psychological and ethical perspectives on gene …...psychological and ethical perspectives on gene...
TRANSCRIPT
Psychological and ethical perspectives on gene editing
LAND & WATER
Dr Aditi Mankad| Senior Research Scientist, Team Leader (Agricultural Innovation & Biosecurity), AUSS
Dr Lucy Carter| Research Scientist, Adaptive & Urban Social Systems (AUSS) CSIRO L&W
29 November 2017
What do we mean when we say “psychological”?
Presentation title | Presenter name
AttitudesPerceptions
CognitionsSocial
comparison
Social
interaction
Emotions
2 |
What are “new technologies”?
• Integral to the social environment; embedded
• Does the public have a right to comment on scientific invention?
Presentation title | Presenter name3 |
• “Disruptive” tech challenges the status quo: world views, habits, morals, natural order
• Some technologies may deliver benefits, may also introduce new risks
Public Acceptance
• Acceptance is not a single outcome, nota “license”
• Social expectations, messaging and framing matter
• Acceptance needs to be considered in context
• Not everyone thinks the same; most people don’t think like us!
Presentation title | Presenter name4 |
Public Acceptance
Risk perception Threat perception Trust Efficacy Fairness
Social norms Perceived control Emotions OTHER
Ethical and social debates about
biotechnologies
Typically comprise two themes:
1. Public engagement; social acceptance; ‘social licence to operate’
2. Regulatory approval
For the purpose of:
3. Increasing adoption/uptake or;
4. Decreasing opposition to technology.
Ethical and social considerations relating to novel biotechnologies encompass MUCH more than this…
What ‘ethics’ is… and what it’s not
There are multiple ethical approaches used in ethical decision-making.
Ethical issues can be viewed from different lens and at a range of scales (institutional, policy, research, sectoral, etc.)
“The goal for ethics is not to decide what’s right or wrong, it’s to analyse the strengths of the claims put forward…”
‘Morals’ and ‘ethics’ are not the same.
Image courtesy of the Ethical Journalism Network
Pragmatic approach to ethics
Acknowledges some applications of science are objectionable to some sectors of the community whose deeply-felt concerns should not be overlooked.
Recognition that both proponents & opponents have vested interests in the regulation of GM.
Focus on applications with socially desirable goals –public good research
In-practice versus in-principle claims
• Fundamental moral objections
– Intrinsic concerns based on ‘absolute’ standards
– “Playing God” objections
– Claims about GM being an “unnatural” process
• Concerns about impacts, known, unknown and assumed
– Risks and benefits, potential impacts (+ and -)
– Harms (to people, animals and the environment)
In-practice concerns
Consequences of technology
Risks and benefits
Harms to people,
environment
Potential Impacts
In-principle concerns
Intrinsic objections
Playing God objections
‘Unresolvable’Based on absolute
standards
Objections based on
naturalness
Ethics of GM debate in 2007….
Ethics of GM debate in 2017…
Public participation
in science
Deeper and broader models of engagement
Real-world applications to meet socially
desirable goals
Science integrationMultiple scales of
governance
Role of trust in science
and government
Responsible conduct of
science
Effective partnering and learning
Systems approaches to decision-
making
Lessons from the past decade
• Overstating the benefits of GM technology; exaggerating the risks;
• Isolating discussions about GM from other wider agricultural debates: one tool among many
• Making broad assumptions about impacts (GM applications are context-specific)
• Dismissing community concerns as irrational, irrelevant or illegitimate
Land & WaterLucy CarterResearch Scientist, AUSS
t +61 2 9123 4567e [email protected] www.csiro.au/lorem
Land & WaterAditi MankadSnr Research Scientist, AUSS
t +61 2 9123 4567e [email protected] www.csiro.au/lorem
ADD BUSINESS UNIT/FLAGSHIP NAME
Thank you