 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Genetic engineering - an overview5. GENETIC ENGINEERING AND ETHICS (a) Because it can be done, should it be done? The development of gene technology has prompted more calls for moratoria than any other branch of research. Genetic engineering differs from other scientific disciplines in that it modifies organisms. No other research tool has come so close to changing the essence of life and many applications of GE have therefore sparked a wide range of ethical concerns. Although many would describe genetic engineering as a logical extension of conventional breeding, some GE organisms are never likely to have evolved naturally. GE makes possible deliberate changes, some of which cross larger distances between species than nature could make in only one step. We must consider moral, political and community aspects of genetic engineering alongside the purely scientific issues. The use of genetically modified foods, for example, depends in the end on public perception and it is thus important to look at these issues in context. Good science is not necessarily the only yardstick by which genetic engineering will be judged in this arena. Gene technology is a modern science. Many experiments carried out over the last fifteen years or so were designed to increase fundamental understanding of biological systems. More recent, and higher profile, mammalian studies have been more closely associated with possible applications. While many of the immediate concerns refer to the public health and environmental safety of GMOs, the debate surrounding genetic engineering has widened to include ethical and moral challenges. Maori concerns about the disruption to essential belief systems and the exploitation of indigenous knowledge add a unique aspect to the ethical debate in New Zealand. (b) New choices, new challenges Biotechnology will add choice to people's lives. For example, genetic testing of embryos will give prospective parents more options about which children they want to conceive or bear, or how to respond to known increased risks of some disease. New birth technologies will allow people to deal differently with fertility issues and xeno-transplantation will give some individuals new therapies to prolong life. But these added options also mean that people will have to grapple with new issues. How many of the choices are for the individual to make and which ones the wider public or community should regulate? While many options will have clear benefits for the individual, some have wider social ramifications. Recent examples include the use of embryonic stem cells in research and medicine. The advantage of embryonic stem cells is that can develop into any kind of specialised tissue in the body and could therefore be useful for growing replacement skin, nerve tissue, or any other organ. Scientists also use such cells to study the genetic regulation of early development and to work out how these cellular all-rounders grow into highly specialised cells which may perform only one of a myriad possible functions. As each cell contains a copy of the entire human genome, vast parts of it must be silenced in any type of specialised cell. Understanding the mechanisms behind the process will add to our options for treating conditions such as cancer and a range of inherited diseases. However, ethicists warn that parallel to such progress, life will lose a lot of its mystery and spiritual depth and could become nothing more than a commodity. Britain, America have already put regulatory frameworks in place for the use of embryonic stem cells in research and medicine. In New Zealand that debate continues. Biotechnology is stimulating fast social changes, putting pressure on traditional social relationships. For instance, fertility clinics in New Zealand are now asking for access to the latest technologies for testing embryos before they are implanted in the womb. So far, if any genetic testing were done at all, it would be done in utero, at a point where the embryo was already well established. The advantage of pre-implantation tests is that any genetic defects are detected early and parents are spared the pain of having to consider a termination. But the ethical dilemma of such early intervention was highlighted recently when an American couple designed a baby to produce a suitable donor for their older child who was suffering from a genetic disease. The couple produced as many embryos as necessary to find the optimal gene combination to make their new child a perfect genetic match for the older sibling. The couple concerned assured doctors that they wanted another child anyway, but decided to use technology to make sure the new family member was also useful. Such development will create new dynamics in social relationships and will inevitably shape society's attitudes towards disease and disability. In another example, the social role and economic future of small farmers is changing rapidly through the expanding role of large multi-national companies in seed production and their control over seed development through patenting of any newly developed material. Changes in family structure, attitude to health and disability, and the social role of farmers have been taking place at all times and have continued to shift society values, but biotechnology is accelerating the process. Two main strands of ethics have developed around life sciences. Bioethics emerged in the 1970s in the context of medical developments; environmental ethics is a more recent area associated with the increasing awareness of the functions of ecosystems. Bioethics emerged in response to the impact of technology on medicine and the abuse of human subjects during research. In New Zealand this has led to the development of ethics committees and the requirement for any new health research proposal to gain ethical approval before any funds are granted. The patient-doctor relationship is marked by the inequity of power, but is also bound by the ethics of care and the do-no-harm principle that underlies all medical professions. Animal welfare has also become an issue in the context of gene technology. Animals are being used both as research subjects and as living factories for the production of new drugs. The loudest criticism is directed against projects that use animals not commonly used in research, such as the AgResearch project involving double muscled sheep, described above. Here, the fact that double-muscling caused birthing problems in the cattle, resulting in a higher number of Caesarian sections, and the likelihood of the same problems occurring in sheep was one of the issues that ERMA had to consider during the application process. Other bodies dealing with animal ethics in New Zealand are the animal ethics committees that operate under the Animal Protection Act and the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART), whose mission is to promote excellence in the care of animals used in research and teaching and to ensure that the outcomes of scientific uses of animals are worthwhile. People have always looked for better ways to cope with nature and to enhance human survival and health. Gene technology adds a new tool to this quest but, because it creates new strains of living organisms, its impact will be on the entire biosphere. Environmental ethics draws on definitions of nature and creation, which differ for almost every culture so, in contrast to bioethics, environmental ethics is more influenced by religious and spiritual traditions. Environmental ethicists are often critical of the focus on the individual that dominates much of bioethics, as they pay more attention to the consequent changes to wider social groupings and the well-being of the non-human world. Environmental ethics is also more concerned about consequences across time, most clearly illustrated in considerations about how we change the world, and what options we leave for future generations. Maori and other indigenous peoples are increasingly raising concerns about the misappropriation of indigenous knowledge and the use of genetic resources by biotechnology companies. In New Zealand, this led to the Waitangi Tribunal 262 claim on indigenous flora and fauna. The claim, lodged in 1991 and still awaiting resolution, argues that the Crown has failed to protect the rangatiratanga (sovereignty) of Maori over both their genetic resources and the cultural knowledge linked to those resources. Such concerns echo those voiced by other indigenous groups who fear that researchers are taking advantage of traditional knowledge and are accessing plants and animals that may be useful for developing new pharmaceuticals or other products. In addition to this general concern, Maori are calling for wider and more thorough consultation for the sharing of benefits (monetary and skill transfer) arising from any research and the ability to maintain intellectual property rights. Many Maori also have strong objections to gene technology because they see it as a breach of their spiritual belief systems and therefore as a moral and cultural offence. In Maori mythology plants and people have a common origin, both being offspring of Tane as the controller of forests and fertilisation. Maori see trees as living forms senior in status to people because Tane created plant life before people. They are therefore respected as relatives, as the link between people and their sacred ancestors. This sense of relatedness between people and nature creates a feeling of belonging to nature as an integral part, rather than being a separate element. The basis for many of the Maori cultural objections varies among iwi, but most arise from concerns about breaches to whakapapa (genealogy), mauri (life forces), kaitiakitanga (guardianship) and rangatiratanga (chieftanship, sovereignty). A field trial of genetically engineered cows raised particularly strong objections within the Maori community. The cows are engineered to carry a human gene so that they produce a human protein in their milk that is being investigated as a possible therapeutic for people with multiple sclerosis. But, for many Maori, such crosses from humans to animals are offensive because they disrupt the line of whakapapa. Other projects, such as the gene mapping of tuatara, kokako and the saddleback, have sparked criticism because they are seen as a breach of Maori sovereignty over native species. In 1992, the Maori Congress of New Zealand submitted a report to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, in which the adequate participation of the people most affected by biotechnology (especially when applied to indigenous plants and animals) was called for. The balance of nature is important for a people, like the Maori, who have always lived close to the land. In a workshop held under the auspices of the Royal Society, Aroha Te Pareake Mead said, "As a Maori consumer, I am not convinced that year-round accessibility of seasonal foods is a benefit. I don't regard the fact that I can't have these foods all year round as a problem. I associate all these resources as indicative of a season, and within my cultural framework there are lessons to be learned about the life cycle, sustainable management, and protocols for gathering, that are superior to the value to the taste of those foods in my puku. The seasons, food sources, medicinal sources, harvesting, nurturing are what form my cultural heritage." For many, genetic engineering crosses from a simple opinion (whether based on fear or scientific curiosity) into more complex areas. The legislation covering ERMA requires that the authority take advice on Maori issues. The body providing such advice is Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao. (i) Is GE helping the Third World? Most of the world's population relies on farming, forestry and fishing as its main sources of their income. Rapid population growth in the Third World is likely to intensify such activities and the rate of resource extraction from our ecosystem. Some GE crops, designed to grow in areas of low fertility or high salinity and aridity, could alleviate world hunger. Critics argue, however, that such crops would only intensify the trade barriers already in place between the First and Third Worlds. The main concern is that subsistence farmers in the Third World would sink even deeper into dependence, rather than gaining more control over their country's farm production. One area of inequality arises from the fact that major First World nations have increasingly adopted the 'precautionary principle' approach in relation to the environmental and food safety attributes of imports. Meanwhile, many Third World nations lack effective regulatory mechanisms to ensure that their products meet international standards. As a result, any effort to harmonise agrifood standards may, in reality, consolidate and legitimise trade barriers that have existed for centuries. (j) The changing role of science The cultural interpretation of Nature has changed greatly over the centuries. In the middle of the last millennium, Nature had to be appeased and satisfied, and any natural disaster was seen as a sign that some transgression had taken place. Since the seventeenth century, developments in Western science have meant that nature has become something to be used, controlled, subdued and rearranged. Traditionally, Nature was the concern of those entrusted with spiritual and sacred knowledge, but the twentieth century saw this trust turned over to scientific experts and technicians. More recently, it seems the community is beginning to reconsider where to place science on this scale of authority. Some professions, perhaps most notably in medicine, have managed to bridge this gap between the sacred (or moral) and the technical (or profane). Doctors are not only carrying out the technical actions, but also judge the moral significance of their choices and carry the responsibility for them. But when it comes to bigger issues such as end-of-life decisions or prenatal genetic testing, even medicine, and certainly science in general, is often challenged. Scientific thinking is based on inquiry, curiosity, search for evidence, challenging of current theories, and the ongoing search for better explanations-so while it may not be appropriate for science to tell people what ought to be done, it can continue to inform the debate. New Zealand has probably explored the scientific, commercial, social and ethical aspects of Genetic Engineering in greater depth than any other country. In 2001, the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification concluded that the importance of GE technology as a research tool and its commercial use in therapeutic medicine were undisputed and, in their opinion, well-controlled. At the same time, the Commission recognised that applications to farming, food production and, particularly, the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment raised many issues-scientific, social and ethical. These issues have still to be resolved on a case-by-case basis. New Zealand should proceed cautiously, making full use of the opportunities that GE brings, but ensuring that its use is not at the expense of the environment, of unnecessary cultural offence or of alternative methods of agriculture. "Our major conclusion is that New Zealand should keep its options open. It would be unwise to turn our back on the potential advantages on offer, but we should proceed carefully, minimising and managing risks. At the same time, continuation of the development of conventional farming, organics and integrated pest management should be facilitated." (Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, July, 2002.) 
|