- Email: [email protected]
Biotechnology — quo vadis? Scientia sine conscientia?
T I B T E C H - S E P T E M B E R 1988 [Vol. 6]
Biotechnology- quo vadis? $cientia sine conscientia? Anton Moser The European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) is presently discussing a broader definition of biotechnology. The discussion essentially defines biotechnology as the integrated use of natural sciences (e.g. biology, chemistry, physics) and engineering sciences (e.g. electronics) by the application of biosystems (cells of microbial, plant and animal origin, parts thereof and molecular analogues) in bioindustries 1 (pharmaceuticals, agriculture and food, environmental and industrial biotechnology). At the European Commission (EC), the definition is extended with the phrase 'in order to supply biosociety with desirable products and services' (Refs 2 and 3). This rider does not, however, seem to have been widely embraced by the scientific community. Perhaps it is acceptable that judgements on the benefits or desirability of technology should rest solely with the humanists and the policy makers. Perhaps scientists and engineers should attend only to science and technology, leaving others to decide the worth to society of their efforts. It depends, I suppose, on where one draws the boundaries of biotechnologicality 4. Is the ambit of biotechnologists limited by the frontiers of science? Or the market's leading edge? Is biotechnology just oligodisciplinary, with interactions confined to those with a scientific training? I would prefer to think that biotechnologists were able to develop their science within the context of society. After all, biotechnology is
only a day job. For most of their time, biotechnologists are recipients rather than creators of technical advance. In m y view, one of the most important aspects ofbiotechnology is that it introduces an awareness of biology and biological phenomena into everyday life. Biological components will certainly become an integral part of technology but this will not produce the 'biosociety' (Ref. 2). Rather, biology has to become, is becoming, part of 'common sense' - the thinking and living of humankind. Terms like 'evolution', 'transformation', 'growth' and 'development' can be applied to individual and societal organisms alike 5. To those with advanced and enhanced thinking it is clear that the purely 'mechanistic paradigm' no longer holds 5'6. Although the realization of this view through science, technology and society has yielded considerable material progress during the past 300 years, it is a philosophy of 'making and manipulation' with 'the human being as criterion and measure of everything'. In pursuit of production, mankind has littered history with colonization, missionary activity and aid for developing countries. This attitude has changed the world, divided it, and materialistic philosophies are becoming increasingly questioned. Crises in environment, health, nutrition, raw materials, and interpersonal and international intolerance are indicators that something is not right. Towards common aims
Anton Moser is at Institut fiir Biotechnologie, Mikrobiologie und Abfalltechnologie, A-8010 Graz, Austria. © 1988, Elsevier Publications, Cambridge
At its outermost boundaries, science is becoming unified. Particle physicists are seeking experimental
0167 - 9430/88/$02.00
evidence to support a theory unifying all forms of matter and energy. In biology, too, a greater understanding of genetics and the ability to move genes from one organism to another has emphasized the commonality of life. Observations of nature are messages from nature and new insights into the fundamental natural concepts are leading to more holistic attitudes. Take, for example, current work on protein structure determination. The concepts of 'motifs' and 'supersecondary structure' depend on combining information from many proteins. Technology that is wholly driven by the conviction that everything can be made or manipulated without consequence is becoming less acceptable to more people. Increasingly, society demands technology that is subservient to the laws of nature, laws learnt by listening to nature. B i o t e c h n o l o g i e s are n o t - a p r i o r i green
Profit is still the main criterion in the development of biotechnology. Even though biotechnology may contribute extensively to solving the problems facing mankind, the realization of technology is still largely governed by the rules of economics. Without the prospect of profit, funds for research and development are hard to come by. The capacity of biotechnology for good is, therefore, stifled or at least dampened by the need for financial self-perpetuation. This constrains the grounds on which the production of biotechnology products can be justified. It would be better in m y view if the justifications for biotechnology were developed concurrently or even in advance of the technology. Improvements in efficiency and productivity can, of course, be presented within an economic framework but the tangible benefits to ordinary people should also be addressed and assessed. Rather than saying defensively that biological technology is no worse (in terms of hazards, perpetuation of inequalities, waste, etc.) than the methods it seeks to replace, a more positive outlook should be taken at an early stage. Essentially, responsibility for the outcome should be an
T I B T E C H - SEPTEMBER 1988 [Vol. 6]
integral part of any proposed biological solution to a problem.
Biotechnologies should be BIO-logical The adoption of a more holistic approach is not simply a matter of moral and ethical outlooks, however. Its application in biotechnological research and development could itself yield benefits. There are parallels between prevailing thought and scientific method. Traditional thought is linear thought; it seeks a one-to-one connection between causes and effects. It leads to 'tunnel vision'; maxima instead of optima, quantity rather than quality, the future as a linear extension of the past and present, the generalization of one-off phenomena, loss of complexity. The concept of 'limiting metabolic steps' may be a good biotechnological case-in-point. Traditional thought is egocentric. It leads to poor human relationships, low flexibility, conservatism. In biotechnology it is apparent as an unwillingness to collaborate, entrenchment in traditional disciplines, and mistrust of technology 'not developed here'. Traditional thought places undue credence on the views of experts. This undermines creativity, undervalues self-criticism and excludes common sense from decision making. The result is that technologists strive for innovation rather than 'imbonation' (Ref. 8), newness rather than benefit. In contrast, holistic thinking is network thinking in which many causes and effects, including those occurring in the future, are considered. Systematic process analysis encompassing all relevant process phenomena is one example9; it enables predictions of process behaviour under a wide variety of conditions. The wide~ casting of the net also makes holistic thinking more altruistic. Holistic thinking also demands more initiative, more creativity and more self-reliance in approaches to problem solving. Initiative is the ability to think for oneself, to be individual even at the risk of being irrational. This is the w a y to break new ground. Accompanying this
individuality has to be the motivation to work at verifying your thoughts, to fight against convention, to cross people first and then convince them. Only in this w a y can new and good ideas be promoted. But the motivation must be related to an awareness of problems and needs. In moving towards the 'biosociety', science has two roles. It should aim to describe reality as it is, and it should formulate visions of h o w it should be. The view of 'how things should be' is a question of ethics. The ethics are themselves developing in the light of new understanding, particularly of biological phenomena, and n e w technology (compare Ref. 10). But in time, these ethics will become part of the 'biosociety' and will direct its endeavours, including science and technology.
Practical measures A view of the practical moves that could be made towards a 'biosociety' was given by a declaration put forward in Austria at the Forum Alpbach in 1987. A number of priority policy measures were formulated by a group of 26 people (all experts, admittedly) with a wide disciplinary background (in ecology, anthropology, sociology, agriculture, forestry, natural science, informatics, cybernetics and economics). Among the measures they proposed 1~ were: • the establishment of the principle of circulation - to balance ecologically systems of production and consumption both in industry and in the environment; • the imposition of levies on fossil fuels and raw materials to discourage overproduction and overuse and encourage the development of alternative, renewable sources; • the decentralization of housing, production and marketing (e.g. by compensating for the economic disadvantages of family-run farms); • the introduction of ecological indicators into lists of economic objectives; • the legal adoption of these suggestions internationally. The main thrust of these policy measures reflects measures being
proposed elsewhere 12'13. The major obstacle in our path towards the 'biosociety' is the absence of an appropriate and relevant ethical framework within which biotechnologists can conceive and realize technological advances. Science without conscience (das Gewissen, la conscience) may lack sense. To remedy this, it is imperative to suggest to scientists that they must consider the implications of what they are doing. The first step w o u l d be to ensure that a sense of responsibility was conveyed in all definitions of biotechnology. For the EFB, that could be achieved if the current definition was appended by the phrase 'in order to supply biosociety with desirable products and services', indicating to the public that biotechnologists are willing to take responsibility for their work.
Acknowledgement I thank K. Luyben, N. Kossen and F. Moser for valuable discussion during the preparation of this paper. References 1 Houwink, E. H. (1984) A Realistic View on Biotechnology, Dechema 2 Biosociety (1983) EC report FAST/ ACPM/79/14-3E 3 FAST Group (1987) Eurofuture: The Challenge of Innovation, Butterworths 4 Hodgson, J. (1987) Trends Biotechnol. 5, 117 5 Capra, F. (1985) The Turning Point (2nd edn) Flamingo 6 Moser, F. (1981) Chem. Eng. (London) Aug/Sept, 13 7 Moser, A. (1987) paper given at US-Biotechnology: New Economic Chances For Austrian Industries 8 Thurkauf, M. (1984) Wissenschaften Schi~tz vor Torheit Nicht, Jordanverlag 9 Moser, A. Bioprocess TechnologyKinetics and Reactors, Springer (in press) 10 Sass, H-M. (1987) Swiss Biotech 5, 50-56 11 Wohlmeyer, H. et al. (1987) declaration at Europ~isches Forum ALPBACH 12 US Catholic Bishops (1987) Gegen Unmenschlichkeit in der Wirtschaft, Hirtenbrief, Herder 13 Bauer, D. M. and Virt, G. (1987) F//r ein Lebensrecht der Sch6pfung, Kommision Justitia et Pax, O. MUller Verlag
Biotechnology- quo vadis? $cientia sine conscientia? Anton Moser The European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) is presently discussing a broader definition of biotechnology. The discussion essentially defines biotechnology as the integrated use of natural sciences (e.g. biology, chemistry, physics) and engineering sciences (e.g. electronics) by the application of biosystems (cells of microbial, plant and animal origin, parts thereof and molecular analogues) in bioindustries 1 (pharmaceuticals, agriculture and food, environmental and industrial biotechnology). At the European Commission (EC), the definition is extended with the phrase 'in order to supply biosociety with desirable products and services' (Refs 2 and 3). This rider does not, however, seem to have been widely embraced by the scientific community. Perhaps it is acceptable that judgements on the benefits or desirability of technology should rest solely with the humanists and the policy makers. Perhaps scientists and engineers should attend only to science and technology, leaving others to decide the worth to society of their efforts. It depends, I suppose, on where one draws the boundaries of biotechnologicality 4. Is the ambit of biotechnologists limited by the frontiers of science? Or the market's leading edge? Is biotechnology just oligodisciplinary, with interactions confined to those with a scientific training? I would prefer to think that biotechnologists were able to develop their science within the context of society. After all, biotechnology is
only a day job. For most of their time, biotechnologists are recipients rather than creators of technical advance. In m y view, one of the most important aspects ofbiotechnology is that it introduces an awareness of biology and biological phenomena into everyday life. Biological components will certainly become an integral part of technology but this will not produce the 'biosociety' (Ref. 2). Rather, biology has to become, is becoming, part of 'common sense' - the thinking and living of humankind. Terms like 'evolution', 'transformation', 'growth' and 'development' can be applied to individual and societal organisms alike 5. To those with advanced and enhanced thinking it is clear that the purely 'mechanistic paradigm' no longer holds 5'6. Although the realization of this view through science, technology and society has yielded considerable material progress during the past 300 years, it is a philosophy of 'making and manipulation' with 'the human being as criterion and measure of everything'. In pursuit of production, mankind has littered history with colonization, missionary activity and aid for developing countries. This attitude has changed the world, divided it, and materialistic philosophies are becoming increasingly questioned. Crises in environment, health, nutrition, raw materials, and interpersonal and international intolerance are indicators that something is not right. Towards common aims
Anton Moser is at Institut fiir Biotechnologie, Mikrobiologie und Abfalltechnologie, A-8010 Graz, Austria. © 1988, Elsevier Publications, Cambridge
At its outermost boundaries, science is becoming unified. Particle physicists are seeking experimental
0167 - 9430/88/$02.00
evidence to support a theory unifying all forms of matter and energy. In biology, too, a greater understanding of genetics and the ability to move genes from one organism to another has emphasized the commonality of life. Observations of nature are messages from nature and new insights into the fundamental natural concepts are leading to more holistic attitudes. Take, for example, current work on protein structure determination. The concepts of 'motifs' and 'supersecondary structure' depend on combining information from many proteins. Technology that is wholly driven by the conviction that everything can be made or manipulated without consequence is becoming less acceptable to more people. Increasingly, society demands technology that is subservient to the laws of nature, laws learnt by listening to nature. B i o t e c h n o l o g i e s are n o t - a p r i o r i green
Profit is still the main criterion in the development of biotechnology. Even though biotechnology may contribute extensively to solving the problems facing mankind, the realization of technology is still largely governed by the rules of economics. Without the prospect of profit, funds for research and development are hard to come by. The capacity of biotechnology for good is, therefore, stifled or at least dampened by the need for financial self-perpetuation. This constrains the grounds on which the production of biotechnology products can be justified. It would be better in m y view if the justifications for biotechnology were developed concurrently or even in advance of the technology. Improvements in efficiency and productivity can, of course, be presented within an economic framework but the tangible benefits to ordinary people should also be addressed and assessed. Rather than saying defensively that biological technology is no worse (in terms of hazards, perpetuation of inequalities, waste, etc.) than the methods it seeks to replace, a more positive outlook should be taken at an early stage. Essentially, responsibility for the outcome should be an
T I B T E C H - SEPTEMBER 1988 [Vol. 6]
integral part of any proposed biological solution to a problem.
Biotechnologies should be BIO-logical The adoption of a more holistic approach is not simply a matter of moral and ethical outlooks, however. Its application in biotechnological research and development could itself yield benefits. There are parallels between prevailing thought and scientific method. Traditional thought is linear thought; it seeks a one-to-one connection between causes and effects. It leads to 'tunnel vision'; maxima instead of optima, quantity rather than quality, the future as a linear extension of the past and present, the generalization of one-off phenomena, loss of complexity. The concept of 'limiting metabolic steps' may be a good biotechnological case-in-point. Traditional thought is egocentric. It leads to poor human relationships, low flexibility, conservatism. In biotechnology it is apparent as an unwillingness to collaborate, entrenchment in traditional disciplines, and mistrust of technology 'not developed here'. Traditional thought places undue credence on the views of experts. This undermines creativity, undervalues self-criticism and excludes common sense from decision making. The result is that technologists strive for innovation rather than 'imbonation' (Ref. 8), newness rather than benefit. In contrast, holistic thinking is network thinking in which many causes and effects, including those occurring in the future, are considered. Systematic process analysis encompassing all relevant process phenomena is one example9; it enables predictions of process behaviour under a wide variety of conditions. The wide~ casting of the net also makes holistic thinking more altruistic. Holistic thinking also demands more initiative, more creativity and more self-reliance in approaches to problem solving. Initiative is the ability to think for oneself, to be individual even at the risk of being irrational. This is the w a y to break new ground. Accompanying this
individuality has to be the motivation to work at verifying your thoughts, to fight against convention, to cross people first and then convince them. Only in this w a y can new and good ideas be promoted. But the motivation must be related to an awareness of problems and needs. In moving towards the 'biosociety', science has two roles. It should aim to describe reality as it is, and it should formulate visions of h o w it should be. The view of 'how things should be' is a question of ethics. The ethics are themselves developing in the light of new understanding, particularly of biological phenomena, and n e w technology (compare Ref. 10). But in time, these ethics will become part of the 'biosociety' and will direct its endeavours, including science and technology.
Practical measures A view of the practical moves that could be made towards a 'biosociety' was given by a declaration put forward in Austria at the Forum Alpbach in 1987. A number of priority policy measures were formulated by a group of 26 people (all experts, admittedly) with a wide disciplinary background (in ecology, anthropology, sociology, agriculture, forestry, natural science, informatics, cybernetics and economics). Among the measures they proposed 1~ were: • the establishment of the principle of circulation - to balance ecologically systems of production and consumption both in industry and in the environment; • the imposition of levies on fossil fuels and raw materials to discourage overproduction and overuse and encourage the development of alternative, renewable sources; • the decentralization of housing, production and marketing (e.g. by compensating for the economic disadvantages of family-run farms); • the introduction of ecological indicators into lists of economic objectives; • the legal adoption of these suggestions internationally. The main thrust of these policy measures reflects measures being
proposed elsewhere 12'13. The major obstacle in our path towards the 'biosociety' is the absence of an appropriate and relevant ethical framework within which biotechnologists can conceive and realize technological advances. Science without conscience (das Gewissen, la conscience) may lack sense. To remedy this, it is imperative to suggest to scientists that they must consider the implications of what they are doing. The first step w o u l d be to ensure that a sense of responsibility was conveyed in all definitions of biotechnology. For the EFB, that could be achieved if the current definition was appended by the phrase 'in order to supply biosociety with desirable products and services', indicating to the public that biotechnologists are willing to take responsibility for their work.
Acknowledgement I thank K. Luyben, N. Kossen and F. Moser for valuable discussion during the preparation of this paper. References 1 Houwink, E. H. (1984) A Realistic View on Biotechnology, Dechema 2 Biosociety (1983) EC report FAST/ ACPM/79/14-3E 3 FAST Group (1987) Eurofuture: The Challenge of Innovation, Butterworths 4 Hodgson, J. (1987) Trends Biotechnol. 5, 117 5 Capra, F. (1985) The Turning Point (2nd edn) Flamingo 6 Moser, F. (1981) Chem. Eng. (London) Aug/Sept, 13 7 Moser, A. (1987) paper given at US-Biotechnology: New Economic Chances For Austrian Industries 8 Thurkauf, M. (1984) Wissenschaften Schi~tz vor Torheit Nicht, Jordanverlag 9 Moser, A. Bioprocess TechnologyKinetics and Reactors, Springer (in press) 10 Sass, H-M. (1987) Swiss Biotech 5, 50-56 11 Wohlmeyer, H. et al. (1987) declaration at Europ~isches Forum ALPBACH 12 US Catholic Bishops (1987) Gegen Unmenschlichkeit in der Wirtschaft, Hirtenbrief, Herder 13 Bauer, D. M. and Virt, G. (1987) F//r ein Lebensrecht der Sch6pfung, Kommision Justitia et Pax, O. MUller Verlag