For an Ethics of Technology

SPECIAL SECTION

FOR AN ETHICS OF TECHNOLOGY

enetic engineering and other modern intellectual perspective. In this view, science is a technologies have the potential to change A Science process of discovery based on quantitative obser­ the world. They can alter plants, animals, vations rationalized via causal mechanisms to the way human beings are made—the That either prove or disprove a formulated hypothesis. very structures of human life. This news There is no room in this process for human emo­ Gis not necessarily good, however. Given what his­ tion Ane\ no need to address philosophical and tory reveals to be a chronic myopia when predict­ Violates the ethical questions. This scientific perspective ing the negative consequences of scientific and represses a broader way of understanding reality, technological change, the idea of humans remak­ which scientists and philosophers historically ing the world may strike some people as frighten­ Established experienced with a certain awe and reverence. ing. Awe and reverence, as it happens, tend to ground Because of these fears, establishing limits to a respect for nature and provide the starting point technological Intervention has become a fust- Order of of an ethics of limits —an ethics that would order priority. The idea of relying on individual encourage science and technology while, at the human freedom and creativity alone no longer Reality same time, restraining scientific and technological makes any sense. Freedom and creativity are interventions that could radically alter or even important. But if they are the sole considerations destroy the awesome order of reality that is the guiding decisions about the direction of today's Could Prove source of both science anci ethics. technology, we are in grave danger. Human beings are unique in their ability to understand the order inherent in reality. Al­ SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY To Be though contemporary culture tends to see science The notion of an "ethics of limits" is a very diffi­ as the most important vehicle for human under cult concept for Americans—especially American Disastrous standing, it is, in fact, just one among many vehi­ scientists—to accept. Scientists typically insist on cles. Truly great scientists show that their under­ freedom from interference with their work in standing of reality transcends the coldly rational­ both pure science and its application to the BY JAMES F. istic. Such people become personally immersed in world. The idea of imposing limits on their work DRANE, PhD the reality with which they work. They exhibit in would be a tough sell. their work what could be described as an Many scientists today operate from a particular indwelling: an immersion in the reality with which they work. Their relationship with cosmol­ ogy or biology could, in some instances, be described as reverential, perhaps even mystical. Dr. Drane is Russell B. Roth But this dimension of science tends to be lost Professor of Bioetbies, P.dinboro for many of today's scientists. They seem inca­ University of Pennsylvania, pable of moving beyond the more banal tasks of Edinboro, PA. He is currently observing and measuring narrow aspects of the nt work on a book-length ver­ whole. These gatherers and counters of data con­ sion of the argument presented sider themselves scientists in the full sense of the here, Toward a More Humane Medicine: A Cath­ term. Indeed, they hold themselves up as models olic Bioethies. of what science means. And vet they ignore an

30 • JANUARY - FEBRUARY 2002 HEALTH PROGRESS SPECIAL SECTION

l^\/ important aspect of their discipline: that is, the ate the use of their technological instruments. awe and the indwelling experienced by great sci­ Science and technology must, like other human entific geniuses. In doing so, they ignore the endeavors, be bound by ethical constraints. important distinction made by Francis Bacon Scientists and engineers can no more do whatever between "fact gatherers" and real scientists.1 they like than popes or presidents can. All human The great scientific geniuses were truly creative. activity has a moral dimension and is subject to They were tuned into the inner rationality .md moral constraints. Evil is possible. Ethics attempts established order of the universe and dwelt within to identify the evil .\nd to establish the constraints. it. They identified personally with what they were In doing so, it neither undermines science nor trying to understand. Their attitudes, intuitions, unnecessarily restrains technology. Required feelings, and aesthetic sensitivities were as much courses in the philosophy ind ethics of science are involved in their science as counting and fact gath­ appropriate for even' graduate program in science. ering* Their science involved their whole person, Yes, scientists must be free and allowed to be not just a capacity lor cold objectification.' creative. But they should also take into considera­ tion the fact that freedom and creativity derive THE NEED FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL LIMITS from respect for the broad rational order of reali­ Main of the intelligentsia just a generation ago ty itself. The great scientists have shown this were convinced that communism would eliminate respect and acted responsibly. Mediocre scientists human poverty and that penicillin would elimi­ (and worse) are the problem because they now nate infectious disease. We know what happened have access to powerful technological instru­ under communism—it extended the poverty it ments. In today's world, seemingly small techno­ claimed to eliminate. Antibiotics have failed to logical interventions can suddenly blossom into eradicate infectious disease, .md, what is worse, enormous disruptions. Such disruptions could their misuse has created dangerous resistant bac­ destroy the very conditions for life. terial strains. These (acts should make us think Consider, as an example, the highly publicized about untoward consequences, about the possi issue of genetically altered corn and the monarch bility of disaster—and about establishing ethical butterfly. The use of genetic technology to alter limits to technological interventions. basic foods—corn, wheat, and rice-has become Some contemporary scientists, shaped by a per­ common in recent years. The developers of this spective that emphasizes willpower and creativity, technology naturally claim that it is safe. are likely to interact with reality in a destructive Unfortunately, the dangers involved in altering wax. Because they have no personal regard for the basic crops may not become evident until the objects ot their study, they tend to intervene in alterations are beyond remedy. Genetically nature with hammer and tongs. Having done altered corn, which has proliferated widely, that, they may presume to reorganize the pieces appeared to produce pollen containing a natural according to their "creative instincts." They can insecticide that kills monarch butterfly caterpil­ remain narrowly focused because they have no lars. The natural structure of farming and food personal sensitivity for the broader order of production is delicate, indeed fragile. Another things. They can do brazen things to the natural genetically altered crop might conceivably wreck, world because they do not care about it personal­ not a population of butterflies, but some critical ly. Indeed, they may be more interested in fame component of the human food chain itself. md fortune than anything else. The experience of Genetically altered crops are not the only awe—which puts the importance of ,\n individual potential threat to continued human existence. in perspective—has been lost to such people. The Any number of new technologies generated by coherence and rationality of the larger reality contemporary science ,\nd engineering can create escape their notice .\nd concern. Nothing about instruments of mass destruction. Frightful evil is that broader cosmic reality might cause such peo­ not just what terrorists or rogue governments can ple to modify their personal ambitions or moder- do. Now even ordinary laboratory scientists and technicians can cause widespread destruction. * Albert Einstein was an example of the kind of scientist (The recent anthrax incident may have been the who has a broad, creative, almost mystical involvement work of a single laboratory scientist. I with his subject matter. TThis point was developed by Michael Polanyi, a great IDENTIFYING A BASIC ETHICAL PRINCIPLE FOR LIMITS scientist who, late in life, became a philosopher of sci­ How can science, so dependent on creativity and ence. See Polanyi. Personal Knowledge, University of freedom, be made subject to limits without Chicago Press. Chicago. 1962. undermining science itself?

HEALTH PROGRESS JANUARY - FEBRUARY 2002 • 31 SPECIAL SECTION

The ancient Greek philosophers distinguished olution in science MU\ technology, was radically between two levels of reality: ananke (fate), over optimistic. Nothing is impossible, thought the which human beings have no power; M\C\ techne, philosophers of the Enlightenment. Illness and all which is open to human intervention. Techne is other forms of human unhappiness would soon also the root of our English word technology, be eliminated. Reason was still important, as long which roughly means a system or set of skills for as it served will and freedom. In our own time, making changes. The ancient Greeks, a creative some scientists have come to see themselves as people, had an enthusiasm for changing things cocreators-God's partners, as it were, in the cre­ whenever possible. Aristotle could be said to have ation of reality. launched the quest for an ethics of technology, Stem cell research is (along with cloningi prob­ and he did so from what in Latin is referred to as ably the best-known Contemporary example of Recta ratio f'actibilium ("What reason requires what might be called "cocrcativc science." Such with regard to those things which we are able to research is performed, of course, on human w J do ). For him, what regulates the making of embryos. Cocreative scientists argue that the things is the practical intellect, or practical rea­ study of stem cells will reveal important insights son. into the basic biology of human beings, ultimate "Reason" was the key word for Aristotle. ly leading to breakthrough therapy for devastat­ Reason, he believed, can show us not only what ing diseases. we are able to do to reality, or nature (the Greek Genetic The point is that genetic engineering, cloning, word for which is physis), but also what we and other technologies now make possible radical should not try to do. Reason, in other words, can engineering, alterations in the natural world. Without limits of indicate the limits of technology. Reason reveals some sort, such alterations seem certain to lead to us humans the positive and negative obliga­ cloning, and sooner or later to disaster. How, then, should we tions we bear toward the reality that surrounds us go about setting limits? and with which we interact. Ethical technology is other production under the guidance of reason. SETTING DEFENSIBLE LIMITS Christianity essentially adopted Aristotle's view Giving priority to an ethical perspective that of the relationship between science and nature. technologies requires, as the starting point and the reigning The early Christians held that nature, being value, a respect for the established order makes God's creation, is just what God meant it to be. make possible sense. Such a perspective does not eliminate a Nature, or physis, is therefore the foundation of role for human will and crcativ iiv. It also does not morality. Insofar as technology imitates nature, radical guarantee that technology-induced disaster will helps it, or corrects its occasional malfunctions, not occur anyway. Still, this perspective would tilt then it is ethically right. Insofar as technology alterations in scientific and technological decision making away destroys, subverts, or inhibits nature, it is ethical­ from disaster. ly wrong. Medieval Christian thinkers prized the natural Of course, a perspective based on respect for Aristotle's aphorism: "If one way be better than the natural order will not automatically produce 3 another, you may be sure it is Nature's way." world. ethically defensible limits. To prevail, it must rest St. Thomas Aquinas, who built his arguments on persuasive argument from experts in science on Aristotelian logic, believed that humans were and technology, philosophy, law, and religion. closest to God in their ability to reason.' How­ In any advanced culture, religious or secular, ever, in the 14th century two Catholic scholars, limitations on liberty must be justified. Religious John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, cultures root such limits in a sense of a "created" argued that humans are most godlike in our abili­ order, which serves as the ultimate ground of eth­ ty to act freely/ They held that we behave morally ical decision making. For such cultures, the world not when we understand .md imitate nature but, as a created order is a good in itself. It is not the rather, when we use our wills to dominate it. ultimate good but nevertheless a real and objec­ Intellectus, si est causa voluntatis, est causa sub­ tive good. Despite its fallen-ness, the world seen servient voluntatis as Duns Scotus put it from a Judeo-Christian, "Natural Law" perspec­ ("Intelligence, in effect, serves the will and is sub tive retains order mc\ goodness. It displays a har­ ordinate to freedom'"). mony, beauty, and intelligibility that call for This change in perspective brought with it a respect, and it provides a vantage point from completely different ethics. Technology, which which ethical reflection can begin. In such a was formerly justified by its imitation of reality, world, basic ethical principles i freedom, justice, now is justified by its domination of reality. This love, wisdom, dignity, M~\L\ others) are grounded view, underlying the 17th- and 18th-century rev- in the established order. Technological interven-

32 • JANUARY - FEBRUARY 2002 HEALTH PROGRESS SPECIAL SECTION

V tions and alterations are justified as long as they temporary culture that some people—including do not threaten that order. some research scientists .md physicians—assume Secular cultures also put restrictions on lice that there is no such basic principle. Like certain dom and creativity. The late Isaiah Berlin, a polit­ fundamentalists, they simply take their personal ical philosopher who championed liberty ,\nd assumptions for the truth. Many intellectuals will democracy, argued that "it is at times justifiable be immediately uncomfortable the moment they to coerce men in the name of some goal (e.g., hear ethical limits proposed. The idea that, absent justice or public health I which they would, if they such limits, technology could lead humankind to were more enlightened themselves, pursue but do disaster is likely to strike them as science fiction. not because they are blind or ignorant or cor­ And they may be right. Rut they should con­ rupt."" Berlin recognized the need for limits on sider, for example, an article published a few years liberty because, he saw, the world and human life ago in a well-known scientific journal. The article, are doomed without them. Preserving lite is a by Marvin I.. Minsky, an Mil' professor who spe­ rational, objective good, he held-mcaning by that cializes in artificial intelligence, was entitled "Will a value similar to what Catholic moralists would Robots Inherit the Earth?" Yes, was Minsky's derive from Natural Law. answer. As presently constructed, human beings Religious and secular thinkers alike can see in are too short-lived, fragile, and unintelligent to the world's order the moral foundation for set truly flourish, he maintained. We must increas­ ting ethical limits. Allowing scientists to use ingly look to technology to augment our physical today's powerful technologies to do whatever and mental abilities. "Eventually we will replace they wish would be wildly irrational. Employing Whcrcvera our brains—using nanotechnology. Once deliv­ human liberty to destroy human life makes no ered from the limitations ot biology, we will be sense at all. Indeed, liberty makes sense only in technology able to decide the length of our lives—with the the context of life on earth. Because this is so, option of immortality—and choose among other, continued life in a sustaining world is the moral threatens the unimagined capabilities as well."" foundation from which we should make judg­ As Minsky sees it, human beings are badly ments about specific technological interventions. designed-hut, fortunately, that design can be Whatever puts the world and human life at risk established changed. The idea of using technology to alter is rationally absurd and morally indefensible. the structure of human life is perfectly acceptable Roth religious people (who believe that God ere order of life, it to hun. Minsky sets aside both ethical considera­ ated the earth Mid life upon it) and secular people tions .\\-\d worn about ominous possibilities. He (who see reality as the product of chance) e.\n becomes focuses solely on his interests md his view of sci­ defend this position. Although they give it differ­ entific "progress." ent names, they share a basic respect for the morally However, we can move this discussion from established order and oppose any use of technol­ the research laboratory to a more familiar hospital ogy that might threaten that order. unacceptable. setting. Wherever a technology threatens the Not that the established order is perfect. It established order of life, it becomes morally unac­ includes, along with its beautiful aspects, ugly ceptable. In many hospitals today, life-support ones: pollutants, cancers, and war. Human technology is used to keep alive patients suffering beings can and should use technology to advance from degenerative, incurable illnesses and for the beautiful and the good and reduce the evil whom death is imminent and irreversible. Such and the ugly. Rut technological capacity must be uses of technology are wrong. Technology used exercised with great care. Otherwise, in trying to to cure illness and improve quality of life is good. advance good and reduce evil, humans may do Technology used to prolong death is bad. Order the ultimate evil and destroy everything. exists in human life, and death and dying are part We weed a widely accepted ethical basis for lim­ of that order. Violating the order, or failing to iting technological expressions of freedom .\\\d respect it, crosses the moral line. creativity. Respect for the established order is as close as secular and religious thinkers can come to SCIENCE AND SIN agreeing on a primary moral principle, one from Science and technology raise difficult ethical which further ethical reflection can proceed M\d issues. Only after they had built the atomic particular decisions concerning technological bomb-after the first ones were dropped on interventions can be made. Japan and in the midst of a nuclear arms race that Not everyone will accept this basic moral abso­ threatened the future of humanity—did some of lute, however. Mechanistic, reductionist, ,\\\d its creators admit that "physicists have known materialist assumptions are so pervasive in con- Continued on pajjc 52

HEALTH PROGRESS JANUARY - FEBRUARY 2002 • 33 FOR AN ETHICS OF TECHNOLOGY Continued fro'" pqge 33 EDUCATIONAL EVENTS sin."" They had finally come to sec Coiiiinjj Soon from CHA that their technology had caused enormous evil and little good. They recognized that they had crossed a For information on specific programs, contact the person listed at the {.-\K\ of the moral line. program description or visit CFLVs website at www.chausa.org. Trying to think through the task of" establishing limits to technology will APRIL be complicated Mtd arduous. But we cannot afford to shrink from it. And ESD THE PROPHETIC VOICE: ANSWERING THE CALL TO MISSION LEADERSHIP we can take some comfort from com­ St. Louis ing to agreement, across wide ideo­ Professional mission leadership is vital to the future of the Catholic health min­ logical chasms, on .m ethical starting istry. The mission leader is central to the life of the organization, challenging, point and ,\n agreed upon ethical teaching, and ensuring that services are motivated by and permeated with the principle. D message of Jesus. Based on the competencies critical to the mission leader role, this program for persons new to mission leadership focuses on various dimen­ sions of mission integration and balances theory with practical application.

NOTES Program Director: Regina i\l. Clifton Program Contact: Sr. Man- Fran Flynn, SSND, at 314-253-3417 1. Francis Bacon refers to this distinction throughout his major work, Novum or [email protected] Organum (see The New Organon, and Related Writings, Bobbs-Merrill, NOTE: This program was postponed from September 2001. Indianapolis, 1984). Real science, he argues, does more than collect facts. Fact collection can end in ignorance. Bacon's method provides a direction, MAY first, for experiment and, ultimately, for real knowledge. He rejects empiricism I LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE FOR NEW SPONSORS ("fact gathering") at one extreme and Chicago/Northbrook, II. rationalism at the other. Explore the theological roots of Sponsorship as ministry; understand .\\u\ apply 2. Aristotle. 77ie Nicomachean Ethics: Book the distinction in sponsor responsibilities between governance and sponsorship VI. Martin Ostuald. trans.. Bobbs-Merrill. Indianapolis. 1962. p. 154. and between sponsorship, governance, and management; deepen an under­ 3. Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics: Book standing of the sponsor's unique responsibilities for the Ethical and Religions V, p. 131. Directives for Catholic Health Care Servicer, sharpen understanding and 4. Thomas Aquinas. Suinma Theologica, I, application of canonical principles to health care ministn'; appreciate some of II, 94, 3:21. lc. the environmental forces affecting the ministn' of health care; and network 5. John Duns Scotus, Opus Oxoniense, III, 19: William of Ockham. Quodlibeta, III, with other individuals new to the sponsorship role. 9,13. Program Contact. Linda Raneyat [email protected] 6. Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty: Inaugural Lecture as Chicherle NOTE: This program was postponed from September 2001. Professor of Social and Political Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford. England. 1969. p. 132. AUGUST 7. Marvin L. Minsky. "Will Robots Inherit the Earth?" Scientific American, October I CATHOLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION-CATHOLIC CHARITIES JOINT MEETING 1994. p. 271. The complete article, with what the author describes as minor revi­ Chicago sions, can also be found at www.ai. Catholic Health Association-Catholic Charities USA joint meeting to celebrate mit.edu/people/minsky/papers/sciam. the 275th anniversary of the common founding of Catholic health care and inherit.html social service ministries. The joint meeting will start at approximately 1 p.m. 8. J. Robert Oppenheimer said, "In some on Saturday, August 3 and conclude at noon on Monday. August 5. CHA's sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humour, no overstatement can quite abbreviated

52 • JANUARY - FEBRUARY 2002 HEALTH PROGRESS