Ethicists race to keep pace with advances in biotechnology

Biotechnology races ahead, ethics follows and popular opinion lags behind, sometimes tempted by, but often wary of, the science's new capabilities.

Or at least that's one picture that could be drawn from panellists who addressed ethical issues at BIO 2002, the international biotechnology conference that attracted more than 15 000 delegates to Toronto in June.

“Science time” is fast time, says Margaret Somerville, a professor at the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, while “ethics time” involves “long discussion and deliberation and feeling about the issues, not just thinking about them.”

Education might help. Mark Rothstein, director of the Institute for Bioethics, Health Policy and Law at the University of Louisville, Ky., noted a need for increased public education about the science of genetics.

He said a US study that gauged public opinion on genetic research for pharmacogenomic products showed that “the public is very concerned about these issues. But oftentimes they don't understand them. They confuse all genetic research with cloning, which is on the top of their lists of concern.”

Somerville noted that a recent study indicated that the more Canadians learned about xenotransplantation, the more they opposed it.

However, information can also lead to acceptance. Andrew Scheinman, a lawyer with a doctorate in biology and molecular biology, described the nonmedical uses of biotechnology that involve commodities — genetically engineered pets, for example. Commodification may lead to increased consumer familiarity and greater acceptance of biotechnology, he said.

One analogy is the arrival of the personal computer, which arguably brought the computer from the military–industrial complex into the home.

For Somerville, the issue of biotechnology's impact on the future is critical. “It's not enough to think what will personally benefit me or what's good for a business opportunity. We have to realize that this technology ... has an impact on our deepest values, attitudes and beliefs as individuals and as [a] society.”

Researchers in Australia have already addressed these issues. Panellist John Mattick, codirector of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland, described a simple code of ethical practice for biotechnology developed there (www .bio tech .qld .gov .au /corporate /bookshop - Bio Tech .html # coe). It includes sections on genetically modified organisms, intellectual property rights and cloning. — Alex Robinson, Ottawa