[Not to be reproduced without the permission of the author.]

• It's Time for Ethics to Catch Up With Technology

• Mad Cows and So On: Science Teaches Us to Be Careful

• Don't Wait for More Research on Global Warming

• Stop Dumping Society's Environmental Qualms on Scientists

By Ana M. Soto and Carlos Sonnenschein International Herald Tribune

Wednesday, April 25, 2001

The birth of modern science took place in Europe about four centuries ago. The scientific revolution aimed to understand nature and use that knowledge to the advantage of the patrons who financed the scientific enterprise, usually monarchs.

.

A little over two centuries ago came a revolution in ethics that affected governance. The philosophers of the Enlightenment contested the absolute power of kings over subjects.

.

The scientific revolution brought a dynamic, self-correcting and ever growing body of knowledge, but the ethical revolution has advanced slowly.

.

The pace of ethical social progress is especially slow when it competes with pragmatic economic realities. In contrast, advances in technology spread like wildfire around the planet, creating at each step ethical concerns that are barely articulated before new ones arise.

.

At one end of the spectrum are practices that infringe individual rights. These problems are fairly straightforward, since a system of laws exists with a tradition of dealing with such rights. An example is the use of diagnostic genetic tools to deny health insurance and jobs to people with a genetic predisposition to certain diseases.

.

At the other end of the spectrum are ethical problems in which the sum of our individual behavior results in intolerable consequences for all humankind. An example is the excessive production of greenhouse gasses in the West and particularly the United States.

.

Even civil, law-abiding citizens think that they have the right to driveoil guzzlers when they feel like it and use as much oil and electricity as they please, regardless of the consequences for the rest of the inhabitants of the planet. We have yet to define the ethical principles that bind individuals to the fate of humankind.

.

Our ethics have been good at breaking down problems into smaller components but have not found ways to put things back together. That is, we have yet to master anticipating the consequences of our big innovations. Every time we try to fool nature, we are fooled instead. Perceived short-term personal benefits become of doubtful value in the longer term.

.

Large-scale industrial crop practices of agribusiness in technology-driven countries threaten the survival of vast communities of small farmers in those countries and in the developing world.

.

Use of animal meal to feed herbivores has brought us mad cow disease. In the name of efficiency and lower costs, livestock are frequently kept in such cramped, unhealthy conditions that their meat and their wastes lead to public health hazards. For the most part, laboratory animals live much healthier lives than livestock!

.

The mindless use of antibiotics on humans and domestic animals has fostered the selection of resistant, deadlier strains of pathogens.

.

All these examples of supposed efficiency have had social costs. Now, in the European Union, concerns about the safety of food are affecting local and national elections.

.

As a global society, we are failing to see the interconnectedness of our actions and their consequences for the world in which we live.

.

Galileo, the patron saint of scientists, legitimized our right to search for answers beyond dogma. Less than a century ago the right of scientists to explore any scientific question was practically unlimited.

.

Horrendous crimes perpetrated by Nazi doctors resulted in regulation of human experimentation. Later, regulations were established restricting animal experimentation. Scientists can adapt to society's ethical concerns within their labs.

.

Technology affects humans and wildlife on a global scale. Bill Joy, chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, has called for a moratorium in certain areas of research and technology because of their potential to destroy us all. But is anybody in a position to act on such warnings listening?

.

A consensual system of world ethics has yet to be articulated in a clear-cut and coherent body of principles of dos and don'ts.

.

It is high time to set up a visible, credible worldwide body of democratically elected environmental ethicists committed to viewing technology from the perspective of the long-term survival of humankind. This step should be coupled with a broad educational drive to help all segments of society understand the risks we are all taking.

.

Do humans have the right to alter the world in a way that will make it uninhabitable for them? A civilization in which technological might has improved living standards to the heights enjoyed today in the industrialized countries can afford to safeguard a future for its inhabitants. - The writers, authors of ''The Society of Cells,'' teach at the Tufts University School of Medicine. They contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune. [Not to be reproduced without the permission of the author.]

The birth of modern science took place in Europe about four centuries ago. The scientific revolution aimed to understand nature and use that knowledge to the advantage of the patrons who financed the scientific enterprise, usually monarchs.

.

A little over two centuries ago came a revolution in ethics that affected governance. The philosophers of the Enlightenment contested the absolute power of kings over subjects.

.

The scientific revolution brought a dynamic, self-correcting and ever growing body of knowledge, but the ethical revolution has advanced slowly.

.

The pace of ethical social progress is especially slow when it competes with pragmatic economic realities. In contrast, advances in technology spread like wildfire around the planet, creating at each step ethical concerns that are barely articulated before new ones arise.

.

At one end of the spectrum are practices that infringe individual rights. These problems are fairly straightforward, since a system of laws exists with a tradition of dealing with such rights. An example is the use of diagnostic genetic tools to deny health insurance and jobs to people with a genetic predisposition to certain diseases.

.

At the other end of the spectrum are ethical problems in which the sum of our individual behavior results in intolerable consequences for all humankind. An example is the excessive production of greenhouse gasses in the West and particularly the United States.

.

Even civil, law-abiding citizens think that they have the right to driveoil guzzlers when they feel like it and use as much oil and electricity as they please, regardless of the consequences for the rest of the inhabitants of the planet. We have yet to define the ethical principles that bind individuals to the fate of humankind.

.

Our ethics have been good at breaking down problems into smaller components but have not found ways to put things back together. That is, we have yet to master anticipating the consequences of our big innovations. Every time we try to fool nature, we are fooled instead. Perceived short-term personal benefits become of doubtful value in the longer term.

.

Large-scale industrial crop practices of agribusiness in technology-driven countries threaten the survival of vast communities of small farmers in those countries and in the developing world.

.

Use of animal meal to feed herbivores has brought us mad cow disease. In the name of efficiency and lower costs, livestock are frequently kept in such cramped, unhealthy conditions that their meat and their wastes lead to public health hazards. For the most part, laboratory animals live much healthier lives than livestock!

.

The mindless use of antibiotics on humans and domestic animals has fostered the selection of resistant, deadlier strains of pathogens.

.

All these examples of supposed efficiency have had social costs. Now, in the European Union, concerns about the safety of food are affecting local and national elections.

.

As a global society, we are failing to see the interconnectedness of our actions and their consequences for the world in which we live.

.

Galileo, the patron saint of scientists, legitimized our right to search for answers beyond dogma. Less than a century ago the right of scientists to explore any scientific question was practically unlimited.

.

Horrendous crimes perpetrated by Nazi doctors resulted in regulation of human experimentation. Later, regulations were established restricting animal experimentation. Scientists can adapt to society's ethical concerns within their labs.

.

Technology affects humans and wildlife on a global scale. Bill Joy, chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, has called for a moratorium in certain areas of research and technology because of their potential to destroy us all. But is anybody in a position to act on such warnings listening?

.

A consensual system of world ethics has yet to be articulated in a clear-cut and coherent body of principles of dos and don'ts.

.

It is high time to set up a visible, credible worldwide body of democratically elected environmental ethicists committed to viewing technology from the perspective of the long-term survival of humankind. This step should be coupled with a broad educational drive to help all segments of society understand the risks we are all taking.

.

Do humans have the right to alter the world in a way that will make it uninhabitable for them? A civilization in which technological might has improved living standards to the heights enjoyed today in the industrialized countries can afford to safeguard a future for its inhabitants. - The writers, authors of ''The Society of Cells,'' teach at the Tufts University School of Medicine. They contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

[Not to be reproduced without the permission of the author.]

Mad Cows and So On:

Science Teaches Us to Be Careful

By Ana M. Soto and Carlos Sonnenschein International Herald Tribune

Friday, December 1, 2000

Since Greek antiquity, humans have been grappling with the question "How do we know what we know?" This is the subject of epistemology, a branch of philosophy. This subject is relevant to today's reality. It has to do with problems that our societies and governments are faced with — mad cow disease, global warming, genetically modified organisms, endocrine disruptors, the use of growth hormones in beef.

.

Four centuries after the Scientific Revolution and two centuries after the Industrial Revolution, countries in the Northern Hemisphere enjoy a high standard of living. This material and technological progress is considered to be the result of our solid and almost complete scientific understanding of utilitarian and academic topics.

.

Lay people tend to assume that science is a solid construction with clear-cut answers for everything. Hence, policy should effortlessly be derived from "the facts." The public has been led to believe that science-based policy should produce self evident solutions acceptable to everyone. But recent events show that this is a pipe dream.

.

Uncertainty is built into knowledge. Here is how.

.

Scientists propose a hypo-thesis about how or why a certain natural phenomenon occurs or how nature may react to the introduction of a man-made artifact. Next, they test the hypothesis. Finally, their findings are interpreted.

.

Several unresolved issues are related to this process. The first is whether or not hypotheses can be proved and be shown to be an airtight interpretation of how nature works.

.

The prevalent view, put forward by Karl Popper, is that hypotheses can only be falsified. That is, a given interpretation of facts stands until it is proved wrong. Thus, scientists are uncertain about when a hypothesis may be taken to be "true." It is only through a long process of accumulation of evidence that the hypothesis acquires robustness.

.

For example, it took more than 100 years for the scientific

.

establishment to accept the proposal of Copernicus that the sun is at the center of the planetary system we inhabit.

.

Granted, in the long run science works well in approximating understanding of how and why nature works.

.

The second vexing issue has been whether facts can stand on their own. A scientist gathers results because he or she has a hypothesis to explore. Scientists, like lay people, have their own individual perceptions of the world.

.

The questions that a scientist asks are not neutral, but colored by the premises that he or she chooses from those that look plausible. Collecting theory-free data, as proposed by the supporters of inductivism, has been a difficult, largely fruitless, task. Charles Darwin remarked that "one may as well go to a gravel pit and count the pebbles and describe the colors." Thus, data are always theory-laden.

.

The third issue regarding uncertainty is that biology, more than physics, is a historical science. Evolution is the history of life, and of how "old" molecules and cellular structures were put to new uses at a time when no intelligent creature was there to witness and record it. Experiments are done for the most part to understand how organisms living today are put together and how they work.

.

Given the many interacting variables that framed the world that is our current home, scientists arbitrarily eliminate those that, in their judgment, don't seem critical to running their experiments in laboratory conditions. The results lead to conclusions that are not always applicable to the whole of biology, since we are mostly ignorant about the history of life.

.

In this regard, we do not know what we do not know.

.

One should remember that, in fact, we are guessing — yes, guessing — how the world we are a part of was put together and how it is reacting to our innovations. This is why it has been so difficult to anticipate the consequences of our creativity.

.

For example, DDT, which was designed to control pests, ended up altering the reproductive organs of wildlife and humans. Wildlife and humans can become the unintended targets of well-meant but poorly planned attempts to improve our standard of living through short-term fixes.

.

In summary, we hardly understand the impact of technology in its long-term effects. Slowly but surely that is now becoming obvious.

.

As long as the precise history of how organisms evolved is unknown to us, we risk unexpected consequences when applying knowledge gathered in a highly focused laboratory setup that is hardly comparable to the "real world."

.

Why should it be acceptable that cattle be treated with hormones? Why are ruminants that are adapted to eat grass fed with offal-derived products?

.

How certain should we be about the safety of these practices when experience has shown us that unthinkable effects — the ozone hole, global warming, mad cows, hormones in the environment — can result from seemingly benign procedures or products? What is the benefit of these innovations, besides the obvious narrow purpose of increasing the profit of the businesses involved?

.

Awareness about the uncertainty of science and technology must have a place in policy decision-making. The value of the precautionary principle is readily apparent.

.

The writers, professors at Tufts University School of Medicine and authors of "The Society of Cells," contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

.

[Not to be reproduced without the permission of the author.]

Since Greek antiquity, humans have been grappling with the question "How do we know what we know?" This is the subject of epistemology, a branch of philosophy. This subject is relevant to today's reality. It has to do with problems that our societies and governments are faced with — mad cow disease, global warming, genetically modified organisms, endocrine disruptors, the use of growth hormones in beef.

.

Four centuries after the Scientific Revolution and two centuries after the Industrial Revolution, countries in the Northern Hemisphere enjoy a high standard of living. This material and technological progress is considered to be the result of our solid and almost complete scientific understanding of utilitarian and academic topics.

.

Lay people tend to assume that science is a solid construction with clear-cut answers for everything. Hence, policy should effortlessly be derived from "the facts." The public has been led to believe that science-based policy should produce self evident solutions acceptable to everyone. But recent events show that this is a pipe dream.

.

Uncertainty is built into knowledge. Here is how.

.

Scientists propose a hypo-thesis about how or why a certain natural phenomenon occurs or how nature may react to the introduction of a man-made artifact. Next, they test the hypothesis. Finally, their findings are interpreted.

.

Several unresolved issues are related to this process. The first is whether or not hypotheses can be proved and be shown to be an airtight interpretation of how nature works.

.

The prevalent view, put forward by Karl Popper, is that hypotheses can only be falsified. That is, a given interpretation of facts stands until it is proved wrong. Thus, scientists are uncertain about when a hypothesis may be taken to be "true." It is only through a long process of accumulation of evidence that the hypothesis acquires robustness.

.

For example, it took more than 100 years for the scientific

.

establishment to accept the proposal of Copernicus that the sun is at the center of the planetary system we inhabit.

.

Granted, in the long run science works well in approximating understanding of how and why nature works.

.

The second vexing issue has been whether facts can stand on their own. A scientist gathers results because he or she has a hypothesis to explore. Scientists, like lay people, have their own individual perceptions of the world.

.

The questions that a scientist asks are not neutral, but colored by the premises that he or she chooses from those that look plausible. Collecting theory-free data, as proposed by the supporters of inductivism, has been a difficult, largely fruitless, task. Charles Darwin remarked that "one may as well go to a gravel pit and count the pebbles and describe the colors." Thus, data are always theory-laden.

.

The third issue regarding uncertainty is that biology, more than physics, is a historical science. Evolution is the history of life, and of how "old" molecules and cellular structures were put to new uses at a time when no intelligent creature was there to witness and record it. Experiments are done for the most part to understand how organisms living today are put together and how they work.

.

Given the many interacting variables that framed the world that is our current home, scientists arbitrarily eliminate those that, in their judgment, don't seem critical to running their experiments in laboratory conditions. The results lead to conclusions that are not always applicable to the whole of biology, since we are mostly ignorant about the history of life.

.

In this regard, we do not know what we do not know.

.

One should remember that, in fact, we are guessing — yes, guessing — how the world we are a part of was put together and how it is reacting to our innovations. This is why it has been so difficult to anticipate the consequences of our creativity.

.

For example, DDT, which was designed to control pests, ended up altering the reproductive organs of wildlife and humans. Wildlife and humans can become the unintended targets of well-meant but poorly planned attempts to improve our standard of living through short-term fixes.

.

In summary, we hardly understand the impact of technology in its long-term effects. Slowly but surely that is now becoming obvious.

.

As long as the precise history of how organisms evolved is unknown to us, we risk unexpected consequences when applying knowledge gathered in a highly focused laboratory setup that is hardly comparable to the "real world."

.

Why should it be acceptable that cattle be treated with hormones? Why are ruminants that are adapted to eat grass fed with offal-derived products?

.

How certain should we be about the safety of these practices when experience has shown us that unthinkable effects — the ozone hole, global warming, mad cows, hormones in the environment — can result from seemingly benign procedures or products? What is the benefit of these innovations, besides the obvious narrow purpose of increasing the profit of the businesses involved?

.

Awareness about the uncertainty of science and technology must have a place in policy decision-making. The value of the precautionary principle is readily apparent.

.

The writers, professors at Tufts University School of Medicine and authors of "The Society of Cells," contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

.

[Not to be reproduced without the permission of the author.]

By Carlos Sonnenschein and Ana M. Soto International Herald Tribune

Tuesday, November 14, 2000

A report funded by the European Union warns that northern Europe will bask in sunshine all year round in the not too distant future while many Mediterranean regions will become too hot for comfort.

.

The major flooding this month in southern England, the worst since 1947, is yet another indication of atmospheric and ecological changes that are affecting the entire planet.

.

As scientists, we can only say we told you so. But as fellow travelers on our shared spacecraft we cannot gloat over an uncertain outcome to whichwe all will have to adjust.

.

Politicians, including George W. Bush, and businessmen with axes to grind keep calling for "more research" on the problem. We think there are already enough research data to show that global warming is an imminentand inexorable threat.

.

It is tempting to assign blame for the damage we humans have caused. Instead, with the same zeal that we have applied to mindlessly expanding industry, we should think seriously about survival. It is time to start putting our collective knowledge to work to avoid further deterioration and, where warranted, to improve conditions.

.

This is by no means the end of life on Earth. It is instead another test for individuals and species to adapt and survive or fail to adapt and perish. Such tests have been going on since life began billions of years ago.

.

Each time Earth cooled down or warmed up, forms of life that were not equipped to cope with the new conditions became extinct. The fossil record shows more losers than winners — 99 percent of the species that ever lived have disappeared.

.

We may have a chance to see evolution in action, a dubious privilege. A century is not much to allow for a smooth transition of human life. Behind the headlines, a good number of species have already started to perish. Others will occupy their niches, although it is impossible to tell which species they will be.

.

Current global warming is unique only because of the presence of a species that has the intellectual ability to understand what is happening in this process of selection and, however imperfectly, anticipate the consequences.

.

Although our industrial might is significant, as shown by the damage we have caused, our ability to design a desirable future is no better now than it has ever been. The factors involved in creating a viable future for the human race are too many, too interactive and too changeable for anyone to be able to predict a sure outcome, even with the best of computer models.

.

Given the long lag between corrective action and effect, we need decisions now, instead of waiting for results of more research. People must understand the perils and the benefits, or the costs of transformation will increase and the chances of success will diminish. In short, we need a massive educational campaign to explain options and ways to implement them.

.

Yet we sometimes despair of convincing consumers, armored inside their 4x4s, that the enemy is us.

.

Certain hard-won "liberties" may have to be curtailed, and this may become another opportunity to test the moral superiority of democracy over other governmental systems. To take just one example, we see no threat to democracy or the right to own property in curbing the use of gas-guzzling, environment-destroying sports utility vehicles and other threatening artifacts.

.

In a little more than two centuries, the Industrial Revolution has changed our ecology and ripped apart social bonds, yet these short-term effects have not been as threatening as the long-term dangers from global warming.

.

The lessons learned from history and nature can help us to adjust to a changing environment. This is only fair to future generations. We broke it, so we ought to fix it. Or we can order up some more research, do nothing and let the band play on.

.

The writers, professors at Tufts University School of Medicine, in Boston, and authors of "The Society of Cells," contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

.

[Not to be reproduced without the permission of the author.]

A report funded by the European Union warns that northern Europe will bask in sunshine all year round in the not too distant future while many Mediterranean regions will become too hot for comfort.

.

The major flooding this month in southern England, the worst since 1947, is yet another indication of atmospheric and ecological changes that are affecting the entire planet.

.

As scientists, we can only say we told you so. But as fellow travelers on our shared spacecraft we cannot gloat over an uncertain outcome to whichwe all will have to adjust.

.

Politicians, including George W. Bush, and businessmen with axes to grind keep calling for "more research" on the problem. We think there are already enough research data to show that global warming is an imminentand inexorable threat.

.

It is tempting to assign blame for the damage we humans have caused. Instead, with the same zeal that we have applied to mindlessly expanding industry, we should think seriously about survival. It is time to start putting our collective knowledge to work to avoid further deterioration and, where warranted, to improve conditions.

.

This is by no means the end of life on Earth. It is instead another test for individuals and species to adapt and survive or fail to adapt and perish. Such tests have been going on since life began billions of years ago.

.

Each time Earth cooled down or warmed up, forms of life that were not equipped to cope with the new conditions became extinct. The fossil record shows more losers than winners — 99 percent of the species that ever lived have disappeared.

.

We may have a chance to see evolution in action, a dubious privilege. A century is not much to allow for a smooth transition of human life. Behind the headlines, a good number of species have already started to perish. Others will occupy their niches, although it is impossible to tell which species they will be.

.

Current global warming is unique only because of the presence of a species that has the intellectual ability to understand what is happening in this process of selection and, however imperfectly, anticipate the consequences.

.

Although our industrial might is significant, as shown by the damage we have caused, our ability to design a desirable future is no better now than it has ever been. The factors involved in creating a viable future for the human race are too many, too interactive and too changeable for anyone to be able to predict a sure outcome, even with the best of computer models.

.

Given the long lag between corrective action and effect, we need decisions now, instead of waiting for results of more research. People must understand the perils and the benefits, or the costs of transformation will increase and the chances of success will diminish. In short, we need a massive educational campaign to explain options and ways to implement them.

.

Yet we sometimes despair of convincing consumers, armored inside their 4x4s, that the enemy is us.

.

Certain hard-won "liberties" may have to be curtailed, and this may become another opportunity to test the moral superiority of democracy over other governmental systems. To take just one example, we see no threat to democracy or the right to own property in curbing the use of gas-guzzling, environment-destroying sports utility vehicles and other threatening artifacts.

.

In a little more than two centuries, the Industrial Revolution has changed our ecology and ripped apart social bonds, yet these short-term effects have not been as threatening as the long-term dangers from global warming.

.

The lessons learned from history and nature can help us to adjust to a changing environment. This is only fair to future generations. We broke it, so we ought to fix it. Or we can order up some more research, do nothing and let the band play on.

.

The writers, professors at Tufts University School of Medicine, in Boston, and authors of "The Society of Cells," contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

.

[Not to be reproduced without the permission of the author.]

By Ana M. Soto and Carlos Sonnenschein

International Herald Tribune

Thursday, January 13, 2000

Europeans and Americans react to the introduction of genetically modified crops and hormone-treated meat in different ways. Cultural differences underlie their respective attitudes. Is science supposed to decide who is right?

.

Almost four decades ago, through her book "Silent Spring," Rachel Carson brought the degradation of the environment caused by the use of pesticides to everyone's attention. The powerful image of a spring without birdsong, as birds were dying of intoxication by organochlorine pesticides, remains indelible.

.

Ms. Carson testified before the U.S. Congress, arguing that protection from chemical poisoning was a basic human right.

.

The legacy of the massive use of pesticides touched off a series of warnings on environmental degradation and human health in an era of new technologies. Warnings have addressed the thinning of the ozone layer, global warming, endocrine disruptors, genetically modified crops and the safety of the food supply.

.

In the case of the ozone "hole," a prompt response, the Montreal protocol, resulted in the reduction of the use of fluorocarbons with the voluntary cooperation of industry. Otherwise, a pattern emerged.

.

First, science-driven technology is introduced. Next, a few scientists sound the alarm that some unforeseen effects are occurring. This generates public concern and social activism. Then other scientists contest the initial evidence, and the status quo is maintained until more evidence is generated.

.

Governments respond to public concern about chemicals that are newly introduced into the environment by placing the burden of evidence on science. Finally, public policy is formulated, banning a small number of chemicals.

.

At the core of the problems that have been introduced by new technologies are changes in human attitudes toward nature.

.

With the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, the goal of science became mastery of nature. The new metaphor became that of clockwork. Complete knowledge of natural phenomena was perceived as an achievable objective, much like the type of knowledge acquired in designing, dismantling and reassembling a clock. Presumably, one could understand how each part fit within the complete mechanism.

.

This way of thinking implied that biological beings were designed in the way engineers design machines. Some 20 years ago, François Jacob, the French biologist, dismissed the mechanistic view in his conclusion that evolution operates as a tinkerer, not as an engineer. Nature does not reinvent itself in each new species; rather, old components are put to new uses. Metaphorically speaking, an old table is converted into a cart.

.

The clockwork metaphor, which is the dominant view even today, does not accountfor unpredictable effects of human intervention. In contrast, the tinkerer metaphor that emerged from evolutionary biology leaves room for unpredictable effects.

.

A plethora of significant achievements in the understanding of nature materialized from the program set in course by the scientific revolution. Science-driven technology has improved living standards in the industrialized world. At present, however, we have begun to realize that our deeds have brought unforeseen consequences that may affect the survival of species, including ours.

.

It is improbable that recent technological innovations will eliminate all forms of life from our planet. More than 95 percent of the species that formerly existed have became extinct, but life has continued and will continue long after new selective bottlenecks are traversed. What is being debated is the impact of novelties on the fate of our own species.

.

Can we afford to wait for all knowledge to emerge before acting? Is the uncertainty inherent in the scientific enterprise a valid alibi for inactivity of politicians and citizens in matters related to the environment?

.

A curious ethical double standard is applied when governments regulate either direct or indirect chemical exposures. Lax rules regulate the introduction of new chemicals into the environment, while strict rules are imposed when administering drugs to humans for therapeutic purposes.

.

Also, mandatory regulations have been adopted to avert unnecessary use of laboratory animals and to ensure their "humane" treatment, but we have yet to develop laws regulating human behavior that results in the extinction of animal and plant species on the planet.

.

Science has an indisputable role in providing an understanding of nature. But science, in our view, has no role in deciding whether or not people should bear the risks of chemical exposures and of genetically modified foods.

.

Rachel Carson's interpretation was correct. The environmental and human health consequences of new technology are a problem of rights. Philosophers, lay and religious ethicists, jurists, and citizens at large must be involved in the process of assessing whether human beings have the right to choose not to be exposed to man-made chemicals of suspected toxicity.

.

Or is the right to choose acceptable food limited to specific religious practices, such as those prescribed in Jewish, Muslim and Hindu traditions?

.

The introduction of new technologies and chemicals poses legitimate philosophical and ethical questions that were not addressed before and thus have not been codified into rights and laws. It is high time for societies and governments to stop asking from science what they should rightly ask from philosophy, ethics, religion and jurisprudence.

.

The authors, who teach at the Tufts University School of Medicine, are co-authors of "The Society of Cells." Ana M. Soto has been a panel member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences committee on hormonally active agents. Carlos Sonnenschein was a member of the EU scientific working group that evaluated the risks to human health of hormones as growth promoters in farm animals. They contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

.

[Not to be reproduced without the permission of the authors.]

Europeans and Americans react to the introduction of genetically modified crops and hormone-treated meat in different ways. Cultural differences underlie their respective attitudes. Is science supposed to decide who is right?

.

Almost four decades ago, through her book "Silent Spring," Rachel Carson brought the degradation of the environment caused by the use of pesticides to everyone's attention. The powerful image of a spring without birdsong, as birds were dying of intoxication by organochlorine pesticides, remains indelible.

.

Ms. Carson testified before the U.S. Congress, arguing that protection from chemical poisoning was a basic human right.

.

The legacy of the massive use of pesticides touched off a series of warnings on environmental degradation and human health in an era of new technologies. Warnings have addressed the thinning of the ozone layer, global warming, endocrine disruptors, genetically modified crops and the safety of the food supply.

.

In the case of the ozone "hole," a prompt response, the Montreal protocol, resulted in the reduction of the use of fluorocarbons with the voluntary cooperation of industry. Otherwise, a pattern emerged.

.

First, science-driven technology is introduced. Next, a few scientists sound the alarm that some unforeseen effects are occurring. This generates public concern and social activism. Then other scientists contest the initial evidence, and the status quo is maintained until more evidence is generated.

.

Governments respond to public concern about chemicals that are newly introduced into the environment by placing the burden of evidence on science. Finally, public policy is formulated, banning a small number of chemicals.

.

At the core of the problems that have been introduced by new technologies are changes in human attitudes toward nature.

.

With the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, the goal of science became mastery of nature. The new metaphor became that of clockwork. Complete knowledge of natural phenomena was perceived as an achievable objective, much like the type of knowledge acquired in designing, dismantling and reassembling a clock. Presumably, one could understand how each part fit within the complete mechanism.

.

This way of thinking implied that biological beings were designed in the way engineers design machines. Some 20 years ago, François Jacob, the French biologist, dismissed the mechanistic view in his conclusion that evolution operates as a tinkerer, not as an engineer. Nature does not reinvent itself in each new species; rather, old components are put to new uses. Metaphorically speaking, an old table is converted into a cart.

.

The clockwork metaphor, which is the dominant view even today, does not accountfor unpredictable effects of human intervention. In contrast, the tinkerer metaphor that emerged from evolutionary biology leaves room for unpredictable effects.

.

A plethora of significant achievements in the understanding of nature materialized from the program set in course by the scientific revolution. Science-driven technology has improved living standards in the industrialized world. At present, however, we have begun to realize that our deeds have brought unforeseen consequences that may affect the survival of species, including ours.

.

It is improbable that recent technological innovations will eliminate all forms of life from our planet. More than 95 percent of the species that formerly existed have became extinct, but life has continued and will continue long after new selective bottlenecks are traversed. What is being debated is the impact of novelties on the fate of our own species.

.

Can we afford to wait for all knowledge to emerge before acting? Is the uncertainty inherent in the scientific enterprise a valid alibi for inactivity of politicians and citizens in matters related to the environment?

.

A curious ethical double standard is applied when governments regulate either direct or indirect chemical exposures. Lax rules regulate the introduction of new chemicals into the environment, while strict rules are imposed when administering drugs to humans for therapeutic purposes.

.

Also, mandatory regulations have been adopted to avert unnecessary use of laboratory animals and to ensure their "humane" treatment, but we have yet to develop laws regulating human behavior that results in the extinction of animal and plant species on the planet.

.

Science has an indisputable role in providing an understanding of nature. But science, in our view, has no role in deciding whether or not people should bear the risks of chemical exposures and of genetically modified foods.

.

Rachel Carson's interpretation was correct. The environmental and human health consequences of new technology are a problem of rights. Philosophers, lay and religious ethicists, jurists, and citizens at large must be involved in the process of assessing whether human beings have the right to choose not to be exposed to man-made chemicals of suspected toxicity.

.

Or is the right to choose acceptable food limited to specific religious practices, such as those prescribed in Jewish, Muslim and Hindu traditions?

.

The introduction of new technologies and chemicals poses legitimate philosophical and ethical questions that were not addressed before and thus have not been codified into rights and laws. It is high time for societies and governments to stop asking from science what they should rightly ask from philosophy, ethics, religion and jurisprudence.

.

The authors, who teach at the Tufts University School of Medicine, are co-authors of "The Society of Cells." Ana M. Soto has been a panel member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences committee on hormonally active agents. Carlos Sonnenschein was a member of the EU scientific working group that evaluated the risks to human health of hormones as growth promoters in farm animals. They contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

.

[Not to be reproduced without the permission of the authors.]

Europeans and Americans react to the introduction of genetically modified crops and hormone-treated meat in different ways. Cultural differences underlie their respective attitudes. Is science supposed to decide who is right?

.

Almost four decades ago, through her book "Silent Spring," Rachel Carson brought the degradation of the environment caused by the use of pesticides to everyone's attention. The powerful image of a spring without birdsong, as birds were dying of intoxication by organochlorine pesticides, remains indelible.

.

Ms. Carson testified before the U.S. Congress, arguing that protection from chemical poisoning was a basic human right.

.

The legacy of the massive use of pesticides touched off a series of warnings on environmental degradation and human health in an era of new technologies. Warnings have addressed the thinning of the ozone layer, global warming, endocrine disruptors, genetically modified crops and the safety of the food supply.

.

In the case of the ozone "hole," a prompt response, the Montreal protocol, resulted in the reduction of the use of fluorocarbons with the voluntary cooperation of industry. Otherwise, a pattern emerged.

.

First, science-driven technology is introduced. Next, a few scientists sound the alarm that some unforeseen effects are occurring. This generates public concern and social activism. Then other scientists contest the initial evidence, and the status quo is maintained until more evidence is generated.

.

Governments respond to public concern about chemicals that are newly introduced into the environment by placing the burden of evidence on science. Finally, public policy is formulated, banning a small number of chemicals.

.

At the core of the problems that have been introduced by new technologies are changes in human attitudes toward nature.

.

With the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, the goal of science became mastery of nature. The new metaphor became that of clockwork. Complete knowledge of natural phenomena was perceived as an achievable objective, much like the type of knowledge acquired in designing, dismantling and reassembling a clock. Presumably, one could understand how each part fit within the complete mechanism.

.

This way of thinking implied that biological beings were designed in the way engineers design machines. Some 20 years ago, François Jacob, the French biologist, dismissed the mechanistic view in his conclusion that evolution operates as a tinkerer, not as an engineer. Nature does not reinvent itself in each new species; rather, old components are put to new uses. Metaphorically speaking, an old table is converted into a cart.

.

The clockwork metaphor, which is the dominant view even today, does not accountfor unpredictable effects of human intervention. In contrast, the tinkerer metaphor that emerged from evolutionary biology leaves room for unpredictable effects.

.

A plethora of significant achievements in the understanding of nature materialized from the program set in course by the scientific revolution. Science-driven technology has improved living standards in the industrialized world. At present, however, we have begun to realize that our deeds have brought unforeseen consequences that may affect the survival of species, including ours.

.

It is improbable that recent technological innovations will eliminate all forms of life from our planet. More than 95 percent of the species that formerly existed have became extinct, but life has continued and will continue long after new selective bottlenecks are traversed. What is being debated is the impact of novelties on the fate of our own species.

.

Can we afford to wait for all knowledge to emerge before acting? Is the uncertainty inherent in the scientific enterprise a valid alibi for inactivity of politicians and citizens in matters related to the environment?

.

A curious ethical double standard is applied when governments regulate either direct or indirect chemical exposures. Lax rules regulate the introduction of new chemicals into the environment, while strict rules are imposed when administering drugs to humans for therapeutic purposes.

.

Also, mandatory regulations have been adopted to avert unnecessary use of laboratory animals and to ensure their "humane" treatment, but we have yet to develop laws regulating human behavior that results in the extinction of animal and plant species on the planet.

.

Science has an indisputable role in providing an understanding of nature. But science, in our view, has no role in deciding whether or not people should bear the risks of chemical exposures and of genetically modified foods.

.

Rachel Carson's interpretation was correct. The environmental and human health consequences of new technology are a problem of rights. Philosophers, lay and religious ethicists, jurists, and citizens at large must be involved in the process of assessing whether human beings have the right to choose not to be exposed to man-made chemicals of suspected toxicity.

.

Or is the right to choose acceptable food limited to specific religious practices, such as those prescribed in Jewish, Muslim and Hindu traditions?

.

The introduction of new technologies and chemicals poses legitimate philosophical and ethical questions that were not addressed before and thus have not been codified into rights and laws. It is high time for societies and governments to stop asking from science what they should rightly ask from philosophy, ethics, religion and jurisprudence.

.

The authors, who teach at the Tufts University School of Medicine, are co-authors of "The Society of Cells." Ana M. Soto has been a panel member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences committee on hormonally active agents. Carlos Sonnenschein was a member of the EU scientific working group that evaluated the risks to human health of hormones as growth promoters in farm animals. They contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

.

[Not to be reproduced without the permission of the authors.]

Europeans and Americans react to the introduction of genetically modified crops and hormone-treated meat in different ways. Cultural differences underlie their respective attitudes. Is science supposed to decide who is right?

.

Almost four decades ago, through her book "Silent Spring," Rachel Carson brought the degradation of the environment caused by the use of pesticides to everyone's attention. The powerful image of a spring without birdsong, as birds were dying of intoxication by organochlorine pesticides, remains indelible.

.

Ms. Carson testified before the U.S. Congress, arguing that protection from chemical poisoning was a basic human right.

.

The legacy of the massive use of pesticides touched off a series of warnings on environmental degradation and human health in an era of new technologies. Warnings have addressed the thinning of the ozone layer, global warming, endocrine disruptors, genetically modified crops and the safety of the food supply.

.

In the case of the ozone "hole," a prompt response, the Montreal protocol, resulted in the reduction of the use of fluorocarbons with the voluntary cooperation of industry. Otherwise, a pattern emerged.

.

First, science-driven technology is introduced. Next, a few scientists sound the alarm that some unforeseen effects are occurring. This generates public concern and social activism. Then other scientists contest the initial evidence, and the status quo is maintained until more evidence is generated.

.

Governments respond to public concern about chemicals that are newly introduced into the environment by placing the burden of evidence on science. Finally, public policy is formulated, banning a small number of chemicals.

.

At the core of the problems that have been introduced by new technologies are changes in human attitudes toward nature.

.

With the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, the goal of science became mastery of nature. The new metaphor became that of clockwork. Complete knowledge of natural phenomena was perceived as an achievable objective, much like the type of knowledge acquired in designing, dismantling and reassembling a clock. Presumably, one could understand how each part fit within the complete mechanism.

.

This way of thinking implied that biological beings were designed in the way engineers design machines. Some 20 years ago, François Jacob, the French biologist, dismissed the mechanistic view in his conclusion that evolution operates as a tinkerer, not as an engineer. Nature does not reinvent itself in each new species; rather, old components are put to new uses. Metaphorically speaking, an old table is converted into a cart.

.

The clockwork metaphor, which is the dominant view even today, does not accountfor unpredictable effects of human intervention. In contrast, the tinkerer metaphor that emerged from evolutionary biology leaves room for unpredictable effects.

.

A plethora of significant achievements in the understanding of nature materialized from the program set in course by the scientific revolution. Science-driven technology has improved living standards in the industrialized world. At present, however, we have begun to realize that our deeds have brought unforeseen consequences that may affect the survival of species, including ours.

.

It is improbable that recent technological innovations will eliminate all forms of life from our planet. More than 95 percent of the species that formerly existed have became extinct, but life has continued and will continue long after new selective bottlenecks are traversed. What is being debated is the impact of novelties on the fate of our own species.

.

Can we afford to wait for all knowledge to emerge before acting? Is the uncertainty inherent in the scientific enterprise a valid alibi for inactivity of politicians and citizens in matters related to the environment?

.

A curious ethical double standard is applied when governments regulate either direct or indirect chemical exposures. Lax rules regulate the introduction of new chemicals into the environment, while strict rules are imposed when administering drugs to humans for therapeutic purposes.

.

Also, mandatory regulations have been adopted to avert unnecessary use of laboratory animals and to ensure their "humane" treatment, but we have yet to develop laws regulating human behavior that results in the extinction of animal and plant species on the planet.

.

Science has an indisputable role in providing an understanding of nature. But science, in our view, has no role in deciding whether or not people should bear the risks of chemical exposures and of genetically modified foods.

.

Rachel Carson's interpretation was correct. The environmental and human health consequences of new technology are a problem of rights. Philosophers, lay and religious ethicists, jurists, and citizens at large must be involved in the process of assessing whether human beings have the right to choose not to be exposed to man-made chemicals of suspected toxicity.

.

Or is the right to choose acceptable food limited to specific religious practices, such as those prescribed in Jewish, Muslim and Hindu traditions?

.

The introduction of new technologies and chemicals poses legitimate philosophical and ethical questions that were not addressed before and thus have not been codified into rights and laws. It is high time for societies and governments to stop asking from science what they should rightly ask from philosophy, ethics, religion and jurisprudence.

.

The authors, who teach at the Tufts University School of Medicine, are co-authors of "The Society of Cells." Ana M. Soto has been a panel member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences committee on hormonally active agents. Carlos Sonnenschein was a member of the EU scientific working group that evaluated the risks to human health of hormones as growth promoters in farm animals. They contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

.

[Not to be reproduced without the permission of the authors.]