Moving Life Science Ethics Debates Beyond National Borders: Some Empirical Observations

Abstract

The life sciences are increasingly being called on to produce "socially robust" knowledge that honors the social contract between science and society. This has resulted in the emergence of a number of "broad social issues" that reflect the ethical tensions in these social contracts. These issues are framed in a variety of ways around the world, evidenced by differences in regulations addressing them. It is important to question whether these variations are simply regulatory variations or in fact reflect a contextual approach to ethics that brings into question the existence of a system of "global scientific ethics". Nonetheless, within ethics education for scientists these broad social issues are often presented using this scheme of global ethics due to legacies of science ethics pedagogy. This paper suggests this may present barriers to fostering international discourse between communities of scientists, and may cause difficulties in harmonizing (and transporting) national regulations for the governance of these issues. Reinterpreting these variations according to how the content of ethical principles is attributed by communities is proposed as crucial for developing a robust international discourse. To illustrate this, the paper offers some empirical fieldwork data that considers how the concept of dual-use (as a broad social issue) was discussed within African and UK laboratories. Demonstrating that African scientists reshaped the concept of dual-use according to their own research environmental pressures and ascribed alternative content to the principles that underpin it, suggests that the limitations of a "global scientific ethics" system for these issues cannot be ignored.

Winning the battle against emerging pathogens

“…Scientists therefore receive ethics education that is highly generalizedÑor, if specific, is specific to the research context of a high-income country. These decontextualized ethics initiatives often discuss types of research that are outside the national research remit of low-or middle-income countriesÑand scientists often struggle to see the point in discussing risks that fall outside their frames of reference (Bezuidenhout, 2013). And in low-or middle-income countries, highly visible problems such as poor health care provision may overshadow security concerns, increasing securityÕs apparent irrelevance to the work of scientists.…”