the sex of the baby; and
·
testing
to determine if the person will be a good tissue match for a sick
sibling who needs a transplant.
More
than 80 percent thought that testing for a gene associated with a
fatal childhood disease is an appropriate use. Only 21 percent thought
that testing for a hypothetical gene associated with intelligence
or strength is an appropriate use.
Carrier testing was the most acceptable use, being the least
invasive.
People generally were divided over issues
of who should decide which uses are appropriate and who should enforce
guidelines and limits. Twenty-eight percent preferred that medical
societies develop guidelines, 39 percent said the decision should
be left up to individuals and their doctors, and 25 percent wanted
federal or state legislation to establish acceptable uses for reproductive
genetic testing. Ultimately, most participants supported setting limits
through a combination of approaches: medical societies establish guidelines,
the government ensures safety and accuracy and protects against abuses,
and informed patients and their doctors make decisions about how to
deal with test results.
Safety
and Accuracy
Ensuring safety and accuracy of reproductive genetic
testing received the most clear-cut support and the strongest indication
of an appropriate role for the government.
Overall, 90 percent supported government review and approval
of tests before they go on the market. Government regulation, however,
raised some concerns. Fifty-one percent were somewhat or very concerned
that increased regulation would increase the cost of tests; 41 percent
were somewhat or very concerned that increased regulation would delay
access to tests. Fewer were concerned that increased regulation would
negatively affect the biotechnology industry, or that regulation itself
is inherently ineffective.
Impact
on Family and Society
In general, participants held positive views about
reproductive genetic testing; 81 percent felt these technologies help
families “make informed reproductive choices and have healthy babies.”
While many spoke positively about reproductive genetic tests giving
families the option to avoid or the opportunity to prepare for having
an affected child, concerns arose over access to tests; the danger
of “designer babies;” and diversity, disability and discrimination.
Before
and After
One
measure of the impact of this approach to public consultation is the
shift in opinions that occurred over the course of the event. The
most striking was a change in attitude about regulation; support for
regulation, especially to ensure safety and accuracy, increased significantly
over the course of the Town Hall. The opinion that reproductive genetic
testing helps parents make informed reproductive choices did not change
significantly, but concern about unregulated technology getting “out
of control” increased from 72 percent to 85 percent.
Public
Engagement
Overall,
our experience with this form of public engagement was extremely positive
and we believe it helped participants become more informed about these
issues: more than 70 percent of participants felt that the forum helped
them clarify their own views and more than 90 percent found the forums
personally valuable. A report describing the deliberations from all
the Town Halls is being shared with policymakers at the state and
federal levels (available at www.dnapolicy.org).
A
difficulty in any public engagement approach, however, is ensuring
that participation is truly representative – those with a vested interest
in the topic are more likely to respond to even the most aggressive
outreach efforts. To address this issue, the Center conducted a similar
activity online. Instead of meeting for one 3-½ hour session, participants
were recruited from a web-enabled panel[6] and met
online for three, 1-hour sessions. We found that the deliberation
of this more randomly selected participant group mirrored what we
heard in the in-person Town Halls.
[1] The
public Town Halls were held in: Sacramento,
CA on June
29, 2004; Seattle, WA
on July 1, 2004; Kalamazoo,
MI on July
19, 2004; Fort Worth, TX
on July 31, 2004; New
York City on August
2, 2004; Nashville, TN
on August 4, 2004.
[2] Participant
demographics: About 40 percent were 50 years old or older, 34 percent
were between the ages of 30 and 49, and 26 percent were younger than
30. Overall, 59 percent of the Town Hall participants were women and
about 80 percent of participants were white. Nineteen percent had some
college or vocational education, 27 percent had a bachelor’s degree
and 44 percent had some postgraduate education. In Sacramento,
Seattle and Nashville,
about half were Democrats; in New York,
63 percent. The highest percentage
of Republicans at any Town Hall was 34 percent in Fort
Worth. About a quarter of participants at Seattle
and Kalamazoo considered
themselves Independents. Overall, more than a quarter of all participants
gave their religious affiliation as Protestant, about 18 percent said
they were Catholic, about 16 percent said they were affiliated with
another Christian religion and about 7 percent said they were Jewish;
about a quarter said they had no religion or preferred not to say.
[3] The events were advertised as free and open to the public
and as an opportunity to learn more about reproductive genetic testing
and voice opinion. Individuals
interested in participating were asked to pre-register online so that
recruitment efforts could be monitored.
[4] PFI, Inc. www.pfidc.com
[5] “Do you
think there should be limits set for acceptable and unacceptable uses
of reproductive genetic testing?”
[6] Knowledge
Networks, Inc. www.knowledgenetworks.com
|
 |
|
AFRICA AND EUROPE ESTABLISH
MEDICAL ETHICS NETWORK
Information on the existing research ethics capacity of African countries
is limited and lacking. To remedy
that gap, European and African researchers have partnered to start an
initiative called Networking for Ethics in Biomedical Research in Africa
(NEBRA). Launched in January 2005, it is intended to profile and promote
medical research ethics in Africa, and is supported
by a European Union grant.
The main goal of the initiative is to boost
African countries’ own scientific capacity and presence as international
scientific contenders, said a spokesperson of the UK Medical Research
Council (MRC). If the NEBRA program is successful in the 15
countries in west and central Africa participating
in the pilot test, the program could be extended to the rest of Africa.
As part of the initiative, experienced postdocs
from the 15 participating African countries will survey and interview
a range of individuals – from health ministers to university representatives
– in order to assess the existing ethics structure in each country. The initial data-gathering phase of the program
will last for 18 months. The
second phase, which is dependent on additional funding, would strengthen
existing structures and foster links between the countries where appropriate.
According to the MRC spokesperson, the initiative
stemmed from the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership,
whose mission is to speed up the development of clinical trials for
drugs to treat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis in developing countries. The African countries participating in the NEBRA
project are Benin,
Burkina Faso,
Cameroon,
Central African Republic,
Congo,
Cote d’Ivoire,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon,
Gambia,
Ghana,
Guinea,
Mali,
Nigeria,
Senegal,
and Togo. European partners include the French National
Institute of Health and Medical Research, the World Health Organization,
the UK Medical Research Council, and the University Eberhard Karls,
Germany.
*AK
|
NEW
BILLS COULD DRAMATICALLY AFFECT STEM CELL RESEARCH
Three bipartisan bills were reintroduced in the first
session of the 109th Congress that could dramatically impact
human cloning and stem cell research. Currently,
there is no federal law forbidding human reproductive cloning or stem
cell research.
The Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (H.R.810), reintroduced by
Representatives Michael N. Castle (R-DE) and Diana DeGette (D-CO), would
allow federal funding of research on additional embryonic stem (ES)
cell lines revising President Bush’s policy that bans federal funding
for ES cell lines made after August 9, 2001. Since then, a significant number of the existing
cell lines have been shown to be unfit for research. Furthermore, use of the remaining cell lines
presented problems related to whether such cells represented significant
genetic diversity, whether they were safe to be used in humans, and
whether they were created according to high ethical standards.
The Human
Cloning Act of 2005 has been reintroduced in the Senate (S.658)
by Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and in the
House (H.R.1357) by Representatives Dave Weldon (R-FL) and Bart Stupak
(D-MI). The bills
would set a comprehensive ban on somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)
for both human reproductive cloning and stem cell research. In the latter, the nucleus of an egg is replaced
with the DNA of another person and then stimulated to grow to the blastocyst
stage, when cells would then be extracted for research purposes.
Proponents are concerned that SCNT in the
destruction of the embryo, and that there is also a risk that the embryo,
if not used in research, could be the implanted into a uterus to grow
into a cloned human baby. Thus, advocates of the Human Cloning Act of 2005 argue that it would be impossible to regulate a ban on reproductive cloning. Others, however, believe that it would be possible
for federal agencies, such as the NIH and the FDA, to enforce a ban
on reproductive cloning while permitting SCNT stem cell research to
go forward.
In addition, the act would domestically
and internationally prohibit the shipping and receiving of embryos resulting
from the SCNT procedure and products derived from research cloning. If the Human
Cloning Act of 2005 is enacted, violators could be imprisoned for
ten years and fined one million dollars.
*KH
|
|
RESEARCHER
PLEADS GUILTY TO FRAUD
Dr. Eric T. Poehlman, under a plea agreement, will plead guilty
to criminal charges of fraud conducted at the University of Vermont College
of Medicine (UVM) for fabricating results in research from 1992 to 2002. These studies included “The Longitudinal Menopause
Study”, The Longitudinal Study of Aging”, “The Prospective HRT Study”
and various others related to metabolism in Alzheimer’s patients and endurance
training.
Poehlman has been under investigation by UVM
since 2000, when lab technician Walter F. DeNino noticed a discrepancy
in results after Poehlman had taken them home to work on during the weekend. During the investigation, Poehlman destroyed
electronic documents, presented false documents and had other colleagues
produce other false documents in an effort to cover up his misdeeds. When the UVM discovered evidence of fraud, they
handed the case to the Office of the United States Attorney.
In addition to pleading guilty, Poehlman has
agreed to pay $180,000 in response to a civil suit for filing false grant
applications at UVM, pay attorney fees for DeNino, be barred for life
from applying for funding from any federal agency, and to request the
retraction of the fabricated work published in scientific journals.
Poehlman still faces the possibility of five years imprisonment.
For more information, visit http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/cases/poehlman.shtml
*KH
|
|
THE
DEVELOPMENT OF UNIVERSAL NORMS IN BIOETHICS
As a world leader in establishing global bioethical standards,
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
will oversee the creation of a Declaration on Universal Norms on Bioethics.
This decision was made after the Director-General of UNESCO commissioned
the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) to assess whether international
guidelines that deal with emerging ethical questions in science and technology
are necessary. Published on June 13, 2003, the IBC Report found
that a globally supported Declaration would be a valuable tool in terms
of addressing key ethical concerns, fueling public discourse, and establishing
a shared set of values in areas of the world which would otherwise have
no other way to do so. Since issuing
the report, the IBC has been working closely with the Intergovernmental
Bioethics Committee (IGBC), Member
States, and other interested
international organizations, to develop such a Declaration.
A meeting in Paris
was held in January 2005 with representatives from IBC and IGBC to confer
on the fourth draft of the text. The document stressed that, although scientific
advancement could be of enormous benefit to humankind, the rapid pace
of the field should not disallow the international community from ensuring
that these innovations do not violate human rights. The remainder of the document dealt with the
scope of the declaration, the principles it endorsed, the implementation
of these principles, and considerations for the future. A final draft form of the Declaration will be
reviewed in March and June of 2005.
Although the international community has
hailed the preparation of these guidelines as both indispensable and
valuable, concern exists from a handful of interest groups.
For example, according to Kathryn Hinsch, founder of the Women’s
Bioethics Project located in Seattle,
“Although the current IBC draft Declaration on Universal Norms on Bioethics
does not overtly discriminate against women, it does not reflect the
disproportionate ways in which bioethical issues affect women, and thus
discriminates by omission.” Despite
the good intention of the Declaration to protect all people equally,
many women’s organizations are troubled by the fact that nearly 80%
of the IBC task force is comprised of men.
These organizations are hoping that a shift towards broader female
representation will be granted before the final guidelines are drafted.
*JB
U.S. National Commission for UNESCO: Monthly Update, February
2005, Vol. 1, Issue 1: 3.
“Towards a Declaration on Universal Norms on Bioethics,”
UNESCO Social and Human Sciences. http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1883&URL/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1883&UR
DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
See note 1.
International
Bioethics Committee, “Elaboration of the Declaration on Universal Norms
on Bioethics: Fourth Outline of a Text,” December 15, 2004. http://portal.unesco.org/shs
/en/file_download.php/377486e581fab8658319802f8269dbd0PublicOutline4_en.pdf.
“UNESCO Develops Universal Norms in Bioethics, Women
Under-Represented,” Medical New
Today, January 30, 2005.
|
|
THE NATION'S FIRST CENTER FOR PEDIATRIC BIOETHICS
TO BE ESTABLISHED IN SEATTLE
The nation’s first
Center for Pediatric Bioethics, exclusively dedicated to children’s research
and health care, will be established by Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle. F. Bruder Stapleton,
M.D., pediatrician-in-chief at Children's
and Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Washington
(UW) School
of Medicine, hopes the center will serve as “a national
resource for physicians, researchers, policy-makers, parents, and patients,”[1] while
providing a global model for studies and practices involving children.
The center
will address the complex ethical issues facing families with children
in healthcare institutions and research facilities, and the need for
ethical guidelines, distinct from those applied to adult bioethics and
healthcare practices. The center will focus on four primary areas:
research in pediatric bioethics; education of medical students, health
care professionals and the public; providing a resource for health-care
professionals facing ethical dilemmas in clinical care; and serving
as advocates for children receiving care and participating in research.[2] Where appropriate, experts at the center will
help children participate in their own medical decisions, which might
include determining if innovative therapies or participating in research
studies are appropriate.[3]
Caring for
ill children raises unique questions which federal regulations address
only vaguely. Parents and physicians must interpret what is
in the best interest of children they care for and in which circumstances
the children’s or physicians’ decisions take priority over those of
the parents’ wishes.
The first annual
kickoff Conference on Pediatric Bioethics at the Center takes place
in July 2005, and will host a forum on the relationship between the
pediatric research, healthcare, and the pharmaceutical industry.
*TJ
|
THE
UK’S HFEA ADOPTS A “LIGHTER TOUCH” APPROACH
TO PGD SCREENING
The UK’s
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) announced in January
that it had streamlined its approval process for preimplantation genetic
diagnosis (PGD) embryo screening in order to speed up the system for
patients and clinicians. Under the new guidelines, if a clinic with
proven PGD expertise applies for a license to screen for a condition
that is already being screened for successfully in other clinics, “the
HFEA will approve the application without having to go through the full
HFEA license committee process, providing the same technique and methods
are used.”
In order to be eligible for the streamlined licensing
process, a clinic must have a qualified biopsy practitioner for PGD,
namely, an embryologist who has completed a number of biopsies under
supervision and an exam administered by the HFEA scientific inspector. Further, the PGD license must be for a common
and proven application of PGD.
At present, eight clinics in the United
Kingdom are licensed to carry out
PGD for conditions like sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and Duchenne’s
muscular dystrophy. “We have
decided that whilst PGD is a specialized procedure, which can only
be carried out by a qualified embryo biopsy practitioner, it should
be straightforward for those clinics with a proven track record in
the appropriate techniques to be able to carry out screening for any
of the conditions currently approved,” said Suzi Leather, Chair of
the HFEA.
Less common applications of PGD – like screening
for new conditions, human leukocyte antigen tissue typing, and screening
for late onset conditions or susceptibility genes – will still require
thorough consideration by an HFEA license committee on a case-by-case
basis, however.
*AK
|
|
U.N. APPROVES RESOLUTION ON HUMAN
CLONING
After nearly two years and three
proposals, the United Nations has abandoned its plans to create a treaty
that would prohibit all forms of cloning. Instead, the Sixth Committee of the U.N. agreed
to endorse a non-binding resolution that would encourage Member States
to “adopt all measures necessary to protect adequately human life in the
application of life sciences, as well as measures necessary to prohibit
the application of genetic-engineering techniques that may be contrary
to human dignity.”
This resolution was adopted by
the U.N. General Assembly on March 8, 2005.
The Assembly’s voting results reflect
the contentious nature of this issue.
Only 84 Member States favored the declaration, 34 voted against
it, and another 37 abstained from voting. The resolution encourages countries to implement
legislation that will disallow any practice that may be viewed as an
affront to “human dignity” and “human life,” but does not attempt to
define these concepts. In a letter
sent to the U.N. General Assembly the day before the vote, Alan I. Leshner,
the Chief Executive Officer of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS), urged the U.N. to proceed with caution before voting
on the resolution. Like many science societies committed to pursuing
progress in research science, AAAS wishes to promote cloning for research
purposes, but continues to oppose reproductive cloning on human embryos.
Leshner implored the U.N. Assembly to redefine the language of
the resolution in a way that would permit cloning practices in countries
where it is done solely for research purposes, while still stressing
the importance of outlawing human reproductive cloning.
Although a spokesman for the U.S.,
Richard A. Grenell, declared that the vote in support of the resolution
“means that the United Nations is stating very clearly that member states
should adopt legislation outlining cloning practices,” the resolution
was controversial and is non-binding. Britain is one country that has already
decided not to follow the directives of the newly passed resolution
on the grounds that the resolution unfairly rejects Britain’s dedication to and expertise in
the field of stem-cell research. Britain’s Westminster health secretary, John Reid, comments,
“It is a shame that the UN couldn’t agree to a legally binding worldwide
ban on reproductive cloning, simply because a small group of countries
intransigently refused to allow countries to make up their own minds
on therapeutic cloning.” Most countries do not support reproductive cloning,
but many see research (therapeutic) cloning as a valuable tool for the
future of science and medicine. Therefore,
many countries like Britain will be hesitant to support a call
for legislation that could put their aspirations for research progress
in jeopardy.
*JB
Philipkoski, Kristen. “U.N. Calls for Clone Ban.” Wired
News. February 20, 2005.
Farrell, Elizabeth F. “United Nations Committee Approves
Resolution against Cloning but Does Not Call for a Ban.” The Chronicle:
Daily News. February 21, 2005.
Wadhams,
Nick. “U.N. Resolution Seeks Ban on Cloning.” Yahoo! News: Associated Press. March 15, 2005.
Leshner,
Alan I. Letter to the U.N. General
Assembly President, Jean Ping. March
7, 2005. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0308cloningLetter.shtml.
Farrell,
Elizabeth F.
Nelson,
Fraser. “Britain
to defy UN over Therapeutic Cloning Ban.” Scotland on Sunday. February 27, 2005.
Pisik, Betsy.
“Asian Nations to Ignore UN Cloning Ban.” The
Straits Times. March 12, 2005.
|
| Resources |
ENGINEERING
ETHICS AS A “CORE COMPETENCY”
A Review of Emerging
Technologies and Ethical Issues in Engineering (155 pages), The
National Academies Press, Washington,
D.C., 2004, available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11083.html.
By
Steven P. Nichols, Associate Vice President for Research and Director,
Murchison Chair of Free Enterprise
The University
of Texas at Austin
Engineers have a strong impact on society
and on the environment. That
impact is inherent in the very nature of engineering activities, and
it imposes numerous restrictions and responsibilities both on the engineering
profession and on the individual engineering professional. The
National Academy of Engineering (NAE) organized a workshop the Fall
2003 to examine the role of selected emerging technologies, to consider
potential impact of those technologies, and to bring together professionals
in engineering and other disciplines to explore ethical dimensions of
engineering practice. The subject of this review, Emerging Technologies and Ethical Issues in
Engineering, provides a compilation of papers prepared for and presentations
delivered to the workshop.
Compilations provide an interesting challenge
to reviewers, and the reader should recognize that the review is necessarily
selective and uneven.
This review first describes the organization
of the compilation and individual contributions and then discusses a
selection of themes observed in the combined work.
The compilation consists of the keynote
address by Dr. William Wulf and three
thematic sections.
The first
section includes transcripts from oral presentations delivered at
the workshop. The first oral presentation from
Dr. Braden R. Allenby discussed the pervasive (and unpredictable) impact
that humans have had on the planet and the ethical responsibility resulting
from the complexity of interactions.
The second oral presentation from
Dr. George Khushf examines research and engineering in fields of nanotechnology
and gives examples of ethical implications related to selective sub-fields
and potential applications. The
third oral presentation from
Dr. Paul Wolpe discusses neurotechnology and neuroethics with respect
to “chemical, organic, and electromechanical interventions in the brain.” The last oral presentation by
Dr. John Ahearne explored some of the ethical and policy issues associated
with selection of energy resources and the use of those resources.
The second
section includes articles by Dr. Ed Harris, Dr.
Caroline Whitbeck, and
Dr. Joseph Herkert addressing
the “State of the Art in Engineering Ethics.” More specifically, the articles present methodologies
for and approaches to addressing engineering ethics (both in the context
of the individual engineer acting as a moral agent and in the context
of professional bodies addressing global issues of engineering ethics).
The third
section included papers by Dr. Vivian Weil and
Dr. Stephanie Bird
describing specific programs and approaches for teaching engineering
ethics in universities.
Each of the entries in the compilation offer
readers an opportunity to expand their knowledge about engineering ethics,
engineering education, and/or social and ethical aspects of engineering
research and specific engineering applications.
The articles address both microethical issues (those faced by
engineers operating as individuals, or a small group of individuals)
and macroethical issues (involving an assessment of a set of values
involving broader social impact). The compilation, however, is greater than the
sum of its parts. The entries
combine to make a compelling argument that the practice of engineering
and the topic of engineering ethics are inseparably interrelated, and
the evaluation of many of the ethical components will necessarily involve
talents from multiple disciplines.
In his presentation, Allenby argues that
ethics must become “not just a desirable adjunct to engineering, but
a core competency” (p. 24, emphasis added). Each contribution to the compilation appears
to independently develop and support Allenby’s
position. [The reviewer has argued that engineering ethics
should have always been a core competency of engineers.]
The compilation’s most interesting theme
involves macroethical issues in engineering, engineering practice, and
engineering research. Each of the four oral presentations (included
in the first section) independently argues that the full development
of appropriate ethical positions (with respect to technology) requires
a multidisciplinary examination of the application of a particular technology
and its potentially complex social implications.
The practice of engineering has strong social
and economic impact. Engineers
must also understand that society has an undeniable strong and unavoidable
impact on the practice of engineering.
The articles address the fact that engineers can participate
in the great debate of the social worth (positive and negative) of their
products, or they can watch as others frame the issues, draw conclusions,
and dictate answers with respect to the practice of engineering, and
the application of technologies created by engineers.
Prominent engineers can have a profound
effect on public perception. This potential power of their persuasion emanates
from a combination of their specific technical training as well as the
perception of their objectivity (the papers and presentations correctly
point out, however, that this objectivity frequently comes under attack). Engineers, however, are not generally trained
or educated to address the full range of social, environment, and economic
impact of new technologies. The
papers and presentations argue persuasively for an increased role by
organizations such as the National Academy of Engineering and the various
engineering professional societies to take a lead in initiating multidisciplinary
analysis of macroethical concepts involved in engineering research and
engineering practice. The authors
effectively stress that these interdisciplinary teams should not start
with the deployment of the technology, but earlier during the development
of the technology.
The National Academy of Engineering has
made a significant contribution in organizing the workshop and providing
the compilation in Emerging Technologies and Ethical Issues in
Engineering. The reader will
find the collection both educational and thought provoking.
President, National Academy
of Engineering.
“Engineering
and Ethics for an Anthropogenic Planet,” Braden R. Allenby, Environment,
Health, and Safety Vice President, AT&T, and adjunct professor at
Columbia University.
“The Ethics
of Nanotechnology: Vision and Values for a New Generation of Science and
Engineering,” George Khushf, Humanities Director, Center for Bioethics,
and Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Southern
California.
“Neurotechnology
and Brain-Computer Interfaces: Ethical and Social Implications,” Paul
Root Wolpe, Professor, Department of Psychiatry, and Senior Fellow, Center
for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania.
“E3:
Energy, Engineering, and Ethics,” John F. Ahearne, Director of the Ethics
Program at Sigma Xi.
“Methodologies
for Case Studies in Engineering Ethics,” Charles E. Harris, Professor,
Department of Philosophy, Texas
A&M University.
“Responsibility
and Creativity in Engineering,” Caroline Whitbeck,
Professor, Department of Philosophy and Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, Case Western
University.
“Microethics,
Macroethics, and Professional Engineering Societies,” Joseph R. Herkert,
Associate Professor of Multidisciplinary Studies, North
Carolina State University.
“Ethics
Across the Curriculum: Preparing
Engineering and Science Faculty to Introduce Ethics into Their Teaching,”
Vivian Weil, Director, Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions,
Illinois Institute of Technology.
“Integrating
Ethics Education at All Levels: Ethics
as a Core Competency,” Stephanie J. Bird, Coeditor, Science and Engineering Ethics.
11] Nichols, S.P., Weldon, W.F.,
"Professional Responsibility: The
Role of Engineering in Society," The
Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 3, No. 3, p. 327-337,
1997.
|
 |
Conference
– The 11th Annual Trainer-of-Trainers Conference will be
held June 12-17, 2005 in Snowmass,
Colorado.
The topic is “Teaching Survival Skills and Ethics.” Details on the conference and an application
form are available at http://www.survival.pitt.edu/events/trainer.asp
Conference
– On June 13-14, 2005, UC Davis and the Office
of Research Integrity are co-sponsoring a conference in Sacramento,
CA on “Promoting a Productive and
Responsible Research Environment.”
For more information, visit www.research.ucdavis.edu/ori-conf.
Symposium
– “Human Enhancement Technologies: Through the Looking Glass of
Drama” is the subject of symposium at Cleveland
State University,
July 14-17, 2005.
The symposium is co-sponsored by Hiram College Center for Literature, Medicine and the Health Care
Professions and Cleveland
State University Division of Continuing Education. Online registration and information is available
at http://www.csuohio.edu/ce/programs/hiram.html.
Fellowship
– The Department of Health and Human Services
is accepting applications for the post-doctoral Cancer Prevention
Fellowship Program. The program
provides funding for an M.P.H. degree, NCI summer program in cancer
prevention, mentored research and field opportunities, professional
development and additional coursework, as needed. The
deadline for applications is September
1, 2005. For more information, visit http://cancer.gov/prevention/pob.
Call
for Abstracts – Abstracts are invited for a one-day forum on “The
Ethics of Intellectual Property” to be held on September
8, 2005. The forum
is part of a larger conference on “Innovation and Growth of the International
Firm,” sponsored by the Carnegie
Bosch Institute of Carnegie Mellon University.
Visit http://cbi.tepper.cmu.edu
for more information.
Call
for Papers and Conference – Abstracts are being accepted for the
conference “International Perspectives in Applied Ethics: Recent Developments
in China and the U.S.” sponsored by the Department of Health Care
Ethics at Regis University and the Department of Philosophy at Wuhan University. The deadline for abstracts is June 15, 2005 and the conference will
be held on October 15-16,
2005 in Wuhan
China. For more information, contact Dr. Mark Meaney, Regis University,
303.964.5110, mmeaney@regis.edu.
Conference
– The Canadian Bioethics Society will hold its
17th Annual Meeting, October
20-23, 2005 in Halifax,
Nova Scotia.
The theme of this year’s meeting is “Money, Money, Money:
Bioethics Confronts Dollars & Sense.”
For more information, visit http://www.bioethics.ca.
|
