Biotech: transformative or nothing new?
Yesterday’s panel on bioethics was shocking -- not for its content (though I found it provocative), but for the pitiful attendance. Strange and sad that out of 20,000 plus attendees, no more than a handful have an interest in ethics. What does this say about the priorities of this group?
And unfortunately for the few of us who did come, the panel was so large that by the time they all finished speaking, little time was left for discussion. Another shame, as several of the panel members were clearly at loggerheads about how the industry should be thinking and talking about its position in the greater world stage -- which is just the kind of discussion that needs to happen at convocations like this.
One question is whether biotechnology is transformative or merely another step in the logical progression of science. At one end of spectrum was Boston University’s George Annas, who, quoting ethicist Dan Callahan of The Hastings Center, stated that biotechnology changes not only what we do, but how we think. At the other end was the UK BioIndustry Association's Simon Best, who feels that the industry takes this position at its peril. This dichotomy cried out for further discussion and debate, but none was to be had. (To hear Simon Best talk about this and other topics, go to the Nature podcasts).
After some high-minded talks on corporate responsibility by reps from large companies, Steve Holtzman, co-founder BIO’s ethics committee, brought the discussion back to reality (for biotechs) and laid out what the ethical issues are for companies big and small: how to choose what diseases to tackle, how to go about tackling them while behaving responsibly both toward employees and human subjects, and finally, what to do with the fruits of all their labor -- the accessibility problem.
This last point (which most biotech execs including Holtzman have yet to face) leads to the second central question -- how the industry can operate as a profit center, yet provide what is viewed by most as an entitlement – good health. For more on this, see an earlier post by Nature Network Boston editor Corie Lok.
Comments
Yes, I too was struck by the low numbers of people in the audience, compared to the other sessions I went to later that day. If you attended any of the other bioethics sessions, post here about the turnout. I wonder if all the bioethics sessions had a low turnout.
It was too bad there was no time for audience participation, but I still enjoyed watching the panel light up even if just a little bit (more than what most panels will do at this conference!) when it became clear that there was disagreement. Was it a coincidence that George Annas and Simon Best were literally sitting at opposite ends of the long table?
Posted by: Corie Lok | May 8, 2007 01:40 PM