Ronald Bailey does not pull his punches when dealing with opponents of biotechnology:
Bioconservative intellectuals are fully cognizant of the tendency for our species to be suspicious of the new and the strange, and they clearly want to harness that suspicion as a strategy to restrain biotechnological progress. To that end they advocate adopting the so-called precautionary principle… it would mean that new biotechnological techniques such as stem cells, cloning, and sex selection should be presumed innocent, and those who propose a new intervention must bear the burden of showing that its promise outweighs its peril.
The problem is that humanity is terrible at anticipating benefits. Consider the optical laser. When the optical laser was invented in 1960, it was dismissed as “an invention for looking for a job”. No one could imagine what possible use this interesting phenomenon might be. Of course, now it is integral to the operation of hundreds of everyday products: it runs our printers and optical telephone networks, corrects myopia, removes tattoos, plays our CDs, opens clogged arteries, helps level our crop fields, etc. It is ubiquitous.
(pages 242-3)
His praise for the idea of material progress reminds of me what Brian Mickelthwait wrote a few weeks back on this blog.
I also liked this passage, where he refers to the unashamed opponent of material progress, Bill McKibben and others:
Respecting the sanctity of life doesn’t require that we take whatever random horrors nature dishes out. Safe genetic engineering, when it becomes possible, strongly affirms the intrinsic value of human life by producing healthier, stronger, smarter people more equipped to enjoy their lifes and to thrive during them.
(page 178)
Bailey’s book is strongly recommended and I pretty much agree with all of it. A point of his that I would emphasise is that of course, people are entitled to say that if they don’t want biotech or whatever, then they should not be made to pay for it. If biocons want to stop tax-funding of stem cell research, then as a libertarian, I entirely defend their right to refuse such funding but of course my view changes if such folk try to actually prevent private funding of such ventures.
Another argument that Bailey confronts head-on is the idea that by penetrating the mysteries of the physical world, we somehow lose our reverence or respect for life. That always struck me as a dumb argument. My amazement at the wonders of space is hardly dented by the insights of a Newton or the glorious photos taken by space probes. Quite the opposite. And whatever some genetic determinists (some of whom are sadly racists) may say, I don’t believe that the argument for free will and Man’s capacity for making meaningful choices in life is reduced one iota by our understanding of genetics. The more we know, the more power that gives us to shape our futures. I think it was a chap called Francis Bacon who said something to the effect that nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
Bailey is one of the better writers for Reason magazine. I definitely can recommend this book for those looking at controversies in this area, such as this subject.
From the link: “Human Embryos in Britain May Be Screened for Cancer Risk.”
Hmmm, what if it turns out that there is a genetic predisposition for homosexuality, smoking, obesity, eating junk food, or libertarian views, not to mention the well known genetic roots of gender. The mind boggles at the possibilities. The future could be veery interesting.
“The problem is that humanity is terrible at anticipating benefits.”
I’m not sure – remember when nuclear power would make electricity free, and we’d all have flying cars and robot maids?
People are certainly rubbish at predicting the future, but I rather think they tend to be wildly optimistic about scientific advances. This is why they then get disillusioned with science and start calling for a return to nature or whatever.
The only consistent theme in technological progress is that it makes our lives more predictable. Most of us can now estimate our deaths to an accuracy of about 10 years. We know to an accuracy of about 2 hours how long it will take to cross the Atlantic, and we know it’s unlike to even make us feel ill, let alone kill us. And if we have children, we’ll probably live. These are real, non-trivial advances – most people are not adventurous, they want to know what will happen next.
My problem with technological progress is just that it’s dull.
Technology doesn’t make life more predictable. Try saying that to the departed ghost of that Hamas preacher (guy who looked like Saruman) who was taken out in his wheelchair by a Hellfire missile he wouldn’t have seen or heard.
There is a grain of truth in the “wild over optimism thing”. Too many scientists talk in awe-struck terms to the public about DNA meaning “We know the secret of life itself”. I hope they engage more sensibly with the public and also that the public decides to bloody well learn some science. Otherwise it’s “Cities on The Moon” and “Free Electricity” again…
And don’t even get me started on the complete pig-ignorance of the public when it comes to estimating levels of risk…
Personally I think they should set aside a “Reservation” for tree-huggers, animal-rights activists and eco-nutjobs. The can worship great rotating idols, wear woad, discuss “diversity” and die before their 30.
The Isle of Wight might be suitable.
Oh, *excellent* idea, Nick.
Sort of like Heinlein’s “Coventry” for the echo-nutters.
(laughing) *Excellent* idea.
I don’t understand how you can go from advocating the “precautionary principle” to jumping to the conclusion that some pretty far out moral dilemmas should be considered “innocent”.
Just to be clear, I think adult stem cells are fine, new techniques for harvesting stem cells from embryos without killing it are fine. Cloning is a little too close to the border line for me. If you can get the same result some other way, I would avoid it. Sex selection I do not understand at all. Unless we are talking about rehabilitating a species where there is an imbalance in male/female ratios, I don’t get it. I have less issue with selecting out genetic disorders, though I think it will end up much greyer than we know now.
( ie ‘Will not have cancer, but will probably have diabetes’, real life will present better examples in time)
It’s not that people are optimistic or pessimistic. It’s that they tend to look to the hollywood special effects and miss the cumulative small. Real biotech and its “eugenic” effects will be quiet and unvisual. They’ll look like a gradually healthier, prettier, smarter ordinary people. Not a change you’d even notice happen, unless you’re counting in decades.
Right Julian. I’d agree. But, are you saying this is a good or bad thing?
An interesting dilemma is if we discover some very unrelated phenotypes are related in a complex manner at the genetic level. What if we could eliminate cancer, but it would come at the expense of removing the genetic components needed for musical genius? So a society guarrenteed free of cancer would never be able to produce a Mozart?
Given the prevalence of autism and Aspergers among libertarians’ children, it is possible that screening for the genes for that could be determined to ‘serve the public interest’ in screening out those with ‘anti-social behaviour genes’, and result in fewer libertarians.
I think that the precautionary principle doesn’t go far enough.
I think we should only adopt legislation if and only if we are certain beyond any doubt that no harm or unforeseen consequences will develop.
For ultimate security, we should repeal all existing legislation unless we are certain that it won’t produce in the future any harm or as yet unforeseen consequences.
J hilariously claims, “My problem with technological progress is just that it’s dull.”
Haha haha, hootey hoo hoo. Man, that is a good one, let me catch my breath.
Lets see, outside of 99% of the human race in pre-industrial ages condemned to a nasty, brutish, and short life as a hunter/gatherer (as frequently as being prey of another animal), or at best, an agricultural drudge, with day after day throughout one’s life of predictably static technology, predictably static life of sowing, herding, reaping and starving, being so bored to tears that one had to invent fantastically complex mythologies and theologies to entertain oneself, and predictably dying from a host of diseases, parasites, or punishments (yeah, that is exciting, compared to being free to only kick off from cancer or old age, or base jumping, hang gliding, scuba diving, flying, driving, or any of the other myriad ways of killing oneself that we’ve dreamed up).
Please, save me the boringly predictability of living in a complex economy of many technologies, of rapidly doubling rates of technological and economic growth and pure knowledge, when every day is a surprise, and every discovery a potential rush of new questions about the universe. Yeah, I hate that kind of predictability, give me the blissful mystery of dying in ignorance of the world around me, believing in superstitious nonsense, a serf to ecoromantic mysterians, with every day like every other, nothing new, nothing odd….
Luddites, luddites, everywhere….
J’s comments could not be more off-base, at least now. We are surrounding by techno-doomsterism. There may have been a time when optimism about science (like nuke power) was prevalent, but that is not the case now. I doubt that Bailey would have written his book at the start of the 20th century.
I am not blind to the risks of biotech, and neither is R.Bailey, either. What he and I are against is the sort of blind luddiism so much in evidence.
“The problem with technological progress is that it is dull”. Really, J? I votes that you go and live in the desert without any modern tech for a year and tell me just how exciting your life is. Tech. is dull to you because you take it for granted, as do so many of us in our safe, comfortable lives.
Mike Lorrey, what the f**k are you talking about?
I have yet to see a clear and compelling statement of the so called precautionary principle (where the hell did it come from anyway?). Applying most formulations of such a principle would have precluded just about any medical advance made in the last thousand years.
Some background and explanation on the “precautionary principle” can be found by searching for that term on Wikipeadia, which leads to the URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
As described by Wikipeadia, it looks sort of OK. However, I have a strongish suspicion that the term is now much misused; it has perhaps been captured by the politically correct as a “desirable” term, that they do not fully understand. [Sarky comments welcome, on the ability of the PC people to understand much at all.]
If I can find time (doubtful just now), I’ll see what I can find on misuse (or other use) of the term. Any help on that would be welcome.
Best regards
I’ve found what I think is a useful attack against modern use of the term “precautionary principle”. This is from the Social Issues Research Centre, Oxford, UK, in their article Beware the Precautionary Principle. Here are some extensive quotes. The whole thing is even better. It also adds useful to the view of Ronald Bailey and Johnathon.
A new mantra is beginning to occupy pride of place in debates on all environmental issues, whether they be to do with food safety, genetic engineering or global warming – the precautionary principle.
…
We have seen the impact of this thinking in recent debates on genetically modified crops, ‘novel’ foods, ‘greenhouse’ gasses and even the mythical ability of cellular phones to fry the brains of those who use them. At every stage the opponents of technological progress argue that just because there is no evidence of harm, that does not mean that something is not harmful. We have to ‘prove’ that it is not harmful before we embrace it.
This form of pre-scientific thinking presents a serious obstacle to rational discussion. The absence of an effect can never be proved , in the way that I cannot prove that there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. All I can say are two things: firstly, sustained observation over the past 20 years has revealed no evidence of their presence, and secondly the existence of fairies, in my garden or elsewhere, is very unlikely on a priori grounds. This is how science works – precisely in accord with the principles of Karl Popper that hypotheses cannot be proved, only refuted.
The precautionary principle is, however, a very useful one for consumer activists precisely because it prevents scientific debate. The burden of evidence and proof is taken away from those who make unjustified and often whimsical claims and placed on the scientific community which, because it proceeds logically and rationally, is often powerless to respond. This is what makes the principle so dangerous. It generates a quasi-religious bigotry which history should have has taught us to fear. Its inherent irrationality renders it unsustainable.
…
In one sense, though, the precautionary principle might have some utility. If we apply the precautionary principle to itself – ask what are the possible dangers of using this principle – we would be forced to abandon it very quickly.
Enjoy
Nigel, much obliged.
Patrick. I think you’re on to something.
Ridiculous! Quite aside from the little rejoinders as to whom ‘we’ consists of and as to who exactly would decide ‘harm’ there is the rather obvious objection that unforeseen consequences cannot always be foreseen, let alone with ‘certainty beyond any doubt’.
While I favour the general precept that government should not legislate in such a way as to compromise the liberty of the individual (wherever possible), I do not think risk can be eliminated from policy making completely. Compromise may or may not be the ‘essence’ of politics, but it is certainly a lot more common than ‘guaranteed’ predictions of the future.
Talk of eliminating risk from any area of life is surely daft. Even when that area happens to be government.
Nigel, thanks for the references; they confirm exactly my sense of what is happening here. Calling something a “principle” begs a fairly substantive question (as if it is being claimed that it was in fact a precept everyone in fact followed, even if not articulated and recognised). My complaint with the “principle” is that it decends pretty quickly into rather trivial suggestions “Look before you leap”; “try and keep your options open” etc. The only unambiguous way of applying the principle is therefore “whatever it was you were thinking of doing, don’t, because you can’t be sure of the outcome”. Happily therefore not a principle followed much by anyone before it received its name.
I think that is a SPLENDID concept because if applied rigorously, there would be almost no legislation at all on that basis as there are unforeseen consequences to 99% of all legislation.
I’d suggest that, as samizdatistas, we’d be looking at endorsing the Extropy Institute’s “ProActionary Principle” (also defined in wikipedia).
I’m unsure whether there being no evidence to say something is unsafe is a good reason to assume it is safe. Equally, I’m not sure whether there being no evidence to say something is safe is a good reason to assume it is unsafe…
I think a risk/possible-benefit assesment needs to be carried out to decide. Is there really a benefit to humanity worth the risk?
Of course, as history shows, many benefits would never have been considered such at the time.
What would you consider should be done in the case of someone genetically engineering smallpox? You better cite some evidence quick if you follow the proactionary principle…
What would you consider should be done in the case of a highly useful invention that a risk assesment would be costly for but is actually harmless. Perhaps, the market might take care of that. If a smaller assesment considers it profitable, it would be invested in, and so an assesment would be carried out.
The downsides to the latter that I see is that, as mentioned previously, many inventions would not be considered useful by the market at the time and because it gives the state more power.
Should there be no licensing for medical drugs? It would certainly seem limiting choice for no reason and so, provided it doesn’t harm other people, I would see no reason to limit them except where it is in public health care; but, of course, you want that eliminated anyway.
How about privately funded charitable healthcare? Your unconcious, say, and need treatment but – as your uncouncious – can’t say what your decision on drugs is. Are you left to die? Should there be a medical drug licensing system which still allows people to bypass it if they so choose?
I think that midwesterner and Perry have got the gist, but one other commenter clearly doesn’t grasp the essential urgency of the situation and the grave potential for unforeseen consequences that abounds in every sphere. RIght now your government is probably regulating the maximum heat and pressure required to be withstood by head gaskets. Right now a car manufacturer is revising their own standard in blind accordance with that government standard. Tomorrow, they will tell your uncle that the new standard means they can scrap a step in the production and incidentally his job. Next year you will accelerate too hard in frustration after having forgotten the oil for weeks, and bingo! Your hitherto impercetibly-cracked new standard head gasket will explode into shards, one of which will pierce the (also new-standard) engine block, firewall, and panelling to lodge firmly in your most precious testicle.
UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCES ARE EVERYWHERE!! ACT NOW FOR THE LOVE OF HUMANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STOP GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or do we have to explain it to you in private…?
I dunno,
every time we get some nitwit waxing poetic on how science will solve our problems, it always has ended up badly for some one.
Hmmmm;
American Eugenics Society (now called Planned Parenthood) started out using the then science of family planning to reduce the fertility of Jews and other *undesireables* in the USA.
Nazi Race Science had a whole mythology of human worth and aptitudes based on Aryan genetic purity. And six million Jews and Three or so million Poles died as a direct result.
Scientific Socialism (communism) was going to usher in a Utopian age of plenty. But Uncle Joe Stalin needed to eliminate seven million Ukranians and about as many BelaRussians to give it a go.
Abortion for sex selection anyone?
Harvesting aborted fetuses for stem cells (and profit) while ther are already medical therapies available from adult stem cells?
The problem with science is that you can’t choose who gets to use it. Also, the statement about the laser in the post is utter nonsense. Once burning holes in diamonds on prime time TV lost it’s excitement, funds were invested to develop the technology so that lasers with less destructive power could be made **inexpensively** and only then did the uses cited become reality.
Methinks your Smite Control needs a little more tuning.
But cool graphic! So let’s try again…..
The point is that science is certainly able to provide benifits, but many a scoundrel has hid behind science.
Joe Stalin murdered millions in the name of “Scientific Socialism”, The National Socialists murdered millions in the name of their “science” and now fetal stem cells are being pushed as the next big thing when there are already therapies based on adult stem cells. I think a little precaution is indeed warrented when so much of today’s science has been politicized by the fact much is supported by goverment funds.
So let’s see if the Smite Control can get it together this time…..
Smite control works just fine. It decided to send your comment for moderation beacuse it was doing exactly what it was set up to do. Why? We don’t discuss the details of our filters but I assure you, it works just the way we want it to.
And Merry Christmas to you, Uain. For starters, I don’t see R. Bailey or others here claiming that science will “solve our problems” although we take a more generous view of science and tech. than the fashionable doomongers of the left and fogey right. Science is not a cure-all. Used by evil people, it will have evil consequences.
“…but one other commenter clearly doesn’t grasp the essential urgency of the situation….. your…..head gasket will explode into shards ….. to lodge firmly in your most precious testicle.”
Clealry I didn’t grasp the urgency of the situation – anyone know of commercially available testicle protection gear? 😉
Perry-
I cannot imagine the hateful stuff that you need to filter from your excellent website. I apologize if I came across a little defensive. I stand in awe of you and your contributions.
Jonathan-
I take a generous view of science and technology because at least in the VLSI realm, I have been a contributor for the last 30 years. It is the biologic realm that scares me. If you have ever coached a community sports team, which I have for many years (soccer, basketball), you would be less sanguine….. illegal steroids in teenagers, illegal growth hormones, etc., all so mommy and daddy can relive their lost youth through their children.
I just don’t know if humans are ready yet for genetic therapy to make us “better”. Then ther is the opportunity for politicians to make it a “right” with full govermental funding…. off the backs of you and me.
Other inventions that were mocked at the time include the hot air balloon, the airplane, the automobile, the fax machine, and the hard drive, if memory serves.
At the same time, the crossbow, the machine gun, and the atom bomb were all supposed to make warfare too unbearable to imagine.
I think there’s a general lesson here: no matter what the invention, a bunch of nitwits will say it’s useless, a bunch of other nitwits will think the Era of Peace has come at last, and 90% of the people will walk around having no idea of the new realities until they’ve been fleeced by the people who got there first.
Which is exactly why freedom beats government planning, but I’m just preaching to the choir on that last part.
Uain, if steroids and other substances are illegal, then, by definition, parents should not be foisting them on their kids, or indeed treating their kids as biological experiments for their own gratification. You won’t get any debate whatsoever from me on that point, rest assured.
your most precious testicle
At least 3? Now that is a miracle of science.