"
Team:KU Leuven/Human Practices/Ethics/Normative/Justice
From 2013.igem.org
Secret garden
Congratulations! You've found our secret garden! Follow the instructions below and win a great prize at the World jamboree!
- A video shows that two of our team members are having great fun at our favourite company. Do you know the name of the second member that appears in the video?
- For one of our models we had to do very extensive computations. To prevent our own computers from overheating and to keep the temperature in our iGEM room at a normal level, we used a supercomputer. Which centre maintains this supercomputer? (Dutch abbreviation)
- We organised a symposium with a debate, some seminars and 2 iGEM project presentations. An iGEM team came all the way from the Netherlands to present their project. What is the name of their city?
Now put all of these in this URL:https://2013.igem.org/Team:KU_Leuven/(firstname)(abbreviation)(city), (loose the brackets and put everything in lowercase) and follow the very last instruction to get your special jamboree prize!
Proportionality
Is the release of our project into commercialisation and therefore an inevitable release in the environment justifiable?” Or to put it even more directly: “Are the benefits proportional to the risks?” Our approach might not be the best alternative, but to find out what is, we need to foster research both in the field of synthetic biology and other fields of science. In light of our responsibility to current and future generations.
Justice is the third major ethical topic in synthetic biology and in the end our entire evaluation boils down to this core question: “If our bacterium is mass produced, there will be an inevitable release in the environment. Can we and how can we justify this release?” Or to put it even more directly: “Are the benefits proportional to the risks?” Proportionality is defined by T. Bubela et al. as follows: “Proportionality defines that the response to a new invention should be proportional in balancing risks to health and the environment against the potential benefits of research and novel technologies. It concerns the rightness of the response in balancing the risks and potential benefits and should consider public beneficence; impact on human rights, for example, on health, housing, water and security, responsible stewardship and impact on future generations” (Bubela T. et al., 2012).
The difficulty lies in the fact that the aimed benefits are vast, but the risks largely unknown and hard to quantify. These risks are often referred to as low-probability, potentially high-impact events (the Presidential Commission for the study of Bioethical issues. 2010).
However, let us first consider the possible benefits. This project was created with the intention of tackling some of the great international problems we face today, namely food shortage. The eradication of extreme hunger and poverty is millennium goal no. 1 of the UN. Approximately 870 million people in the world do not have enough to eat and hunger kills more people each year than AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined (millenniumgoals ) ( world Food Program). Moreover, regions with high starvation risks also suffer most from wrongfully applied pesticides with consequences for human health. Our aim, to reduce the consequences of aphid infestations in a durable way is also in line with the global justice discourse. This affects the questions of inter-generational justice, by preserving the environment and natural resources for future generations. Another important aspect is social justice as we will explain below. (EgE, Opinion no. 25., 2009). We hope to increase crop revenues, decrease the burden on the environment caused by pesticides and thuspreserve biodiversity,as mentioned when we discussed biosafety. Global justice however also requires an equal distribution of both burdens and benefits, for this we refer to the paragraph about distributive justice.
For detailed data on the impact of aphid infestation on agriculture see here.
Only further research will show whether our approach will offer a valid alternative to the current use of pesticides. We understand and respect the current unwillingness of the general public towards GMO’s. However, we believe we also have a responsibility to current and future generations. We therefore strongly advice against a full moratorium on GMO research and on the commercialization of potential results if the only reason would be uncertainty with regards to possible risks. It would deny current and future generation access to all of the possible benefits. We believe that continued research and commercialization is justifiable, providing strong ethical and scientific controls are kept in place.
The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission has opted for a precautionary approach to this new science. However, as stated by the group itself: long-term health-related risks associated with the ecological effects of synthetic biology are hard to predict. (EgE, Opinion no. 25., 2009). What is a justifiable amount of risk? An overly restrictive approach will mitigate research possibilities and never lead to more insight in these long term effects. The precautionary principle does not aim for this scenario but given a strict interpretation (a full moratorium) it could prohibit every action (and inaction) and therefore offer no action guidance at all (Holm S., Harris J., 1999).
Therefore we find ourselves leaning towards prudent vigilance and regulatory parsimony, as stated by The Presidential Commission for the study of Bioethical issues. Here responsible stewardship is balanced with intellectual freedom for continued investigation, establishing only as much oversight as is necessary to ensure public safety and public benefits from the technology (Gutmann A., 2011) (Erickson B. et al., 2011).
We are aware that our current data are insufficient to authorize a commercial release, but in the regulatory setting we discussed here, we would have the opportunity to perform the necessary studies to chart potential risks but also benefits.
Distributive justice (and social justice)
All those who will or should benefit and all those who can be adversely affected by our project should have input in the decision making processes (Bubela T. et al., 2012). This is accomplished by creating an open community that fosters ethical discussion, promotes the exchange of knowledge and actively seeks interaction with the public and the relevant actors in different fields, different socio-economic classes and not only the first but also the third world.
Another essential requirement for the above mentioned global justice is of course a widespread and generally accessible technology. The equitable distribution of benefits and burdens (Bubela T. et al., 2012) is an intrinsic part of justice. It is all too easy to focus on the environmental effects of a project and forget about equally important social factors and distributive justice. Those aspects will become even more important when the question shifts from “Should we release this project in the environment?” to “How should we do this?” and “Is the benefit equally distributed?” We aim to help in the global problem of food shortage in a world with a growing population, but will our system reach those areas where the shortage is the greatest? Our product will have to be cheap, easy to transport and easy to apply if we want to achieve distributive justice. Even cooperation with industries makes it more likely that only they will benefit in the beginning. By acknowledging the importance of distributive justice in synthetic biology, we can ensure that we effectively aid in reducing food shortages and not only increase the crop revenue of those who already have enough.
A possible way to ensure one aspect of distributive justice is by applying procedural justice. All those who will or should benefit and all those who can be adversely affected by our project should have input in the decision making processes (Bubela T. et al., 2012). This is accomplished by creating an open community that fosters ethical discussion, promotes the exchange of knowledge and actively seeks interaction with the public. This includes all relevant actors and organizations, not only in the first but also in the third world. Some examples would be “de Voedselbank”; the WHO (World Health Organization) and Unicef; all of which would represent different members of the public. Ofcourse also the current key industrial pesticide producers would be an invited organization.
References
Directorate-General for Health and Consumers. (2009). EU ACTION ON PESTICIDES “our food has become greener”.
Erickson B., Singh R., Winters P. (2011). Synthetic Biology: regulating industry uses of new Biotechnologies. Science, 333(6047), 1254-1256.
Gutmann A. (2011). The ethics of synthetic Biology: Guideline Principles for Emerging Technologies. Hastings Center Report 41, (4), 17-22.
Holm S., Harris J.(1999). Precautionary principle stifles discovery. Nature, 400, 398.
The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission. (2009). Ethics of synthetic biology Opinion no. 25 (http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/publications/opinions/index_en.htm)
The Presidential Commission for the study of Bioethical issues. (2010). New directions: the Ethics of synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies.
United Nations. (Retrieved Aug 25, 2013)
World Food Program. (Retrieved Aug 25, 2013)
