Ethics In Science And Technology: Dimensions of public discourse
By S.G.Vombatkere
21 July, 2011
Countercurrents.org
In present times, science and technology pervades all aspects of national life, but is, in large measure, subservient to economic interests. National economic interest is widely understood as continuing economic growth, which can only be achieved through industrialization, which in turn is driven as much by science as it is by capital investment and market-capture. However, since economics dictates politics, science and technology is often enough “used” to further political interests, and thus makes its impact on society. E.F.Schumacher in his book “Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Matter” says, “ Today, the main content of politics is economics, and the main content of economics is technology. If politics cannot be left to the experts, neither can economics and technology .” By extension, since in modern times science is the mainspring of technology, science cannot be left to the “experts”, that is to scientists, just as war cannot be left to the generals. This, therefore, is an attempt to view the role of science and scientists in a political and social sense, in a world that is essentially ruled by sciences and the technologies that flow out from them.
Science has gained such respectability that subjects that were hitherto categorized as “arts”, such as economics and politics, are now known as economic science and political science though the university degree is still Bachelor of Arts or Master of Arts in these subjects. Further, it is common to observe the use of the word “scientific” in all kinds of circumstances. We demand a “scientific inquiry” into a corruption matter, we condemn speed-breaker road humps as “unscientific”, and after due scientific research, an internationally known baby formula manufacturer even went to the extent of declaring that breast feeding was scientific. Perhaps “science” needs to be demystified and in attempting to do so, consider a layperson's view on science and scientists. For, science may decide what is true or false, but not what is right or wrong, which is the field of ethics.
In what follows, the term “scientist” refers to a person who has obtained an educational qualification in a branch of physical, natural or earth sciences, at a level such that he/she is in a position to understand scientific arguments in general, and in depth in his/her particular field. Ordinarily, one speaks of a scientist as a person holding a doctoral degree, who practices science or undertakes scientific research for advancing knowledge in the chosen field. Even though engineering is applied science calling for analytical capability combined with competence in science, the term “scientist” is not being extended to include engineers since most scientists do not accept engineers on equal terms.
Some may argue that science and scientists should not be discussed by a person who is not him/herself a scientist. But such an argument would itself be unscientific since science is merely a systematic manner of questioning and examining truth, fact and empirical observation. To be sure, scientific arguments can only be discussed by one who understands that particular science, but even scientists may concede that the understanding of science is not restricted to scientists.
Science spawns technologies
In a democratic society, there are diverse opinions and for that reason, conflicts of interest. With greater-than-ever-before exposure to the electronic and print media, today's public, even that segment without much formal education, is aware of the impacts of science and technology on their lives. This is apparent from the volume and variety of public discourse regarding technologies derived from science (like IT, BT, NT, nuclear power) and technology-enabled projects like large dams, river diversions, mega-power generation stations, airports, expressways, or more esoteric space exploration. In all this, there are at least two “sides” with different motivations – one that proposes and aggressively promotes technologies or projects, and the other that opposes them. This polarization vitiates the quality of public discourse with government overtly or covertly on the side of technology promoters. However, the present article restricts arguments to the technologies that science has created and enabled, even though most of them apply mutatis mutandis to projects that employ those technologies.
As technologies develop and get refined, they provide instruments, tools and devices, and trigger thought processes that further enable diverse scientific research. This causes synergistic loops of increasing complexity and unpredictability and increasing effect on society. In this process, the role of finance for the land, materials, laboratories, and human resource essential for science research assumes importance. The source of funds may be the public exchequer, scientific trusts or corporate bodies.
It is well recognized that nuclear technology beginning with the notorious 1945 US testing and atomic bombing of Japan, today manifest as stockpiles of nuclear weapons and the nuclear power industry, sprang from Albert Einstein's famous equation “E=mc-squared”. Einstein could scarcely have foreseen that technology would use his research and convert mass to enormous explosive energy through nuclear fission; he was strongly against the nuclear bomb. Today, the capture of this technology for military uses with a veneer of questionable deterrence and “peaceful” civilian uses, poses a threat to international peace, even to life on the planet. A similar argument can be stated regarding Crick and Watson's modelling of DNA as a double-helix structure of certain molecules, being used to create new forms of life by recombinant DNA technology. This technology, also known as genetic engineering (GE) or genetic modification (GM), poses certain threats to human society and perhaps even to life on the planet.
Einstein or Crick and Watson cannot be held responsible for the technologies that flowed from their research. However, the examples demonstrate that science can and does affect society and becomes subject to politics at some point in time. Science cannot and should not be viewed in isolation, divorced from society.
But even apart from esoteric fields, there exists a questionable faith in technology, evidenced by a statement made by S.Vijay Kumar, Union Secretary for Mines, in the context of a draft Mining Bill for efficient mineral resource exploitation: “ There is a dire need to attract capital and attract technology ” [Ref.1] . The certain downstream social and environmental effects of these technologies are apparently not the concern of government, which promotes science and technology for economic growth.
Opposition to particular technologies
People have disputed the benefits of, or objected to the disadvantages or disbenefits or harm due to, specific technologies. Opposition to a particular technology concerns the perceived or known ill-effects of that technology. This is sometimes initiated based on rigorous science by scientists in that field, but equally often ordinary people with or without formal science education, who have experienced, observed or anticipated (sometimes even imagined) the social or personal ill effects of the technology also initiate opposition. Here of course, the question arises whether empirical observation is scientific, when arguing against the promoters of the technology and their embedded scientists.
Opposition to specific technologies, especially ones like genetic engineering (GE) or nano-technology (NT) or nuclear power, which are based on esoteric branches of science, is routinely trashed by proponents of the technology as the motivated action of ignorant or misinformed busybody activists. The proponents of these technologies on a large scale are governments, influenced by a section of the corporate world that seeks returns on finance already invested in scientific research or technology development. Governments under the influence of corporate interests, generate public acceptance of the technology with the backing of embedded scientists who support the claim that the technology is safe and beneficial to society. Selective information, sometimes even mis-information, through aggressive, expensive advertisement campaigns affordable as an investment by the promoter corporation and/or by government at public expense helps with public acceptance; this tantamounts to propaganda.
The professional integrity or credibility of scientists who promote technologies cannot be called into question, except perhaps when a scientist happens to be a government employee or financially supported by government or the corporation that profits from the technology. This happens when, for example, university academics are funded overtly or covertly by business interests in the guise of encouraging scientific research. But most often, such scientists are in the direct employ of the business corporation that owns the technology under IPRs. It is no secret that business interests routinely influence scientific results directly by granting research funds to scientists or indirectly through the government department or university that employs them. Managers and scientists switch between jobs in private industry and government in USA [ Note 1 ] in a manner perhaps not yet noticeable in India. Thus, policy affects science which provides technologies that are included in policy.
This is not to argue that such technologies have no benefits to society, for there is nothing in the real world that is entirely good or entirely bad. There are undoubtedly benefits, but there are also costs. However, the corporate world sees costs only in the financial sense, including the costs of influencing political decisions, indelicately called bribery. It neglects social and environmental costs as “externalities” since these are intangible or not amenable to financial costing, and always eulogizes benefits. At least one blatant expression of corporate policy in the bio-technology field that subordinates public safety to corporate profit can be quoted. [ Note 2 ]. The contents of Note 1 and Note 2 together speak of corporate-government collusion in promoting technologies. It would be unfair to suggest that this happens only in USA; corporate policy is universal and people in power anywhere are corruptible.
A technology may be introduced because it may be suitable for generating profit or making available to people (at a cost) a certain service or certain goods. There are many such technologies that have negative effects from social or environmental perspectives. Thus, the quality of the science behind a technology cannot always be gauged from the “success” of the technology, and can sometimes be “bad science” when viewed from a social or environmental standpoint.
Governments take decisions on adoption of the technology by assessing the political costs and benefits and formulating schemes with the help of the interested corporate body. The most important basis of the political decision should be the economic viability (costs versus benefits) of the technology at the national or state level. But reality is that the basis is most often the immediate economic or material benefits at the personal or political party level. The social costs and benefits and environmental costs (there cannot be benefits) are manipulated to suit the political decision. Governments call in their payrolled scientists and technocrats to support the political decision and to trash the opposition, howsoever cogently argued, to the introduction of the technology. All the above also happens with specific projects, but the current discussion is focussed on technologies and their supporting scientists and scientific bases.
Opposition to some technologies sometimes arises from people who object to the enormous expenditures involved, especially in the context of a stated shortage of financial and material resources for core sectors like food, water, health, shelter and education. Such objectors cannot appreciate the logic in spending scarce funds on research in, for example, constructing an expensive (and environmentally destructive, to boot) underground laboratory to study the behaviour of the neutrino to hopefully determine the origin of the universe, or a manned moon mission to highlight India's scientific and technological achievements.
Scientists and science
Scientists, like judges, bureaucrats, military officials, medical doctors or any other professionals, are not any special breed of human beings who are immune to blandishments or the desire for professional, financial or material advancement. They are as apt to succumb to professional, personal or establishment pressures or offers from whomsoever, to take decisions or make “scientific” findings to indicate specific or general “facts” or make certain specific or broad recommendations. The scientist who, by choice, remains honest to his/her profession and rejects undue or illegal gain is rare indeed, but fortunately not absent altogether. But the picture that some hold of a scientist who is absent-minded, cares for nothing but his scientific work and spends his waking hours in the pursuit of knowledge, is mythical. The fact is that scientists, just like persons in any other profession, cannot be blindly believed. [ Ref. 2 ].
Opposition to specific technologies is not only by “non-science” activists, but there are many well-qualified dissenting scientists in various fields who offer arguments supported by the science of their field. It can be argued that these scientists are also not above being influenced; that would not be an entirely invalid argument. However, the demand by these dissenting scientists is for peer review of research and transparent discussion of science, to which pecuniary motives cannot be ascribed. On the other hand, scientists who promote disputed technologies take shelter behind commercial confidentiality or national security, and are evasive, sometimes abusive. Scientists who are in the employ or under the influence of the technology promoters sometimes attack the scientific credentials of dissenting scientists. More often, with the financial clout of technology promoters, they get space in non-technical and general journals and other media to promote the technology in the public arena to influence public opinion. Dissenting scientists fight lonely battles. Technology promoters who are always flush with funds are not beyond using SLAPP (strategic litigation against public protest) against people who effectively question or expose inconvenient truths concerning the research or its methods and motivations.
Scientists cannot exist unless society supports them; laboratories are funded by society, whether from public funds or private sources. Scientific education has been provided by society and scientific and technological knowledge belongs to society. This negates the very basis of intellectual property rights (IPR). It is pertinent to quote Arnold Toynbee from page 95 of his 1972 Oxford University Press book “Surviving the Future”, substituting “science and technology” for “technology”: “ We shall have to share the fruits of technology among the whole of mankind. The notion that the direct and immediate producers of the fruits of technology have a proprietary right to these fruits will have to be forgotten. After all, who is the producer? Man is a social animal, and the immediate producer has been helped to produce by the whole structure of society, beginning with his own education. ” This not to deny scientific credit and public recognition for a scientist's creativity, but to demonstrate that even this creativity is enabled by the society of which the scientist is a member. It is noteworthy how Indian scientists like Khurana or Chandrasekhar rose to acknowledged scientific excellence when enabled by the scientific ambience obtaining in USA.
Thus, scientists who claim proprietary right over their science are effectively disclaiming their debt to society. It follows that scientists who work for commercial corporations that “own” IPRs over scientific researches or specific technologies, and promote or defend such technologies, are as motivated by profit or personal benefit as the corporations for which they work. It may not be a leap of logic to state that such science motivated by profit or personal gain is not true science. Such scientists do not realize that their science and their knowledge may have as much potential for harm as they have for social benefit. Science that is not relevant to or is of doubtful benefit or harmful to the society to which a scientist belongs is unnecessary or undesirable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the opposition to specific technologies is not always based upon science but sometimes based upon experienced or apprehended social or health effects.
Some scientists refuse to enter into discussion with “non-scientists” who oppose specific technologies. They are known (personal experience of this writer) to say that the intricacies of the science cannot be understood by those not initiated in the particular branch of science. At this point it is pertinent to mention Albert Einstein who is said to have opined that a scientist does not really understand a subject if he cannot explain it to his grandmother.
It is worth noting that a scientist who heads a national laboratory raised an issue regarding the debates and disputes around genetically modified (GM) crops and foods. [“ GM crops debate: consensual versus adversarial approaches ”; The Hindu, March 10, 2011; Science and Technology, page 17]. He attempted to justify the “ consensual ” approach of scientists to the issue as being the only civilized one, severely criticizing the alternate “ adversarial ” approach of activists. In doing so, he appears to assume that scientists are all honest persons who are so intensely engrossed in their “ task of pursuing knowledge at the frontiers ” that “ any diversion comes at the cost of the pursuit itself ”. Such near-sainthood may be present in very few scientists; but the run-of-the-mill scientist is far from this ideal. He/she is not uninterested in promotion or recognition or earning more money. Even if not corrupt in the conventional sense, a scientist cannot produce impartial scientific results when he/she is subject to policy of the entity which funds his research or pays his salary. Such science is likely to be of little real value. He further avers that “ peer review represents the epitome of a consensual approach in scientific discourse ”, and that “ the establishment of viewpoints in science occurs not adversarial approach (sic) but consensual ”.
Scientific knowledge advances only through being subjected to questioning and arguments based upon existing knowledge, probabilities and possibilities. The word “adversary” means “opponent”. Thus, questioning can be “ adversarial ” in the sense of opposing or disputing the basis of scientific facts and methods, based upon scientific arguments. The word “consensus” means “general agreement”. Thus, while there can be consensus in scientific work (agreement in a general sense with differences in details), it should always be preceded by the process of questioning the basis and details of the work. Peer review does precisely that; it is certainly not meant to be “ consensual ”. Without prior questioning and examination, there can be no element of consensus in science except among mutually back-scratching scientists or scientists with a common, extra-scientific agenda. Consensus is a political tool, not a scientific tool.
This writer's arguments were not published in the same newspaper, perhaps because they were not “ consensual ” but “ adversarial ”, and the scientist remains incommunicado. Thus establishment or pro-establishment scientists get media coverage and maintain themselves in their ivory towers, while those who seek to enter into meaningful discourse are virtually unheard or branded as unscientific or anti-development.
Scientists who oppose certain technologies
There are three types of scientists who oppose such technologies. The first is the maverick scientist who works within the government establishment (including universities) and expresses scientifically argued opposition in the face of official displeasure or censure, even dismissal, and peer hostility. The second is the scientist who did not express opposition while in government service either because the issue did not come up during his service or because he did not wish to be a target of official or peer hostility, but feels compelled or free to do so when out of service. The third type is essentially an academic, highly qualified in science or the humanities, who may or may not be in government service but is involved in social movements and is pejoratively branded as an intellectual. Even if he is not a “scientist” as defined at the start of the present article, he possesses the mental ability and motivation to acquire scientific knowledge and data to argue cogently.
Prominent among the first type is Dr.Arpad Pusztai, who was working on genetic engineering. But there are also atypical scientists. Dr.Pushpa M. Bhargava is a strong voice against GE even as the Supreme Court appointee on the GEAC. For example, in the case of environmental release of Bt-Brinjal, he has demanded a prior socio-economic survey to determine whether at all we need this product of recombinant DNA technology. Dr.A.Gopalakrishnan, as Chairman AERB, criticized the safety standards and their implementation by the nuclear establishment, and continues to oppose such working even after retirement. Dr.Shiv Chopra, formerly of Health Canada of the Canadian Public Service, was victimized for speaking the truth concerning genetic engineering.
Scientists who oppose certain technologies or their implementation can expect nothing in terms of cash or material benefits, because the purveyors of such benefits are promoting those very technologies. On the contrary, they have to pay for their impertinence of challenging the seats of power. It can be argued that a corporation competing with the technology promoter might “purchase” scientific opposition, but then it risks shooting itself in the foot since it is opposing the corporation and not the technology. In any case, the opposition arguments usually concern larger issues of social disbenefits, and sometimes reveal an utopian mindset. Therefore, there is little likelihood of pecuniary interest in opposing a technology, whereas promoting it is eminently suspect because of corporate propensity, interest and capability to influence or blatantly bribe scientists.
An example concerning the March 2011 catastrophic nuclear accident at Fukushima, Japan, serves to illustrate how scientists who oppose corporate policy live and work under threat to their professional advancement or worse, even in a country like Japan with a reputation for high professional and financial integrity. [ Note 3 ].
The media, science and scientists
The print and electronic media, themselves corporate bodies, have a pre-eminent role in informing the public on science and technology issues to generate acceptance of particular technologies in a manner amounting to propaganda. The scientist of the national laboratory referred to above is a case in point. They are also apt to publish articles promoting science-and-technology and term opposition to particular technologies as unscientific, uninformed, anti-development or Luddite, without providing space for dissent or argument. There are several ways in which the corporate print or electronic media are used to implement the corporate agenda of promoting technologies.
One or more of the following are the means: carrying advertisements promoting the technology, thus assuring a sizable income; carrying news items eulogizing scientists who promote the technology; publishing science-for-the-people articles written by prominent scientists to promote the technology or trash opposing views without providing opportunity of response; conducting interviews of pro-technology scientists and asking leading questions and not providing opportunity to the scientist who opposes the particular technology in panel discussions; rejecting or playing down articles that argue against the technology; smear campaigns against opposers or whistleblowers. With reference to nuclear technology, again with reference to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Cordula Meyer writes, “ Even many media organizations, as recipients of generous payments for the electricity industry, are part of the [industry-regulator-media] cartel. ” [Ref 3] .
People-oriented science policy
Contemporary economies are centred on using science and technology to generate commerce and economic growth. Science and technology is employed and scientists and engineers are deployed to create industries that need inputs of land (for factory buildings and raw materials, and ultimately for dumping the used-up products as junk), labour and finance. The intensity and volume of these input demands are displaying serious and widespread negative effects on society and the environment.
The influence of corporate policy interests in scientific research within their own laboratories and establishments cannot be disputed. But such policy interests promoted through funding in universities and government laboratories makes the quality of the science suspect, and leads to questioning its public purpose and utility. Besides, the possibility of long-term social and environmental harm from the application of that science (the technology) and the use of that technology in a social or engineering project, is rarely if ever addressed. This happens particularly when there is intransparency and absence of peer review due to scientists who have seated themselves on a pedestal within an ivory tower being directly or indirectly influenced by corporate interests, and being intolerant of scientific or non-scientific dissent.
The huge majority of Indians are poor (77% live on less than Rs.20 per day), and some technologies are stated to be applicable to them. For example, recombinant DNA technology (genetic engineering is a more familiar term) is promoted as being vital for food security through more production of food. But the arguments that question the very need for that technology and point out the ill-effects (toxicity, allergenicity, genetic contamination, loss of biodiversity) on individuals and society, are suppressed by using one or more of the ploys described above. This calls for corporate spending of huge amounts of money to influence regulators or people in positions of political power, and buy expensive media space and time. But this is viewed as a sound investment that will yield substantial returns when the technology goes on-stream. The science behind such technology is not only suspect but its social content is questionable. Even after the technology goes on-stream as a project, the financial cost of (uncertain and negotiable) penalties for violation of regulations to limit or mitigate its ill-effects, remains less than expenditure to comply with regulations.
Current scientific discourse where it affects people, lacks quality and is debased when conferences and papers are sponsored by industry. Scientists are often insulated from social issues because of the secrecy of their work and/or their class constraints. Thus, their work may lack social content. Scientists talk down to “non-scientific” people from their lofty pedestals, and frequently fail to relate their work or arguments to real-life in real-time India. Science in India today is heavily corporate-influenced. India is desperately in need of a people-oriented science policy that will develop people-oriented scientific temper among its scientific community and the general public including children. Without proper scientific temper in society, technologies will continue to be thrust upon society at the sweet will of their promoters in today's ambience of profit-at-any-cost and economic-growth-at-any-cost.
References
1. “ India plans mining licence to attract foreign investors ”; Reuters, New Delhi, June 29, 2011. <http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/idINIndia-57993320110629
2. Colin Tudge; “ The honesty of science is being compromised at every turn ”; New Statesman; 26.4.2004; http://www.newstatesman.com/200404260019
3. Cordula Meyer; “ Japan's Nuclear Cartel – Atomic Industry too close to Government for Comfort ”; Spiegel International On-Line; 27.5.2011; http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,764907,00.html
Notes
Note 1 . THE REVOLVING DOOR
Michael Taylor – Senior Counsel, Monsanto, was between FDA and Monsanto twice.
Linda Fisher – Was three times between EPA and Monsanto.
Mickey Kantor – Member of Board of Directors, Monsanto, was also Secretary of Commerce, US Administration.
Lidia Watrud – Biotech researcher in Monsanto, was also in EPA.
Anne Veneman – Member of Board of Directors of Calgene (purchased by Monsanto), was also Secretary of Agriculture, US Administration.
Michael Friedman – Senior Vice President of G.D.Searle (a Division of Monsanto), was also Acting Commissioner of FDA.
William Ruckelshaus – Member of Board of Directors, Monsanto, was also Chief Administrator of EPA.
Donald Rumsfeld – President of G.D.Searle (a Division of Monsanto), was also Secretary of Defense, US Administration.
Clarence Thomas – Judge of the Supreme Court, was earlier Monsanto lawyer for Regulatory affairs.
Note 2 . CORPORATE PROFIT & PUBLIC SAFETY
“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotechnology food; our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job ”, said Mr.Phil Angell, Director of Corporate Communication, Monsanto. Quoted from the New York Times, October 25, 1998. [Emphasis inserted].
Note 3 . “ TEPCO's influence even extends into scientific laboratories. Many scientists, especially at the University of Tokyo, are partial to TEPCO. The company contributes millions to the university and supports many associations, think tanks and commissions. This form of public relations has been useful to the company until now.”
“Not a single scientist or engineer at the University of Tokyo has ever been known to have spoken critically about TEPCO, even after the accident in Fukushima. "If you are a critic of nuclear power, you are not promoted, you don't even become a professor, and you are certainly not appointed to key commissions," says [Taro] Kono.”. Taro Kono is a member of the lower house of the Japanese Diet for the conservative LDP. Ref 3.
S.G.Vombatkere retired as major general after 35 years in the Indian military. He is engaged in voluntary social work, and is member of the National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM) and People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). As Adjunct Associate Professor of the University of Iowa, USA, he coordinates and lectures a course on Science, Technology and Sustainable Development for under-graduate students from USA and Canada. He holds a master of engineering degree in structural engineering from the University of Poona and a PhD in civil structural dynamics from I.I.T, Madras.
E-mail:[email protected]
____________________________________________________________________________________
Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.
