...in debate:
Ethical perspectives
Different views by
Paul Thompson
New technologies are always surrounded
with uncertainly. We don't know and often can't predict how a new technology
will change our world and our lives. As I've studied food and agricultural biotechnology,
I found three key questions people ask in the face of this uncertainty.
1. How do we decide if biotechnology is
safe to use?
People often take one of two approaches.
- Risk-based decision making.
Some people believe that in cases where the statistical chance of a problem
is low, or where we do not know of any specific problems connected with a
biotechnology project that has clear-cut benefits, we should go forward. They
analyze the risk, and if they can show with a high percentage of confidence
that a particular use of biotechnology won't cause morbidity, mortality or
some other problem, they believe we should use it. The potential benefit to
the public far outweighs the risk, they say.
- The Precautionary Principle. Scholars
don't completely agree on the definition of this approach. However, people
who look at biotechnology from this perspective are generally still searching
for the right reponce to the uncertainty that surrounds use of biotechnology.
Some believe we must prove that biotechnology is absolutely safe before we
use it. They may believe that people making decisions about the use of biotechnology
are not objective in assessing risk.
2. What framework can we use for making
ethical decisions about the use of biotechnology?
I'll describe two typical approaches.
- People taking a utilitarian approach
(consequentialism) look at the consequences of our use of the new technology.
They believe that the course of action that produces the best consequences
is the right course of action to take. They often look at the cost-benefit
ratio.
- People with a neo-Kantian view
believe each action should be consistent with the laws or rules derived from
our ideas of what it means to act morally. They emphasize the attitudes and
intentions of the people who act. They emphasize individual rights and rules
such as informed consent.
3. Should we label genetically
modified (GMO) products?
This is more than a food safety issue, because
some objections to GMO foods grow out of religious views or feelings of repugnance.
Arguements for or against labeling often focus either on safety or on choice
issues, although sometimes not on both simultaneously. Often people who don't
want to label GMO foods are approaching the issue from a different ethical framework
than are those who do want to label.
- Don't label. Because there is
little or no reason to believe that GMO foods present a health risk, it is
better not to label them, say people who oppose labeling. Labeling might suggest
health risks that don't exist. Confusion caused by labeling could keep consumers
from making food choices that would give them better nutrition or value for
their money. These arguements are convincing if you look at the issue through
the eyes of a system of utilitarian ethics. It doesn't necessarily convince
people who take a neo-Kantian view.
- Do label. Individual consumers
should be able to apply their own values as they choose whether or not to
eat GMO foods. People are better served by a system that gives them choices
and lets them act on their preferences. This arguement is particularly convincing
to those who take a neo-Kantian view of the issue.
So what should we do?
My response is that people with different points
of view must listen to each other's concerns and respond in a respectful way.
They also must look critically at their own assumptions. The most appropriate
place for these discussions are scientific and government meetings. We need
to talk. Through discussion our views will sharpen and change. Perhaps we can
find another approach, one that stresses virtuous conduct and community solidarity.
