On the question of ethics in science

It appears that the problem of ethics builds on the assumption that human action can be rational but not necessarily moral or, for lack of a better word, socially responsible. Ethics has been invented to bridge the gap between reason and responsibility, that is, the very gap that it created in the first place. Medical research is a perfect ground for ethics of this kind. It reinforces the belief that science is always rational but that its applications may not be. For example, in terms of stem-cell research, the conclusion that stem-cell research is a good path to follow is claimed to be rationally justifiable. It is the application-phase of this conclusion which may be problematic. 

We do trust our experts. After all, they hold the expertise as to what is right or wrong, at least in the realm of reason, we hope. To continue with the example of stem-cell research, we fail to ask our experts about the potential for failure of the research. We also fail to ask them about any alternatives which may be more promising. And if there are no alternatives, would this not be surprising in itself? We, the lay people, always imagine science as a field of differences rather than of uniformity. If no strong alternatives could be named,  would this be a sign of the strength of medical research or of its weakness?

The structure of TV-debates on stem-cell research always seems to follow a well-worn path. The question around which these debates focus is WHETHER to do stem-cell research or not. The question never is WHY stem-cell research. The promises for a brighter and better health-care are louder than the tiny glimpses of truth revealed by scientists when pressed. Dr Alan Bernstein, President of the Canadian Institute of Health Research, when presented with a medal by the Australian Society for Medical Research in late June admitted himself: "And despite what most people think, we really don't understand most common, serious diseases that afflict humanity" (p. 23; Media Monitors, 20.06.01; Australian Society for Medical Research -website).

In the heat and speed of the debate, the public has no idea what this admission may mean. Is stem-cell research therefore to be a playground for the scientists to find out more about diseases? Are they then to play with embryo cells until, as in the case of experiments involving laboratory animal cruelty and vivisection, the public's hope, patience and tolerance wear out? Whom will we then blame? The scientist or the ethicist? To whom will we turn when the scientists hit the wall? To the scientist or the ethicist? But can we trust the ethicist? Does he/she hold the power to tell what is right and what is wrong? 

Decisions will have to be made and the public cannot be excluded. But, as John R. Saul asks in Voltaire's Bastards, 1991, are scientists members of the public too? Should the public therefore be simply informed and lobbied or are scientists also responsible to themselves as members of the public and therefore as more than just followers of the current trends in their profession? Furthermore, informed decisions do not necessarily imply decisions which are unscientific. As history shows, Nature always manages to escape even the most precise definitions and paradigms. There may be no shame in reflection after all. 

History is filled with examples when the dichotomies between ethics and science, experts and non-experts, leaders and followers were called upon in order to create a gap between what seemed rational and what seemed moral. It would appear that we reinvent our ethics every time we fail to critically reflect upon the stakes that motivate us (cf. J.R. Saul, On equilibrium). It is very hard to reflect. In the context of stem cell research, it is easier to take a position (pro or against) rather than to reflect upon and illustrate the forms of investment that this research model both reproduces and, by the same token, inhibits.

Is the task of such a reflection a task for a scientist? How else will she or he know the answer and the concerns that might be involved? Inevitably, until the scientists themselves begin their work by critiquing their own positions, they remain closed-minded. A closed mind means that at stake is no longer a greater truth but politics. It is no accident that stem-cell research supporters make great promises to the public. The public knows no alternatives. The critics give also none. The public is kept in the dark and in fear. After all, the public should trust the scientist, but should the scientist trust the public?
22^nd August, 2001 (Ania Lian)