Food, Genetic Engineering and Philosophy of Technology: Magic Bullets, Technological Fixes and Responsibility to the Future

173 Pages·2018·1.588 MB·English

by  N. Dane Scott

The International Library of Environmental,
Agricultural and Food Ethics 28
N. Dane Scott
Food, Genetic
Engineering
and Philosophy
of Technology
Magic Bullets, Technological Fixes and
Responsibility to the Future
The International Library of Environmental,
Agricultural and Food Ethics
Volume 28
Series editors
Michiel Korthals, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Paul B. Thompson, Michigan, USA
The ethics of food and agriculture is confronted with enormous challenges. Scientific
developments in the food sciences promise to be dramatic; the concept of life
sciences, that comprises the integral connection between the biological sciences, the
medical sciences and the agricultural sciences, got a broad start with the genetic
revolution. In the mean time, society, i.e., consumers, producers, farmers,
policymakers, etc, raised lots of intriguing questions about the implications and
presuppositions of this revolution, taking into account not only scientific
developments, but societal as well. If so many things with respect to food and our
food diet will change, will our food still be safe? Will it be produced under animal
friendly conditions of husbandry and what will our definition of animal welfare be
under these conditions? Will food production be sustainable and environmentally
healthy? Will production consider the interest of the worst off and the small farmers?
How will globalisation and liberalization of markets influence local and regional
food production and consumption patterns? How will all these developments
influence the rural areas and what values and policies are ethically sound? All these
questions raise fundamental and broad ethical issues and require enormous ethical
theorizing to be approached fruitfully. Ethical reflection on criteria of animal
welfare, sustainability, liveability of the rural areas, biotechnology, policies and all
the interconnections is inevitable.
Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics contributes to a sound,
pluralistic and argumentative food and agricultural ethics. It brings together the
most important and relevant voices in the field; by providing a platform for
theoretical and practical contributors with respect to research and education on all
levels.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/6215
N. Dane Scott
Food, Genetic Engineering
and Philosophy of
Technology
Magic Bullets, Technological Fixes
and Responsibility to the Future
N. Dane Scott
W.A. Frank College of Forestry & Conservation
The University of Montana
Missoula, MT, USA
ISSN 1570-3010 ISSN 2215-1737 (electronic)
The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics
ISBN 978-3-319-96025-8 ISBN 978-3-319-96027-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96027-2
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018953151
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Introduction
Our civilization, which subsumes most of its predecessors, is a great ship steaming at speed
into the future. It travels faster, further and more laden than any before. We may not be
able to foresee every reef and hazard and headway, but understanding her design, her safety
record, and the abilities of her crew, we can, I think, plot a wise course between the narrows
and the bergs looming ahead…. The vessel we are now aboard is not merely the biggest of
all time; it is the only one left…. The world has grown too small to forgive us any big mis-
takes – Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress
Biotechnology is a rapidly expanding and branching area of research that
includes transgenics, synthetic biology, and genomic editing. These powerful tech-
nologies are increasing the rate and expanding the scope of possibilities for engi-
neering life to solve human problems. Food genetic engineering (GE) is ethically
charged and highly controversial. Environmental and consumer activists groups
such as Greenpeace International and Friends of the Earth International have
launched sustained and effective campaigns against GE foods. Robert Paarlberg
observes:
The campaigns these organizations have been conducting for almost 2 decades now have
been remarkably successful, particularly in blocking the planting of [genetically modified
organism] GMO food crops. GMO wheat, GMO rice, GMO potato, and nearly all GMO
fruits and vegetables have been blocked from commercial planting, even in the United
States. GMO food animals and GMO fish have also been kept entirely off the market
(Paarlberg 2014)
On the other side of the debate, life science corporations and governments have
spent billions of dollars in research and development of GE crops and foods. In
2016, nearly one third of the living Nobel laureates (108 people) signed an open
letter responding to Greenpeace’s campaigns against GE foods. The scientists
addressed the letter to environmental groups, the United Nations, and governments.
It accuses Greenpeace of misrepresenting the “risks, benefits and impacts” of genet-
ically altered food plants (The Guardian 2016). This area of research and develop-
ment is the source of an intense international debate with no end in sight. Sheldon
Krimsky and Jeremy Gruber observe that, “while there have been longstanding con-
troversies between vegetarians and omnivores or organic versus conventional
v
vi Introduction
farming, rarely has there been a time when food has divided society into two major
warring camps” (Krimsky and Gruber 2014). How is one to understand this long-
standing controversy over food genetic engineering? What contributions should the
rapidly expanding list of powerful biotechnologies play in the future of food and
agriculture?
There are numerous books on the food GE debate that argue for one side or the
other in this predominately philosophical dispute. For example, the above remarks
by Krimsky and Gruber are taken from their edited volume, entitled The GMO
Deception: What You Need to Know About the Food, Corporations, and Government
Agencies Putting Our Families and Environment at Risk (2014). There are numer-
ous books that take a strong stand like theirs against GE foods. In a similar vein is
Steven Druker’s Altered Genes and Twisted Truths: How the Venture to Genetically
Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and
Systematically Deceived the Public (2015). These books are countered with opti-
mistic appraisals of the promise of GE foods to feed the world, for example, Robert
Paarlberg’s Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of Africa
(2008) and Gordon Conway’s One Billion Hungry: Can We Feed the World?
(2012). There are more balanced approaches to the GE debate. In her book on eth-
ics, technology, and the future, Sheila Jasanoff, Pforzheimer Professor of Science
and Technology Studies at Harvard, asks: “Is there no middle ground for respon-
sible, ethical, technological progress between unbridled enthusiasm and anachro-
nistic Luddism?” (Jasanoff 2016). Paul B. Thompson, W. K. Kellogg Professor of
Food and Agriculture Ethics at Michigan State University, writes that “it is…past
time…to discard simplistic thinking…. No blanket endorsement or condemnation
of biotechnology makes any sense at all” (Thompson 2009). Professors Jasanoff
and Thompson have been writing about the ethical and social implications of GE
for decades; they both argue for more complex and sophisticated ways of thinking
about technology, ethics, and responsibility. The goal of this book is to explore
several possibilities for moving beyond the sweeping pro and con stances in the
GE debate.
The controversy over GE is historically significant. It marks a new period when
humanity is reassessing the technological enterprise that has created modern civili-
zations. The expanding list of biotechnologies in agriculture (and medicine) is one
focal point of a philosophical dispute over the idea of technological progress and the
future of life on earth. Paul B. Thompson has labeled the international controversy
over GE a quandary and identified it as a “wicked problem” (Thompson 2014).
Wicked problems are ones where “important values are at stake, factual issues are
shrouded in uncertainty, options for moving forward are mutually exclusive and
have irreversible consequences, but there is no fundamental agreement on what the
problem is” (Ibid.). Scholars often cite climate change and chronic poverty as exam-
ples of wicked problems. The following chapters are an attempt to make sense of the
GE quandary and move beyond the polarized, ideological conflict. I will organize
these efforts by using an overarching heuristic to examine key theories and concepts
in the GE debate.
Introduction vii
The overarching heuristic is that of a narrative or epistemological crisis. The key
theories and concepts are divided into three groups: philosophy of technology, ethi-
cal ideals, and problem-solving strategies or paradigms. The first group contains
three philosophies of technology: technological optimism, technological pessi-
mism, and technological pragmatism. The second group is composed of three ethi-
cal ideas on how technological change should be governed: the idea of progress, the
precautionary principle, and the imperative of responsibility. The third group is
composed of two problem-solving strategies or paradigms: magic bullets and tech-
nological fixes. The heuristic of an epistemological crisis and the three groups of
theories and concepts create three “stories” or schemata that simplify the GE quan-
dary or wicked problem. The heuristic is, of course, pragmatic. Readers can judge
how successful it is at providing ideas for moving beyond the GE debate and toward
more responsible management of powerful and rapidly evolving biotechnologies. In
the discussions below, I introduce the notion of an epistemological crisis and the
three groups of theories and concepts and how they are related.
Epistemological Crises and Rival Philosophies of Technology
The idea of an epistemology crisis is taken from the philosopher, Alasdair MacIntyre.
MacIntyre uses the notions of dramatic narratives and epistemological crises to
resolve a specific dispute in philosophy of science over how scientists are rationally
able to judge a new scientific theory to be superior to the theory it replaces
(MacIntyre 1980). His arguments are derived from a general theory of human
agency. In his major work on moral theory, After Virtue, MacIntyre argues that
humans are essentially story-telling animals. Dramatic narratives serve to explain
human action, for both an individual and groups. We move from childhood to adult-
hood to become persons by learning to understand and tell stories; these stories
allow us to make sense of the world and ourselves. Persons are essentially tellers of
stories “that aspire to truth” (MacIntyre 2013, 250). The central question as we
become persons is about our own authorship. MacIntyre notes that “I can only
answer the question ‘What am I to do?’ if I can answer the prior question ‘Of what
story or stories do I find myself a part?’” (Ibid.). An epistemological crisis occurs
when the narratives and schemata a person uses to make sense of the world conflict
with the truth. MacIntyre illustrates the idea of an epistemological crisis with a
series of examples that demonstrate a breakdown between the way things seem and
the way things are. It seems to a person that she is a valued employee, then she is
suddenly fired. It seems to a person that his colleague is a friend, then he learns that
colleague has been covertly subverting his efforts and work. An epistemological
crisis is when an agent’s or a tradition’s schemata for interpreting and understanding
social life “are put into question” (McIntyre 1980).
MacIntyre uses Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Austin’s Emma to further illustrate his
notion of a narrative or epistemological crisis. However, for the purposes of this
investigation, a few references to Cormac McCarthy’s The Road will serve better.
viii Introduction
This postapocalyptic novel helps illustrate the conflict between two rival philosoph-
ical traditions: technological optimism and technological pessimism. The conflict
between these two philosophies is contributing to the GE quandary. The Road, at
least on the surface, fits within the tradition of technological pessimism; it seems to
be postapocalyptic science fiction—whether this is what McCarthy’s Pulitzer Prize
winning novel is will be discussed at the end of this introduction. The basic story
line of The Road is about the intensely dark and difficult struggles of a father and
his 10-year-old son as they try to survive in a postapocalyptic world. The father and
son travel south on a highway pushing a shopping cart with their belongings through
the charred and ash-covered remnants of capitalistic-technological civilization.
Everything is dead except for a few remaining humans, many of whom have turned
to blood-cults and cannibalism. To state the obvious, postapocalyptic science fiction
is pessimistic about the future of technological civilization. This popular genre
within science fiction contributes to a larger cultural, pessimistic narrative that aims
to subvert the narrative of progress.
As will be discussed in Chap. 1, the Enlightenment idea of progress created the
philosophical tradition of technological optimism. This tradition can be traced to
eighteenth- and nineteenth-century histories of philosophy that held that social
progress was the inevitable outcome of scientific and technological development.
For many people in Western societies, particularly in the United States, technologi-
cal optimism remains influential. From this perspective, the consistent application
of science and technology is humanity’s greatest hope for improving human life.
The philosopher Hans Achterhuis describes its essential assumptions as “purely
instrumental, utterly neutral with respect to political and social choices. This social-
political neutrality is said to result from the rational and universal character of tech-
nology” (Achterhuis 2001). The important feature of the progressive and optimistic
tradition is it views technology as having a universal and instrumental character. It
is merely a tool for making life better and more efficient.
The ethical idea of progress and technological optimism have contributed to
culture-shaping narratives whereby people are able to interpret the past, envision a
future, and make sense of their actions in the present. Scientists conducting research
in biotechnology might understand their actions by identifying with the progressive
narratives of curing diseases or feeding the world. The dramatic arc of the narrative
of progress begins with the scientific and democratic revolutions of the
Enlightenment. Over time the forces of democracy, science, and technology strug-
gle to advance until finally, at the end of history, progress will have displaced des-
potism with freedom, ignorance with knowledge, disease with health, and hunger
and poverty with abundance. In this philosophy of history, time’s arrow has a target,
an end or telos (final purpose). The implied end of history is a liberal technological
utopia.
The alternative, pessimistic tradition, as will be discussed in Chap. 1, became
influential in the second half of the twentieth century with rising concerns over the
threats of nuclear war, overpopulation, resource depletion, and industrial pollution.
When Cormac McCarthy published The Road in 2006 the pessimistic narrative was
so well established he could begin his novel without an explanation of how the earth
Introduction ix
was destroyed. He could assume that his readers could supply that part of the narra-
tive. Technological pessimism paints a dark picture of the role of technology in
contemporary culture. From this tradition, human history is on a dangerous trajec-
tory where technology is destined to become the “determining and controlling influ-
ence on society and culture” (Verbeek 2005, 11). One of the deepest critiques comes
from German philosopher Martin Heidegger who “understands technology as a par-
ticular manner of approaching reality, a dominating and controlling one in which
reality can only appear as raw material to be manipulated” (Ibid. 10). This view is
commonly represented in books and films, from the coldly ominous computer, HAL
9000, in Arthur C. Clark’s book and Stanley Kubrick’s film 2001: A Space Odyssey
to militarized robots in the popular, postapocalyptic Terminator films. Again, the
pessimistic narrative subverts the progressive philosophy of history with a dramatic
arc whereby scientific and technological progress ironically ends tragically, for
example, nuclear winter, genetically engineered plague, overpopulation and
resource depletion, and so on. In this tradition, technology is not value natural. It is
an independent and essentially dangerous threat to human existence and the planet.
The heuristic of an epistemological crisis caused by the conflict of the rival tradi-
tions of technological optimism and technological pessimism can help make sense
of the GE quandary. These rival traditions provide narratives and schemata whereby
people are presented with conflicting interpretations of powerful new emerging bio-
technologies. Optimistic stories promote new biotechnologies as holding the prom-
ise to solve some of humanities most pressing problems, cure diseases, and end
hunger. Pessimistic stories warn that new biotechnologies are taking humanity fur-
ther in the wrong direction; they pose serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment. Further, these rival traditions provide conflicting schemata for interpreting
key ideas in the GE debate: the idea of progress, the precautionary ethics, magic
bullets, and technological fixes. The influences of technological optimism and tech-
nological pessimism can be seen in social science research that studies people’s
attitudes toward emerging genomic technologies.
In a study examining a large body of survey data on attitudes toward genomic
engineering in society, Hochschild et al. characterized people as falling into two
groups: technological optimists and technological pessimists. On the one hand,
technological optimists have high levels of trust in science and technology to
improve human life and environmental quality. They downplay risks and uncertain-
ties and emphasize potential benefits and promises (Hochschild et al. 2012).
Optimists are motived by progress and growth, and while they acknowledge the
dangers and risks of emerging genomic technologies they are confident that the
benefits will outweigh the harms (ibid). The famous biotechnologist and entrepre-
neur, Craig Venter, is cited as an archetypical technological optimist. Venter predicts
that “genomics will protect the environment by reducing the need for pesticides,
creating oil-spill-eating bacteria, and combating climate change” (Ibid.). On the
other hand, technological pessimists are characterized as having low levels of trust
in science and technology to improve human life and the environmental quality.
They emphasize risks and uncertainties and downplay potential benefits and prom-
ises. Pessimists advocate for precautionary measures to protect human health and