s Science Dangerous?
by Prof. Lewis Wolpert
Dept. of Anatomy and Developmental Biology
University College London, Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT
人类社会需要保护以抵挡科学发展带来的危险吗?当然不需要,只要科学家及其雇主们致力于公开他们所知道的一切详情。
知识是危险的这一观念在我们的文化中根深蒂固。圣经中的亚当和夏娃被禁食“智慧之树”上的果实,而弥尔顿《失乐园》中的蛇将此树称为“科学之母”。当亚当试图向天使长拉斐尔询问有关宇宙本质的问题时,拉斐尔建议他最好“知之甚少”。事实上,西方文献中有大量关于科学家扰乱自然界,而后导致灾难后果的记载。科学家被描绘成一群冷酷和无视伦理道德的人。
那么科学真地是危险的吗?科学家需要肩负起特定的社会责任吗?我们必须认识到,可靠的科学知识并不负载道德或伦理的价值。科学只告诉我们世界为何等模样:我们人类不处于宇宙的中心这一事实本身无好坏之分;基因会影响我们的智力和行为这一可能性亦无优劣之别。
The idea that scientific knowledge is dangerous is deeply embedded in
Western culture. Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from the Tree of
Knowledge, and in “Milton's Paradise Lost” the serpent addresses the
Tree as the 'Mother of Science'. Indeed the whole of Western literature
has not been kind to scientists and is filled with images of scientists
meddling with nature with disastrous results. Just consider Shelley's
Frankenstein, Goethe's Faust, and Huxley's Brave New World. One will
search with very little success for a novel in which scientists come out
well - the persistent image is that of scientists as a soulless group,
unconcerned with ethical issues. And where is there a movie sympathetic
to science? Scientists are perceived as middle-aged, emotionally
impaired, and dangerous males.
Technology is not science
Yet, reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and has no moral or
ethical value. Science tells us how the world is. That we are not at the
centre of the universe is neither good nor bad, nor is the possibility that
genes can influence our intelligence or our behaviour. Dangers and
ethical issues only arise when science is applied as technology. However
ethical issues can arise in actually doing the scientific research, such as
doing experiments on humans or animals, as well as issues related to
safety.
The problem is the conflation of science and technology. The distinction
between science and technology, between knowledge and understanding
on the one hand, and the application of that knowledge to making
something, or using it in some practical way, is fundamental. Science
produces ideas about how the world works, whereas the ideas in
technology result in usable objects. Technology is much older than
anything one could regard as science and unaided by any science,
technology gave rise to the crafts of early humans, like agriculture and
metalworking. Science made virtually no contribution to technology until
the 19th century. And even the great triumphs of engineering like the
steam engine and Renaissance cathedrals were built without virtually any
impact of science. It was imaginative trial and error. It is technology that
carries with it ethical issues, from motorcars to polluting the environment,
and the weapons of war.
But are scientists for the applications of science? In a recent issue of the
journal Science the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Sir Joseph Rotblat,
proposes a Hippocratic oath for scientists. He is strongly opposed to the
idea that science is neutral and that scientists are not to be blamed for its
misapplication. Therefore he proposes an oath, or pledge, initiated by the
Pugwash Group in the United States. I promise to work for a better
world, where science and technology are used in socially responsible
ways. I will not use my education for any purpose intended to harm
human beings or the environment. Throughout my career, I will consider
the ethical implications of my work before I take action. While the
demands placed upon me might be great, I sign this declaration because I
recognise that individual responsibility is the first step on the path to
peace.
These are indeed noble aims to which all citizens should wish to
subscribe, but it does present some severe difficulties in relation to
science. Rotblat does not want to distinguish between scientific
knowledge and its applications, but the very nature of science is that it is
not possible to predict what will be discovered or how these discoveries
could be applied. Cloning provides a nice example. The original studies
related to cloning were largely the work of biologists in the 1960s. They
were studying how frog embryos develop and wanted to find out if genes,
which are located in the cell nucleus, were lost or permanently turned off
as the embryo developed. It was incidental to the experiment that the frog
that developed was a clone of the animal from which the nucleus was
obtained. The history of science is filled with such examples.
The poet Paul Valery's remark that 'We enter the future backwards' is
very apposite in relation to the possible applications of science. Scientists
cannot easily predict the social and technological implications of their
current research. It was originally argued that radio waves would have no
practical applications and Lord Rutherford said that applications of
atomic energy was moonshine. There was again, no way that those
investigating the ability of certain bacteria to resist infection by viruses
would lead to the discovery of restriction enzymes, an indispensable tool
for cutting up DNA, the genetic material which is fundamental to genetic
engineering.
Social obligation of scientists
The social obligations that scientists have as distinct from those
responsibilities they share with all citizens, such as supporting a
democratic society and taking due care of the rights of others, comes
from them having access to specialised knowledge of how the world
works not being easily accessible to others. Their obligation is to both
make public any social implications of their work and its technological
applications, and to give some assessment of its reliability. In most areas
of science, it matters little to the public whether a particular theory is
right or wrong, but in some areas such as human and plant genetics, it
matters a great deal. Whatever new technology is introduced, it is not for
the scientists to make the moral or ethical decisions. They have neither
special rights nor skills in areas involving moral or ethical issues. There is
in fact, a grave danger in asking scientists to be more socially responsible
if that means that they have the right and power to make such decisions
on their own. Moreover, scientists rarely have power in relation to
applications of science; this rests on those with the money - industry and
government. The way scientific knowledge is used raises ethical issues
for everyone involved, not just scientists.
It is not easy to find examples of scientists as a group behaving
immorally or in a dangerous manner - BSE is not an example - but the
classic was the eugenics movement. The scientific assumptions behind
this proposal are crucial; the assumption is that most desirable and
undesirable human attributes are inherited. Not only was talent perceived
as being inherited, but so too were pauperism, insanity and any kind of
so-called feeblemindedness. They completely failed to give an
assessment of the reliability of their ideas. Quite to the contrary, and
even more blameworthy, their conclusions seem to have been driven by
what they saw as the desirable social implications. By contrast in relation
to the building of the atomic bomb, the Allied scientists behaved morally
and fulfilled their social obligations by informing their governments
about the implications of atomic theory. The decision to build the bomb
was taken by politicians, not scientists, and it was an enormous
engineering enterprise. Had they decided not to participate in building an
atomic weapon that could have led to losing the war. Should scientists on
their own ever be entitled to make such decisions?
Genetics and cloning
Mary Shelley would be both proud and shocked. Her creation of a
scientist creating and meddling with human life has become the most
potent symbol of modern science. But shocked because her brilliant
fantasy has become so distorted that even those who are normally quite
sensible lose all sense when the idea of cloning humans appears before
them. The image of Frankenstein has been turned by the media into
genetic pornography, whose real aim is to titillate, excite, and frighten.
The bio-moralists are triumphant with the aid of genetic pornography to
titillate and frighten, purveyed by the media.
Ironically, the real clone of sheep has seen the media blindly and
unthinkingly following each other - how embarrassed Dolly ought to be.
The moral masturbators have been out in force telling us of the horrors of
cloning. Jeremy Rifkin in the USA demanded a world wide ban and
suggests that it should carry a penalty on a par with rape, child abuse and
murder. Many others, national leaders included, have joined in that
chorus of horror. But what horrors? What ethical issues? In all the
righteous indignation, I have not found a single relevant new ethical issue
spelled out.
It seems distasteful, but the 'yuck' factor is however not a reliable basis
for making judgments. There may be no genetic relation between a
mother and a cloned child, but that is true of adoption and cases of IVF.
Identical twins, who are a clone are not uncommon, and this upsets no
one except the hard stressed parents. What fantasy is it that so upsets
people? Say that one could clone Richard Dawkins, who seems to quite
like the idea, how terrible would that be? While genes are very
important, so is the environment, and since his whole upbringing would
be completely different and he might even have a religious disposition -
clones might make very rebellious children. Indeed the feelings that a
cloned child might have about its individuality must be taken into
account. However, this is an issue common to several other types of
assisted reproduction such as surrogate mothers and anonymous sperm
donors. I am against cloning as it carries a high risk of abnormalities.
Those who propose to clone a human are medical technologists not
scientists.
The really important issue is how the child will be cared for. Given the
terrible things that humans are reported to do each other and even to
children, cloning should take a very low priority in our list of anxieties.
Or perhaps it is a way of displacing our real problems with unreal ones.
Having a child raises real ethical problems as it is parents who play God,
not scientists. Here lies a bitter irony. A parent's relation to a child is
infinitely more God-like than anything that scientists may discover.
Parents hold tremendous power over young children. They do not always
exercise it to the child's benefit.
In regard to therapeutic cloning for stem cells, for example, I find the
ethical discussions hard to follow. They are based on the false view that
the fertilised egg is a human being. Would one not rather accept a
thousand abortions and the destruction of all unwanted frozen embryos
than a single unwanted child who will be neglected or abused? I take the
same view in regard to severely crippling and painful genetic diseases.
On what ground should parents be allowed to have a severely disabled
child when it could be relatively easily prevented by prenatal diagnosis?
It is nothing to do with consumerism but the interests and rights of the
child.
It is not, as the bio-moralists claim, that scientific innovation has
outstripped our social and moral codes. Just the opposite is the case.
Their obsession with the life of the embryo has deflected our attention
away from the real issue, which is how the babies that are born are raised
and nurtured. The ills in our society have nothing to do with assisting or
preventing reproduction but are profoundly affected by how children are
treated. Children that are abused grow up to abuse others.
So what dangers does genetics and embryo research pose? Bioethics is a
growth industry but one should regard the field with caution as the
bioethicists have a vested interest in finding difficulties. Moreover, it is
hard to see what contribution they have made. Some of these common
fears are little more than science fiction at present, like cloning enormous
numbers of genetically identical individuals. Who would the mothers be,
and where would they go to school? In fact it is quite amusing to observe
the swing from moralists who deny that genes have an important effect on
behaviour to saying that a cloned individual's behaviour will be entirely
determined by the individual's genetic make-up. Gene therapy,
introducing genes to cure a genetic disease like cystic fibrosis carries
risks as does all new medical treatments. There may well be problems
with insurance and testing, but are these any different from those related
to someone suspected of having AIDS? Anxieties about designer babies
are at present premature as it is far too risky, and we may have, in the first
instance, to accept what Ronald Dworkin has called procreative
autonomy, a couple's right 'to control their own role in procreation unless
the state has a compelling reason for denying them that control'.
One must wonder why the bio-moralists do not devote their attention to
other technical advances like that convenient form of transport which
claims over fifty thousand killed or seriously injured each year. Could it
be that in this case they themselves would be inconvenienced?
Embryology and genetics, in striking contrast, have not harmed anyone.
Should the so-called ethical issues relating to the applications of genetics,
for example, lead to stopping research in this field? The individual
scientist cannot decide for a science like genetics is a collective activity
with no single individual controlling the process of discovery. I regard it
as ethically unacceptable and impractical to censor any aspect of trying to
understand the nature of our world.
Politicians and politics
John Carey, a professor of English in Oxford, in his introduction to the
Faber Book of Science writes: The real antithesis of science seems to be
not theology but politics. Whereas science is a sphere of knowledge and
understanding, politics is a sphere of opinion. He goes on to point out
that politics depends on rhetoric, opinion, and conflict. It also aims to
coerce people. Politics, I would add, is also about power and the ability to
influence other people's lives. Science, ultimately is about consensus as to
how the world works and if the history of science were rerun, its course
would be very different but the conclusions would be the same – water,
for example, would be two hydrogens combined with one oxygen and
DNA the genetic material, though the names would not be similar.
There are surveys that show some distrust of scientists particularly those
in government and industry. This probably relates to BSE and GM foods
and so one must ask how this in fact affects people's behaviour. I need to
be persuaded that many of those who have this claimed distrust would
refuse, if ill, to take a drug that had been made from a genetically
modified plant or would reject a tomato so modified that is was both
cheap and would help prevent heart disease. Who refuses insulin or
growth hormone because it is made in genetically modified bacteria? It is
easy to be negative about science if it does not affect your actions.
Cloning of a human raises no new ethical issues, and should be opposed
on the ground of the risk of the child developing abnormally. Therapeutic
cloning to make stem cells that could provide tissues to replace damaged
organs without the increased risk of immune rejection raises no such
problems. No politician has publicly pointed out or even understood that
the so-called ethical issues involved in therapeutic cloning are
indistinguishable from those that are involved in in vitro fertilisation,
IVF. One could even argue that IVF is less ethical than therapeutic
cloning. But no reasonable person could possibly want to ban IVF that
has helped so many infertile couples. Where are the politicians who will
stand up and say this?
Science and society
Genetically modified foods have raised extensive public concerns and
there seems no alternative but to rely on regulatory bodies to assess their
safety as they do with other foods, and similar considerations apply to the
release of genetically modified organisms. Genetic engineering requires
considerable scientific and technical knowledge and even more important
money, which scientists in general do not have. Indeed, for the public
sector, the applications of genetics and molecular biology can open up
difficult choices because such applications are expensive
New medical treatments, requiring complex technology, cannot be given
to all. There has to be some principle of rationing and this really does
pose serious moral and ethical dilemmas much more worthy of
consideration than the dangers posed by genetic engineering.
Are there areas of research that are so socially sensitive that research into
them should be avoided, even proscribed? One possible area is that of the
genetic basis of intelligence and particularly the possible link between
race and intelligence. Are there then, as the literary critic George Steiner
has argued, 'certain orders of truth which would infect the marrow of
politics and would poison beyond all cure the already tense relations
between social classes and these communities'? In short, are there doors
immediately in front of current research, which should be marked 'Too
dangerous to open'? I realise the dangers, but I cherish the openness of
scientific investigation too much to put up such a notice. I stand by the
distinction between knowledge of the world and how it is used. So I must
say 'No' to Steiner's question. Provided of course that scientists fulfil their
social obligations. The main reason is that the better understanding we
have of the world, the better chance we have of making a just society, the
better chance we have of improving living conditions. One should not
abandon the possibility of doing good by applying some scientific idea
because one can also use it to do bad. All techniques can be abused and
there is no knowledge or information that is not susceptible to
manipulation for evil purposes. I can do terrible damage to someone with
my glasses used as a weapon. Once one begins to censor the acquisition
of reliable scientific knowledge, one is on the most slippery of slippery
slopes.
To those who doubt whether the public or politicians are capable of
taking the correct decisions in relation to science and its applications, I
strongly commend the advice of Thomas Jefferson. 'I know no safe
depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people
themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise that
control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their direction.' But how does one ensure that the
public is involved in decision making? How can we ensure that
scientists, doctors, engineers, bio-ethicists and other experts, who must be
involved, do not appropriate decision making for themselves? How do we
ensure that scientists take on the social obligation of making the
implications of their work public? We have to rely on the many
institutions of a democratic society: parliament, a free and vigorous press,
affected groups, and the scientists themselves.