|
Reflections by Charlie Weiner at final session of Tarrytown I
It's been a joy to be here with all of you these past few days, sharing experiences, problems and successes. You've provided testimony, relevant knowledge, context and analysis. We've been learning so much from each other.
Let's sustain it and make it last.
Here are some observations and reflections on what I've seen and heard at this stimulating gathering. The science of optics tells us that what we see depends on the angle of reflection. So these are highlights seen from my perspective as a historian looking at the past-- the past several decades and the past few days.
Why was this conference different from other conferences dealing with the consequences of emerging genetic technologies?
In the 1960s many geneticists throughout the world were concerned with the need to anticipate the possible negative consequences of their work which was opening up prospects for human genetic engineering.
At scientific conferences and at a few public meetings they discussed where and when to draw the line in the applications of their research, often citing the example of the experiences of the atomic physicists. This was before the fact, before recombinant DNA and related genetic manipulation techniques were available. The scientists' concerns were noted by the news media and in the US Congress where a serious study of the issues was proposed in 1968. Several leading biologists began to worry about losing control of the discussion and the possible effects of public "intrusion" on their research choices and funding. They hastened to reassure the public about the benefits of the research in curing dread diseases and argued that it was too early to worry about ethical limits and negative effects. Because of these efforts to reassure, and the absence of immediate problems, the anticipatory concerns were not amplified in regulation or legislation.
In the early 1970s the recombinant DNA techniques were developed, providing great potential for manipulating genes. Scientists in the field did express concern about the implications of the work, but limited it to the possibility of immediate laboratory safety hazards. At the Asilomar Conference in February 1975 they devised a plan to reduce lab biohazards in a system of self-regulation within the context of the government agencies that promoted and funded the research. Applications of the research in human genetic engineering and bioweapons were specifically excluded from discussion at Asilomar. The problems in the new field of genetic manipulation were defined as technical matters of lab safety to be solved by a tech fix. Biologists' enthusiasm for the new research techniques, and their fear of public "over-reaction" and intrusion trumped their 1960s anticipatory discussions about drawing the line in human applications.
[Historical documentation for the above is available on the Tarrytown web site.]
So what's different about Tarrytown I? We've been living with the consequences of decades of genetic engineering and biotechnology and working on a wide range of issues related to them, while anticipating and acting on emerging problems. Participants here bring lots of on-the-ground experience and seek better, alternative ways of creating knowledge and technologies that are based on social justice and community. The participants here are younger and more diverse and, with several notable exceptions, not from the biolabs but from other disciplines, including the one called "social activism."
The context in the 1960s and 1970s was the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the environmental movement, and the anti-war movement. All of these continue in different forms in the present, and others have come to the fore, including the anti-globalization movement, as powerfully documented in the writings of Rebecca Solnit.
Today we experience enduring war from the safety of "the homeland". We live with an almost total commercialization of academic biology, powerful industry lobbies with government blessing, and relatively little media scrutiny. All of this influences the questions scientists ask and the answers they value, as well as the public's awareness of the ethical, social and political strands entwined in the DNA double helix.
The audience for Tarrytown I is initially us. By sharing our experiences and analyses we can strengthen our work so we can more effectively reach those who are affected by biotechnology and who should decide which purposes it should serve , and how to regulate it, and who participates in the regulatory and policy processes.
What's needed?
One of the themes that emerged from the discussions here was the need for education of a variety of publics, as well as working scientists and scientists-in-training, and students at all levels. One of the problems is the mistaken perception of non-scientists that they can't participate in discussions about the social context of the biological sciences because they lack the training to understand what they see as complex, inaccessible, arcane knowledge wrapped in technical jargon. But you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the issues involved in public decisions on the uses and limits of genetic knowledge. Otherwise, we become passive observers rather than participants. The dogma of inevitability encourages passivity and acquiescence and discourages meaningful public involvement. It also inhibits scientists from considering the social implications of their research choices and from speaking out about the uses and abuses of their work.
Much has been made about the need for "scientific literacy" as the ticket for public entry into decision making about the social choices to be made in the development and application of biotechnology and genetic engineering. But democratic decision making also requires that scientists have "public literacy". Information and education is a two way street. There is a woeful lack of knowledge among science students and their mentors about the kinds of information exchanged at Tarrytown. They, and we, need to become more aware of and have ready access to the experiences, studies, writing and thinking of scholars, teachers and activists in the history, politics, anthropology and sociology of the life sciences, including legal and ethical studies.
Several projects could be initiated before the next Tarrytown meeting.
One could focus on "fact finding": e.g. information on risks, harm already done, conflicts of interest, social needs not fulfilled.
Another could be the development of relevant historical studies, including narratives and testimonies of resistance, positive change, victories and lost battles in legislation, referenda, and regulation. Much of this came up in the past few days at Tarrytown I, pointing to the need to systematically elicit testimonies, histories, and analyses of patterns, and to communicate them to each other and to the publics we serve.
We also can takes steps to include more attention at the next Tarrytown meeting to the cultural dimensions of the issues we've dealt with here. Filmmakers, musicians( folk, blues, reggae, jazz, rap), graphic artists, painters, playwrights and poets have made important contributions to major social movements in the past. We can gather information on what's happening in our field, and help to inform, encourage, and amplify it.
Let's find ways to continue to discuss and act on these issues after this meeting—so we can sustain the momentum.
|