Abstract
“Precaution,” like “technological fix” and “magic bullet,” is a key term in the agricultural biotechnology debate. Discussions about precautionary ethics and precautionary principles are the result of changing attitudes about the notion of technological progress. Precautionary discourse is a response to concerns over scientific uncertainty and complex risks to human health and the environment associated with climate change and emerging technologies like GE. This chapter examines Hans Jonas’ precautionary ethics with the purpose of identifying philosophical insights capable of contributing to a narrative of sustainability. The first part of this chapter situates Jonas’ ethics for the future within a larger historical context. The second part discusses three of the main elements in his ethical theory: (1) comparative futurology, (2) casuistry of the imagination, and (3) the precautionary rule. The rest of the chapter examines a high profile debate between two important public intellectuals over precautionary ethics and biotechnology. The debate demonstrates “casuistry of the imagination” in deriving the moral principles we need to confront the dangers of powerful new biotechnologies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In an article on the ethics of biotechnology and global catastrophic risks (GCR), Baum and Wilson also argue for the need of an international institution to help oversee and mitigate the dangers the release of deadly bioengineered pathogens into the environment (Baum and Wilson 2014). The United States and other countries have taken some precautionary actions to protect their food supplies. The U.S.’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is charged with enforcing the 2002 Bioterrorism Act, which directs the FDA “to take steps to protect the public from a threatened or actual terrorist attack on the U.S. food supply and other food-related emergencies” (FDA). However, the possibility of the development of genetically engineered super-pathogens for malicious purposes could be done anywhere in the word. As was noted above, due to the rapidly declining costs of genetic engineering, and increasing availability of techniques and technologies, in the near future the ability to engineer dangerous pathogens will be possible for a small group or even an individual. So, while regulations and restrictions for biosafety exist in some countries precautionary regulation would need to be global. “The entire world has a stake in ensuring this technology is used safely” (Ibid.). Baum and Wilson argue that what is needed is a binding international treaty, based on the PP, to regulate bioengineering research on potentially dangerous pathogens. Such a treaty, they note, could prevent a dangerous arms race to weaponize pathogens. By applying the PP to international policy and law scientists would need to demonstrate that the potentially dangerous bioengineered organism could not escape the lab (Ibid.).
References
Adler, J.H. 2002. The precautionary principle’s challenge to progress. In Global warming and other eco-myths: How the environmental movement uses false science to scare us to death, ed. R. Bailey, 265–291. Roseville: Prima Publishing.
Ahteensuu, M. 2007. Defending the precautionary principle against three criticisms. Trames 11 (61/56): 366–381.
Baum, S.D., and G.S. Wilson. 2014. The ethics of global catastrophic risk from dual-use bioengineering. EBEM 4 (1): 59–72.
Caribou Biosciences. 2015. Caribou Biosciences and DuPont announce strategic alliance. Caribou Biosciences. http://cariboubio.com/in-the-news/press-releases/caribou-biosciences-and-dupont-announce-strategic-alliance. Accessed 10 May 2016.
Carlson, R. 2011. Biology is technology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Crutzen, P.J. 2002. Geology of mankind: The Anthropocene. Nature 415 (23): 23.
Doudna, J.A. 2015. Genome-editing revolution: My whirlwind year with CRISPR. Nature 528 (7583): 469–471.
Dyson, F.J. 2003. Why the future needs us! New York Times Review of Books. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2003/02/13/the-future-needs-us/. Accessed 16 May 2016.
———. 2007. A many-colored glass: Reflections on the place of life in the universe. Charlottesville: The University of Virginia Press.
———. 2008. The question of global warming. New York Review of Books. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2008/06/12/the-question-of-global-warming/. Accessed 2 May 2016.
Einstein, A. 1954. Ideas and opinions. New York: Broadway Books.
Food and Drug Administration. Public health security and bioterrorism preparedness and response act of 2002. FDA. https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/FoodDefense/ucm111086.htm. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.
Hogue, M. 2007. Theological ethics and technological culture: A biocultural approach. Zygon 42 (1): 77–95.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, summary for policy makers. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2017.
Jonas, H. 1979. Toward a philosophy of technology. Hastings Center Report 9 (1): 34–43.
———. 1985. The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Joy, B. 2000. Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired. https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/. Accessed May 2016.
Ladford, H. 2016. CRISPR: Gene editing is just the beginning. Nature 531: 156–159.
Meadows, D.H., D.L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W.W. Behrens. 1972. Limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.
Mills, J.S. 2003. On liberty and other writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Minteer, B.A., and S.J. Pyne, eds. 2015. After preservation: Saving American nature in the age of humans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reardon, S. 2016. The CRISPR zoo. Nature 531: 160–163.
Schettler, T., and C. Raffensperger. 2004. Why is a precautionary approach needed? In The precautionary principle: Protecting public health, the environment and the future of our children, ed. M. Martuzzi and J.A. Tickner. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Sunstein, C. 2005. Laws of fear, beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tucker, J.B., and R.A. Zilinkas. 2006. The promise and peril of synthetic biology. New Atlantis 12: 25–45.
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. 1972. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. UN. http://www.un-documents.net/unchedec.htm. Accessed 23 Mar 2017.
van Aken, J., and E. Hammond. 2003. Genetic engineering and biological weapons. EMBO Reports 4 (Special Issue): 57–60.
van den Belt, H. 2003. Debating the precautionary principle: “Guilty until proven innocent” or “innocent until proven guilty”? Plant Physiology 132 (3): 1122–1126.
Wohlsen, M. 2011. Biopunk: DIY scientists hack the software of life. New York: Penguin.
Worster, D. 2016. Shrinking the earth: The rise and decline of American abundance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Scott, N.D. (2018). Genetic Engineering, Precautionary Ethics and Responsibility to the Future. In: Food, Genetic Engineering and Philosophy of Technology. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96027-2_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96027-2_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-96025-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-96027-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)