Techno-ethics: Dealing with ambivalence of advancements<\/p>\n
Yanuar Nugroho
\nMember
\nBoard of ELSPPAT (Institute for Development
\nStudies & Technological Assistance)
\nBogor, West Java<\/p>\n
In the field of science and technology, globalization will
\ncontribute significantly to mark 2003 as the year when
\ntechnological advancements would explicitly bring about ethical
\nproblems regarding most aspects of humanity. The whole history of
\nhuman beings might be rerouted to new paths that we never would
\nhave imagined before. At least three aspects would be affected
\nextensively, thus raising new challenges for this globalized
\nworld.<\/p>\n
First, the ability to change the molecular cell structures of
\nindividual human beings to alter who we are, will raise the
\nknottiest questions of 2003, as Alun Anderson from New Scientist
\nhas predicted. The Human Proteomics Organization (HUPO),
\npreviously known as the Human Genome Organization (HUGO), was
\nreported to have nearly completed mapping the human genome.<\/p>\n
In related news, Reuters ran an article (Nov. 28, 2002) on Dr.
\nSeverino Antinori, an Italian fertility expert, who spoke at a
\npress conference in Rome on Nov. 26 and revealed that one of his
\npatients would give birth to a cloned baby in January 2003. He
\nsaid that the cloned fetus was healthy and weighed roughly six
\npounds, and two others would soon follow. Many are skeptical of
\nthis news, however, as Antinori has not produced any evidence so
\nthat the case of these cloned babies remain entirely speculative.<\/p>\n
Yet, let us assume that he is telling the truth and the cloned
\nbaby would be born in January. What, then, will this bring to our
\nhistory as mankind? One of the problems starts here and
\nobviously, will not stop here.<\/p>\n
Second, Bill Gates has indicated 2003 as the starting point
\nfor the advancement of the so-called \"ubiquitous computing era\",
\nwhen humans will be surrounded by computers essential to almost
\nevery part of our daily lives.<\/p>\n
Gartner Dataquest has provided information that the world
\ncomputer industry shipped one billion PCs in 2002, and that
\nanother billion are expected to be built in Indonesia over the
\nnext six years starting next year. According to the World Bank,
\nInformation and Communication Technology (ICT) expenditures
\nreached more than US$3.54 billion in 2002. Regarding the
\nInternet, more than two million of the Indonesian population are
\nInternet users, and this number will increase in 2003.<\/p>\n
ICT is not just about PCs, though, and in 2003, the number of
\nmobile phones worldwide (1.47 billion) will outstrip the landline
\n(1.14 billion) for the first time. In Indonesia, the increase of
\nmobile phone usage over the past seven years was also dramatic,
\nwith statistics rising from one mobile phone per 1,000 people in
\n1995, to more than 17 mobile phones per 1,000 people this year.
\nClearly, developments in ICT will keep changing the way people
\ncommunicate and live.<\/p>\n
However, the main ICT issue will stay the same: is it
\ncomputation or communication? It is the long-standing issue of
\n\"privacy vs. piracy\" -- something difficult to assess.<\/p>\n
Table 1<\/p>\n
Third, The Economist reports that the world's first crop of
\ngenetically modified (GM) rice will be planted in paddy fields
\nacross China in 2003. In addition, over 150 million acres of
\ntransgenic crops will be grown worldwide in 2003 -- most
\ncomprising soya beans, corn and cotton.<\/p>\n
The beginning of genetically modified crops for general
\nconsumption can be trace to May 19, 1994, when the U.S. Food and
\nDrug Administration (USFDA) gave its final approval to Calgene,
\nInc. to put its genetically engineered tomato, the Flavr Savr, on
\nthe market. Flavr Savr had a gene added from a foreign source, a
\nbacterium (or other), which is used to keep track of the genetic
\nchanges. Organisms of this sort are classified as transgenic, an
\norganisms that contains gene(s) \"transplanted\" across biological
\nboundaries between species or even biological kingdoms, such as
\nthe plant and the animal kingdoms.<\/p>\n
Of course, as it can be foreseen even now, the progress in
\ntransgenic crop-farming in 2003 would raise more controversy not
\nonly among environmentalists and NGO activists, but also for bio-
\nethicists, regarding the \"natural\" or \"non-natural\"
\ncharacteristics of such crops, especially when they are our
\nsource of food.<\/p>\n
In the arena of GM food, the transgenic crop is merely the
\nbeginning: In 2003, milk from cloned cows will arrive on
\nsupermarket shelves once it passes USFDA testing, and cloned pigs
\nwill trot out in 2004, The Economist adds. This will escalate the
\ndebate, for sure.<\/p>\n
Table 2<\/p>\n
What do these advancements mean? What do they imply? What are
\nthe consequences?<\/p>\n
First of all, we have reached the boundary at which we can no
\nlonger believe that science is a neutral, value-free quest for
\n\"Truth\". In 1962, Thomas Kuhn opened science to scrutiny as a
\nsocial activity, but now the advancement of technology has become
\nambivalent and caused controversies.<\/p>\n
In modern biology, it has opened the Pandora's box of
\nbioethics as to whether or not humans are \"playing God\". Yet, the
\nimplications might differ from one to another.<\/p>\n
On the one hand, as MSNBC News put it, the confusion about
\nhuman cloning and its complicated ethical issues prompted the
\nU.S. National Academy of Sciences to organize an international
\npanel of scientists to discuss the technology and its possible
\ndirection. The panel was aimed at helping to decide whether the
\nU.S. should impose a moratorium on human cloning, which the House
\nof Representatives had voted to outlaw. Under the House bill,
\nviolations would be punishable by fines of $1 million or more and
\nup to 10 years in prison.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, the U.S. and a few other governments
\nsupport the production of transgenic seeds, which can be argued
\nas being basically no different from cloning humans, since in
\nboth cases, humans intervene in a natural process.<\/p>\n
The market for GM crops will grow worldwide: $2.9 billion-
\nworth of the seed will be sold in 2003 and is projected to rise
\nto $3.8 billion by 2006. Once the USFDA gives its go-ahead for
\ncloned animals to be served as food, the combined market of
\ntransgenic crops and cloned animals will grow even bigger -- and
\nthe resistance to such foods would be seen instead as self-
\nindulgence.<\/p>\n
The tension between the U.S. policy and European labeling
\nrequirements for GM foods will clash when produce from GM crops
\nwill have already entered the European food chain in 2003.<\/p>\n
Here we come to question: How are we to understand these
\ncontradictory stances to the same issues? Are the new genetic
\nobjects (cloned organisms and GM crops) a fatal invasion or a
\nbenign enrichment? Are they created for ill, or for good? They
\nare, of course, scientific inventions which are aimed at
\nimproving our lives -- but let's not forget that they are also
\ngems of profit.<\/p>\n
A similar juxtaposition exists in issues of communication
\ntechnology. With advancements in processor and computer
\nmanufacturing technology, the problems of ICT in the next year
\nwill, nonetheless, remain the broad arena of the \"privacy vs.
\npiracy\" issue, inclusive of derivative issues such as software
\npiracy, hacking, alternative operating systems (OS), wireless
\nnetworks and computer viruses.<\/p>\n
The area of ICT is a veritable battlefield, which does not
\nlook likely to clear any time soon: The fight between licensed OS
\n(e.g. Microsoft Windows) and free open-sourced OS (e.g. GNU
\nLinux) has become more salient; emulators (e.g. YahooPOPs)
\nemulates, or hacks, the webmail of Yahoo! so that users can
\ndownload e-mail free-of-charge; and peer-to-peer (P2P) technology
\nover the Internet (e.g. Kazaa, IMesh, Grokster and WinMX) have
\nreplaced the well-known Napster. It is through such battles that
\nICT will play a more and more important role in raising the
\nawareness and consciousness of society, particularly in terms of
\na global culture, global identity and global lifestyle.<\/p>\n
Yet, it is not a one-way process. As long as Linux is still
\nconsidered an enemy of Microsoft Windows, Advanced Micro Devices
\n(AMD) a competitor to Intel Corp, YahooPOPs a hacker of Internet
\napplications for Yahoo!Mail, and IMesh a thief of online
\nentertainment, there still exists another battle: It is the
\nbattle between the mainstream and the alternative, and while the
\nlatter is unlikely to be known to as broad an audience as the
\nformer, it still provides more choices for us, the users.<\/p>\n
Now we might confront one of the most intractable problems
\nsince science & technology are being utilized, used and exploited
\nas it is incorporated into the pure logic of profit-seekers, that
\nis, business. If the power of business in this storm of neo-
\nliberalism is beset by the problem of democratic
\nunaccountability, then we can figure out why the issue on the
\npublic accountability of science is more urgent than is admitted
\nby most false prophets of science. This is the center of techno-
\nethics -- ethics for technological advancement.<\/p>\n
Technological advancements must be subject to the criteria of
\ndemocratic accountability. Otherwise, what happens is precisely
\ndisaster since technology is both a locus and an extension of
\npower. The issue of accountability concerns the ethical
\nimplications of the exercise of knowledge, i.e., technological
\nknowledge as power. Thus, techno-ethics is not simply about
\nputting users before the experts, but rather in either the
\nexperts or in the way technology has been exploited by business
\npower.<\/p>\n
The notion of the \"neutrality\" of science and technology is
\nonly true insofar as both are separated from their exercising
\nagents -- which is impossible. Science is neither about
\ndemonstrations by experts nor is it for the sake of market
\nexpansion for pure profit accumulation, but about dialogue among
\nstakeholders.<\/p>\n
Welcome to the ambivalent advancement of technologies in 2003.
\nDon't be confused.<\/p>\n
The writer is also a lecturer at Sahid University, Surakarta.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/techno-ethics-dealing-with-ambivalence-of-advancements-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }