In academic circles and the no-nonsense boardrooms of transnational companies, it is acknowledged that bioethical issues are central to the societal controversy generated by recent developments in biotechnology. Human dignity, ownership of life, indigenous rights, animal welfare, the intrinsic value of the environment are all issues that divide society, and link biotechnology to ethics. The question is why has bioethics become so prominent in current public debate?

Although some biotechnologists think that bioethics is a product of the 1990s, it actually has a much longer tradition. As with medical ethics, professional bioethics traces it roots to early ethical codes of conduct such as the Greek Hippocratic oath. This was the first explicit acknowledgement in the 'life sciences' of professional responsibility requiring that physicians should not harm their patients. It was, however, only in the 1960s that bioethics started to move beyond the classical medical ethics issues of doctor patient relationship. At that time bioethics developed into a coherent professional discourse and discipline, encompassing a variety of ethical issues raised by progress in medical science and technology. Moreover, it slowly began to encompass other ethical issues, such as our relationship towards animals and the environment. It is in this broad sense that the term bioethics is currently used, although medical ethicists still like to reserve it for (human) medical ethics alone.

A number of important developments in society and science can be identified as having led to proliferation within bioethics and the continued expansion of its sphere of influence. Bioethical questions could, for example, only be raised in the context of a secularizing world. In Western society the moral crisis that was the consequence of the loss of the Biblical viewpoint as the supreme moral authority, gave rise to an ethical and metaphysical fragmentation that forced society to face and discuss bioethical questions. Much later, in the second half of the last century, an increasing awareness of the vulnerability of fauna and flora further supported the already growing ethical status of non-human animals and the environment. It helped clear the way for the recognition that non-human animals are also worthy of moral consideration for and by themselves, and even that species and ecosystems are deemed morally relevant for their own sake. As a consequence, a broad variety of human practises which traditionally were regarded as 'normal' suddenly became morally questionable and the subject of societal debate. This article however, will focus on the theme of this edition of the Biotechnology and Development Monitor and specifically examine how the dynamics in the relationship between science and society and public perceptions of science have contributed to the present ubiquity of bioethics in public debate.

Dimensions of risk

Scholars in the social sciences have written countless critiques on the claims of science to objectivity and certainty. These critiques have not only dealt with these issues in general. Social science scholars have written extensively on the psychological and social construction of risks, and also on specific issues such as sound science stance on biotechnology risk management. Probably the most influential sociological critique on how risks are generated and handled in industrialized, post-modern societies, has been written by the German sociologist Ulrich Beck. In his book Risk Society he convincingly demonstrates the political nature of risks caused by technologies in post-modern industrialized society. He argues that in our times, the production of wealth ('goods') is systematically accompanied by the production of risks ('bads'). Modern risks, like ecological disasters and nuclear fallout, for example, typically inflict irreversible harm and are only indirectly visible, based on (scientific) causal interpretations. Since the consequences of these risks can have global effects, they render national jurisdictions inadequate and harm even the rich and powerful. They, therefore, also raise the issue of democratic accountability and control since, as Beck puts it, "safety issues are illegitimately decided by the corporations of engineers of our high-risk civilisation, under cover of the empowerment formula - state of science and technology."

Once these 'late modernity' risks and their societal consequences were recognised - which is now the case in Western societies - what was once considered to be apolitical becomes political. Hence, the risks engendered by biotechnology - traditionally approached as if they were an objective, scientific issue - have turned into intense political debate. In Europe this has lead to biosafety policies in which ethical political concepts like the precautionary principle demand that both scientists and regulators apply a new approach - explicitly moral in its influence - to biotechnology risks.

That Beck's analysis is not merely one academic's view of society is repeatedly demonstrated in public opinion polls such as the European Commission's Eurobarometer, which has been regularly surveying public attitudes to biotechnology since the late 1980s. Surveys such as these show that an acceptance of exposure to risks depends on whether an application is considered useful and morally acceptable. Moreover, moral concern acts as a veto regardless of perceptions of risk and use. The conclusion which has been drawn from this is that if risk itself is less significant than moral acceptability in shaping public perceptions, then public concerns are unlikely to be alleviated by technically based assurances and other policy initiatives that deal solely with scientific risks. It is this hard lesson that has finally caused industry, regulators and politicians, to face the fact that the ethical dimension of risk, and ethical issues in general, lie at the root of the societal controversy about biotechnology.

Professional ethics

The persistent societal unease with biotechnology and increasing awareness of the influence ethics exerts on public perceptions has helped the biotechnology community to realise the importance of communicating a concern for responsible 'bioethical' conduct to society. This became all the more critical in the mid 1990s, when for the first time, industry had to convince consumers to support biotechnology by buying its genetically modified harvest. It was at this time that both professional codes for individual biotechnologists, such as the European Federation of Biotechnology's Code of conduct, as well as codes for bioindustry organisations, such as BIO's Statement of Principles, were developed. In professional circles it is not uncommon to 'organize' an ethical position in the form of an, often voluntary, explicit professional code of conduct. These codes traditionally have both internal and external functions. Internally, they provide the means to build a professional ethos, improving the quality of the services delivered to clients. Externally they also serve as a means to build trust with society. They are the 'certificate' that shows that the profession as a whole will act responsibly towards both clients and society.

Opinion surveys in Europe have repeatedly shown that biotechnology suffers from a lack of public trust and acceptance of its products. This is one of the principal reasons why the biotechnology community has recognised the importance of having a professional ethical code.

Often a professional code is also a way for the sector to stay one step ahead of compulsory, and usually more restrictive, codes; namely governmental laws and regulations. This second external function is one of the reasons why such codes have become popular with both industry and regulators. They provide mechanisms for a self-regulation that is less consumptive of time and resources and which is therefore usually preferred by both sides. However general these codes may sometimes be, their consequences are far from trivial. Just the creation of a general ethos can have far-reaching consequences. By formulating such codes the biotechnology community as a whole has acknowledged for the first time that there are more perils to manage in biotechnology than mere technical risks. In doing so, the biotechnology community itself has helped to put bioethics on the public agenda.

It should also be recognized that typically these codes do not restrict themselves to merely stating an ethical respect for patients, animals and environment. They often go further by explicitly acknowledging the fact that biotechnology does indeed raise social issues that requires industry to respect the regulatory ideals of transparency, accountability and public participation. Thus, these codes themselves focus the spotlight on all sorts of socioeconomic and socio-cultural consequences only indirectly tied to science and (bio)technology. It is the types of 'globalization' issue that have evoked the fiercest protests in the streets and have been hardest to put on the agenda of international bodies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

By putting biotechnology in the context of globalisation, the societal debate on biotechnology inevitably had to shift further towards discussing the ethical and social impacts of biotechnology.

The future of bioethics

As the official definition of bioethics formulated by the International Association of Bioethics makes clear, the wider social context within which ethical issues are being increasingly defined, such as globalization, now provides the context for bioethical enquiry. The Association defines bioethics as the study of the ethical, social, legal, philosophical and other related issues arising in healthcare and in the biological sciences. With such a broad and general definition, bioethics and its practitioners are likely to show up anywhere stressing the importance and prominence of their discipline. This broadness, however, is also a cause for concern. Bioethics is vulnerable to the criticism that it is "all talk but no action." The interest of industrial stakeholders in bioethics is largely based on the hope that it can guide society into a bioindustry safe haven where global consumer acceptance of biotechnology prevails. Whether bioethics has this capacity remains to be seen. Both within and between societies radically different appreciations of particular bioethical values can be identified. Taking an autonomy based rather than a community based approach, or a rational reductionist, rather than a spiritual holistic approach to ethics, are just two of the many differences to be found across the North-South and East-West divide. Considering its pluralistic nature, bioethics should perhaps focus more on guiding society to live more peacefully with moral diversity and it is very possible that this will become the dynamic that will drive the discipline forward in our immediate future.

Institute of Evolutionary and Ecological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, The University of Leiden, P.O. Box 9516, NL-2300 RA Leiden, the Netherlands.
Phone (+31) 71 527 4808/5180; Fax (+31) 71 527 4900; E-mail lepaula@rulsfb.leidenuniv.nl and l.e.paula@las.vet.uu.nl

Sources
Beck, U. (1992), Risk society. London, UK: Sage.

Durant J. et al. (eds.) (1998), Biotechnology in the public sphere London, UK: Science Museum.

Jonsen, A.R. (1998), The Birth of Bioethics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.