Subscribe now

Leader and Health

Nice science, but don't forget about the ethics

The march of science is giving us new powers, but also creating new ethical dilemmas. We must trust in public engagement to try to seek consensus

5 July 2017

arrows

Which way is the right way?

Peter Glass/Design Pics/Plainpicture

LAST year, the UK became the first country to formally approve a therapy called mitochondrial replacement, which can prevent children from inheriting devastating genetic disorders.

The decision to approve “three-parent babies” was difficult and controversial. The science had advanced to the point where it was safe and effective. But it was also a step towards human genetic modification – to some, a red line.

The decision was the right one, at least given the state of scientific knowledge and society’s ethical priorities. We can be especially sure of that latter point because the decision was made in the full glare of public consultation, with all of the controversies laid bare.

For many in policy circles, that initiative set the gold standard for handling future ethical dilemmas. And we can be sure there will be no shortage of those.

The march of science gives us the power to influence more lives than ever before. And as we take ever bigger strides, we need to be careful who we step on. The decisions we must make are more important than setting the direction of science or medicine. They are about the sort of society we want, the principles that we live by and the beings we value (see “The ethics issue“).

The three-parent baby debate shows that we know how to have these discussions in biomedicine. Other fields could learn from it. Climate scientists should consider the ethical implications of geoengineering; tech giants and governments must talk seriously about privacy.

At present, such debates are largely conducted behind closed doors. Those with expertise worry that the public is too ill-informed to make the right decisions. The public responds with mistrust.

That is no way to reach a durable consensus. Opening these discussions up means ceding some control, but not doing so is undemocratic. Public involvement does not always produce a knee-jerk rejection. The converse, locking people out of crucial decisions, would be both unwise and unethical.

This article appeared in print under the headline “The only way is ethics”

Topics:

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox! We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

Sign up