* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Science in society: Obligations and rights
Ressentiment (Scheler) wikipedia , lookup
Ethics in religion wikipedia , lookup
Bernard Williams wikipedia , lookup
Individualism wikipedia , lookup
Consequentialism wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of eating meat wikipedia , lookup
Alasdair MacIntyre wikipedia , lookup
Value (ethics) wikipedia , lookup
Paleoconservatism wikipedia , lookup
Cultural relativism wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg wikipedia , lookup
The Moral Landscape wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of artificial intelligence wikipedia , lookup
Morality throughout the Life Span wikipedia , lookup
Critique of Practical Reason wikipedia , lookup
Morality and religion wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development wikipedia , lookup
Moral disengagement wikipedia , lookup
Moral responsibility wikipedia , lookup
Ethical intuitionism wikipedia , lookup
Secular morality wikipedia , lookup
Moral development wikipedia , lookup
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 % of Respondents Public and scientists’ intrinsic moral values: GE animals fit with my basic moral principles 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 36 31 25 26 18 17 11 Strongly agree 13 Agree 10 Neutral Public Disagree Scientists • Public n=968, AgR scientists n= 330 7 Strongly disagree Science Advocates • Tend not to have intrinsic moral concerns regarding the technology (or only weakly held concerns) • Use extrinsic arguments (usually benefits and nonharm, 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 nonrational – 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 Support for GE food applications 2001 vs 2003 % of Respondents 70 60 60 50 52 36 40 26 30 20 10 2001 3 8 2003 8 4 0 Totally support Conditionally Totally oppose support Don't know NZers’ support/opposition to medical applications of GE % of Respondents Support for GE medical applications: 2001 vs 2003 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 62 57 2001 32 2003 16 14 7 Totally support Conditionally support Totally oppose 8 3 Don't know Need for case-by-case analysis for GE products % of Respondents It is necessary to evaluate each potential application of GE on a case-by-case basis rather than totally supporting or totally opposing all applications of GE 60 54 40 18 20 11 5 9 3 0 Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Don't know disagree Fit of GE with NZers’ cultural and spiritual beliefs % of Respondents Using GE technology fits with my cultural and spiritual beliefs: 2001 vs 2003 48 50 40 33 30 2003 20 10 2001 27 27 14 11 4 5 12 10 4 4 0 Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 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