Norman Borlaug, University of Minnesota alum, 1970 Nobel Peace Prize winner, plant geneticist who developed a high-yield, disease resistant wheat strain, died on Saturday.
His work made wheat a staple food in developing countries. He was not without his critics though. They claiming plant gene altering was unnatural and that Borlaug’s work was facilitating the creation of monocultures reliant on wheat only. He often remarked of his critics that they had never felt the pain of hunger in their bellies and should go live that life before criticizing his work.
The question is, no matter how noble your intentions are, you have no idea what your research will be used for in the future as a scientist. Is the scientist ultimately responsible? Who is the scientist responsible for and who is he/she accountable to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
Posts
Many great scientists works have been misused by others later on in ways the discoverer didn't intend. Sometimes this is simply a change in the use, in other cases the change can be unforseen in the present form. These represent slightly different circumstances. A few examples include Einsteins theory of relativity (nuclear weapons), and Darwins theory of evolution (eugenics). Einstein wasn't planning how to kill millions, and Darwin wasn't plotting the extermination or sterilization of "inferior" individuals.
ReplyDeleteHow Dr. Borlaugs work differs from these previous cases in that the feared ecological consequences of his work were considered, and wouldn't require the modification of his discovery by another individual. Should these fears be realized, the blame might seem more fit to fall on him.
Looking at the broader question in terms of abused discoveries, when one considers how many scientific discoveries, as well as cultural elements in general, have been misused, it seems like culture as a whole must be responsible for their management. If we follow the logic of blaming the scientist, we would have to blame Einstein for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Darwin for the isolation, sterilization, and in some cases extermination of millions of people worldwide, and the inventor of Sudafed for the widespread availability and abuse of Crystal Meth from the late 80's to just a few years ago.
Looking beyond science, can we blame Jesus for the Crusades, Muhammad for 9/11, or McDonalds for Americas obesity?
Scientists are not responsible for the misuse of their discoveries, but they do have an ethical obligation to consider consequences. Ignorance is not a suitable alternative to beneficial-yet-imperfect discoveries. The duty of prevent misuse and abuse of discoveries and technology falls on society. While new dicoveries inevitably will be misused or have unforseen consequences, society as a whole is responsible to manage these issues. Discovery should never be restricted, only the implementation of discoveries.
"...it seems like culture as a whole must be responsible for their management."
ReplyDeleteI'd have to agree. Let's identify how/who in the culture or society currently manages the discoveries.
I'd also like to add that nearly every new technology/invention/discovery, despite the best efforts of the person responsible to predict how his/her work might be used, cannot reasonably be expected to account for all eventualities or even most of them. This goes back to Mrl's point; it is not the job of the scientist to do this. The question we should be asking is in my mind different: At what point can the culture/society be reasonably assured the new technology is ready for widespread use? The answer is complicated and involves law, economics, government (oversight in the case of the FDA and drugs for example), and business (can it be sold to the layman)
Now, on to Borlaug and his actual work. I'd still like to know if there is a connection between the increased prevalence of celiac sprue(1) and Borlaug's genetic modification of wheat.
(1) "Celiac Disease Four Times More Common Than In 1950s" Medical News Today.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/156023.php
To Brent’s last question: Celiac disease in the developing countries: A new and challenging public health problem (World J Gastroenterol 2007 April 21;13(15): 2153-2159). This suggests there appears to be a link. Primarily due to increased consumption. Evolutionarily, why would we develop an intolerance to wheat? Unlike sugar, it is a high density food source loaded with carbs, proteins, fat, and most importantly fiber. Huge digression, sorry.
ReplyDeleteAs far as how society manages discoveries I suggest we juxtapose stem cell research and the implementation of the pacemaker. Both have the potential to save thousands of lives, both could be considered playing “God”. Our society has chosen that the pacemaker is very convenient and stem cell research is not. We can contrast a number of different medical/physics discoveries similarly. I think the governing bodies such as NIH, NSF, etc don’t necessarily have the same problem so it is very much a societal problem (perhaps a religious or demagogue problem). Evolution could be considered another revolutionary discovery that almost 60% of Americans don’t actually believe in (nor GOP presidential candidates(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E&NR=1)).
The who of the question is oftentimes more culpable in what ultimately happens with scientific research (Einstein may have made the bomb possible, but who brought it to fruition?). So who would be the governing body assuring the public that new technology will only be used benevolently? I don’t think “benevolently” is the objective here, and that is troubling for any scientific investigator.