|
COMMENT
It's time to build a
biotechnology culture
By K.
Chamundeeswari and M. Taeb
Developments in biotechnology during the
past two decades have provided us with a greater understanding of the
genetic makeup of living organisms. Although the full potential of
biotechnology has yet to be realized, it is now possible to isolate and
move genes across different species. The main driving force for
biotechnology development is the promise for medicine.
With the completion of the Human Genome Project, it is now easier to
identify genes that control diseases. The uses of human genomic
information are numerous, including so-called genetic testing -- for
diagnostic purposes in newborn babies and individuals suspected of
carrying defective genes. It can also be used in gene therapy or as a
research tool in other research areas.
Such technological capabilities, however, may challenge the way we think,
live and relate to one another. There are two major areas of concern: how
human biotechnology will affect human rights that have been recognized in
the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and how to regulate the
technology to prevent potential abuses.
Such concerns have been expressed at the United Nations and its agencies
as well as by many governments. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights has
expressed concern about the challenges that biotechnology applications
pose to human rights. In 1997, the U.N. Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization developed the Universal Declaration on the Human
Genome and Human rights.
The central question of biotechnology and human rights issues concerns
concepts: Those used in human rights parlance are at stake. What does it
mean to say "human" or "individual" in genetic terms?
As a majority of genes are shared by all people, how can we define the
right of one individual against the other? Genes are shared by family
members -- knowing the genetic information of one family member reveals
the genetic information of another. So how will privacy rights be upheld?
How can we use the genetic profile of an individual without abusing and
threatening the privacy rights of others? There needs to be greater
clarity on such issues for purposes of framing laws. And such
clarification must take into account religious and social aspects.
In addition are concerns related to the commercialization of the human
genome that must be discussed at an international level. The ownership
status of the human genome must be clarified. Unfortunately, the notion of
"science for profit" has been dominant in developing and setting
priorities in biotechnology, as demonstrated by the rush to patent gene
sequences. If the human genome is the heritage of all humans, can it be
patented as a commodity for business gains? Transborder movements might
shift unethical practices to other countries. Therefore, the feasibility
of an international legally binding instrument on the human genome must be
explored.
Vulnerable groups, be they poor countries or poor groups within rich
countries, will be hard hit by unethical human-biotechnology practices.
Discrimination, loss of opportunities and stigmatization are important
concerns in this regard. An appropriate strategy to protect these groups
is crucial to the progress of biotechnology.
Stem-cell research and gene therapy might eventually make it possible to
engineer tissue or organs by genetic means. Genomics coupled with
proteomics is poised to trigger a fundamental change in the practice of
medicine. In a few years we could all be carrying our genotypes inscribed
on chips in our wallets.
However, these rewards of science bring to mind some fundamental questions
that are difficult to ignore in our globalized world: Would it be heresy
to rid people of disease by manipulating genes? Would it be perceived as
trying to play God? Does it smack of eugenics?
Different cultures may give different responses to these questions. Values
vary from culture to culture, as do views of life and moral
responsibilities. How people interact in a society and develop common
values also varies from culture to culture; however, all cultures might
share some values in addressing the above questions.
The major challenge for biotechnology in the 21st century is one of
accommodating all the social, ethical and legal concerns of the
international community. A "biotechnology culture" should be
fostered to support and build upon achievements in biotechnology, and at
the same time ensure conformity on ethical values.
The UN, through its think tanks like the United Nations University, is
an ideal platform for objective analysis. Progress in science and
technology can facilitate our betterment only if steered in the right
direction by common values.
The objective of discussions on bioethics
is not to paint a grim picture of biotechnology and create an ogre for
society to confront. They are a process as essential for our survival and
development as biotechnology is itself. Rapid developments in human
biotechnology provide unprecedented opportunities to treat many illnesses,
but at the same time we must attach equal importance to ethical values.
K. Chamundeeswari is a Ph.D. fellow and
M. Taeb is a research associate at UNU Institute
of Advanced Studies. This commentary first appeared in the June 2 edition of the
Japan Times These are their personal views.
HOME
|
