Initial Biotechnology Consultation - Toronto November 1999
Document Contents:
- Current Issues in Biotechnology
- Theological and Ethical Implications of Biotechnology
- Observations from Individuals
- Feedback from Group Conversations
- Closing Remarks and Prayer
An organic farmer from Ontario and a research chemist who is now the director of the Society, Religion and Technology Project of the Church of Scotland shared the same microphone when close to 100 people gathered to grapple with some of the most consequential issues in the age of biotechnology.
The occasion was a day-long gathering hosted by The Canadian Council of Churches and its Commission on Justice and Peace. Janet Somerville, the CCC's General Secretary, welcomed the participants, emphasizing how much the particular gifts and insights of each one present and of each church tradition are needed in addressing these complex issues. She then led an opening worship which drew on the biblical themes of the liturgical season of Advent, recognizing the profound connection between respect for the poor of the land and care for the earth, God's creation, which we have harmed.
The day's undertaking was launched by Dr. Donald Bruce who, in addition to his work for the Church of Scotland, is also a member of the Bioethics Working Group of the Conference of European Churches. He posed the question: "Why does the church get involved with biotechnology?"
His answer is simply that the gospel is about all of life and that biotechnology will be the dominant shaping force in society in the 21st century.
For many decades, the assumption has been that technology and science have to do with progress, wealth, jobs, new conveniences for our homes. Nevertheless, as an introduction to the Society, Religion and Technology project states, "Technology is not value free. It is developed through choices that imply value judgements."
The "value judgements" of commerce have been the primary influence on work in biotechnology. Typically, a large corporation, such as a pharmaceutical company, identifies a market advantage and sets out to maximize it.
"As a Christian," Donald Bruce says, "I have to ask, 'Is that good enough?'" Hence the approach of the Society, Religion and Technology Project—to bring together "multi-disciplinary expert working groups ... seeking to engage those working in key areas of technology with specialists in ... ethical, social and theological" fields.
Bruce predicts that biotechnology will be one of the most controversial issues in the new millennium. In the wake of such disasters as the "Mad Cow Disease", there is public outrage in the United Kingdom and Europe at the power of multinational corporations and widespread mistrust of the government regulators of genetically modified plants and foods.
The growing polarization between those who are determined to press on with technological change and those who insist that no one has a right to "play God" through genetic manipulation within and across species reflects a tension which can be discovered in the Book of Genesis, says Bruce.
In the first creation account in Genesis we read, "God created humankind in his image ... and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.'" In the second creation account, this language of domination of the earth is replaced by an emphasis on care of "every living creature".
This tension has never been entirely resolved, Bruce claims, and is reflected in the debates of the present time. To what extent is creation open-ended, subject to change and manipulation by human endeavour and to what extent must humans respect "God's ecological wisdom," to quote Tony McQuail, an organic farmer from Huron County in Ontario. Where should the line be drawn?
Donald Bruce urged his listeners to draw the line within the continuum of both technological and organic change rather than at them. For example, he would take seriously the benefits and the risks inherent in both selective breeding and genetic manipulation of plants and animals.
Bruce is concerned that the public's aversion to genetically modified foods might trigger a complete ban on such foods unless they are proven to be unquestionably safe. "How precautionary must Christians be about risk?", asks Bruce. "Are we getting too risk averse?" He would advise a prudent middle road, one that allows both research and experimentation in biotechnology and respect for creation to coexist so that "we can have the best of both worlds." To this end, he advocates a process of educating the public to both the benefits and risks of biotechnology.
Current Issues in Biotechnology
Following a short break, Stephen Allen, the Associate Secretary for Justice Ministries of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, introduced a three-person panel whose task it was to reflect on current issues in biotechnology.
Brewster Kneen has been researching and writing about issues in global food systems for years and has a well-honed "hermeneutic of suspicion" around the work and claims of both governments and corporations in the field of biotechnology. He observed that an essential problem for those who advocate "educating the public" is that the more the public knows about such things as genetically modified foods, the less it likes what it sees.
Kneen pointed out that Canada's federal biotechnology strategy was first put forward as an industrial development strategy by Industry Canada in 1983. A National Biotechnology Advisory Committee reported to the federal minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
The development of regulatory policy was in the hands of a small office in the Pesticide Directorate of Agriculture Canada. In 1987, the three regulatory departments—agriculture, environment and health and welfare—agreed on several working principles, among them:
- to build on existing legislation
- to regulate the product as opposed to the process
- to build on internationally developed guidelines
- to use risk-assessment principles
These decisions led to the acceptance in Canada of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) concept of "substantial equivalence" in foods, i.e., that genetically modified corn, for instance, was not a new or "novel" food and therefore did not require product labelling or tests to satisfy a concern about its safety. "What is the scientific meaning of 'substantial equivalent'?, asks Kneen.
By regulating the product (in this case, corn) rather than the process (the genetic modification of the corn in the process of producing it), the government was able to build on existing legislation rather than developing new legislation to deal with a new reality in the production of food. That made it easier for biotech-eager corporations to get products established in the market with a minimum of public scrutiny.
In 1997, the Canadian Food and Inspection Agency was created largely to deal with the contradictory roles of promotion and regulation expected of government departments, particularly Agriculture Canada. However, Kneen asserts, the change is primarily one of appearance rather than substance and the new agency is essentially the same bureaucratic structure with a new name.
Kneen believes that the term "genetically engineered" organisms is more accurate than "genetically modified" organisms. By holding up the promise of perfection in foods, such as "improved corn", we create a world where there is no line between that and "improved babies", says Kneen. And sooner or later, by pushing these frontiers, any barriers to such engineering, be they raised by moral or religious conscience or experienced as disruptive by society, will be treated as trade barriers and disallowed by such bodies as the World Trade Organization.
If we accept technological progress as inevitable ("technological determinism"), we put all ethical, social and political questions aside, says Kneen. Such technological determinism is a contradiction in a faith context, he claims. A critical question for him is: "How do we encourage church people to engage in these issues?"
Genetic engineering is not a life science but a science of death, said Kneen, echoing a major theme in his most recent book, Farmageddon: Food and the Culture of Biotechnology. It is not about nurturing life; it is about controlling the space for life in such a way that there is room only for what fits the plans and interests of a particular set of stakeholders. It is about winners and losers. That is why it needs to be a major issue on the agenda of the churches, Kneen insists.
Bartha Knoppers, who is on the Faculty of Law at the University of Montreal, began her presentation by reading headlines from a page of the Global and Mail of December 2, all of which dealt with some aspect of biotechnology—a "wrongful life" lawsuit, the use of animals in biotech experiments, the use of DNA banks in criminal investigations, issues of patenting life forms, and so on. "One day in the life of bioethicists", said Knoppers who is the chair of the International Ethics Committee of the Human Genome Project and a member of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee.
Knoppers used a series of cartoons to illustrate some of the issues in the field of biotechnology, beginning with one depicting a child with a chemistry set at its feet asking its parents, "Can I have some of your genes for my experiments?" Knoppers observed that some of the work in genetics treats the very stuff of life as if it were trivial and easily accessible for casual experimentation.
Among the issues which confront an ethicist are genetic reductionism, which treats humans as if they were but a single genetic feature, such as obesity; the search for the perfect human through genetic manipulation; the race to patent life forms; the commercialization of research which is largely funded by the private sector, putting academic freedom at risk.
According to Knoppers, policy development in the area of genetic research must blend two opposite approaches—the retrospective or private ordering approach and the prospective or public ordering approach. In the former, research is the starting point, which leads to particular solutions to situations defined as problems by the research in question. Often these new solutions cause so many changes that governments respond with guidelines and eventually legislation regulating new practices or products—which, of course, by this point are already well-established in the marketplace. The public ordering approach starts with principles which influence legislation governing experimentation and control of new practices and products before they have become frozen in place—an approach which slows everything down. When dealing with the complexities of the new age of biotechnology, says Knoppers, both approaches are necessary.
It is also time, she adds, to work across disciplines with industry leaders, ethicists and researchers talking to each other to face the issues that arise from work in progress.
The self-regulatory approach to ethical implications in biotechnology (i.e., letting the participants develop a code of ethics), can be self-serving and allows for very little public input.
The liberal, laissez-faire approach says that products and practices that are no good will be weeded out by market forces. This, however, allows technology to be developed and integrated into society without any oversight and can result in serious problems as, for example, in the area of fertility clinics.
Approaching the matter via criminal codes has the challenge of getting accurate definitions embedded in new laws. This has proved difficult in practice although the existence of such legislation as the European Directives [which specify legal requirements that must be fulfilled in order to market products in the European Union] can feel reassuring and serve to pacify demands for a law to deal with a problem.
Human rights principles already exist but need to be given meaning in the biotechnology era. At the present time, the application of such principles usually goes through the courts, a route that is slow and costly and is usually too late to right any wrongs. It does, however, allow for intervener status by groups who want to introduce value judgements into the discussion.
In general, says Knoppers, there is much technological hubris to be overcome today and this requires the interaction of science and religion. Spiritual and cultural values must have a voice in the complex issues introduced by the age of biotechnology, she insists.
Elizabeth Abergel, a researcher and doctoral candidate at York University in Toronto, has a background as a molecular biologist and environmentalist. She claims that science has become a dominating discourse serving the interests of elites and depending largely on the repression of other systems of knowledge such as women's insights and non-Western traditional knowledge.
The ideology which dominates biotechnology must be open to critical examination, says Abergel. It is a limited world view, offering a vision of society where corporate values trump other social values and where consumer rights are restricted to their purchasing power.
Risk control, observes Abergel, is incompatible with a race for profit. Competition to get to market first doesn't allow time for what we need to learn in order to understand environmental risk. Commercial time-frames are too short for long-term information gathering, leaving the determination of the risks to scientific experts. Abergel points out, though, that environmental risks are distributed among the entire population and therefore everyone needs a voice in identifying and managing them.
The intrusion of the multinational corporations has been felt in every aspect of life and a neo-liberal ideological framework serves only to speed that up. Profits take precedence over other kinds of rights and needs, causing drastic social instability and imbalance. Self-reliance is discouraged and dependency is created, displacing whole peoples and devaluing the public realm, says Abergel, and need is defined by biotechnology as purely individual in nature. When it comes to profits versus human rights, any sense of solidarity has been lost.
Abergel points out that genetic experimentation has been decontextualized and de-historicized. Understanding organisms at a molecular level reduces them to a series of chemical sequences and strips them of their history, context and social meaning. Organisms handled in laboratories are removed from the complex web of community interactions.
We would do well, advises Abergel, to remember that corporate values are not synonymous with human values. The large agricultural biotech firms, for example, promote the privatization of public goods, treating seeds of even very ancient plant life as private property on which a patent can be taken out.
Theological and Ethical Implications of Biotechnology
The afternoon session was introduced by David Hallman who sketched out the beginnings of the work of the churches internationally in the area of ethical concerns around biotechnology. These included the contributions of Vandana Shiva at the 8th Assembly of World Council of Churches meeting in Harare in 1998; the growing concern among churches working in countries of the South with the increasing corporate control of agriculture and seeds; and shareholder resolutions being pursued with corporations by some US churches.
As an example of actions taking shape within Canadian church movements, Hallman noted the planned North-South conference on global food security proposed for 2001 by the Inter-Church Action for Development, Relief and Justice.
However divisive some of these areas are for ecumenical work, the ethical issues are sufficiently pressing that the churches are now being actively invited into the discussions, Hallman pointed out. He then introduced the members of the panel on theological and ethical implications of biotechnology.
Roger Hutchinson, the principal of Emmanuel College in Toronto, opened his remarks with a disclaimer or sorts, namely that his method is precisely not to seek a middle way, but by means of evidence and reasoning to become more precise in understanding the issues and to take a position on them. Otherwise, Hutchinson, believes, we relativize all positions and end up with a level playing field in the midst of ruins. Our task is to trust in a faithful God, to proceed intelligently and avoid being manipulative of others. Then, says Hutchinson, we will be able to act together where we can and accept being polarized where we must.
Hutchinson called on all present to expand the horizons of "reason-giving," to extend the debate by avoiding name-calling. To that end, he distributed a "framework" for making ethical assessments taken from a methodology described in his book Prophets, Pastors and Public Choices: Canadian Churches and the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Debate. This approach requires assessing the claims and counter-claims of the scientific, humanist, Christian and environmentalist perspectives on an issue. He believes that defenders and critics of genetic engineering, for instance, can be found within each group and that an approach such as this will allow for a fruitful exploration of those issues with a view to greater precision as to each one's position.
Heather Eaton is on the faculty of theology at the University of St. Paul in Ottawa where her teaching responsibilities include courses on ecofeminism. She pointed out that while questions arising from the manipulation of nature are not new, the advent of biotechnology is calling for a whole new ethical paradigm and that there is no consensus among the churches on any of the difficult bioethical issues. Since the 1960s, for example, the Christian churches have had a pluralism of sources, pressures, methods and conclusions around human reproductive technologies.
In fact, there is a proliferation of ethical frameworks today—concepts such as the natural law, human freedom, the sanctity of life abound. With so much available, Eaton asks, why is there such a gap between ethics and biotechnology?
First of all, in our time it is difficult to have a conversation regarding ethics because critical thinking is so little encouraged in education and in society. We need to be able to ask not only "How?" but also "Why?" Who pays? Who benefits? What will happen to community? What are the environmental risks? Who is responsible?
Among the reasons there has been little resistance to biotechnology is that there are very few places in the urban culture where such conversations can actually take place. People are absorbed with the minutiae of a fast-paced lifestyle. There are countless web sites on biotechnology (many of them paid for by the biotech corporations themselves), but who has time to be informed? Biotechnology is so deeply imbedded in our cultural reality, that there is nowhere to stand outside of it. The public have access only at the level of "it is all good, or it is all bad."
Furthermore, we live in an era of corporate rule with a corresponding diminishment of the role of national governments in developing policy and less and less public research on these matters. Margaret Somerville, an ethicist at McGill University in Montreal, points out that there is a huge gap in society between "science time," "business time" and "ethics time." Ethics takes time and that creates a major tension between the pace of science time, on the one hand, and ethics time, on the other.
Another serious gap is between theology and church life. There is considerable reflection in the universities, for instance, on feminism and ecology but little of that reflection has found its way into church life.
Furthermore, some churches are characterized first of all by the priority they give to their doctrinal heritage and their liturgical and spiritual traditions. These churches, in particular, have few points of intersection with those challenges posed by biotechnology which arise out of its relationship to secular power structures and political strategies.
Lastly, within the operative Christian world view, there is an overwhelmingly anthropomorphic bias which affects all branches of theology. This world view has not come to terms with evolution or with the fact that humans themselves are a part of, and not other than, nature. The ethical questions posed by biotechnology are a subset of those posed by the greater ecological crises of our time, claims Eaton. The traditional world view presents a paradigm that is not equipped to understand the level of trouble we are now in. A human-centred theological paradigm has not required the churches to address plant and animal issues. Most religious groups, she adds, do not oppose genetic engineering of plants and animals.
How are we to respond to present reality? Eaton calls for a new religious sensitivity to the earth. The politics of biotechnology must come under scrutiny and be linked to religious responses to feminism, colonialism, the North/South split and so on. Nothing less than a great effort on the part of the churches will compete with the world of biotechnology, asserts Eaton.
Richard Crossman, Dean of Theology at Waterloo Lutheran University, views the traditional understanding of humanity as the fulfilment of creation as a type of idolatry. We must begin to take care of all of creation, even at the expense of human "progress." Humans are inside of creation; all of creation is an image of God, insists Crossman.
In the new paradigm that is required, we must accept that the ability to do is not a mandate to do. We must have a more comprehensive arena in making ethical assessments and resist policies and practices that are rooted in dualistic thinking. We need to love the earth as fiercely as God does.
Historically, scientific knowledge was thought to describe reality directly, to uncover the "mystery" of the created order, leaving theology marginalized. However, science and theology must recognize how each contributes to an understanding of nature, including humanity, and thereby promote the healing of creation.
When it comes to ethical decisions, there is always a tension between change and continuity, between the ethics of certainty and a utilitarian approach to ethics. People need to make decisions as a sailor sails a ship—the North Star is used as a guideline for direction but it does not specify the destination, says Crossman.
Observations from Individuals
Note: The following points were raised either from the floor or by the panellists in response to questions or comments from participants.
- The focus of the debate has been on biotechnology per se. How do we address positive alternatives such as the feasibility of organic farming? There is a danger in getting too consumed with regulatory issues of biotechnology and failing to attend to those things that are less subject to measurement and regulation such as a sense of connection to the earth, of communion with living things.
- Can we distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable risk? How can we make useful distinctions?
- We mustn't take genetic engineering out of its cultural context. It amounts to the restructuring of life for the purposes of corporate control and profit.
- Demonizing corporations in itself doesn't get anywhere. We need to address our addiction to greed.
- There has been a failure of democracy in the way in which biotechnology has developed, a lack of democratic participation in decision-making. But how do you find out what society wants?
- The Canadian Ecumenical Jubilee Initiative has been one of the strongest challenges by the churches in the public arena. It arises, however, out of a social justice paradigm; it is not an adequate ecological paradigm.
- What is our fundamental attitude towards life? Do we respect life and creation or not? The Kosovo bombing was an example of a violent assault on the integrity of an organism as a whole where all was fair game—the environment no less than the people.
- It is important that the churches understand their unique contribution to public discourse and avoid an unwise identification with "Green Groups" or others even when strategic alliances can be helpful in particular situations.
- We need to find ways to have "transatlantic" conversations on these issues as well as links with the South.
- The Council of Canadians has produced an excellent resource kit on the issue of the labelling of genetically engineered foods. This is a good issue to involve people with as there is so much public interest and concern around it.
- We need to take the opportunity to begin a dialogue with those in our congregations who work for the multinational corporations and avoid a "good guys/bad guys" division. Likewise, there needs to be more collaboration between the urban members of congregations and the rural constituency of the churches so that there will not be polarization even before the conversation can begin.
Feedback from Group Conversations
- A discussion group made up of representatives from some of the ecumenical coalitions expressed a need for another Forum with participation from Southern partners and Aboriginal communities. They also expressed a need for more theological reflection on biotechnology so that on issues of common concern there could be a move towards action. As well, they expressed a desire for more policy positions from the denominations, coupled with a fear that such a process would be excessively time-consuming. [Reporter: Diana Gibbs, ECEJ]
- This conference is an excellent first step on a long journey. More meetings will be required in order to think strategically and establish long-term objectives and policy as well as do midcourse corrections. It will be necessary to influence the church at large to inform, equip and energize people at the congregational level. In terms of influencing public policy, we need to be able to say more than, "Be careful." We need to come together to do theological reflection so that we can identify benchmarks beyond which we cannot go in terms of biotechnology and genetic engineering. [Reporter: Reinder Klein, CRCC]
- The government of Canada will soon be presenting new legislation and creating a regulatory framework to deal with new reproductive technologies and new uses for this technology. This would be an opportunity to influence public policy and for the churches to act ecumenically in this important area. [Reporter: Jennifer Leddy, CCCB]
Note: David Hallman invited anyone present who was interested in acting on this to inform Jennifer Leddy before leaving the meeting. Action on this matter would connect back to the group through the Commission for Justice and Peace.
- The Presbyterian Church in Canada has a work in progress relating to bioethics which will report to the General Assembly in June with a view to engaging its members on these issues. It will be important to understand the Canadian context—what is happening legislatively and at the policy level. For example, one question will be how to influence the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee and its work. [Reporter: Stephen Allen, PCC]
- It is urgent to act now on some of the biotechnology issues if we don't want to foreclose our options in such vital areas as preserving varieties of plants and seeds. It is also important to support local initiatives and to recognize that long- term effort is needed. The CWL, for example, has been involved in lobbying the government on food issues since the 1970s. We need to support local food systems in preference to the global distribution system and to listen to the voices of Third World farmers. [Reporter: Judith Stamp]
Closing Remarks and Prayer
David Pfrimmer, the chair of the Commission on Justice and Peace for The Canadian Council of Churches, brought the day to a close. He pointed out that the big question for the churches is how to "put wheels" under what had been presented, not by creating a new campaign of a new ecumenical body but by understanding how existing work, including that of the Task Force on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility, the Ecumenical Coalition on Economic Justice and the Canadian Ecumenical Jubilee Initiative, fit into what is now needed.
He closed by inviting everyone to join in a prayer of praise to God for all of creation and a missioning of all present to "Go out into the world in peace, ... in faith, ... in hope, ... and with love."
 |
|
| 47 Queen's Park Crescent East Toronto, ON M5S 2C3, Canada www.councilofchurches.ca |
T: 416.972.9494 F: 416.927.0405 TF: 1.866.822.7645 info@councilofchurches.ca |
