Ideas About Naturalness in Public and Political Debates About Science, Technology and Medicine
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ideas about naturalness in public and political debates about science, technology and medicine ANALYSIS PAPER November 2015 Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. 4 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 5 1. Approach and method ..................................................................................................... 10 2. Ideas about naturalness .................................................................................................. 14 2.1 Associating value with naturalness ............................................................................ 14 2.2 Different language used to express ideas about naturalness ..................................... 17 2.3 Natural versus unnatural ............................................................................................ 18 2.4 The challenge of distinguishing between the natural and unnatural ........................... 20 2.5 Different meanings to different people ....................................................................... 22 2.6 Changes to meaning over time .................................................................................. 26 2.7 Speaking at cross-purposes ...................................................................................... 29 3. The role of naturalness in debates about science, technology and medicine .................. 30 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 30 3.2 Media ........................................................................................................................ 33 3.3 Parliament and policy ................................................................................................ 36 3.4 Civil society organisations.......................................................................................... 39 3.5 Science organisations ................................................................................................ 42 3.6 Commercial sector ..................................................................................................... 46 4. Accounts of naturalness .................................................................................................. 53 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 53 4.2 Neutral/sceptical ........................................................................................................ 55 4.3 Wisdom of nature ...................................................................................................... 58 4.4 Natural purpose ......................................................................................................... 78 4.5 Disgust and monstrosity ............................................................................................ 88 4.6 God and religious belief ............................................................................................. 95 5. Conclusions and recommendations .............................................................................. 105 1 Foreword This year ideas about naturalness seem to be everywhere: “How dare you refer to my beautiful children as ‘synthetic’?” tweeted Elton John in March 2015 in an argument with Dolce and Gabbana. Bishop Keenan of Paisley argued that a technique to prevent mitochondrial DNA disorders “distorts the natural process of fertility” when it was being debated in Parliament in February. The concept often arises in debates about the ethics of science and medicine. You only have to look at the discussion around genetic modification, cloning, assisted reproduction and food and farming, for example, to see how widespread this rhetorical device has become. And food and drink manufacturers are forever promoting their products by claiming they are natural and better or healthier than synthetic ones. In some cases – such as genetic modification – ideas of unnaturalness may be used to argue against the use of new technologies. In others – such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis of embryos – the recourse to what would already exist in nature may be deployed in support of novel medical techniques. With a myriad of ‘unnatural’ scientific advances on the horizon, it was time for us to explore how public and political debates are affected by ideas about naturalness. Not least because if people say that something should or should not be done on the basis of their ideas about naturalness or unnaturalness, that can have a major impact on the development and uptake of technologies, and on our society and culture more widely. In an attempt to create a window into recent public and political debates where ideas about naturalness have been deployed, we analysed media articles, Parliamentary debates, research on the views of the public, and the work of relevant organisations (including ourselves). We consulted both people professionally engaged in public and political debate, such as journalists, scientists and campaigners, and people who previously had little reason to give the issue any thought. This work has provided us with, we believe, some unique insights. Two findings stand out for me. The first is that there are noticeable differences between the ways the idea of naturalness is invoked by scientific organisations compared to the other groups we looked at. The second is that the terms natural, unnatural and nature are often used as placeholders for a range of different values or concerns that are meaningful and important to people. As a consequence, there is danger that when we discuss novel science and technology using these terms we are not fully understanding one other and so fail to make progress in debating these difficult issues. We offer here a description and analysis of the way these ideas are used in public discourse, to aid our mutual understanding and to enable more constructive debate – beyond the surface rhetoric – about issues that speak to our deepest values and beliefs. On behalf of the Steering Group I should like to add our thanks to three people in particular at the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Secretariat who have put such time and effort into the project: Catherine Joynson, Programme Manager, who directed it; 2 Anna Wilkinson, Programme Officer, who did the bulk of the research and writing; and Tom Burton, Temporary Researcher, who helped carry out the reviews of media and Parliamentary sources and research on public perspectives on naturalness. Roland Jackson Chair of the Steering Group 3 Acknowledgments Many people have contributed to this project. We would like to thank Dr Anna Smajdor of the University of East Anglia, who wrote the Council’s background paper on naturalness which comprehensively set out the relevant issues and helped to shape the Steering Group’s approach to the project. We are indebted to Professor Tim Lewens of the University of Cambridge and Dr Darian Meacham of the University of the West of England who have provided invaluable guidance, advice and feedback on the research and drafting involved in preparing this paper, for which we are very grateful. We also thank Dr Ken Taylor of Newcastle University who provided useful input on methodological aspects of the review of media, Parliamentary, civil society and science sources. We would also like to thank those who took part in our expert and non-expert meetings held in September and October 2015, respectively. Discussions at these meetings were important in shaping the Steering Group’s thinking on the topic and in formulating our recommendations. The project was greatly enriched by the contribution of our resident poet Kayo Chingonyi and by the three winners of, and over 150 entrants to, the Council’s Naturalness poetry competition. 4 Summary Ideas about naturalness can inform or underlie people’s opinions about science, technology and medicine. Views about what is natural or unnatural may influence the degree to which technologies aiming to treat disease, aid fertility or support food production, for example, are embraced or opposed. Over the past nine months, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics has explored different ideas about naturalness and identified some of the ways that these feature in and affect public discussions about the ethics of science, technology, and medicine. The outcomes of our work are presented in this paper. We conclude with recommendations for those involved in public debate that aim to improve communication and understanding between people with different views about naturalness. Approach and method Evidence on the ways that ideas about naturalness feature in public debates was collected in seven ways: 1. A review of how the terms natural, unnatural and nature have been used in media articles, Parliamentary debates, and the reports of civil society and science organisations from the last 20 years. 2. A short summary of how the terms natural and nature are used and regulated in the commercial sector. 3. A literature review of research into public perspectives on nature and naturalness published in the past 15 years. 4. A review of how the concept of naturalness has been used and discussed within