Print

Print


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/science/12ethics.html

August 12, 2008

Handle With Care

By CORNELIA DEAN

Last year, a private company proposed "fertilizing" parts of the 
ocean with iron, in hopes of encouraging carbon-absorbing blooms of 
plankton. Meanwhile, researchers elsewhere are talking about 
injecting chemicals into the atmosphere, launching sun-reflecting 
mirrors into stationary orbit above the earth or taking other steps 
to reset the thermostat of a warming planet.

This technology might be useful, even life-saving. But it would 
inevitably produce environmental effects impossible to predict and 
impossible to undo. So a growing number of experts say it is time for 
broad discussion of how and by whom it should be used, or if it 
should be tried at all.

Similar questions are being raised about nanotechnology, robotics and 
other powerful emerging technologies. There are even those who 
suggest humanity should collectively decide to turn away from some 
new technologies as inherently dangerous.

"The complexity of newly engineered systems coupled with their 
potential impact on lives, the environment, etc., raise a set of 
ethical issues that engineers had not been thinking about," said 
William A. Wulf, a computer scientist who until last year headed the 
National Academy of Engineering. As one of his official last acts, he 
established the Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society there.

Rachelle Hollander, a philosopher who directs the center, said the 
new technologies were so powerful that "our saving grace, our 
inability to affect things at a planetary level, is being lost to 
us," as human-induced climate change is demonstrating.

Engineers, scientists, philosophers, ethicists and lawyers are taking 
up the issue in scholarly journals, online discussions and 
conferences in the United States and abroad. "It's a hot topic," said 
Ronald C. Arkin, a computer scientist at Georgia Tech who advises the 
Army on robot weapons. "We need at least to think about what we are 
doing while we are doing it, to be aware of the consequences of our 
research."

So far, though, most scholarly conversation about these issues has 
been "piecemeal," said Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser for the 
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson Center in 
Washington. "It leaves the door open for people to do something that 
is going to cause long-term problems."

That's what some environmentalists said they feared when Planktos, a 
California-based concern, announced it would embark on a private 
effort to fertilize part of the South Atlantic with iron, in hopes of 
producing carbon-absorbing plankton blooms that the company could 
market as carbon offsets. Countries bound by the London Convention, 
an international treaty governing dumping at sea, issued a "statement 
of concern" about the work and a United Nations group called for a 
moratorium, but it is not clear what would have happened had Planktos 
not abandoned the effort for lack of money.

"There is no one to say 'thou shalt not,' " said Jane Lubchenco, an 
environmental scientist at Oregon State University and a former 
president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

When scientists and engineers discuss geoengineering, it is obvious 
they are talking about technologies with the potential to change the 
planet. But the issue of engineering ethics applies as well to 
technologies whose planet-altering potential may not emerge until it 
is too late.

Dr. Arkin said robotics researchers should consider not just how to 
make robots more capable, but also who must bear responsibility for 
their actions and how much human operators should remain "in the 
loop," particularly with machines to aid soldiers on the battlefield 
or the disabled in their homes.

But he added that progress in robotics was so "insidious" that people 
might not realize they had ventured into ethically challenging 
territory until too late.

Ethical and philosophical issues have long occupied biotechnology, 
where institutional review boards commonly rule on proposed 
experiments and advisory committees must approve the use of 
gene-splicing and related techniques. When the federal government 
initiated its effort to decipher the human genome, a percentage of 
the budget went to consideration of ethics issues like genetic 
discrimination.

But such questions are relatively new for scientists and engineers in 
other fields. Some are calling for the same kind of discussion that 
microbiologists organized in 1975 when the immense power of their 
emerging knowledge of gene-splicing or recombinant DNA began to dawn 
on them. The meeting, at the Asilomar conference center in 
California, gave rise to an ethical framework that still prevails in 
biotechnology.

"Something like Asilomar might be very important," said Andrew Light, 
director of the Center for Global Ethics at George Mason University, 
one of the organizers of a conference in Charlotte, N.C., in April on 
the ethics of emerging technologies. "The question now is how best to 
begin that discussion among the scientists, to encourage them to do 
something like this, then figure out what would be the right 
mechanism, who would fund it, what form would recommendations take, 
all those details."

But an engineering Asilomar might be hard to bring off. "So many 
people have their nose to the bench," Dr. Arkin said, "historically a 
pitfall of many scientists." Anyway, said Paul Thompson, a 
philosopher at Michigan State and former secretary of the 
International Society for Environmental Ethics, many scientists were 
trained to limit themselves to questions answerable in the real 
world, in the belief that "scientists and engineers should not be 
involved in these kinds of ethical questions."

And researchers working in geoengineering say they worry that if 
people realize there are possible technical fixes for global warming, 
they will feel less urgency about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 
"Even beginning the discussion, putting geoengineering on the table 
and beginning the scientific work could in itself make us less 
concerned about all the things that we need to start doing now," Dr. 
Light said. On the other hand, some climate scientists argue that if 
people realized such drastic measures were on the horizon, they would 
be frightened enough to reduce their collective carbon footprint. 
Still others say that, given the threat global warming poses to the 
planet, it would be unethical not to embark on the work needed to 
engineer possible remedies - and to let policy makers know of its 
potential.

But when to begin this kind of discussion? "It's a really hard 
question," Dr. Thompson said. "I don't think anyone has an answer to 
it."

Many scientists don't like talking about their research before it has 
taken shape, for fear of losing control over it, according to David 
Goldston, former chief of staff at the House Science Committee and a 
columnist for the journal Nature. This mind-set is "generally 
healthy," he wrote in a recent column, but it is "maladapted for 
situations that call for focused research to resolve societal issues 
that need to be faced with some urgency."

And then there is the longstanding scientific fear that if they 
engage with the public for any reason, their work will be 
misunderstood or portrayed in inaccurate or sensationalized terms.

Francis S. Collins, who is stepping down as head of the government 
human genome project, said he had often heard researchers say "it's 
better if people don't know about it." But he said he was proud that 
the National Human Genome Research Institute had from the beginning 
devoted substantial financing to research on privacy, discrimination 
and other ethical issues raised by progress in genetics. If 
scientific research has serious potential implications in the real 
world, "the sooner there is an opportunity for public discussion the 
better," he said in a recent interview.

In part, that is because some emerging technologies will require 
political adjustments. For example, if the planet came to depend on 
chemicals in space or orbiting mirrors or regular oceanic infusions 
of iron, system failure could mean catastrophic - and immediate - 
climate change. But maintaining the systems requires a political 
establishment with guaranteed indefinite stability.

As Dr. Collins put it, the political process these days is "not well 
designed to handle issues that are not already in a crisis." Or as 
Mr. Goldston put it, "with no grand debate over first principles and 
no accusations of acting in bad faith, nanotechnology has received 
only fitful attention."

Meanwhile, there is growing recognition that climate engineering, 
nanotechnology and other emerging technologies are full of "unknown 
unknowns," factors that will not become obvious until they are put 
into widespread use at a scale impossible to turn back, as happened, 
in a sense, with the atomic bomb. At its first test, some of its 
developers worried - needlessly - that the blast might set the 
atmosphere on fire. They did not anticipate the bombs would generate 
electromagnetic pulses intense enough to paralyze electrical systems 
across a continent.

Bill Joy, a founder of Sun Microsystems, cited the bomb in a famous 
2000 article in the magazine Wired on the dangers of robots in which 
he argued that some technologies were so dangerous they should be 
"relinquished." He said it was common for scientists and engineers to 
fail "to understand the consequences of our inventions while we are 
in the rapture of discovery" and, as a result, he said, "we have yet 
to come to terms with the fact that the most compelling 21st-century 
technologies - robotics, genetic engineering and nanotechnology - 
pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before. 
They are so powerful they can spawn whole new classes of accidents 
and abuses."

He called it "knowledge-enabled mass destruction."

But in an essay in the journal Nature last year, Mary Warnock, a 
philosopher who led a committee formed to advise the British 
government after the world's first test-tube baby was born there in 
1978, said when people fear "dedicated scientists and doctors may 
pursue research that some members of society find repugnant" the 
answer is not to allow ignorance and fear to dictate which 
technologies are allowed to go forward, but rather to educate people 
"to have a broad understanding of science and an appreciation of its 
potential for good."

In another Nature essay, Sheila Jasanoff, a professor of science and 
technology studies at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, 
said a first step was for scientists and engineers to realize that in 
complex issues, "uncertainty, ignorance and indeterminacy are always 
present."

In what she described as "a call for humility," she urged researchers 
to cultivate and teach "modes of knowing that are often pushed aside 
in expanding scientific understanding and technological capacity" 
including history, moral philosophy, political theory and social 
studies of science - what people value and why they value it.

Dr. Hollander said the new ethics center would take up issues like 
these. "Do we recognize when we might be putting ourselves on a 
negative technological treadmill by moving in one direction rather 
than another?" she said. "There are social questions we should be 
paying attention to, that we should see as important.

"I mean we as citizens, and that includes people in the academy and 
engineers. It includes everybody."