Apr/May 2001
Energy
Crisis or greed crisis?
Jackie alan Giuliano, Ph.D.
US
Science And Technology Policy
A New Century, A New Framework
Jill Chopyak
An
Ounce Of Precaution: The "Precautionary Principle" Versus "Risk
Management"
Donella
Meadows
The
Pain of the World Passes Through Us
Gaea Yudron, MRET
Plastic
Softeners in Food & Water Linked to Reproductive Disorders
Rachel’s Bi-weekly
Political money: Like A Big Water Balloon by John Darling
Congress:
The Real Pros At Quid Pro Quo
Arianna Huffington
Citizen
Protests Continue: Worldwide Opposition
Kayla M. Starr
Fiddling
While Rome Burns
Blair Bobier
These
Mountains & Rivers as Home:
The Work of the Siskiyou Field Institute
Let
the Children Move
Jon Bredal, MA
Breastfeeding:
A Simple Choice
Pamela Jorrick
Monthly Prayer by Peter Moore
The
Future of Energy Medicine
Richard Gordon
Shock:
How It Limits Our Lives, What We Can Do About It
Peggy Rubin
Cosmic Calendar by Salina Rain
US
Science And Technology Policy:
A New Century, A New Framework
Jill Chopyak
In a new century—with a new White House Administration—this Loka Alert renews and reinvigorates Loka’s commitment to work for a democratic politics of science and technology. It calls for support from all our constituents to work with us in developing a new science and technology framework—one that includes the voices of those most affected by science and technology decisions and developments.
In his recent book, Life is a Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition, Wendell Berry rallies against science and technology advocates who believe that strict scientific inquiry will, in the future, enable us to discover the meaning of life—logically and rationally. He cautions that believing we have the ability to discover the "facts" behind the mystery of life will be our downfall: "We can give up on life by presuming to understand it … To reduce life to the scope of our understanding is to enslave it, make property of it, put it up for sale … to carry it beyond change and redemption, and to increase the proximity of despair."
The recent mapping of the human genome—and reactions to it—exemplify the threat that Berry speaks of. The February 16, 2001 issue of Science magazine was dedicated entirely to the human genome project. The significant achievement of scientists worldwide who have been working to unravel the mystery of our genetic makeup for decades should be applauded. However, just as a map of the world shows only geographic boundaries and none of the complex social, political and cultural relationships between nations, a map of the human genome cannot possibly explain the complex relationship between biology, society, culture and chemical makeup—all brought together in a mysterious way that make us human. Berry’s critique is one that stresses the need for humility—to accept that there are things we will never know. However, the current scientific and technological view is that if we try hard enough, we will discover the meaning of life.
Science editors Barbara Jasny and Donald Kennedy state: "Humanity has been given a great gift. With the completion of the human genome sequence, we have received a powerful tool for unlocking the secrets of our genetic heritage and for finding our place among the other participants in the adventure of life." The mapping of the human genome has tremendous potential to combat disease and provide new information about human evolution. Yet, it also has incredible social, political, cultural and philosophical implications that have not been thoroughly discussed or evaluated. For example, the ability to predict genetically transmitted diseases could easily cause a "genetic hypochondria," with individuals waiting anxiously for a disease that may or may not come. Issues around insurance coverage in the U.S. for pre-determined genetic diseases are already at issue. Discovering the genetic details that makes us different from our neighbors—or other species—will have a profound impact on how we view ourselves and our humanity, which will, in turn, raise important and complex ethical, spiritual and philosophical questions.
The impact of the mapping of the human genome on all aspects of our lives is significant. Yet, there has been little public discussion or debate about such issues prior to —or during—its discovery. In 1995, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy-sponsored Working Group on Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Human Genome Research organized a Task Force on Genetic Testing to review genetic testing in the U.S. The Task Force was mandated to make recommendations to the larger Working Group that focuses on ensuring the development of safe and effective genetic tests. Of the 15 voting members of the Task Force, only one represented a public-interest perspective.
The lack of public involvement in science and technology decision-making is not isolated to the genetics field. Science and technology policy in the U.S. to date has not addressed the need for citizen involvement in science and technology decision-making. At the recent Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in San Francisco, California, there was a symposium entitled, "Science Policy: The Next 50 Years." The panel of speakers included individuals from government, university administration, and business. Discussion focused on new modes of collaboration between these stakeholders and almost completely ignored issues of citizen concern, societal impact of science and technology, or how these issues will affect future policy decisions.
At the same time, recent scares in Europe (mad cow, hoof and mouth), controversies over biotechnology in Europe and the U.S., and movies such as "Gattaca" and "The 6th Day" demonstrate that developments in science and technology—and their affects on our lives—are of concern to citizens worldwide. And increasingly, citizens no longer are appeased by a "Trust Us, We’re Experts" mentality. Science and technology policy is one of the most significant areas of today’s decision-making realm. There is a need for a new mode of decision-making—one that incorporates citizen involvement and public interest concerns, and examines the social, political, environmental and cultural issues involved in research, and scientific and technological developments.
Past
And Current Trends
Science and technology policy in the United States since the Second World
War has included three predominate players: industry, Federal government,
and universities/established research institutions. Each of these players
have held a particular role in setting U.S. science and technology policy
agenda to the mutual benefit of all three.
Over the past fifty years, the primary role of the U.S. government in science and technology has been that of funding research and development (R&D). From 1953-1978, the U.S. government funded 50-60% of total R&D funding in the U.S. Half of this has consistently been spent on defense-related areas. This funding went to academic researchers in universities and federally-sponsored research institutions, and to public and private laboratories that furthered broad Federal objectives, such as military security. Occasionally, developments from this research had a commercial use, and were used and marketed for profit, but this was not the norm. During this period, science and technology was controlled and developed by experts, who would transfer this information and results to the public as needed. Public involvement in the process was not considered, except as a consumer of the commercial innovations resulting within industry.
Continue article on next page...
