Ben Mepham

``Würde der Kreatur'' and the Common Morality

If respect for the dignity of non-human creatures is to be an element of public policy it needs, as a first step, to be assimilated into the common morality. It is suggested that such respect may be based on several philosophical premises. Limiting the discussion to sentient animals, the paper reviews three of these: the concept of animal telos; the application of Rawlsian contractarianism to the case of non-human animals as moral patients; and human attitudes to animals in the light of virtue theory. Consideration is then given to the extent to which, by accommodating respect for the dignity of animals within the common morality, these principles might find more substantive expression in public policy.

Food additives: an ethical evaluation.

BACKGROUND Food additives are an integral part of the modern food system, but opinion polls showing most Europeans have worries about them imply an urgent need for ethical analysis of their use. SOURCES OF DATA The existing literature on food ethics, safety assessment and animal testing. AREAS OF AGREEMENT Food additives provide certain advantages in terms of many peoples lifestyles. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY There are disagreements about the appropriate application of the precautionary principle and of the value and ethical validity of animal tests in assessing human safety. GROWING POINTS Most consumers have a poor understanding of the relative benefits and risks of additives, but concerns over food safety and animal testing remain high. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH Examining the impacts of food additives on consumer sovereignty, consumer health and on animals used in safety testing should allow a more informed debate about their appropriate uses.

The Ethical Matrix as a Tool in Policy Interventions: The Obesity Crisis

The chapter addresses the issue of how governments of democratic states might seek to assist their citizens to reverse the serious trend towards overweight and obesity. Recent reports have stressed the contributory role of the obesogenic environment that characterises contemporary UK society, and suggested that to be effective policy interventions need to be implemented on several fronts. The chapter explores the multidimensional capabilities of the ethical matrix as both a procedural and a substantive tool in such programmes, focusing on food production, marketing and consumption.

Scientists get ethical

Bioethics for ScientistsEdited by J. Bryant, L. Baggott la Vell and J. Searle.John Wiley & Sons Ltd (2002) £65.00 (hbk)(xii+ 360 pages) ISBN 0 471 495338Bioethics has progressed from being a decidedly marginal subject, ∼20 years ago when I first introduced it into my undergraduate teaching, to one almost de rigueur for biology students. In Britain, BSE and Dolly have doubtless played important roles, but nowadays few biologists would disagree that appreciation of the wider social and ethical implications of biotechnology in all its forms can no longer be left to the pronouncements of politicians and journalists. Despite that, the number of suitable introductory texts for biology students remains small – and it was this deficiency that apparently was the main motive for producing this book. So, on the face of it, Bioethics for Scientists promised to be a ‘good read’ for biology students and a valuable addition to bioethics lecturers’ limited teaching resources.However, with such expectations, I have to admit to finding the book rather disappointing. Although there are some excellent individual chapters (such as those by Barnes and Baggott la Velle), taken as a whole the book lacks the coherence and uniformity of style to be expected of a textbook. Indeed, where a house style is evident it does not seem that helpful to the reader, because one gets the impression that (with a few notable exceptions) the choice of authors was determined principally by their local connections and/or shared religious persuasions. For example, out of the 18 authors, seven are based in Exeter (UK) and several (including four ‘Reverends’) have prominent theological affiliations. One could be forgiven for suspecting a hidden agenda – should the word ‘Christian’ appear somewhere in the title?An important question is; ‘Whose needs does the book seek to satisfy?’. If it is aimed principally at science students (as the preface implies), for use in ancillary courses, it is not clear how often it would be used effectively. Even in the early stages of undergraduate courses some specialization has usually been established, so that it is unlikely that a student interested in, for example, animal cloning, animal experimentation and the ‘human use of non-human animals’ (although the chapters on the latter would be a little too theoretical for many students), would have recourse to read many of the remaining chapters, even those on euthanasia and environmental ethics.Writing of ‘liberal studies of science’ in 1958 (for which read ‘bioethics’ in 2002), Eric Ashby claimed that; ‘The habit of apprehending a technology in its completeness is the essence of technological humanism... [and] what we should expect education to achieve’. But Ashby argued that these studies must be relevant, building on the students specialism rather than by-passing it, because ‘a student who cannot weave his (sic) technology into the fabric of society cannot even claim to be a good technologist’. This is something that needs to be recognized as much now as 44 years ago. Bolt-on bioethics courses are less likely to enthuse students than those where the ethical concerns are intrinsic to their scientific studies.Another prime requirement of such a text should be ‘balance’. Readers need accounts that are sympathetic to the contrasting ethical positions evident in society, and should be left to reach their own conclusions. Unfortunately, the necessary objectivity is not evident in all contributions. For example, Bryant and Hughes, in a chapter on genetically modified crops, reveal biases against the ‘Precautionary Principle’ and organic farming (neither of which is described adequately) that militate against reasoned ethical analysis.What is perhaps most notable is the rather slight treatment accorded to ethical theory. Reisss introductory chapter addresses such issues, but within 13 pages cannot cover much (whereas another chapter was allocated 32 pages). There are several allusions to ‘ethical frameworks’, but I suspect the rather minimalist scheme presented in fig. 3.1 will not satisfy many readers. In my experience, biologists often appreciate ethical insights that can be summarized in flow charts and block diagrams, which are conspicuous by their absence from this book.Emerging disciplines must be grateful for all additions to their resource base, and this book certainly has some useful contributions. However, at £65.00, this is not a book I will be urging my students to buy.

EurSafe Congress. Wageningen University, March 4–6, 1999: Summing up and future prospects

Until recently, ethics was a highlyabstruse activity, with little reference to everydayaffairs. It dealt largely with what is calledmetaethics, and was in danger of becoming moribund asan intellectual activity. But for some years,ethics has been undergoing a process of rejuvenationand development. We now seem to be experiencing thebirth of this new discipline (or at least in the EU –the US has been engaged in it somewhat longer). The EurSafeCongress held at Wageningen University, March 4–6,1999 exemplifies this rejuvenation, and itstrongly suggests that a new discipline is emerging, that is not only exciting from an intellectualperspective, but also addresses issues of fundamentalsocial and political concern. It can beargued that, in this context, ethicists are in the position of guides.It is not their job to pronounce on what is right andwrong, but having trodden many of the theoreticalpaths through the forest, they are in a position toadvise and facilitate sound ethical decision-making byothers. The need for ethical insight in this field islikely to progressively increase over the comingyears. Ethicists have a duty to respond to this need.