Biology, Education and Ethics

 

Laboratoire de Didactique et Epistémologie des Sciences (LDES), Geneva University,

CH 1227 Geneva, Switzerland. E-mail: giordan@uni2a.unige.ch

 

Since the 1^st conference organized by the IUBS Commission for Biological Education (CBE) in 1975 in Upsala, Sweden, a lot of things have changed... During this last quarter century, the research in biology has led to an enormous expansion of our knowledge. For example, the ability to maintain cultures of totipotent human embryo cells points towards new directions in fundamental research. There is a great hope that, one day, we shall be able to use such cells to repair deficient tissues or even to replace whole organs.

Other potential forms of therapeutic utilisation would involve re-programming of differentiated somatic nuclei, either by introducing them into nucleus-free oocytes and to obtain new embryos and stem cells, or else by taking foetal blood cells from the umbilical cord; etc. Yet such striking scientific achievements also raise important ethical questions:

 

• Should we be producing such cells, since they come from human embryos, particularly as they derive from deliberately aborted foetuses?
• Should human embryos be the object of research at all?
• Do therapeutic ends justify cloning means?

 

What to do now ?

Questions about living organisms are never neutral, and there can be no single answer. The debate currently surrounding DNA epitomizes the issues involved. Isn’t it absurd for biologists to want to patent it? Shouldn’t it be pronounced the common property of humankind?

This is a hot topic, especially now that a race has escalated between private and public research institutions! The DNA molecule is the basis for countless techniques, which specialists call ‘biotechnologies’ or ‘genetic engineering’, but which the public is not afraid to brand as genetic ‘manipulations’. As long as these are used for therapeutic purposes or as historical and legal tools, such modifications are well accepted by the public. In contrast, there are equally virulent opponents and supporters of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the food business. Clearly, a number of technological blunders (AIDS-contaminated blood supplies, growth hormones, mad cow disease, etc.) have led the public to question deliberate risk-taking more actively than in the past.

What can be done? Who should decide? Should we let the market function on its own? Should there be a public referendum, a ‘votation’ like in Switzerland? Should we try consensus conferences or citizen councils? In all these cases, on what basis of knowledge should decisions to be taken? Which knowledge is a priority? Biological knowledge has become fundamental to political/social responsibility. Without biological literacy, individuals are just as illiterate today as they were last century if they couldn’t read.

 

Biological education and mediation

Schools do now provide more biological information, especially at the secondary level. Unfortunately, the absence of genuine reflection has made most biology curricula completely indigestible. They accumulate anecdotal, non-situated data. Receptors, G-proteins and kinases are mentioned, without being placed within the context of cell metabolism. Individual organisms, the knowledge of existing species, the organisation of life, and even evolution itself have virtually disappeared from the classroom.

At the university, teaching still adheres to historical subdivisions. Cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, molecular genetics are still taught separately, each according to its own internal code. Ecology, integrative biology, ethology and anthropology are given only a limited place. Practical exercises are often problematical, mere illustrative rituals which do not initiate students into a scientific approach.

Museums, science exhibits and the media are providing a growing platform for biological issues. However, such presentations frequently make use of outdated cultural references. Individuals are compared with machines, brains with computers, organisms with robots obeying microscopic commands, as though each act would be determined before birth.

Rarely is the possibility of questions taken into account: public worries or the loss of confidence in science are never discussed. Many people end up being confused and bored, as they were previously by physics. The image of Biology was clear; today it has grown murky.

 

What can the biologists do ?

Some biologists - still very few - are "coming out". They are initiating communications campaigns to renew the dialogue between science and the citizen. This can lead to even bigger problems, as the public is increasingly distrustful and wary of new dangers. Such scientists are aware of their ethical responsibilities but remain clumsy in the way they fulfil them. Most of them believe that they are contributing to the benefit of mankind, to the point where they often forget to question their own methods.

BioEd 2000 has been organized to find out what should be done. Should we question ourselves, and unravel the current links between biology, ethics, education and society, as directly and critically as possible? The answer is obviously yes, but we must go beyond this.

The solution is surely not additional classes, more concepts, or more public information regarding the contents and methods of research. What appears to be key in biological education is to trigger openness and alertness in the mind of each and every individual, and to foster curiosity for that which is not obvious, for problems. It is necessary to provide food for thought, to use approaches that link technology, ethics and society, in order to assess the issues/stakes at hand, and to formulate the ‘right’ questions in need for expertise.

Out-of-school, we should take advantage of the current controversies surrounding dioxin, GMOs or mad cow disease, since they trigger a genuine desire for understanding in the population. They provide learning situations and public education opportunities, whereby newly available education resources and tools can be used. Given the difficulties of such a task, we need to construct knowledge networks, linking schools, the media and internet-like webs.

 

A clear project

But first, the biological community must itself have clear objectives and projects. And we must question - as some are already doing — the place that biology has/must have in society. One can criticise some biological practices, observe how certain biological approaches are becoming social challenges and consider the way in which the market, or policies determine research, without necessarily having an anti-scientific attitude. On the contrary, biologists must engage in such a questioning approach. If not, what would be the purpose of generating knowledge with no societal relevance?

Definitely, these are not internal questions of biologists to be dealt with behind closed doors. This is a public debate to be shared as broadly as possible.