0011/1050 Vidic 2:00
R05
ETHICAL DECISION: SAVING BIODIVERSITY
Kaylene Kowalski (kbk18@pitt.edu)
UNDERSTANDING BIODIVERSITY
ENGINEERING CODE OF ETHICS
When you look at the world around you, every single
person is different and unique. When we have children, the
next generation receives all the advantages and flaws of the
previous generation. As time progresses, these traits impact
how humans are able to survive and how we accept the
typical human to be like. This concept can be applied
currently to the state of genetically modified organisms that
are being engineered to fit into a box of how we want them
to be used. Specifically, in the cases of corn and bananas,
natural reproduction of mass crops is becoming less and less
frequent, and our “ideal” version of these foods are
controlling how agriculture continues to produce more of
these crops. There will soon be less diversity among these
crops, and nature could lose entire species if something were
to go wrong to our singularized modified genetic organisms.
The Engineering Code of Ethics provides a specific set
of guidelines for engineers to follow. Many of the rules of
the oath can counter against other rules. For my ethical
scenario, I find that when I convince myself to come to one
decision, it can easily be contradicted by a rule in the Code
of Ethics.
In the Engineering Code of Ethics, engineers are told to,
“Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or
trustees” [1]. Obviously in this case, my decision would be
made simple. I would do exactly as my employer has told
me and continue my research and development to make a
better product without concern of the environmental impact.
After all, I am being paid to do as my employer instructs.
However, as a professional obligation of the Code,
“Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives
the public” [1]. I personally interpret this in two ways
concerning my job: (1) I should not be modifying something
that the public believes to be an all-natural organism, or (2) I
should not be withholding the information that my practice
is potentially harmful to the product the consumer is buying.
These interpretations are less influential to my decision
because this is my personal life path that I have chosen to
pursue, so I would continue to do work in this field.
However, there is important information for other engineers
to consider about this when faced with a similar problem.
When I go the grocery store, I do not expect my produce to
be natural or organic unless I go to a section of the store that
is FDA (United States Food and Drug Administration)
approved to be such. Though I expect the product to be
healthy and regulated by government law, the FDA ensures
by the Food Code of 2013 that there is a “reduction of the
risk of foodborne illnesses within food establishments, thus
protecting consumers and industry from potentially
devastating health consequences and financial losses” [2]. In
both the Code of Ethics and the Food Code, the public must
be protected, whether it is from deception or financial loss. I
feel that it is important to consider the consumer completely
in this case. The $8.9 billion industry per year is fueled by
what the consumers wants [3]. Ethically, I would be inclined
to tell the public that my entire company is selling a product
that could be destroyed by an irreversible fungus [3]. If I
were the consumer, I would want to know what my money is
supplying to companies that are altering the DNA of the
product I am buying. In this case, I would be inclined to not
do as my employer has instructed to be able to tell the
public. However, my entire livelihood is based on this
industry and thus, I would not feel that the work I am doing
is wrong or at the expense of the consumer.
ETHICAL SCENARIO
As an aspiring engineer, I know that I will be faced with
issues that will challenge my basic beliefs of what I believe
to be right and wrong. In the following scenario, I imagine
myself to be an engineer that has to make this huge decision
that impacts, not only myself, but also potentially the entire
world around me.
I am an employee at a private company that is making
genetically modified organisms. Specifically, it is my job to
alter the DNA of bananas so that they are the idealized
version that all consumers want to buy. By altering the
DNA, I find that I am creating an entire species that could be
wiped off of the planet if the product is to come into contact
with harmful bacteria, viruses, infesting organisms,
parasites, etc. When I go to my supervisor, they tell me that I
must not share this information because I am making my
company a lot of money to create something that the
consumer wants to buy. If I share the information that the
bananas are at risk of full extinction, I will no longer hold a
position with the company. My boss says that the money that
we are making is bigger than any small potential that the
species could be at risk. I am to continue my research and
development without continuing to worry about the small
chance of problems in the field.
As an engineer, I must make choices about the following
steps that I will follow to make the best possible decision in
this case.
This scenario is something that happens to very real
agricultural and biological engineers on a daily basis. The
question surrounding the topic is whether the pursuit of
engineering better product is worth sacrificing nature-made
organisms and, potentially, an entire species.
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2014-10-28
1
Kaylene Kowalski
with higher levels having higher importance and lower
levels having lower importance [7]. However, there is “a
place for everything and everything (is) in its place” [7].
Personally, I believe that this is true; Everything is supposed
to be exactly where it is for a number of events that lead up
to it. In my scenario, I am faced with a challenge because I
feel as if I am deciding for something that is supposed to
exist of not. Though there is a small chance that all the
bananas could die from a fungus, there is nonetheless a
chance. Biodiversity is hard to maintain when combined
with the fact that engineers are taught to make things
“better” for the consumer. Whatever I choose to do in the
scenario all comes down to how I want the future of
agricultural engineering to continue.
Biodiversity can be achieved by maintaining a wide
range of organisms within a species. By having flawed DNA
strands, agriculturalists ensure that every organism is
different in its own way to fend for itself with help to protect
and farm the planets. When genetically modified organisms
are taken care of in a way that the entire species is dependent
on the caretaking of outside help, I am persuaded to think
that engineers have gone beyond their realm of expertise.
This to me is a bigger issue than ceasing production for
personal moral dilemma [1]. I would rather be told that I am
personally unqualified to determine the impact I have on the
environment than debate whether or not it is acceptable to
genetically modify organisms to the consumer’s ideals.
On the other hand, there is a group of people that believe
genetically modified organisms are meant to exist and
fungus wiping out an entire species is still a version of
natural selection. “Crops modified by molecular methods in
the foreseeable future pose no risks significantly different
from those that have been accepted for decades in
conventional breeding” [8]. Simply, genetically modified
organisms do not affect traditional agriculture. This way of
thinking would directly impact my decision in the scenario.
If I were to support this way of thinking, I would continue
my research with the company and believe that whatever
happens would have happened naturally anyway.
Mass-produced Cavendish bananas are all genetically
identical, so there is near guarantee that if a fungus were to
affect a population, the same fungus would kill an entire
population [3]. The product I have been producing, though it
is what the people would want to have, is not the best
product to have environmentally. With a lack of
biodiversity, there would be less and less chance of survival
if the population were at immediate risk.
AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL
CODE OF ETHICS
I would also consider doing something other than the
two options given to me by my supervisor. My immediate
reaction to the scenario would be to look for alternatives that
are safe and beneficial to all parties involved. According to
the Social and Political Issues section of the Constitution,
Bylaws, and Rules of the American Society of Agricultural
and Biological Engineers, “Statements will be limited to
aspects relating to the technological-economical feasibility
and practicality of proposed actions and alternatives” [4]. I
am ethically justified in releasing statements about the
technology so long as it is contained to alternative options
that are economically beneficial. I would feel better to come
up with an alternative rather than letting this issue fall to the
wayside. When I see a problem, I am always more inclined
to come up with an alternative rather than completely
ceasing all the work and effort put into the project.
In this case, my alternatives can vary greatly. Many
people would consider genetically modifying the genetically
modified organism for specific traits to resist long-term
damage. In this case, bananas, or even other crops, can be
modified to withstand infestation by certain viruses or
insects [5]. In order to save the banana that we currently
know, we have to be willing to save them, and alter them
more. Independent of the monetary cost, saving the
organism from extinction in worthwhile.
By contrast, other sources say that specific organisms are
not that important overall. This viewpoint is utilitarian, and
concludes that the suffering of few is beneficial to the whole.
It is difficult to know which species to examine because so
many others are involved. Research- and sometimes failurewith one helps to benefit the future [6]. For example, about
50 years ago, there was a string of bananas called the Gros
Michel that went extinct because a fungus was able to attack
the fruit that was uniform throughout the crop [3]. Bananas
today, known specifically as Cavendish, are uniformly
identical in DNA [3]. If something were to happen to the
Cavendish similar to what happened to the Gros Michel, the
current market of bananas would fall until another species of
banana took over [3]. Though I tend to lean in favor of
utilitarian viewpoints, I am not in favor of sacrificing an
entire species, product, and way of life for so many people. I
would be more inclined to research better ways to maintain
Cavendish bananas rather than continuing to push the way
that is already generally accepted though it is also potentially
harmful.
DESTRUCITON OF CROPS AND
BIODIVERSITY
LARGE SCALE EXAMINING
BIODIVERSE OPTIONS
In addition to genetic difficulties, genetically modified
bananas are creating a problem for wild bananas that are
being destroyed to make space for commercially grown,
genetically modified bananas. “Overexploitation and the loss
Many people would consider the entire chain of the
world an ecosystem with different levels of predators, prey,
and natural selection. The world is a “Great Chain of Being”
2
Kaylene Kowalski
of forests as a result of encroachment and logging, slashand-burn cultivation and urbanization are causing a rapid
loss of wild banana species” [9]. The populations of
biodiverse bananas are falling victim to mass-produced
bananas. An entire species is being sacrificed for the
consumers wants. In this situation, I would say that it is
unfair to sacrifice nature for something that the consumer
wants. With all genetically modified organisms, there is a
risk that engineers are sacrificing nature. In my scenario, I
would not be able to continue research if I knew that my
work was completely destroying other crops. This affects
jobs of people below my position and people that work on
private property that would need to compete with massproduction.
Even if engineers were to genetically modify bananas to
withstand environmental threats, natural bananas would still
be destroyed and diversity would be lost. “Due to ecosystem
destruction, it is probable that many valuable gene sources
have now been lost” [9]. Without the wide gene pool,
bananas are at greater risk, and cutting down banana crops
for the sake of “better” bananas is putting the existence of
bananas even more at risk. There are fewer and fewer ways
to save populations without some diversity among crops. As
an engineer faced with this decision, I am unconcerned with
the destruction of crops so that my genetically modified crop
is able to grow. However, as a concerned consumer, I would
worry that I am encouraging the killing of bananas that are
different purely because they are not similar to the bananas
that are idealized.
the company would want continued work from its
employees. Consumers, on the other hand, should be able to
depend on companies that are providing the product. In both
cases, I would be convinced of either side to continue
research or provide information to the public.
Unfortunately, I cannot do both in this scenario. Perhaps
one the next places I would look to make a decision is within
myself. I know personally that I am a nature-lover, but I also
look to please the people that I work for, no matter the cost.
Which one outweighs the other for me? After looking
though the Engineering Code of Ethics and looking at my
own personal values, I would be most inclined to not
continue research with the company so that I would be able
to warn the public. I would want to put effort into keeping a
biodiverse gene pool in genetically modified organisms.
Who said that all bananas must have identical DNA strands?
I am convinced that crops can survive naturally, but some
help from genetic modification would support the
population. Creating mass amounts of identical product is
unnecessary and sacrificial to the benefits of biodiversity. By
making this decision, I could save an entire product from
potential destruction and keep a diverse species in existence
to naturally select what genes are to be kept. In addition, my
moral obligation to protect and inform the public would be
satisfied. Maybe if more people knew about the issue,
demands to change this specific system of genetic
modification could be altered, and my company would need
people to create alternatives.
I believe this would be the best decision for me, but there
are many other ways to approach the same scenario. I would
encourage engineers faced with a similar scenario to look at
the Engineering Code of Ethics and within their own book of
morals to decide what they value in their work. Personally, I
value my integrity and responsibility to make a better
environment to live in. Other engineers may be doing the
same work for a different motive, such as the advancement
of science. Each decision has a different outcome. Of course,
the decision engineers make on a daily basis have an impact
on what tomorrow looks like. We trust engineers to make the
right decision to create a better future.
FINAL DECISION
My decision in this scenario is difficult to finalize. What
would I do if I knew that I have the power to save
populations of bananas? Well, I find it extremely important
that people who have the power to do what is right must
choose to do what is right. Consumers might be completely
oblivious to this problem, but I am able to protect an entire
market if I choose to not continue research with my
company.
Comparatively, I ask myself what would my work be
harming if I would continue research and not worry about
the risks. According to one frame of reference, I am not
harming anything in nature because everything that will
happen is nature’s way of weeding out the weakest and
keeping the strongest organisms. In this case, I would not
need to worry about ecological concerns, and I would
continue working for the company as per usual.
However, engineers are people that have their own
morals to uphold. For anyone that may be faced with a
similar decision, engineers have to decide what the best
decision is for all parties involved. Because this case
concerns the balance between consumer and producer
weighing in on the engineer’s decision, the engineer should
think about what he would want in both cases. Obviously,
REFERENCES
[1] National Society of Professional Engineers. (2007).
“Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National Society of
Professional
Engineers.
(online
article).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[2] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2013).
“Food Code.” U.S. Drug and Food Administration. (online
article).
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/R
etailFoodProtection/FoodCode/UCM374510.pdf
[3] “Why Are Bananas Going Extinct?” DNews. (2014).
(video). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MefV44c7GEc
[4] American Society of Agricultural and Biological
Engineers. (2009). “Constitution, Bylaws and Rules.”
3
Kaylene Kowalski
“Monsanto Corn.” (2012) Snopes.com. (website).
http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/monsantocorn.asp
Monsanto. (2003). “Code of Ethics for Chief Executive and
Senior Financial Officers.” Monsanto. (website).
http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/pages/code-ofethics.aspx
S. Moran. (2014). "Agricultural Patenting: A Case Study of
Monsanto." Pepperdine Policy Review. (online
article). http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/ppr/vol7/iss1/
4
T. Phillips. (2014). “10 Examples of Agricultural
Biotechnology.” About.com: Money. (online article).
http://biotech.about.com/od/whatisbiotechnology/tp/Agricult
ure.htm
A. Selko. (2013). “Thailand: a country with a plan.” Industry
Week. (article)
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA338323733
&v=2.1&u=upitt_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=8ebc
c2d42fe858cd5ab46a5b8fe59ee8
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
(online
article).
https://www.asabe.org/media/54033/constitution.pdf
[5] G. C. Nelson. (2001). “Genetically Modified Organisms
in Agriculture.” Academic Press. (online book).
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/pitt/reader.action?docID=10186302
[6] A. Hillbeck, D. A. Andow, E. M. G. Fontes, et al. (2006).
“Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified
Organisms, Volume 2 : A Case Study of BT Cotton in
Brazil.”
CABI
Publishing.
(online
book).
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/pitt/reader.action?docID=10157959
[7] G. D. Catalano. (2006). “Engineering Ethics: Peace,
Justice, and the Earth.” Synthesis Lectures on Engineering,
Technology,
and
Society
#1.
(online
article).
http://www.morganclaypool.com/doi/pdf/10.2200/S00039E
D1V01Y200606ETS001
[8] B. Bailey, M. Lappe. (2002). “Engineering the Farm:
The Social and Ethical Aspects of Agricultural
Biotechnology.”
[9] United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.
(2006). “Concern over declining banana biodiversity.”
Mongaybay.com.
(online
article).
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0507-bananas.html
ACKOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank a few people specifically
for their input in this paper. Without their help, this paper
would not have been possible. Thanks to Beth Newborg for
her writing expertise, organizational brainstorming, and
topic development for this paper. In addition, Julie Coffman
provided information in my Ethics in Science course during
my last term of high school. Her coursework and
information taught in the class proved extremely useful
throughout this paper. Thank you to Connor Lynch and
Margot Shore for providing emotional support to persevere
through the paper.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
“Biotechnology Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).”
(2013). United States Department of Agriculture. (webpage).
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=AG
RICULTURE&contentid=BiotechnologyFAQs.xml
R. Coons. (2012). “Monsanto posts profit gains, increases
2012 outlook.” Chemical Week. (article)
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA287749461
&v=2.1&u=upitt_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=a92c
e9391a787ffd2ad809dbda00929d
S. Croeser. (2014). “How Private Funding Influences GMO
Research.” Epoch Times. (online article).
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/778422-how-privatefunding-influences-gmo-research/
M. Eng. (2014). “Activists grill producers of modified corn.”
Chicago Tribune. (online article).
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-04/news/ct-metgmo-sweet-corn-20120804_1_sweet-corn-food-allergiespatty-lovera
“Genetically engineered varieties of corn, upland cotton, and
soybeans, by State and for the United States, 2000-14.”
(2014). United States Department of Agriculture: Economic
Research Service. (excel spreadsheet).
http://ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-geneticallyengineered-crops-in-the-us.aspx#.VCok-C5dVW1
J. King. A. Toole. K. Fuglie. (2012). “The Complementary
Roles of the Public and Private Sectors in U.S. Agricultural
Research and Development.” United States Department of
Agriculture: Economic Research Service. (presentation).
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/913804/eb19.pdf
4