PROFESSIONAL ETHICS REPORT

UNESCO WORKING GROUP TACKLES NANOTECHNOLOGY & ETHICS

The Nanotechnology & Ethics Expert Group, an international working group of fourteen ethicists and scientists, met twice in Paris last year to discuss the status of nanotechnology in preparation for a UNESCO Policy Document. The UNESCO Policy Document, composed of several papers outlined below, is expected to be finalized by the spring 2007 meeting of the World Commission of the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology. After its completion, it will serve as an official advisory document for the Director General of UNESCO.

The July 5-6, 2005 meeting introduced draft papers for group consideration in three areas surrounding nanotechnology in society: science, ethics, and policy. The December 6-7, 2005 meeting, and the focus of this report, finalized the papers with input from the entire expert group. Three identifiable themes throughout the meetings were: 1) recognition of the lack of a precise definition of nanotechnology and nanomedicine 2) cautiousness about developing policy in light of this, and 3) difficulty in addressing ethical issues amid intense public hype and disagreement among experts.

Within the science section, the group examined papers submitted by Drs. Jun Fundano, Margareth Andrade, and Jixing Liu. Fundano explained the need for analysis of ethical issues that arise with each new advance in nanotechnology and stressed the importance of further definition of the field. Andrade illustrated the rapid development of nanotech research, the field, encouraging researchers and ethicists to consider the implications at this relatively early stage. Liu focused on new developments in nanotechnology, noting that the progress in basic laboratory research is far exceeding the actual application of the technologies. This may signal a need to partly shift attention to the implementation of developed technologies. The ethics papers, comprised of contributions from Drs. Donald Evans, Bert Gordijn, and Joachim Schummer, gave a broad overview of the current understanding of ethical considerations in the field. Gordijn’s paper addressed the new applications of nanomedicine and recommended a focus on a specific sub-discipline of research within nanotechnology in order to explore fully the ethical issues. Schummer distinguished between the types of definitions of nanotechnology, preferring to use a “real definition” (a list of research areas that fall under the broad heading of nanotechnology) when discussing ethical issues. He also identified two types of ethical issues: 1) those resulting directly from research and development, such as environmental effects of new materials and intellectual property rights, and 2) those resulting from the more general application of nanotechnology in society, such as governance, equity and education. Evans explored the development of medical technologies and their ethical impact on society, particularly within genetics and reproductive assistance. He predicts nanotechnology will face similar ethical issues and asks the question, “Are there important distinctions between making people better and making better people?”

Drs. Abdallah Daar, Michele Jean, and Kyunghee Choi addressed the policy component of nanotechnology. Daar’s paper looked at the connections between nanotechnologies and worldwide development, emphasizing the need for developing countries to embrace science and technology to best utilize their resources. Jean noted the need for better public understanding and knowledge to improve the quality of the debate on nanotechnology ethics. Choi focused on the educational aspect of nanotechnology, particularly encouraging the involvement of NGOs, governments, and third parties in the effort to educate the public. For further information:

http://portal.unesco.org/shs/admin/ev.php?URL _ID=8958&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201

*HWI

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGISTS ADDRESS IMPACT OF FIELD IN PUBLIC DECLARATION

In the warm California sun, the budding field of synthetic biology attempted to regulate itself in light of ever-expanding research capabilities. The Synthetic Biology 2.0 Conference on May 20-22, hosted by the University of California at Berkeley, saw researchers acknowledge the societal and ethical impact of DNA synthesis and sequence-checking technology. There are no specific government regulations for the field, prompting many synthetic biologists to aim toward initial self-governance to guide its development.

The field of synthetic biology analyzes complex natural systems and replicates those systems artificially, usually with the use of genetic material. Synthetic biologists utilize these new systems for biomedical treatments, renewable energy sources, and other human or environmental needs. Yet the prospect of engineering “natural” biological processes, particularly when dealing with genetics, has proved controversial. Early on, synthetic biology has encountered opposition, even in its most recent quest for self-governance. In an open letter addressed to the participants of the SB2.0 conference, groups such as Genewatch UK and the International Center for Bioethics, Culture and Disability criticized the unrestrained rapid growth of the field, urging researchers to refrain from self-regulation and instead “join with society to demand broad public oversight and governmental action to ensure social wellbeing.” However, SB2.0 participants came to a consensus that self-governance is the correct first step and adopted the “Declaration of the Second International Meeting on Synthetic Biology,” which was made available online for public comment from May 29- June 7, 2006. The final version, incorporating public comments and suggestions, will be published soon.

The Declaration stressed key provisions in the public draft:

1) “First, we support the organization of an open working group that will undertake the coordinated development of improved software tools that can be used to check DNA synthesis orders for DNA sequences encoding hazardous biological systems; we expect that such software tools will be made freely available.”

2) “Second, we support the adoption of best-practice sequence checking technology, including customer and order validation, by all commercial DNA synthesis companies; we encourage individuals and organizations to avoid patronizing companies that do not systematically check their DNA synthesis orders.”

3) “Third, we support ongoing and future discussions within international science and engineering research communities for the purpose of developing creative solutions and frameworks that directly address challenges arising from the ongoing advances in biological technology, in particular, challenges to biological security and biological justice.”

4) “Fourth, we support ongoing and future discussions with all stakeholders for the purpose of developing and analyzing inclusive governance options, including self-governance, that can be considered by policymakers and others such that the development and application of biological technology remains overwhelmingly constructive.”

At press time, the final version of the Declaration was not yet available. For further information:

http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/32982

http://syntheticbiology.org/

http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=562

*HWI

GREETING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

The Center for American Progress held a day long seminar this April entitled “Bioethics and Politics: Past, Present, and Future,” where bioethics scholars acknowledged both the increasingly political nature of bioethics and the formidable presence of conservatives, religious groups, and republican leadership in directing bioethics dialogue. The program consisted of three components, the first of which was a panel discussion on how bioethics has played an increasing role in political dialogue and public policy. Next, Patricia King, a law professor and bioethics veteran, shared some her experiences and ideas about the intersection of bioethics and politics. Finally, scholars and professionals discussed the current scene in bioethics and hypothesized the trajectory of bioethics and politics. This report will focus on the first panel.

“The Emergence of Politicized Bioethics” panel included Dan Callahan (The Hasting Center), John Evans (UCSD), Ruth Faden (Johns Hopkins University), and Eric Meslin (Indiana University). Dan Callahan spoke to audience members about the early days of bioethics: from the early sixties, when it was “fashionable to be wary of technology” because of its association with the Vietnam War and weapons development, to the 80s and 90s, when the cultural trend was to embrace and legitimate technology. Initially there were two tracks of bioethical thought – the “Ethics of Ends,” i.e., what does society want from biology, and the “Ethics of Means,” i.e., how should society regulate biology and protect autonomy.

The Ethics of Ends track eventually disappeared in favor of the Ethics of Means, as the audience for bioethics shifted from the public to the political elite for whom regulation was priority. In the 90’s, reaction from conservatives against the apparent capture of bioethics by pro-technology liberals sparked culture wars. Callahan took a moment to criticize both sides of the debate for their “tendency to leave decisions to market choices,” which he argues is the “worst possible idea” for addressing controversial bioethics issues.

Next, Ruth Faden presented her own hypotheses about why and how bioethics has become politicized. Faden assumes that the politicized bioethics is a recent phenomenon and that “politicized” refers to something more than “commentators lining up on different sides on bioethics issues.” Faden’s premise is that politicized bioethics refers to the recent trend of bioethics “being used to serve the political agenda of a particular ideology.” She hypothesizes two reasons for this. The first is that the very nature of current bioethics issues entails a deep left/right divide. Current issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research, etc., demonstrate this polarization, while past issues lack this facet, instead being overwhelmingly one-sided (e.g., human subjects research). The second is that “the maturing and expanding of American conservatism on social issues” has caused this corresponding politicization of bioethics. Despite the current political battles being waged in bioethics, Faden believes there is some cause for optimism because there are still a number of non-politicized bioethics issues to be addressed.

Eric Meslin offered a very different view of the issue. Meslin pointed out the intrinsically political nature of government advisory committees and groups that deal in bioethics. First, the creation of the advisory body itself is a political act, in that it is constituted by political leaders and in the public sphere. Second, it is expected that the advisory body will have a political impact, from the name of the group, to membership selection, to the issues it will address. Meslin added that even the public content of letters and reports bare the imprint of political affect, referring to how the editing process advances specific political agendas. Finally, the “political currency” allotted to advisory committees, such as the Presidential seals, authority and expertise, is yet another way in which bioethics advisors are political actors. The nature of bioethics advisory committees is just half of the story; the current environment also lends itself to politicization. Present day advisory committees work in the public sphere on a 24-hour news cycle thanks to the internet, television, and radio. There is an increased awareness of advisory bodies and how they impact dialogues internationally. In addition, the fact that more government dollars are pouring into science makes regulation all the more salient to politicians and the public.

Evans offered a sociological look at how various religious and cultural ideology shifts have shaped current bioethics. Evans insisted that bioethicists and others should be glad that more view points are being including in bioethics discussion. Since many religious views, especially expressly conservative ones, have been marginalized in bioethics dialogues in the past, the fact they are now included, even dominating the debate, is a clear sign the debate is more inclusive. He argued that the key to the current alignment of bioethics was the timing. Evans noted that George W. Bush, an evangelical conservative, came to power in the midst of all these polarized issues. Religious conservatives were still excluded from scholarly debate of bioethics, so they turned to these commissions and advisory boards to force a dialogue. The demographics of the political elites shifted towards numbers that favored similar conservatives. Evans further argued that the tables are turning, and conservatives are now trying to exclude progressives as they were once excluded. He concluded that progressives need to cut their losses before they are completely excluded from the bioethics debate, and before bioethics is rendered completely fraudulent. In the public arena, the progressives should avoid trying to convert public opinion, but simply educate and let the public choose sides.

The question and answer session following the panel discussion raised some particularly troubling issues for many bioethicists attending. Questions included ‘What role should bioethicts have in politics: independent and objective vs. advocate and subjective?’ ‘If bioethics itself has become political, can bioethicists remain impartial?’ Panelists seemed to have no answer to these questions, responding that it very much depends on the context. Communication was another problem mentioned in the question portion. How do both sides talk to each other when one side is based on secular philosophies and the other on religious doctrine? The consensus seemed to be that while these conversations are frustrating for both sides, they are critical to the role of bioethics in the public dialogue. The second panel, and focus of the rest of this report, featured scholars and professional discussing current bioethics and hypothesizing the trajectory of bioethics and politics. Kathyrn Hinsch used competitive analysis to address concerns that liberal bioethics is losing ground to conservatives in the public and political sphere. Hinsch, Founding Director of the Women’s Bioethics Project, presented findings suggesting only conservatives and religious groups have devoted substantial financial, and political resources to affecting bioethics policy. Conservatives have done this in a number of ways including: “dividing progressives, polishing [conservative’s] image as a protectors, and galvanizing grassroots against women’s reproductive rights.” She used the example of Americans United for Life to elucidate her argument. This formerly single issue pro-life group has added the broader issue of bioethics to its agenda. This group now ranks states as the Top Ten Most “Dangerous” and the Top Ten Most “Safe” States based on women’s reproductive safety in abortion clinics as a opposed to pure availability of procedures[1]. One mechanism used to “rally” conservative troops has been framing the conflict as a true battle of good versus evil. In one case, the Pope publicly condemned geneticists in a major new paper. Hinsch points out that the funding for these organizations is hard to track because consortiums and think-tanks funding these efforts are also obscuring the source of the funds. The breadth of the conservative effort includes not only diversity in agenda and funding, but a potentially global target audience as well. Organizations like The Federalist Society are heavily trying to influence United Nations and international policy.

James Fossett, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Public Health at the University of Albany, State University of New York, suggested that liberal bioethics take the fight to a new battle ground – the states. Progressive bioethics has typically focused on national affect but could make significant headway if it looked more towards state law. Typically dismissed because of the dismal outcome in slavery and racial issues in the past, Fossett claims states no longer deserve the “bad wrap.” State level efforts offer two major benefits, according to Fossett: “as separate entities…[they are] good sites for dealing with non-consensus and public preferences,” and they have a “powerful” impact on both levels of government because they serve as “laboratories of democracy.” Fossett went on to profile policy at the state level as a means to “geographically deal with pluralism,” “provide multiple forums” (i.e., ‘progressives have used states in past when administration has been conservative and non-responsive’), and “have relatively stable policy.” Fossett suggested liberal bioethicists appeal to state-level economics and re-election goals. Governors seeking re-election know that the strength of the state economy makes a huge difference at the ballot box, and “this may leave some conservative looking red states looking more pink” as they try to encourage biotech and pharma companies to build in their states (e.g., Missouri and Texas). Prestige is another powerful incentive to state politicians, and luring more top scientists to universities and more big name companies could be a great feather in a savvy politician’s hat. Fossett pointed out that, since progressives are losing the policy and public relations game against conservatives/republicans, if they want to turn the tide, they may have to simply “take what they can get” and work at the individual state level to foster change. Virginia Ashby Asharpe, Visiting Scholar in Ethics and Environmental Justice, Georgetown University, discussed how environmental issues used to be apart of the inaugural “cannon of bioethics” but were shut out because of the difficulty in assigning blame to specific actors, a feature common to other “bioethics” topics. Sharpe argued that we need to get the environment back on the bioethics agenda, in part because better research tools help paint a clearer picture of what is happening to the environment. Another reason is environmentalists are able to reframe environmental issues so that “environmental issues are health issues, local and international security issues, economic issues, and social justice issues.” She suggested that progressive bioethics should stick to the traditional academic dialogue and seek to engage other like-minded groups, not merely react to conservatives. She also cautioned that bioethicists engaging in private sector consulting with biotechnology companies must do their best to “retain the ethics of bioethics,” not just support private party interests to the detriment of others.

Glenn McGee, Founding Director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute, began his presentation by claiming that, “Bioethics is low-tech…We [bioethicists] are Luddites.” McGee suggests bioethics, in particular, progressive bioethics, develop internet resources like blogging. Blogging is an online messaging system in which users can post responses to various prompts, articles, and news in realtime. Conservative bioethicists have again beaten liberal bioethicists to the punch with a number a well established blogs like: Second Hand Smoke, The Human Future, and The Thing Is. The speed and breadth of access possible through this medium allows for a rich and timely dialogue among bioethics without the delay of the peer-review publication process. But along with the benefits, there is the corresponding challenge in the lack of credentialed peer-review. McGee holds that despite this concern, the medium will play an increasingly important role for both sides of the bioethics debate. Several renowned journals, like Nature, are reportedly working on blogs linked to the magazine. McGee then went on to describe his current project, the Bioethics Forum, which, though similar in format to a blog, works more like an online journal with careful monitoring and review by accredited experts in the field.

*EAW

No resources in this edition