Science, Religion and Ethics

This is the list of readings that Prof. Prema had suggested for the modules on Science and Ethics (and Religion).
Module 3 and 4: Science, Ethics and Religion:

1. Somerville, Margaret, ‘Searching for Ethics in a Secular Society’, Ethics of Science and Technology: Eplorations of the Frontiers of Science and Ethics (ed), UNESCO, Paris 2006, pp. 17-39
2. Bok, Siessela, ‘Secrecy and Openness in science: Ethical Considerations’, Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol. 7, No. 38, (Winter, 1982), pp. 32-41
3. Cairns, John Jr., ‘Sustainability Ethics Matter’ Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics’, April 7, 2004, pp 3-6.
4. Rivers, Theodore John, ‘Technology and Religion: A Metaphysical Challenge’, Technology in Society, 28 (2006), pp 517-531
5. Prainsack, Brabara, ‘Negotiating Life: The Regulation of Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research in Israel’, Social Studies of Science, vol. 36 no.2, April 2006, pp.173-205
6. Sessions, George, ‘The Deep Ecology Movement: A Review’, Environmental Review, Vol.11 No.2, Summer, 1987, pp.105-125

I presented Margaret Somerville's paper in class. The discussion that we had this week illustrated the need to adopt a different approach to this module.But considering the fact that we haven't had any posts so far for the Science and Religion module-the paper still might be worth mentioning here.

As the title 'Searching for Ethics in a Secular Society' suggests, the author tries to list some of the reasons why we have to search for 'ethics' in a 'secular' society. She says that it can be seen as a 21st century revolution in conscience and consciousness. It can be explained by the nature of our postmodern, industrialized Western democracies. These societies are pluralistic, secular in the public sphere, and multicultural. These features also mean that they lack a 'shared story'-the collection of fundamental values, beliefs, attitudes, principles,myths and commitments that we need to buy into in order to function as a society. This story, or societal-cultural paradigm is the glue that holds us together.

Our shared story has focused on the two major life events of each human life-birth and death.In the past, religion played a vital role in helping man understand these two events. We also bonded together through a shared religion-both in the present and with the past and future generations Modern scholars such as Tom Harper and Joseph Campbell favour the derivation of the word religion from ligare ("bind, connect"), probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect", which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.

The possibilities that new scientific developments have opened up in relation to birth and death is a major focus of contemporary ethical discussions. Through the use of a combination of genetic and new reproductive technologies, the very basis of human life and its mode of transmission can be altered. Modern medical 'miracles' held out hope, if not of immortality as most religions do, at least of delayed mortality. Extraordinary new advances in medical science have shocked us into recognizing that we do not have consensus about the values that we need in order to address the immense ethical issues these new technologies raise.

Go here for article

We cannot assume that there is consensus on the values we will uphold, since we no longer automatically have access to a received set of values through a shared religion. We must therefore find and agree on these values and the author feels that an important context in which we seek to do this is in relation to how we should and should not use the new science.


Considering the discussion we had in class, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the following point that she makes in the paper: Due to this loss of consensus on values, there is an adoption of a situational ethics approach. By doing so, we seem to have lost the ability to agree that anything is inherently wrong-wrong no matter how much good could come from doing it. But in a society that has no absolute moral rules or no external source of authority for those moral rules that it does have, can we implement a view that human cloning is inherently wrong? Can we believe in a moral absolute, even if we are not religious and even if we do not believe in a supernatural being as the ultimate authority?

She proposes that we can do this by accepting two values as absolutes-

1. Always act to ensure profound respect for all life, in particular human life.
2. Protect and promote the human spirit-the metaphysical reality that we need to fully live fully human lives.

Let's examine current law regarding human cloning.

On December 14, 2001, the UN General Assembly began elaborating an international convention against the reproductive cloning of humans. A broad coalition of States, including Spain, Italy, the Philippines, the US, Costa Rice and the Holy See sought to extend the debate to ban all forms of human cloning, noting that, in their view, therapeutic human cloning violates human dignity. Costa Rica proposed the adoption of an international convention to ban all forms of Human Cloning. Unable to reach a consensus on a binding convention, in March 2005 a non-binding United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning for the ban of all forms of Human Cloning contrary to human dignity, was finally adopted.

I would like to end this (rather long) post with an incident mentioned in the paper. Margaret Somerville attended a conference in Squaw Valley, California and had given a presentation outlining the case against human cloning. She argued for recognizing the moral status of the human embryo. She was followed by molecular and evolutionary biologist Professor Lee Silver of Princeton University. He stood before the audience, melodramatically took out a tissue and blew his nose into it. Without saying anything, he held it up to the audience, who were watching him attentively. He then said, 'This tissue has cells on it from inside of my nose. I would like Margo to understand that I believe these cells have the same moral status as human embryos.'

These two different views on the moral status of human embryos and human embryo research translate into antagonistic attitudes about the ethics of human cloning. So far no definitive answer has been provided because it is difficult to arrive at a consensus. In our postmodern, industrialized society, advancements in science and technology have questioned the very tenets of organized religion and a sense of the sacred. We are now at an impasse because we no longer have a 'shared story'. However the question remains as always-'Is it right?'

---
(1) I do apologize for the unwieldiness of this post and also for providing numerous hyperlinks. But I feel that it adds to the content of this post and provides numerous additional sources of information.

(2) Such is the VASTNESS of this module that there are several other issues which can be taken for discussion. Maybe we can take them up if we get a good exchange going in the comments section.

(3) And most importantly, I do apologize for the inordinate delay in updating the blog.

Science and the State: 'Societal control and knowledge in democratic societies'

This summary of the above mentioned paper by Reiner Grundmann and Nico Stehr, introduces the notions of knowledge policy and the politics of knowledge, distinct from research policy. While research policy takes the aims of innovations as largely unproblematic (insofar as they help improving national competitiveness), knowledge policy tries to govern (regulate, control, restrict, or even forbid) the production of knowledge.

Knowledge is a wealth creating power. Not only is it growing at an increasing pace, it is also being transformed in the process. If we talk about knowledge societies, we cannot remain silent about knowledge politics. Concerns about the societal consequences of an unfettered expansion of natural scientific knowledge are now raised much more urgently and are moving to the centre of disputes in society and to the top of the political agenda. Many issues need addressing. Most importantly, a completely new 'politics of knowledge' may emerge, with its own institutions and dynamics. Its basic feature is the use of knowledge to advance not only specific political goals and economic interests, but also certain norms, values and worldviews. The politics of knowledge denotes the contested nature of and the struggle over, scientific and technical advancements.

Science policy as conducted by governments, firms and foundations refers directly to the constitution of scientific knowledge, the individuals who produce such knowledge, the social context within which such knowledge is fabricated, etc. In contrast, stem cell research, for example, pertains to the emerging field of knowledge politics, in which ethical considerations as well as new relations and an informed dialogue between researchers, industrialists, political decision makers and citizens are sometimes included in calls for research proposals.

Self-Regulation of Science? How can we conceptualise the governance of science – the provision of public goods without the proliferation of public ‘bads’? Can we rely on scientists themselves? Consider the following two episodes concerning atomic energy:

· In testimony before the US special senate committee on atomic energy (1946), John von Neumann pleaded with the senators to enact strict government regulations: “it is for the first time that science has produced results which require an immediate intervention of government...” The senate acted upon this and the stringent regulations are still in effect.

· Compare this with the recent controversy about mandatory notification of potential use of biological research for terrorist warfare: “University officials and leading scientists are warning that new government regulations on biological research adopted in the wake of 9/11, and simultaneous efforts to inhibit publication, threaten to undermine the fundamental openness of science and campus life.”

Both episodes show that scientists can be advocates and enemies of a regulation of knowledge. In Merton’s influential description, science is an autonomous, self-regulating system, especially with regard to its normative nature.

This notion of a primary social self-control is a powerful, if mythical, self-description of science, and restricting scientists’ social and intellectual life in a way that is regarded as legitimate, because the spheres of production of scientific knowledge and the execution of political action were considered institutions completely sealed off from each other. Today, science is deeply entangled in politics, and political interests have a determining influence on the development of research. When ‘good’ science produces ‘bad' consequences, it is seen as deplorable. If this were to affect such paramount values as health and safety in an affluent society, political attention and intervention are sure to follow.

Governance of knowledge: Our aim here is to identify institutional frameworks to deal with new and potentially hazardous knowledge.

· We should avoid irreversibility

· We should guarantee and enhance public involvement and democratic decision-making. There is a basic tension in modern societies between democratic and oligarchic principles, since lay people are not knowledgeable enough to participate in decisions about SciTech in a competent manner. A solution to this could be in the education of the public and their inclusion in decision making through a minipopulus.However, the basic rift in such debates is not between lay people and experts, but between two alliances advocating different courses of action based on divergent basic values and knowledge claims. Claims from both sides are tested in public debate.

In short, to satisfy the two criteria, the institutional settings would require wide public participation and open, controversial debate, keeping open as many options as possible.

Globalisation and the nation state: no matter how ambitious and successful single national efforts may be, and no matter what stringent government regulations may be in effect, international competition can undermine such attempts. The most pressing problem is international coordination in order to avoid the Delaware Effect – lowest regulatory standards because of the nations’ preference for attracting business investments. The nation state appears to be helpless in the face of globalised production of knowledge and technical development – an observation that needs to be taken seriously, in the face of transboundary externalities.

Globalisation has led to several governance gaps, which, according to a report to the UN, were identified as:

· Operational: whenever policymakers and public institutions find themselves lacking the information, knowledge and tools they need to respond to complex policy issues.

· Participatory: the difficulties for a common understanding of, and therefore agreement on, critical policy issues.

Beyond classical forms of multilateralism, global public policy networks (actors from different sectors, NGOs, businesses) are promising institutional forms that could help bridge these gaps.

(http://aston.academia.edu/ReinerGrundmann/Papers/280481/Social_Control_and_Knowledge_In_Democratic_Societies)

Do comment.