Ethics and Genetically

1
Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods Gary
Comstock
2
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD

• Food that is genetically modified (GM) derives
  from microorganisms, plants, or animals
  manipulated at the molecular level to have traits
  that farmers or consumers desire.
• Foreign genes are genes that come from sources
  other than the natural parents of a
  microorganism, plant, or animal into which the
  foreign genes are inserted.
• Accordingly, an entity into which foreign genes
  are inserted would not have had them naturally or
  from traditional methods of breeding plants and
  animals.
• Much of the food consumed in the United States
  is genetically modified.

3
Wheatfield with Crows Vincent van Gogh, 1890
4
Carcass of Beef Chaim Soutine, 1926
5
Still Life with Basket of Apples Paul Cézanne,
1890-1894
6
EMPIRICAL AND NORMATIVE CLAIMS

• Comstock says that empirical claims and normative
  claims are relevant to the issue of whether or
  not it is ethically justifiable to modify foods
  genetically.
• Empirical claims are factual assertions about
  how the world is, that are based on the best
  available scientific observations, principles,
  and theories.
• Normative claims are value-laden assertions
  about how the world ought to be, that are
  ideally based on the best available moral
  judgments, principles, and theories.

7
GM FOODS, ETHICS, AND THE LAW

• According to Comstock, there is an objective
  answer to the question of whether or not it is
  ethical to pursue GM crops and foods.
• There is also the issue of whether or not it
  should be legal to allow the growing and
  marketing of GM foods.
• For Comstock, that is for us to decide as voting
  members of a free society.
• To make up our minds about the ethics of GM
  foods we will use feelings, intuitions,
  conscience, and reason.
• However, we must look to science for a factual
  understanding of the matter.

8
SCIENCE AND VALUES I

• Because science is a communal process devoted to
  the discovery of knowledge, and because science
  is devoted to open and honest communication of
  knowledge, to be successful it must rest on two
  different kinds of values epistemological and
  personal.
• Epistemological values are values by which
  scientists determine which knowledge claims are
  better than others.
• Epistemological values include clarity,
  objectivity, capacity to explain a range of
  observations, and ability to generate accurate
  predictions.

9
SCIENCE AND VALUES II

• Scientific claims must be consistent and fit
  with established theories.
• Epistemological values in science also include
  fecundity, that is in this context the ability
  to generate new hypotheses.
• Epistemological values in science also include
  simplicity, that is in this context the
  ability to explain observations with the fewest
  number of additional assumptions or
  qualifications.
• Elegance is also an epistemological value.

10
SCIENCE AND VALUES III

• Personal values are important in science because
  they allow scientists to trust their peers
  knowledge claims.
• Of the utmost important to science are honesty
  and responsibility.
• Comstock If scientists are dishonest,
  untruthful, fraudulent, or excessively
  self-interested, the free flow of accurate
  information so essential to science will be
  thwarted.
• The very institution of scientific discovery is
  supported indeed permeated with values.

11
EXTRINSIC OBJECTIONS TO GM TECHNOLOGY I

• Extrinsic objections to genetically modifying
  food say that GM technology should not be
  pursued because of its anticipated results,
  which it is feared could be disastrous because of
  the use of GM organisms (GMOs).
• Extrinsic objections state that GMOs may have
  disastrous effects on animals, ecosystems, and
  humans.
• For Comstock these concerns are valid, and so GM
  technology must be developed responsibly and with
  appropriate caution.

12
EXTRINSIC OBJECTIONS TO GM TECHNOLOGY II

• Although extrinsic objections to GM technology
  suggest that care and caution are called for, for
  Comstock, they are not enough by themselves to
  justify a moratorium, much less a permanent ban,
  on GM technology, because the harms may be
  minimal and may be outweighed by the benefits.
• How can one decide whether the potential harms
  outweigh the potential benefits unless one
  conducts the research, field tests, and data
  analysis necessary to make a scientifically
  informed assessment?

13
INTRINSIC OBJECTIONS TO GM TECHNOLOGY I

• Intrinsic objections to genetically modifying
  food allege that the process of making GMOs is
  objectionable in itself.
• The central claim of intrinsic objections is the
  unnaturalness objection.
• The unnaturalness objection df. It is
  unnatural to genetically engineer plants,
  animals, and foods. (UE - unnatural
  engineering).

14
INTRINSIC OBJECTIONS TO GM TECHNOLOGY II

• Comstock If UE is true, then we ought not to
  engage in bioengineering, however unfortunate may
  be the consequences of halting technology.
• Were a nation to accept UE as the conclusion of
  a sound argument, then much agricultural research
  would have to be terminated and potentially
  significant benefits from the technology
  sacrificed.

15
DEFENSE OF UE

• Comstock cites four ways in which the
  unnaturalness objection (UE) has been defended.
• 1. To engage in ag biotech is to play God.
• 2. To engage in ag biotech is to invent
  world-changing technology.
• 3. To engage in ag biotech is illegitimately to
  cross species boundaries.
• 4. To engage in ag biotech is to commodify life.

16
PLAYING GOD I

• The objection that, by genetically modifying
  food, we are playing God goes like this
• In a western theological framework, humans are
  creatures, subjects of the Lord of the Universe,
  and it would be impious for them to arrogate to
  themselves roles and powers appropriate only for
  the Creator.
• Shifting genes around between individuals and
  species is taking on a task not appropriate for
  us, subordinate beings. Therefore, to engage in
  bioengineering is to play God.

17
The Ancient of Days William Blake, 1794
18
PLAYING GOD II

• Comstock has several objections to this objection
  to the bioengineering of food.
• What God is and what God wants is subject to
  interpretation. (What would be the case if we
  had universal consensus on what God is and what
  God wants?)
• Perhaps God does not want us to interfere with
  nature, or perhaps God has designed us to reach a
  point where we are able to use science to improve
  things, including our food, and would be upset
  were we not to do so.

19
PLAYING GOD III

• It is also possible that God does not care
  whether we interfere with nature or not.
• Comstock says that, even if a more traditional
  Judeo-Christian view of God is taken where
  finite humans should not aspire to infinite
  knowledge and power, it is not the case that all
  Jews and Christians agree that we should not
  engage in bioengineering.
• This is because God is thought to endorse
  creativity and scientific and technological
  development, including genetic improvement.
• In fact, Baruch Brody has suggested that
  biotechnology may be a vehicle ordained by God
  for the perfection of nature.

20
PLAYING GOD IV

• Although Comstock is suspicious of our ability to
  perfect nature, he is convinced that GM might
  help humans to rectify some of the damage we have
  already done to nature.
• And he thinks that God may endorse such an aim.
• Inquisitiveness in science is part of our
  nature, a nature that, if the traditional J-C
  version of theism is true, is due to God.
• Comstock wonders then why our inquisitive nature
  should not be used scientifically to improve the
  world.

21
INVENTING WORLD-CHANGING TECHNOLOGY I

• The idea here is that changing the world at
  least to the dramatic extent to which it could be
  changed by bioengineering should be left to
  God.
• Previous objections apply here.
• Also, the world-changing power provided by
  bioengineering would mean that humans have a
  historically unprecedented power.

22
INVENTING WORLD-CHANGING TECHNOLOGY II

• But Comstock says that, just because we come to
  have a power to change things that we did not
  previously have does not necessarily mean that
  that power is wrong.
• Comstock it would be counterintuitive to judge
  an action wrong simply because it has never been
  performed.
• More argumentation is needed to call
  historically unprecedented actions morally
  wrong.
• What we need to know is to what extent our new
  powers will transform society.

23
INVENTING WORLD-CHANGING TECHNOLOGY III

• Comstock points out that astonishing
  transformations have happened before in human
  history and with good results.
• For instance, going from a hunter-gatherer
  lifestyle to an agricultural lifestyle eventually
  resulted in civilization itself with its
  complex cultural activities including writing,
  philosophy, government, music, the arts, and
  architecture.
• When we accepted agriculture we arrogated to
  ourselves historically unprecedented powers.
  How do we know that we would not be doing the
  same with bioengineering?

24
ILLEGITIMATELY CROSSING SPECIES BOUNDARIES

• One problem that Comstock identifies here is that
  the boundaries between species are not exact and
  unchanging but generally fluid.
• The argument assumes that species boundaries are
  distinct, rigid, and unchanging, but, in fact,
  species now appear to be messy, plastic, and
  mutable.
• Thus, to proscribe the crossing of species
  borders on the grounds that it is unnatural seems
  scientifically indefensible.

25
COMMODIFYING LIFE I

• Comstock The argument here is that genetic
  engineering treats life in a reductionistic
  manner, reducing living organisms to little more
  than machines.
• The argument further states that life is sacred
  and not to be treated as a good of commercial
  value only to be bought and sold to the highest
  bidder.
• Comstocks problem with this argument is that it
  would seem to rule out ordinary agriculture that
  involves bartering or exchanging crops and
  animals for cash and that every culture on
  earth has engaged in the commodification of life
  for centuries.

26
COMMODIFYING LIFE II

• Comstock If one accepts commercial trafficking
  in non-GM wheat and pigs, then why object to
  commercial trafficking in GM wheat and GM pigs?
• Why should it be wrong to treat DNA the way that
  we have previously treated animals, plants, and
  viruses?
• Although it may be true that to engage in ag
  biotech is to commodify life, it is not a
  sufficient reason to object to GM technology
  because our values and economic institutions have
  long accepted the commodification of life.

27
THE FAILURE OF UE

• Comstock says that we have a strong reason to
  reject a moral rule if it leads to
  counterintuitive results.
• For instance, a naïve version of consequentialism
  that says that we should always act to improve
  the welfare of most people leads to
  counterintuitive results. This is because it
  would suggest that, for instance, one person
  should be sacrificed by taking her organs to save
  six others who need organ transplants to live.
• For Comstock, the unnaturalness objection to GM
  technology fails because the four arguments
  against it that he considers lead, in his view,
  to counterintuitive results.

28
CONCLUDING REMARKS

• Comstock is an example of a thinker who has
  changed his mind about something, in this case
  the ethics of GM technology he used to be
  against it and now he is for it. Three reasons
  that he cites for changing his mind are
• 1. the rights of people in various countries to
  choose to adopt GM technology (a consideration
  falling under the human rights principle)
• 2. the balance of likely benefits over harms to
  consumers and the environment from GM technology
  (a utilitarian consideration)
• 3. the wisdom of encouraging discovery,
  innovation, and careful regulation of GM
  technology.