Download Slide 1

The Ethics of Modern
Agricultural Biotechnology
December 2, 2003
Ecological Agriculture
Chad Kruger
Introduction
•
Objective:
To facilitate the development of an informed
and coherent ethical framework for use
in the analysis of applications of modern
agricultural biotechnology.
Introduction: Types of Ethical Theories
•
Character-based ethical theories:
–
–
–
Examples: Ancient Greek and Medieval,
Virtue Ethics, “agrarianism”, etc.
Concerned primarily with the ethical
character of the moral agent
Character ethics are ingrained in many
aspects of our culture, but have largely been
ignored in applied ethical theory in
academics.
Introduction: Types of Ethical Theories
•
Analytical ethical theories:
–
–
–
Examples: Utilitarianism, Categorical
Imperatives, Rights-based (harm) theories,
etc.
Concerned primarily with the goodness or
badness of an action
Most current research and thinking in
applied ethics is in the analytical fields.
Ethical Framework: Ethics Defined
•
the discipline [or the science] dealing with
what is good and bad and with moral duty
and obligation; a theory or system of moral
values – Merriam-Webster
•
Distinguished from morals - modes of
conduct – Merriam-Webster
•
Distinguished from values - something (as a
principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or
desirable – Merriam-Webster
Ethical Framework: Ethical Distinctions
•
Moral Agency
–
What is a moral agent?
•
The actor – with the capacity for decision and
judgment
* Epistemological Model – question, insight,
judgment
* Character model – wish, deliberation,
judgment, action, character
Cognitive Structure Model: Bernard Lonergan
Value Judgment
Judgment
Insight
(understanding)
?
Aristotle: Character Model
Character
Wish
Deliberation
Decision
Action
Ethical Framework: Ethical Distinctions
•
Moral Agency
–
Ethics, by definition, deals with human action –
therefore only humans can be moral agents
–
Animals can act “ethically” (such as a dog saving
it’s “master”) and can be the subject of an ethical
dilemma (such as the use of animals for lab
testing), but they do not have the capacity for
decision and judgment.
Ethical Framework: right/wrong vs. good/bad
• The goodness or badness of an action
does not necessarily make it ethically
right or wrong (ie. that I spend more time
with one of my children than the others
can be arguably good or bad, but not
necessarily right or wrong)
• This is a CRITICAL point of distinction
when related to agricultural biotechnology
Ethical Framework: Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic
• If something is intrinsically right or wrong –
there is no room for ethical debate (ie. if
murder is judged to be intrinsically wrong, then
no amount of logical argument or data will
overturn the judgment – consider the “Pro-Life”
argument of the abortion debate)
• Caution: Very few actions can be justified as
both historically and universally intrinsically right
or wrong (perhaps only premeditated murder
gets this billing)
Ag Biotech Ethical Arguments: Intrinsic Arguments
1. Examples:
–
Unnaturalness, Disrespect, Playing God
2. Essence of the arguments:
–
Applications of genetic engineering are intrinsically
wrong, and therefore should be banned.
3. Common Criticisms
–
–
–
What happens to this argument when societal
opinions change?
How do you engage different perspectives?
What happens if the conditions (or knowledge of the
conditions) change?
Ag Biotech Ethical Arguments: Ecological Hazard
1. Examples:
– “Super weeds”, “Super bugs”, Doomsday,
Unintended Consequences
2. Essence of the arguments:
– Because of the uncertainties related to
Genetic Engineering, and the inherent
potential for ecological catastrophe, we
should prohibit, restrict, or otherwise
regulate the research and application of ag
biotechnology.
Ag Biotech Ethical Arguments: Ecological Hazard
3. How do we deal with uncertainty?
–
The Precautionary Principle – proceed with
caution until there is better knowledge of the
uncertainties related to risks and benefits.
–
Utilitarian -- will society in general be better off or
not, given the particular biotechnology application? - Risk is measured essentially by probability
formulas and preference rankings (what is the
likelihood that X will Y and what is an acceptable
level of potential risk vs. potential reward?).
Ag Biotech Ethical Arguments: Ecological Hazard
3. How do we deal with uncertainty?
–
The Precautionary Principle
–
Utilitarian
–
Maximin Rule – John Rawls, Harvard University –
Perform the action that has the best, worst
outcome, under the following conditions:
•
•
•
You don’t know the likelihood of the various circumstances
obtaining.
The additional good above that provided by the best, worst
outcome is not very valuable.
The rejected alternatives have outcomes that one can
hardly accept.
Ag Biotech Ethical Arguments: Ecological Hazard
4. Common Criticisms
–
Utilitarianism – how do you account for qualitative
differences in disutility (unpleasantness) in the risks.
Ie. Perhaps one particular individual or group
suffers greatly for the “total benefit” to society.
–
Without risk, how do you attain reward? Or Should
we always make decisions based on the avoidance
of harm?
–
Precautionary Principle – Is it too stifling? How can
you learn more about the uncertainties if you ban or
restrict the research and application?
Ag Biotech Ethical Arguments: Food Safety
1. Examples
–
Food safety testing, labeling
2. Essence of the arguments
–
Food safety – all new genetically modified foods (or
foods made with genetically modified ingredients)
should be tested for human safety by the FDA.
–
Labeling – all food that are genetically modified (or
made with ingredients that are genetically modified)
should be labeled so consumers can make informed
decisions.
Ag Biotech Ethical Arguments: Food Safety
3. Other pertinent information
–
Role of the FDA?
•
•
•
–
Are they a food safety testing agency?
Who does the testing?
What is Substantial Equivalence
What is the purpose of a label?
•
•
•
“Informed consent” vs. “buyer beware”
Positive vs. negative labeling (unintended consequences)
Consumer confusion – technical nature of labeling
Ag Biotech Ethical Arguments: Structure of Agriculture
1. Examples
– Intellectual Property Rights, Consolidation,
Humanitarian (Golden Rice)
2. Essence of arguments
– Applications of ag biotechnology have
substantial impacts on the agricultural
system (positive or negative – depending on
perspective) that must be considered in the
permissibility of research, extension and
application of ag biotechnology.
Ag Biotech Ethical Arguments: Structure of Agriculture
3. General comments
–
These sets of arguments are not new in relation to
research and development of agricultural
technologies – however, they are new (relatively) in
terms of their role in ethical debates. These
arguments also seem to carry the most weight
in terms of recent ethical debates related to ag
biotechnology, and the consequent public
policies for agricultural research and education.
–
Strict Scrutiny and liability of violating intellectual
property rights.
Ag Biotech Ethical Arguments: Animals
1. Examples
– Animal Rights, Moral Considerability
2. Essence of arguments
– Animals have [intrinsic] value which is not
related to their utility to humans. Therefore,
humans should not exploit [utilize] animals,
whether good or bad, without sufficient
recognition of the [intrinsic] value of the
animal.
Ag Biotech Ethical Arguments: Animals
3. Consequences for ethical framework
–
[Intrinsic] value is not necessarily correlated with
rights. For instance, a rock has value in and of itself,
unrelated to human utility. The value could be
determined by it’s ecological function (parent
material for soil formation, habitat/cover for wildlife,
etc.). However, the presence of value does not
necessarily extend “rights” to the rock (the right
to preserve itself, the right to maintain its integrity as
a rock, the right to not be harmed by wind and rain,
etc.).
Ag Biotech Ethical Arguments: Animals
3. Consequences for ethical framework
–
The extension of rights to non-human entities is
usually well-intended (ie. protection from otherwise
unrestrained interests, a legal – moral – standing for
an entity that cannot speak for itself), but is not
good ethical theory. Rights are extended to
protect an organism’s “moral space” – which
requires that the organism is a moral agent.
Because animals are not potentially capable of
moral deliberation and judgment, they cannot be
moral agents
•
(Tibor Machan 2000. “Do Animals Have Rights?” in James
White Contemporary Moral Problems).
Ag Biotech Ethical Arguments: Animals
3. Consequences for ethical framework
– Rights-based theories are rigid and
ineffective when applied in specific cases
(ie. Should an insect have the same rights
as a monkey? If so, is it morally wrong for us
to drive cars with windshields? What if the
insect carries malaria? Where do you draw
the lines? Sentience? Etc.).
Ag Biotech Ethical Arguments: Virtue
1. Examples:
–
Telos/function, virtuous vs. vicious actions are related to the
character of the moral agent, ‘A new kind of wrong’.
2. Essence of the arguments:
–
Virtuous people do virtuous actions. Vicious people do vicious
actions. When people act selfishly, or without consideration for
their impacts on the world at large, they are acting viciously –
and their actions are wrong. When a scientist genetically
engineers a chicken in such a way as to reduce the function
and/or telos (ie. the purpose and life experience) of the
chicken to the bleak existence of confined egg laying, than the
scientist has committed a moral wrong.
Ag Biotech Ethical Arguments: Virtue
3. General Comments:
– How do we define what is virtuous and what
is vicious in an increasing complex and
diverse world?
– Is this merely a new way of stating an
intrinsic objection to biotechnology?
– How do we measure virtue ethics in such a
way as to incorporate them into policies?
Study Questions
•
Provide an example of an action that is good or bad,
but not necessarily morally right or wrong.
•
What are the advantages and disadvantages of
character-based and analytical ethical theories for use
in evaluating the applications of agricultural
biotechnology?
•
A substantial amount of the confusion over the ethics
of agricultural biotechnology deals with the correlated
issues of risk and uncertainty. What type of ethical
argument seems most reasonable to you in light of
uncertainty? Justify your answer.