Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The ethical and political evaluation of biotechnology strategies

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper I will briefly discuss the role and function of the ethical advisory committees and other ethics bodies that are supposed to take care of the ethical dimension of the biotechnology strategies. The expert ethical advice has created colourful discussion in many contexts, but here I aim to analyze the role and relevance of ethical expertise in the context of national and regional biotechnology strategies. I will argue that it may be quite unproblematic that the work of the ethics committees and other governmental and semi-governmental ethics bodies concerns only a relatively narrow range of issues and do not directly concern all the important social and economic realignments that accompany biotechnology. Many important decisions concerning national and regional biotechnology strategies are political, and typically ethics committees can be only indirectly useful in political decision-making. The committees should be free to refrain from extending their work to the areas where they are not already involved. However, the ethics committees and other ethics bodies can promote public debate that forms the basis for political decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See e.g. Life Sciences and Biotechnology—A Strategy for Europe (European Commission COM 2002: 27); Life Sciences and Biotechnology—A Strategy for Europe: Third progress Report and Future Orientations (European Commission COM 2005: 286); The 1998 Canadian Biotechnology Strategy: An Ongoing Renewal Process (Canadian Biotechnology Strategy Secretariat 1998); The 1998 Canadian Biotechnology Strategy: Plans, Spending and Results (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rma/eppi-ibdrp/hrdb-rhbd/cbs-scb/2006–2007_e.asp).

  2. The 1998 Canadian Biotechnology Strategy: An Ongoing Renewal Process, p. 8.

  3. Presidency Conclusion. European Council, 23–24 March 2001, Stockholm.

  4. Many national biotechnology strategies are available in the Net.

  5. Life Sciences and Biotechnology—A Strategy for Europe, pp. 17–18.

  6. The 1998 Canadian Biotechnology Strategy: An Ongoing Renewal Process, p. 8.

  7. See, Biotechnology and the Health of Canadians, December 2004 (http://cbac-cccb.ca/).

  8. Life Sciences and Biotechnology—A Strategy for Europe, p. 20.

  9. See e.g. Holmes (2001).

  10. See e.g. Haimes (2002) and Varelius (2008).

  11. We had this sort of debate in Finland few years ago.

  12. This is the argument of certain “bio safety” associations.

  13. I own this example to López and Robertson (2007, p. 215).

  14. My argument is a typical reductio ad absurdum—argument.

  15. For a discussion, see e.g. Jasanoff (2003, p. 241), López and Robertson (2007, pp. 209–213), Hartley and Skogstad (2005, pp. 305–327); Abergel and Barrett (2002, pp. 135–161).

  16. Ahvenharju et al. (2006, pp. 44–85).

  17. Ahvenharju et al. (2006, p. 48).

  18. Fuchs (2005, p. 91).

  19. In Finland I have personally worked in three ethics committees (The Finnish National Advisory Board for Biotechnology, National Advisory Board on Health Care Ethics, The Board for Gene Technology).

  20. It may seem that ethics committees have a positive role when they prepare recommendations for research groups. But the main purpose of these recommendations is to prevent negative decisions beforehand. Therefore, the recommendations should be understood as a part of the negative role of ethics committees.

  21. Cf. Varelius (2008).

  22. This is how the ethical evaluation of the research plans that will be funded by the European Union proceeds.

  23. “Advisory Committees do not usually have political power.” Bioethics Committees at Work: Procedures and Policies (UNESCO, Paris 2005), 10.

  24. Fuchs (2005, p. 91).

  25. These reports are produced by Nuffield Council on Bioethics, UK.

  26. According to the Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, set by Unesco in 2005, Independent, multidisciplinary and pluralist ethics committees should be established, promoted and supported at the appropriate level in order to: (a) assess the relevant ethical, legal, scientific and social issues related to research projects involving human beings; (b) provide advice on ethical problems in clinical settings; (c) assess scientific and technological developments, formulate recommendations and contribute to the preparation of guidelines on issues within the scope of this Declaration; (d) foster debate, education and public awareness of, and engagement in, bioethics.

  27. Positions adopted by national ethics committees may have direct legal effects, when it is committee’s responsibility to secure that political decisions are compatible with the Helsinki Declaration and other conventions. When ethics committees function in this way, they do have a kind of veto right against political decisions. Fuchs (2005, p. 91) mentions Slovenia and Lithuania as examples of this practice.

  28. Macropolitical questions concern issues such as taxation, education, public investments, “national goals” and so on.

  29. Lagerspetz (2008, p. 28) has argued that “the role of ethical experts is (and perhaps should be) partly analogous to the role of courts”.

  30. The ethics committees may have some surplus value, since they are typically independent and do not have, for instance, economic interests.

  31. See López and Robertson (2007, p. 215).

  32. Fuchs (2005, p. 92).

  33. Pellegrino (2006, p. 573).

  34. Pellegrino (2006, p. 572) distinguishes between “constructive partisan politics” and “destructive partisanship”, and it is the latter he opposes. The quality of the arguments that represent destructive partisan politics is poor, as they are based on “partial or distorted evidence”. Pellegrino is not explicitly claiming that bioethicists should avoid macropolitical issues. Another difference between his argument and the point made here is that Pellegrino is worried about the arguments of individual bioethicists, while my concern is opinions of ethics committees.

  35. López and Robertson (2007, p. 214) argue explicitly that the public does not have sufficiently chances to participate in the debate concerning the most important biotechnological decisions.

  36. In the European Union it is illegal not to organize public consultations when GMOs are released to the environment, e.g. in the context of field trials of GM trees. Directive 2001/18/EC: Article 9.

  37. Ahteensuu and Siipi (2009) argue that current GMO consultation practices in the European Union do not meet their objectives.

  38. Still another question is what is the influence of biotechnology strategies to practical political decisions. Those who are worried about the content of the strategies seem to assume that the strategies have strong influence in practice.

  39. For a discussion, see Jasanoff (2005). She (2005, pp. 5–6) argues that “as scientific knowledge becomes more closely aligned with economic and political power, producing new expert elites, the distance between the governors and the governed can be expected to grow”.

  40. The 1998 Canadian Biotechnology Strategy: An Ongoing Renewal Process, p. 8.

  41. Presidency Conclusion. European Council, 23–24 March 2001, Stockholm.

  42. Cf. Jasanoff (2005, p. 8).

  43. I would like to thank the Editor and the anonymous referees of Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy for their helpful comments.

References

  • Abergel, Elisabeth, and Katherine Barrett. 2002. Putting the cart before the horse: A review of biotechnology policy in Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies 37: 135–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahteensuu, Marko, and Helena Siipi. 2009. A critical assessment of public consultations on GMOs in the European Union. Environmental Values (forthcoming).

  • Ahvenharju, Sanna, Mikko Halonen, Susanne Uusitalo, et al. 2006. Comparative analysis of opinions produced by national ethics councils. Helsinki: Gaia Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, Michael. 2005. National ethics councils: Their backgrounds, functions and modes of operation compared. Berlin: Nationaler Ethikrat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haimes, Erica. 2002. What can the social sciences contribute to the study of ethics? Bioethics 16: 89–113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, Sarah, and Grace Skogstad. 2005. Democratizing risk regulation: Plant biotechnology policy in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian Public Administration 48: 305–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, Helen Bequaert. 2001. Biotechnology, strategy, and wealth for whom. A paper presented at a workshop on Biotechnology and Women’s Health in 2001. http://www.cwhn.ca/groups/biotech/availdocs/tableofcontents.htm.

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41: 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagerspetz, Eerik. 2008. Ethical expertise in democratic societies. In Genetic democracy: Philosophical perspectives, ed. V. Launis and J. Räikkä. UK: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • López, José Julián, and Ann Robertson. 2007. Ethics or politics? The emergence of ELSI discourse in Canada. The Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology 44: 201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, Edmund D. 2006. Bioethics and politics: “Doing ethics” in the public square. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31: 569–584.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Varelius, Jukka. 2008. Is ethical expertise possible? Medicine Health Care and Philosophy 11: 127–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Turku, 20014, Turku, Finland

    Juha Räikkä

Authors
  1. Juha Räikkä
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juha Räikkä.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Räikkä, J. The ethical and political evaluation of biotechnology strategies. Med Health Care and Philos 12, 273–280 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-008-9178-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-008-9178-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation