NEWSWEEK: Is the clash between biotechnology and ethics inevitable?
ELLIS: Genetic engineering is a great opportunity which does involve some possible dangers that have to be dealt with carefully, but I find the opposition most unprincipled. When Zambia rejected U.S. genetically modified corn, some people used the words “poison food” –a straight lie, totally untrue. They also said the U.S. was testing out foods not used at home. That’s also untrue. So I find the environmental absolutists quite unprincipled and definitely unscientific here. Are there other examples of opposition to technology that you consider unethical?
I also was involved in the Pebble Bed nuclear reactor, as part of the initial environmental-impact team. Again I find environmental absolutism a negative thing. I simply find it unbalanced when people talk about the dangers of nuclear waste–which doesn’t actually damage you if you keep your distance–whereas coal-fired power stations pour a huge amount of filth into the atmosphere, a huge contribution to global warming. The opponents are focusing on one aspect and not looking at the overall picture.
Does religion offer a way to resolve controversies over scientific innovation?
Science can’t provide values. The classic example is that any time some project comes up that promises to create employment, there’s always associated damage, and almost always some environmental group rises to oppose it. What you have is a direct conflict of values. There is a tendency among many to, in effect, oppose job creation, when people are desperate for work. Where religion comes in is in choosing your values. Where science can do a bit is when there are competing values. Through decision analysis, you can go into a community and help resolve the conflict.
One of the biggest problems in my area is water. Increasing supply means the need to build dams. And any time you want to build, environmentalists will protest. What you need to do is talk to local communities and say, “How important is access to water relative to indigenous vegetation that is going to vanish under the dam?” There are technical methods of trying to help communities become aware of trade-offs you have to make.
What other new technologies are now beginning to pose ethical problems?
On the GM crops, it’s clear we must go ahead but look at the consequences on a case-by-case basis. On human stem-cell research, I’m ambivalent. But one coming ethical crunch is the brain. We are getting more and more information on how the brain works, and that necessarily comes with the ability to invade the brain for medical purposes.
So how should society handle the ethics of a given technology–say, brain science?
What one must have in scientific projects is input from a panel. The best one can do is an interfaith panel–Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and some atheists–and have them come up with values to guide the projects. My view is that at a deep level there’s a convergence of ethical views among the different faiths as long as you are dealing with their nonfundamentalist wings.
Asian countries seem less encumbered by ethical concerns over new technologies. Is that a danger?
I don’t have evidence that they have gone wrong. But if you want to talk about damage, go back to the previous technologies, such as electrical power from coal, and look at the incredible damage to the environment in Central Europe, Poland, Britain, the USA. You don’t have to have advanced technology to do harm.
What are the big issues over the horizon?
Apart from the brain, one of the very difficult areas is animal experimentation. I am for example very much concerned about what happens to adult, conscious monkeys. Of course intervention in human genes is also a major issue–scientists playing God. We really need good ethical guidance here.
