Who sets the pace?
Historically, scientists have seen themselves as the key drivers in determining the direction of scientific research. In their choices, they were influenced by current trends, what interested or fascinated them and perhaps, most importantly, who was prepared to fund the work! But public opinion wasn’t even a factor.

All this has started to change in the last fifty years or so. There has been a huge public reaction to the advent of Genetically Modified (GM) crops; field trials have been sabotaged and stringent criteria are applied (at least in Europe) such that the presence of GM products in foods must be disclosed. The end result is that many supermarkets decline to stock them.

Plans are currently afoot to engineer crops like maize and tobacco to provide large quantities of drugs or vaccines at low cost. The need for vaccines in developing countries is enormous, not only for new diseases like HIV/AIDS but also to produce existing vaccines, which are currently very expensive. GM plants have great potential since they are cheap and easy to grow, and production can readily be scaled up to agricultural proportions. Public opinion has certainly had a powerful impact on GM plant technology and this is felt by scientists who are seeking to develop this technology. Many of them are demoralized by the hostility they experience and the declining research funding.

Who was to blame?
Ethical issues, put simply, consider ‘what should happen?’ However, sometimes it is important to reflect upon ‘what should have happened?’ Take for instance the current situation regarding well water in Bangladesh where between 35 and 77 million Bangladeshis may be drinking water containing arsenic levels that exceed the WHO safety limit. The number of people currently suffering from arsenicosis is about 7500. Some cancers that develop as a result of arsenic poisoning can take 20 years to emerge and so the final death toll could be much larger.

How did this come about? The people of Bangladesh used to rely on surface water, which was often contaminated with bacteria causing diseases like cholera and typhoid. In the 1970s, UNICEF initiated well drilling as a means of providing clean water. But, at that time, nobody tested for arsenic. This is now commonly found in the water drawn from the new tubewells. As the scale of the disaster unfolded, nobody was willing to accept blame. Those involved include UNICEF (which initiated the tubewells programme), the World Bank (a fellow sponsor), the Bangladeshi government and foreign engineers and public health scientists, who did not think to test the water.

It is important to look back and learn from what went wrong in order to put guidelines in place to safeguard the future. Was there a double standard that allowed this project to proceed in a manner that would be unthinkable in a western nation where stringent standards are applied to water quality? And why, when the final death toll could reach millions, has this situation attracted so little attention in the mass media?

Research: closed or open-ended
Looking forward, it is tempting to put restrictions upon the direction that scientific investigation can take. However, a case can be made for valuing the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake regardless of why it is carried out. This can be readily illustrated by the discovery of so-called Buckyballs in the mid-1980s; this was an unexpected by-product of experiments aimed at understanding the mechanisms by which long-chain carbon molecules are formed in interstellar space. Buckyball, which stands for Buckminsterfullerene, is a molecular form of carbon named after the architect famous for his geodesic domes, whose designs this molecule resembles. These unusual molecules are now being used as a vital component of an anti-AIDS drug. They bind to the enzyme necessary for viral reproduction, deactivating both the HIV-1 and HIV-2 types of virus whilst seemingly leaving other cells and organs unharmed.

Buckyballs are examples of a whole new area of science, namely nanotechnology. Nanotechnology involves studying and working with matter on an ultra-small scale, that of the nano-meter (one billionth of a metre). One goal of nanotechnology is to manipulate individual atoms and molecules to create computer chips and other devices that are thousands of times smaller than current technologies permit. Other applications include new materials with extraordinary physical and chemical properties, for instance, carbon nanotubes which consist of a layer of graphite rolled up to form a seamless tube with the ends of the tube capped by a hemispherical ‘half buckyball’. These tubes are 10,000 times smaller than a human hair, yet 30 times stronger than steel.

Alongside the enormous potential benefits stand concerns about possible side effects on human health and the environment. In this emerging technology, steps are being taken to learn from the experience of GM where science and public concern became disconnected. A number of organizations are emerging:

• The Foresight Institute: a member-supported organization that has put in place ethical guidelines relating to technical standards and policies.
• The ETC (Erosion, Technology and Concentration) Group: an action group that seeks to support ‘socially responsible developments of technologies useful to the poor and marginalized.'
• The NanoJury: which brings together people from different backgrounds to form a jury whose role is to hear evidence about the future implications of nanotechnologies and thence to make a set of recommendations.

Where recommendations are made, only time will tell what weight they carry.

 

The BBC and the Open University are not responsible for the content of external websites

    next > Page 1 of 2

Content last updated: 01/12/2005

Comments