Page URL:

Biotechnology, choice and the public good

7 January 2013
By Dr Peter Mills
Assistant Director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Appeared in BioNews 687

How valuable are emerging biotechnologies? Of all the questions about the prospects of the life sciences, this is the one that UK policy makers seem most eager to answer.

The exact quantification is no doubt imponderable but there is nevertheless an assumption that the final answer will be of prodigious magnitude and can be given in economic terms. Look at almost any recent strategy or document from a government department, research council, agency or institute concerned with civil research and innovation in the life sciences and you will find the link between domestic research and national economic growth made explicitly, in bold text, front and centre. Biotechnology research is increasingly presented to the world in terms of its anticipated contribution to economic growth. Important choices that determine what biotechnologies are researched, and which ones emerge, are framed in this way too.

The influence of this mode of thinking can also be detected, in different ways, in systems such as those that govern academic research project funding and those that govern the support for universities more generally, through the Research Excellence Framework. It is inevitably dominant, although increasingly unalloyed by other considerations, in commercial research settings. Whether reluctantly or fatalistically, life sciences researchers are obliged to play along. We have become inured to the rhetoric of impact, and especially of economic impact.

How decisions are 'framed' is a key concern in the new Nuffield Council on Bioethics report, 'Emerging Biotechnologies: technology, choice and the public good' (1). This refers to both the context in which novel biotechnologies are represented and how the available possibilities are constrained in practice. Thus, cell reconstruction to avoid mitochondrial disease – to take the subject of the previous Nuffield Council report (2) – might be represented as an early therapeutic intervention, on the one hand, or as germline genetic engineering, on the other. Socially, its meaning is ambiguous. But how this ambiguity is resolved may affect the funding it receives, how it is regulated and whether its use is publicly accepted.

How we think and talk about emerging biotechnologies, and the kinds of values we draw on, constrain the possible outcomes of decisions and, in turn, the kinds of technologies we get. But elective conditions such as funding, regulation and acceptance are facilitating rather than determining conditions. We know that the emergence of genuinely new biotechnologies rarely follows a predictable or linear path. There are always uncertainties and hidden constraints to be addressed. Even relatively well-established industries such as the pharmaceutical sector, which provide a template for the assumptions that underlie much research policy, are struggling to generate value from research investment, despite the favourable alignment of conditions.

This just serves to cast in a harsher light the conclusion that economic arguments for supporting research may not be well-founded. Take the ubiquitous – because frequently recycled – estimate that the global synthetic biology industry will be worth $100 billion by 2020, with the UK assuming an entitlement to about 10 percent of that. As the Nuffield report suggests, if this is to be the case, one would expect all the research and most of the development to already have been done.

To make such an observation is not 'anti-science'. It is a plea for more science, certainly a more diverse research portfolio, and more rigorous reasoning, but also for other kinds of thought to be applied to research policy. Life sciences research is about more than economic growth and shareholder value. According to the Nuffield report, a more sophisticated way of appreciating the diversity of values that are relevant to emerging biotechnologies is needed. But this must be coupled with the cultivation of mechanisms and behaviours that bring these values into play in determining the conditions that shape and select biotechnologies.

Developing a discourse that mediates diverse values and cultivating opportunities for engagement that can bring it to bear are key elements of what the Nuffield report describes as a 'public ethics'. This is not a project to identify yet another set of values, by which we should be operating as a society, in response to shared threats to health and wellbeing from climate change, resource scarcity and financial crisis. The report explicitly resists such a totalising impulse. It is rather about reconnecting different 'value discourses' when considering potential technological benefits and uncertainties, while setting particular technological choices in the context of wider questions of social priorities. In this way we are compelled to ask not 'how valuable are biotechnologies?' but 'how are biotechnologies valuable?'

The report offers both a stimulus and resource to begin thinking in this way. Over the next few months, the Nuffield Council intends to hold a number of meetings and seminars with key individuals and organisations, to bring together people across disciplinary, professional and public roles, in a model of the kind of 'discourse ethics' we argue for in the report. If you’d like to be involved, the Council would like to hear from you.

1) Emerging biotechnologies: technology, choice and the public good
Nuffield Council on Bioethics |  12/12
2) Novel techniques for the prevention of mitochondrial DNA disorders: an ethical review
Nuffield Council on Bioethics |  06/12
24 November 2014 - by Dr Ross Cloney 
'Everybody has the same damn list.' It was with these words that Peter Farley, one time president of the biotechnology firm, Cetus, described the early days of commercial molecular biology. This race to clone, express and commercialise human genes is the focus of Nicolas Rasmussen's book...
22 July 2013 - by Professor Stephen Wilkinson 
Why are potentially positive developments like mitochondrial replacement therapy and next-generation sequencing greeted with talk of 'designer babies', and is such language justified?
26 November 2012 - by Tom Barrow 
Over recent decades medical technology has advanced with extraordinary rapidity. We have arrived at a time where gamete, organs and stem cells are detached and exchanged between individuals, and where machines replicate the functions of human organs...
8 October 2012 - by Dr Sophie Pryor 
On 25 September 2012 the Progress Educational Trust held a debate on the issues surrounding new techniques to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disease. The event was organised in partnership with City University London's science journalism course and was supported by the Wellcome Trust....
17 September 2012 - by Dr Sophie Pryor 
The UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has launched a public consultation on the social and ethical impact of new methods that could prevent the transmission of some incurable mitochondrial diseases....
18 June 2012 - by Dr Martin Turner and Dr Ian Turner 
By exploring the legislative history and case law of patents both in Europe and the US, Oliver Mills asks why morality has become such a pervasive issue and whether European law in its current state is fit for purpose...
2 April 2012 - by Dr Louisa Petchey 
Synthetic biology, which uses genetic engineering to build new genomes and organisms, has come under attack in a report published by Friends of the Earth and supported by over 100 other 'public interest' groups...
to add a Comment.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions

Syndicate this story - click here to enquire about using this story.