Technology and Culture: Genetics and its Ethical and Social Implications 
in Asia and Europe

Soraj Hongladarom 
Director, Center for Ethics of Science and Technology 
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand 
(hsoraj@chula.ac.th)

On March 17-18, 2007, the Center for Ethics of Science and Technology (CEST), Chulalongkorn University, Thailand, in collaboration with the European Academy of Environment and Economy, Germany organized an international workshop on "Technology and Culture: Genetics and its Ethical and Social Implications in Asia and Europe."; The workshop was informally part of the Eighth Asian Bioethics Conference, which was organized also by the CEST on behalf of the Asian Bioethics Association, from March 19 to 23, 2007. The workshop was part of the Asia-Europe Workshop Series 2006/2007 organized by the Asia Europe Foundation as well as the European Alliance for Asian Studies. The conference was held at Century Park Hotel in Bangkok, Thailand, while the workshop was held at the nearby Ibis Siam Hotel.

The reason behind this international gathering was that genetics has become a tremendous force in today's world. After the success of the Human Genome Project, where the entire genomic structure of human beings was laid down and sequenced, genetics has become much more powerful. Not only are genetics and the new disciplines it spawned within the confines and interests of professional scientists, these disciplines have had far reaching implications into the societies, cultures and traditions everywhere it goes. Since the genetic make up of human beings could be said to define what it actually is to be a human being, its social and ethical implications are obvious. When the newly found knowledge of genetics is being used in a variety of areas, there are profound questions as to how this knowledge is related to the values and religious traditions of the societies which provide their contexts. Moreover, as the sciences and technologies that make up these new fields have indeed become part and parcel of the current globalizing trend, we are seeing genetics and its related disciplines moving around the globe at an accelerated pace, as countries around the world are trying to 'jump the genomic bandwagon,' so to speak, and are determined not to be left out. Hence, it is not at all surprising to see genetics and its related disciplines being taken up enthusiastically in Asia too.

So the key question of the Workshop is: What are the ethical and social implications of this introduction of the new field of genetics in the societies of Asia and Europe? Around twenty scholars from more than ten countries in the two continents gathered together for two days to search for an answer. The scholars came from a large variety of disciplines. There were philosophers such as myself, Margit Sutrop from Estonia, Leonardo de Castro and Peter Sy from the Philippines, and Ole Döring from Germany; there were lawyers such as Jürgen Simon from Germany, Carlos Maria Romeo Casabona from Spain, Terry Kaan from Singapore, Jakkrit Kuanpot from Thailand, and Cosimo Mazzoni from Italy. Moreover, Anna Cambon-Thomsen from France is a medical doctor; Minakshi Bhardwaj, representing the UK but originally from India, represented both biology and science policy studies; Le Dinh Luong from Vietnam is a geneticist, and Chan Chee Khoon is an epidemiologist. However, the group did not feel that there were any disciplinary barriers. We were determined to search for a common ground and we also recognized some differences among ourselves, and what was noticeable was that neither seemed to be conscious of their own special field when they were engaged with one another during the Workshop. Each appeared to focus his or her attention on the problem at hand, and each realized that their own particular viewpoint was inadequate to solve the hugely complex problem on one's own.

Among the variety of topics discussed during the workshop, perhaps one or two stood out. Le Dinh Luong asked a very pertinent question: What is the use of ethics in science and technology when the people are very poor? He told the group that he was born very poor and had experienced first hand the horrors of the Vietnam War. He then became a scientist and believed that science and technology could indeed bring his people up from poverty. In this scenario, he added, there did not seem to be room for ethical considerations, as these were the provinces of the rich who had the leisure to ponder them as their basic needs are already met. Here we find a typical viewpoint where science and technology are seen to be instruments for economic development. His view was not shared by the other members of the group, though everyone shared his sentiment. Perhaps ethics should be seen, not as a tool for the rich, which is clearly untenable, but as a necessary part of a regulatory framework which would make it possible for science and technology actually to become poverty-reduction instruments. Without such framework, it is entirely conceivable that, instead of science and technology, genetics obviously included, becoming a tool to reduce poverty, exactly the opposite would be the case, as science and technology indeed become tools of the rich to further exploit the poor. The problem, then, is how to institute such framework so that global justice is achieved and genetics and its related disciplines become really friends of the poor rather than their enemy. For this a clear understanding of the social, ethical and cultural implications of genetics is crucial.

The group also discussed how the different values, such as those apparent in the East and the West, could be reconciled. Margit Sutrop criticized the idea that there are irreconcilable differences in the values such that they could not be brought under the same system. In fact, the values that are typically taken to belong to that of the East, such as putting more value on the community rather than the individual, downplaying individual privacy in favor of public order, etc., are in fact found in the West, so the East does not have a monopoly on them. Privacy, of course, was an important concept in the discussion of genetics because there was a natural concern on the fact that the genetic data of the population might be manipulated in such a way that the rights of the people are undermined (and here was the main interest of the Workshop members who were lawyers). When the issue is about how privacy is justified, then the different systems came to the fore. My colleague Somparn Promta, also from the Philosophy Department at Chula, and Chanroeun Pa from Cambodia are Buddhists, and we are naturally concerned with how the Buddhist teachings could be interpreted so that we gain further insights on the problem of privacy. Nonetheless, we agreed that there are certain values that should be upheld no matter what cultural tradition one comes from. The group also discussed the Singaporean proposal of 'reciprocity.' This is an implicit agreement between the government and its citizens where the government expects certain loyalty from the citizens and the latter accept a certain degree of restrictions for the sake of public order and stability. As an alternative the group discussed the concept of 'solidarity' which does not presuppose such a hierarchical or paternalistic attitude as seems to be implicit in the concept of reciprocity. However, 'solidarity' is also a typical Asian concept as one feels the sense of wholeness with the community. It also has roots from within the Western tradition too.

After travelling from far away places to Bangkok, the members of the Workshop came to an agreement that there are perhaps more similarities than differences. Any differences can indeed be laid out and certainly the members of the Workshop did not expect that all differences would, or could, be washed away. Be that as it may, the members become much closer knit and after two days of intensive meeting there emerged a solidarity bond among the members which, I am quite sure, will spur on more intensive and varied collaborations in the future.