Experts chart EU’s course through the moral maze

Date: 10/07/1997

PUT any question to Noëlle Lenoir and you will trigger an enthusiastic torrent of words, conveying a precise philosophical point and spoken with absolute conviction.

An analytical response from the French lawyer who chairs the European Commission's group of advisers on bioethics is to be expected, but her passion about all matters ethical is equally striking.

While her group's mandate is currently restricted to identifying the ethical problems raised by the spectacular growth of biotechnology, Lenoir displays an all-embracing approach to the topic.

“I think that ethics is everything which is not the selfish interest of a group or an individual. It is solidarity, equality between men and women, human rights,” she explains as she perches on the edge of her chair.

It was the birth of Dolly the sheep which awoke the public to the existence of cloning, and prompted European Commission President Jacques Santer to request her group's advice on the technique.

But Lenoir points out that cloning is nothing new and has been in existence for more than 40 years.

“The public reacted to Dolly as if the very next day it was going to be scientifically possible to create human clones. But technically, at the moment, there is no question of cloning humans, even if it were desirable.”

The group decided human reproductive cloning was unacceptable, but that the cloning of farm animals was ethical as long as their welfare was taken into consideration. The strength of public opinion also prompted the group to call on the Commission to stimulate public debate about the issues involved, given the lack of popular knowledge about cloning.

Lenoir suggests that universities should organise debates in each member state between ethical committees, scientists, philosophers and especially young people on themes such as cloning, novel foods and genetic tests.

“That would tell us how each EU country reacts to an issue, especially the young, who are both the most likely to understand the problem and to be affected by it in the future,” she says.

Lenoir is conscious of the fact that critics could view groups such as her own as élitist and distant. Her bioethics group is made up of nine lawyers, scientists and philosophers. It meets about once a month in Brussels and while from time to time it invites outside experts to give their views at round tables, Lenoir concedes that the average person is unlikely to see it as relevant.

“The big question is how we can listen to public opinion and not just experts and wise people,” she says.

Immediately, she embarks on an analysis of why this is not as easy as it might sound. “It is a philosophical and political problem and it is true for many groups, including trade unions who represent the people but end up being distant. It is true of politicians.”

Ethical committees, however, might provide a solution. They can bridge the gap between the two cultures of politicians and intellectuals, says Lenoir, and influence the way political decisions are made and themes are taken up by politicians.

“What is interesting is that ethics has always been linked to the idea of a Social Europe, which takes into account the aspirations of the people and moral values like dignity, the safeguarding of health and the environment. For me, one of the principle lessons of ethics is that we are going towards a more participative democracy and all the difficulties that entails,” she stresses.

This moral maze, however, leads us back to the central question and starting point, almost as if Lenoir is loathe to reach any conclusions on her thesis. “What is the role of an ethical committees in a democratic debate? Does it help participative democracy or does it, on the contrary, legitimise decisions taken far from the public?”

The questions she asks herself would have philosophy students reaching for their textbooks and sharpening their pencils, and is typical of Lenoir's intellectual rigour in the very best of French traditions.

Her boundless enthusiasm for knotty problems will stand her in good stead as the bioethics group's involvement in ethical dilemmas increases.

Santer is considering renewing its mandate for 1998 and the European Parliament will next week debate legislation on the protection of biotechnology patents which could lead to the creation of a special ethical committee. “Well, that's us, in effect, transformed,” says Lenoir, with absolute certainty.

The group has just embarked on examining the ethical dimension of the Commission's Fifth Framework Research and Development Programme.

Still in its early stages of reflection, the group is first planning to identify potential ethical minefields.

“A whole raft of ethical problems is created by research Should we look at neuroscience and research on the brain, where there is a possibility that one could start classifying people in a deterministic way, asking are they intelligent or not intelligent?” she asks. “Should we look at predictive testing? What about food safety, for example 'mad cow' disease?”

Ethics, it would seem, is an effective way for consumers to get their concerns on to the political agenda and slow down the relentless progress of science.

One issue which bothers Lenoir especially is that of insurance companies and the genetic testing of their potential clients.

“Europe is going to have to make a statement on the possibility of insurance companies doing these tests, since insurance is largely a Community issue,” she insists.

Another of her missions is to investigate the independence of scientists which, in the wake of the BSE crisis, has become a burning European issue and a cause of concern among consumer groups.

“In our discussions it has become clear that scientists want to make advances and make they research financially worthwhile. They need to integrate ethics into their work. But as they become more and more financed by industry, it is normal that industry wants to make its investment in that research profitable. There is a problem of economic independence,” she explains.

The Commission, however, can provide a useful counterbalance to a money-oriented approach to research, says Lenoir. It has already funded projects which fail to attract industrial interest, such as so-called orphan diseases which affect only a minority of the population.

Pinpointing ethical issues could present Lenoir and her group with an endless task. They may, for instance, highlight ethical concerns in a particular biotechnological project, but what of its repercussions?

“What are the leisure and working lifestyles introduced by biotechnology?” she asks. “Will biotechnology in agriculture create big farms at the expense of smaller enterprises? Are these farms going to be dependent on big industrial groups? What are the social consequences? I do not know it we are going to tackle that as well, but it is important.”

Even the difficulties facing the developing world and the gap between rich and poor countries cause Lenoir pause for thought.

A former mayor of Valmondois and special adviser to the French prime minister on bioethics, Lenoir also chairs the bioethics advisory committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). This, she says, has shown her that ethics is an area where it is easier to get international agreement, despite global cultural and political differences.

“I am struck by how little difference there is in the approach to ethics and human rights,” she says.

Lenoir's optimism about the value of ethics remains unbridled, as she insists: “There is harmony on ethical questions, at least in theory.”