Ethics and war challenge biologists

War with Iraq created both logistical difficulties and a new layer of relevance for this year's annual American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) meeting, held March 21-23 in Arlington, Va. Titled "Bioethics in a Changing World," the meeting brought together a small group of ecologists, plant biologists, organismic biologists, environmental scientists, and others to discuss ethical issues that impact their work and respective fields.According to Gene Likens, AIBS immediate past-president and director of the Institute for Ecosystem Studies, meeting organizers consciously chose to focus on topics other than the usual biomedical ethics fare of stem cells and cloning. Instead, they examined issues of particular interest to AIBS members: analysis and reporting of data, public dissemination of scientific information, training the next generation of scientists in bioethics and ethical use of land. Executive director Richard O'Grady noted that convincing biologists that bioethics was an important meeting topic, relevant to their day-to-day research, was a bit tougher than drumming up interest for past topics, such as last year's "evolution" theme. A much bigger problem, however, turned out to be concern over travel safety. Though organizers achieved their target enrollment of 250, about half canceled or didn't show largely due to the fact that most were due to travel just as US troops entered Iraq. Organizers did consider canceling the meeting, but decided against it. Two of the 15 invited speakers canceled. Some of the issues discussed had particular relevance given current events. In a session on ethical challenges faced by journal editors, panelist Timothy Beardsley, editor of the AIBS flagship journal Bioscience, wondered about the degree to which he should be screening for sensitive information that might be misused by bioterrorist hopefuls. Because Bioscience does not publish primary research findings, Beardsley said he initially thought it wasn't an issue. But then he looked back at a section published last summer that included agricultural concepts which could have served as inspiration for terrorism. Panelist Robert Sprinkle of the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland suggested that some screen was in fact necessary since even review articles may "connect the dots" of research findings in potentially dangerous ways. Such concerns echo the guidelines recently introduced by a group of high-profile primary research journals. Paul Ehrlich, a professor of population studies at Stanford University, began the meeting with a less than subtle denunciation of the war, arguing that the ways in which war scars the Earth, whether by polluting oil fields or potentially via nuclear weapons, are very relevant to environmental conservation. Ethical analysis of many issues is lacking in our society, said Ehrlich, outspoken author of the 1968 book, The Population Bomb. He presented a scenario: Suppose one's child falls ill with a high fever. The doctor doesn't guess that the cause of the illness is bacterial, but takes a swab to make sure. Does he administer an antibacterial in the meantime just in case, even given the slim chances that a bacterial infection, if present, would lead to major problems? Considering the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant microbes, the evolutionary argument says no; of course, the child's family most likely says yes.Arturo Gómez-Pompa, a professor of botany at the University of California, Riverside, elaborated on the problematic issues of "bioprospecting" and "biopiracy." Increasingly, scientists hoping to collect specimens in developing countries rich in flora and fauna are being met with major bureaucratic barriers. Local governments are afraid that their biological riches will be stolen without compensation — sometimes justifiably so. But high permit costs and intellectual property restrictions have gone too far, said Gómez-Pompa. "Biodiversity nationalism is becoming a popular scapegoat for the fundamental problems of inequality, poverty, social injustice, corruption, and exploitation that are prevalent around the world," he told participants. "Why is the world so cynical? Have we gone mad?"Possible remedies for the problem, he suggested, are: reducing "the obscene debt" of underdeveloped countries, greater responsibility from food-related corporations, better educational opportunities for young people from traditional indigenous communities in hopes that they become researchers and teachers of their own culture and honest, fair dealings with indigenous societies. Gómez-Pompa cited the El Eden ecological reserve in Mexico as one sort of novel approach. The reserve aims to develop an alternative model of a protected area, one that's non-governmental, small, research-education oriented, self-sustained and low-maintenance.Hoping to lay the groundwork for a more responsible biology, Columbia University philosopher of biology Philip Kitcher presented a highly idealistic set of goals for a better kind of science. He argued that science, and biology in particular, would benefit from striving toward what he called "well-ordered science." Rather than subscribing to the historically popular notions of the scientist as a kind of secular priest or purveyor of truth, Kitcher presented a conception of scientists as artisans working for the public good. As such, he argued, they should study and devote resources in such a way that will best satisfy the needs of all humanity. He cited, for example, the disconnect between the amount of research being done on diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, AIDS and diarrhea, and their global impact — though treatable with Western medicine, these illnesses still kill millions annually in developing nations. Either the infrastructure of industrialized nations must be reconstructed, asserted Kitcher, or researchers must find new ways of fighting disease in the environments where they're most prevalent.As part of a session titled "Training the Next Generation," National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Alberts identified three threats to expanding science as a global public good: limited accessibility to the scientific literature, especially in developing countries, excessive intellectual property protections and a system that fails to harness the idealism of young students to educate them about bioethics issues. University of Pennsylvania bioethics professor David Magnus emphasized that bioethics training should not only "raise the floor" to ensure a minimal level of compliance with certain ethical rules, but should "raise the ceiling" as well in order to inculcate important values into students.

Ethics and war challenge biologists

Despite low turnout, ideals and impassioned discussion dominate AIBS meeting.

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of