Political Scientists and Biotechnology Policy

Political Scientists and Biotechnology PolicyAuthor(s): Odelia FunkeSource: PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Winter, 1988), pp. 63-67Published by: American Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/419963 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 09:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toPS: Political Science and Politics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.107 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:56:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/419963?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Charles H. Moore holds the Ph.D. in political science from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He has taught at Wayne State Uni- versity, the University of Georgia, and Birming- ham-Southern College. He is currently working for the City of Birmingham. David W. Sink is associate professor of polit-

ical science and public administration at The University of Alabama at Birmingham. His degree is from the University of Georgia. Patricia Hoban-Moore is the director of plan-

ning for the Housing Authority of the Birming- ham District. Before that, she worked for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devel- opment and the City of Atlanta. She holds the M.P.A. from the University of Georgia.

References

Barbanel, Josh. November 29, 1987. Societies and Their Homeless. New York Times.

Redburn, F. Stevens and Terry F. Buss. 1986. Responding to America's Homeless: Public Policy Alternatives. New York: Praeger.

Rivlin, Leanne G. 1986. A New Look at the Homeless. Social Policy 16 (Spring): 3-10.

Rossi, Peter H. and James D. Wright. 1987. The Determinants of Homelessness. Health Af- fairs 6: 19-32.

U.S. Conference of Mayors. 1986. Responding to Homelessness in Americoa's Cities. Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Conference of Mayors.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devel- opment. 1984. A Report to the Secretary on the Homeless and Emergency Shelters. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Political Scientists and Biotechnology Policy Odelia Funke Environmental Protection Agency

The monograph, Biotechnology: Public Policy and the Social Sciences-Critical Needs in Teaching and Research [Biotech- nology], emphasizes the need for social scientists to increase their participation in public policy regarding biotechnology through research, teaching and policy recommendations. The authors (Robert H. Blank, Lynton K. Caldwell, Thomas C. Wiegele, and Raymond A. Zilinskas) per- suasively argue that critical issues are at stake here. Although scientific methodol- ogy and definitions underlie important choices regarding biotechnology, we face issues that go beyond scientific inquiry and expertise. Recombinant DNA research raised concerns in the late 1970s, which were sufficiently addressed through the NIH guidelines. Now commercial developments in biotechnology are posing other quite significant social and ethical issues. The idea that nonscientists should become actively involved in science policy is not new, but the message bears repeating. It has been standard practice in our society for technical experts to claim exclusive authority in broad areas of decision- making involving technical matters. Only recently, for example, have we begun to insist upon full disclosure from our doc- tors, and reclaim the right to make important decisions about our own lives and bodies. Technical experts cannot fully address ethical and social concerns. More- over, in the area of biotechnology, experts have strong interests, both intellectual and financial; they are not likely to make unbiased decisions. These choices properly belong to the political realm.

Discussions about the social/political impacts of biotechnology often focus on risk estimates, or hypothetical worst-case scenarios. Both those sponsoring the technology and policymakers tend to analyze risks (costs) as compared to the benefits they project. Insofar as we nave experience and evidence now, it is based

Winter 1988 63



Features

almost entirely upon laboratory experiments and very limited environmental release. The risks resulting from accidental escape from a laboratory or production facility differ from the risks associated with large-scale deliberate release of an organism into the environment. Last spring scientists released genetically engineered bacteria ("ice-minus") into the environment in a tightly controlled, small-plot ex- periment. Scientists can make some generalizations about the engineered organism; even then it is questionable whether the results are reliable indicators for large-scale releases. Clearly such experiments provide no assurance about engineered organisms in general. We also have to distinguish between short-term

4rac i o44At 0 *%4414k ~ve4g *(4c~4 0teCA4. and long-term risks, and between suspected effects, for which we might monitor, and unexpected effects.

While the authors are correct in pointing out the need for broader analysis and insights, the ongoing debate has not col- lapsed into a risk calculation. Biotechnology does not sufficiently acknowledge the unusual breadth of the debate. Technical experts evaluating biotechnology cannot agree on what the risks are, or might be, or how to measure them. Never mind that we cannot measure the potential risks; experts do not agree on what con- stitutes a "risk" or just what to measure. Further, there is no scientific or objective solution to the equation of risks and benefits when the parties at risk are often not the parties who stand to gain the most from any given application. Another factor

inhibiting public policymakers from re- treating to narrowly defined risk estimates is that a considerable number of scientists as well as nonscientists have been active in highlighting a broad spectrum of concerns -from effects on ethical values, to life- style, to the environment. Biotechnology could create new inequalities and new problems among social groups. Many note that biotechnology's development de- pends largely upon public funds. While this is not unique to biotechnology research, the point does emphasize the public's financial as well as social interests. In sum, the fact that technical issues necessarily begin with some fundamental values and definitions, which are usually implicit rather than explicit, has become clearer than ever. From this perspective, biotechnology debates have helped dissolve some myths and dogmatism surrounding the nature and scope of scientific objectivity. Of course the openness of the debate thus far does not guarantee that policymakers will not soon retreat into the narrow, more comfortable confines of risk analysis.

It follows that society needs other knowledgeable people to assess the non- scientific aspects and implications of biotechnology. The complexity of the issues posed by biotechnology, the range and force of changes it might bring, and the tendency for public argumentation to descend to polemic and ideological levels are all grounds cited to illustrate the need for rational and structured analysis. As these authors explicitly recognize, social scientists have to demonstrate their ability to offer something to public policy deliberations. Involvement by social scientists would require that they become more knowledgeable about the problems, including scientific principles. An academic program could bring the various disciplines involved into a constructive and har- monious working relationship to teach and research these issues. Such a program would entail going outside of the tradi- tional boundaries of our social science disciplines to learn what the sciences (especially biology) have to teach us. The authors correctly note that effective programs for studying biotechnology will require commitment on the part of schol-

64 PS: Political Science and Politics



Political Scientists and Biotechnology Policy

ars and academic institutions. Such a program would require that faculty broaden their knowledge to develop solid programs, and that both students and faculty cross over disciplinary structures.

Blank et al. concisely lay out the intellectual and political nature of biotechnology developments. They present a good flavor of the kinds of complex, multidimensional issues and the inherently political nature of some of these issues-for example, genetic screening in the workplace, definitions for human life and death, and closer relation- ships between industry and our institutions of higher education, including taxpayer- supported research that becomes private property. They discuss emerging biotechnology as a revolution, with consequences comparable to the profound changes brought about by development of micro- electronics and of new materials. They note that the power of genes is perhaps more awesome than that of atoms. And that genetic manipulation might engender greater problems, because it is less clearly perceived and its hazards are even less well understood. It could, they believe, alter life as we know it. Unlike many of the other remarkable changes of the past decades, biotechnology will not only bring increasingly complex problems with it; it will bring totally new kinds of issues in its wake.

What strikes the reader as particularly unusual in Biotechnology is that it goes beyond arguing against narrow policy viewpoints and for social science expertise in this public policy arena. It insists that political scientists specifically should be involved in forming public policy regarding biotechnology. Their argument implies that political scientists are typically involved in this sort of policy discussion and recommendation. Political scientists do research these matters, teach them and write scholarly papers and books about them. But do they typically play a significant part in important policy creation or articulation in the political arena? Do (should) decision-makers seek their advice on such matters? In short, biotechnology may not differ from other major policy issues in this regard; political scientists are probably not any more "noticeably absent in efforts to clarify or to resolve major

issues in biotechnology" (p. I I) than they are in other policy issues. The authors warn that policies have been and will be made with or without participation from political scientists; they judge that few general principles have emerged as yet to guide biotechnology policy. Policies have too frequently been adopted without ade- quate analysis "which political scientists could have provided. The consequence has been ineffective or contentious policy implementation" (p. 32). Another passage notes that demagoguery does not serve the public interest, and "therefore, the involvement of political scientists is, more than ever, a necessity, if rationality is to be brought to the public debate" (p. 49). This is a rather large claim for political science, and it is not obvious what would consti-

01 0 r4e4So to ; 40

tute evidence for the conclusion that political scientists are critical to these deliberations and that their participation would surely have improved outcomes. In fact the authors state that political scientists participated very little in shaping the early stages of biotechnology policy, yet they also note that the evolution of controlling experiments for this technology "has turned out to be a workable model for managing technologies likely to emerge in the future" (p. 18). What then was lost?

Regardless of past involvement, should political scientists advise government officials regarding public policies? The authors outline the critical significance these issues hold for society and its institutions; and

Winter 1988 65



Features

why they should be of keen interest to political scientists. As political scientists, we know something about how political/ social conflicts arise and methods for avoiding or resolving them. We understand political institutions and processes, and are aware of the need to assess the various interests affected by major eco- nomic, social or political initiatives-con- sidering local, national and international implications. Those who study politics also know that a risk calculation is not the only critical factor in any social equation, and

4%d~d444-t "4u #40106 ova 4,dA,4011~ that even risk itself should be viewed in light of who is bearing the risk. We try to make sense of the ingredients and dynam- ics of politics. To whom and how we should pass on our learning is an interesting question; involvement in shaping practical issues of the day has not been common, except as concerned citizens. Interest groups, institutions and lawyers are the usual actors in political conflicts, including those dealing with biotechnology. It is clearly important that policymakers con- sider views other than those of the technical experts, but Blank et al. have not made the case that we will better serve the public interest than other social scientists or ethicists, for example. What loss will there be to society if political scientists are not included? One service that we can and should provide, according to these suggestions, is lessening the conflict engen- dered by biotechnology issues. But even if we were to successfully take on the role of analysis and clarification in this debate, we might crystallize rather than mediate differences-particularly insofar as fundamental values are involved.

One pertinent aspect of our training as political scientists stressed by Blank et al. is our knowledge of institutions and processes. We can distinguish between giving substantive advice about policy outcomes and analyzing institutional, social or proc- ess -issues. It is not clear whether these

authors would agree with this limitation to our role. Political scientists are better qualified to speak about how decisions should be made and who should be involved, than to shape the answer. And policymakers are more likely to recognize our expertise in these areas. Political scientists could, for example, explain the important differences separating laws laid out by Congress, policy endorsed by the Executive, and individual decisions/prece- dents presented by courts. We can speak to the sort of role Congress might con- structively take, and what might better be left to other government institutions or to the market place. We might shed some light on the recurring question of what role the Legislature should have in setting legal parameters, compared to the realm of regulation established by the executive branch. Our democratic system increasingly confronts the issue of what sorts of decisions should be left to the courts; forc- ing courts to make policy decisions in un- chartered areas spawns problems and dis- advantages for coherent national policy. Political scientists should indeed be ad- dressing some of these underlying issues; to the extent that we have something to offer public policymakers regarding highly complex technical policies, we must first gain access to pertinent deliberations. Although political scientists do sometimes appear at congressional hearings, consult for government agencies that are formulating policy, or establish ties with those in the executive and legislative branches responsible for formulating recommendations, it is debatable whether active participation in the policy arena should be defined as an integral role for political scientists. There are reasons for us to try to gain access to public policymaking, as a matter of civic responsibility or to boost our careers. But why officials should try to seek out our opinions, or what difference our participation might make, is much harder to argue. Society might indeed profit from listening to political scientists in these important matters, but it is unlikely that anyone will convince policymakers or society-at-large that our views are unique or particularly wise.

Biotechnology outlines why a strong effort to increase responsiveness among

66 PS: Political Science and Politics



Political Scientists and Biotechnology Policy

political scientists is appropriate and important, and what would be necessary to implement it. A sizeable amount of this argument is aimed at academic institutions that would have to make some uncom- fortable changes crossing disciplinary bor- ders. Social scientists who take biology seriously are frequently suspected of hav- ing a hidden agenda to promote strong political and social conservatism. Biological approaches have sometimes been dis- credited by writers who use biological explanations to "prove" their views. One benefit of expanding social scientists' and students' knowledge of biological factors in society would be to improve scholarship and undermine the idea that biological approaches are necessarily reductionist or deterministic. Biotechnology is an exhorta- tion to academics to move in new direc- tions, for practical and substantive policy reasons. The passages on university in- novation and curriculum changes and the implications such modifications would have for both faculty and students are perhaps the most persuasive part of the monograph. Such academic program improve- ments would provide a large service to a better educated and informed citizenry. The authors speak of responsibility to look ahead and inform the public on these crucial matters; they think that a lot of that responsibility rests with institutions of higher education, and indeed with political scientists, because of their special interest and training in the kinds of analysis and thinking pertinent to the issues surrounding biotechnology. This emphasis on curriculum-building and informing and influ- encing public debate through teaching is timely and appealing. It sounds challenging, but possible. The central concern of Bio- technology, then, is the importance of changing university programs, and why political science is particularly appropriate for pursuing these issues. The blunt message is that political scientists better attend to these matters or they will miss out on a terribly important set of developments that will increasingly influence political and social life. Political scientists (Henry Kis- singer aside) have probably exerted their greatest influence through their students, especially those entering decision-making arenas.

What will political scientists lose, if they do not address the complex and revolu-

tionary issues flowing from biotechnology? It is not entirely clear how broadly Blank et al. want to define the influence role they are espousing. Any social scientist trying to understand contemporary society, its pri- mary interactions and values, and how these change, should know about the developments in biotechnology. The impacts from new technologies in this field will be momentous. Completely new products and choices will face the average citizen. Difficult and fundamental issues challenging our moral and social values will inevitably come to the fore. Publicized cases involving parental versus children's rights, of how contracts affect legal par- entage, of who, how and when human life can be said to begin and end-all of these (and other) issues have surfaced. Our institutions and courts must deal with the inevitable conflicts and confusion. It is in the best interests of political scientists to know more about these matters and how they are evolving. As teachers, we can and should expect to influence how our students think about and analyze these issues. As a practical professional matter, these issues can be a rich source of teaching and

4t .4k 41( W4 444 14 quavdv i4s t osp

A, e~

research materials. For this reason alone, greater knowledge and activity in this area is desirable.

About the Authors

Odelia Funke has a Ph.D. in political theory from the University of Virginia. Since 1980, she has worked for the Office of Policy and Man- agement at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of EPA.

Winter 1988 67



Documents

Political Scientists and Biotechnology Policy