Root out the endemic pessimism over biotech

Simon Best, Chairman, UK BioIndustry Association

I believe it is time to take stock and consider the contribution of bioscience at a higher, ethical level, and also to more directly confront the challenges this brings with it.

This requires an open acknowledgement that we are the most powerful species on earth, whilst recognising the responsibility this brings with it with regard to other species and the environment.

In contrast, animal rights extremists are in effect saying that humans have no higher ethical/moral value than other species – in fact they think that some members of the human race, particularly those in our industry, are actually less worthy than other species, which provides them with the deeply flawed moral justification for their actions.

Unfortunately, the animal rights extremists are only the most extreme example of an endemic pessimism about humans’ ability to use their power responsibly, and a deeply felt sense that we can’t trust ourselves. This prevails not only in the less extreme arms of the anti-technology and anti-globalisation movement, but is worryingly widespread in both politics and the media.

This underpins the inexorable rise of the precautionary principle, and both technology scare stories and fallen-hero stories.

Neurotic fear of own power blocks our desire and determination to accept the responsibilities that this brings and - with appropriate humility - to actively explore the challenges of how to use our power wisely to build a better and more sustainable future.

The global protest movement constantly reinforces a sense of pessimism and guilt about being human, seeking a renunciation of human power and potential, instead of a determined effort to demonstrate that we are worthy of it.

Fear and pessimism are the legacy of a limited though very serious litany of case-studies in which science and technology were applied to evil ends by the warped ideology of Nazism, or to geopolitical ends during the Cold War, or, in the 20 years after the second world war, when a number of new technologies were released on a wide scale without sufficient pause for thought about their potential to damage the environment.

It is unfortunate that these lessons were learnt the hard way. The lessons have certainly been learnt however, and have been embedded in the demanding regulatory processes first put in place in the 1970s [making it a requirement] to predetermine impact on human health and the environment.

So is modern bioscience really different? I would argue yes – because the tools it has made available mean that the fundamental approach we take now is to understand the problems we’re trying to fix and then design targeted technical solutions that have as little impact as possible outside the scope of the problem – either as side effects in the case of drugs, or in terms of pollution and environmental impact in the case of agricultural and environmental applications.

The biotechnology industry can claim with confidence that if responsible scientific enquiry is allowed to thrive, then we can develop and apply new tools from the resultant knowledge to make the world a better place for all. We will continue to look before we leap. We should be, and are, humble and thoughtful, but not fearful.