Team:NUS Singapore-Sci/Cas Writes
Drawing upon interesting points of discussion generated from , #CasAsks, we aim to probe further discussions and generate opinions on these topics. Firstly, stemming from our survey, we discuss extensively about the public’s opinion on the need for public engagement in navigating ethics. Next, we came up with a literature review of the existing guidelines governing the use, research and distribution of genetic engineering, as well as frameworks that are in place to mitigate possible risks in Singapore. This literature review has been adapted into a comparative study, done in collaboration with the 2018 École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (2018 Team EPFL) iGEM team, which aims to point out similarities and differences between Switzerland’s and Singapore’s ethics framework (refer to the document below for the full report). Lastly, we dissected the philosophical framework behind bioethics. This provides a fundamental understanding to the ethical discussion carried out throughout our Human Practices.
Discussion: Public Opinions on the Need for Public Engagement
In #CasAsks, 95% of our respondents feel the need for public engagement to navigate the direction of scientific research. In this post, we will discuss the possible reasons behind some of these opinions and review relevant ethical guidelines in Singapore.
Many respondents have echoed that unawareness and unfamiliarity with the technology may cause fear and anxiety with regards to its application. Referring to our interview with Dr. Ho, “ As far as a topic like gene editing is concerned, we must agree that Science itself is a moral enterprise. It is socially embedded and will be part of the society. In recognition for this aspect, it makes sense to engage with all stakeholders. The development is not only related to the experts, ultimately everyone has to take ownership.” In such a process, all stakeholders have to be involved, from the boards that regulate Science, to scientists that research the technology and eventually the public that eventually consumes the technology..
In any implementation of controversial technology, the public is often not included in the decision making process, thus this has caused the public to be skeptical and misunderstand the Science. Involving the public is a useful exercise as they will probably be the future users of such technology, thus they should be given all the information for them to make an informed choice. Borrowing the words of Dr. Kon, “Once the public understand the intentions of scientist, the public is able to then think about the implications of that”. It is a necessity for the public to understand the possible implications of the technology on them and voice their concerns.
Furthermore, Singapore is known as the “melting-pot of culture” as we consist of a myriad of ethnicities and religions. This makes policy making in the country very complex, as there are diverse perspectives from different segments of the population that needs to be taken into account. The Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC) in Singapore regulates scientific research by recommending guidelines. Before such guidelines are published for the wider community, the recommendations from the committee are consulted publicly and also vetted by representatives of the various religious communities. Referring to an excerpt from our interview with Dr. Kon, a member of the BAC, “in the recent mitochondrial genome replacement discussion, we invited representatives of the Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikhs, Jews, Parsis, and other religions because each religion looks at the technology in slightly different ways. We need to know what all of their perspectives are. We also make a point to consult the religions because it’s not the lay public view but also the views of people who have some kind of religious affiliation.” This exemplifies the typical consultation process for bioethics board in Singapore. BAC places an emphasis on hearing the opinions of all stakeholders, albeit they might be diverging or diverse. The bioethics board takes the onus to compile such opinions, and shape the guidelines to respect the bottom line of all religions and ethical codes.
In conclusion, public engagement is essential to gather feedback from various stakeholders - to improve the ways the experts communicate science to the layman and allow the public to make an informed decision about the technology. The decision-making process should take into account the views from different groups of stakeholders and follow utilitarianism. By understanding the concerns of the public, the crafted future plans can balance both ethical issues and the need for advancement in therapeutic technology - achieving the maximum utility with our limited resources for research.
Furthermore, Singapore is known as the “melting-pot of culture” as we consist of a myriad of ethnicities and religions. This makes policy making in the country very complex, as there are diverse perspectives from different segments of the population that needs to be taken into account. The Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC) in Singapore regulates scientific research by recommending guidelines. Before such guidelines are published for the wider community, the recommendations from the committee are consulted publicly and also vetted by representatives of the various religious communities. Referring to an excerpt from our interview with Dr. Kon, a member of the BAC, “in the recent mitochondrial genome replacement discussion, we invited representatives of the Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikhs, Jews, Parsis, and other religions because each religion looks at the technology in slightly different ways. We need to know what all of their perspectives are. We also make a point to consult the religions because it’s not the lay public view but also the views of people who have some kind of religious affiliation.” This exemplifies the typical consultation process for bioethics board in Singapore. BAC places an emphasis on hearing the opinions of all stakeholders, albeit they might be diverging or diverse. The bioethics board takes the onus to compile such opinions, and shape the guidelines to respect the bottom line of all religions and ethical codes.
In conclusion, public engagement is essential to gather feedback from various stakeholders - to improve the ways the experts communicate science to the layman and allow the public to make an informed decision about the technology. The decision-making process should take into account the views from different groups of stakeholders and follow utilitarianism. By understanding the concerns of the public, the crafted future plans can balance both ethical issues and the need for advancement in therapeutic technology - achieving the maximum utility with our limited resources for research.