Why I... believe that all biology degree study should include a module in bioethics

John Bryant.

Professor in the school of biological sciences University of Exeter.

"You're evil," the heckler shouted. "You're evil. You are the anti-ChristI" What had I done to merit this tirade? Perhaps advocated the overthrow of Christianity or suggested that churches should be turned over to devil-worship? No, nothing of the kind. In fact, I was opening a debate with the case for the adoption of genetically modified crops, albeit hedged with the usual caveats. But barely had I started speaking when the interruptions began. The debate had been hijacked by about 60 anti-GM activists who would not allow the pro-GM speakers the luxury of more than a minute or so of uninterrupted delivery.

Leaving aside the verbal violence and intimidation, it was interesting to analyse the campaigners' reasoning. Many argued on clear ethical grounds. Some believed that on the natural-versus-unnatural scale, GM is a step too far and should be halted. For most who held that view, their objection to GM was absolute, with no room for argument. Other arguments centred on environmental and human safety, human rights, natural justice and opposition to capitalism and large-scale agri-business.

About four years earlier, I had introduced a bioethics module into Exeter University's biology degree programme. Much modern biological and biomedical science has broad social and ethical implications and I wanted my students to have some understanding of the essentials of ethics and ethical decision-making and to have an appreciation of the different positions in the discussions about particular issues. Indeed, after the GM-crop debate I made a note to provide a fuller analysis of anti-GM views as I had not fully appreciated the breadth of ethical positions held by the various protagonists.

There are some who argue that science is ethically and socially neutral and that it is the applications of science that bear ethical analysis. Some advocates of this view state that the applications of biology and biomedical science present no new ethical problems so there is no such thing as bioethics.

Where have such people been for the past 30 years? Even if we accept that the applications of science can be separated from the science itself (which I do not), it is clear that doing science has ethical implications, including the allocation of scarce resources and the use of other living organisms, especially animals, in research. And while we might agree that biological and biomedical science does not generate any new ethical modalities, it certainly poses some very difficult questions.

Science and technology are giving us increasing power over the environment, over other living things and over other humans. We are faced with increasingly difficult questions about human life, including the definition of its beginning and its end and the extent to which we should intervene. We are faced with unprecedented choices and the application of formal ethical analysis to such choices is a tough challenge. It is also a challenge that is too important to leave to the philosophers and social scientists. The debate needs biologists who understand both the scientific and the ethical issues. I thus end with two quotations - one from an Exeter biology student: "All biology degree courses should have a module like this"; and the other from two graduates of other universities, now postgraduates at Exeter: "We wish that such a module had been included in our undergraduate programmes."

Colleagues, the fulfilment of that wish is in your hands.

* The Learning and Teaching Support Network Centre for Bioscience is holding a workshop on teaching ethics on May 22 at the University of Westminster (http://bio.ltsn.ac.uk/) John Bryant is coeditor of Bioethics for Scientists, published by Wiley.