Report Worldwide Cultural Differences
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Worldwide cultural differences in socio-ethical views in relation to biotechnology A report commissioned by the COGEM (Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification) Dr. Henk van den Belt Prof. Dr. Jozef Keulartz April, 2007 This report was commissioned by COGEM. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors. The contents of this publication may in no way be taken to represent the views of COGEM. Dit rapport is in opdracht van de Commissie Genetische Modificatie (COGEM) samengesteld. De meningen die in het rapport worden weergegeven zijn die van de auteurs en weerspiegelen niet noodzakelijkerwijs de mening van de COGEM. 2 Contents Voorwoord/Preface …………………5 Chapter 1 Worldwide cultural differences in socio-ethical views in relation to biotechnology: Overview and summary ……………………..7 Chapter 2 Monsters, boundary work and framing: Biotechnology from an anthropological perspective …………………….27 Chapter 3 Hwang Woo Suk and the Korean stem cell debacle: Scientific fraud, techno-nationalism and the ‘Wild East’ ……………………..47 Chapter 4 East Asia and the “GM Cold War”: The international struggle over precaution, labelling and segregation ………….77 3 4 Voorwoord/Preface Het voorliggende rapport Worldwide Cultural Differences in Socio-Ethical Views in Relation to Biotechnology (Mondiale cultuurverschillen in de ethisch maatschappelijke opvattingen i.v.m. biotechnologie) is samengesteld in opdracht van de Commissie Genetische Modificatie (COGEM). Het is mede bedoeld ter voorbereiding van de nieuwe Trendanalyse Biotechnologie die in 2007 zal worden uitgebracht. De onderzoekswerkzaamheden (voornamelijk ‘desk research’) zijn verricht door dr. Henk van den Belt onder directe supervisie van Prof. dr. Jozef Keulartz. De uitvoering van het project is begeleid door een begeleidingscommissie waarin Prof. dr. Frans Brom, dr. Margaret Sleeboom-Faulkner, ir. Huib de Vriend en dr. Ineke Widdershoven-Heerding zitting hadden. Voor hoofdstuk 3, dat over de Zuid-Koreaanse stamcelaffaire handelt, is commentaar ingewonnen van de kant van dr. Ingrid Schneider en dr. Phillan Joung, een Duitse onderzoekster van Koreaanse afkomst. Beiden hebben zich uitvoerig beziggehouden met de ethische aspecten van embryonaal stamcelonderzoek. Hun commentaar is in de uiteindelijke versie van het hoofdstuk verwerkt. De meningen die in het rapport worden weergegeven zijn die van de auteurs en weerspiegelen niet noodzakelijkerwijs de mening van de COGEM. The present report Worldwide Cultural Differences in Socio-Ethical Views in Relation to Biotechnology has been commissioned by the Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification (COGEM). It is intended to help prepare the new Trend Analysis Biotechnology, which will be published in 2007. The work on this report, mainly desk research, was carried out by dr. Henk van den Belt under direct supervision of Prof. dr. Jozef Keulartz. The implementation of the research project was overseen by a supervisory committee consisting of Prof. dr. Frans Brom, dr. Margaret Sleeboom-Faulkner, ir. Huib de Vriend, and dr. Ineke Widdershoven-Heerding. For chapter 3, which deals with the South Korean stem cell affair, we solicited comments from Dr. Ingrid Schneider and Dr. Phillan Joung, a German researcher of Korean descent. Both are experts on the ethical aspects of embryonic stem cell research. Their comments have been incorporated into the final version of chapter 3. The views expressed in this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the COGEM. 5 6 Chapter 1 Worldwide Cultural Differences in Socio-Ethical Views in Relation to Biotechnology: Overview and summary “Culture is a notoriously slippery concept.” (Jasanoff, 2005a, 22) Introduction In the original tender the aim of the research project reported here was formulated as follows: “Obtaining insight into the significance of global differences in culture for the weighing of utility and risk (proportionality) with regard to applications of biotechnology. The identification of dominant values and how they affect key choices in the process of developing and marketing biotechnological products.” The background for this research question is formed by the remarkable rise of several Asian countries in biotechnological research and the suspicion that these countries may not hold the same views as western countries on the ethical acceptability of developments in biotechnology. Europe and the US, by contrast, are held to share many norms and values, at least with regard to red biotechnology (see COGEM, 2004, p. 25-26). Where global differences in culture are the intended subject of inquiry, it thus seems that the main focus is to be on the differences between Europe and the US on the one hand and Asian countries on the other. Or as the COGEM Achtergrondstudies state: “After all, the cultural differences between Europe and the US on the one hand and Asia on the other are considerable” (ibid.). Answering the research question was far less simple than might seem at first sight. The main underlying reason is that there is strong disagreement, both within and between relevant academic disciplines, about the precise meaning of the concept of culture, the different ways in which ‘cultures’ may be distinguished, the depth and scope of cultural differences, the relative stability or instability of such differences over time and the role played by ‘culture’ as a factor in socio-economic and political affairs. For a proper understanding of the difficulties which confront any attempt to provide a satisfactory answer to our research question, we cannot ignore these varying views. Let us therefore first make a brief tour along some relevant academic disciplines. Academic contests about ‘culture’ In the second half of the twentieth century, cultural anthropology was characterised by a sustained intellectual struggle to free itself from the massive, deterministic and monolithic view of culture that had dominated the previous period. The work of the American cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz is a case in point. When he embarked on his anthropological career, the reigning view in his profession was that ‘culture’ was so diffuse and encompassing that it could offer a readymade explanation for everything people might do, think, say or believe. It was cause and effect simultaneously. Germans were authoritarian, Japanese shame- driven and the Kwakiutl megalomaniac, and they were that way because their culture made them so. It took a lot of time and effort for Geertz to gradually detach himself from this ‘panoptical’ idea of culture. In his view, studying other peoples’ cultures involves gaining some familiarity with the frames of meaning in which they enact their lives and which are embodied in various concrete rituals and everyday practices (Geertz, 1999). In this way the 7 concept of culture can be cut down to size. Other cultural anthropologists also display this same tendency to prune the notion of culture into a more manageable size. This tendency is obviously related to the rejection of essentialistic explanations and to the honest attempt to avoid all eurocentrism and ‘Orientalism’ in contemporary cultural anthropology. Let’s turn now to the study of international relations. In this area, Samuel Huntington’s book The Clash of Civiliations and the Remaking of World Order (1996) has been epoch-making. For many social anthropologists, however, his approach offers precisely an example of how not to go about when one has to probe the significance of cultural differences. Huntington’s thesis is that in the post-Cold War world the main international conflicts will follow cultural fault lines. On the basis of a classification criterion that is not entirely transparent, he distinguishes eight different ‘civilizations’: the western, the Orthodox-Slavic, the Islamic, the Confucian, the Hindu, the Latin-American, the Japanese and the Sub-Saharan African civilization. Thus the world map is partitioned into irreconcilable, sharply demarcated and largely self-enclosed blocks of different cultures or civilizations. According to Huntington, western civilization will be increasingly challenged by the Islamic and the Confucian (‘Sinic’) civilizations. Backed by fast economic growth, East and Southeast Asian countries like South Korea, Cambodia and Vietnam will behave ever more assertively against the West and increasingly side with China because of a shared Confucian heritage which places hierarchical relations above the interests of individualism and pluralism. In Huntington’s view, faith in the universality of democracy and human rights is no more than a western illusion. Neither does he allow much room for the counter tendencies that exist within every religion and culture or properly estimate the interaction and cross-fertilization occurring between different cultures. In fact, he makes people into the prisoners of their own civilization. Critics point to the danger of a self-fulfilling prophecy that may occur when politicians make Huntington’s worldview their own and start to act according to his scenarios. Reportedly, the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his generals have read Huntington’s book with more than normal interest. In economic history and in the comparative history of science and technology a fierce debate is also raging on the significance of the ‘culture’ factor. Here, the parameters are set by Max Weber’s classical study on the relation between the ‘Protestant ethic’ and the rise of modern capitalism in Western Europe and his