Life science ethics
Gary L. Comstock, editor
Life science ethics
Contents
Preface
Acknowledgements
PART 1. Ethical reasoning
Chapter 1.
Ethics
Gary L. Comstock
Chapter 2.
Religion
Gary L. Comstock
Chapter 3.
Reasoning
Lilly-Marlene Russow
Chapter 4.
Method
Gary L. Comstock
PART 2. Life science ethics
Chapter 5.
Environment
Lilly-Marlene Russow
Chapter 6.
Food
Hugh LaFollette and Larry May
Chapter 7.
Animals
Gary Varner
Chapter 8.
Land
Paul Thompson
Chapter 9.
Biotechnology
Fred Gifford
Chapter 10.
Farms
Charles Taliaferro
PART 3. Case studies
Chapter 11.
Environment
A. “Rare Plants,” by Lynn G. Clark
B. “Marine Mammal Protection,” by Donald J. Orth
Chapter 12.
Food
A. “Infant Deaths in Developing Countries,” by Lois Banta
Jeffrey Beetham, Donald Draper,
Nolan Hartwig, Marvin Klein, Grace Marquis
2
B. “Edible Antiobiotics in Food Crops,” By Mike Zeller,
Terrance Riordan, Halina Zaleski, Dean Herzfeld
and Kathryn Orvis
Chapter 13.
Animals
A. “Beef, Milk, and Eggs,” by Gary Varner
B. “Veterinary Euthanasia,”by Bernard Rollin, Jerrold
Tannenbaum, Courtney Campbell,
Kathleen Moore, and Gary L. Comstock
Chapter 14.
Land
A. “Hybrid Corn,” by Jochum Wiersma, Deon Stuthman,
David Fan, Donald Duvick, and Victor Konde
B. “Trait Protection System,” by Thomas Peterson and Bryony Bonning
Chapter 15.
Biotechnology
A. “Golden rice,” by Ross Whetten, Carol Loopstra, Sharon Shriver,
Karen Pesaresi Penner, Robert Zeigler, Jacqueline
Fletcher, Melanie Torre, Kristen Hessler and Gary
Comstock
B. “Organ transplantation,” by Christopher Baldwin,
David Bristol, Emily Deaver, Bruce Hammerberg,
Carole A. Heath, Surya Mallapragada, Gavin J. Naylor,
Elaine Richardson, and Jim Wilson
Chapter 16.
Farms
A. “Lost in the Maize,” by Isabel Lopez-Calderon,
Steven Hill, L. Horst Grimme, Michael Lawton,
and Anabela M. L. Romano
B. “Magnanimous Iowans,” by Ricardo Salvador,
Stephen Moose, Bruce Chassy, and Kathie Hodge
Notes for Instructors
Contributors
Index
3
Dedicated to my brother Doug and his beloved wife,
Emily Goyer Comstock
whose grace is exceeded
only by her courage
4
Preface
Life science ethics is the normative evaluation of human actions affecting living things.
We affect living things in virtually everything we do, from drinking water to cooking dinner,
sending email to flushing the toilet. Sometimes we pause to reflect about these activities and
when we do, we may ask ourselves some basic philosophical questions. Does nature have
intrinsic value? Should we be doing more to save wilderness and ocean ecosystems? What are
our duties to future generations of humans? Do animals have rights? Should scientists sign
agreements that prevent them, for a time, from making the results of their experiments known to
anyone except the private industry that has funded their research? These are some of the
questions we find in life science ethics.
The book is a work of applied ethics, and is intended to fill a gap in the ethics literature.
The gap concerns moral issues that arise when humans use what Aldo Leopold called "the
land."1 The book has three Parts. Part 1 introduces ethics, the relationship of religion to ethics,
how we assess ethical arguments, and a method ethicists use to reason about ethical theories.
Part 2 demonstrates the relevance of ethical reasoning to six topics:
 The relative moral standing of ecosystems, nonhuman animals, and future human
generations;
 Our duties to aid the hungry in developing countries;
 Obligations to animals used to produce food, fiber, and knowledge;
 Public policies to adjudicate conflicting rights-claims among urban consumers,
environmentalists and farmers over the use of water and land;
 The moral justifiability of genetic engineering as a whole and the patenting of life
forms in particular; and,
5
 The virtues traditionally associated with family farms.
Part 3 offers twelve case studies, two cases for each of the six topics. We have found the cases
useful in promoting reasoned discussion of fundamental questions in life science ethics.
A word about our title. One of the branches of life science ethics is bioethics, a term that
has come to mean the normative evaluation of actions affecting humans. Is the fetus a person?
Should physicians be permitted to help patients commit suicide? Who should pay for health care
for the poor? These are profound and urgent matters, and a veritable bioethics industry has
grown up to reckon with them during the last four decades.
Yet, the prefix bio derives from the Greek word bios, meaning all life, so why restrict our
attention to humans? Could “bioethics” not be used in a broader way, to encompass more than
human, medical, ethics? The etymological origins of “bio” focus on life in all of its myriad
forms, including animal, plant, microorganismic and ecosystemic life.2
To date, professional ethicists have not been inclined to use the term in its original, more
inclusive, sense. Representative of the debate, for example, is this call for grant applications
written by a well-respected private foundation:
Through its Interdisciplinary Program in Bioethics, the Foundation provides funding for
physicians, lawyers, philosophers, economists, theologians, and other professionals to
address micro and macro issues in bioethics, providing guidance for those engaged in
decision making at the bedside as well as those responsible for shaping institutional and
public policy.
The terms “bedside" and “physicians” clearly convey the assumption of the granting
agency; proposals should focus on the care of humans. Proposals from agronomists and animal
6
scientists focused on ethical issues having to do with the care of plants and animals, endangered
species and farm animal welfare, are not likely to be considered, much less funded.
A recent experience of the editor of this volume is also telling. There is a widelyrespected international academic journal with a title that sounds very much like “Bioethics.” I
suggested to its editor that the journal consider reviewing a new book on the ethical dimensions
of agricultural biotechnology. The proposal was rejected on the grounds that the subject matter
of the book was not within the scope of the journal.
The narrower understanding of bioethics as medical clinical ethics is currently dominant.
Hence, a new phrase is needed to convey the original meaning of the word. We have adopted
life science ethics.
How should undergraduates be introduced to life science ethics? We have kept this
question in front of us, hoping to create a text that will assist its users in sharpening their critical
reasoning skills while also providing essential background concepts in moral theory. We intend
our essays to be accessible to first year college students while also introducing cutting-edge
philosophical ideas. Authors, therefore, were selected because of their original contributions to
ethics scholarship and on the basis of their ability to explain difficult philosophical concepts to
novices.
A significant feature of the collection is its case study approach, an innovative
pedagogical structure that should make the book particularly appealing to nonspecialists. The
book begins with a brief narrative introducing a student, Dawn, who must decide whether to
cheat. The readers are invited to assess the case for themselves, look into the facts of the case,
and reach their own decision about the permissibility of cheating. Dawn's case should not only
prove entertaining but should provoke energetic and reflective classroom discussion of topics
7
such as: What is ethics? How does ethics differ from custom, law, science and religion? And,
Is there anything objective about ethics? Succeeding chapters introduce the concepts of moral
reasoning and argumentation, provide students with exercises that they can complete in order to
help them master the skills of critical reasoning, and follow Dawn's story as she confronts other
critical questions.
The contributors shared five objectives in writing the cases that introduce each chapter in
Part 2:
1. Accessibility
The majority of students encountering this book will not have had a course in philosophy.
The cases and essays are written in such a way that these students will be able to
understand them.
2. Plausibility
The cases are not factual because they involve imaginary characters, but they are
plausible, with a high degree of verisimilitude. Ideally, they are based on actual incidents
and describe situations students may face.
3. Philosophical fecundity
With the right tools and careful guidance, philosophical novices can be led to discuss
ethical issues with a high degree of sophistication. The cases provide an introduction to
key terms and ideas by which instructors can lead classes in in-depth discussions.
Discussion of the cases that open the chapters in Part 2 may be further developed by close
reading of the essays in Part 2.
4. Drama
8
We have constructed the cases to appeal to the imagination, using narrative and dialog to
heighten interest.
5. Coherence
We introduce a cast of characters taking a university course called “Agricultural Ethics.”
We follow them through the book, thus presenting a single narrative plot that builds on
previous cases, lending coherence to the whole.
Each case study in Part 2 is followed by Discussion Questions meant to elicit conversations
about the issues taken up in the essays that follow.
Each essay begins with the author discussing a new development in the Ag Ethics class
and returning to the case at the end. Each essay surveys the philosophical literature; introduces
different answers that have been given to the Discussion Questions; and leads the student
through relevant philosophical topics. Each author also suggests the outlines of their own
position on the central questions.
Our over-arching goal is to improve the student’s skill in analyzing ethical arguments,
and to help them discover which argument they have the best reasons to believe and act upon. Is
it possible to achieve this goal? Research suggests that students can “make substantial gains in
moral reasoning skills.”3 Teachers of critical thinking have created and tested various methods
to improve these ethical capacities.4 And there is some reason to think, perhaps a bit
optimistically, that as we improve our reasoning abilities in the area of ethics, we also improve
our behavior.5
What should university students be able to do when they have completed a science
curriculum enriched with an ethics component? They should be able to speak and write with
discernment and good reasoning. We will know they are discerning if their discourse evidences
9
the ability to recognize issues as moral issues; articulate and apply moral principles, values, and
approaches; and analyze cases in a self-reflective way. We will know they can reason well if
their discourse evidences knowledge of the accepted moral standards within their field;
knowledge of key ethical arguments, figures, and texts; the ability to speak and write in a way
that is logical, complete, consistent, and clear, and that can recognize potential objections to
one’s position.
Students need to be able to discern and reason if they are to live a good life, the life of a
reflective mature citizen and a morally responsible professional. Science graduates will enter a
workplace in which many issues once thought to be purely technical, scientific, or legal, now
clearly have an ethical dimension. The challenges they face as professionals will increasingly be
challenges their mentors have not faced. Consequently, students may find themselves having to
say something intelligent, perhaps with a television camera in their face, without having had a
chance to discuss the question with peers.
We can assist these students by helping them to recognize, organize, and evaluate moral
arguments; creating a learning environment that fosters cooperation, analysis and criticism;
introducing them to moral arguments relevant to their disciplines; modeling proper scientific
conduct; and providing them with case studies that raise relevant ethical issues. We hope this
book will help in some modest way to achieve at least some of these goals.
10
Acknowledgments
This book is one of the products of National Science Foundation (NSF) grants #SBR9254504 and #SES-9906244, grants that supported the “Iowa State University Model Bioethics
Institutes.” The Iowa State-model Institutes are faculty development workshops for life
scientists that began in 1991 at Iowa State. In the last decade, the Institutes have visited five
other U.S. campuses: the University of Illinois, Michigan State, Purdue, North Carolina State,
and Oregon State. The Institutes continue today, and in the year 2000 they expanded to reach an
international audience, with Institutes at the Foundation for Luso-American Development
(FLAD), in Lisbon, Portugal. We are grateful for FLAD’s support, and specifically for the
contributions of FLAD’s forward-looking Dr. Charles Buchanan.
The majority of this book’s chapters grew out of papers originally presented at one ISUmodel Institute or another. Almost all of the case studies in Part 3 began their lives as drafts
produced at an Institute.
Deeply grateful to NSF for its support, we hasten to offer special recognition of Dr.
Rachelle Hollander, Director of NSF’s Ethics and Values Studies Program. Dr. Hollander has
exhibited extraordinary vision, and courage, in her efforts to stimulate the integration of
discussions of ethics into the life science curriculum. Were it not for her efforts championing a
broad range of highly successful research and teaching projects in the area of science and values,
the gap between the so-called “two cultures” would, alas, be wider than it is.
11
The editor was able to finish the project thanks to grant support from the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, under agreement no. 00-52100-9617. The USDA requires us to add: "Any
opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are
those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture."
Finally, speaking personally, I wish to acknowledge the active support of Patricia B.
Swan, formerly Vice-Provost for Research at Iowa State University. Not only did Dr. Swan
rigorously guard the autonomy and health of the ISU Bioethics Program during her tenure as
Vice-Provost from 1990 - 2000. She also powerfully shaped the future of biological education
by first suggesting the outlines of what would become the ISU Bioethics Institute.
12
Notes
1
Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (New York: Oxford University Press, 1949).
2
It seems that Van Renssalaer Potter II coined the word "bioethics" in 1971 in his book
Bioethics, Bridge to the Future (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.). As Potter has
taken pains to point out, he did not intend the word to refer narrowly to human clinical
ethics, but rather to the wide range of problems associated with the global survival of all
life forms. Cf. Potter, “What Does Bioethics Mean?” The Ag Bioethics Forum 8 (June
1996), available on-line at: http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/Bioethics.html.
3
A. Garrod, ed., Approaches to Moral Development: New Research and Emerging
Themes (New York Teachers College Press, 1993).
4
M. J. Bebeau, and S. J. Thoma, “The Impact of a Dental Ethics Curriculum on Moral
Reasoning,” Journal of Dental Education 58 (1994): 684-692.
5
“The link between moral reasoning and moral behavior is well established.” Thoma,
“Moral Judgments and Moral Actions,” in J. R. Rest. and D. Narvaez, eds., Moral
Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics (Hillsdale: Erlbaum
Associates, 1994).
13