Scientists are the witches of the 21st century, a conference in Genoa was told. Sylvia Thompson reports from Italy
We should initiate a debate on the impact of applied scientific research on society, a conference in Genoa, Italy heard last week. The ethics of research should be considered alongside conventional issues related to safety.
Reflecting on the issues raised at Modern Biology and Visions of Humanity, Patrick Cunningham, professor of animal genetics at Trinity College Dublin, suggested a "third layer" of procedures (the first two layers being safety tests and environmental impact assessments) to test the social equity of scientific applications.
"This would be one way to add an ethical dimension to this powerful new double engine of neutral science harnessed to the deployment of global capital which is also ethically neutral," Prof Cunningham told The Irish Times.
"Democratic representatives, philosophers and citizens from all sectors must take part in this debate on the future of science," Federico Mayor, the Spanish politician, academic and former director-general of UNESCO, told the assembled gathering of biologists, philosophers, psychiatrists, theologians and sociologists from Europe and the US.
Speaking during a debate on Life Sciences and Democracy, Massimiano Bucchi, member of the Public Communication of Science and Technology International Scientific Committee added, "Issues about global warming, stem-cell research and GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are not scientific issues, they are political issues, and the dilemma now is that politicians can't decide what to do any more, the scientific experts disagree and consumers are no longer passive, yet we can't turn them into scientific experts."
Taking a more controversial viewpoint, Prof Lewis Wolpert, South African-born professor of anatomy and developmental biology at University College London, who said, "Bioethicists are of no value . . . Reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and ethical issues only arise with the application of science."
Prof Wolpert also said that he believed the public was against GMOs because "they can't see anything in the technology for their benefit" and that "it is irrational to oppose the making of embryonic stem cells if one supports the use of IVF for assisted reproduction because both result in the death of early embryos. You can be against both but not against one of these," he said.
Prof Wolpert continued, "In some ways, scientists are perceived to be the witches of the 21st century - the evil-doers with their magic destroying the environment."
Prof Wolpert said that he believed the best way to inform the public about science is through personal direct contact between the general public and scientists.
Drawing some conclusions from the debate, Prof Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, former Nobel Prize winner and director of the genetics department of the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology at Tubingen University, Germany, said, "It is the responsibility of scientists to tell us where new developments can lead to progress and where they can lead to danger. Then, it is the responsibility of politicians to decide what technologies to use and which ones to avoid."
Modern Biology and Visions of Humanity was organised by Philippe Busquin, the European Commissioner for Research and the European Group on Life Sciences, a scientific think-tank which has organised meetings on stem-cell research, genetics and sustainable agriculture for developing countries.
The proceedings from the conference, held in Genoa, were published in English, French and Italian. The English version, Modern Biology and Visions of Humanity is published by Multi-Science Publishing Ltd.