With consideration to these words therefore, we preface our comments by saying that the Premier has given good reason to have at least one legitimate expectation. Unfortunately there are grounds for saying that the ethical framework presented by this draft Code is neither, strong and transparent, nor is it nurturing, at least in an active sense. What it may indeed nurture, through its weakness and neglect of adequate communicative processes, is a climate in which biotechnology may become rampant, limited only by its capacity to seize market share. On the face of it, this is a declaration of the need for collaboration. We note also that what is acknowledged within the Preamble, is not just community uncertainty over biotechnology.
Scientific uncertainty is acknowledged as well.
Yet the uncertainty that exists in the biotechnology sector is not just uncertainty over science, but uncertainty over the philosophy and ethics of science. This is the kind of uncertainty that occurs when science has been pronounced beforehand to be able to provide technological solutions to social issues and concerns. This is not scientific, but philosophical and ethical uncertainty. True collaboration, in a climate of confusion, is a long way off. A Confused Code Science does not provide the answers to pre-existing human and social issues in any straightforward sense.