In which I question the precautionary principle: Ulrich Beck and eugenics
In addition to Risk Society (Ulrich Beck), I’m working on Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk (also by Beck). Both books leave me with the same complaint: give me data!
While Ecological Politics is much more accessible than Risk Society, I think it shows the same method of speculation about the social effects of technology without supporting information. In the first chapter, Beck explores the potential of reproductive technology to fundamentally alter the way humans are born. He is particularly concerned with the way that human embryos (may) become a sort of commodity for researchers, and the results of their research leads to greater and greater levels of medical and scientific intervention into the production of children, and presumably this feeds back into the need to do more genetic research in order to feed this new market.
It’s interesting speculation, but all that it is, is speculation. Beck says that in vitro fertilization is indicated more and more frequently (now that it is possible), but does not offer any statistical information on how many couples are using it (or why!), or how many men are depositing sperm at sperm banks, or how many couples are using ova or sperm from donors because their own is not “good enough”. He certainly does not discuss how many people make use of genetic testing – or why some people might choose to do so, while others do not. In the absence of any data, it seems to me that it is equally, if not more, likely that most couples will continue to produce children in the old-fashioned way, that being easier, cheaper, and usually leading to a perfectly acceptable, if not perfect, baby.
Although there is no doubt that techniques such as sex selection and pre-natal diagnosis for conditions such as Down Syndrome are in use, I do not think that Beck has made the case that they will necessarily lead to more and more deliberate shaping and manipulation of the human species. It is a possibility that should be examined – and in my opinion, applied very cautiously if at all – but Beck has given me no reason to accept that his concerns are valid.
Beck goes on to suggest that the burden of proof of harm has been misplaced, in that scientific researchers are free to explore questions that may impact all of society, while society as a whole, which will have to bear the risks and consequences of that research, does not have the opportunity to question or influence the direction and methodology of the scientific establishment. It’s the precautionary principle, and as an environmental studies geek, I’m sympathetic to the argument. However, though I agree that all scientific research occurs within a social context and certainly effects society, I think that Beck’s argument is undermined by the fact that he complains that we are moving toward an unknown future without stopping to ask what the consequences of our decisions will be, and yet he does not take the opportunity to present data that presumably are already available, if his assertions about the use of reproductive technology are credible.
Perhaps that’s a different book, one devoted to exploring the current and future consequences of scientific research. Nonetheless, I find it hard to accept an argument that there will be fundamental changes to society as a result of applied research without some tangible reasons why. “People will use it because it’s available” or “the medical-economic establishment will market it” is not enough. I think that the precautionary principle should guide research and innovation, but I also think that those of us who advocate it need to use, and encourage everyone to use, existing data to good effect.
Filed under books, ecology, environmental politics | Tags: precautionary principle, Ulrich Beck | Comment (0)The summer's wasting.
And it’s barely even started yet.
I haven’t been writing here much (okay, at all) because – as noted in March – I’ve been concentrating on the writing that somebody else is expected to read and then assign me a letter to indicate the quality of my work. Writing, I believe, is one of those things that one gets out of practice in; so is reading books with a bit more meat to them than, say, Honor Harrington novels. Besides, I’d rather write the literature review for my thesis in the next three months, when I don’t have to do anything else. So, the summer project for Sammy’s Dot will be an ongoing series of reflection on a self-directed reading program.
Filed under books, ecology, economy and environment, environmental politics | Comment (0)No one is an island.
The links between agriculture and human health are complex. Anyone who’s read Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel will be familiar with the notion that many devastating diseases – smallpox is perhaps the most obvious – crossed to humans from their livestock. However, those people who lived in close proximity to each other and to their animals eventually developed a degree of resistance.
There is, I think, a powerful tendency to imagine that this interplay between human and non-human is in the past, or at worst, still occurring in some parts of the world (China, Africa), but not North America.
One of my profs has done quite a bit of research into the outbreak of E. Coli O157:H7 in Walkerton, Ontario in 2000, and he would argue that’s certainly not the case. In a paper on the topic, Ali (2004) noted research that suggests that the virulence of that particular strain of E. Coli appears to be at least partly due to its ability to survive extreme environments, including the highly acidic environment of the stomach, and it may have acquired this ability through exposure to acidified soil and water. The acidic soil and water, of course, was the result of acid rain, caused by human activities which emitted sulfur dioxide into the air. Ali (2004) also stressed the fact that while the virulent strain of E. Coli is believed to have emerged first in Argentina, it is now widespread across North America. The human role in the transmission of the disease is better understood than our role in its creation. Many people have pointed out that E. Coli O157:H7 is particularly dangerous because it can survive high heat and freezing, and so poses a risk to anyone who buys meat which is contaminated; Walkerton also proved that a breakdown in the containment systems of intensive livestock operations or a breakdown in a water utility can put people at risk of illness or death.
With all of this in mind, it was interesting to read Nicholas Kristof’s column in The New York Times today:
One of the first clues that pigs could infect people with MRSA came in the Netherlands in 2004, when a young woman tested positive for a new strain of MRSA, called ST398. The family lived on a farm, so public health authorities swept in — and found that three family members, three co-workers and 8 of 10 pigs tested all carried MRSA.
MRSA is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, a disease which I at least have always thought of as a disease one is most likely to contract in hospital. Kristof’s article suggests that assumption is a dangerous one. Even if one cannot contract MRSA by eating pork, which is likely as it is typically transmitted by skin contact, many people work in the livestock industry. They can transmit the disease to each other and to their families and friends as well as contract it from contact with their animals. They might also spread it to healthy animals, and in today’s agricultural system, livestock may be sold and transported across a distance, further increasing the number of potential infections.
Kristof’s story is not finished:
So what’s going on here, and where do these antibiotic-resistant infections come from? Probably from the routine use — make that the insane overuse — of antibiotics in livestock feed. This is a system that may help breed virulent “superbugs” that pose a public health threat to us all. That’ll be the focus of my next column, on Sunday.
And his story is raising old questions about the safety of antibiotic use in agriculture. But it’s one that needs to be asked continuously, because we have not yet addressed the potential harms of the way we raise crops and livestock. I don’t think anyone can deny the raise them – we too will be affected.at more food is available at lower cost – at least in North America – than in the past, but there are also unintended consequences, and we cannot escape them.
We need to remember that although we no longer share close quarters with the animals we raise for food, we are still embedded in the same, increasingly complex, ecosystem that they are. When those animals are afflicted by disease – partly because of how we raise them – we too are affected. Until we recognize this in our food policies, this will continue.
Ali, S. Harris. (2004) “A Socio-Ecological Autopsy of the E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak in Walkerton, Ontario, Canada.” Social Science and Medicine 58(12): 2601-2612
Filed under ecology, environmental issues, policy | Comment (0)Wildlife sighting!
Rob and I walked up to the front porch tonight, only to exclaim, “what the hell is that?”
An opossum, as it turns out! (Way cuter than the mutant rat that was my first thought.)
Too bad it was munching on foodstuffs that were formerly in our green bin, but still, I’ve never seen an opossum before. I’m going to have to start carrying my camera with me all the time!
Filed under canada, ecology | Comment (0)
