UNESCO Bangkok
Regional Unit for Social and Human Sciencein Asia and the Pacific

UNESCO Bangkok
Regional Unit for Social and Human Sciencein Asia and the Pacific920 Sukhumvit Road
Prakanong, Bangkok 10110 Thailand
E-mail: bangkok@unescobkk.org
Website: www.unescobkk.org
Tel: +66-2-3910577 Fax: +66-2-3910866

Asia-Pacific
Perspectives on Ethics ofScience and Technology

Asia-Pacific
Perspectives on Ethics ofScience and Technology

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on the Ethics of Science and Technology. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok, 2007.
xiv + 80 pp.
1. Ethics of science. 2. Technology. 3. Governance of Science. 4. Bioethics. 5. Asia and the Pacific.

ISBN 978-92-9223-136-1 (Print Version)
ISBN 978-92-9223-137-8 (Electronic version)© UNESCO 2007
Published by the
UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education
920 Sukhumvit Rd., Prakanong
Bangkok 10110, Thailand
Chief Editor: Caroline Haddad
Editor: Darryl R.J. Macer
Cover design: Alessandra Blasi
Design/Layout: Sirisak Chaiyasook
Printed in Thailand
The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the publication do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory,
city or area or of its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries.
SHS/06/OS/63-Electronic

CONTENTS

iii

ACRONYMS

iv

PREFACEv

FORWARDx

COMEST and Reflections on UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers

1

Bioethics in a Wider and Probably Original Sense

6

Pacific Ethics and Universal Norms

9

Indian Ethics and Contemporary Bioethical Issues

14

Bioethics and Interdisciplinarity

17

The Precautionary Principle in Nanotechnology

22

Philosophical and Practical Reflections of Malaysian Science

27

High Tech Neuroscience, Neuroethics, and the Precautionary Principle

37

Science, Technology, and the Supernatural in Contemporary Thai Novels

44

A Conception of Risk in Decision-Making
48
National Bioethics Commission of Indonesia in the Framework of National Scientific Research andTechnological Development

50

Codes of Ethics for Engineers and Scientists in New Zealand

53

Consulting the Public in the Setting of Bioethics: Regulatory Framework and Policy in Malaysia

60

Discussion
Shinryo Shinagawa (Japan): Bioethics in a Wider and Probably Original Sense
Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop (Samoa): Is there a ‘Greater Good?’ Ethics Policies in the Pacific
D.S. Nesy (India): Indian Ethics and Contemporary Bioethical Issues
Jeong-Ro Yoon (Republic of Korea): Whither the ELSI Programme in Korea
Soraj Hongladarom (Thailand): Bioethics and Interdisciplinarity
John Weckert (Australia): Should the Precautionary Principle be Applied to Nanotechnology?
Irina Pollard (Australia): Advances in Neuroscience and the Precautionary Principle:
What Can Bioscience-Bioethics Teach Us?
Mary Vimalakuumari Kalaiarasi (India): Sensory Abilities Beyond Human

67
68
68
71
72
73
74

About the Contributors

79

74
75

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

CONTENTS

iii

ACRONYMS

iv

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

CEDAW: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
COMEST: World Commission on the Ethics of Science and Technology
IBC:
International Bioethics Committee
ICSU:
International Council of Scientific Unions
ICPHS:
International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies
IGBC:
Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee
IGCP:
International Geoscience Programme
IHP:
International Hydrological Programme
ISSC:
International Social Science Council
IOC:Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
MAB:
Man and Biosphere
MOST:
Management of Social Transformations

PREFACE
Science and technology are shaping the future of countries across the world, and the euphoric message
of belief in technology as a way to economic development continues to be dominant. While ensuring
the right of scientific investigation, there is also a necessity to ensure that scientific progress is ethically
acceptable. Reflecting this concern, UNESCO has made ethics of science and technology one of its fivepriority areas. This volume offers perspectives on some of these ethical issues from people living acrossAsia and the Pacific.

UNESCO Ethics Programmes
In pursuit of the UNESCO mandate, the Social and Human Sciences (SHS) sector seeks to advanceknowledge, standards, and intellectual cooperation in order to facilitate social transformations wherethe values of justice, freedom, and human dignity can be fully realized. The Sector’s task is to study what
is, to anticipate what could be and to determine what should be in order to reduce the gap between
what is and what should be.
The Sector’s Programme on the Ethics of Science and Technology1, being one of UNESCO’s five priority
areas, is designed to ensure that the world remains secure for everyone by placing the ongoing
revolutionary scientific and technological progress within a context of ethical reflection rooted in thecultural, legal, philosophical, and religious heritage of the various human communities. This programme
covers two primary areas of ethical reflection: bioethics (addressing concerns stemming from advancesin life sciences), and ethics of science and technology (addressing other areas of applied ethics in relation
to scientific and social developments).
In order to more effectively implement ethics and bioethics activities, the networking and partnershipbuilding across the region must be improved with global assistance and cooperation. The meetings of2005 and 2006 follow up a 2003 consultation meeting on Ethics of Science and Technology in Bangkok,
and signal an increase in activities in ethics in the region that will be sustained into the future as countries
grapple with the issues raised by science and technology.
The UNESCO Bioethics Programme2 was created in 1993 and has been a principal priority of UNESCO since
2002. Its first major standard setting document was agreed to in 1997 after five years of deliberations in
the International Bioethics Committee. At the time that the UNESCO General Conference adopted the
Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, it was the only international instrumentin the field of bioethics, and it was further endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1998.
The Bioethics Programme is part of UNESCO’s Division of the Ethics of Science and Technology in theSocial and Human Sciences Sector. It acts as the Secretariat of two advisory bodies: the International
Bioethics Committee, composed of 36 independent experts, and the Intergovernmental Bioethics
Committee, composed of representatives of 36 Member States. These Committees cooperate to produce
advice, recommendations, and proposals that each submits to the Director-General for consideration
by UNESCO’s governing bodies.

12

http://www.unesco.org/ethics
http://www.unesco.org/bioethics

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

UNESCO’s programme in this area aims to strengthen the ethical link between scientific advancement
and the cultural, legal, philosophical and religious context in which it occurs. UNESCO’s strategy inbioethics has been to act as a standards-setter on emerging ethical issues, to disseminate informationand knowledge and to help Member States build their human and institutional capacities. The standards
include the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, adopted by UNESCO’s
General Conference in 1997 and subsequently endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in
1998. This was followed by the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data, adopted in 2003,
and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, adopted by UNESCO’s 33rd General
Conference in 2005.

v

The International Bioethics Committee (IBC) is a body of 36 independent experts that follows progressin the life sciences and its applications in order to ensure respect for human dignity and freedom. It
was created in 1993. The IBC provides a global forum for in-depth bioethical reflection by exposing theissues at stake. It does not pass judgment on one position or another. Instead, it is up to each country,
particularly lawmakers, to reflect societal choices within the framework of national legislation, and to
decide between the different positions. The tasks of the IBC include:(1) to promote reflection on the ethical and legal issues raised by research in the life sciences andtheir applications, and to encourage the exchange of ideas and information, particularly througheducation;(2) to encourage action to heighten awareness among the general public, specialized groups, andpublic and private decision-makers involved in bioethics;(3) to co-operate with the international governmental and non-governmental organizations concernedby the issues raised in the field of bioethics, as well as with the national and regional bioethics
committees and similar bodies;(4) (i) to contribute to the dissemination of the principles set out in the Universal Declaration on
the Human Genome and Human Rights, and to the further examination of issues raised by theirapplications and by the evolution of the technologies in question;vi

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology(ii) to organize appropriate consultations with stakeholders;(iii) to make recommendations addressed to the General Conference, to give advice concerning thefollow-up of the Declaration, and to identify practices that could be contrary to human dignity.
Since 1998, the IBC has had statutes defining its mandate, composition, etc. The Director-General of
UNESCO convenes the IBC at least once a year. Through its sessions and working groups, the Committee
produces advice and recommendations on specific issues that are adopted by consensus and are widely
disseminated and submitted to the Director-General for transmission to the Member States, the Executive
Board, and the General Conference. The Director-General appoints the IBC’s 36 members to serve in theirpersonal capacities for four-year terms. The selection is made by taking into account cultural diversity,balanced geographical representation, and nominations from some States of qualified specialists in thelife sciences and in the social and human sciences, including law, human rights, philosophy, education,and communication.
The Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC) was created in 1998, under Article 11 of thestatutes of the IBC (International Bioethics Committee). It is comprised of 36 Member States whose
representatives meet at least once every two years to examine the advice and recommendations of the
IBC. It informs the IBC of its opinions and submits these opinions along with proposals for follow-up of
the IBC’s work to the Director-General for transmission to Member States, the Executive Board, and theGeneral Conference. The 36 Member States are elected by UNESCO’s General Conference, taking into
account cultural diversity and balanced geographical representation. Members serve for terms of aboutfour years, from the end of the ordinary session of the General Conference in which they are elected,
until the end of the second subsequent ordinary session.
The World Commission on the Ethics of Science and Technology (COMEST) was created in 1998 and is
described by Professor Song in this volume (p. 1).

Mapping Experts and Data
In order to help Member States to build capacity in applied ethics, a system of databases is being created,called the Global Ethics Observatory (GEObs).3 At the time of writing, five of these databases of GEObs
are online: 1) a database of experts in applied ethics; 2) a database of ethics institutions and committees;3) a database of teaching programmes; 4) a database of bioethics legislation from selected countries;5) a database of codes of conduct in science and technology. The information is searchable online andavailable in the six official languages of UNESCO. The databases 3 and 4 include only data from somegeographical areas at present, and all databases are expected to grow significantly in coming years.

3

http://www.unesco.org/ethics/geo

The process of entry includes the following steps:
Database 1(1) Data from independent mailing lists of individuals interested and/or involved in applied ethics werecombined to form one database with unique entries.
(2) Criteria for determining what constitutes an expert were drawn up. Based on these criteria, aquestionnaire was created in English and French for completion by prospective experts.
(3) The questionnaire was sent to all individuals in the combined database already gathered over theyears, field office databases and prospective experts not already in the combined database. This
work is ongoing for the region.
(4) Many responses have been received. Review meetings are held at Headquarters to determine
whether or not, according to the agreed criteria, the individuals who responded are experts and are
therefore to be included in the GEO database.
Database 2(2) Steps as outlined for Database 1.
Database 3(1) A form was created to survey ethics teaching programmes.
(2) This form was distributed to participants in conferences on ethics teaching organized by theDivision of Ethics of Science and Technology and responses have been received. In the coming years,
mapping of programmes will be actively conducted in Asia and the Pacific region.
(3) There have been challenges of data consistency for mapping teaching programmes, as the forms
are more complex and the curricula that persons use vary widely.
Other databases are under construction. In addition, the Regional Unit for Social and Human Sciences(RUSHSAP)4 of UNESCO Bangkok, is listing regional degree programmes in bioethics, codes of ethics inscience and technology, and related resources.

UNESCO Asia-Pacific School of Ethics
RUSHSAP launched a UNESCO Asia-Pacific School of Ethics5 for partner individuals and institutions
across the region in 2006. This undertaking recognises their contribution to the implementation of goals
shared in the UNESCO programmes. It also contributes to capacity development by allowing a forum
for discourse about issues in policy-making. In this way, too, UNESCO facilitates networking between
countries in the implementation of standards that have been agreed between different countries.

Regional and National Bioethics Conferences
UNESCO has been developing initiatives in the Asia-Pacific region for some time. In 1997, the UNESCO
Asian Bioethics Conference was held in Kobe, Japan, together with the founding of the Asian Bioethics
Association. There were a series of meetings on these issues organised in Japan, and in November 2003,
a Bioethics Consultation meeting was held in UNESCO Bangkok.

45

http://www.unescobkk.org/rushsap
http://www.unescobkk.org/index.php?id=apse

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology(1) A pre-existing database of bioethics institutions was used as a starting point for this second
database.

vii

In March 2005, the First Bangkok Workshop on Ethics Partnerships for Asia and the Pacific and the Fourth
Session of the COMEST were held in Bangkok. In December 2005, the Twelfth Session of the UNESCO IBC
was held in Tokyo, Japan. The COMEST and IBC are two statutory global committees designated by theUnited Nations to deliberate on these issues. The future involvement of participants in an expanding
international network and activities across the region, and also globally, is one of the important
outcomes of these meetings.
In 2006, the Second Bangkok Workshop on Ethics Partnerships for Asia and the Pacific was held at UNESCO
Bangkok, as was a series of “Consultations on Ethical Codes in Science and Technology”, which took placein Bangkok, New Delhi, Seoul and Tokyo. Additionally, the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Conference on Bioethics
Education was held in Seoul, and resulted in adoption of a regional Action Plan on Bioethics Education.
In March 2007, the Second UNESCO Bangkok Bioethics Roundtable (BBRT2) was held concurrant with
the Eighth Asian Bioethics Conference.

viii

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

National and sub-regional bioethics meetings and bioethics education training courses have also been
held in many countries across the region as part of UNESCO Bangkok activities. The locations haveincluded: Karachi, Bangalore, Vellore, Chennai, Colombo, Delhi, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Tokyo,
Seoul, Mumbai, Madurai, Trivandrum, Jakarta, Jogyakarta, Suva, Apia, Canberra and Hanoi.
Internationally, the Division of Ethics of Science and Technology has organized a series of ethics
conferences in various countries. Through these conferences, information about UNESCO’s programmeof ethics of science and technology can be disseminated. The conferences also provide a platform toestablish intensive contacts between experts and interested parties in the countries. The conferences
are usually planned in co-operation with the National Commissions for UNESCO or other interested
organizations so that a joint venture will be established that benefits all participating institutions.
These “Ethics Around the World: Rotating Conferences” have as their objectives the dissemination of
information and materials about activities of UNESCO ethics programmes. The meetings provide theopportunity for information exchange with national and local professionals working in the ethics field,
and the creation of networks for interested target audiences. Meetings have been held in Hamedan, Iran;
Ankara, Turkey; Seoul, Korea; Jakarta, Indonesia; Moscow, Russian Federation; Beijing, China; Chengdu,
China; Shanghai, China; Manila, Philippines and Dunedin, New Zealand.

The Way Forward
As UNESCO seeks to advance dialogue on ethics of science and technology, the Organization
acknowledges that individuals who participate in its conferences come from a range of disciplines andcultures. Unless we can freely contemplate these issues, we will not be able to present a wide range ofoptions to the communities and societies we inhabit. UNESCO encourages freedom of expression towork for greater understanding between people, which leads to the enrichment of all who participate
in such dialogues.
This collection of papers initiates a series of forthcoming books from UNESCO Bangkok offering
perspectives on ethics in Asia and Pacific, with each focusing on a specific theme. These papers wereoriginally presented during conferences on ethics in science and technology that UNESCO’s Regional
Unit for Social and Human Sciences (RUSHSAP) has been convening since 2005. Since interculturalcommunication and information-sharing are essential components of these deliberations, the books
also provide theme-related discourse from the conferences.
The First UNESCO Bangkok Bioethics Roundtable was held 11-15 September, 2005, to launch UNESCO’s
60th anniversary celebration in Bangkok. The UNESCO Bangkok office is the largest UNESCO branch
office in the Asia-Pacific region, encompassing 46 member countries. RUSHSAP is designated as theregional office for coordinating implementation of the UNESCO programmes in the social and humansciences sector in Asia and the Pacific, which includes the programmes on ethics of science with theDivision of Ethics of Science and Technology in Paris.

UNESCO wishes to thank the active discussion and participation of all who attended the UNESCO
Bangkok meetings. A special thank you is due to Heather McClellan and Caroline Haddad for help inediting the papers, to Frankie Keller for transcribing the discussion section, and to Sirisak Chaiyasookfor designing the publication’s layout. The cover design is thanks to Alessandro Blasi. We look forward
to increased discourse on these papers — not as the final word on these topics, but rather as a way tocatalyze greater regional discussion about the ethics of science and technology.

Darryl Macer

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Regional Advisor for Social and Human Sciences in Asia and the Pacific
UNESCO Bangkok

ix

FORWARD
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was founded for the
purpose of promoting international peace through its programmes in the fields of Education, Science,
Culture, and Communication. UNESCO was officially founded on 16 November 1945 in the aftermathof the “great and terrible war”…the war that could never be allowed to be repeated. It was founded to“create a culture of peace in the minds of men.” It has striven, for the last 60 years to accomplish this by
exercising, activating and augmenting the educational, scientific and cultural relations of the peoplesof the entire world.
For 60 years, UNESCO has sought• To promote universal literacy and equal access to education;• To promote the free flow of ideas and universal access to information;• To promote the expression of pluralism and cultural diversity in the media and in world information
networks;• It has strivenxAsia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology• To ensure access for all to information and communication technologies;• To safeguard cultural diversity and encourage dialogue among cultures and civilizations;• To promote education as a basic human right;• To improve the quality of education for all;
• To promote innovation and policy dialogue in education;• To promote the drafting and implementation of standard-setting instruments regarding cultural
heritage;• To promote principles and ethical norms to guide scientific and technological development, andsocial transformation;• To improve human security by better management of the environment and social change;• To enhance scientific, technical and human capacities to participate in the emerging knowledge
societies; and• To enhance the linkages between culture and development through capacity-building and thesharing of knowledge.

UNESCO’s mandate has been broad; it has encompassed many programmes, projects and initiatives.
Progress has been made, but there remains a lot to be done and our work is not finished.
The UNESCO Bangkok office is the largest UNESCO field office in the Asia-Pacific Region, which for
UNESCO includes 46 member countries from Iran in the West to Japan in the East, and to the South,
New Zealand and 17 Pacific Island nations. The conferences that gave rise to this publication included
individuals coming from a number of these countries and also outside the region.
One of the current top five priorities of the Organization is reflection and action related to the ethics ofscience and technology, the topic of this volume. UNESCO Bangkok is designated as the coordinating
office in the region for implementation of the UNESCO programmes on ethics of science. This includes
ethics teaching programmes, implementing the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development(ESD) and increasing national and regional implementation of UNESCO declarations on bioethics,
as well as supporting activities of the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee (IBC), the UNESCO
Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC) and the World Commission on Ethics of Science andTechnology (COMEST).
Since 2005, UNESCO’s Regional Unit in Social and Human Sciences in Asia and the Pacific has held
conferences to study a vast span of bioethics issues. Experts present question how bioethics declarations

Sheldon Shaeffer
Director
UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education
Bangkok, Thailand

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

and international agreements can be applied to enhance the realities of communities across a divided
and diverse world. There has been dialogue on the ethical implications of many varied themes, suchas organ donations and transplants, human cloning, human embryonic stem cell research, transgenic
Thai papayas, AIDS, animal rights and cultural perspectives. This publication initiates a new series ofbooks looking at Asia-Pacific perspectives on the ethics of science, technology and bioethics. We needto learn how we can implement UNESCO and UN declarations better in this region to accomplish theMillennium Development Goals, and to do so in ways that are consistent with the variety of cultures
found in this region of the world. By the publication of these papers and pertinent dialogue from theconferences, we hope that new perspectives on these issues for the global community will also improvemutual understanding between and among cultures.

xiCOMEST and Reflections on UNESCO’s
Recommendation on the Status of
Scientific Researchers*
Song Sang-Yong, Ph.D
COMEST
Republic of Korea

Within the purview of the ethics of science and technology focus area, the World Commission on Ethics
of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) was formally created in 1998, and is composed of
18 prominent independent personalities (in 2005, these were from Brazil, Canada, Chile, Egypt, France,
India, Japan, Mali, Morocco, New Zealand, Norway, People’s Republic of China, Russian Federation,
South Africa, Republic of Korea, Spain, and the United States of America) and 11 ex officio members(chairpersons of IBC, IGBC, ICSU, ICPHS, ISSC, Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, IOC,
MAB, MOST, IHP, IGCP) from different regions of the world and from various scientific and humanistic
disciplines.
COMEST is tasked with formulating, on a scientific basis, ethical principles that can shed light on thevarious choices and impacts occasioned by new advancements in scientific and technological fields,
thus fostering a constructive ethical dialogue on the values at stake.
COMEST is mandated as an advisory body of UNESCO, seeking to provide informed counsel to decisionmakers. It functions as an intellectual forum for the exchange of ideas and experience. COMEST detects
early signs of risk situations associated with science and technology, ranging from cases where countries
have developed new technologies at the expense of the global environment, to issues such as the
restricted access of developing countries to such technologies. It also provides a platform to promotedialogue between scientific communities, decision-makers, and the public at large.
The first phase of COMEST’s work focused on the exploration of ethical issues in water usage, energy,
space policy, and information, as well as on the teaching of ethics. Drawing upon dialogues from thefirst phase, COMEST has now adopted a new approach for the second phase of its work by supporting
Member States in a range of activities with regard to ethical issues related to science and technology.
COMEST has also expanded its focus, looking at the ethics of outer space, ethical codes of conduct
for scientists, and environmental ethics, as well as addressing specific issues of science ethics, research
ethics, ethics of technology, and ethics teaching.

Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers
The UNESCO Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers was made a generation ago in
1974. However, it still seems to be based on the concept of science which was prevalent in the logicalpositivism and the Mertonian sociology of science of the 1930s. The traditional view of science, with thenorms of ‘objectivity’ and ‘disinterestedness’, was seriously challenged by the post-analytic philosophyof the 1960s and the sociology of scientific knowledge of the 1970s. As a result of the criticism ofscience, including the anti-science movement, the old notion of the ethical neutrality of science became
obsolete.
*

Paper first presented at the Consultation Meeting on Ethical Codes in Science and Technology, UNESCO Bangkok,
May 2006.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

The COMEST

1

There is no consensus on the nature of science among philosophers. It is true that the new view ofscience has not been accepted, especially in the scientific community. The majority of scientists stillcling to the traditional view. The ‘science war’ of the 1990s is a good example of the orthodox scientists’backlash against the supposedly subversive attempts of cultural studies of science and post-modernism.
Nevertheless, the Recommendation should reflect the changing concept of science.

2

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

The Recommendation is focused on the status of researchers and is mainly interested in the freedomof science and the rights of scientists. Ever since the trial of Galileo in the seventeenth century, somescientists have had difficulties with religious authorities. The interventions in science by such authorities
have been weakened considerably in recent times. The evolutionists in the United States, however, arestill harassed by creation science, a pseudo-science. Freedom of science was awfully threatened in Nazi
Germany and the Soviet Union under Stalin. The Aryan science and Lysenkoism were unforgettablenightmares for scientists. Even after World War II, the Cold War and such problems as racial discrimination
brought forth the issues of freedom in the conduct of science. ICSU formed the Standing Committee on
the Freedom in the Conduct of Science (SCFCS) in 1963.
As the adverse aspects of science came to be apparent in the latter part of the last century, a shift fromfreedom to responsibility became inevitable. It meant the utmost importance of the ethics of science.
The creation of the Standing Committee on Responsibility and Ethics of Science (SCRES, 1996-2002) in
the ICSU and the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST,
1998) in UNESCO was the natural outcome. The World Conference on Science in Budapest (1999) was theturning point towards the social responsibility of scientists and the ethics of science. There is no doubtthat the autonomy and freedom of science and the welfare and rights of scientists are as important as
ever. The tension between freedom of research and government interest and the trend towards morecommercialization are new problems. However, more emphasis on responsibility and ethics, rather thanon freedom and rights, is essential. It is justified by the fact that “science, which was seen as a positive
force in securing justice, human rights and freedom, is no longer what it used to be.” (Fenstad 2003).
The Recommendation mentions environmental problems, but it is not free from anthropocentrism. The
time-honoured Cartesian distinction between humans and animals is now universally refuted. Animal
issues were not included in the Declaration at the World Conference on Science in Budapest. The debates
on animal rights are on-going, but the concern for animal rights and animal welfare is badly needed. The
concept of sustainable development, which was adopted at the UN Conference on Environment andDevelopment, Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development,
Johannesburg in 2002, should also be added.
The accelerated development of bioscience and biotechnology after the 1970s raised various new
ethical issues. Bioethics dealing with the Human Genome Project, genetically modified organisms(GMOs), test tube babies, cloning, stem cell research, etc., suddenly rose as an extremely importantfield. Western bioethics started with reflection on the cruel human experimentations by Nazi doctors.
The Nuremberg Code (1947) and Helsinki Declaration (1964) are perennial classics. The irony is that thePrussian government and Weimar government made even stronger and more extensive guidelines than
the above ones in 1900 and 1931, respectively. New problems such as informed consent, institutional
review boards and ethics committees appeared. Bioethics is very sensitive and controversial since it isrelated to research with human subjects and human reproduction. The Universal Declaration on Bioethics
and Human Rights in 2005 is a monumental achievement of the International Bioethics Committee (IBC)of UNESCO, in addition to the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997)
and the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data (2003). “Bioethics is no longer the exclusive
concern of scientists, medical professionals or policy makers. It concerns all people.” (Ten Have, 2006)
Bioethical issues should be given top priority. The Universal Declaration will be the basis to go further.
In the twentieth century, there were two alleged cases of bacteriological warfare in East Asia. Japan
conducted biological weapons research, including human experimentation, in China from 1932 until theend of World War II. During the Korean War, the allegations that the U.S. Forces had used bacteriological
warfare in North Korea and Northeast China were raised (Tsuchiya, 2000). Big powers continued thedevelopment of biological weapons, and some developing countries joined the group.
After the terrorist attacks in the U.S. on 11 September 2001, the possibilities of bioterrorism caught muchattention. Bacteriological warfare is a serious threat to humankind. At the IV International Conference on

Bioethics (2005) in Gijon, the ‘Declaration against Biological Weapons’ was adopted. Will the successful
campaign for nuclear disarmament half a century ago happen again? Scientists should be encouraged
to consider the problem sincerely. In general, scientists disagree with military research. Many research
projects are connected with the military in one way or another. It is a grave problem for scientists to cut
these military connections.
Breakthroughs in information and communication technology are changing human life in all respects.
One billion people on the earth are interconnected on the Internet. The digital revolution is regarded asa more significant event than the fall of socialism at the end of the twentieth century. It is accelerating
globalization and social changes. It also benefits productivity, economic growth and international
exchange in culture (Evers, 2001). On the other hand, it is suffering from the problems of privacy,
alienation and cyber crimes, as predicted half a century ago. The Internet calls on new ethics appropriate
to a new era. It is the engine driving us towards increased inequality. International security is anotherproblem to be solved.

During the past decades, scientists, laypeople and politicians have become increasingly aware of theimportance of ethics in scientific research. Several trends have contributed to these growing concerns.
First, the press has covered stories on ethical issues raised by science. Second, scientists and government
officials have investigated, documented and adjudicated cases of ethical misconduct. Third, science’s
increasing interdependence with business and industry has generated conflicts between the values ofscience and business (Resnik 1998).
Scientific misconduct became a public issue in the United States in 1981, when its Congressional Houseof Representatives held the first hearing on the problem. In 1989, the Public Health Service created the
Office of Scientific Integrity in the National Institute of Health. It means that research ethics began to
be institutionalised. Similar institutions were made in Scandinavian countries, Germany and the United
Kingdom during the 1990s.
In the history of science, frauds and fakes are not rare. However, the recent scandal of Hwang Woo-Suk instem cell research is one of the biggest, considering its scope and impact. The collapse of research ethics
in Korean biotechnology is not only a fatal blow to Korea, but also throws many problems to the wholeworld. In spite of the continuous criticisms from bioethicists, Hwang was a national hero and internationalstar fully supported by the government, mass media and people. He looked invincible. Thanks to theinformation of a whistleblower and the tenacious investigation by the producers of MBC TV his research
was disclosed to be a huge fake (Song, et al. 2004). It was fortunate that the verification efforts of young
scientists and prompt investigation by Seoul National University brought the case to conclusion. The
Korean Government hurriedly began to make a guideline for research ethics, and research integrity
committees are appearing in many universities. Increasing frauds and misconducts in research are big
problems all over the world. Research integrity is a challenge to the scientific community.
“Science and Society: Rights and Responsibilities”, an ICSU Strategic Review (2005), emphasizes thechanging relations between science and society. It points out that with regard to expert understandingof the relations of science and society, there have been significant developments in academia in recent
decades.
Problems of science today are too complex to be solved by scientists alone. This is the reason why theircooperation with humanities and social science is indispensable. History and philosophy of science(HPS) was born in the nineteenth century and became a well-established interdisciplinary field by the
1940s. Science and Technology Studies or Science, Technology and Science (STS) have grown rapidly
since the 1970s to be a remarkable discipline in and out of universities. Historians and philosophersof science tend to be critical of science, which makes them unpopular among scientists. However, it isexpected that HPS and STS can help science in many ways. They have become sources of policy advice toAsia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Risks and uncertainties are two characteristics of contemporary society. The emergence of unpredictableand uncertain, and possibly catastrophic, risks made the society develop an anticipatory model: thePrecautionary Principle to protect humans and the environment. It was a shift from post-damage control
to pre-damage control of risks. The Precautionary Principle is useful not only for environmental ethics,
but also for the ethics of emerging technologies, including nanotechnology.

3

governmental and corporate decision-makers. HPS and STS should be given more roles in both scienceeducation and ethics education.
UNESCO’s Recommendation sees science only in the service of humankind. Science cannot be ahandmaiden to the economy. The values of science for its own sake should be taken into consideration.
The “Two Cultures” problem has never been solved. The traditional dichotomy between science andculture is no longer tenable. Science, itself, is a culture. Science as a culture brings science to the generalpublic by humanising it. Public understanding of science is best achieved by the notion of scientificculture. Popularisation does not mean enlightening ignorant people. It is necessary to develop flexible
processes of two-way dialogues and communication instead of top-down lectures.

4

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

In the Recommendation there are no women scientists. During the last century, the status of womenin the world improved a great deal. Yet women remain under-represented in the scientific community.
They find difficulties not only in entering science, but also in advancing and in getting fair salaries. Many
ethnic minorities and disadvantaged groups are also largely excluded from science. Urgent measures
are needed to abolish any kind of discriminations against these groups.
Ethics education is one of the priority areas for COMEST. Science education used to concentrate on
science itself. It has recently been recognized that science education should include the human andsocial implications of science. It is no wonder that STS is becoming an indispensable part of scienceeducation. Students who are taught solely the good side of science are destined to have a distorted
view of science. Well-balanced views of science are possible by teaching them the bad side, too. It is now
necessary to add the ethics of science at all levels of science education. Furthermore, the independent
course of ethics of science should be compulsory for all science majors.
The “Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge” and ”Science Agenda – Framework
for Action” adopted at the World Conference on Science [footnote with dates] along with the “Universal
Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights” of UNESCO should be used as points of reference toreconsider the current usefulness and validity of the Recommendation. The perspectives of the ICSU
Strategic Review are also very helpful.

References
Annas, G.J. and Grodin, M.A. 1992. The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code. New York, Oxford University
Press, 1992.
Broad, W. and Wade, N. 1982. Betrayers of the Truth. Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. New York,
Simon & Schuster.
COMEST. 2005. The Precautionary Principle. UNESCO.
COMEST. 2005. Report of the expert meeting on an Ethical Code of Conduct for Scientists. UNESCO.
Drenth, P.J.D., Fenstad, J.E. and Schiereck, J.D. eds. 1997. European Science and Scientists between Freedom
and Responsibility. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Ernst, R.R. 2003. The Responsibility of Scientists, a European View. Angewandte Chemie. International
Edition, Vol. 42, No. 37, pp. 4434-4439.
Evers, K. 2001. Standards for Ethics and Responsibility in Science: An analysis and Evaluation of Their Content,
Background and Function. Paris, ICSU.
Fenstad, J.E. 2003. Science between Freedom and Responsibility. European Review, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.
407-416.
Harris, S.H. 1994. Factories of Death. Japanese Biological Warfare, 1932-45 and the American Cover-up,
London: Routledge.
ICSU. 2005. ICSU Strategic Review of Science and Society: Rights and Responsibilities. Paris, ICSU.

Jonsen, A.R. 1998. The Birth of Bioethics. New York, Oxford University Press.
Lipscombe, J. and Williams, B. 1979. Are Science and Technology Neutral? London, Butterworth.
Pak, U.J. 2005. Bioethics, Research Ethics and Regulation. Seoul, Seoul National University Press.
Regan, T. 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Resnik, D.B. 1998. The Ethics of Science. An Introduction. London, Routledge.
Shamoo, A.E. and Resnik, D.B. 2003. Responsible Conduct of Research. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Singer, P. 1975. Animal Liberation. London, Pimlico.
Song, S.Y. 2005. Human Rights, Science and Ethics. Proceedings of the Fourth Session of COMEST. Paris,
UNESCO, pp. 101-104. xxx
Song, S.Y. et al. 2002. A Study on the Charter for Scientists and Engineers (in Korean), Ministry of Scienceand Technology.

Ten Have, H. 2006. Die Allgemeine Erklaerung ueber Bioethik und Menschenrechte der UNESCO- Entstehungsprozess und Bedeutung. Allgemeine Erklaeung ueber Bioethik und Menschenrechte Wegweiser fuer die Internationalisierung der Bioethik, Deutsche UNESCO -Kommission, pp. 27-36.
Tsuchiya, T. 2000. Why Japanese doctors performed human experiments in China 1933-1945. Eubios
Journal of Asian & International Bioethics (EJAIB). Vol. 10, pp. 179-80.
UNESCO. 2005. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. UNESCO.
World Conference on Science. 1999. Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge. Xxx return
inserted
World Conference on Science. 1999. Science Agenda – Framework for Action. Budapest, World Conference
on Science.
World Conference on Science. 2000. Ethics and the Responsibility of Science. Background Paper for theWorld Conference on Science. Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 6, pp. 131-142.
Ziman, J. 1998. Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be? Science, Vol.
282, pp. 1813-4.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Song, S.Y., Hwang, W-S. and Moon, S.Y. 2004.
Stem cell research in Korea. Science, Vol. 305, pp. 944-945.xxx

5Bioethics in a Wider and Probably Original Sense*
Shinryo Shinagawa, MD
Hirosaki University School of Medicine
Japan

Bioethics is now booming throughout the world, especially among medical and comedical professionals.
It is very easy to find news and topics relating to bioethical problems in newspapers as well as weekly
and monthly journals, TV, and so on. Many medical and comedical schools have already introduced
bioethics courses. Indeed, we are now living in an era of a bioethics boom.

6

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Regrettably, I think something is wrong in Japan: When I ask, for example, medical and comedical
students about bioethics, most students answer that “bioethics is the study of acceptable conduct by
medical and comedical professionals on such advancing techniques as diagnosis of brain death, organ/
tissue transplantation, in vitro fertilization of donor’s semen and ova, and sex selection of the fetus.”
According to the Encyclopedia of Bioethics, edited by Warren T. Reich (1978), “bioethics can be defined as
the systemic study of human conduct in the area of life science and health care, insofar as this conduct
is examined in the light of moral values and principles”, and “bioethics encompasses medical ethics andextends beyond it”.
While medical ethics in its traditional sense has dealt with value-related problems that arise in thepatient-physician relationship, bioethics is more inclusive in four significant respects. They are:(1) bioethics extends beyond human life and health to embrace issues involving animal and plant life;(2) bioethics extends beyond individual life and health to embrace social, international, and global
issues such as population control;(3) bioethics extends beyond intra-generational life and health to embrace reproductive and intergenerational issues such as in vitro fertilization, gene therapy, and so on;(4) bioethics embraces the value-related problems that arise in all health care professionals such as
nurses, midwives, X-ray technicians, and so on.
In other words, bioethics may be considered a wider concept than traditional medical ethics, and canbe understood standing on the utilitarian principle of “the greatest good and happiness for the greatest
number”. More exactly, the “greatest number” can be read as the greatest number not only of people,
but of all living things, including plants and animals.
From this point of view, I think that bioethical issues can be classified into seven categories. The mostimportant category is:(1) sanction of life, peace, and the prevention of war—especially of nuclear war, since it affects thelargest number of living things.
The list continues, in descending order of importance as I see it:(2) security of materials and environment necessary for human life such as clean air, water, foods, fuels,
greens, and so on;(3) allocation of medical and health care resources;(4) problems relating to elderly people (including euthanasia and mercy killing);*

Paper first presented at the First UNESCO Bangkok Bioethics Roundtable, September 2005.

(5) problems relating to handicapped fetus and children;(6) problems relating to modern reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization, artificial
insemination by donor’s semen and ova, and sex selection of the fetus;(7) problems relating to brain death and tissue/organ transplantation.
The second issue I would like to talk about today is my classification of human life based on bio-medicine.
They are:(1) the pre-cytological level human life, such as of chromosomes, hereditary genes, DNA, and so on;(2) the cytological level human life, such as of ova and sperms;(3) human life at the stage of fertilization and nidation in et ex utero;(4) human life at the stage of zygotes, embryo, and fetus in utero;(5) human life at the stage of birth;(6) human life after birth ex utero;
Bioethics should cover all these seven levels of stages of human life. But in present-day Japan, too little
has been discussed on human life in levels five, six, and seven, mentioned above.
The third point I would like to emphasize in my speech on bioethics is that: Bioethics should be
discussed from two standpoints. One is from a standpoint of human beings, in general. Another is froma standpoint which considers the traditional backgrounds of culture, habit, religion, and so on. I am
calling the former as “genoethics”, and naming the latter as “pheno(meno)ethics”.
There have been many examples of pheno(meno)ethics in traditional religions and ancient referencessuch as the Ten Commandments of Moses, the Seven Rules of Noah, the Five Principal Ethical Rules (inConfucianism), the Noble Eightfold Path (in Buddhism), and so on.
Regrettably, endeavours to establish a Minimum Requirement of Ethics for all peoples, for all nations, andfor all countries are not yet sufficient. The standardization of pheno(meno)ethics is extremely difficult,because pheno(meno)ethics are very often the products of history, political, and socio-economic
situations between and within nations and countries. On the contrary, I think that standardizing
genoethics would be not so difficult. As far as I understand, genoethics is not a problem of national
interest, but an issue of humanity and educational consciousness.
Particular attention is paid in this study to the constitutions of more than 30 countries. The authoremphasizes the importance and necessity of standardization and establishing peace, and for thesolution and avoidance of international, interracial, and interreligious conflicts already occurring or
which will occur in the near future.
Finally, I would like to introduce my own tentative Genoethical Ten Rules, and a draft of Seven Rules by
my coworker in Israel, Mr. Avi Gold.

Genoethical Ten Rules(1) Do your best in carrying out your duties.
(2) Respect others’ rights.
(3) Be kind to every person, animal, and plant.
(4) Never injure or kill.
(5) Save natural resources.
(6) Be more conscious of the environment and population problem.
(7) Never be greedy concerning money, goods, and sex.
(8) Tell, write, and report the truth.
(9) Care for the diseased, the disabled, the elderly, and children.
(10) Care for your own health.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology(7) human life as a member of family and of community.

7

Seven Rules of Genoethics(1) Respect the rights of the individual.
(2) Respect and honour parents and elders.
(3) Prohibition of murder, theft, and adultery.
(4) Prohibition of lying (importance of telling the truth).
(5) Protection of the individual against greed.
(6) Establishing legal systems with courts of law.
(7) Prevention of cruelty to animals and the consideration of the feelings of animals.

References
Reich, W.T., (ed.) 1978. Encyclopedia of Bioethics. New York, New York Free Press.

8

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Shinagawa, S. 1997. An Essay on Standardization of Ethics. Journal of Health Care, Medicine andCommunity, No.12, pp. 42-53.

Pacific Ethics and Universal Norms*
Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop, Ph.D.
University of Victoria,
New ZealandIntroduction

It has become vital for Pacific nations to establish some form of bioethics committee and/or ethics
debate to critique research and technological initiatives, and to ensure that the community is informed
and ready to make decisions about these issues. The question is: What form should these ethicsfocused initiatives take? Pacific ethics6 is grounded in customary ways and are reinforced by Christianteachings. The fundamental belief is that family communal systems ensure the spiritual, economic, andsocial security of family members, and they set the standards for all behaviour. This knowledge has
been passed on by word of mouth, from generation to generation. Universal declarations, on the other
hand—such as the Universal Norms of Bioethics7—are documented, feature a rights-based framework,and assume a set of universals.
This paper argues that the Pacific challenge is to develop a post-colonial ethics discourse that is “Pacificin philosophy and locally grounded in context.” The influence of changing times is central to thisprocess, as seen in the words of Maori scholar Te Rangi Hiroa (Dr Sir Peter Buck) “The old world createdby our Polynesian ancestors has passed away and a new world is in the process of being fashioned” (NZ
Herald, 2005). While Pacific research continues to emphasize the endurance of customary ways, there isalso a growing recognition of the role of universal rights and principles. For example, the recent public
monarchy confrontations in Tonga (2005) began on a platform of poverty-related grievances, but they
moved quite quickly to impassioned appeals for rights and democratic principles. Sovereignty issues
are also gaining prominence in Pacific small island developing states (SIDS)—including the emergenceof more critical appraisal of the relevance of global conventions to the Pacific, and the “right” of external
agencies to set those agendas.
This paper begins with an outline of Pacific ethics principles, followed by a summary of the Declarationof Universal Norms of Bioethics, and then raises some potential tension points between the two. Next,
some future directions for ethics research, teaching, and debate in the Pacific are proposed.

*

Paper first presented at the First UNESCO Bangkok Bioethics Roundtable, September 2005.

6

Ethics is defined as a “moral philosophy prescribing what is right and what is wrong… it states how the world
ought to be rather than how it is” (Siwatibau 2005).
While this paper looks at the Bioethics Declaration, similar comments could be applied to other conventions, suchas the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data, for example (SHS/Bio/04/1), CEDAW or the CRC.

7

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

The expansion in technology in recent years, especially in health and agriculture, has highlighted theneed to reflect on the moral dilemmas of these advances. It has led to research and public debate
on ethics issues; the establishment of various forms of bioethics committees (UNESCO Guide No. 1.
Establishing Committees); and, as will be discussed in this paper, the drafting of the Universal Declaration
on Bioethics as a standard-setting mechanism for ethics behaviours. The Pacific has not kept pace withthese developments, and the absence of mechanisms for implementing ethics has made the Pacificvulnerable to unethical research practices by external agencies, acts of biopiracy, and the loss of
biodiversity.

9

Pacific Ethics and Universal Declarations
Because Pacific values and beliefs are transmitted orally, many have incorrectly assumed that thesethoughts are not important or are effectively non-existent. Ethics has a central place in the Pacific’s
indigenous knowledge systems and processes. Each daily life event is seen through a lens of ethicalvalues, mores, and codes of conduct developed over years. Indigenous ethical systems incorporate
technical insights and wisdom-based observations of natural, social, and spiritual phenomena which, inturn, validate place and identity, as well as the survival of Pacific nations in our increasingly globalizedsocieties. These ethics principles have developed hand-in-hand with the society’s epistemologicalsystems—they are central to how knowledge is gained and organized, how knowledge is used, andwho has access to it:

10

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Every Pacific society has a framework of knowledge that is systematically gathered and formulated
within a paradigm of general truths and principles. Knowledge gathering and systems ofvalidating knowledge and legitimising information are processes that are often determined andregulated (but not exclusively) by a select group within the traditional hierarchy of knowledge
with the aim of protecting the quality and well [sic] being of people (Health Research Guidelines,
2005:10).
In Pacific knowledge systems, priority is given to relationships, both between humans as well as withthe land and the sea. Stories explaining the deeds of past generations and the symbolic nature of thelandscape can be found in songs, laws, history instruction, and social systems. Relationships are holistic
in nature and embody the human, spiritual, and natural worlds. There are the genealogies, such as theMaori whakapapa, that determine place, values, and desirable behaviours. Identity, self-esteem, and“place” were integral to these systems, and still are.8
When Maori look at the landscape they ‘see’ kinship relationships. The knowledge that is vital tounderstanding how the relationships are formed, operate and are maintained is used to maintainthe environment (Ng Pae o te Maramatanga Journal 1: Marginalisation, 2005)
In summation, knowledge in Pacific societies is collective and aimed at maintaining the relationships
between people—past, present, and future generations—and the environment. While ownership ofknowledge is familial and collective, differentiation can be made between knowledge that is protected
and knowledge that is shared. In addition, because the focus in on maintaining relationships, knowledge
sharing is an interactive and dynamic process. In this value system, the “process” by which knowledge isgained is as important as the “content”. The central position of process is seen in the Health and ResearchCouncil of New Zealand guiding principles for ethical research.
Guiding Principles for Forming/Maintaining Ethical Research (Guidelines on Pacific Health Research(2004))• Relationships• Respect• Cultural competency• Meaningful engagement• Reciprocity• Utility• Rights• Balance• Protection• Capacity building• Participation

8

The majority of land in the Pacific’s small island states is held in customary tenure for use by family members.
E.g., estimates are that over 90% of land in Samoa is in customary tenure, similarly for Papua New Guinea.

These guidelines were identified through a series of intensive debates and negotiations within the Pacificcommunity. This consultation process ensured the relevance, validity, and ownership of the principles,and kept the community informed and knowledgeable about these issues, thereby increasing the
likelihood of these principles being applied. Informed community participation such as this is a vitalelement in the identification and implementation of ethics policies and practices, particularly in the
Pacific’s communal societies.

The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights is a standard-setting mechanism. The 28
articles of the Declaration include goals, aims, general fundamental principles, derived principles,
procedural principles, procedures, and promotion and implementation mechanisms.

Potential Tension Points

Few would argue with this statement or question the need for the Pacific to develop legislationand policies in bioethics that will guide national decision-making and also protect Pacific SIDS fromincidents such as external researchers carrying out research in the Pacific that would be prohibited intheir home country9 and acts of biopiracy. However, the predominantly rights-based framework of thedeclaration and the assumption of overarching universals present clear room for tension with Pacificunderstandings, as seen in the following examples.

Rights
The rights-based strategy is set out in the aims and repeated throughout in many articles. The following
words capture the clear conceptual differences between this human rights focus and the Pacificcollective value base: “within a Pacific framework, the focus shifts from the individual rights and theemphasis is given instead to both the group and interpersonal relationships… this does not negate
individual rights, rather [sic] it recognises the limits of the individual rights-based approach for people
who have a relational theory of personhood” (HRD, 2004).

Collective Ethical Stance
The article on informed consent is again grounded in the concept of individual right of responsibility/
control/power over one’s action. A Pacific ethical view of DNA testing would be that if my DNA contains
my genetic ancestry/history, then what right do I have to give consent for what is, in effect, our families’
collective knowledge?

Holistic
An example from Hawaii demonstrates the holistic nature of Pacific ethical relationships. In Hawaii, theMonsanto Corporation began experiments in the genetic modification of taro, in collaboration with
the University of Hawaii. This seemingly straightforward piece of agricultural research was not seen as
such by the local community, which regarded this as a mana mahele (a second mahele), whereby thecompany was attacking the mana that is in taro. Because taro is the first born in Hawaiian genealogy,
9E.g., DNA testing carried out without consent of blood samples collected in the Cook Islands (B. Sykes, The Seven
Daughters of Eve); cancer research and the complete DNA sampling of the Tongan population (Bear, J.C. 2004.
What’s My DNA Worth, Anyway?” A Response to the Commercialization of Individuals’ DNA Information. Perspectives
in Biology and Medicine. Vol. 47 (2), pp. 273-289); and the patenting of kava medicinal properties by external
pharmaceutical companies (http://www.etcgroup.org/en/take_action/past_actions.html).

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

The standard-setting function of the Declaration is seen in aim 1 to provide a universal frameworkof fundamental principles and basic procedures designed to guide States in the formulation of theirlegislation and their policies in the field of bioethics, and to form the basis for guidelines in bioethicalmatters for institutions, groups and individuals concerned.

11the community viewed this research as changing the genes of their ancestors (pers. comm., E. Huffer,quoting Walter Ritte 2005)(2) Future Directions
There is little public debate, teaching, or research on ethics issues in the Pacific today. Nor are Pacificethical statements documented and easily accessed by the public. A national university has recently
adopted an ethics research policy, and this issue is being discussed at the main regional university.
Outside the academic arena, professional organizations (e.g., engineers, accountants, and doctors), themedia, and community organizations (Table 1) are putting ethical codes into practice.
Table 1: Ethics Codes Established and Promoted by Pacific Community Organizations

12

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Ethics statement

AgencyJAWS
Ethical Standards

Journalists Association of Samoa(JAWS) was established in 1985

Vanuatu Cultural
Research Policy

The Vanuatu National Cultural
Council is responsible for research(see chapter 186, 6 (2) of the Lawsof the Republic of Vanuatu)

How it is monitored, used,and grounded in community• 2001 PINA/PNG Media Council Press
Freedom Award
The Ethical Standards set soon after. • 2000 World Press Freedom Hero Award,
Int’l. Press InstituteApplied on a daily basis• Gold Winner Int’l. Freedom of the
Printed in papers once a monthPress Award (supported by index on
Censorship)• 1998 Commonwealth Press Union AstorAward for Press Freedom• 1997 Pacific Investigative JournalismAward, UPNG
• 1994 Pacific Press Freedom Award, PINA
• Priority research topics• ‘Outside’ researchers• Applications for research/fees• Traditional copyright considerations
The Vanuatu Cultural Centre is• Ni-Vanuatu participation in research andthe executing arm of the National
training.
Cultural Council and responsible for•
Benefits to community, nation…
implementing the Policy.
• Deposit & accessibility of materials• Commercial ventures

The value of any ethics code or framework depends on if they are known about, discussed, agreed to,and supported by appropriate implementing mechanisms, as in the process followed in preparing the
JAWS ethics policy and the Vanuatu Cultural Research Policy. Further, it is important that the public be
kept informed on these issues and learn the skill of evaluating technological innovations from a Pacificethical viewpoint. National discussion also provides the entry point for review of universal declarations,such as the Bioethics Declaration.
Building capacity for ethics debate/committees includes actions by:
Universities and tertiary institutions, school curriculums and teacher training institutions- Materials
with Pacific perspective to school curriculums and teacher training institutions used alongside theethics research policies
Health Departments- Links with the New Zealand Health and Disabilities Commission guidelines
Agriculture- In partnership with FAO

An ultimate “first” step would be to establish some form of bioethics committee with a coordinating,advocacy, and awareness-raising role. Such a committee could also connect Pacific countries into global
ethics debates and promote publications such as the Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics(Charles Sturt University) and the Work in Progress journals of the United Nations University.

References and Useful Publications
Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics. Sydney, Charles Sturt University, 1999.
Amareswar, G. 2002. Culture and Heritage in Development: Ha Long Ecomuseum: A Case Study from
Viet Nam. Humanities Research Vol. IX, No 1.
Health and Disabilities Commission. 2005. A Consumer’s Guide to the Health and Disability Commissioner.
Wellington, New Zealand Health and Disabilities Commission.
Health Research Council. 2005. Guidelines on Pacific Health Research. 2005. Wellington, New Zealand
Health Research Council.

Journalists Association of Western Samoa (JAWS). Jaws Ethics Policy.
Macer, D.R.J. (ed.). 2006. A Cross Cultural Introduction to Bioethics. Christchurch, Eubios Ethics Institute.
Raymond, B. 2005. Charlatan Tohunga Alive and Kicking. New Zealand Herald. (Friday, 5 August 2005).
Samoa. Observer. (May–August 2005).
Pollard, I. 2005. Life, Love and Children: A Practical Guide to Bioscience Ethics and Bioethics. Boston, Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Sykes, B. 2001. The Seven Daughwters of Eve. New York, Norton.
Vanatu. 2005. Draft Cultural Research Policy. Vanuatu Cultural Centre.
Siwatibau, S. 2007. Ethical Dimensions for sustaining our environment: A Pacific Perspective. Asia-Pacific
Perspectives on Environmental Ethics. Macer, D.R.J. (ed.), Bangkok, UNESCO.
Taafaki, I. 2007. Avoiding Biopiracy? Protecting Traditional Marshallese Medicinal Knowledge and Plants.
Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Medical Ethics. Macer, D.R.J. (ed.), Bangkok, UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2003. International Declaration on Human Genetic Data. SHS/Bio/04/1. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2005. Guide No 1 Establishing Bioethics Committees. SHS/B 10-2005/01. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2005, Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Paris, UNESCO.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

International Council for the Study of the Pacific Islands (ICSPI). Minutes of Executive Council Meetings.
December 2003–August 2004.

13

Indian Ethics and Contemporary Bioethical Issues*
D.S. Nesy, Ph.D.
University of Kerala
India

Any discussion of Indian ethics is susceptible to either a lack of specificity or over generalization. Often,
it is claimed that moral problems have not been pursued consistently nor successfully tackled in India.
This attitude can be summarized by paraphrasing Albert Schweitzer:

14

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology• There are two fundamental problems in all thought. First is the polarity between life and world
affirmation, and life and world negation. Second is the relationship between ethics and these two
approaches to life. In the life and world affirmation, humans see the world as having a value per se;something that human beings are expected to preserve and advance. In the life and world negation,
the world is taken as sorrowful and meaningless. Rather than seeking to perfect the outer world,
human beings should renounce the world and seek to perfect their inner beings. The greatest
problem for life and world negation is that it makes no room for an active ethic—it reverts more to
inner virtues rather than outer activity. It asks of human beings more a spirit of kindliness free fromhatred rather than a life of active love. The Indian approach is characterized as this kind.

This can be attributed to many reasons:• The nature of concrete moral duties is defined with reference to the social organization of a given
location. For example, ethically correct conduct in the city-states of Greece was not necessarily correct
in imperial Rome. Hence, in the Indian context, moral actions call for a different connotation.

• The classification of duties and virtues is naturally influenced by the social realities, and anyone who

is not familiar with a given social structure is likely to have little intimate knowledge and appreciationof its ethical values. India, with its tradition of castes and classes, postulates different rights and duties
to different people. The Brahmanical system of social stratification cannot advocate a uniform codeof morals.

• Human life is divided into different stages (asramas), and the duties pertaining to different stages

naturally vary from one another. For example, the stages of brahmacharya (student), grahastha(householder), vanaprastha (forest dweller), and sannyasa (saint) all call for different duties at different
stages, even within a single individual.

• Scriptural basis is another point of interest in Indian ethics. The Vedas, the earliest scriptural literatureof India, are regarded as the ultimate source of all dharma (virtue), religion, duty, or law.

• The much-adored distinction between sreyas (perfection) and preyas (pleasure), with an inclination

towards sreyas, is a peculiarity of Indian ethics. The ascetic preachers preached that the highest
spirituality is synonymous with renunciation of the world. They go to the extent of prescribing a milder
discipline for the common person, who has various obligations to fulfil other than contemplation andspiritual practice.

• The doctrine of dharma, which is another peculiarity of Indian ethics, is what is prescribed by the

scripture. There are different kinds of prescriptions, like nitya karmas, which are duties of perfectobligation. Not performing such duties yields sin. Kamya karmas are duties of imperfect or contingent
obligation, and are obligations one can skip if they have no desire to gain the fruits of those actions.
For example, the aspiration to attain heavenly bliss, or the aspiration to attain objectives like children
or wealth. Naimittika karmas are contingent and obligatory duties, such as the various sacraments
associated with birth, death, etc., which are to be performed when those events occur.

*

Paper first presented at the First UNESCO Bangkok Bioethics Roundtable, September 2005.

The view that Indian thought lacks a firm foundation for ethics is reinforced by the following
consideration:• Sankaracharya, the ninth century advocate of the philosophy of the advaita Vedanta tradition inIndia, held that the ultimate reality was unity, and he relegated ethics to a lower level because it
involves distinctions. For him, the ultimate goal was liberation (moksa), meaning the end of the cycles
of rebirth and the realization of the ultimate unity without distinctions. The place of ethics in thisscheme is only preparatory to the path of realization, and it has nothing special to offer to affectrealization. Further, it is categorically made clear that the liberated human is beyond all distinctions,and, hence, beyond ethics;• Belief in the doctrine of karma, which says that actions or attitudes are the results of previous actions,

negates free will. If all actions are the result of past karma, one cannot be held responsible for what
they do: the basic principle of all ethics.

All these points indicate that Indian tradition is ethically handicapped, but there are certain missing
links to be joined:
caste and each stage of life, it is not correct to say that there are no universal duties that every person
is expected to perform. For instance, there are certain duties that cut across sectional differences ofsociety. Duties relating to transcendental matters include the abjuration of six deadly sins (lust, anger,
greed, infatuation, pride, and jealousy). The renunciation of excessive attachment and hatred of all
kinds is commanded for all.

The science of salvation (moksa sastra) is central in Indian philosophy. Along with this, there is the scienceof statecraft (artha sastra) and the four objectives of human life (caturvargas), or purusarthas. Actually,
there is something called the “Indian Philosophy of Values.” From the standpoint of Indian philosophy,
there are two functions of knowledge: one is theoretical, namely revealing the existence of some object(artha nparichitti), and the second is practical, namely affording help in the attainment of some purposein life (phala prapti). They are referred to as fact and value, respectively. It is thought that knowledgeof facts leads to the pursuit of values. The well-known group of four values is: dharma, artha, kama,and moksha, called purusharthas (human values) because they represent the ends that are consciously
sought by human beings.
There are certain cultural axioms that underlie the Indian view of right action:• Purity and impurity: purity, or suddha, refers to the most desired state of being, and impurity, or

asuddha, refers to the opposite of purity. As the desired state, purity is most likely to be followed, andas a negative state, impurity is likely to be avoided. This axiomatic principle affects how one lives andwhat actions are good or bad.

• Renunciation and societal life: asceticism and renunciation is another cultural axiom. Right fromthe time of the Upanisads, the traditions of renunciation and asceticism have been much valued
in the Indian tradition. The contradiction between ordinary social life and the value placed upon
renunciation may be overcome via the four-fold class system and the four stages of life. At any one
point of time, one’s swadharma of appropriate actions is determined by these two grids of four.

• Along with the value of renunciation, the emphasis placed on the principle of ahimsa makes it anessential ingredient of Indian thought. For Gandhi, it was the foundation of human progress. Nonviolent resistance requires strength and resolve. It means that one is prepared to suffer violence at
the hands of another without retaliation or violent defense. Ahimsa is not submission to the will of
the evil doer, but is resistance to that will, and involves the hope of changing that will in conformity
with truth. It is based on the premise that ahimsa is equivalent to truth (satya), and that even if one
perishes while implementing ahimsa, truth will prevail and be ultimately realized. The principle ofahimsa has three dimensions of thought, word, and deed. It should begin in the mind and only thenissue appropriate actions. Even though it is a fact that one may witness heated arguments, mistreatedanimals, or even physical violence on Indian streets, the doctrine of ahimsa has influenced thelifestyles of many Indians.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology• When it is said that moral obligation rests upon the recognition of specific duties attached to each

15

Apart from the above, the modern western approaches to India have mainly focused on metaphysics
and epistemology, at the expense of having a blind eye to the ethical issues of modern living. Also, it isa fact that to the modern Indians, ethical issues are not as important as other issues. Yet the in-depth
exploration of the ethical foundations within Indian philosophy is important. The “ought” of ethics(dharma) is foundational for all Indian thought. The following examples all point to the supreme value of
ethics in the Indian tradition: the ideals of human life in this world; one’s relation to other human beings;
the duties of caste and stages of life; the insistence on the list of bad habits to be broken (Patanjali);good habits to be instilled as the requirements for the practice of yoga; and the emphasis that ethicalaction (Jaimini) is inescapable and therefore the supreme governing force of the universe.

Contemporary Issues• Human rights and women: The place of women in social life has been a much-discussed topic since

Vedic times, and has culminated in the Constitution of India assigning all citizens to be equal before
law, without reference to gender. Many acts are passed on the ethical principle that women ought tobe treated as men are treated, and justice should be blind to gender. But in some cases, these laws
might actually mask the negative treatment of women.

16

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology• Suicide: Ancient law books consider suicide a major violation of moral law. Still, religious suicide (suchas sati) is supported. Actually, a debate over sati embodies the encounter of tradition and modernity.
On the one side, there are those who hold to the traditional place of women in society and family. On
the other side, there are those who champion the cause of women and seek to elevate them to equal
standing with men. Traditional texts are based on the principle of inequality, while modern humanrights perspectives are based on the presumption of equality.

• Abortion: The earliest Indian texts consider abortion a serious crime, and one who extracts the embryo
from the womb is seen as an evil doer. This is based on the following concepts:(1) the traditional view is that human beings are a combination of spirit and matter. The foetus in thewomb is held to possess consciousness and even memories of past lives;(2) the axiom of karma and rebirth is against abortion, since such action terminates the possibility ofunborn’s opportunity to develop and realize the possibilities of life;(3) in Indian tradition, sons carry on the family name and perform religious ceremonies at the deathof the father.
Hence, the Indian tradition always accorded personal moral status to the embryo/foetus throughout
pregnancy. As such, it is held that life begins at conception, feticide is a major sin, pregnancy is a great
good, women are worthy of respect and care, and pregnant women are especially to be protected andgranted concessions.
In modern India, abortion is legal under certain conditions. A major current debate is over selective
abortion through sex determination tests.

Conclusion
In the Indian tradition, ethics has a very long history. Granted, it has tended to concentrate on attitudes of
personal cultivation leading to liberation—but it does contain a framework that can be used to address
modern issues. This framework can be used to analyse issues such as euthanasia, the environment,
gender equality, and medical technology. Although it begs more interpretation, one can presently
look into the Indian tradition for meaningful insights into still wider ranges of pressing contemporary
issues.

Bioethics and Interdisciplinarity*
Soraj Hongladarom, Ph.D.
Chulalongkorn University
Thailand

There are a number of questions related to the nature of bioethics as an academic discipline, and thesequestions point to the nature of academic disciplines, in general. Some of the questions are: What kindof discipline is bioethics? If it’s interdisciplinary, what is its nature? What are the practical implications of
this issue? How should bioethics be taught? And, what should a programme of study in bioethics look
like? I will first begin with a discussion on bioethics as a discipline, which I think is the most basic topic
and, in fact, is one that defines the course of the answers to the questions.
That bioethics has become an academic discipline on its own is well known. There are now many
academic teaching programmes in the field, leading to titles such as “Master of Arts (or Science)in Bioethics”, or “Doctor of Philosophy in Bioethics”. There are also many conferences in the field, a
number of journals, and a growing number of practitioners who call themselves “bioethicists.” These
professionals are found in bioethics teaching programmess in higher education institutions, and it isthese groups who regularly attend bioethics conferences, contribute to bioethics journals, and form
professional bioethics associations. Moreover, they can also be found in many areas of the professions;
namely, medicine, biological sciences, philosophy, law, and so on.
This all points to a well known fact: The field is, perhaps paradoxically, an “interdisciplinary discipline.”
On this aspect, it shares the interdisciplinary nature of some other fields, such as cultural studies, areastudies, and the cognitive sciences. What these disciplines have in common is that they emerged outof the inadequacy of a particular academic discipline in response to problems that arose out of either aneed to gain a comprehensive overview of an area (as in the case of cultural or area studies) or a set ofcommon problematic issues (such as human cognition) that covered information from more than one
discipline.
In the case of cultural or area studies, the aim is to gain a bird’s eye view, so to speak, on the specificculture or area at hand. Insights and results from several disciplines, most notably the humanities andsocial sciences, are collected to form a clear picture. The focus in these cases is not the same as thatof a traditional discipline. For example, the focus of history is an explanation of an historical event;the concentration is on the past. There is also a commonly accepted method of studying the past thatconsists of interpreting historical texts. The focus of economics is an explanation of an economic event.
The questions asked consist of something like, “What are the reasons behind a country’s doing well or
not well in economic matters?” Once again, the focus is not actually on the area in question, but on theset of techniques or methods that together define economics as an autonomous discipline. On thecontrary, the focus of area studies is not on the sets of methodologies, but on the areas themselves, andthe methodologies serve as a means by which a comprehensive view is obtained.

*

Paper first presented at the First UNESCO Bangkok Bioethics Roundtable, September 2005.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

It is well known that the study of bioethics is interdisciplinary in nature. But this important characteristic
is seldom discussed in literature within the field. It is my aim in this paper to contribute to filling this gap
by presenting a view that is intended more for opening up further discussion and investigation thanfor presenting a final opinion. I will first begin with a list of questions on the nature of the discipline,
and after, a discussion on that nature (disciplinary or interdisciplinary, and what it all means). The paper
will conclude with a number of practical recommendations on how a course or programme of study inbioethics should be developed.

17

In the same vein, cognitive sciences emerged out of the dissatisfaction of a number of scientists andscholars in various fields (namely, psychology, computer science, linguistics, and some others) in dealingadequately with human and animal cognition. All these disciplines deal in one way or another withhuman cognition, but each does so in its own particular manner. In order for a comprehensive view to
be gained, these disciplines need to work together, and that is exactly what happened in the late 1980s,
when the discipline of cognitive sciences took shape.

18

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Like the other interdisciplinary disciplines, bioethics comprises several traditional academic schools.
One finds influence from philosophy, law, medical sciences, and biotechnology in the field. However,bioethics has one important difference from the discussed disciplines: It has a core focus of value
evaluation and judgment. The cognitive sciences can be readily considered a branch of natural science,
because the focus is on how to explain human (and animal) cognition. The area studies could perhaps
be classified as social sciences, because the areas in questions are social or political entities. However,the focus of bioethics is on how one makes informed and rational assessments and decisions related
to issues in the life sciences and biotechnologies. As such, this focus differentiates the field from all thenatural sciences, which do not naturally concern themselves with value judgments. On the other hand,
the topics of consideration—what the value judgments are about—are issues that emerge from thenatural sciences. Thus, the field lies precisely at the intersection between the sciences and humanities(with the social sciences somewhere in between). This is perhaps a peculiar aspect of bioethics, whichmakes it an exciting and important field of study and research.
Because a field is exciting and important, that does not necessarily mean it is easy to manage, or tounderstand its nature as an academic discipline. In a criticism of interdisciplinary disciplines, Beer has
the following to say:
A man who can lay claim to knowledge about some categorized bit of the world, howevertiny, which is greater than anyone else’s knowledge of that bit, is safe for life: reputation
grows, paranoia deepens. The number of papers increases exponentially, knowledge grows by
infinitesimals, but understanding of the world actually recedes, because the world really is aninteracting system. And since the world, in many of its aspects, is changing at an exponential
rate, this kind of scholarship, rooted in the historical search of its own sanctified categories, is inlarge part unavailing to the needs of mankind.
There has been some recognition of this, and inter-disciplinary studies are by now commonplacein every university. But will this deal with the problem? Unfortunately, it will not. We still say thata graduate must have his ‘basic discipline’, and this he is solemnly taught—as if such a thing had
a precise environmental correlate, and as if we know that God knew the difference between
physics and chemistry. He learns also the academic mores, catches the institutional paranoia,
and proceeds to propagate the whole business. Thus it is that an ‘interdisciplinary study’ often
consists of a group of disciplinarians holding hands in a ring for mutual comfort. The ostensible
topic has slipped down the hole in the middle. Among those who recognize this, too, a natural
enough debate has ensued on the subject: Can an undergraduate be taught ‘interdisciplinary
studies’ as his basic subject? But there is no such subject; there is no agreement on what it would
be like; and we are rather short of anyone qualified to do the teaching. Those who resist thewhole idea, in my view correctly, say that it would endanger the norms of good scholarship.
There is a deadlock . . .
The dissolution of the deadlock within the disciplinary system that I described above has got
to be metasystemic, not merely interdisciplinary. We are not interested in forming a league of
disciplinary paranoids, but (as Hegel could have told us) in a higher synthesis of disciplines . . .
In the mounting pile of new books printed every year that are properly called scientific, one may
take hold of one’s candle and search like a veritable Diogenes for a single one answering to thehonest criteria I have proposed for a metasystemic utterance. There is only a handful in existence
at all, which is not surprising in view of the way both knowledge and academia are organized.
And yet, as I have also proposed, herein lies the world’s real need. If we are to understand a newer
and still evolving world; if we are to educate people to live in that world; if we are to legislate forthat world; if we are to abandon categories and institutions that belong to a vanished world, as it
is well-nigh desperate that we should, then knowledge must be rewritten (Beer, 1980, p. 64-5).

The idea, of course, is that interdisciplinary disciplines should become more properly disciplinary bycreating and maintaining a “metasystemic” discourse that serves to define the discipline in question visà-vis others. It is conceivable that these metasystemic discourses will just become a normal disciplineon their own, with their interdisciplinary character being lost. In the end, if this idea is followed through,the interdisciplinary disciplines will simply become additional disciplines, with their own set of canonsand problematics, curricula, etc.

This lack of identity is perhaps one of the reasons why bioethics or any other formerly interdisciplinary
disciplines, in general, tend to take on a properly disciplinary character. The way to become a proper
discipline is rather familiar: one has to have its own gathering, namely conferences, seminars, andworkshops. The group of people who regularly attend these meetings are those who become the coreof the new discipline. Then what happens, naturally, is that this group of academics talks and shares
research results among themselves, thus creating new jargon that everyone accepts and shares. Thereis also a set of problems that the newly emerging discipline is devoted to discussing. All these aspects
translate into a common methodological framework shared by the group. There are also journals toformally communicate their viewpoints and research results, there is a professional association to
institutionalize the discipline, and, in the end, there are teaching programmes to train future membersof the group. This is how an academic discipline creates itself.
When psychology was created in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, what happened wasthat the pioneers of the new discipline saw that they were doing something radically different from theirmother discipline of philosophy. Instead of studying the mind through philosophical methods, thesepioneers looked at the natural sciences as their model, and imported the methods of experimentationand verification to their field. There was a fundamental shift in the basic principle. Instead of viewing
the mind as something unquantifiable that could be studied only through rational argumentationand subjective introspection, the early psychologists believed that the mind could indeed be studied
objectively. During its first few years, modern psychology gradually took shape, and when there wereenough people subscribing to the same set of methods and assumptions, the new discipline clearly
defined itself against philosophy and took off on its own.
Creating a new discipline is as sociologist of science Steve Fuller has argued: The process is a conventional
one, wherein a group of scholars starts subscribing to a new set of methods and ideas that define a new
discipline. There is no logical proof that these new sets reflect reality more accurately than the earlier
ones. This, as is quite well known, is the message of historian of science Thomas Kuhn, who famously
argued that what drives the history of science forward is not that the new systems manage to discoverreality better than the earlier systems; instead, it is that the new group of scientists gets to define
themselves in a different way (Kuhn, 1996). Kuhn calls the process a “paradigm shift.” The old paradigms
may have served their purposes for a period of time, but when socio-historical conditions change, theold paradigms may become outdated and replaced by a new set. This, as both Fuller and Kuhn seem toargue, does not seem to have anything to do with truth or “uncovering facts.”
This means that disciplines emerged out of socio-historical reasons, and not for the traditional, academic
reason of better uncovering reality. This has many implications for the interdisciplinary disciplines that
we are discussing. According to Fuller, “disciplines are artificial ‘holding patterns’ of inquiry whose
metaphysical significance should not be overestimated” (Fuller, 2005). Furthermore, “the persistent need

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

The quotation from Beer points to a basic problem of interdisciplinary study and research. Being
composed of several different disciplines, the interdisciplinary programmes tend to lack a characterof their own. While the philosopher has her own image and public persona, created perhaps by theway philosophers typically carry out their work, the bioethicist does not enjoy such a reputation—atleast not to the same extent. In Thailand, where bioethics is just beginning to take hold, bioethicists areusually composed of biological scientists and medical doctors who talk about the values of their work,
and in many cases do not have the required background knowledge to deliberate fully and efficiently
or to communicate their values and deliberations to the public. Hence, the persona of the bioethicist isabsorbed by that of the medical doctor, or, in fewer cases, that of the lawyer or the philosopher. Withouta character of its own, the discipline tends to lack its own identity. This can translate into many practicalchallenges, as I shall try to spell out in the course of this paper.

19

for interdisciplinary solutions to disciplinary problems brings out the inherently conventional characterof disciplines” (Fuller, 2005). Disciplines are “holding patterns” in that they house a set of books that areheld to be classics, or canons, in their field. The “metaphysical significance” of such patterns should not be
overestimated for Fuller, because the existence of academic discipline such as psychology or sociology
is more a matter of arranging things for the professionals who share canons and methodologies, as said
before. Moreover, Fuller argues that the persistent need for interdisciplinary solutions reinforces the factthat the disciplines are merely conventional—they emerged as a result of “marriages of convenience”
that grouped a number of people together. Once a group is formed and institutionalized in one way or
another, a new discipline emerges.

20

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

The significance of all this is that academic disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and others are
merely constructions. Hence, they represent the organizational structures of the universities in which
they exist more than they represent the need to accurately reflect and explain reality (Fuller, 2000). In
this sense, the emergence of interdisciplinary disciplines such as area studies, cultural studies, cognitiveMy second point concerns the students. Students entering a bioethics programme need to already bewell-grounded in one or two traditional disciplines. If students are not well grounded, then they willlack the mooring they need to make sense of the complexities that comprise bioethics. For this reason,
I don’t think a bioethics programme works very well at the undergraduate level—there needs to besome kind of “home discipline” for the student. But, of course, this does not preclude highly exceptional
students who are capable of learning new things very quickly. Indeed, this skill would be much prized
in bioethics.

References
Beer, S. 1980. Preface to Maturana, Humberto R. and Varela, Francisco J. Autopoiesis: The Realization of the
Living. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Berlin, Springer.
Fuller, S. 2000. The Governance of Science: Ideology and the Future of the Open Society. London, Open
University Press.
Fuller, S. 2005. . Interdisciplinarity: The Loss of the Heroic Vision in the Marketplace of Ideas. Available at
http://www.interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinarity/papers/3/. Retrieved on 8 September 8 2005.
Kuhn, T. 1996. Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, Il., University of Chicago Press.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

colleagues from other fields. Bioethics is not an easy subject. One reason is that “bioethicists” need tobe very well-grounded in their respective traditional disciplines, and on top of that be well-versed in atleast the general outline of neighbouring academic disciplines. This is necessary to understand fellow
bioethicists from other fields. The university might need to recognize this through methods such as
reducing teaching loads and facilitating horizontal linkages among faculty members in various fields.
In order for that to happen, the hierarchical structure in many universities, especially the ones in Asia,
need to be reconsidered, and a newer system should be put into effect with simplified groupings offaculty members across faculties, schools, and colleges. The grouping of faculty members doesn’t need
to be permanent. Members of academic departments sometimes feel they are going to be in their own
department for their entire professional career. After all, when one regards oneself as a philosopher ora sociologist, their life revolves around that field. But for bioethics that cannot be the case. One cannot
be full time bioethicists, at least if the quality of the programme is upheld. One needs to reach out andcontact people in academic areas outside one’s home department.

21

The Precautionary Principle in Nanotechnology*
John Weckert, Ph.D.
Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics
Australia
James Moor, Ph.D.
Dartmouth College
USA

The precautionary principle (PP) is thought by many to be a useful strategy for action. By many others,
it’s considered useless at best and dangerous at worst. A recent report extends the scope of the principle
to include nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and robotics (Arnall 2003; see also Phoenix and Treder2004). Here, we argue that, despite what is often claimed, it is a reasonable principle that can be useful.
The general structure of the principle is this:22

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

If action (A) has some possibility (P) of causing harmful effect (E), then apply the remedy (R) (based on
Manson, 2002). This is a generic formula only, and A, P, E, and R are each interpreted differently in various
actual formulations.
A typical example might be:
If genetically modified (GM) crops have some possibility of harming humans or the environment,
then the development of them should be stopped;
Action A is generally some scientific research or technological or other development, e.g., research forand development of genetically modified crops.
Possibility P must be more than a logical possibility; it must be an empirical probability. There must be
some scientific evidence that A does or can cause E, even if this evidence is very weak. For example, GM
crops can cause harm.
Effect E is some serious (perhaps catastrophic or irreversible) harm.
Remedy R concerns the measures that should be taken to avoid or minimize E occurring, e.g., halting ornever starting the research.
There are many formulations of the PP. Here are two common ones:(F1) When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary
measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully establishedscientifically (Wingspread, 1998).
(F2) In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by Statesaccording to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of fullscientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation (Rio Declaration, 1992).
Despite its wide acceptance and intuitive appeal, the PP is not without strong critics. One of its criticisms
concerns prediction-making: It is argued that because the PP is a risk-aversive strategy, it will, or does,
stifle research and development, and thereby it can deprive humanity of many goods for, at best, dubious
long-term benefits. More precisely, it deprives currently living humans of benefits on the presumptionthat future generations will inherit a better world. The objection is that we cannot know if people in the
future will be better off or not if we undertake a particular action, such as halting the development ofsome product. It is not possible, as the PP assumes, to make reasonable predictions about the future, atleast with respect to developments in science and technology (Volkman, 2001).

*

Paper first presented at the First UNESCO Bangkok Bioethics Roundtable, September 2005.

Another criticism is that the PP involves a paradox (Manson, 2002); in any particular case where the PP
might be applied, there is always more that one action to which it could be applied, and these actions
are mutually exclusive.

Yet another criticism concerns the nature of the harm, but this can be disposed of more quickly. Itshould be noted that in the first formulation, any threat of harm calls the principle into play. This could
be overbearing. The second formulation modifies this by talking of “serious or irreversible damage”:
something that seems at least superficially more plausible, but both “serious” and “irreversible” require
closer examination. That some damage is serious is uncontroversial. That asbestos is a serious healthproblem is unlikely to be disputed, but there is a large range of issues that are contested. Does thedestruction of the last habitat of an endangered species of butterfly constitute serious damage? The
answer given would depend on the value allotted to the natural environment. Many would see it asserious, while many others would not. But this disagreement regarding what constitutes serious damage
in no way undermines the PP. As noted, in many cases there is widespread agreement that something isserious, and in a large number of cases where there is disagreement, there is room for rational debate.
Not all disagreement is based on mere differences in taste.
Irreversibility also poses some problems, but, again, it is not fatal to the PP. While we cannot literally goback and undo what has been done, many events are effectively reversible provided a long enough timeframe. Destruction of a natural habitat is not necessarily irreversible given enough time. But, provided
the amount of time required for a reversal to be complete, some situations are irreversible in a practicalsense. It is this last category that is necessary for irreversibility to play some useful role in the PP.
The first three of these criticisms will be addressed after an examination in the next section of the PP in
the context of nanotechnology.
The relationship between action A and effect E seems to not be the same in all discussions of the PP,
even if we limit the discussion to its application to nanotechnology. Consider the following:
A. If nanotechnology research continues, there is a possibility of self-replicating robots being
developed, and therefore the possibility of the “grey goo” problem (on the grounds that theserobots might escape—they cannot be contained).
Suppose that the causal link between A, the research, and E, the self-replicating machines, is wellestablished (which it is not). If action A is taken, then E will almost certainly occur. But suppose, too, that
E in itself is not the problem. If the machines are in some way contained or controlled, then no harmful
consequences will result. Suppose now that if self-replicating machines were developed (of the type thatDrexler [1996] envisaged), then they would have the ability to self-replicate indefinitely, and the grey
goo problem would be the result if they were not suitably controlled. If they were suitably controlled,
no harm might result. Given that in the schematic version of the PP, E is the harmful consequence to be
avoided, a better way of stating the situation here is this: Action A causes state S (with some probability),and state S leads to event E (with some probability). In this example, the scientific evidence of the link
between A and the harm E would have to be of two kinds: the link between A and the self-replication
machines, say, S, would be the evidence that comes from physical sciences. However, the link between
S, those machines, and the harm E would need to be established by the social sciences, because it would
concern the ability of people to keep the machines contained indefinitely. This seems to make theapplication of the PP to research into nanotechnology more problematic, for scientists can claim withsome justification (although this requires more examination) that what they are doing in itself causes

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

A third issue concerns the causal link between the action and the effect. F1 states that the principle
should be applied even if “some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically”;
F2 talks of “lack of full scientific certainty”. In other words, the principle should be applied even in cases
where it has not been scientifically established that harm will be caused by action A. In a sense, mostcause and effect relationships are not fully established, if “fully established” means there is no possibility
that one will occur without the other. Perhaps it is enough if there is just a possibility of harm; thenormal standards that are applied to scientific evidence can be waived if the potential dangers are great
enough.

23

no harm. What might cause harm is, technically, the misuse of their results, carelessness, or accidents.
Additionally—and this is a stronger point—curtailment of the research might very well deprive theworld of significant benefits.
B. If nanoparticles are used in products, then there is a possibility that health will be damaged (wedo not know all of their effects).

24

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

The problem in this case is different from that in example A. In the gray goo example, if self-assembling
robots were developed, and if they were not controlled in some way, then it is quite likely that there
would be a catastrophe. There is little doubt that humans, and perhaps all life, would be endangered. In
the case of nanoparticles, however, it is not known if they have harmful effects or not, but our knowledgeof whether or not they do will depend on scientific evidence alone, and not on predictions of humanbehaviour.
We will now return to the three criticisms discussed earlier. First, predicting is perilous, and some use thisfact as an argument against the PP (e.g., Volkman, 2001). It is certainly true that the PP is (or, it is argued
that it should be) used in situations in which the harmful consequences of some actions are predicted.
If the whole undertaking of prediction is inherently flawed, and predicting is always unreliable, thenapplying the PP would never be justified. But, clearly, this is wrong. Much of our everyday lives are basedon implicitly making predictions and acting on them. Say I currently predict that I will spend the coming
weekend in the mountains. I may not, of course, but it is a reasonable prediction. I plan to do it, I havedone it before, and there appear to be no overriding obstacles to me doing it. Perhaps what is meant by
PP critics is that predicting the effects of new scientific or technological developments is so unreliable
that it should not be done. This has some initial plausibility, but it is not entirely right, either. New drugs
and vaccines are developed because it is predicted that they will save lives. Huge investments are madeby both the public and private sectors in various scientific and technological fields on the grounds that
benefits and profits will result. Nanotechnology is being promoted in many countries because of its
predicted benefits to humanity. So, there cannot be anything wrong with predicting in and of itself, even
if you are making predictions about outcomes of scientific and technological developments. Scienceand technology depend on it. Predictions must be made with care, yes, but they must be made.
Secondly, does the precautionary principle entail a paradox? Manson thinks so, on one common
formulation of the principle. The problem is that in cases when the principle should be applied, it should
also be applied to the alternative that it proposes. In order to try to answer this criticism, we will examine
what it says more closely. The problem can be set out as follows:(1) Action A1 might cause bad effect Eb1 (harm eventuates because of A1);
(2) Remedy R1 (don’t do A1) stops Eb1 (PP applied);(3) but, suppose that A1 causes good effect Eg1 (Eg1 eliminates some harm);(4) then, R1 stops Eg1 (harm eventuates because of R1);
(5) so, if PP should be applied to A1 (because A1 causes harm), it should also be applied to R1 (because
R1 prevents an action that would eliminate some harm)
To explain this, we will return to the two previous nanotechnology cases.
First, take the example of the self-assemblers, as described by Drexler. Whether these are possible or
not is a contentious issue, but let’s suppose that they are, at least in the mid to long term. According toDrexler,
Assemblers will be able to make virtually anything from common materials without labor,
replacing smoking factories with systems as clean as forests. They will transform technology andthe economy at their roots, opening a new world of possibilities [63].
Take action A1 to be research for and development of these self-assemblers. A1 will potentially haveenormous benefits for humankind and for those who first develop the assemblers. However, suppose,
again, that the grey goo problem is real if these assemblers are developed—that is, the hypotheticalthat the assemblers could get out of control and keep self-replicating until they destroyed the earth.
This, undoubtedly, is not so good. Call this grey goo disaster effect Eb1. Because of the potential harm

of grey goo, it is decided to halt research of the self-assemblers; call this remedy R1. This remedy stops
the potential grey goo disaster (Eb1). But self-assemblers also potentially have many good effects, as
Drexler states above; call these Eg1. Halting research on self-assemblers then stops these good effects,
as well. So this halting (remedy R1) potentially causes a great deal of harm. The question, then, is: Should
the precautionary principle be applied to R1? It appears that it should, given that the purpose of the PP
is to block potential harm. The problem is now that the PP should be applied to both the research forself-assemblers and to the halting of that research.

The paradox problem can be avoided in many instances, however, if we talk of credible or plausible
threats. We will look more closely in a moment at ways of deciding it is “credible”, but for the moment,
accept that it can be done. In the gray goo example, the PP should not be applied simply because
there is no credible threat. On current evidence, it appears that the scientific problems in making theself-replicating robots are significant. At best (or worst), the ability to make them is far in the future,
and at worst (or best), it would be physically impossible to ever make them, given the laws of physics.
In the second example of nanoparticles, a case can be made that the PP could be applied, but withno paradoxical consequences. Given what is known about asbestos, there is a credible threat of freenanoparticles causing health problems, even though there is currently scant evidence for it. However,halting the development of nanoparticles poses no credible threat. These particles, along with the
products in which they are being used and will be used in the future, are not being produced to prevent
any great harm. Certainly these products can make life better, but they tend to make already good lives
better versus alleviating suffering.
What is a creditable threat? A threat will be called credible if there is a reasonable hypothesis that thethreat is caused by a particular action, even if there is little actual evidence to support the causal link.10
There must also be evidence that this sort of hypothesis is a reasonable one, given the circumstances.
The hypothesis that nanoparticles cause harm to humans is reasonable given what is known about
asbestos, and deserves further testing (and it must be noted that we regularly breathe in nanoparticles
without any apparent harm). It is plausible to believe that they might be harmful, even though there
is not enough evidence to even say that it is probable. It is less clear that grey goo presents a credible
threat. For reasons mentioned earlier, there are serious doubts about whether self-replication of therequired type is possible. If this is so, then a hypothesis such as “the development of self-replicating
robots will lead to the grey goo problem,” while perhaps true, is practically pointless given that thedevelopment of these robots is such a remote possibility. But even if the robots could be developed,
the hypothesis has a difficulty. Self-replication itself is not a problem; it is uncontrolled self-replicationthat is, or might be, problematic. If they are developed with built-in controls, if there are no accidents,
and if there is no malicious use, they are no threat. So in a sense, there is no credible threat, if we definea “credible threat” as a threat for which there is purely scientific evidence, as opposed to evidence of themanner in which something will be used, or of human frailty with respect to making mistakes. Perhaps
a better way of putting it is that in cases like grey goo, a credible threat, in the sense required for thePP, must be spelt out using two hypotheses: one from the physical or biological sciences, linking theaction with some intermediary state; and the second from the social sciences, linking that state withthe harm.

10 This section draws heavily on Resnik (2003).

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Secondly, take the example of nanoparticles, a much more likely scenario. Nanoparticles are alreadybeing manufactured and used in a variety of products, including sunscreens and coatings on bottles
and other food containers. This use will produce products that are better in various ways: for example,
more effective sunscreens and food containers that better protect food. The problem is that little is
known about the effects of these nanoparticles on humans. There is some fear that they could behave
like asbestos and cause serious health problems. To date, there is no negative evidence apart fromsome research that seems to indicate that fish and rats have been harmed by these particles. Here, too,
applying the PP would avoid the harm that might be caused by the particles, but applying it would also
deprive humans of a number of goods, which may in itself be a harm. So, in theory, the PP should beapplied to inaction with respect to the research and development of nanoparticles.

25

Finally, we look at the remedies proposed by the PP. At least in popular discussions, the remedy
proposed by the PP to remove some danger usually means halting the research or development, orsome other particular action. This is certainly one remedy, but not necessarily the only one. Anothermight be to do A2, which is A1 with certain safeguards in place, or to simultaneously do A3, which might
be research into overcoming the harm that A1 might cause. Yet another might be to develop policies
that could be put in place if or when certain products are developed. This could be a sensible remedy inthe nanoelectronics case, and even perhaps in the grey goo case. Perhaps this should normally be theremedy in cases where a credible harm is based partly on a social science.
We can now summarise by restating the general structure of the precautionary principle given at the
beginning of the paper:

26

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

If an action (A) poses a credible threat (P) of causing some serious harm (E), then apply anappropriate remedy (R) to reduce the possibility of E.
This formulation is plausible, and its application is not trivial; it does make a difference. As we argued,
the action must pose a credible threat and not just be a logical possibility. First, the hypothesis that thethreat exists must be a plausible one given current scientific knowledge, even if no probability can begiven. Secondly, the appropriate remedy can be a variety of things. It might be stopping the researchaltogether; halting or slowing it for a time to determine the seriousness of the threat or to allow time todevelop measures to overcome or mitigate it; or looking for alternatives to the initial action. While this is
weaker than many formulations and will not apply to as many cases, it is not without merit. For example,
if applied to the nanoparticles case, it would require at least a concerted attempt at establishing therisks to health and the environment, and would perhaps slow the development of products until thethreats have been properly assessed.
An attempt has been made here to show that sense can be made of the PP. It is a principle with content
that can be reasonably applied to certain research, development, or actions. Nonetheless, different
contexts will require different analyses of credible threats , which will and require different remedies, as
the subject of nanotechnology well demonstrates.

References
A short version of this paper, Weckert, J., and Moor, J. Using the Precautionary Principle in Nanotechnology
Policy Making, appeared in Asia Pacific Nanotechnology Forum News Journal 3, 2004, pp. 12-14.
Arnall, A.H. 2003. Future Technologies, Today’s Choices. London, Greenpeace Environmental Trust/Imperial
College/University of London.
Drexler, K.E. 1996. Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. Fourth Estate London.
Joy, B. 2004. Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us. Wired, 4 August 2004.
Manson, N.A. 2002. Formulating the precautionary principle. Environmental Ethics. Vol. 24, pp. 263-274.
Phoenix, C. and Treder, M. 2004. Applying the Precautionary Principle to Nanotechnology. http://www.
crnano/precautionary.htm. 2004.
Resnik, D.B. 2003. Is the Precautionary Principle Unscientific? Studies in the History and Philosophy ofBiological and Biomedical Sciences, Vol. 34, pp. 329-344.
Rio Declaration. 2002. Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration of the UN Conference on Environmentand Development, quoted in Neil A. Manson’s Formulating the Precautionary Principle. Environmental
Ethics. Vol. 24, pp. 263-274.
Volkman, R. 2001. Playing God: Technical Hubris in Literature and Philosophy. Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on The Social and Ethical Impacts of Information and Communication Technologies.
Ethicomp, Gdansk. Vol. 1, 18-20 June 2001, pp. 350-361.
Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle. 1998. www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-3.html.

Philosophical and Practical Reflectionsof Malaysian Science*
Siti Nurani Mohd Nor, Ph.D.
University of Malaya
Malaysia

This paper begins by first examining parts of the Malaysian Science and Technology Policy, then it
describes certain scientific endeavours that have called for ethical assessments, and, finally, highlights
small bioethical initiatives in the country. At the same time, we will be discussing issues to show therelevance of the “UNESCO Recommendations on the Status of Scientific Researchers” (1974) to Malaysianscientists.

In recognition of the need to enhance technological developments and to streamline the Science And
Technology policy “to the changing environment and realizing the pervasive role of knowledge in the
globalised economy so as to meet the challenges of the new millennium,” the Second Science andTechnology Policy for the 21st Century was produced together with A National Plan of Action in 2003.
The national vision for Science and Technology reads as follows: “To become a nation that is competent,
confident and innovative in harnessing, utilizing and advancing Science and Technology towards
achieving the goals of Vision 2020.”
The general aims of the policy include: increasing the national capacity for research and development(R&D); technology development and acquisition; and stimulating the transformation of knowledge into
products, processes, services, or solutions that add value to industries as new measures for “sustaining
economic development, the improvement of quality of life and national security.”
Reportedly, the objectives of the national policy were:• to increase R&D spending to a least 1.5% of Gross Domestic Product by the year 2010, in an effort toenhance national capacity in R&D; and• to achieve a competent work force of at least 60 RSEs (researchers, scientists, and engineers) per
10,000 labour force by year 2010 in order to enhance national capability in Science and Technology.

There was also the need to enlighten the society, and to:foster societal values and attitudes that recognize Science and Technology as critical to future
prosperity [and at the same time] to ensure that the utilization of Science and Technology
accords emphasis toward approaches that are in conformity with sustainable development
goals including alignment with societal norms and ethics.11
In a recent survey of 2,074 respondents conducted by the Business Ethics Institute of Malaysia (BEIM)
on the integrity of 15 professions, the public was asked “Who do you trust the most?”. Doctors came up
first (72%) and teachers second (67%). Interestingly, scientists came out fifth at 53%, just below priests(58%) and professors (60%).12*

Paper first presented at the Consultation Meeting on Ethical Codes in Science and Technology, UNESCO Bangkok,
May 2006.

11 Malaysia. Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment. 2003. The Second National Science and Technology
Policy and Plan of Action: Competitiveness through Science, Technology and Innovation.
12 Business Ethics Institute of Malaysia Report. Sunday Star. 23 April 2006.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Were we to trace the beginning of national ventures in science and technology in the country, we would
see that it started with the establishment of the Ministry of Science back in 1973. Developments in thearea later saw the need for the formulation of the First National Science and Technology Policy in 1986.

27

In another survey carried out by the Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre (MASTIC),
the Fourth Report on the Perception and Attitude towards Science and Technology 1996-1998, the public
showed very high regard for the integrity of scientists. Some of the issues surveyed are displayed in thetable below.
Table 1: Public expectations about Science and Technology13

28

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

IssuesResponse by the public (1996-1998%)

Science and Technology makes our life healthier, easier, andmore comfortable82.8-88.9

Most scientists work towards improving life

82.1-81.6

Scientific research is necessary, even though it does not bringabout immediate benefits

78.7-80.5

Scientists should conduct health research even if it causes
pain to animals

49

New inventions will counteract harmful consequences oftechnological development

73.5-75.1

The broader scope of the national Science and Technology agenda, in particular, encompasses a wider
range of activities that includes the biosciences and engineering, which are identified as prospective
areas that could generate wealth in the nation’s industries. These are, namely, biotechnology, advanced
material science, information and communication technologies, aerospace, energy, nanotechnology,
photonics, and pharmaceuticals.
Incidentally, the problem of shortages in the Science and Technology workforce—detected at below
30% across all levels of the science, technology, and engineering areas—urgently called for theconsideration of new delivery mechanisms. A series of strategic initiatives to intensify the growth andcreation of a critical mass for Science and Technology was recommended. These included drives toencourage interest in the sciences in primary, secondary, and tertiary educational levels such as:• the adoption of a 60:40 ratio of students pursuing science, technical, and engineering disciplines inschools and universities versus the arts and humanities;• the change from traditional modes of learning, which were rather examination-oriented andemphasized rote learning, to hands-on and innovation-oriented approaches such as the developmentof creative thinking and problem-solving skills, also known as problem-based learning (PBL), which
are skills invariably found in the study of science;• the review of current scientific and technical/vocational subjects in primary and secondary schools.
This, incidentally, incorporates the move to implement the teaching of science and mathematics inEnglish; and• the upgrading of the number of postgraduates in the critical areas to at least 10% of the undergraduate
population.

Moves to intensify R&D included increasing the number of postgraduate fellowships, and encouraging
collaboration with renowned researchers and industries by establishing “Distinguished Visiting Scientist”
posts in universities. In addition, there is a need to establish research-centred universities, a movethat represents a radical shift from their traditional roles as teaching centres. The Returning Malaysian
Scientist Programme (originally proposed under the First Science and Technology Policy), that has sinceoffered several fiscal and non-fiscal incentives to address the “brain-drain’ problem, will be revisited so
as to make it more attractive to the needs of researchers.
Of interest are two rather radical moves. These are, firstly, to allow more freedom for the industries to
13 Extracted from Table 5.3 Perception and Attitude towards Science and Technology 1996-1998. MASTIC Report 1999,
p. 58.

contribute to curriculum design and/or review so as to make them more relevant to industry needs anddemands and, secondly, to assist scientists to commercialize their research findings and inventions, thus
inducing a climate for invention, innovation and techno-entrepreneurship.
The problem is that such capacity-building in R&D endeavours implies increased responsibilities, which
may incur increased risks, including inevitable conflicts of interest between the individual scientist
and the industry. The age-old reputation of the scientific institution that rests upon neutrality and thenoble act of “science for the sake of science” is set to be blemished by financial interests. It is, therefore,
important that such aggressive moves to catapult the nation’s economic maneuvers through Science andTechnology must involve precautions towards the maintenance of a sustainable future. The “challenge
to create a developed and fully industrialized nation [in 2020] which is to establish a fully moral andethical society, whose citizens are strong in religious and spiritual values and imbued with the highest
ethical standards…”,14 therefore remains critical.
Rapid advances in new technologies, especially in the field of genetics, are raising serious moral andethical concerns.15 As such, various mechanisms are needed to ensure that the development in thesciences and technological areas maintained “safety and regulatory procedures [which are] consistent
with acceptable norms and ethics”, and should include steps such as:(2) the development of more efficient information gathering, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms
to track the nation’s performance in these fields;(3) the promotion of sound research management practices in all privately run industries anduniversities;(4) proper management of problems dealing with intellectual property rights and commercialization ofresearch outputs; and(5) developing codes of practice for scientists, technologists, and engineers to ensure that thedevelopment of Science and Technology is consistent with societal values and ethics.
Such proposals seemed consistent with the national vision that planned to produce a confident
Malaysian society, infused with strong moral values.
In line with the objectives and aspirations of the policy, several public seminars and conferences were
held, and it is not unusual that the International Science Conference of 2005 had the theme “Science for
Humanity.” The objectives were not only to review the level of science and technology development in
the last fifty years, but, more importantly, to gather ideas about how to maintain a sustainable future for
Asia and the rest of the world in view of tremendous and sometimes controversial developments such asstem cell research and human cloning that raise urgent ethical issues. Note that not only must efforts bemade to pursue science and technological development for economic growth and for the bettermentof human lives, but we must also ensure that developments place emphasis on the importance andfuture of humanity as a whole.
Such scientific meetings became increasingly regular platforms for talks on workable regulations
on Science and Technology activities to enhance transparency and public accountability. Thus, theconference presented not only exhibits and demonstrations of some of the latest advancements in thesciences and various state of the art technologies, but it also had thoughtful dialogues on topics ranging
from consumer nutrition needs and the safety of GMO foods to the ethics of human reproductive
cloning.
Since 2003, the Malaysian Academy of Science has annually organized the “Science and Technology
Management Training Course for Researchers of the OIC Countries.” Besides providing opportunities for

14 Malaysian Vision 2020
15 Such concerns were also addressed in the Kuala Lumpur Declaration for Science and Technology for Socio-economic
Wellbeing of the Ummah 1441. OIC Conference on Science and Technology. Science and Technology for Development inMuslim Countries. Facing the Challenges of Globalization (Kuala Lumpur), 7-10 October 2003.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology(1) the assurance of an effective Science and Technology advisory and coordination system;

29

research collaboration among member countries, participants were introduced to full day workshops
on sound research management practices, the meaning of good science, and the philosophy of research
ethics. In 2005, such an event that brought together local and foreign scientists, directors and managers,
and senior personnel of research and development in science and technology institutions or industries
in various countries began discussing examples of ethics codes governing the activity of scientists. These
included the 1974 UNESCO Recommendations on the Status of Scientific Researchers, which highlights
the scientific researchers’ ethical responsibilities and rights, as well as the 1999 report from the Nuffield
Council on Bioethics, which shows special procedures for research on vulnerable populations. For manydelegates, it was the first time they were aware of such codes, but they agreed that the guidelines andproposed inherent virtues of responsible scientists were especially useful.
The concept of informed consent for special “‘vulnerable populations” was discussed and specialreference was made to the CIOMS (2002) Ethics of Clinical Research in Developing Countries. In particular,“Guideline 32: The application of guidelines in externally sponsored trials in developing countries”, aselaborated below, was deliberated:

30

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology• Local research ethics committee should be so constituted such that it understands the local
community’s customs and traditions.
• Representations from members of the community who are able to serve as intermediaries
between investigators and participants are needed to determine the appropriateness of any
material benefits . . . [and] that they are in line with the community’s gift-exchange tradition.
These are specific and vital guidelines, because advanced scientific research endeavours would inevitably
progress into international cooperation and, hence, collaborative research. It serves to remind scientistsof the importance of public representation in ethical review boards, a subject typically regarded astrivial by multinational research partnership ventures. It is imperative that research partners should
understand and respect the local indigenous population and their particular customs, their way of life,and practices. Fair representation can also check against extensive bio-prospecting and bio-piracy, andfor this purpose scientists agree that the 1992 Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development aswell as the 1996 Council of Europe’s Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine carry the necessary
precautionary principles. A point is raised in the 1992 Declaration that “When an activity raises threats ofharm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause
and effect relationships are not established scientifically.”
Even though it is popularly thought that the religious faith of a person, whether he or she is a Christian,Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu, can offer the virtues and attributes of a good scientist, some delegates
voiced the fact that scrupulous scientists often forget the basic virtue of honesty. As such, “intellectualhonesty” may be sacrificed to make way for a much-awaited outcome. Results may be manipulated, nonhuman (animal) samples may be unnecessarily violated, and, often, the undiscerning human participant
may be deceived so as to garner unproblematic cooperation and thus quick completion of the research
project. While some believe that codes of ethics serve as constant reminders, and some suggest thatevery scientific meeting must at least engage in the discussion of such codes, others cautiously remarkthat they may represent western and neo-imperialist instruments designed to control and curb the
movements of scientists, especially those of developing countries. The difficulty of acquiring equitablepatent rights was cited, indicating a real problem faced by most scientists to this day.
When asked if a Universal Oath for Scientist, as first proposed by the 2001 International Council for
Science’s “Standards for Ethics and Responsibility in Science”, is necessary, there were mixed reactions.
Western codes of professional ethics have not been well-received, because they were ostensibly alien tocertain cultural values. The Hippocratic Oath, for example, was largely thought improper to read, simply
because of the pledges made “In the name of Apollo and other Greek Gods”. Would history be repeated,
as with past attempts to revise the Hippocratic tradition and formulate codes believed to be more suited
to particular cultures and religions? For example, “The Seventeen Rules of the Enjuin,” an alternative
Japanese code of medical ethics, was prescribed, as they had drawn upon both Buddhist thought
and the Shinto tradition (Veatch, 2000). The Islamic Oath for the Physician, which draws upon Quranic
ethics, is also thought more suited for the Muslim practitioner (Amine and Elkadi, 1999). Incidentally,
this new oath has begun to grace the walls of the clinics of Muslim doctors in Malaysia. However, ifone reflects upon the various dialogues on medical ethics held in the country, physicians never fail tomake reference to the old Hippocratic Oath as the single most important source of ethical guidance for
doctors. It has been remarked that even though the oath does not depict the tawhidic paradigm, that is,the belief in one God, nevertheless, it contains several intrinsic qualities that can be used as guidelines
for the Muslim physician (Mas’ud, 1999). In addition, it is well known that past great Muslim physicianssuch as Al-Ruhawi often cited Hippocrates alongside Galen and Aristotle as authorities in the actual
practicalities of medicine.16

Early this year, the government began to emphasize the importance of biotechnology, which is thought
to be foremost beneficial to farmers, as it would contribute towards enhancing their agricultural produce
and exploit the country’s rich biodiversity. In the past, attempts to change the properties of organisms
was confined to traditional methods such as cross-breeding and interbreeding between close relativesof the plant and animal kingdoms. Today, genetic modification technology can use all existing genesof countless organisms to bring about changes in the genome. It is, therefore, possible to enhance thedesirable qualities of a fruit, vegetable, or animal through gene transfer techniques.
Hence, aggressive research and development plans were forwarded that saw the needs to not only
accelerate human resources development in this enterprise and intensify the building of supporting
infrastructure, but also to develop a comprehensive commercialization plan. It should be noted that
the National Biotechnology Programme (2001) to oversee research in biotechnology and biodiversity
was earlier developed by the then Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment.18 A National
Committee on Biotechnology and Biodiversity Policy was simultaneously formed to address related
ethical concerns, and, subsequently, a Biotechnology Policy was drafted in late 2002. The policy, officiallylaunched in April 2005, identified nine thrust areas.
If one looks closely at these strategic thrust areas, one would agree that they are in tandem with the
UNESCO Recommendation No. 8, which proposes that “creative activities of scientific research should bepromoted in the national science policy,”19 as well as Recommendation No. 20, that “moral support andmaterial assistance conducive to successful performance” must be established.20 The nine emphases ofthe biotechnological endeavours included steps to establish biotechnological centres of excellence;
apply competitive “lab to market” funding; provide incentives to encourage committed participationfrom academia, private, and government-linked companies; assist in the commercialization of healthrelated natural products and bio-generic drugs; and increase opportunities in bio-processing andbio-manufacturing. Not only are biotechnological investments encouraged from the private sector,
but regulatory changes look set to overcome researchers’ past predicament in ensuring that theygain a fair share in the ownership of intellectual property and in the monetary rewards derived fromcollaborative works with institutions and investors. Aggressive plans for the development of humanpower in biotechnology was dubbed a “national mission,” and they seem consistent with the UNESCO
Recommendations, which demonstrate that “science and technology are not activities to be carried

16 The reader can verify this from various books on the history of science in Islam. For a good start, refer to: Sarton, G.
1945. The History of Science (Baltimore), Williams & Walkins, Vol. 1-3.
17 Consider, for example, Joint Commonwealth Medical Association Trust (ComMAT) and the Malaysian Medical
Association Consultation and Conference on Medical Ethics and Human Rights. Penang, Malaysia. 18-20 October
2001.
18 Now known as the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
19 UNESCO Recommendations on the Status of Scientific Researchers. Recommendation No. 8, 1974, p. 3.
20 ibid. Recommendation No. 20.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

While still on the subject of adopting western-made guidelines in medicine, it is necessary here to pointout that the “Georgetown Mantra” as the principles of “autonomy, beneficence, and justice” are popularly
called, has been repeatedly mentioned in a favourable way in various local meetings.17 It is thought thatthey represent an all-encompassing guideline to ideally be made the ethical standard in all medicaltransactions. These same principles, therefore, may be translated adequately to outline the scientists’duty to the public. Even though it is impossible to see the scientist having direct communication with thelayperson like in a doctor-patient relationship, accountability to the safety of the common people andthe environment invariably sums up the collective meanings of autonomy, beneficence, and justice.

31

out in isolation but part of the nation’s integrated effort not only to set up a society that is just, but also
more humane by assisting the scientists and funding their training and specialization programmes.” It
is clear that with the new policy, individual scientists do not need to solicit funding and external grants
independently, as they previously had to. The move reinforces the proposal that “each Member Stateshould strive to use scientific and technological knowledge for the enhancement of the cultural [sic]and well-being of its citizens, and to further the United Nations ideals and objectives.” (xx source)

32

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

It is well known that expected benefits of biotechnology can be tremendous, not only to plants, animals,
and humans, but it will also mean new value-added industries and, thus substantial economic growth forthe country. Yet, negative consequences are also anticipated for all living things and the environment,
as well as for society and future generations. This is the inherent case with the use of any new technique,new drugs, and new chemicals (e.g., additives) in food. Some consequences may not be easily foreseen,
thus lending a sense of uncertainty as to how the future will look. Consider, for example, the scale anddegree of the variation of traits or properties in organisms resulting from genetically modified plants
and animals, and, subsequently, the large scale disturbances in ecological and biological balances. In
the last five years or so, the very idea of eating GM (genetically-modified) foods has raised consumer
concerns. So it was upsetting for many listeners when a young scientist brushed aside these fears onnational TV by callously likening the risks of eating GM foods to the risks of a pedestrian being hit by acar. Perhaps the subject of risk communication should be taught to biotechnologists so as to gain public
support and trust.
One must not forget that when in vitro fertilization (IVF) was introduced in the 1980s as a new artificial
technique in reproduction, it was initially condemned as “unnatural”,21 as disrupting the traditionalfamily unit (in cases of surrogacy) and involves the “murder” of many unborn children. All these fears
have subsided as techniques have improved in the last 20 years and as biomedical technology advanced
rapidly, some of which has proved beneficial. Previous ethical objections regarding the production of“designer children” were later displaced by awe and admiration with the birth of healthy babies that had
specific disease-carrying genes removed while in their embryonic stages. Within these years, countless
dialogues, public lectures, seminars, and conferences showed not only active interest in the ethics ofmodern science and technology, but they also indicated that there was urgency for the scientists toshow accountability and integrity before an increasingly well-informed public at all times.
Perhaps such value-laden developments may have also induced scientists and practitioners to voice
concerns over the need to establish appropriate local guidelines, review old ones, and draw up proper
legislation to manage research. For example, the Malaysian Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics
was adopted in May 2001 at the MMA 41st Annual General Meeting.22 The Code indicates deep concern
over developments in the medical sciences that almost always needed extensive and often invasive
research on patients. It carries an appropriate guideline on the proper attainment of informed consent
as follows:
Section 10. Clinical Research:
In any research on human beings, each potential subject must be adequately informed of theaims, methods, anticipated benefits and potential hazards of the study and the discomfort it
may entail. He or she should be informed that he or she is at liberty to abstain from participationin the study and that he or she is free to withdraw from the study at any time. The practitioner
should then obtain the subject’s informed consent, in writing (Malaysian Medical Association
Code of Medical Ethics).
The guideline included statements that aim to dispel any notion of public indifference, but was worded
in a rather vague and awkward manner:
A medical practitioner shall use great caution in divulging discoveries or new techniques ortreatment through non-professional channels. Practitioners should ensure that research results
are first communicated to appropriate peer groups so that a balanced view can be obtained
before communication to the public. . . . [And] communication of such a discovery and new
21 If one remembers arguments by Leon Kass and Paul Ramsey.
22 This replaces earlier codes reportedly drafted in 1975.

techniques to the public should be through a professional body after they have been reviewed
and generally accepted by the profession. The results of any research on human subjects should
not be suppressed whether adverse or favourable (Malaysian Medical Association Code of
Medical Ethics).
It has been noted elsewhere that there are five guiding principles that promote the development of asustainable future. These are outlined below:(1) Living within environmental limits(2) Ensuring a strong, healthy, and just society(3) Achieving a sustainable economy(4) Promoting good governance(5) Using sound science responsibly

Public opinion and sensitivity to the values of citizens of Member States, therefore, matters in the practiceof science. The Malaysian public consists of people with diverse cultural and religious backgrounds, and,as such, the thrust of their thoughts on any ethical problem on biotechnology is unlikely to be typicalto that of Western countries. For example, the American culture emphasises the value of individualautonomy. As such, autonomy has become the yardstick for the assessment of many ethical problems
that involves human beings. On the contrary, Chinese culture emphasises the value of family andcommunitarianism, rather than individualism. Islam emphasises the preservation of family lineage andlife while ensuring public good in all its developmental endeavours. Although fundamental principles
may vary between cultures, more often than not, all four major religions tended to agree on a common
set of ethical views.
This was evident when scientists congregated with officials from all the four major religions in the
country (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity) to discuss religious concerns and draw up
consensus statements on the ethical bearings of technologies such as IVF, pre-implantation genetic
diagnosis (PGD), organ transplants, and human cloning. For example, the interfaith discourse on the
ethics of organ donation and transplantation achieved a consensus that organ donation can suitably
be regarded as an act of charity.24 Similarly, the dialogue on the ethics of human cloning also struck acommon argument based on the belief in the sanctity of the marriage institution.25
Against this background and the fact that science is increasingly seen as a powerful commercial
enterprise, I will now begin to discuss the importance of the 1974 UNESCO Recommendations. It
must be foremost laid down that the Recommendations is actually an instrument for the perceptive
Governments of Member States of the United Nations to give appropriate recognition to the scientist
profession, and to value scientific knowledge in itself. In other words, scientists stand to benefit a great
deal if governments take full acknowledgment of the said Recommendations.
I must say that simple ignorance is contusive to mistrust, and there is a Malay saying, “tak kenal maka tak
cinta,” which basically means that “it is impossible to love anyone [or anything] if you do not know themthoroughly.” It is, therefore, worthwhile for scientists to ponder over the Recommendations carefully.
For instance, the rights of scientists practicing in developing countries is appropriately addressed,
as there exist an emphasis upon “fair status for those who perform research . . . taking due accountof the responsibilities inherent in and the rights necessary to the performance of that work.” The
Recommendations also brilliantly caution the reader not to use the document as an all-encompassing
instrumental guideline for scientists, but rather in complement to regional and local standards andlegislations; it cites several other texts for scientific and other workers in its Annex section.
23 UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy. Securing the Future (London), Cm646. HMSO. 2005, p. 16.
24 Organ Transplant is a Sensitive Process. Utusan Malaysia. 25 April 1997. Decree Soon on Organ Donation: Debate
on Ethics, Newly Set Up Panel to Iron Out Details. New Straits Times. 8 March 2003.
25 Public Conference on Reproductive Human Cloning. Kuala Lumpur, February 2002.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology“Responsibly sound science” has been defined as “ensuring [that] policy is developed and implemented
on the basis of strong scientific evidence, whilst taking into account scientific uncertainty (through the
precautionary principle) as well as public attitudes and values.”2333

Recommendation 14 carries important notes on the civic and ethical aspects of scientific research.
A close reading of sections (a) to (d) demonstrates that they actually complement essential Islamic
ethics:Member States should seek to encourage conditions in which scientific researchers, with thesupport of the public authorities, have the responsibility and the right:(a) to work in a spirit of intellectual freedom to pursue, expound and defend the scientifictruth as they see it;(b) to contribute to the definition of the aims and objectives of the programmes in which
they are engaged and to the determination of the methods to be adopted which shouldbe humanely, socially and ecologically responsible;(c) to express themselves freely on the human, social or ecological value of certain projects
and in the last resort withdraw from those projects if their conscience so dictates;

34

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology(d) to contribute positively and constructively to the fabric of science, culture and educationin their own country, as well as to the achievement of national goals, the enhancementof their fellow citizens’ well-being, and the furtherance of the international ideals andobjectives of the United Nations (UNESCO Recommendations on the Status of Scientific
Researchers, 1974).
Firstly, section (a) alludes to the “objectivity of scientific knowledge,” which is encouraged in Islam andmust be pursued and upheld at all times. The Prophet (pbuh) once prayed that he be given clear truths
about nature: “O God, show me the world as it really is.” Secondly, (b) emphasizes that unethical means or
the subjecting of animals and human beings to unfair treatment in research must never be supported,even though benefits may be substantial. The third recommendation allows the scientists unrestricted
freedom to anticipate dangers or actions that have the potential for a conflict of interest, and it allows
uncertainty as a valid reason to avoid or discontinue research. Finally, the last recommendation instills
a sense of patriotism, namely, the desire to improve or upgrade one’s livelihood and the lives of theircountrymen, which should be in line with international aims. The scientist is warned that anythingother than this is dubbed as “subversive research.” Subversive research would be destructive to theenvironment as well as to humankind. According to Islam, this includes altering the human genome.
One of the five purposes of the Islamic Law, Shariah, is “the protection of family lineage and progeny.”
Similarly, Article 13 of the Council of Europe’s 1996 “Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine” also
has useful precautions: “An intervention seeking to modify the human genome may only be undertaken
for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic purposes, and only if its aim is not to introduce any modificationin the genome of new descendents.” (Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, 1996, Article 13)
In 1990, the importance of ethics education was identified. This is in line with Recommendation No.10,
which emphasises the meaning of a good scientist and a moral one: “Member States should have regard
for the fact that effective scientific research calls for scientific researchers of integrity and maturity,
combining high moral and intellectual qualities.”
Incidentally, the Science Faculty of the University of Malaya created a three credit Introduction to Ethics
course which was offered in 1995. In 2000, they organized a Workshop on Professional Ethics and CriticalThinking Skills in the Sciences for science professors and lecturers. The workshop was conducted withinteractive discussions on the philosophy and sociology of science, the freedom and limitations ofscientific inquiry, scientific misconduct and the integrity of the profession, and the importance of ethics
education for future scientists.
The objective was to introduce an integrated set of courses on ethics, which includes the subject of“Professional Ethics for Science Undergraduates.” It was later incorporated into a structured module,
which complements the pure hard-science subjects that cover all three years of the students’ educational
years in the faculty. Table 2 briefly represents a typical course structure.

Table 2: Integrated Course Structure with Components in Ethics
Name of course

Compulsory/Elective

Credit Hours

I

Introduction to Professional Ethics

Compulsory

2

I

Philosophy and History of Western Science

Compulsory

2

II

History of Islamic Science

Compulsory

3

II

History of Chinese and Indian Science

Compulsory

3II

Ethics in Science and Technology

Elective

3

III

Environmental Ethics

Elective

3

III

Issues in Bioethics

Elective

3

III

Applied Ethics

Elective

3

The total credit hours offered by the subjects constituted at least twelve credit hours of the full 108
credit hours that students needed to acquire a Bachelor of Science Degree. It was believed that anunderstanding of the various subjects was sufficient to produce a graduate that would not only becomea skilled scientist, but who would also be aware of a deep sense of responsibility for the well being of the
public and the environment, and who would be ethically competent to address various ethical issues
that come their way, whether in the university laboratory or later in their career years. Most importantly,
it was impressed upon the students that the nature of the study of science and the uniqueness of its
research methodology, which gives credence to the profession in its insistence upon results that are
based on objectivity.
The detailed course objectives that are set out for the students are, primarily, to make them understandand respect fellow students, researchers, teachers, and lecturers, as well as the common people of
Malaysia with different religious, cultural, and social values. As such, courses on the history of Islamic,
Chinese, and Hindu sciences would present enlightening knowledge of their respective and diverse
heritage in the sciences. At the same time, the courses reinforce respect for the values each of tradition.
By reading Recommendation No.13, we see that it empowers the scientist to think about others before
himself or herself, and that the scientist is part of a larger whole. This instils a sense of responsibility andhumility:
Member states should bear in mind that the scientific researchers[’] sense of vocation can be
powerfully reinforced if he is encouraged to think in terms of service both to his fellow countrymen
and to his fellow human beings in general . . . to express encouragement for scientific researchand experimental development performed in this broad spirit of community service. (UNESCO
Recommendations on the Status of Scientific Researchers, 1974).
The remaining objectives of the curriculum are: to develop a selfless attitude towards the both thescientific and common community; to adhere to ethical standards in generating information for scientificresearch, reporting, and writing; and to encourage the desire to work effectively as a team with otherresearchers, technicians, and other groups.
The Department of Science and Technology of the Faculty of Science was then entrusted to coordinate
the teaching of the subjects. The course on “Professional Ethics” was exceptional in that it recruited
all professors from the Departments of Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, and Mathematics on arotational basis to conduct the lectures. The problem-based learning method was incorporated,
whereby case studies of ethical issues in the practice of science, such as scientific fraud and misconduct,human and animal experimentation, and environmental concerns were given to students. At the endof fourteen weeks, after independently seeking appropriate literature, sample data, and supporting
documents, students argue their cases in front of the class, using multimedia presentations. This nontraditional mode of learning actually made students learn more than they typically would have throughthe normal lecture-based learning and notes-taking method.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Year taken

35

36

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Lecturers admitted that the course actually summons them to seriously think about the ethical aspectsof their profession, in addition to giving the students a personal look at the trials and tribulations of thework of scientists. Some lecturers searched the libraries and even began reading ethics publications,such as the Encyclopedia of Bioethics by Warren T. Reich. Most lecturers believed that there is no need fora local code of ethics, because science is essentially a universal enterprise, and all scientists should abide
by a common code of ethical practice. Others, meanwhile, believed that the working guidelines26 thatthey follow are more useful than any code of ethics, and they believe that the international scientificsocieties they belong to already have particular working ethics guidelines that are better tailored totheir specific field of study, e.g., the “Chemist Code of Conduct.” Still, some scientists specifically pointed
out international agreements such as the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which
addresses more pertinent and practical issues. The presence of local ethics committees that review
new project proposals were also deemed sufficient to check against the misuse and abuse of scientificknowledge.
If the UNESCO Recommendation is to be effective, it must be brought to the attention of governments(Ministers of Science and Technology) to impress upon the scientists the need to read and understandthe purpose of its contents and, hence, ensure that the scientific cause proposed by member states is inline with the various instructions that were laid down. Codes of conduct might sound restrictive when
one thinks about them, but it must be brought to the attention of those involved that this particular setof recommendations is not simply a set of rules about dos and don’ts; it also compels governments torecognize the importance and seriousness of the scientific profession, and it suggests incentives thatappraise the status of professional scientists. Otherwise, it will remain, as it has been for the last thirty
years, simply an academic document, relevant only to those who specialize and study the philosophy of
ethics when, ironically, it was foremost intended for scientists.

References
Amine, A.R.C. and Elkadi, A. 1993. Islamic Code of Medical Ethics. Reproduced in: Athar, S (ed.). Islamic
Perspectives in Medicine. Indianapolis, American Trust Publications, p. 85.
Council of Europe. 1997. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being
with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine.
Online at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/164.htm xxx
Mas’ud, I. 1999. Contemporary Medical Service from the Islamic Perspectives. Concepts and Operations inIslamic Medicine. Kuala Kumpur, Malaysian Institute of Islamic Understanding, p. 121.
Veatch, R.M. (ed.). 2000. Cross Cultural Perspectives in Medical Ethics. London, Jones and Bartlett Publishers,
2nd edn., p. 260.

26 For example, guidelines on the release of GMO products, guidelines on human embryo experimentation,
guidelines on the disposal of chemical waste from experiments, guidelines on the handling of animals inexperiments.

High Tech Neuroscience, Neuroethics,
and the Precautionary Principle*
Irina Pollard, Ph.D.
Macquarie University
Australia

We live in a world in which technology plays a significant role in all aspects of our lives, and where
existing technologies are constantly being improved, or replaced, by more sophisticated and powerfulones. Technologies, all by-products of science, have redefined how we live, work, fight, relax, andcommunicate with one another. Modern humans are acquiring ever more sophisticated machinery toserve differing social, economic, and political objectives. On the whole, science is value free because,from the values point of view, science is all about facts. But its application imparts value and, as aconsequence, gains socio-ethical significance. Technology is versatile and can be conveniently adaptedand applied in ways other than its intended purpose or purposes. In addition, its intended application
may have unforeseen risks that carry adverse long-term consequences. Major concerns relating to thedevelopment and application of “ground-breaking” technology include damage to the environment,
injury to human health, invasion of privacy, issues relating to socio-economics, justice, and equity,and infringement on religious beliefs. To these above concerns we can add those arising from recent
developments in high tech neuroscience, where acquaintance with the principles of bioscience ethics
and bioethics seems critical.
Bioscience ethics can flexibly facilitate free and accurate information transfer from applied science toapplied bioethics. Bioscience ethics’ major elements are: increased understanding of biological systems;
responsible use of technology; curtailment of ethnocentric debate; and greater awareness of new
ecological/medical insights. By reconnecting the traditional disciplines of science and ethics, it becomes
possible to incorporate the best of society’s traditional/cultural ethical principles, reject misinformation,and bypass fruitless, arcane deliberation (Pollard, 2002).

The Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle is a rule about handling uncertainty in the assessment and management of
risk. This rule recommends that when deciding about actions, a cautious (or precautionary) approachshould be taken in the face of uncertainty, particularly when dealing with human health and theenvironment. The idea behind the principle is that appropriate action should be taken to avoid the riskof serious and irreversible damage to human and environmental health, but it does not mean that noaction should take place if there is identifiable risk. The principle ensures that in circumstances where
our best predictions turn out to be wrong, it’s better to have erred on the side of safety; that is, forgoing
potential benefits of a particular technology is better than experiencing harmful consequences fromfailing to predict the risks.
The precautionary principle emerged in the 1970s, and is currently invoked in numerous internationallaws, treaties, and protocols in, for example, environmental management, control of toxic chemicals,
food standards, fisheries management, species introductions, and wildlife trade. The overarching aim
is to support ecologically sustainable development in managing natural resources, and to conserve
biodiversity while continuing to develop as an economy. The principle can, however, be equally called
upon to assess risk-benefit equations posed by high-tech medical applications.

*

Paper first presented at the First UNESCO Bangkok Bioethics Roundtable, September 2005.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

High Technology—Introduction

37

The present paper centres on recognized advances in brain-probing technology, and acknowledges
that modern neuroscience raises unique ethical questions that demand a cautious (or precautionary)
approach in their application.

Mapping the Field

38

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Modern brain imaging began in the 1970s with computed axial tomography (CAT) scans, and many
advances have since been made. In the earlier days of neuroimaging, studies focused on structurefunction relationships in the brain, and organization of the primary sensors and motor regions of thebrain are now particularly well understood. Today, neurological studies probe at our deepest thoughts,
define our complex cognitive behaviours, and judge our rational decision-making and consciousness.
Neuroimaging reveals the structure of the living brain through technologies such as computer-assisted
tomography (CAT) scans or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Brain function is revealed throughpositron emission tomography (PET) scans, single photon emission tomography (SPECT) scans, orfunctional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).
In neural systems of the brain, information is represented by patterns of activity occurring over specificpopulations of neurons. Different brain regions have evolved to perform different specific tasks, soeach region of the brain may perform its computations in different ways. By recording electrochemical
activity (neuroimaging) across the brain, it becomes possible to establish normal levels of excitation
corresponding to sleep, rest, and various forms of wakefulness. Brain scans can identify early signs ofbrain disease and risk factors for mental health. Understanding the encoding of information in neural
populations is important, both for understanding the fundamental processes underlying brain function
and, by learning about normal function, to understand the behaviour of the injured brain suffering fromstroke, generative disease, and congenital malformation, for example. In practical terms, knowledge
from brain-interpreting science has been applied in neuro-protection (i.e., safeguarding CNS cells fromfurther damage after injury), in neuro-repair (i.e., developing therapies to help the body repair damaged
CNS cells), and to develop devices which harness any remaining neural potential to control brainmachine interfaces (i.e., neural prosthetic devices). Future applications will, of course, still concentrate
on cure, prevention, and therapy, but they will also focus on reading neural organizations that drive
normal and deviant human emotions.

Neuroethics
In response to neuroscience’s growing array of technological developments that are capable ofmonitoring and manipulating the human mind, the emerging field of neuroethics is gathering force.
Neuroethics was formally defined in 2002 at the landmark neuroethics conference in San Francisco as,“the study of the ethical, legal and social questions arising when scientific findings about the brain are
carried into medical practice, legal interpretations and health and social policy.” In practice, neuroethics
deals with the pros and cons of research conducted on the brain, as well as the social, legal, and ethicalimplications of treating or manipulating the mind. When dealing with powerful technologies, questionsof need, control, motive, and profit have to be identified and evaluated. For instance, some products
such as brain scans, which identify early signs of brain disease and risk factors for mental health, serveobvious medico-social benefits, while others, such as technologies created to manipulate humancognition, are less straightforward, and may double as skilfully disguised political tools. Further, whenevaluating well-being over the long-term, ethical accountability may require wider forethought, which
could include maintaining the well-being of a subsequent generation of children. Thus, in the realworld, reaching consensus requires a complex set of interactions among researchers, investors, medical
professionals, patients and their families, and the community, at large.
The profit motive may not sit well with, for example, community forethought about what kind oftechnology is acceptable and what kind is not. But when it comes to high tech research, the money
needed to fund these projects is typically out of the range of individuals or small groups, which means
financial support is usually made available by governments or multinational companies. Developing
new technologies also involves companies legally guarding their research and development throughsecrecy and patenting. Controlling and monitoring this mix to ensure that society’s ethical and legal
expectations are met is important, but complex. A sub-sample is described below.

Current advances in neuroimaging can interpret personality, desires, and may even “see” a state of mind
(e.g., racial attitudes) of which one is unaware (Eberhardt, 2005). Future advances will provide insights
into individual traits such as intelligence, cognitive abilities, personality characteristics, and genetic
predisposition to, for example, violence, addiction, and mental illness. Specific neuroimages may
also predict the onset of particular neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
Other lines of innovative research are already well placed to access the mental processes involved inrecalling a memory, whether true or fabricated, and assist neurologists to differentiate between the
two. For example, brain fingerprinting techniques can reveal if an individual is lying. But if a truly
accurate lie detector were deployed and brain fingerprinting became established as a forensic tool,
current privacy guarantees might not provide enough protection against screening requests fromcourts, the government, the military, or employers. In these circumstances, the precautionary approachis critical because physiological measures, especially brain-based measures, possess illusory accuracy
and objectivity. Therefore, instrument accuracy and interpretation needs to be well-established andmonitored. Consumers will have to be sufficiently informed to correctly balance advantages (such asprediction of the onset of a particular disease leading to treatment) against disadvantages (such as
misdiagnosis, inappropriate treatment, and breaches of privacy). Ongoing advances focus increasingly
on ways that basic brain processes can provide useful information about the subtle functions that makeus individuals. For example, certain neuroimaging technologies are improving the skill-base for making
predictions about an individual’s future health. Scientists are learning to read how different image
patterns, taken under varying circumstances, correlate with different future conditions or behaviouraltendencies.
Since modern neuroimaging faces the common bioethical considerations of privacy, confidentiality, andthe misuse of information, the ethical considerations are very similar to those associated with the humangenome debate. There are social implications of the availability of personal information, particularly
relating to future behaviour, to the wider community. Accountability issues about a patient’s medical
history are especially relevant here: they extended to include future health prospects, which might
involve a wider circle of kin and children. Radiologists who use predictive testing are faced with longstanding ethical issues, particularly in the arena of psychopathology, and it isn’t always in a person’s bestinterest to have such information available to others.

Neural Prosthetic Devices
Scientists have uncovered brain functions that would help in the development and application ofthought-controlled machines—that is, brain-machine interfaces enabling paralyzed people to moveand communicate simply by thinking (Andersen et al, 2004a&b; Rizzuto et al, 2005). Prosthetics research
focuses on recording hand trajectory signals from the brain. Recordings from these cells are “decoded”
to control the trajectories of a robotic limb or a cursor on a computer screen. For instance, a patient
could navigate a wheelchair or use an LCD interface to type a letter. In pioneering experiments, implants
in monkey brains successfully picked up brain signals and sent them to a virtual robotic arm, which,driven only by the monkey’s thoughts, carried out reaching and grasping movements on a computer
screen (Lebedev et al 2005). In other experiments, both humans and monkeys have had their brains
wired so they could move cursors on computer screens just by thinking (Sanchez et al, 2005). Early
research has focused primarily on the identification of specific areas of the brain directly responsible
for the control of movement; that is, the primary motor cortex (the brain region that controls voluntarymuscle movement). But more recent experiments have identified that the ventrolateral prefrontal
cortex, located near our temples, is the region involved in the processing of spatial information related to
movements we are about to make (Rizzuto et al, 2005). This discovery is important, as it has heightened
success opportunities by harnessing the prefrontal cortex for better neural prostheses development.
The prefrontal cortex is less hardwired, enabling it to smoothly select appropriate sensory informationto achieve the desired objective.
Ongoing experiments significantly advance the effort to devise thought-controlled machines. This
technology could greatly benefit people are paralyzed or have lost control over some physicalmovement.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Finger Printing the Human Mind

39

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

40

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Memory gives our lives a sense of continuity and meaning by making it possible for us to learn fromexperience, to cultivate long-term relationships, and to treasure joyful times. But memory also brings
pain. In the extreme, traumatic memories can bring on anxiety states such as post-traumatic stressdisorder (PTSD). PTSD is a psychological syndrome that develops in about 20% of individuals after
exposure to life-threatening situations such as combat, rape, or natural disaster. The major symptoms
include experiencing the event through intrusive recollections, flashbacks, and nightmares, as wellas heightened anxiety, emotional numbing, and avoidance of reminders of the trauma. All of these
symptoms and their behavioural responses are normal reactions to distressing events, but in the
majority of people exposed to trauma, the symptoms subside with time. With PTSD, the symptoms do
not fade: rather, they persist indefinitely for years, decades, or a lifetime.
The body’s natural tendency to enhance the storage of emotionally-laden memories has importantsurvival value. In dangerous circumstances, we will typically experience emotions such as fear to help
us respond appropriately to threats, and avoid similar situations in future. In short: life-threatening
situations propel the body and mind to fight for survival by inactivating all non-essential activity andemotions in order to channel the entire available energy to staying alive. This adaptation involves thestress response—the so called “fight or flight” mechanism that is crucial for survival. Stress hormonessuch as noradrenalin are released from the brain stem and reach the amygdale, which instructs thememory-processing hippocampus to remember that experience clearly. However, in individuals whosestress response is over-reactive or has to be sustained over long periods of time, their hyped up bodyspells disaster for physical and mental health.

A Pill to Forget
Neurobiologists are working to understand the underlying mechanisms in the brain that encode
new memories and store life-sustaining knowledge. They are well placed to appreciate the ways thebrain normally keeps unwanted memories at bay (Anderson et al, 2004; Ockner, 2004). It looks as if for
PTSD sufferers, each recall of the traumatic memory triggers an exaggerated physiological responsethat further consolidates the traumatic memory by wiring it more strongly into the mind. Because
memories run on chemicals, they can be altered by chemicals. Applying this knowledge, researchers
are now experimenting with drugs that either weaken the emotional hold of traumatic memories, or
prevent newly formed memories from becoming destructive to those with a predisposition for anxiety
disorders.
A commonly used class of drugs, the ß-blockers, has the ability to interfere with the way the brain stores
memories so that they can be effectively deployed to dampen or eradicate a perceived overreaction toa traumatic event. Administered within about six hours of a traumatic experience, sufferers of traumaticstress disorders can prevent the distress associated with the condition (Giles, 2005). Alternatively, the drug
can be administered retrospectively (therapeutic forgetting) to blunt the panic surrounding an existingtraumatic memory (Strange & Dolan, 2004). Beta-blockers (short for ß-adrenergic blocking agents) are
drugs that interfere with, or “block”, the function of certain stress-mediated neurotransmitters in thebrain, such as noradrenaline and adrenaline. Because ß-blockers lower blood pressure and the heart
rate in general, they have been prescribed to treat high blood pressure and some forms of heart disease.
Propranolol and its congeners are ß-blockers commonly used for these conditions.
As described above, the body uses stress-mediated neurotransmitters to initiate emotional reactions
that best prepare the body to deal with an emergency, perceived threat, and survive throughlearned experience. But not all approve of preventing anxiety disorders with drugs, especially whenadministered before predicted traumatic times. The concern is that memory-erasing medication mightrisk entrenching antisocial behavior by removing emotions like empathy, remorse, and guilt, which
typically curb the excesses of an activated “fight or flight” response. For example, would we want to give
soldiers memory-blunting agents on the eve of combat to fortify the extinction of unwanted memories?
Would this not risk accelerating atrocities in an environment where killing civilians and children are
options? Might this not medicate away shame or guilt that might occur from past misdemeanors, whichwould otherwise prevent future wrongdoing? Among practical problems, knowing whom to treat isproblematic. Potential PTSD victims do not exhibit symptoms at the time of the traumatic event. Would
accident witnesses demand prescriptions and thus imperil their future testimony? Some ethicists haveeven gone so far as to maintain that “bearing traumatic memories is the moral obligation of those who
witness atrocities” (Miller, 2004). For example, even if individual Holocaust survivors were to benefit
from treatment that weakened the memories of their experiences, society as a whole might be badly
served by having no witnesses with unadulterated memories. Our memory is not merely our own; it’spart of the society we live in. Somehow, we must preserve the historical record of atrocities without
denying individuals the benefits of therapeutic drugs. In the last analysis, it’s up to society to determine
how far we want to take the technology.

A Pill to Remember

The Ethics of Memory Manipulation
Safety concerns, especially regarding the long-term use of neuroactive drugs by healthy individuals,
are foremost, but certainly not the only ethical concerns expressed by laypeople and professionals alike(Farah, 2002; Farah & Wolpe, 2004). Enhancement or inhibition of the natural responses of very complex
systems, which neuroscientists are only just beginning to understand, invites unforeseeable risks andconsequences (Gabrieli, 2004). Nevertheless, scientists who work with patients who suffer from, say,intractable post-traumatic stress disorder see therapeutic forgetting differently. Such scientists goagainst the current trend in memory research, which is to find a drug or a gene to enhance memory. At
any rate, since memory is woven into our individuality, changing the emotional content of memories
does effectively dissociate our personal history from our recollections of that history. For example, wegain maturity, social responsibility, and empathy for others from distress, anxiety, and sorrow, as well
as from happiness, joy, and contentment. The difficult question is to distinguish what is dysfunctional
for an individual from what is dysfunctional for society. Evidently, the technology could be abused. For
example, in medicating in order to desensitize combatants or terrorists to commit repugnant acts that,
if constrained by guilt, they would never think of doing. On the other hand, when society demands
soldiers to participate in warfare, the society also carries the responsibility to help that soldier get
through the aftermath of involvement in that horror.

Ethics—Our Evolutionary Heritage
The neurobiological foundations of emotion are attracting mounting interest within the neurosciences
due to advances in functional neuroimaging technology. With functional magnetic resonance imaging(fMRI), it is possible to identify patterns of neural activity associated with storing and retrieving sequencesof complex events, attitudes, and emotions (Wood et al, 2005). Emotion plays a pivotal role in ethicalexperience by assigning value to events, objects, and actions. Ethical choice depends on our capacity toforesee the results of actions, and includes the acceptance of individual responsibility. Some of the mostfundamental questions about our unique evolutionary origins and social relations are centred on issuesof altruism and unselfishness (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003; Fehr & Renninger, 2005). Most academics agree
that ethical codes have arisen through the interplay of biology and culture. The human brain—the cortex
in particular—is more than an instrument for shaping the environment. In addition to receiving andlinking heard, seen, smelled, and felt sensations, there are parts of the cortex’s frontal lobe that interpret
what is received, and incorporates it into the development of judgment, volition, and consciousnessof self and others. From these abstract qualities, it is believed, evolved altruism or seemingly unselfish

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

A major research effort is also being directed to the development of memory-enhancing drugs. The
effort is primarily aimed at finding treatments for dementia, e.g., for Alzheimer’s disease, but it includes
developments that could enhance normal memory, particularly in middle and older age, when adegree of increased forgetfulness is normal (Farah, 2004). Memory-enhancing drugs such as Ritalin(methylphenidate) target the molecular mechanisms involved in memory consolidation (see above
section for details). In specific terms, memory enhancers exploit the stress-driven adrenergic systemthat spontaneously becomes overactive in those suffering from anxiety disorders.

41behavioural characteristics; that is, the willingness to choose cooperative over alternative behaviouraloptions (Pollard, 2003). This opened opportunities for the development of a collective awareness, or
ethics, which subsequently gave way to an ethical order of fitness-enhancing behavioural preference,
to be used to one’s advantage in personal and social relationships (Pollard, 2002).

42

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Converging lines of evidence from evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and experimental psychology
have demonstrated that ethics is, indeed, hardwired into our brains—effectively blending modern
empirical testing with ancient wisdom. As a consequence, a fresh concordance between secular-based
science and spiritual practice has provided new possibilities for the advancement of mental and social
well-being (Pollard, 2004). For instance, with the aid of fMRI, Jorge Moll and his colleagues (Moll et al,
2002; Moll et al, 2003) have shown that subjects viewing scenes suggestive of ethical emotions strongly
activated a common network of brain areas that included the prefrontal cortex and temporal regions,the thalamus, hippocampus, amygdale, and hypothalamus. Significantly, when responding to stimuli
that evoke ethical or moral emotions, brain activation is consistently more powerful compared withthe processing of neutral or unpleasant stimuli (Moll et al, 2003).The prefrontal cortex and temporal
regions of the brain are critical for higher intellectual functions, social behaviour, perception, and ethicalappraisal; the thalamus, hippocampus, amygdale, and hypothalamus are critical working centres ofthe emotional, or limbic, brain. Together, the intellectual prefrontal cortex and the limbic emotional
brain allow us to mingle thoughts and feelings, cognition and emotion, providing an adaptive mix ofintellectual and emotional brain power (Pollard, 2004).
Disciplined curiosity is natural and appropriate to the human mind—the sheer desire to learn and thesatisfaction of gaining knowledge is Nature’s special gift to Homo sapiens. It follows that harnessing
knowledge to beneficial use in technology and practical skill is a responsibility that arises from thesocial and benevolent nature of humankind. But since technology is developing at an ever-increasing
rate, ethics has to fundamentally change to keep up with this technological expansion. In the next few
decades, we will have unprecedented opportunities to improve health and well-being, but also haveincreasing power to annihilate ourselves and our fellow inhabitants of Earth. Experts have estimatedthe risk that humankind will be wiped out by some technological disaster—nanotechnology, biological
warfare, nuclear technology—at 20-50% in the next century (Savulescu & Foddy, 2005). But such adisaster is already possible with existing technology, so we have to become more resourceful by applying
our collective energies from the combined pool of intelligence and sense of adaptive responsibility. In
this context, I refer to an elevated awareness conveniently referred to as the emotional intelligencequotient, or EQ. A well developed EQ signals intellectual maturity—one is more responsive to physicaland social environments. In closing, I would like to quote from a recent paper by Julian Savulescu andBennett Foddy (2005):
There is an urgent need to begin considering how we will face these new challenges to our
nature and to our existence. Because technology begets further technological development,
there is no halting or avoiding these problems. We must consider radically changing our practical
ethics effort away from comparatively less important problems like privacy and reproductive
cloning (which will never threaten our nature or existence) to these so critical and so far ignored
challenges to humanity in the 21st century.

References
Anderson, M., Ochsner, K., Kuhl, B., Cooper, J., Robertson, E., Gabrieli, S., Glover, G. and Gabrieli, J. 2004.
Neural Systems Underlying the Suppression of Unwanted Memories. Science,Vol. 303, pp. 232-235.
Andersen R., Musallam, S. and Pesaran, B. 2004a. Selecting the Signals for a Brain-Machine Interface.
Current Opinion in Neurobiology, Vol. 14, pp. 720-726.
Andersen R., Burdick, J., Musallam, S., Pesaran, B. and Cham, J. 2004b. Cognitive Neural Prosthetics.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Vol. 8, pp. 486-493.
Bioscience-Bioethics Friendship Co-operative Web Portal at
http://www.bioscience-bioethics.org/ provides free entry to relevant educational material.
Eberhardt, J. 2005. Imaging Race. American Psychology, Vol. 60, pp.181-190.

Farah, M. 2004. Neurocognitive Enhancement: What Can We Do and What Should We Do? Nature Reviewsin Neuroscience, Vol. 5, pp. 421-425.
Farah, M. 2002. Emerging Ethical Issues in Neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, Vol. 5, pp. 1123-1129.
Farah, M. and Wolpe, P. 2004. Monitoring and Manipulating Brain Function: New Neuroscience
Technologies and Their Ethical Implications. Hastings Center Report, Vol. 34, pp. 35-45.
Fehr, E. and Renninger, S. 2005. The Samaritan Paradox. Scientific American Mind, Vol. 14, pp. 15-21.
Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. 2003. The Nature of Human Altruism. Nature, Vol. 425, pp. 785-791.
Gabrieli, J. 2004. Memory: Pandora’s Hippocampus? Cerebrum, Vol. 6, pp. 39-48.
Giles, J. 2005. Beta-blockers Tackle Memories of Horror. Nature, Vol. 436, pp. 448-449.
Lebedev, M., Carmena, J., O’Doherty, J., Zacksenhouse, M., Henriquez, C., Principe, J. and Nicolelis, M.
2005. Cortical Ensemble Adaptation to Represent Velocity of an Artificial Actuator Controlled by a BrainMachine Interface. Journal of Neuroscience, Vol. 25, pp. 4681-4693.

Molle, J., de Oliveira-Souza, R. and Eslinger, P.J. 2003. Morals and the Human Brain: A Working Model.
Neuroreport. Vol. 14, pp. 299-305.
Moll, J., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Eslinger, P., Bramati, I., Mourao-Miranda, J., Andreiuolo, A. and Pessoa, L.
2002. The Neural Correlates of Moral Sensitivity: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Investigationof Basic and Moral Emotions. The Journal of Neuroscience, Vol. 22, pp. 2730-2736.
Ockner, K. 2004. Current Direction in Social Cognitive Neuroscience. Current Opinion on Neurobiology.
Vol. 14, 2004, pp. 254-258.
Pollard, I. 2003. Choose Between Cooperation and Annihilation: A Mental Mapping Project Towards a
More Generously Directed Altruism. Eubios Journal of Asian & International Bioethics (EJAIB), Vol. 13, pp.
44-48.
Pollard, I. Meditation and Brain Function: A Review. 2004. Eubios Journal of Asian & International Bioethics(EJAIB), Vol. 14, pp. 28-33.
Pollard, I. 2002. Life, Love and Children: A Practical Introduction to Bioscience Ethics and Bioethics. Norwell,
Kluwer Academic (also freely available on http://www.bioscience-bioethics.org/ )Rizzuto, D., Mamelak, A., Sutherling, W., Fineman, I. and Andersen, R. 2005. Spatial Selectivity in Human
Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex. Nature Neuroscience, Vol. 8, pp. 415-417.
Sanchez, J., Erdogmus, D., Nicolelis, M., Wessberg, J. and Principe, J. 2005. Interpreting Spatial andTemporal Neural Activity Through a Recurrent Neural Network Brain-Machine Interface. IEEE Trans Neural
Systems Rehabilitation Engineering, Vol. 13, pp. 213-219.
Savulescu, J. and Foddy, B. 2005. The New Gods: Ethics in the Next Decades. Australian Life Scientist, Vol.
2, pp. 26.
Strange, B. and Dolan, R. 2004. ß-Adrenergic Modulation of Emotional Memory-Evoked Human Amygdalaand Hippocampal Responses. Proceeding National Academy of Science, Vol.101, pp. 11454-11458.
Wood, J., Knutson, K, and Grafman, J. 2005 Psychological Structure and Neural Correlates of Event
Knowledge. Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 15, pp. 1155-1161.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Miller, G. 2004. Learning to Forget. Science, Vol. 304, pp. 34-36.

43

Science, Technology, and the Supernaturalin Contemporary Thai Novels*
Pornvipa Watarachanakool, Ph.D.
Huachiew Chalermprakiet University
Thailand44

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

While science and technology rapidly progress, many people—especially those outside scientificfields—are increasingly nervous with the advanced materialism those two sciences create. Are scienceand technology able to control everything completely? Will science and technology truly bring
luxurious life to humans? And, are there any risks in the seemingly smart, smooth paths led by scienceand technology? This paper explores how novels can discuss ethical issues of science and technology.
From a literary perspective, contemporary Thai novels reflect both admiration and concerns on these
two significant branches of present-day science. Twenty Thai novels, whose main contents concern
science, technology, and the supernatural, published from 1987–2003 A.D., have been studied for a
research project entitled Science, Technology and the Supernatural in Contemporary Thai Novels. The
purposes of this study aim to investigate ideas about three areas in Thai society that are seemingly not
dominated by science.
Three questions to be answers in this paper include: What are the real causes behind obstructedscientific thought promotion in Thai society? Can Thai people neglect ideas about the supernatural andaccept scientific rules? And, does the supernatural have any special function for Thai people, such that
it is permanent in Thai society?

Reflections of Science, Technology and the Supernatural inContemporary Thai Novels
Via close reading and detailed analysis, it was found that all novels in the study promote scientificthoughts/thinking. Many authors emphasized that educated people, namely university graduates,
should not believe in any sort of supernatural power. They implied that such superstitions are irrationaland old fashioned. But some of the novels presented the plot of confrontation between a faithfully
rational protagonist and supernatural phenomena. It is clear that many authors indulge in the conceptof the supernatural, despite the stock they put in scientific thinking.
This same contradiction is often found in Thai culture, and may be explained by two dominant aspectsof Thai society. Let us first consider a cultural perspective: Most Thais live among their extended families,
especially in rural areas. Family members are closely related, and elders are highly respected. Cultural
customs and religion are directly transmitted from older to younger generations. Beliefs and practices
about the supernatural have long been rooted in Thai local cultures, particularly in remote areas andamong uneducated people. Family socialization is much more influential on these people than formal
education is. So, many kinds of supernatural beliefs and practices are inevitable to rural people forwhom traditions and customs still play important roles.
Another dominant factor in Thai thought is Buddhism, which is the major religion of Thai people. The
following explanation by Phya Anuman Rajadhon (1958), a highly esteemed Thai scholar, provides agood background in Thai-style Buddhism.

*

Paper first presented at the First UNESCO Bangkok Bioethics Roundtable, September 2005.

Animism, with ancestor worship, is the primitive belief of the Thai . . . this formed the first layerof Thai religion. Later on came Buddhism and the Thai adopted it as their national religion. .
. . the Thai inherited a fair proportion of Hinduism through the influence of the Cambodians. . . Whatever cults and beliefs are adopted by the Thai, they are readily modified to suit theirtemperament and surroundings. When they adopted Buddhism, they modified their basic
belief of animism into the fold of Buddhism. Likewise [sic] when they embraced Hinduism, they
adapted it as a subordinate to the former. As Buddhism and Hinduism were evolved from one
and the same source, i.e., Brahminism, there was no hindrance to their assimilation. They becamein time intermixed completely, and of course tinged with the former animistic belief.
The long modification of Thai Buddhism means Thais can interpret it in multiple ways. Instead of scientificteachings being held and practiced, Thai people might favour and expect miracles of Buddhism. Thisphenomenon is clearly reflected in many of the studied novels.

Most of the studied novels presented stories of sophisticated people in an urban environment. Nearly
all protagonists were highly educated. Most were Ph.D. graduates or at least held a degree, particularlyin the field of science. Seventy percent of the protagonists, representing the modern sciences, had andpromoted scientific ideas. Thirty-five percent of the antagonists performed roles opposing science andtechnology, which might cause disasters. Eleven novels (55%) presented the antagonists as agents or
performers of negative supernatural forces (black magic). Only five stories (25%) demonstrated thatthe protagonists accepted the existence and usefulness of both scientific and technological ideas andsupernatural forces.
From the above figures, one may conclude that contemporary Thai authors support the current trendthat science and technology are agreeable and beneficial in today’s society. However, some (25%) of
the studied novels exhibit concerns about risks that science and technology might bring along with
progress. A remark that should not be overlooked here is that, according to these authors, science andtechnology are formally accepted ideas among only sophisticated Thais in metropolitan areas. Thus, aninteresting question to examine is that whether scientific thought is subject to environment: Can it notflourish in remote areas among people with medium to low levels of education?
A few of the studied novels reflected views dealing with education in Thai society. One novelist(Nuntana, 1987) wrote about a country dweller with a low level of education. When presented with alien
technology, he preferred his simple, familiar life to the conveniences of modern technology. Two otherauthors (Krukrit, 1988; Weerawat, 1994) underscored that sometimes even educated people did not
apply scientific knowledge to their daily lives, but indulged in practices such as consulting fortune-tellers
when encountering problems, or not arguing for facts or reason when they were in the minority.
In actual Thai society, many factors dissuade Thai people from science. Not only do material factors
obstruct the promotion of scientific and technological concepts in Thai society, but local cultures largely
prevent scientific mindsets in those rural communities. These are not dead-ended issues, but a multifaceted approach must be taken to promote science in such cases.

Roles and Functions of the Supernatural in Thai Society
In most of the studied novels, the most criticized aspect of the supernatural is sorcery, which is the useof magic with the intent of harming another person. From an anthropological perspective, magic may
actually be used to benefit the community or an individual (Nanda, 1994). Yet, many studied novels
implied that the black magic of sorcerers was bad, and any decent individual should not be engaged inthat practice. Another different reflection that appeared in some novels was the author’s belief that theworld is mechanical. All systems are planned and orderly processed. No one can break the rules, such as
via immortality or controlling supernatural power, at his or her wishes.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Science and Technology, the Formally Accepted Ideas ofSophisticated Thais

45

These are the ideas of urban, educated authors. In the actual lives of rural Thais, as was roughly portrayedin a few novels, supernatural practices are a local medium for problem-solving, and can be easily acquired
at little cost. On the contrary, modern science or technology is alien, specialised, difficult to acquire,and expensive. One studied novel, The Double Worlds (Tomayanty, 1991), portrayed a scenario in which
each world and time had their own proper knowledge and technology, and civilization could not bemeasured by alien standards. This strong view implies that the usefulness or value of any knowledge is
up to its context of time and place.
Although the majority of contemporary Thai novelists negatively portray the supernatural, some
empirical functions of it in Thai society—especially in rural areas—are also portrayed.

46

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Expectations of Thai Novelists Toward Science, Technology, and theSupernatural
Although most contemporary Thai authors clearly promote scientific and technological thought in theirnovels, that view might not be clear to readers. On the contrary, their stories sometimes demonstrated
lots of facts and figures about science and technology, but did not encourage the significance of scienceand technology to the present world. For Thai people, science and technology still seem like imported
knowledge. When reliable references were needed in a story, they were always from abroad. Thais seemto label both general principles and advanced trends of science as western. This is a point to which
policy-makers should pay attention.
Although the authors blamed the supernatural for being irrational and unreliable, they often portrayed
the power of Buddhist rites or words as preventing or even destroying black magic, thereby allotting
a seemingly supernatural power to Buddhism. Thai authors seem to favour faithfulness in Buddhist
teachings and miracles to scientific and technological ideas. This is another feature that contributes tothe obstructed promotion of science and technology in Thai society.
It seems careless that some novelists even present the notion that in the near future, the supernatural willplay as important a role as science and technology. The idea is likely based on Animism, not science. The
source of this imagination was perhaps spread from some Hollywood films and a lot of English fantasy
fiction. Thai people in general, as well as many novelists, welcome the view with no apparent suspicion.
From an epistemic cultural perspective, it is observed that the creation of Thai local knowledge is far
different from that of Westerners. Most of Thai knowledge is gained from observation of nature andmainly aims for harmonious, peaceful living. Thai culture does not want to control or defeat nature, likescientific endeavours appear to.
The studied novels clearly reflect that Buddhism is a major source of knowledge and practice in Thai
society. It is widely proved and accepted that Buddhism is a scientific religion. Its major teachings andpractices are empirical and rational. Unfortunately, most Thais understand Buddhism according to
its outer layer of rites, with the hope of miracles. Many studied novels demonstrated the magic-like
consequences of Buddhist amulets or scared materials, rather than the real meaning of the religion. Twoof the novels, The Oracle (Phutasaun, 1991) and Illusions (Thomayanty, 1995), heavily explained Buddhist
teachings in order to prove its scientific characteristics. Still, many parts of those stories tended to besupernatural.
One may conclude that contemporary Thai novelists do not have vivid awareness of how scientificthinking/knowledge is significant to their particular lives. The studied novels in this paper, although
based on small-scale data, reflect meaningful views for consideration by whoever wishes to promotescientific thoughts and technological knowledge in Thai society.

Some Solutions
Corresponding to the stated questions of this paper and the sequentially described details, as theresearcher of this project, I would like to propose these conclusions as some primary answers:It is clear that local cultures are more influential on Thai living than modern science is, and that theThai people consider science as professional knowledge rather than as practical concepts for solving
problems in daily life. This directly indicates that the education processes of science in Thai society are
inefficient and have missed their goals. Thai people, both in urban and especially in rural areas, are noteffectively trained to form scientific minds and to apply scientific thoughts to their lives. Buddhism is amajor influence on Thai people, but in their culture, the scientific characteristics of Buddhist teachings
are not well taught. Instead, outer layers of the religion are widely spread, such as miracles and scarymaterials.
The two basic stated problems may be solved by the same procedure: effective education. As most of
the studied novels reflect, educated Thais are the most likely to understand the benefits of science andtechnology to the modern world. They clearly understand that beliefs in the supernatural are antiquated,
and are fully aware that it is only useful for mental consolation. To promote scientific thoughts or
technological knowledge to Thai people, we need not decline local cultures or Buddhism. Instead, itwould be a very effective procedure if policymakers could design methods of promoting science thatuse both of those dominant factors.

References
Krukrit, P. 1989. The Bangpleng Blackbird. Bangkok, Siam-rat Press. [in Thai]
Nanda, S. 1994. Cultural Antropology. California, Wadsworth Publishing.
Nuntana, W. 1987. The Extraterrestrial. Bangkok,Chokchai-dhewest Press. [in Thai]
Phutesaunm, S. 1991. The Oracle. Bangkok, Reumsarn Press.[in Thai]
Rajadhon, P. A. 1972. Culture. Bangkok, Bunnakarn Press. [in Thai]
Siripaiboon, W. 1991. The Double Worlds. 5th ed. Bangkok, Bamrungsarn Press. [in Thai]
Siripaiboon, W. 1995. Illusions. 2nd ed. Bangkok, Na-banwanakram Press. [in Thai]
Weerawat, K. 1994. The Invisible Form. 2nd ed. Bangkok, Na-banwanakram Press. [in Thai]

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Anthropologists all over the world have proven that the roles and functions of religion and supernaturalbeliefs are widely important and beneficial to members of different cultures. While science andtechnology are modern competitors, they can never be substitutions. These varying roles are, for now
and in the far future, the beauty of what makes up cultures.

47

A Conception of Risk in Decision-Making*Siriphen Piriyachittakornkit
Chulalongkorn University
ThailandBecause a risk-free society is impossible, issues about acceptable risk are widely debated in decisionmaking discussions. One of the main queries in their controversies is who should define risk (ShraderFrechette, 1996). In their book, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (1996),
the Committee on Risk Characterization of the U.S. National Research Council proposes that risk
characterization should not be conceived as a summary or translation of the results of technologicalanalysis. Instead, it should be reconceived as an output of an iterative, analytic-deliberative process thatis organized by the following seven principles:(1) Risk characterization should be a decision-driven activity, directed toward informing
choices and solving problems.

48

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology(2) Coping in a risk situation requires a broad understanding of the relevant losses, harms,
or consequences to the interested and affected parties.
(3) Risk characterization is the outcome of an analytic-deliberative process. Its successcritically depends on systematic analysis that is appropriate to the problem, responds
to the needs of the interested and affected parties, and treats uncertainties ofimportance to the decision problem in a comprehensive way. Success also depends
on deliberations that formulate the decision problem, guide analysis to improvethe decision participants’ understanding, seek the meaning of analytic findings anduncertainties, and improve the ability of interested and affected parties to participate
effectively in the risk decision process. The analytic-deliberative process must have anappropriately diverse participation or representation of the spectrum of interested andaffected parties, of decision-makers, and of specialists in risk analysis, at each step.
(4) Those responsible for a risk characterization should begin by developing a provisional
diagnosis of the decision situation so that they can better match the analytic-deliberative
process leading to the characterization to the needs of the decision, particularly interms of the level and intensity of effort and representation of parties.
(5) the analytic-deliberative process leading to a risk characterization should include
early and explicit attention to problem formulation; representation of the spectrum ofinterested and affected parties at this early stage is imperative;(6) The analytic-deliberative process should be mutual and recursive. Analysis anddeliberation are complementary, and must be integrated throughout the process
leading to risk characterization: deliberation frames analysis, analysis informs
deliberation, and the process benefits from feedback between the two.
(7) Each organization responsible for making risk decisions should work to build
organizational capability to conform to the principles of sound risk characterization. At
a minimum, it should pay attention to organizational changes and staff training efforts
that might be required, to ways of improving practice by learning from experience,and to both costs and benefits in terms of the organization’s mission and budget.
According to the idea of the Committee, in the iterative, analytic-deliberative process, there are threegroups of people who make the input and output: public officials or other designated decision makers;*

Paper first presented at the First UNESCO Bangkok Bioethics Roundtable, September 2005.

analytic experts, such as natural and social scientists; and the interested and affected parties to thedecision. “They interact within each of the tasks leading up to risk characterization: deliberation frames
analysis, and analysis informs deliberation”(p.30). The analytic process “includes various ways of reasoning
and drawing conclusions by systematically applying theories and methods from natural science, social
science, engineering, decision science, logic, mathematics, and law” (p.30). The deliberative process“includes the methods by which people build understanding or reach consensus through discussion,reflection, persuasion, and other forms of communication” (p.30). Both of the processes “allow forinteraction across different groups of experts and between experts and others” (p.30).
There are two good points of the proposed idea of the committee. The first is the participation of
the interested and affected parties, which moves decision-making to the public arena. Risk is often
conceived as a prospect of physical harm and disregarded its dimension of human minds and societies(Hollander, 1994). The second is the dynamic of the definition of risk. The scientific and social knowledge
is relatively uncertain. The affected parties should have an informed choice, regardless of what theychoose.

References
Hollander, R.D. 1997. The Social Construction of Safety. The International Journal of Applied Ethics, Vol. 8,
No. 2, pp. 15-18. Reprinted in Shrader-Frechette, K. and Westra, L. (eds.). Technology and Value. Marryland,
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., pp. 107-114.
Shrader-Frechette, K. 1996. Risk. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward Craig (ed.). London,
Routledge.
Stern, P.C. and Fineberg, H.V. (eds.). 1996. Understanding Risk : Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society.
Committee on Risk Characterization, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,
National Research Council. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

The point I wonder is whether the society has the resources and mechanisms for dealing with these
conditions, especially in the case of developing countries where the scientific knowledge comes fromoutside. How could the people in these countries have an informed choice? Could they choose a way oflife without science?

49

National Bioethics Commission of Indonesia in the
Framework of National Scientific Research andTechnological Development*
Amru Hydari Nazif, Ph.D. and Umar A. Jenie, Ph.D.
National Bioethics Commission
Indonesia50

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Basic Consideration
The Joint Decision by the Minister for Research and Technology, Minister of Health, and Minister ofAgriculture of Indonesia on the establishment of the National Bioethics Commission (NBC) on 17
September 2004 was a specific decision. This relates to the institutionalization of a forum for moving
forward discussion and consideration of issues and problems related to bioethics at the national level. It
has long been recognized that this channeling was a pressing problem in Indonesia. Ideally it is expected
to become the focus and forum to discuss and consider issues of national interest for building andaccumulating common understanding of the rapid progress in science and technology with respect toa wider international environment.
The NBC was established to accomplish the mission in identifying and elaborating specific issues
by considering and allowing for a multi-disciplinary approach of problems. This will come from awide spectrum from the basic to the applied sciences, especially the life sciences, as being applied
and implemented in the fields of medicine and health, agriculture, and science and technology in
general.27
Consider the following general formulation:“Ethics can be described as a sub-branch of applied philosophy that seeks ‘what are the right and the wrong,
the good and the bad set of behaviours in a given circumstance’. Bioethics, on the other hand, is a quasi-social
science that offers solutions to the moral conflicts that arise in medical and biological science practice.”28
According to this formulation, bioethics covers issues and problems with a wide impact in the community,
which originate from the rapid progress and development of scientific research and technologicaldevelopment, especially life sciences.
A set of initial bioethics norms as a basis for further analysis is (1) ‘respect to autonomy’, (2) ‘nonmaleficence’, (3) ‘beneficence’ and (4) ‘justice’.29
Hence, bioethics covers the ethical, legal, social, and cultural dimensions of these life sciences and theirrelated technologies. It is commonly interpreted to have umbrella coverage in guaranteeing respect forhuman dignity, human rights, and other basic freedoms.

*

Paper first presented at the First UNESCO Bangkok Bioethics Roundtable, September 2005.

27 It was covered in a UNESCO forum and documented in the Proceedings of the Round Table of Ministers of Science,
Bioethics: international implications, Paris 22-23 October 2001.
28 From “The ‘Four Principles Of Bioethics’ As Found In 13th Century Muslim Scholar Mawlana’s Teachings” by Sahin Aksoy,
Faculty of Medicine, Department Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Harran University, 63300 Sanliurfa, Turkey
and Ali Tenik, Faculty of Theology, Department of History of Sufism, Harran University, 63300 Sanliurfa, Turkey, in
BMC Medical Ethics 2002, 3.
29 These four norms were introduced as ‘Four Principles’ by the philosophers Beauchamp and in their book Principles
of Biomedical Ethics, Oxford University Press, New York, fourth edition, as quoted by Sahin Aksoy and Ali Tenik in thereference quoted above.

Bioethics: Institutionalization
During 2003 various bioethics issues were discussed in Indonesia in relatively limited forums. The
Department of Foreign Affairs took the initiative and hosted a seminar-cum-workshop on humancloning because the issue was already being introduced to the UN General Assembly. However, thediscussion, analysis, and arguments were far from sufficient to gain proper perspective, understanding
and implication of human cloning. No open debates and further forum for nationwide analysis were
held to follow-up on the general consensus reached.
Bioethics is a difficult and complex topic. Bioethics in particular deals and is closely related to morality inresearch, development and implementation of genetic engineering products, whereas in food products
we deal with the issue of safety. These products may well be safe in relation to the environment and for
consumption, but may ignore bioethics norms in their processing.

“In the early 1990s … the science community found its way to reach beyond the ‘code-of-ethics
approach’ leading to a more open debate of identifying and finding the future path and orientationof the new technologies, such as those related to stem-cell technology and human cloning. It is stillin a state of confusion as no real communication among the actors exists; as yet the communication
channels between scientists, ulemas, public at large, and Government are not functioning effectively”(UNESCO, 2003).
In other international forums, Indonesian science is to take a more active role, especially within theUN system, through the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) and the Intergovernmental Bioethics
Committee (IGBC) of UNESCO. Since 2005, Indonesia has been a member of the Intergovernmental
Bioethics Committee, which comprises 36 countries. In the meantime the Round Table of Ministers of
Science on “Bioethics: International Implications” in Paris, 22-23 October 2001, requested UNESCO:“… to examine the possibility of developing, starting from the Universal Declaration on the Human
Genome and Human Rights, a universal instrument on bioethics, in association with national ethics
committees and similar bodies, … and in consultation with the public and private sectors, the scientificcommunity and representatives of civil society …” (UNESCO, 2001).

The Situation in Indonesia
Attention to bioethics dates from the early 1970s, with cases of in-vitro fertilization IVF, organtransplantation, and xenotransplantation, in particular. With the discoveries in molecular biology andprogress in biotechnology, the way was laid open for manipulation and genetic engineering. While initialattention to bioethics technolgy was applied to individual persons, modern biotechnology brings withit a mucher wider societal impact, as we are dealing with life from its basic and fundamental forms.
The progress in S&T also allows scientists to produce what are called genetically-modified organisms(GMOs). Food products and plantation plants are two recent products that were introduced to the fields
by the “economic path.” Regulations stipulate that before being “used,” domestic as well as imported,
agricultural genetically engineered products should fullfil all requirements of biosafety, considerations
related to religion, socio-culture, ethics and esthetics. While what we are facing are multidimensional
problems, these may be grouped and structured so that a systematic approach in their analysis could
be attempted according to the needs and priorities.
Biotechnoloy is believed to be a new economic wave with the support of information technology.
The dependence of biotechnology on natural resources put Indonesia at a comparative advantage fornational development. Besides its great potential, the implementation of biotechnology also invites
moral and social impacts.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

In the midst of the great interest of the international world to the performance of the Universal
Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, in a state-of-the-art report to the UNESCO’s
32nd General Conference, Indonesia reported that :51

Mission of NBC
In Indonesia, bioethics norms should be “translatable” into workable actions, that obtain generalpublic acceptance, since modern life presents options, choices, and values that are in need of constantevaluation and reinterpretation. It is a matter for the general public to understand and perceive thesewith the right frame of mind. A consensus can be build from mutual trust by the parties involved.
Specifically, the NBC comprises not more than 35 members who are experts and professionals in various
scientists, lawyers, sociologists, philosophers, and theologians, with the understated objectives:• to review ethics pertaining to the direction of the development of sciences, especially life sciences;• to advise the Government on the feasibility of policy and regulation of bioindustries, researchorganizations, scientific professional organizations, and individuals doing research on and/or related
to life, in agricultural biotechnologies, industries and health services and evaluate the moral base ofbioethical norms; and• to disseminate information about bioethics and life sciences, which rely on ethical review and52

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

analysis.

The recommendations and considerations by NBC are prepared and submitted to the Government as
inputs to guide and push scientific research and technological development. Other study results areprovided and presented to the public at large, indirectly through publications, and directly throughperiodically held “road shows.”

References
UNESCO. 2003. Proceedings of the 32nd General Conference of UNESCO. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2001. Bioethics: International Implications. Proceedings of the Round Table of Ministers of
Science. Paris, UNESCO.

Codes of Ethics for Engineers andScientists in New Zealand*
Nadja Tollemache
COMEST
New Zealand

Whether or not these fears are realistic, they share one factor—they all may involve human agency, andmany of them are tied in with the development of technology. Engineers and scientists have realizedthat there is a growing disquiet about what “they are up to”, and a number of professional organizations
have decided that one way to improve public confidence is to adopt a Codes of Ethics or Codes ofPractice.30 In this gathering, it is hardly necessary to mention the work UNESCO has done regarding
the Advisability of Elaborating an International Declaration as a Basis for an Ethical Code of Conduct for
Scientists.31 But it is relevant to recall that in 2004, the Division of Ethics of Science and Technology
examined, among other materials, 115 existing ethical standards for science, including 39 international
standards and 76 national standards, representing 23 countries on six continents.
I have been asked to focus on just a small fraction of this material: Codes of Ethics for engineers andscientists in New Zealand. For a lawyer like me, being asked to do a presentation on such Codes of
Ethics presented something of a challenge. The challenge was all the greater because I had in mind
Para. 2.3 of the conclusion of the Director General’s report (33 C item 5.28), which recognises “that ethics
and responsibility of science should be an integral part of the education and training of all scientists.”
I thought it important to look not only at the Codes, but also to try and find out if they figured in theteaching and training courses of the relevant disciplines. Unfortunately, in the time available, I was unable
to establish how widely Codes of Ethics were part of the materials used in ethics courses for science andengineering students. However, I did find that increasing effort is put into teaching ethics somewhere
during professional training, usually either in the fourth year or in a block course (Buckeridge, 2001).
During my years as Chair of the Health Research Council of New Zealand’s Ethics committee, we wereconcerned with the very specific issue of research involving human subjects. I will explain later in thepaper what the New Zealand practice in that context demands. But the emphasis is certainly different
from the context of any Professional Codes that operate in New Zealand for Engineers and Scientists. So
I called in the aid of some friends and former colleagues to help flesh out the information I was able toaccess through the normal channels, including the internet, particularly in relation to teaching. To thosementioned in the endnotes to this paper. I express my gratitude for their willingly given help.32*

Paper first presented at the Consultation Meeting on Ethical Codes in Science and Technology, UNESCO Bangkok,
May 2006.

30 See paragraphs 1-3 of the preamble of the Code of Ethics of the Royal Society of New Zealand.
31 UNESCO IBC, 2003. Advisability of Elaborating an International Declaration as a Basis for an Ethical Code of Conduct for
Scientists. Paris, UNESCO.
32 My thanks for assistance with information for this paper: Mr Richman Wee; Dr John St. J. S. Buckeridge; Members of
the Engineering, Science, and Philosophy Departments of Auckland University of Technology and of the Universityof Auckland; Practice Manager and staff at IPENZ.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

The world today seems like a dangerous place to many who are following the daily news. Fears centre
around a number of developments: the possibility of a pandemic; the spread of HIV/AIDS; global
warming; misuse of nuclear power; the downstream effect of genetic modification of crops, particularly“terminator seeds”; depletion of fishing stocks in the oceans; “peak oil”…

53

I intend to concentrate only on two specific New Zealand Codes: 33(1) The Royal Society of New Zealand Code of Professional Standards and Ethics, adopted as a revisedcode in 2003, which you may say is our gold standard,34 and;(2) The IPENZ Code of Ethics of the Institute of Professional Engineers of NZ, which was approved by the
Board to take effect from 1 January 2005, replacing the previous Code.35
There are a number of other Codes, a sample of which I will simply list with a brief comment. I will comeback to the overall position in New Zealand in respect to research that involves either human subjects
or animals, because those are overarching requirements covering all researchers.
Examples of Other Codes:(3) Codes of Ethical Conduct under the Animal Welfare Act 1999:36
all institutions (universities, institutes, or companies) undertaking animal-based science must have a
Code of Ethical Conduct and an Animal Ethics Committee. These are further commented on below;(4) The Ethics Code of the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science;37

54

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology(5) The NZIMLS Code of Ethics (New Zealand Institute of Medical Laboratory Science) is a short,mandatory Code for those registered to practice as Medical Laboratory Scientists or Technicians in
New Zealand;38(6) The NZIFST Code of the New Zealand Institute of Food Science and Technology is interesting forthe very specific way it deals with conflicting loyalties 39. The second paragraph of the introduction
reads:
Professional food scientists and technologists may be faced with conflicting loyalties, e.g. [sic]to society and to their employers. The Code of Ethics establishes the underlying principle thatin matters of health, safety, fraud and deception, a Member’s primary obligation is to society. [Itthen provides examples.]In s. 3.1, special provision is made to assist in these situations:This code recognises that Members, either through their own volition, or by direction of theiremployer, are sometimes faced with a decision or action which may breach this code. As a support
network, the Institute shall maintain a group of Ethics Advocates with the following roles:
To be available to individual members so that they can, in confidence, seek advice on personal
ethical dilemmas and issues;
To represent individual members on ethical issues, e.g. to their employer, if so requested;
To ensure that young members, in particular, receive training and assistance in the area of ethics.
This issue is further elaborated in s 4.1 and 4.2.

33 The following Codes are not included in the paper:
The Association of Social Science Researchers (ASSR) Code of Ethics http://assr.rsnz.org?ETHICSPG.,htm
SPEAR- Social Policy Evaluation and Research. http://www.spear.govt.nz/SPEAR/tools/wikipage.do?wikipage=Ethics
Sociological Association of Aotearoa (New Zealand) CODE OF ETHICS http://saanz.science.org.nz/ethics.html
The Australasian Evaluation Society Code of Ethics. http:/www.aes.asn.au/about/code_of_Ethics_2002.html
Engineers for Social responsibility Inc. code of ethics. http://www.esr.org.nz/about/about.html
The NZ Psychological Association Code of Ethics. http://www.psychology.org.nz?about/Code_of_Ethics_2002.html
34 http://www.rsnz.org/directory/code_ethics.php
35 http://www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/who_we_are/ethics_inc.cfm
36 http://anzccart.rsnz.govt.nz/text/control.html see p. 8, B.
37 http://www.agscience.org.nz/NZIAHSconstitution.pdf
38 http://www.nzimls.org.nz/116.html
39 http://www.nzifst.org.nz/about-NZIFST/ethics.asp

I am leaving aside all the codes dealing with health sector professionals. It should be noted, however,that apart from the specific codes of the health professions, the health sector is also subject to a numberof statutes: the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act of 2000; the Code of Health and Disability
Consumers’ Rights of 1996; the Privacy Act of 1993; the Health Information Privacy Code of 1994; theInjury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act of 2001 and the Health Research Council Act of1990. Some of these also cover research done by non-medical scientists. I am also leaving aside codesfor social scientists and sports scientists.

The Royal Society of New Zealand Code“they are equally aware that they are in the hands of scientists and of commercial enterprises andthey are disinclined to fully trust either group to always act in the overall interests of humanity.
. . . If, therefore, natural and physical scientists, medical scientists and technologists, technicians
and all involved in research or its application are to continue to have the freedom to operate, andto have the public support that that freedom requires, it is imperative that they, whatever theirfield of expertise and whether in the private or public sector, are seen to act professionally byfollowing a formalised code of practice” (Royal Society, 2003).
The Code then gives the statutory basis for the Code—which is Section 34 of the Royal Society of New
Zealand Act of 1997—that makes it mandatory to issue a code, and also to make the Code and any
amendments to it publicly available.
Here, then, are two important criteria: (1) statutory underpinning; and (2) public availability.
The third important factor is the coverage: this code is mandatory for all members of the Royal Society,who can be called to account for any breach; but it is also a voluntary code for all other scientists andtechnologists in New Zealand. So the third important factor is: (3) accountability (or enforceability).
The Code covers members whether or not they are “self-employed on the staff of private or publiccompanies or of Government or private institutions, or whether they be natural or physical scientists,social scientists, medical scientists or practitioners, technologists, technicians or others.”40 Further, allinvestigations must be undertaken in accordance with “accepted professional standards and codesof ethics, both those prescribed by parliamentary legislation and those promulgated by professional
bodies.”41
Because the Code is lengthy and detailed I will only pick out a few points from it here. So, for example,
after sections 6-8, which detail duties to human research subjects, duties to funders and purchasers of
research, and to protect the welfare of animals,42 in Section 9 there is a detailed duty to sustain and protect
the environment, including that “they must draw the attention of both decision-makers and those tobe affected to any environmental impacts of the proposed work and to the perceived immediate andpotential consequences which may follow.” In section 10, on educational and communications settings,
there are a number of interesting duties, e.g., (in b.) to provide “up-to date instruction and guidance. . . including . . . reference . . . to areas of controversy”; (in f ) “to provide balanced and open-mindedpresentation of issues where controversy and differences of opinion exist so that alternative views are
aired and explained”; and (in h) “taking care to also objectively state the known risks, as well as thebenefits and advantages, in any new development.”43

40 Royal Society of New Zealand Revised Code of Professional Standards and Ethics (12 June 2003) Online at
http://www.rsnz.org/directory/code_ethics.php.
41 Royal Society of New Zealand Revised Code of Professional Standards and Ethics, Preamble xxx.
42 Refer to the section on animals.
43 Royal Society of New Zealand Revised Code of Professional Standards and Ethic, section 34 xxx.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

The Royal Society of New Zealand Code starts with an important preamble that points out, among otherthings, that the trust of the general public can be, and has been, eroded partly by the general public’s
difficulty in understanding science and their resulting feeling of vulnerability. It particularly mentions
nuclear fission and genetic research. It says:

55

In Section 11, two present-day issues are singled out for special treatment: (a) the use and storage ofgenetic information, and (b) operations involving genetic modification.
The last part of the Code deals with complaints, hearing procedures, and sanctions.

The Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand (IPENZ) Code
Whereas the Royal Society Code is both very wide in application and is very detailed, the IPENZ Code(the second code for discussion) is specifically geared to the engineering profession. It opens with astatement that commitments to ethical values “are additional to the obligations, which every memberof society is required to observe, such as obeying the law, and reflect the additional responsibility
expected of all professionals. It therefore follows that the Institution must maintain an appropriate Codeof Ethics, to publish it for the information of the public and to enforce it impartially.”
The Code consists of three parts:(1) a set of five fundamental ethical values;

56

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology(2) expanded guidelines, ranging “from exhortations to excellence to prescriptive directions as to what
constitutes ethical professional behaviour”; and(3) minimum standards against which members will be judged in terms ofcomplied with Rule 4 of the Institution to behave ethically.

whether

they

have

The code has the force of Regulations as set out in Rule 22, and all members must comply with theprovisions of the Code of Ethics.
In terms of the criteria I set out under the Royal Society Code, the IPENZ Code has:(1) regulatory (though not statutory) underpinning;(2) public availability; and(3) enforceability through the Rules of the Institute.
Regarding the specific “Values and Guidelines”:
The first is “Protection of Life and Safeguarding People.” When you consider that the collapse of a poorly
designed or shoddily constructed building can kill many people, this is clearly an all-important value. In
Part 2 of the Guidelines, this is expanded to include, i.e., assessing obligations to clients, employers, andcolleagues; minimising risk of loss of life, injury, or suffering; and drawing the attention of those affectedto the level and significance of risk associated with the work.
The second value is “Professionalism, Integrity, and Competence”. There are 11 headings in the Guidelines,of which I will mention just 2.2: “Giving engineering decisions, recommendations or opinions that arehonest, objective and factual. If these are ignored or rejected [sic] you should ensure that those affected
are made aware of the possible consequences.”44
The third value is “Commitment to Community Well-being”, and includes 3.2: “endeavouring to identify,
inform and consult parties affected, or likely to be affected, by your engineering activities” and 3.6: “asa citizen, using your engineering knowledge . . . to contribute . . . to public debates . . . except whereconstrained by contractual . . . obligations.”45
The fourth value is “Sustainable Management and Care of the Environment”, which includes 4.2:
“endeavouring to minimise the generation of waste and encouraging environmentally sound reuse,recycling and disposal.” As anyone who has observed large building operations will know, the waste
associated with such projects is enormous, and recycling perfectly good building material is difficult
because of the fine line between allowing re-use versus building-site theft. In practice, this would be adifficult injunction to follow.46
44 Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand (IPENZ) Code of Ethics, section 2.2.
45 Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand (IPENZ) Code of Ethics, section 3.2.
46 Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand (IPENZ) Code of Ethics, section 4.2.

The fifth value in the IPENZ Code is “Sustaining Engineering Knowledge,” which includes sharing
professional knowledge for the benefit of society.
In Part 3, “Minimum Standards of Acceptable Ethical Behaviour,” the positive values and obligations ofParts 1 and 2 are spelled out and sometimes recast as prohibitions, breaches of which can be sanctioned.
For example: not to misrepresent competence; not to promise, give, or accept inducements; and not todisclose confidential information (except when the health or safety of people is at risk). The matter of“inducements” can be very tricky for a New Zealand engineer who is bound by the IPENZ Code, butworks in a country where the local customs are different.

The Overarching Structure of Legal and Other Requirements
Now that we have reviewed two of the Codes relating to the work of scientists and engineers in New
Zealand, it is important to place them in the overall structure of legal and other requirements that also
affect the ethics of their work.

Regarding scientists and engineers who work in the corporate world, the public sometimes assumes
that they are completely dominated by the interests of their corporate masters. This is a particularly
unfortunate perception for scientists involved with genetic work as well as those employed bypharmaceutical firms. It should be remembered, however, that in the area of company law and corporate
governance, the move to have formal ethical standards is gaining force. Though this subject is outside
the parameters of this short paper, reference should be made, for example, to the ASX Corporate
Governance Council’s Principles of Good Corporate Governance and Best Practice Recommendations,47
produced in Australia in March 2003, which includes in the essential corporate governance principles:“A company should . . . Promote ethical and responsible decision-making.”
In New Zealand, the Institute of Directors produced a Code of Proper Practice, and in Corporate
Governance in New Zealand Principles and Guidelines, the Securities Commission includes a requirementthat every entity should adopt a written code of ethics which would include a section on conflicts ofinterest and another on whistleblower procedures.
The ethical requirements set out in professional codes for scientists and engineers are, therefore, notnecessarily negated by corporate employment obligations. In fact, if triple bottom line reporting should
become the norm, the ethical responsibility of the scientist or engineer who is a company employee
could be enhanced48.
In New Zealand, two overarching legal regimes must also be considered when the ethical obligations ofscientists are discussed. They are discussed in the two following sections:47 www.asx.com.au/corporategovernance.htm
48 see also: Farrar, J. Corporate Governance: Theories, Principles and Practice. 2nd ed, 2005, p. 359, 449, 452, 453:
“According to Korn/Ferry International’s report Boards of Directors in Australia and New Zealand 2000, 62 percent
of Australian respondents and 43 percent of New Zealand respondents had a written code of ethics. In Australia
69 percent of the public listed companies, 50 percent of private companies, and 33 percent of government boards
surveyed had them. In New Zealand, 55 percent of public listed companies had them, but only 25 percent ofprivate companies did. By contrast, 54 percent of government boards had them.”
Mention should also be made of the UN Economic and Social Council work on the Formulation of the UN Code of
Conduct for Transnational Corporations E/C10/1985/5/2 , 22 May 1985, and the work of the OECD and World Bank.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Company Employees

57

The Requirement of Ethical Approval for any Research Involving
Human Subjects
The current system for review of research involving human subjects was put in place in December 2004,
after a long process of review and consultation. The details are complex and best accessed through two
key documents: the Health Research Council of New Zealand Guidelines on Ethics in Health Research, andthe Ministry of Health’s Operational Standard for Ethics Committees.
In summary, the requirement to obtain ethical approval for any human subject research is based on anumber of sources, set out in part 3, S.92 of the Operational Standard. In summary, they are: The Healthand Disability Services Consumers’ Rights; International conventions and statements; professional codes;
requirements of funders, especially the Health Research Council; the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation
and Compensation Act 2001; and the Health Information Privacy Code 1994; the requirements of peerreviewed journals. S.95 sets out all the different kinds of research investigations that must be submitted
for review.
Ethical review is conducted by a number of ethics committees:

58

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

As set out in the Health Research Council’s Guidelines, the statutory committees are:

• The Health Research Council Ethics Committee (HRCEC);• The National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability Support Services Ethics;• The Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology (NEAC); and• Six Regional Health and Disability Ethics Committees and the Multi-region Ethics Committees.
There are also institutional and private sector ethics committees set up by organizations and accreditedby the HRCEC.
The HRC Guidelines set out more details than the Ministry of Health Operational Standard as towhich research requires ethical approval. They also set guidelines for applications and special typesof research: e.g., using body parts and tissues from deceased persons and from living persons; humangene therapy; in vivo human gene manipulation proposals; and other specific issues. The Guidelines
set out recommended good practices for issues arising out of the Health Information Privacy Code,such as the use and disclosure of information. It provides coverage of the Ethics of Health Research andsupplements some of the specific codes of the various professional groups that engage in research.

The Law Relating to Any Work with Animals
The Animal Welfare Act 1999 provides that all scientists, as individuals and through their institutions, areexpected to accept ethical responsibility for their behaviour towards animals.
The legal structure by which this is monitored is:• The Act sets up a National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) with an independent
Chairperson who must not be an animal-based scientist or have any direct connection with animalbased science, which oversees provisions set out below and advises the responsible Minister (ofAgriculture).

• Each institution where animal work is done is legally required to have a Code of Ethical Conduct andan Animal Ethics Committee.

• The Code defines what the organization must do when it engages in animal-based science. The Codemust be submitted to NAEAC, and if it considers it satisfactory, it is passed to the Director General of
Agriculture and Forestry for approval. The Code must be reviewed after five years by an independent
reviewer; it will only be renewed if the institution demonstrates that it has been working within its
Code and that the Animal Ethics Committee has been working properly.

• Schools and companies that use animals for scientific purposes can approach large institutions

like universities to make formal arrangements to submit their proposals to use animals in research,teaching, or testing to that institution’s Animal Ethics Committee, and they must abide by its Code.

• Animal Ethics Committees, in addition to senior staff, must have three independent members: one froma recognised animal welfare organization, one nominated by the local authority, and a veterinarian
nominated by the NZ Veterinary Association. They are given advice interalia by the Australian and
New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART). Colleagues ofanimal-based scientists also have a watch-dog role—The Animal Welfare Act 1999 has a mechanism
for reporting abuses. It also provides for a compulsory 5-year review.

• Animal Ethics Committee must consider, and be satisfied before giving approval to all research,teaching, and testing procedures before they begin. It must: assess and minimise all harm to animals;
review the expected benefits and assess them against the resulting harm to decide whether it isacceptable to do the work; and check the experience and training of the people involved, the standardsof animal care, and responsibility for day-to-day care and emergency attention for the animals.

Finally, as a number of the codes also point out, many scientific publications require proof that the work
submitted for publication has obtained all required ethics approvals.

To be effective, a code of ethics needs to have the credibility of some legal or at least influential sectoral
backing. If there is statutory authority, the person bound by the code has much more support whenit comes to needing to follow the ethical requirement in the face of employment or other conflicts ofinterest.
Making the code available to the public is absolutely crucial if it is to be effective, both in controlling the
conduct of those bound by the code, and to instill a feeling of trust in the public. There must be someclear arrangement for complaints about breaches of the code, and for sanctions for such breaches ifproven.
It is probably also helpful to have some arrangement, as in the NZIFST Code, for advocates or “buddies”
to advise and, if requested, support the person who has to make an ethical stand vis-à-vis an employer
or other influential person. This is particularly important for young or inexperienced professionals.

References
Buckeridge. J. 2001. Ethics, Environment and Culture: Their Significance Within Engineering Education.
International Ecological Engineering Conference, Lincoln University, 26-29 November 2001.
Royal Society of New Zealand Revised Code of Professional Standards and Ethics (12 June 2003).
Wellington, New Zealand, Royal Society of New Zealand.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Summary59

Consulting the Public in the Setting of Bioethics:
Regulatory Framework and Policy in Malaysia*
Muhammad Nizam Awang Ali, L.L.M.
Islamic University College of Malaysia
Malaysia

Introduction

60

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Bioethics encompasses values in science, life and society. Indeed, the principles of bioethics have been
and will continue to be recognised by a broad range of religious, philosophic and ideological viewpoints.
Despite some objections, it has developed a number of pragmatic principles for reducing some of the
problems arising from different world views in pluralistic societies (Sass, 1990).
To draft a policy without consulting public opinion is a disaster. In regards to bioethics, communities’
values systems must be the primary agenda. Since health policies are not an exclusive subject, theparticipation of people from diverse backgrounds and experiences in the decision-making process
is significant in tandem with the principles of a pluralistic democracy. Structured paternalism lies
coherently in the professionalism within the medical fraternity, yet it is not adequate to advocate theframework of social justice for being ignorant of the public opinion. While Malaysia is still working
on the comprehensive regulatory framework, the existing bioethics policy must diligently considera tacit guideline on how public opinion will effectively address bioethical issues according to proper
procedures and findings. The standing committee set up for assisted reproductive techniques (ART)drawn up by the Malaysian Medical Association and Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society of Malaysia
in 1999 deserves an appraisal, for example. A comprehensive set of administrative, ethical and clinicalguidelines would provide safety and efficacy in its and other’s scientific practices.
Indeed, the existing proportion of membership in the Committee should welcome more participationfrom public stakeholders. This participatory model, however, requires a higher level of scientific literacy
among them before a dialogue session could be held. Public discourse and collaborative networks
among the medical regulatory bodies and non-governmental organisations is another concern.
Though Malaysia is still at the infancy stage particularly on the structure of bioethics committee andcomprehensive legislation on bioethics, transparency in the decision-making process must be constant.
Regulating law under the so-called ‘public policy’ irrespective of the public criticism is an irreconcilable
paradox.
This paper attempts to critically analyse the efforts undertaken by the Malaysian Government in thesetting of bioethics policy. Aside from that it researches how authorities deal with public response toparticular bioethics issues. Various participation in the setting of bioethics policy in Malaysia enables
greater understanding and acceptance of the public to the prevailing issues. International guidelines
are the fundamentals to be incorporated, yet they must be situated within the local traditions, andsocietal, religious and cultural sensitivities.

Relationship Between Pluralistic Democracy And Bioethics
In its constitutional tradition, ‘pluralistic democracy’ means the ratification of the public opinion as
one of the elementary form in a democratic government. Majority views are sought to support the
proposition that any policy or regulation promulgated by the respective government reflect the needsof the society. However, to consult the public in drafting law does not necessarily mean giving unfettered*

Paper first presented at the First UNESCO Bangkok Bioethics Roundtable, September 2005.

favour to them. The premise here is very apparent – the notion of civil society is trivial and irrelevant if the
discourse on bioethics policy could only be confined to a particular small circle of scientists and policy
makers. In anticipation of its onslaught, society as a whole should be aware and prepared (Leng, 2000).
Indeed, the mechanism of control in a legal system is not merely structural in form, but it encompasses
values, attitudes and community responsiveness (Faruqi, 1995). To achieve this objective, there must be
regular dialogues between two persons who are willing to exchange their thoughts and values inclusiveof seeking public involvement in the decision-making process (Macer, 1999).
In doing so, public opinion requires due respect from the professionals. Aside from that, transparency
will remain a pursuit unless the public has access to information. Of utmost importance, the membership
structure of decision-making bodies must not be dominated by professionals considered to be experts
only. Social scientists also can help law-makers to decide if a law will work, and if it would, how best to
design such laws. It is crucial for social scientists to hold up a mirror so that one can see how our social
conditions change over time, and, with them, our notions of what is morally permissible. In Westerncountries, the policy-makers have had time to grasp many of these issues. In Asian countries, theircounterparts are only just now encountering similar issues (Iyer, 2004).

‘Bioethics’ by its own nature and definition has attained general consensus. However, one must give fullaccount of the Malaysian context that is fundamentally distinct from other jurisdictions. The constructionof bioethics goes beyond the limited function of a Ministry. The Ministry of Health, for instance, only
caters issues relating to human beings. Even in its mission, the Ministry aims to provide equal access tohealthcare to all people irrespective of race, gender, religions and background. The Ministry of Science,
Technology and Innovation, on the other side, focuses on matters pertinent to the advancement within
the stream of science and technology. There is the possibility, in the future for Malaysia to constituteits own National Bioethics Committee. Since aspects of bioethics are separately governed under the
auspices of different Ministries, coordination amongst them must be first clarified to avoid redundancy.
At present, the Government is endeavouring to improve the implementation of the existing policy. A
numbers of disciplines have also been brought into the structure of the Committee. Inter-ministerial
networks are encouraged to deliver quality in realising the plans of action.
The Government negotiates international guidelines as a theoretical underpinning of Malaysianbioethics debates because religion has a profound influence over life in the country. Therefore, due
to differences in culture and in the degree of religious adherence, means the development of Western
bioethics may not necessarily be reflected in toto here (Talib, 2002). The policy and guidelines that are
currently in practise have no legal binding. However, a complete version of them could be the primarysource of guidance to keep abreast of developments in some areas of bioethics in Malaysia. The current
guidelines conform to international standards; however they do not outline a proper procedural
mechanism or a clear implementation strategy. Some have also claimed that legislation in Malaysia has
been rather slow, for instance in regulating biomedical advances in Malaysia (Zawawi, 2005). However,
we need to balance the need for implementing bioethics guidelines into actual practice with concerns
about their appropriateness for the culture.

Assisted Reproductive Techniques
To date, the Government is in the midst of introducing a new Reproductive Human Cloning Bill. The draft
is currently in final review by the Attorney’s General Chamber. In regard to biomedical advances, the Codeof Practice and Guidelines for Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) has been issued to all specialised
centres, including eight government hospitals and 32 private clinics. The practice of ART in the former
relies on the decision by the Hospital Ethics Committee; while in the latter, are left unregulated. The
introduction of the Code is to give guidance about proper conduct of licensed activities. It assumes thateverybody working in licensed centres will at all times observe the general standards and requirementsof good professional practice.
There are several guidelines prepared by other professional medical bodies that have been referred toAsia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Bioethics in Malaysia

61

from time to time in formulating provisions of licensable activities in specialised centres. These include:
Accreditation Standards and Guidelines for IVF laboratories (Association of Clinical Embryologists)published on March 1999; The Management of Infertility in Tertiary Care (Royal College of Obstetricians
and Gynaecologists (RCOG) published in January 2000; Guidance in the Inspection and Provision ofCounseling in Assisted Conception Centres (British Infertility Counseling Association (BICA) – publishedin October 1999 and Guidelines for Nurses Carrying Out Embryo Transfers and Intrauterine Insemination
and Guidelines for Nurses Carrying Out Egg Retrieval (Royal College of Nursing (RCN) published in 2000xxx). For details, see the Code of Practice and Guidelines for Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART),
Standing Committee on Assisted Reproductive Techniques (ART), from the Malaysian Ministry of Health,released in May 2002.

62

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

For Muslims, the National Council on Fatwa has been the source of guidance for medical professionals
and couples alike when seeking clarifications on the status of certain assisted reproductive techniques.
Fatwa is a religious ruling issued by the Council. However, it is only binding upon Muslims after it has
been published in the official Gazette. Since matters relating to fatwa are under state jurisdiction,
the state has no obligation to be bound by the fatwa, though it is issued by the National Council on
Fatwa. The fatwa permits the use of any ART procedures so long as they are done by using the gametes
between married couples. Otherwise, the treatment is prohibited because it would clearly go against
the concept of familial lineage of Islam. For non-Muslims, this issue is left to the private judgment of thecouples (Zawawi, 2005).
It is comforting to note that discussion about reproductive human cloning and ART has occurred under
the discussion relating to the establishment of a National Ethics Committee. As both subjects are directly
under the purview of the Ministry of Health, the two committees are chaired by the Director-Generalof Health, representatives from Ministries, medical professionals and lay members. The inclusion oflaypersons consists of fellow academicians from the disciplines of law, medicine and ethics, religious
scholars and non-governmental organisations. The Ministry of Health also has its own Religious Council
whenever they would like to ascertain the religious stance on certain issues pertaining to health prior
to the issuance of any policy or circular.
The absence of a legally binding statute would possibly lead to abuse of the existing code. Unless
a complaint was made, no legal proceedings may be taken against a culprit. The above mentioned
Medical Act 1971, for example, only has jurisdiction over medical practitioners registered with the
Malaysian Medical Council. No locus standi exists to prosecute them, except in accordance with general
penal provisions of the Malaysian Penal Code. Additionally, there is no licensing authority or monitoring
agency to look at the quality of operating standards of the specialised centres. At present, no safetyassurance may be given for any infertility treatment unless specialised centres are registered with the
Ministry of Health. Thus, it is recommended that the Minister of Health to make rules to set up a licensing
authority and a national registry. This mechanism could be an initial step forward before relevant bills
are passed by Parliament.
Emphasis for a comprehensive legislative framework in Malaysia is a critical matter. Of parallel concern is
an awareness programme to to improve a greater level of science literacy among the public. The National
Population and Family Development Department has no legal machinery to execute its function. Being
one of the organs under the Ministry of Women, Social Development and Family it has been successfully
conducting activities to enlighten the public about reproductive health issues. Amongst its activities
were a Workshop on Buddies Assistance on Reproductive Health 2005 and the implementation of
the Manual of Standard Operating Procedures on Reproductive Health as the source of guidance for all
specialised centres offering quality infertility services. Aside from that, they have set up an Ethical andResearch Committee on Reproductive Health.
The closest forthcoming event is the South-South Cooperation in Reproductive Health in Malaysia
Workshop, “Reproductive Health: Towards Family Development”, held 26 September to 1 October 2005
in Kuala Lumpur. This workshop and associated project aims to increase the utilization of reproductive
health services through knowledge and experience-sharing within as well as among countries. Hence, it
may be that the project may strengthen the capacity of the agencies within the South-East Asia region andother countries as well, particularly to organize, manage and monitor broader, integrated reproductive

health services/activities. The project is executed by the National Population and Family Development
Board (NPFDB), an agency under the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development, Ministryof Health, Federation of Family Planning Associations Malaysia (FFPAM) and the UNFPA. To achieve theabove objectives, this project is organizing a number of technical meetings and inter-country training
activities in 2004 and early 2005.

Organ Donation
The monitoring of practice is limited to the organ procurement process in government hospitals, notprivate ones. So, the issue remains unresolved. No legal proceedings may be sought against any conduct
contrary to the circular. Only disciplinary action could be taken against surgeons if something went
wrong in the course of the operation. Neither provision, directives nor good clinical practices have everbeen mentioned that encapsulates them as one of the ethical compartment of the profession. In thisregards, the Malaysian Medical Council would be better positioned to look into the affairs of doctors as aself-regulatory body made up of doctors. Despite this controversy, the Health Ministry now has finalised
proposed amendment bills to the existing Human Tissues Act 1972, and they were tabled in Parliament
in late 2005.

The commitment of Malaysia to agricultural biotechnology was put under considerable attention by
the setting up of the National Biotechnology Directorate (NBD) in May 1995. NBD was given the taskof spearheading and coordinating biotechnology research in Malaysia. The research activities carriedout before were less focused and scattered, often universities and government research institutions
conducted their research and development (R & D) according to their priority. The Biotechnology
Cooperative Centre (BCC) was then introduced under the auspices of NBD. The biggest project that is
ongoing now is the National Biotechnology Programme. The government has now detected a relevant
niche for conducting research in tandem with the aspiration of the nation and rapid technologicaladvances in biotechnology worldwide (Harmin and Ibrahim, 2005).
The Government also concentrates on communication programmeming, particularly in developing
collaborative networks and smart partnerships with foreign institutions, human resource development
and management of intellectual property rights, biosafety and access to bioresources. A concrete
example is the Malaysia - Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Biotechnology Partnership
Programme (MMBPP). The pilot project has established National Biotechnology and Bioinformatics
Networks (NABBInet).
By the introduction of the National Guidelines for the Release of GMOs into the Environment in 1997,
a Genetic Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC) was set up under the supervision of the National
Committee of Biodiversity and The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.49 The guideline
clearly stated that any risk associated with the use, handling and transfer of GMOs must be identified andsafely managed. To maintain monitoring, every institution, intending to release GMOs must establish
an Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) within their institution. The members must be well-versed
persons in genetic modification technique and capable to assess risk associated with such activities. The
IBC must also possess the capability to assess whether the risk involved could affect the public as well as
the environment. Aside from that, there are committees and departments responsible for the structuralplanning of biological diversity in Malaysia:

49 The triple bottom line reporting concept introduced by John Elkington in Cannibals with Forks in 1997 focuses not
only on economic value, but also on environmental and social values added or destroyed. Professor Buckeridge
suggests that “…a triple bottom line may also be flawed, as it ignores the impact of technology: all too often
we have found sustainable development projects flounder because the technology to implement the project
has failed. In this paper, a “4 Es” approach to sustainable practice is advocated: Ethics, Environment, Economics
and Engineering, wherein ethics includes social, cultural and spiritual perspectives, whilst engineering includes
the availability of appropriate technologies. In a sense, to proceed without due cognisance of all the four Es is
unethical.”Buckeridge, John St. J.S. Development of Ethical Norms: A Natural Imperative Obfuscated by Culture, Politics andEconomics. 1st Baltic Sea Conference on Sustainable Development, Hochschule Wismar University of Technology,
Business and Design, pp. 122-130.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

The Governance of Biotechnology

63

1. The National Committee on Biodiversity (NCBD), which guides and co-ordinates the planning of
biological diversity within the country;
2. The National Technical Committee on Biological Diversity (NTCBD), which is an advisory body to the
NCBD on technical matters;
3. Task Force on Country Study on Biological Diversity (CSBD);
4. Task Force on Access to Genetic Resources; andTask Force on National Policy on Biological Diversity (NPBD).50 The Government allocates a provisionof RM 500 million under the Eighth Malaysian Plan to keep the country’s capability in pace with tightcompetition in the biotechnology market. To ensure conformity to the international standard, Malaysia
also has ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2003 that attempts to minimize the adverse
effects of modern biotechnology on the environment and human health. The country is boundto conform to this agreement, which regulates the import, export, handling and use of geneticallymodified organisms (GMO) (News, 2005).

64

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Regulating Biotechnology
The Biosafety Bill and the Access to Natural Resources and Benefit Sharing Bill (ABS) are to be tabledin Parliament sometime in 2005-2006. The Biosafety Bill is intended to regulate all activities relating to
GMOs and products made from them and assessed for its safety for consumption and ecological system.
To ensure regulatory mechanism, the National Biosafety Committee is set up to conduct thoroughchecking on the safety of the product for importation, field trials, commercial planning, marketing andexport. By virtue of provisions under the Bill, the applicant shall first obtain financial security, either by
way of insurance or any other form before delivering the product into the market. It further proposes
to impose much heavier penalties as compared to the other existing laws on environmental protection
or human health; i.e National Forestry Act 1984. This strict liability requires the applicants to give fullaccount for any ill effects to the ecosystem and biodiversity, as well as direct and indirect implications
on the economy, cultural and indigenous knowledge and practices (Ai, 2001).
Despite criticism against the troublesome and costly procedure of application for approval, some claimthat the bill is overcautious. Another criticism relates to labelling and identification to trace products’
actual sources. These issues are surely of importance for review. However, the notion of security andsafety in using GMOs and its products deserves to be the overriding issues. Action on feedback received
from the stakeholder during consultation needs to be undertaken, particularly with regards to thepolicy on scope, labeling, export and contained use (Kelthom and Hassan, 2005).
The launching of the National Biotechnology Policy in early April 2005 marked an improvement ofstrategies underpinned by nine policy thrusts. Agricultural biotechnological development, healthcare
biotechnology development, industrial biotechnological development, research and technology
acquisition, human capital development, financial infrastructure development, legislative andregulatory framework development, strategic positioning and government commitment. The policy
has put forward a clear and systematic structure of monitoring activities by the setting up of the
Malaysian Biotech Corporation (MBC). At this juncture, MBC will oversee the development of Malaysian’s
biotechnology industry by providing the required incentives and guidance for research & development
and ventures alike. The emphasis on monitoring activities may allow for a changing paradigm in thebiotechnology landscape in the near future. By the year 2020, Malaysia is expected to be a global player
in biotechnology, and will generate at least 20 global companies (MOSTI, 2005).
The Government also has to convince multimedia companies that their investments are secured
with the presence of safety assurance. Duties, therefore, rest with the Malaysian Biotech Corporation

50 Health Research Council of New Zealand Guidelines on ethics in health research
http://www.hrc.govt.nz/assets/pdfs/ethgdlns.pdf
and the Ministry of Health’s Operational Standard for Ethics Committees.
http://www.moh.govt.nz or http://www.newhealth.govt.nz/ethicscommittees/as a regulatory agency to ensure legislation is appropriately written and implemented. They are also
responsible for creating standards and a proper procedure that articulates parallel consideration of costand industry feasibility. This is necessary to avoid wasting time because of ill-informed rules (even if wellintentioned), or from applying overcomplicated inaccessible rules. On that basis, national policy makers
should take these points into account:
1. Regulatory overview must be product-based legislation, not process-based;
2. Any biotechnological product must undergo review process to ascertain the protection of publichealth and environmental safety;
3. Regulatory requirements for new biotechnological products should be integrated into the overall
regulatory scheme that govern the release of new products in the agricultural and consumer
products sector; andIt is remarkable to notice that the regulatory regime must achieve equilibrium between the public
safety of the technology and maintaining flexible rules that are not unduly harsh towards biotechnology
companies. Scientists involved in an experiment must pay extra care to risk assessment and managementof modified organisms under their control. Anybody working with modified organisms also needs
adequate protection by providing them with suitable clothes. Besides, it is desirable to monitor, withconsistency, environmental issues in respect to the release of GMOs. The safety of biotechnologicalproducts must be cautiously scrutinised through labelling procedures.

Public Participation in Biotechnology
Since biotechnology deals with people’s lives, the Government needs to give them sufficientunderstanding of the matter, including the potential benefits and hazards, and the freedom to make theright choices. For that reason, the Government must be seen to be doing a good job in dissemination of
biotechnology information and, at the same time, provide a proper channel for feedback. In Malaysia,
though relatively new, the Government has started promoting biotechnology at educational institutions
for educators and high school students. Indeed, some NGOs have been actively participating andconducting conferences and public talks, including:
1. International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Southeast Asia Region held a series of training workshops
on safety assessment of GMOs in 2001 for government officials of the ASEAN region. The second
workshop was held in Kuala Lumpur on 20-22 August 2002;
2. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) and Monash University
Malaysia (MUM) with Malaysian Agricultural Biotechnology Centre (MABIC) held a public seminar on
GMOs; and2. Consumers’ Association of Penang (CAP) is an active exponent pertaining to safety issues on
biotechnology and GMOs.
Since no official survey has been conducted to determine the level of knowledge and attitudes towards
biotechnology towards GMOs/biotechnology in Malaysia, a baseline must be provided to enable more
public participation and awareness (Kelthom and Hassan, 2005).

Conclusion
Malaysia has created its own way of reviewing the existing biomedical advances and agricultural
biotechnology policy. Albeit relatively new in developing policy, these attempts are welcomed andhighly appreciated in efforts to resolve problems in spite of spending much time to develop proper
fora for discussing the issue. Since Malaysia is a multi-cultural society consisting of various religions,such sensitivities have to be accounted for prior to the issuance of any policy. The setting up of a

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

4. Regulatory programmes must be flexible to enable much quicker adaptation to the new knowledge
and understanding following the advancement of biotechnology.

65relevant committee for bioethical issues, indeed, invites the public to participate in giving constructive
criticism. However, the discussion has not yet reached all levels in the community. Unless corporate
bodies support the government in its allocation of finances, the effectiveness of a public awarenessprogramme is doubtful. Therefore, all concerned parties must increase collaboration so that successful
activities may be carried out in the future.

References
Ai, Y. 2001. An Ambitious Start. October 1, 2001 The Star. Available at http://www.thestar.com.my (10August 2005)
Chee H.L. 1998. The Relevance of Bioethics in Malaysian Society. Bioethics in Asia. Fujiki, N. and Macer,
D.R.J. (eds.) Christchurch, Eubios Ethics Institute. Available at <http://eubios.info/asiae/biae66.htm>
Faruqi S.S, 1995, Principles and Methods for Enforcing Accountability in the Malaysian Public Sector in Pillai,
A.Pharmy, K.Neoh and K.Thiruchelvam (eds.), Managing Trust: Transparency, Accountability and Ethics in
Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: ISIS Malaysia, at pp. 14.

66

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Harmin, S.A. and Ibrahim, 2005. A.L. Current Status of Biotechnology in Malaysia. Available at < http://
asean.kribb.re.kr/work/malaysia/malle.html> (7 June 2005)
Iyer, TKK. 2004. Law, Medicine and Society: Some Bio-ethical Issues in Singapore in Anthony Chin (ed.), Law,
Social Sciences and Public Policy: Towards a Unified Framework, Singapore, Singapore University Press, at
pp 23-26.
Wan Kelthom and Wan Hassan, 2005. Status of Biotechnology Regulation with Emphasis on Public
Participation and Awareness in Malaysia. Available at <http://www.asiabionet.org/activities.html>
Macer, D.R.J. 1999. Bioethics a Challenge for Scientists and for Public Policy. Indian Journal of Physiology
and Pharmacology, Vol. 43, p.1.
MOSTI, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Biotechnology for Wealth Creation and Social
Well-being: The Way Forward, 28 April 2005. Available at http://www.biotek.gov.my/policy/biotech_policy.pdf (20 July 2005)
News, Malaysia Ratifies Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 2003 (http://www.mtc.com.my ) (16 June
2005).
Sass, H.-M. 1990. Bioethics: Its Philosophical Basis and Application, at pp. 20-21 in Connor, S.S. and Fuenzalida,
H.L., (ed.) Bioethics: Issues and Perspectives. Washington DC, Pan American Heath Organisation.
Talib, N. 2002. Euthanasia – A Malaysian Perspective. Kuala Lumpur, Sweet & Maxwell Asia Ltd, p. 261.
Zawawi, M. 2005. Harmonizing Islamic Principles with Contemporary Bioethics in the Area of Assisted
Reproductive Technologies in Malaysia. Paper presented at International Conference on Harmonisationof Shari‘ah and Civil Law II, Kuala Lumpur, 29–30 June 2005, pp.173-174.

Discussion and discourse at the conferences account for a significant part of the meetings. They areoften wide-ranging and equally thought-provoking. Excerpts from some of the discussions are, thus,
provided in the following pages. They are identified by the titles of the presentations after when theyoccurred.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Discussion

67

Shinryo Shinagawa (Japan): Bioethics in a Wider and Probably
Original Sense
Abnik Gupta (India): When we talk about bioethics and medical ethics in a wider sense, on one hand
we are talking about brain death and organ transplantation and similar problems raised by advanced
technology, but in many developing countries and undeveloped countries the basic question for mostof the people is not having access to drugs or other medical facilities. Also issues such as globalizationand its impact on generic drugs, and drug availability. Given such a disparate situation, how do you
really resolve these issues? What should be done in the future because, otherwise, a very large sectionof humankind faces totally different kinds of issues to the mainstream Western bioethics. These are very
basic issues, and a lot of ethical contradictions arise. How do we really resolve this in the future?

68

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

John Buckeridge (Australia): It’s rather refreshing to hear a person from the discipline of medical speak
about having bioethics going back to its original definition to include the environment. I was under
the impression that at one stage, though I may be of a very small minority here, at COMEST and IBC
meetings in 2005, the comment was made that when talking about “bioethics” in its current form, theenvironment is just too complex and there’s just too little time. Now I took considerable exception tothat. Because if we destroy the environment, we destroy ourselves, and on that basis, I would like to very
sincerely thank this presentation here, because I think it goes right back to what we’re all about here.
That is looking at bioethics as being a holistic, rather than simply medical, ethics.
Irina Pollard (Australia): I would like to really also reinforce the importance of widening ethics toinclude the transgenerational ethics. Ethics is really important now, because of new genetic insights of
epigenetic inheritance, as well as the genetic inheritance. Mostly we’ve been thinking about mutationsin the slow, evolutionary ways, but there is a lot of evidence now that the subsequent generations
actually epigenetically inherit lifestyle factors, even in the simple things like nutrition, the environment
the sperm mature in, the environment the egg matures in, and prenatally for the embryo, and the foetus.
All that already influences the sort of individual that person is going to be and it’s potential, quite apartfrom genetic inheritances. There again, I want to reinforce John’s comment, and what you were saying,
it is so important to widen bioethics.
Subrata Chattopadhyay (India): This is concerning the ethos of the terms ‘developed’ and developing’in our discussion. Is it ethical to describe a country developed simply because it is more rich, or is it interms of human decency? I mean, consider a city like Bhutan where there is no prostitution, no begging,no unemployment and no violence, and compare that to the USA. So is it ethical to consider Bhutanas ‘developing’ or ‘undeveloped’, and the US ‘developed’ simply because it is more rich? So, please I
would like you to reconsider using the terms ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ only in terms of money andeconomics.
D.S. Sheriff (India): We can say that Eastern culture is very rich, so they got ‘developed’ in the ethicalcontext. Perhaps for the Western we can say they are still developing.

Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop (Samoa): Is there a ‘Greater Good?’ Ethics
Policies in the PacificJadsev Rai (India): As a general comment, you said there is a different concept of informed consent in
the indigenous population. This is something that I think obviously will emerge from the conference
given various people here with different backgrounds, countries and cultures. As a general commenton international conventions and therefore the latest theories in politics — most of you have heard of a
substantive book by Negri called Empire where there is a lot of discussion, that we are now moving into aworld where there are sort of UN-led conventions becoming the norm across the world. In cultures withmany individuals there is sort of an imperialism without the imperialist, and these conventions are the
new imperialism of the world. There is a lot of concern about this trend, and since you are working for
UNESCO, I wonder with this example if we should be moving towards a convention of bioethics systems,
rather than an international convention of instruments, to avoid such a catastrophe in the future.

Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop (Samoa): Sorry, I haven’t worked for UNESCO for long. It is something that really
has to be considered and the Pacific is starting to review and evaluate international conventions. The
example that I was going to use was the Convention of the Rights of the Child, as well, that Pacificcountries are starting to adapt those key principles to their Pacific situation, not just accept them
wholeheartedly as we would have in the past.
Ivo Kwon (Republic of Korea): I have two questions. I wonder, in this rapid changing and industrialized
world, is it possible to preserve the Pacific Island culture? It’s the first question. The second is: If so, it isjustifiable on what basis? I feel some contradiction between group informed consent and the individual
informed consent. It is a very clear contradiction. I think it is hardly practical in a social world like wehave to just evaluate and consider the cultural diversity in many minority groups.

Ken Daniels (New Zealand): Thank you, Peggy, for a very helpful presentation, especially given the way
it linked in with other earlier presentations. The question that I’d like to ask you to explore a little bit, I
guess, is given what some people would talk about as traditional paternalism that has been present inmany Pacific nations, what’s the implications of that in terms of moving towards the kind of policies andapproaches that you were outlining?
Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop (Samoa): I guess I am talking in ideals, but I am talking in ideals that are very
real in the Pacific, and practiced in the Pacific right now. But as you say, as Pacific Islanders migrate, andwatch a lot of TV and are educated, there are great changes. That question, I wish I could answer. It is the
eternal question. Just to finish, to go back to that, I brought with me but I cannot find it now, there was ahuge debate in the New Zealand newspapers, I found, about a group of academics, I think, in Auckland
University who were jumping up and down about their DNA research. Some professor of philosophy
labeled them as those who were holding onto the past and just not recognizing change. In supporting
his words, he referred to the writings of Peter Buck, who was writing in the Balkans about the same
topic in the early 1930s. The thing we have to keep in mind is that the old world created by Polynesianancestors has passed away and a new world design process has been fashioned. But at the same time,
I do not really see why we cannot fashion a new world according to the values of quality of life andrespect for all. These are really values of human beings. Hopefully these sorts of research principles may
be taken on by a new group of researchers and they come to new conclusions about strategies andprocesses that we could be following, which might run parallel to what I would call pure research.
Jasdev Rai (India): My next question is really directed to Darryl, and to UNESCO. I was listening to many
people in this conference. One thing is obvious, we have heard from China, from India, and the Pacific as
well, that almost all cultures and civilizations have some sort of ethical systems that have worked overthe centuries. Now we are being told as if ethics have suddenly been discovered by the UN that are allneed a convention. Is it possible to move towards a plurality of ethics, rather than a single conventionof ethics?
Darryl Macer (UNESCO): Let’s consider that the world realized the UN as an idea in 1945. That is why
we are celebrating our 60th anniversary. In the foundations, for example, in the League of Nations anddiscussions in the global community before the UN was established, ethics was very high on the agenda,
as well. Also on bioethics, UNESCO has not made conventions. We have made declarations, which are notlegally binding in the spirit of discussion. This is the intention in UNESCO with the Universal Declaration
on Bioethics and Human Rights, which has been accepted in Paris by all your governments. It is the firststep in the UN system for moving and recognizing that there are universal issues of bioethics. But for our
region, there are many serious reservations as have been discussed from the point of view of the Pacific,
from the point of view of Asia. There are reservations because of the inclusiveness of the dialogues

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop (Samoa): Yes, that is right. There are considerable tensions. But on the other
hand, I think countries like the presenters who have presented, was it the women’s model, before, in the
Pacific- relational concepts, if you like, research, and offer alternatives which other countries in the world
should be considering. We should, if we can, stand firm on those ones which are doable. I guess that’s all
I can say, really, given the extensive migration in the whole global community. But in some parts of theworld there are different values and for many people in the world, those values are still observed andstill meaningful in everyday life. If we want to protect our human-ness, if you like, then that’s what weshould strive to aim for, rather than economic gains.

69

leading up to the Declaration, and the dialogue is only just starting. From this meeting, we can see that
we have to put much more effort into the dialogue, and certainly we have to bring together (as we havebeen discussing this afternoon), ways to bring together, to put together to try and hold dialogues, andmeetings with much greater resources than the meager ones that UNESCO itself has towards a dialoguethat will represent a discussion on these issues and then cultural solutions for each community. Thenthe words can be implemented into the life appropriately in each culture.

70

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop (Samoa): I think as I said before that isolation from the mainstream is sometimes
a real advantage because you build your own resources and patterns for dealing with things and then go
on that way. Also given our different historical and cultural processes at the moment, like colonization,
we are very much our own self-determined people in the Pacific as much as globalization can be. To
answer your question, the declaration I discussed will be passed at the next UNESCO meeting. All I cansay is I guess you do need some sort of guidelines, standards or norms. Most societies have norms forwhat they think are good, and I guess we will use UNESCO norms as the basis here and then we lookat the processes and the norms, how they are the same and how they are different. But really, ethics
is a process; it always seems to me there needs to be more tolerance in the world of alternative waysof getting places, more collective solutions. So my prediction is that in the Pacific we will develop our
ethical guidelines and ethical processes according to our relationships and respect, and those sorts ofthings. Thus we won’t throw out the UNESCO norms, but certainly they are a starting point rather thanan end.
D.S. Sheriff (India): Thanks for a very great learning experience in the meeting. I regard it as rediscovering
ethics. UNESCO Bangkok has provided the platform to rediscover ourselves and then to develop again.
Because many of us don’t know what are the conditions and value systems in different countries, but I
think I would say it is a rediscovery of ethics so that we can have a better bioethics in the future.
Subrata Chattopadhyay (India): I don’t have any questions because you spoke my heart, but what I
was trying to emphasize or convey was that before coming to this meeting organized by UNESCO, I
was attending a European Summit on Bioethics, and what I find similarly is that actually there is nodifference between the European perspective on bioethics and the tone and the ethos of the discussion
in UNESCO. Now, what I am trying to address is that ethics is translated in our language as ‘needy.’ And
needy is inherently there in dharma. which is Indian. And dharma is so intertwined with philosophy. So
we don’t have the watertight compartments of ethics, spirituality, philosophy and religion, and so on.
When people talk about ethics as a separate discipline or discovery or rediscovery or re-rediscovery, thiskind of sets the tone as if it is something different. So how do you address the issue of the million year
old inherent concept of ethics, which is part of the way of life, and ethics, which is a discipline and partof a subject of knowledge?
Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop (Samoa): That is our challenge, to recognize and to give credit within the
predominately Western education systems which many of our countries have now, and to acknowledge
and give credit and include and go forward.
Darryl Macer (UNESCO): I would like to ask Leonardo de Castro to make a comment because he is on
the drafting group of the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, and also a co-author
on the preliminary report towards the Universal Declaration on Bioethical Norms. You can find it on
the International Bioethics Committee website, and he is the vice-chair of the International Bioethics
Committee from Asia.
Leonardo de Castro (Philippines): First, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
must not be seen as a negation of cultural or ethical pluralities. In fact, the declaration makes a verystrong statement somewhere recognizing cultural diversity, and at the same time, this year UNESCO
came up with the Convention on Cultural Diversity. So, the fact is that with such recognition, UNESCO
acknowledges that at the same time there are very important ethical concerns that transcend nationalboundaries, which must be addressed and addressed universally. The matter of international healthresearch being done by powerful countries in areas where there are many vulnerable populations isone. The matter of human organ trade is another. We’ve also heard in the conference about biopiracy.
These are international concerns that transcend boundaries and must be addressed and also should beseen as a way of addressing these concerns at the international level without necessarily denying therecognition of cultural diversity and plurality.

Anoja Fernando (Sri Lanka): Just a brief comment about universal norms on bioethics. We earlier
discussed about the actual meaning of respect for the dignity of humans. I think it was mentioned that
Professor Ida from Japan, formerly chair of the UNESCO IBC, could not actually define it when asked.
Actually, I agree with Professor Ida, I also find it very difficult, too, to define the meaning of dignity andrespect for human beings rather than respect for human life. Now what I would like to say is, in thesebioethical norms, when it was in the very first draft, respect for life was mentioned. But surprisingly it has
disappeared from the subsequent drafts. In fact, I did ask why it should be so because I strongly believethat respect for life should be a cornerstone, being a very fundamental universal freedom. We could say
something about respect for all forms of life. Still, it is not mentioned anywhere in the declaration. Thisis because certain countries believe very strongly in euthanasia, and there was sort of a debate. They did
not want to include it. I would like to ask Professor de Castro for the explanation.

Darryl Macer (UNESCO): Thank you. So in fact as Leonardo has said, when you include in the declarationa statement for the respect of life, the problem is it opens up the political debates on abortion, debateson the value of different stages of human life, and at what stage in the embryonic development do werespect life to the extent to legally protect it as inviolable. This issue and certain other controversial
issues which are not possible to reach international consensus on are not included in the declaration.
That is because, I think, the UN has a history of knowing the severity of such debates. They become
political debates, rather than merely academic. But it’s a declaration that is based on a number ofagreed principles across many cultures, and each country has to implement them according to theirinterpretations. There are other issues of bioethics that will certainly find difficulty to agree upon even
within each country. On human dignity, although it’s very difficult to define, the reason why it is so
apparent in the UN documents is part of the celebration of 60 years. Sixty years ago was 1945, at theend of WWII, no one needed to tell us what human dignity was. You could see the abuses of humandignity after the war. So that is why I think it is so clear in the UN documents. Human dignity is hard to
define and, in fact, we should discuss human dignity. There are case studies and other issues because
it’s a difficult concept. But it’s in context; the reason why it is in UN documents is it is often discussed inthat context especially. Also, we’ve heard presentations in this meeting which I think illustrate abuses
that are clearly violations of human dignity. So we know where there are violations, and I think we canidentify with them. But in terms of philosophy, it is sometimes very difficult. The general conferenceof UNESCO approved in 2005 the Convention on Cultural Diversity, which will extend the previous
Declaration on Cultural Diversity. These have been controversial, but were approved by the UNESCO
General Conference. Also, 2006 is the UNESCO year of the ethics of dialogue among civilizations. So I
hope that this interactive discussion will be taken very seriously amongst various sectors.

D.S. Nesy (India): Indian Ethics and Contemporary Bioethical Issues
Subrata Chattopadhyay (India): The question is that you have equated India with Hinduism. I appreciate
the spirit behind it, but some people may not be very comfortable with the idea of equating India with
Hinduism, because there are more than 200 million Muslims, as well as Christians and Buddhists there.
D.S. Nesy (India): Thank you for making the comment, but my intention is not to say that all Indians
are Hindu, just bringing out the ethical perspective only. Being a Christian, I am still not used to the
distinction between being Indian and Hindu.
Nat Tuivavalagi (Fiji): Someone brought up the issue of the kind of question that one is supposed to ask,
and it was mentioned that there are some questions that should not be asked. But, anyway, to makethis discussion more useful, we have to interact honestly what we believe and what we think. What wehave been hearing a lot of is the importance of religion in ethics. This last speaker was talking that in
Hinduism, there is a combination of spirit and matter. This is also the case in Islam and in Christianity.
Because UNESCO is very much into the education field, one thing that I would like to bring our attention
to is the idea of evolution that is being taught in schools. UNESCO can play an important role to get

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Leonardo de Castro (Philippines): I thought the explanation was actually that some people who believethat the statement about the importance of human life can be interpreted as a rejection of women’s
right to an abortion, and that including such a phrase in the declaration would have invited a lot ofcontroversy, and a lack of unanimity regarding the draft. But perhaps there was an angle that I am notaware of.

71

72

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

this issue addressed head on because I believe it is only a few people, comparatively speaking, who arehaving a greatly negative impact on the thinking of people that we just occur here by chance. Because
deep inside they know that humans are a combination of spirit and matter, but when they go to school
they are taught this theory that we and slime are the same, we come from the same ancestors and weboth just occur here by chance.
Darryl Macer (UNESCO): Briefly, I think if you look at all the UNESCO homepages — and I have not done
it — to search the word ‘evolution,’ you would find, I guess, a Western scientific viewpoint on evolution
that’s consistent with the natural science. As a Christian, myself, in my time living in the UK when I was
researching molecular biology, the questions of evolution, and theistic evolution, were often discussed.
The conflict metaphor that Colin Russell wrote about in a famous book in the 1980s was about theconflict between evolutionary theory and Darwinism. It describes in the UK history of the nineteenth
century how Christianity was constructed as a way to move the power from the former priests ofreligion to the new priests of science. Also, if you look at some of the history of England and Europe inthe early 19th century, and if you’ve ever been to the natural history museum in London, for example,
it was built as a cathedral to the creations of science to try to move the priesthood from theology toscience. There are some interesting books on this. I personally have found no conflicts in the teaching of
biological evolution, and they should also be teaching moral values and spiritual values and I don’t findany conflict. I think that it is also probably a general conception of UNESCO’s teaching, but I am not wellenough informed of the teaching of evolution in UNESCO circles to answer that. During the discussions
we held as members of the UNESCO IBC in 1993-1998 while drafting the Universal Declaration on the
Human Genome and Human Rights, we found that the common genetic origins of all humans, and alllife, should be a reason for all life to be respected more, and for all to be ascribed dignity. This reverence
for life is found in the UN writings, and you could apply this to the teaching of persons about humandignity.

Jeong-Ro Yoon (Republic of Korea): Whither the ELSI Programme in
Korea
Aamir Jaffrey (Pakistan): As Korea leads the way in stem cell research, and as biotechnology has gonealong this rollercoaster ride, do you feel that bioethics has followed the science in this ride? You
mentioned on one of your slides that there is a gap between what scientists don’t know and what lay
people know about this. Please correct me if I have misunderstood this, but I believe the gap is actually
narrowing, not widening, with so much information now coming on the internet, and the media andnewspapers. Everyday you have headlines not only in your scientific journals, but also in the newspapers,
on topics such as social research on science, embryo clones, animal clones, etc. Thus, I think the gap isactually narrowing rather than widening, and the lay people are also finding more and more about stem
cell research. Therefore, that should make it easier for the scientific community to explain things to thepeople, rather than more difficult.
Jeong-Ro Yoon (Republic of Korea): People get in touch with more and more information on the
successes of scientific and technological research, but I don’t think it necessarily implies that people
are more and more informed of the implication of those technological successes in their own lives andespecially in the lives of future generations.
Miyako Okada-Takagi (Japan): You mentioned the Korean research group, which claimed to succeed
in human embryo cloning from cells. I am wondering about the Korean women, and why a lot of theyoung Korean women donated their eggs without any money, even money for the transportation to
the hospital for donation, which I read about in a Japanese journal. In Japan, it is quite impossible forwomen to consider to donate eggs without anything and just for the research purpose. So I would liketo know how the Korean women are thinking about the donation for the research purposes?
Jeong-Ro Yoon (Republic of Korea): I think the major accomplishments of bioethics groups and NGOs
in Korea over the past maybe decade, is that at least scientists and policy makers got to be aware thatsome kind of ethical involvement or procedural justice has been involved in the conduct of the research.
Actually, Professor Song is an expert on this case, and Dr. Kwon is going to talk more about the current

state of stem cell research in Korea, as well. I understand that Dr. Song sent a letter to the journal Sciencein 2004 criticizing the ethical procedures involved in Dr. Hwang’s research, but as far as I know, for his
research for the publication in 2005 informed consent was said to have been conducted in the proper
manner. What I heard from colleagues who have investigated it is that many young Korean womenare really happy and willing to donate their human eggs, even after being informed of the health risks
involved. They volunteered to donate the eggs so the ethics team involved in that research had todissuade many women not to donate their eggs. So they had to select only some donors. So I thinkmaybe it is some kind of cultural difference. We have to conduct more research into that kind of practiceof citizens in Korea. There must be other issues involved in addition to the individual health risks, so thatis a matter maybe of cultural difference, or something ideological or whatever. There are some different
values.

Soraj Hongladarom (Thailand): Bioethics and Interdisciplinarity

Soraj Hongladarom (Thailand): I agree completely with you that this is the future of science. For example,
physics and chemistry are fusing, and so are biology and information science, and so are all others. So I
just want to raise this issue of academic disciplines not being written in stone, so to speak. For me, thisis something that is new.
Heiko Zude (Germany): I have one critical remark to your presentation. I missed the historical dimension
as you told us of bioethics as a discipline, and I think this is due to the dominance of analytic philosophy.
I am a bit critical about it because I think that if you don’t mention the historic dimension of ethics orbioethics, you are cutting the roots of your own identity if you do bioethics. I think this is typical for thismethod in the tradition of analytic philosophy.
Soraj Hongladarom (Thailand): You seem to think that I am advocating cutting the roots, but actuallyI am not doing that. What I am doing is that I am thinking of and reflecting on the nature of bioethics
as a discipline. I am focusing on the activity of teaching bioethics in universities and the activitiesof bioethics associations. There are several of them in the world which we all know of, as well as theactivities of organizing conferences and having journals in the field. All of these activities comprisebioethics as an autonomous discipline and I am not saying anything against the root of bioethics. I
have not done much research on the history of bioethics, from my knowledge it started from possibly agroup of philosophers who talked with a group of medical people and then the issue kind of developed
into what we have today. But I am not saying anything against the history.
Subrata Chattopadhyay (India): This is something that is related to the nature of bioethics as a separate
discipline, with my scientific training and background. I would like to say that only recently I had someformal exposure to philosophy, and I believe it has changed the way I think. Now, do you think it would
be a good idea that scientists should have some background or exposure in philosophy, or philosophers
have some hands on experience with science? Because sometimes I think they philosophize too much.
Also, we in the scientific world tend to think only of things in the technical reasoning. I think we are toomuch objective in science.
Soraj Hongladarom (Thailand): Yes, this is a very good idea and should be emphasized from the first yearof study upwards in the university. My point in the slides I have shown you is that I said something likestudents should be well grounded in their own discipline before they reflect on bioethical issues.’ But thisdoes not mean they are shut off and they don’t have to study anything that is at their next door office,so to speak. So it is crucial that scientists know something about ethics, and ethics is what bioethics is allabout. Also, equally crucially, philosophers or people from the social sciences need to know something,and I think this is what is so fascinating to me about bioethics. We do not have many opportunities forsocial scientists, philosophers, lawyers and molecular geneticists medical people in the same room, youknow, each understanding each other. So basically I agree completely with your point.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Morgan Pollard (Australia): I study environmental science, which by its nature is highly interdisciplinary.
I would like to suggest that the subject that can bind together knowledge about the way that different
disciplines and almost everything can be analyzed are systems theory and complexity theory. I thinkthat they’re the future of science. The study of complex systems has an extremely useful application to
helping manage the future.

73

John Weckert (Australia): Should the Precautionary Principle be
Applied to Nanotechnology?
Morgan Pollard (Australia): I’m interested to know on what grounds the gray goo catastrophe or the
manufacturing of substances in nanotechnology would not necessarily be feasible, because DNA
replication on the same scale can in fact occur.
John Weckert (Australia): I think that’s a good point. Rather a lot of nano-scientists aren’t particularly
worried about the gray goo problem, but they do talk about a green goo problem, which is more the one
you’re talking about. It is where nano-techniques are linked with various things in biology, so then you
get viruses or something running amok. So it is a problem, but it seems from all I’ve read and from thescientists I have spoken with that it is not so much a sort of a traditional gray goo problem that Drexler
talks about. It’s more to do with once you start playing around with some of these living things.

74

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Morgan Pollard (Australia): Its not my belief, just quickly, that you identified, that different cultures havedifferent perceptions of the precautionary principle. It’s my belief that scientists are taking the publicby stealth, if you like, on this issue. The dangers have been underestimated in order to facilitate theeconomic development of nanotechnology.
John Weckert (Australia): I think there is an interesting point lying behind what you’re saying. The
nanotech community in Australia, and possibly in other parts of the world, has been very keen on
getting public discussion and ethical discussion about the technology. But one of the worrying thingsin my point of view is that they seem to be doing it so there isn’t a public backlash, so the public is welleducated in certain ways and will accept it. Now I think that’s a worrying aspect, and I think that’s an
ethical issue in itself, sort of the meta-ethical issue concerning the whole debate.

Irina Pollard (Australia): Advances in Neuroscience and thePrecautionary Principle: What Can Bioscience-Bioethics Teach Us?
Subrata Chattopadhyay (India): Thank you very much for your clear, very interesting and nice presentation.
The question is regarding the enhancement of memory. In the 1960s or early 1970s probably, when
Thomas Moody and Edmund Moody came out with the book, Life after Life, describing near deathexperiences, people can see what could be the hidden memory. After that, there was discussion ofregression therapy where the psychiatrist could bring back the memories of the past lives. Now there
has come out a book that says that with the progress in therapy, we might explore future lives fromthe neurophysiological basis. Do you think its possible, that in terms of scientific knowledge, that it isreally possible that we could tap the hidden memories of our past lives, and its also possible in terms ofscientific knowledge, to have the potential scenario of future, not memories because memories are in
the past, and to see our future possibilities? Because our forefathers have all said that it is all there in thememory. If the memory is there then we remember and it is real, if we don’t remember it is unreal. For
example, can we remember of life in utero. We know it exists, but we do not remember. But given the
resources of hidden memory, do you think it is possible?
Irina Pollard (Australia): It may be possible, I don’t want to really make comments about past lives, but
certainly with the memory as neuroscience is being consolidated. How the brain works... I didn’t havetime to actually describe which parts, but it’s in the emotional brain that judges whether a memory is
worth remembering, and it also controls the stress response, so that if a memory is important enough,it will then signal the hippocampus to lay it down for a consolidated memory. So memories are very
labile and there are systems that happen there. If a memory in time, if it is not useful anymore, thehippocampus, it will be removed and you will forget. So the memory consolidation is a system that allows
us to survive in the present. We use useful past experiences to live more effectively in the present. So
there is one danger which psychologists have found out: You can have a false memory syndrome where
if its adaptive to you to remember something, maybe whether its unpleasant or pleasant or something,then the hippocampus will change the original memory to a memory that is more adaptive, and thismay not resemble the truth. That is a danger and psychiatrists now are aware of this. For example, there
are patients who say that they have been sexually abused by an uncle or a father and it wasn’t true, butthen again you can retrieve real memories, and it might have been true. So I think memory enhancementwith the tablets, it’s the present. Like Ritalin actually would enhance memories, all memories, whether
significant or not, under the drug, so you will remember what you had for breakfast, but that’s not goingto help your survival. So you’re going to crowd yourself out by having a lot of consolidated memories
and not that much selection under the present medication. I hope that answers your question.
Subrata Chattopadhyay (India): Related to that then is it possible to bring back the memories of life inutero?

Mary Rani (India) I would like to know your opinion about neurolinguistic programmes (NLP), and its
telepathic aspect. It could be used to enhance the behavioral patterns of society.
Irina Pollard (Australia): I don’t know much about neuro-linguistic programmes, but I think they would
be very adaptive. Children, for example, in their first eighteen months make all the sounds that thehuman voice is capable of making, and the only sounds that the child remembers are the ones thatare being reinforced. So if you reinforce certain language patterns, repetitively, it will come into thememory. That’s natural, that’s one of our truly evolutionary gifts, and I don’t think that would do any
harm except overloading the brain.

Mary Vimalakuumari Kalaiarasi (India): Sensory Abilities Beyond
Human
Senthil Kumaran (India): In your presentation you were told that tsunamis are new to the majority ofSouth Asia, but my opinion is tsunamis are not new to us. Because, as you can say, 3,000 years ago thesouthern part of Tom Lau Do experienced a tsunami, before that, there were also a lot of tsunamis inancient literature.
Subrata Chattopadhyay (India): As a person I like to believe that some animals have sensory abilities
which we do not, but with my scientific training I find it hard to accept the scientific basis of this finding,because, we need case control studies. Then we can examine statistical differences and then whether it
is a chance or whether it is truly what they are sensing. Also there is procedural difficulty. How do you
know what they are thinking as we think they are thinking? Do you think there is any solution to thedilemma? Is it possible to scientifically address that issue, in your opinion?
Mary Vimalakuumari Kalaiarasi (India): In my opinion, I think I have mentioned that it is very difficult
because of the animal behavior and the communication cannot be given. I have mentioned in my paperthat it is difficult to have a systematic control of their behavior since they show lots of behaviors, sothese are issues we have to overcome to scientifically prove the ideas.
Morgan Pollard (Australia): It’s a good example of a specific case where we could have learned fromanimal behavior, and its only one example of the more general important points that humans must
learn from ecological behavior and follow the ecological constraints in our own behavior. In this way, I
think we do, can and should learn from ecology and live that way.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Irina Pollard (Australia): I think that would be possible because the term foetus and the newborn arealmost the same. Because everything that the term foetus does, except living outside and breathing,that sort of thing, all the systems are already ready for birth, so that transition is a great transition.
But in the form of development, we see a lot of foetuses are born early and they have to be going
into incubators because they’re immature. A foetus that is born at full term is born large and actually
ready to live outside the uterus, so the brain has got prenatal memories. It’s been shown that prenatal
memories which are unpleasant do affect the offspring in the same way as pleasant ones. I’ve seen
pictures where the foetus actually smiles, does laughing movements, there are also crying movements,
they suck their fingers, they’re like newborn babies. So yes, they do have memories, not sophisticatedones, but they do have emotional memories.

75

Pornvipa W. Chanakool (Thailand): Science, Technology, and theSupernatural in Contemporary Thai Novels
Subrata Chattopadhyah (India): When you say ineffective education leads to the ideas and notions about
science and technology, I was wondering how you feel about when it is said that imagination is more
important than knowledge, as said by Einstein. So, maybe they are imagining something which may
not fit with our notion of what is right about science or technology, or the supernatural. Anyway, is it
not curbing the freedom of expression of the men and women of literature if we say that it is ineffective
education which leads to these kinds of ideas?
Pornvipa Chanakool (Thailand): As you know, imagination is the main beginning of literature or novels.
What I’d like to say here is that what I found in the literature I studied is that they reflect ideas andmeasures quite close to the real events in Thai society, so I think imagination is the device of the writer
to tell the truth or communicate what is actually in the real society.

Nares Damrongchai (Thailand): DNA Technology in Asia and thePacific: Scenario for 2015

76

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Peggy Fairbun-Dunlop (Samoa): I like your methodology as a way of looking ahead as a scenario creation.
I just wonder, which countries in the Pacific were involved in this?
Nares Damrongchai (Thailand): The project was proposed by Thailand, and the members of APEC who
were involved were Canada, New Zealand, Japan, China, Taiwan, Australia, and USA.
Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop (Samoa): In my thinking, in the actual scenario creation, there were no Pacificcountries involved, because the Pacific means the Pacific Islands.
Nares Damrongchai (Thailand): When we discuss in the APEC, we often think of both sides of the PacificRim. I think Australia and New Zealand are Pacific countries.
Darryl Macer (UNESCO): The Pacific in many definitions includes the Pacific Rim countries and that’s APEC.
In UNESCO, we have a Pacific cluster of countries which does not include many of the rim countries.

Tran Han Giang (Viet Nam): Challenges for Gender Studies in the Eraof Ever-growing Biology
Ivo Kwon (Republic of Korea): Before I came here, I set up the Korean Society for Gender Specific
Medicine. I think your presentation has some relation with gender specific biological research, but
your presentation is quite different from what I expected. I think you discussed the future, which many
accept as fantasy, where we can choose our sex and I think choose the human. I think these are far fromthe situation now in medicine. I think the more important thing is we have gender inequality in medical
research, because over two thirds of all medical research is about only men. We don’t have enough data
about women. I give you an example: 10 or 20 years ago there was a big project in the United States
and their research was on whether aspirin will protect against angina, or cardiovascular disease. But
their research was only looking at men. In March 2005 in the New England Journal of Medicine, a new
study was published that only studied women. The results were contradictory to the previous research.
Nowadays, women eat aspirin for nothing, as it has no impact for them. We find more differences andgender specific biological phenomena between man and woman. Some feminists are worried because
they think the women and the man are naturally the same. I think we will see the appearance in the fieldof gender specific biological research.
Tran Han Giang (Viet Nam): I was talking more theoretically. In structural theories of gender, we arearguing about the functions of the man and woman. Gender theories were made from the 14th century
There are not dramatic updates in the theory seen today from then. I mean that in the 14th century
we already had the biological foundation for feminists and gender theory. The question was in the
14th century, the feminists and the gender theorists didn’t have any scientific foundation to develop. It

was in the 18th and 19th century that the feminist and gender theorists came up with conclusion thatyou have two biological foundations for theorizing about their findings. Now you gave me the new
information about the theories of the biology, that we should not only do the experiments with men,but include women. We gender theorists do not do the biological experiments, so we will process suchinformation from biologists, for example, on experiments in the brain functions. Such experiments will
help us defend our arguments about the functions and abilities of men and women.
Abnik Gupta (India): You are trying to relate feminism and gender studies with advancement in biologicalresearch. Now with the breakthroughs in biological research, I think the role of males in reproduction isgoing to be more and more irrelevant, and therefore I think in the future, female subjugation, at least on
reproductive terms, will be over. How do you react to that?

Darryl Macer (UNESCO): It is an interesting issue of how gender roles get promoted and changed. Inquestions about the topic of child-bearing, I found in Japan that more men were less willing to become
pregnant than in some countries, but also I found some women felt that they would lose their meaning
if men could also become pregnant. I found that rather sad that we couldn’t do it half and half, youknow, one after the other taking turns. It seemed like a good idea based on equity, but there are many
interwoven cultural issues.
Irina Pollard (Australia): My comment was related to Anil Gupta’s previous one. Many biologists, nowthat more and more is understood about the sexual differentiation of human beings in a biologicalsense, prefer not to talk of gender — which is a social concept — but feel that there are as manysexes as there are human beings. The human sexuality is an open frame and there is a lot of recent
information coming out, for example, with the opening up of what transsexuals feel. At least in the Westand in Thailand there are a lot of trans-gendered transsexuals. Recently, I saw a paper that showed thattranssexuals have slightly different genetics. They’ve got changes in some of their genes that control
sexual differentiation. It is identifiable, and it is not wise to assign a sex to anyone and then assign acorresponding gender because the biology is moving.
Tran Han Giang (Viet Nam): Yes, I think it is the nature of the changeable human being. Your example isthat the concept of sexuality changes from generation to generation.
Irina Pollard (Australia): Yes, what it means to be a male or a female in biological terms. You mentioned
there is maybe a third, but there’s probably millions. It is a continuum from complete maleness tocomplete femaleness.
Tran Han Giang (Viet Nam): Yes, I think it is difficult to discuss in terms of the broader, the gays andlesbians existing now in the world, and the number of gays and lesbians is increasing now. But here,
you know, I don’t want to make the issues broader, because here I want to raise only very basic issues inrelation to the gender theory and the biology.
Irina Pollard (Australia): I understand that. You mention lesbianism is increasing. It isn’t really, it’s been
about the same for thousands of years. Only the identification, now that the gay community can openly
acknowledge their gayness, it seems to be increasing, but it’s always been around: 10% of the population,and the same thing with transsexuals. It’s something like, perhaps, 2% of the population.
Tran Han Giang (Viet Nam): Yes, I agree. We can make the theme broader, but I understand that it is oneof the big questions that we, the gender theorists, should have to put on our agenda and the studies
about the new phenomena in society. Actually, we have to try to compare to the time of the 14th or
15th century. In the case of Viet Nam, we can also see societies imitate from the others. It is like the flowof ideas from abroad, and sometimes it is very artificial lesbianism.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Tran Han Giang (Viet Nam): It is a big question. I mention here that now biology gives us a very important
foundation for gender theories, so far that gender is changeable. It is socially and culturally changeable,
for example, taking care of children, taking care of ill members of the family, and doing householdchores. I do hope that biology can help us change the nature of embedded functions of men andwomen. Men will now be able to bear children and women will take care of the household and will be
the breadwinner for the family.

77

Irina Pollard (Australia): Any categorization is artificial, so perhaps leave that alone and let people
determine their own sex whichever way and not classify that into a gender mode. which is social.

78

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

D.S. Sheriff (India): I agree with Dr. Giang. You cannot call everything artificial because every humanbeing has a sexual preference. For example, there are only two sexes, male and female. The difference
lies in the sexual differentiation. If a person is having external genitalia, which is not compatible with thegendered sex, and if it has female genitalia with the male genotype, naturally those people will growup with the girls so they want to have a girl’s orientation and vice versa. So the terminology is slightly
different.
Carmel (UK): This is really a conference on bioethics and the kind of research which I give full credit to
the speaker is to my mind a construct. We are constructing so many things for research. We want to havegender, we want to have biology, we want to prove that one proves or disproves the other. We are all
human beings and human beings are created for a purpose, whatever you like to think. If you look athuman nature, it hasn’t changed for thousands and thousands of years. I think if we’re going to researchand to discuss all these things, we have to keep a sense of values. If we want to have people who choose
to be out of bounds in one direction or another, maybe that’s their prerogative. When we started on thiskind of gender research, and I know in some countries like Scandinavia you can get six months baby
leave if you’re a guy and wash the nappies and the wife can go off and work. It’s okay, but what are wereally doing? Somebody talked about four thousand years ago, I suggest you all read the I-Ching. The
Chinese can tell us something about the role of the creative and the opposite, the yin and the yang. We
might be a little bit better in our lives.

Amru Hydari Nazif (Indonesia): Bioethics: Its Relevance to Indonesia
Leonardo de Castro (Philippines): If it is not proper for the foreign researchers to come up with theresults solely for the purpose of gaining knowledge, what other purposes should there be?
Amru Hydari Nazif (Indonesia): I know this is over simplifying things, but that particular was taken fromanalyzing the article that was transnational practices. Transnational practices were formulated in theend that any research should have the clearance of the ethics committee, both where it is conducted
and the originating country. That was one, and the second is applying the other principles in terms of, forexample, equality, justice and equity. Basically you borrow from CDC in the consent and benefits area.
Because within these 15 principles that are finally being adopted now, we also have considerations ofbenefit and harm, that is article four. Thus, while it is not purely for advances in science and knowledge,
for better distribution and benefits of science, research can be justified.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

About the Contributors
79

Muhammad Nizam Awang Ali is a lecturer in the Faculty of Syariah and Law, Islamic University, Collegeof Malaysia, Sembilan Darrul, Khusus, Malaysia. (E-mail: nizam@admin.kuim-edu.my).
Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop is Associate Professor Tagaloa and Director of Va’aomanu Pasifika, Victoria
University, Wellingon, New Zealand (E-mail: Peggy.Fairbairn-Dunlop@vuw.ac.nz)
Soraj Hongladarom is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Director, Center for
Ethics of Science and Technology, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand (E-mail:hsoraj@chula.ac.th).
Umar A. Jenie is Chairman of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) and Chairman of the Indonesian
National Bioethics Commission (KBN), Jakarta, Indonesia.
Darryl Macer is Regional Adviser in Social and Human Sciences for Asia and the Pacific at the Regional
Unit for Social and Human Sciences in Asia and the Pacific (RUSHSAP), UNESCO Bangkok, Thailand(E-mail: d.macer@unescobkk.org).
James Moor is Professor of Philosophy, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire (E-mail:James.H.Moor@Dartmouth.edu).

80

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Ethics of Science and Technology

Amru Hydari Nazif is Secretary, Indonesian National Bioethics Commission, LIPI, Jakarta, Indonesia(E-mail: amru@lipi.yo.id).
D. Nesy is Professor and Head, Department of Philosophy, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala, India (E-mail: nesy.daniel@yahoo.com).
Siti Nurani Mohd Nor is Associate Professor in the Department of Science and Technology Studies,
Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (E-mail: sitinuraninor@um.edu.my).
Siriphen Piriyachittakornkit is in the Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn
University, Thailand (E-mail: Siriphen.P@Chula.ac.th).
Irina Pollard is Associate Professor in Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University. Sydney,
NSW Australia (E-mail: ipollard@rna.bio.mq.edu.au).
Shinryo Shinagawa is Emeritus Professor of Hirosaki University, and Director of the Institute on Public
Issues Relating to Health Care and Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan (E-mail: shinryo@smile.ocn.ne.jp).
Song Sang-Yong, is a fellow of The Korean Academy of Science & Technology, Korea and Vice-Chair,
World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology, UNESCO (E-mail: songsy63@
hotmail.com).
Nadja Tollemache is a Jurist in Auckland, New Zealand and member of the World Commission on the
Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology, UNESCO (E-mail: nadjatollemache@slingshot.co.nz).
Pornvipa Watarachanakool is lecturer in English Literature at Huachiew Chalearmprakiet University,
Samutprakarn, Thailand. (E-mail: pornvipa_w@yahoo.com).
John Weckert is a Professorial Fellow at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Canberra,
Australia (E-mail: jweckert@csu.edu.au)

UNESCO Bangkok
Regional Unit for Social and Human Sciencein Asia and the Pacific

UNESCO Bangkok
Regional Unit for Social and Human Sciencein Asia and the Pacific920 Sukhumvit Road
Prakanong, Bangkok 10110 Thailand
E-mail: bangkok@unescobkk.org
Website: www.unescobkk.org
Tel: +66-2-3910577 Fax: +66-2-3910866

Asia-Pacific
Perspectives on Ethics ofScience and Technology