Ethics.

Plastic waste piling up in the ocean is a tremendous problem for our ecosystem and thus our future. In trying to help solve this problem, we found that currently legislation offers fairly unstable ground for us to move on. In the end we ourselves have to ask the following question: could synthetic biology offer a viable solution for this or will it cause more damage? In order to assess the potential risks and benefits, we interviewed Mr. Peter Weish, a scientist, author and environmental activist. He was a member of the Advisory Board on Gene Technology in Austria and lectured on human ecology and at present on environmental ethics. We talked about ways to reduce the accumulation of plastic in the environment and contemplated on the ethical aspects of releasing GMOs into the environment.

One of our arguments for using D.I.V.E.R.T. to solve real world problems was that evolution takes place naturally – so our project would only accelerate a natural process and therefore, by design, could not cause any issues. Mr. Weish argued that we, as the winners of a long-going evolutionary fight for survival, cannot claim D.I.V.E.R.T. would do no harm to the environment. “Nature is merciless and stops at nothing”, he stresses. Also, the difference between a natural and a human-induced process lies less in its impact, but more in the ethical aspect of it. Humans are not responsible for the death of living beings during a natural evolutionary process. However, they would be responsible if it is an artificial evolution caused by methods like D.I.V.E.R.T.

He warned us against releasing GMOs into the environment without knowing its influence on the ecological system. People have already tried to ‘improve’ ecosystems before, resulting in negative and sometimes dramatic developments. Nobody knows how a GMO might affect nature. Even if there is a study that shows the alleged innocuousness of a GMO, scientists need to be critical. In accordance with the precautionary principle and the safety principle, potential damage has to be avoided and every study has to be carefully examined even if it contradicts the popular opinion.

For clarification, he names an example: for a long time, based on observational data, many scientists believed that radiation underneath a certain threshold is completely harmless. Only when John Gofman’s research allowed us to fully understand the potential health risks that can occur even at small doses, the misbelief of a threshold was reluctantly discarded.

However, the implications of releasing a GMO into the natural environment are something we cannot fully understand. We cannot predict the consequences of such a release and would only notice them afterwards, when the change is already irreversible. As scientists, we must ask ourselves what could happen in the worst case and whether or not we could take responsibility for this. This means, that we have to include what we do not know into our considerations. But, even though Mr. Weish is against releasing GMOs, he still supports experiments and research in the field of genetic engineering in order to improve our understanding of molecular genetics.

Mr. Weish agrees that the precautionary principle stands in the way of possible innovations. ‘Innovation per se is neutral’, he clarifies, ‘it would be a mistake to equate it with improvement’. A trial and error strategy with potentially catastrophical consequences should not be confused with progress. Opposing the release of GMOs therefore is not anti-progressive, but in fact securing progress. In order to evaluate the benefits and risks of an innovation there are several questions that need to be answered, for example: Which advantages and disadvantages does it bring and for how long? Most important in the assessment is the future prospect. What might be a good idea today, may turn out to be a terrible disadvantage in the future.

According to Mr. Weish, we have to take an alternative approach for the reduction of plastic waste. There need to be strict regulations on the sale of plastic. It should only be exported to places where its waste disposal is implemented. First and foremost, the plastic producer should be held responsible for waste disposal. When we pointed out, that this might lead to increased prices of the product, he introduced us to the so-called ‘ecological bonus concept’. A high tax is collected by the state, which later gets equally refunded. Someone who consumes as much or less than average does not have to pay additional costs and might even get more money back. Someone who wastes more than average, in most cases the plastic-producing companies, has to pay taxes. This way, less fortunate people are not disadvantaged and as a side effect, it propagates people to be more careful with consumption. The problem of excessive plastic waste has to be tackled not only in a single state, but also on a global scale. For this reason, the UN published the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, where one goal is to ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. ‘Peace is only possible with sustainable development’, Mr. Weish remarked. But also on a personal level, one must try to reduce his or her ecological footprint, the demand on nature.

Second person from the left is Peter Weish. He told us his opinion about the ethics of our project