0:00:03 > 0:00:06A scientist, Charles Darwin,
0:00:06 > 0:00:09made us see ourselves differently
0:00:09 > 0:00:12with an explanation of how humans came to exist.
0:00:12 > 0:00:16Even now, his theory of evolution makes many uncomfortable
0:00:16 > 0:00:19and challenges their beliefs.
0:00:19 > 0:00:23Later advances in science have produced many moral dilemmas.
0:00:23 > 0:00:27And in the 20th century, the Nazis used quasi-science
0:00:27 > 0:00:30to justify mass murder.
0:00:30 > 0:00:34In this century, many fear what science could unleash.
0:00:34 > 0:00:37Europe resisted genetically modified crops
0:00:37 > 0:00:41and America blocked stem cell research.
0:00:41 > 0:00:44And we shrink from the prospect of designing our babies.
0:00:44 > 0:00:47What responsibility does the scientist have,
0:00:47 > 0:00:49setting out on the path of research?
0:00:49 > 0:00:53Is it merely to encourage knowledge?
0:00:53 > 0:00:55To grow and to flourish.
0:00:55 > 0:00:59Or should they reflect on the impact that their discoveries,
0:00:59 > 0:01:03such as splitting the atom, could have on humanity?
0:01:03 > 0:01:08Can they safely leave such worries to those who enjoy political power?
0:01:11 > 0:01:15At dinner tonight, helping me to test the role
0:01:15 > 0:01:18of scientists to destruction,
0:01:18 > 0:01:19are a medical scientist,
0:01:19 > 0:01:21a Catholic theologian,
0:01:21 > 0:01:22an Oxford neuroscientist
0:01:22 > 0:01:25and a science journalist.
0:01:29 > 0:01:33Today, we trade in our Petri dishes and our test tubes
0:01:33 > 0:01:39for platters of food and goblets of wine, as we ask...
0:01:44 > 0:01:47My guests are Sir Mark Walport -
0:01:47 > 0:01:51doctor, medical scientist and director of the Wellcome Trust,
0:01:51 > 0:01:54the UK's biggest medical research charity.
0:01:54 > 0:01:59Petra Boynton who's an agony aunt, sex researcher
0:01:59 > 0:02:04and lecturer at University College London.
0:02:04 > 0:02:07Lord Dick Taverne - one time treasury minister
0:02:07 > 0:02:09and chair of Sense About Science,
0:02:09 > 0:02:13a charity promoting public understanding of science.
0:02:13 > 0:02:18Baroness Susan Greenfield - neuroscientist, cross-bench peer
0:02:18 > 0:02:23and professor of pharmacology at the University Of Oxford.
0:02:23 > 0:02:28Mark Henderson, who is the award winning science editor of The Times,
0:02:28 > 0:02:32and also, an author and columnist.
0:02:32 > 0:02:35Tina Beattie - Roman Catholic theologian
0:02:35 > 0:02:40and professor of Catholic Studies at Roehampton University.
0:02:40 > 0:02:43And Bryan Appleyard - author, journalist
0:02:43 > 0:02:48and three times award winner at the British Press Awards.
0:02:48 > 0:02:50A scientist splits the atom,
0:02:50 > 0:02:52knowing that that could lead to a nuclear bomb,
0:02:52 > 0:02:55so what is the responsibility of the scientist?
0:02:55 > 0:02:58SIR WALPORT: The responsibility is to argue for peaceful use
0:02:58 > 0:03:01of that information rather than war-like.
0:03:01 > 0:03:03- I mean...- Argue for it?- Yes.
0:03:03 > 0:03:05Scientists are moral beings
0:03:05 > 0:03:09in the same way as every other person is a moral being.
0:03:09 > 0:03:13And I think that the important distinction is that in science,
0:03:13 > 0:03:18I think, there are no limits to how much we can know.
0:03:18 > 0:03:19But where morals come in,
0:03:19 > 0:03:21is how you use that knowledge.
0:03:21 > 0:03:25It's really important that one doesn't say that scientists
0:03:25 > 0:03:27- operate in an amoral sphere.- No.
0:03:27 > 0:03:29So let's focus on splitting the atom.
0:03:29 > 0:03:32Splitting the atom, you can either argue that this is
0:03:32 > 0:03:36what's given us the nuclear bomb which has killed a lot of people
0:03:36 > 0:03:39or what's given us nuclear power which is going to save the planet.
0:03:39 > 0:03:42Right, but I don't think that you should then argue
0:03:42 > 0:03:45that scientists aren't entitled to an opinion
0:03:45 > 0:03:48about whether it's better to use that knowledge to produce power
0:03:48 > 0:03:51as opposed to war. You could go all the way back to fire.
0:03:51 > 0:03:55I've discovered this stuff called fire. In two different societies,
0:03:55 > 0:03:58fire can be used for good purposes or bad purposes.
0:03:58 > 0:04:00Scientists shouldn't be neutered,
0:04:00 > 0:04:03scientists are entitled to express opinion...
0:04:03 > 0:04:06- Indeed, but they're not terribly good at arguing.- SUSAN: No.
0:04:06 > 0:04:09Scientists are as good as anyone else at arguing, actually.
0:04:09 > 0:04:12No, there are professional arguers.
0:04:12 > 0:04:14- But coming back... - But science is about argument,
0:04:14 > 0:04:17it is about resolving uncertainty through experiment.
0:04:17 > 0:04:20- That's science. - We're not good at putting our case
0:04:20 > 0:04:24- in general terms in a way that people...- Some of us are...
0:04:24 > 0:04:27- MARK: I disagree...- Susan, you're rarely off the television.
0:04:27 > 0:04:29You can't possibly...
0:04:29 > 0:04:33MARK: What Susan said about scientists not being good at arguing
0:04:33 > 0:04:36was probably true ten years ago.
0:04:36 > 0:04:39And actually, partly because of people like Susan and Dick
0:04:39 > 0:04:42and initiatives that they've set up,
0:04:42 > 0:04:45I think, that probably has changed to a degree...
0:04:45 > 0:04:48I think there's still a way to go, I don't know how Dick feels.
0:04:48 > 0:04:52This is a truly important point for the scientists round the table -
0:04:52 > 0:04:55culturally, in our community, it is still considered, in a sense,
0:04:55 > 0:04:58a no-go area, but certainly less than desirable area
0:04:58 > 0:05:01to talk to the media a lot. And to "dumb down".
0:05:01 > 0:05:04You're, kind of, sneered at still, I'm afraid.
0:05:04 > 0:05:06So only a few people will do this.
0:05:06 > 0:05:10And so despite what you say about it now becoming respectable...
0:05:10 > 0:05:11- It's not.- Culturally,
0:05:11 > 0:05:14it's an important issue among the scientific community.
0:05:14 > 0:05:18DICK: Can I come back to the question of morality in science?
0:05:18 > 0:05:21Because Mark raised an important point.
0:05:21 > 0:05:24Science, as he indicated, is morally neutral.
0:05:24 > 0:05:27I mean, it can be used for good or ill.
0:05:27 > 0:05:31Scientists are not morally neutral, they're very much involved.
0:05:31 > 0:05:34I think there's a further connection between science and morality
0:05:34 > 0:05:36which is often neglected.
0:05:36 > 0:05:40Because science, by being against superstition,
0:05:40 > 0:05:44against dogmatism, because it's tentative knowledge,
0:05:44 > 0:05:47because it's questioning and therefore anti-authority,
0:05:47 > 0:05:50it's anti-authority and therefore anti-autocracy.
0:05:50 > 0:05:53Science is, on the whole, a force for tolerance
0:05:53 > 0:05:56and also very relevant to human rights
0:05:56 > 0:05:58which are very great moral issues.
0:05:58 > 0:06:02Because a lot of the dispute about human rights
0:06:02 > 0:06:05is based on disputes about misconceptions.
0:06:05 > 0:06:06None of those things...
0:06:06 > 0:06:08That blacks are less intelligent,
0:06:08 > 0:06:10- that women are second class citizens.- Absolutely,
0:06:10 > 0:06:13because people have made mistakes,
0:06:13 > 0:06:17because science has managed to dispel the misconceptions there were
0:06:17 > 0:06:19about the characteristics of gender.
0:06:19 > 0:06:21BRYAN: You're making a category error.
0:06:21 > 0:06:24You're talking about a process called science
0:06:24 > 0:06:26which works by being neutral.
0:06:26 > 0:06:29Now, the category error you're making is saying science is not
0:06:29 > 0:06:32tolerant of dictatorship, tyranny, all those things.
0:06:32 > 0:06:36- Historically...- It questions authority as Galileo did.
0:06:36 > 0:06:38..it's been very useful to tyranny.
0:06:38 > 0:06:40Technology can be used for good or ill,
0:06:40 > 0:06:44but science itself is questioning and therefore is anti-authoritarian.
0:06:44 > 0:06:46The Russian scientist who conducted
0:06:46 > 0:06:49a massive biological weapons programme,
0:06:49 > 0:06:52did produce some very effective biological weapons.
0:06:52 > 0:06:55The point is, science is a very neutral, very narrow activity.
0:06:55 > 0:06:57That's what you've got.
0:06:57 > 0:07:00The other things, is rhetoric surrounding science.
0:07:00 > 0:07:03You're bringing morals from outside to attach to science.
0:07:03 > 0:07:06MARK: There is one point though that Dick has made
0:07:06 > 0:07:07that is very critical
0:07:07 > 0:07:11and that is that science is inherently anti-authority.
0:07:11 > 0:07:14In that if an authority figure says something,
0:07:14 > 0:07:17all you need to get around that is evidence.
0:07:17 > 0:07:22When Marshall and Warren came up with the idea that stomach ulcers
0:07:22 > 0:07:24were cause by bacterium,
0:07:24 > 0:07:27everybody laughed at them until they proved their case.
0:07:27 > 0:07:29And science changed as a result of that.
0:07:29 > 0:07:33There are countless examples of that where an unorthodox opinion,
0:07:33 > 0:07:37provided that people provide the evidence, can take over.
0:07:37 > 0:07:39PETRA: That presumes one view of science
0:07:39 > 0:07:41and this is where the issue about gender,
0:07:41 > 0:07:43would be lovely if that was true.
0:07:43 > 0:07:46I'm sure we'd have a great time if that were true.
0:07:46 > 0:07:49You know, evolutionary psychology doesn't think women are equal.
0:07:49 > 0:07:51The lived experience of women,
0:07:51 > 0:07:54in culture, women in science particularly,
0:07:54 > 0:07:58that science hasn't always worked in that sense at all.
0:07:58 > 0:08:01It's often worked to prove that we shouldn't be studying.
0:08:01 > 0:08:03Do you think that it's a coincidence then,
0:08:03 > 0:08:06that the position of women has approached equality
0:08:06 > 0:08:10in those societies that are most scientifically advanced?
0:08:11 > 0:08:12No.
0:08:12 > 0:08:14Well, again it depends on how you view equality.
0:08:14 > 0:08:16Look at the Islamic world.
0:08:16 > 0:08:19TINA: Well, excuse me, I think this is really problematic.
0:08:19 > 0:08:23If we're going to have this discussion, let's be scientific.
0:08:23 > 0:08:25Countries that are tyrannies, dictatorships,
0:08:25 > 0:08:27not at all like the, sort of,
0:08:27 > 0:08:31gender egalitarian idyll that we're dreaming of in the West,
0:08:31 > 0:08:34use science just as effectively as we do.
0:08:34 > 0:08:37- But I don't think that was the argument.- No, that's not.
0:08:37 > 0:08:40SUSAN: Let's remind ourselves of what science is.
0:08:40 > 0:08:43Science is a way of approaching a certain methodology,
0:08:43 > 0:08:46it's a certain way of doing something
0:08:46 > 0:08:48and let's not dignify it and sanctify it
0:08:48 > 0:08:52as though anyone doing science has the answer.
0:08:52 > 0:08:54There's bad scientists, good...
0:08:54 > 0:08:58If your knowledge is tentative, scientific knowledge,
0:08:58 > 0:09:02you're not going to be dogmatic the way that other people are.
0:09:02 > 0:09:06I do want to get an idea of... the, kind of, staircase here.
0:09:06 > 0:09:09We're quite certain the Earth is round, are we?
0:09:09 > 0:09:11THEY LAUGH
0:09:13 > 0:09:15- Well, I'm not so sure. - And the sun goes round it?
0:09:15 > 0:09:17- No.- And the Earth goes round the sun.
0:09:17 > 0:09:24We're quite sure the world is round. Are we sure that HIV causes AIDS?
0:09:24 > 0:09:28- Yes.- Are we sure that man is causing climate change?
0:09:28 > 0:09:30We're...pretty sure, yeah.
0:09:30 > 0:09:34And are we sure that GM foods are a good thing and safe?
0:09:34 > 0:09:37No, because that's the wrong question.
0:09:37 > 0:09:40The question is, what GM food for what purpose?
0:09:40 > 0:09:43- MARK: Absolutely.- There is nothing generic about GM foods.
0:09:43 > 0:09:47Let's take the current one which is synthetic biology.
0:09:47 > 0:09:50Is it a good thing to synthesise a virus that will carry
0:09:50 > 0:09:53some terrible toxin and kill the world? Of course not.
0:09:53 > 0:09:55Is it sensible to try and develop
0:09:55 > 0:09:58organisms that will make antibiotics? Yes.
0:09:58 > 0:10:00And so it's about specifics there.
0:10:00 > 0:10:03GM foods are not generic, they're something specific.
0:10:03 > 0:10:07You can make the argument about something like guns or hot water.
0:10:07 > 0:10:10I mean, you can use them for good purposes and bad purposes.
0:10:10 > 0:10:13Right, and so I want to ask Bryan,
0:10:13 > 0:10:18do you believe that science should restrict itself? Limit itself
0:10:18 > 0:10:21to the development of things that have good moral outcomes.
0:10:21 > 0:10:23Obviously some outcomes are undesirable -
0:10:23 > 0:10:27we don't want biological weapons in the hands of rogue states.
0:10:27 > 0:10:31The problem with science is its immense power.
0:10:31 > 0:10:36You have to look at not just the moment of doing the science,
0:10:36 > 0:10:39but the moment people step away and it becomes real.
0:10:39 > 0:10:43Now, a very respectable scientist, in his day, was Ernst Haeckel.
0:10:43 > 0:10:44Generally his bit of biology
0:10:44 > 0:10:47seemed pretty good, at the time. Right?
0:10:47 > 0:10:49Well, he informed the politics of Mein Kampf.
0:10:49 > 0:10:50That is a serious point.
0:10:50 > 0:10:53- Well, is it? Is it?- Yes.
0:10:53 > 0:10:58- You're saying that this...- I'm saying is...- ..this lovely, liberal
0:10:58 > 0:11:02human kind loving man, was in some way responsible for Hitler?
0:11:02 > 0:11:09No, I'm saying that the science he produced entailed Nazism.
0:11:09 > 0:11:16It was inherent in his science to be adopted by the politics of Hitler.
0:11:16 > 0:11:19That does not mean Haeckel was guilty,
0:11:19 > 0:11:20he was an unpleasant man,
0:11:20 > 0:11:22but that's another matter.
0:11:22 > 0:11:25I'm not so interested in morality in science,
0:11:25 > 0:11:27because that's absolutely determined.
0:11:27 > 0:11:29Scientists are moral creatures.
0:11:29 > 0:11:33Science is this single, narrow pursuit of something.
0:11:33 > 0:11:35Everything that happens outside that is moral.
0:11:35 > 0:11:38But supposing that it were right to say that different races
0:11:38 > 0:11:42have different characteristics, different intelligences.
0:11:42 > 0:11:45That isn't to say that you ought to exterminate all the people
0:11:45 > 0:11:49who are different, so why are you blaming the scientist?
0:11:49 > 0:11:50Supposing that...
0:11:50 > 0:11:52A lot of scientists have colluded in those policies.
0:11:52 > 0:11:54..what would you do with that fact?
0:11:54 > 0:11:58But what would you do with the fact? I mean, are you saying
0:11:58 > 0:12:00that there are things we should not discover
0:12:00 > 0:12:04- in case they're abused by politicians?- No, no.
0:12:04 > 0:12:06No, I'm not saying that at all.
0:12:06 > 0:12:10There should be a world which exists prior to science,
0:12:10 > 0:12:13prior to that discovery, in which the idea of that discovery
0:12:13 > 0:12:16being used against people would be absurd.
0:12:16 > 0:12:19That people would be morally mature enough to see that.
0:12:19 > 0:12:22- LORD WALPORT: Are you arguing against finding thing out?- No.
0:12:22 > 0:12:24He's asking me to argue with that.
0:12:24 > 0:12:27TINA: For scientists to measure humans... Why do we want,
0:12:27 > 0:12:30as a society, to transform our fellow human beings
0:12:30 > 0:12:32into scientific measurable entities?
0:12:32 > 0:12:36I'm sorry, Tina, your question is, why do we want to understand?
0:12:36 > 0:12:39- I don't like that question. - No, my question is not that.
0:12:39 > 0:12:43It's what do I want to understand that matters.
0:12:43 > 0:12:46- So, right. So... - What do I want to understand?
0:12:46 > 0:12:48So you are going to dictate to the rest of us
0:12:48 > 0:12:50what we should be allowed to understand?
0:12:50 > 0:12:52That I would be so powerful!
0:12:52 > 0:12:55Wouldn't we live in a wonderful world!
0:12:55 > 0:12:57You would like to be in that position...
0:12:57 > 0:13:00No, I love being in this position - a messy conversation
0:13:00 > 0:13:02where we can all chip in, that's what I want.
0:13:02 > 0:13:05SIR WALPORT: But let's take a specific example.
0:13:05 > 0:13:06So, there's dyslexia.
0:13:06 > 0:13:09So, that's one aspect of cognitive ability -
0:13:09 > 0:13:11your ability to read and write.
0:13:11 > 0:13:14And we know that there's quite a high hereditability
0:13:14 > 0:13:16to disorders in being able to read and write.
0:13:16 > 0:13:19Now, does that mean that we shouldn't investigate
0:13:19 > 0:13:21the genetics of that? Because if we understand that
0:13:21 > 0:13:24then we may start explaining a normal range.
0:13:24 > 0:13:26SUSAN: No, let's take dyslexia,
0:13:26 > 0:13:30all a gene does is cause activation of proteins and what do proteins do?
0:13:30 > 0:13:33The knock on, in brain function, is so indirect.
0:13:33 > 0:13:35So therefore, much more interesting to ask,
0:13:35 > 0:13:38what do we mean by intelligence?
0:13:38 > 0:13:41What do we mean by understanding? What do we mean by human ability?
0:13:41 > 0:13:43What do you want your kids to be like?
0:13:43 > 0:13:46They're much more interesting questions
0:13:46 > 0:13:48than just focusing on IQ and genes...
0:13:48 > 0:13:51And who decides what's more interesting?
0:13:51 > 0:13:53I mean, obviously you, but who else?
0:13:53 > 0:13:57Ha! But I think a very interesting question, who decides?
0:13:57 > 0:14:00It's something that I've been encountering recently
0:14:00 > 0:14:03in the impact of screen technologies and how kids think.
0:14:03 > 0:14:07This is a societal problem, it's something that no one sector owns.
0:14:07 > 0:14:09Something we should all be debating and sharing.
0:14:09 > 0:14:12That's when science is at its most interesting and potent.
0:14:12 > 0:14:16The moral question, which we're supposed to be discussing,
0:14:16 > 0:14:19is whether certain kinds of scientific research
0:14:19 > 0:14:24are dangerous and should not be pursued.
0:14:24 > 0:14:26Now, I think this is a very important question
0:14:26 > 0:14:29and I don't see any limit on what should be pursued.
0:14:29 > 0:14:32- It should ALWAYS be open. - MARK: One of the issues here
0:14:32 > 0:14:36is that very often it's a misinterpretation of results
0:14:36 > 0:14:40that ends up with discrimination at the end of the day.
0:14:40 > 0:14:43I think, genetics is a prime example of this.
0:14:43 > 0:14:47Genetic effects are not as, by and large as is commonly assumed,
0:14:47 > 0:14:50deterministic. They are probabilistic.
0:14:50 > 0:14:52If you have a particular genetic type,
0:14:52 > 0:14:56it doesn't necessarily doom you or predestine you to anything.
0:14:56 > 0:14:59It might mean you have an elevated risk of something
0:14:59 > 0:15:01that you should look out for, but...
0:15:01 > 0:15:04BRYAN: The question is not that, the question is,
0:15:04 > 0:15:07if science did discover something like that, what would we do?
0:15:07 > 0:15:11Petra, in your unusually applied field,
0:15:11 > 0:15:13you're, kind of, helping people,
0:15:13 > 0:15:15do you see a moral purpose for what you're doing?
0:15:15 > 0:15:19Yes, but it has to be very careful.
0:15:19 > 0:15:25You know, I've met young people, 12, 13, 14, who are having sex for money.
0:15:25 > 0:15:26Who are being abused.
0:15:26 > 0:15:29And I would like to help those children.
0:15:29 > 0:15:32It would be easy to say, life for those children is terrible
0:15:32 > 0:15:35and there's a huge amount of suffering.
0:15:35 > 0:15:38To make people do something, I can completely see why people do that,
0:15:38 > 0:15:41but I might misrepresent what's happening.
0:15:41 > 0:15:43It's not to deny those children are suffering,
0:15:43 > 0:15:45but I have to contextualise that.
0:15:45 > 0:15:49And that, for me, is where the morality is very important.
0:15:49 > 0:15:53In that, I have to be... fair and balanced.
0:15:53 > 0:15:54That's often unpopular,
0:15:54 > 0:15:57because people want you to toe a political line.
0:15:57 > 0:16:01But do you go to work each morning thinking, "I'm helping people."
0:16:01 > 0:16:04Um... I'd like to, yeah.
0:16:04 > 0:16:08- You would, yeah.- BRYAN: But that's a perfectly good justification
0:16:08 > 0:16:11- for medical research...- I'm not saying it's a bad justification,
0:16:11 > 0:16:14I wanted to understand what it was.
0:16:14 > 0:16:16I mean, do you go to work thinking that?
0:16:16 > 0:16:17No, I don't think I do.
0:16:17 > 0:16:19I think I go to work recognising
0:16:19 > 0:16:22that ultimately the more we understand about health,
0:16:22 > 0:16:26it will be good for the health of the population.
0:16:26 > 0:16:29But do I think about the patient first?
0:16:29 > 0:16:30I am a doctor, but no I don't.
0:16:30 > 0:16:33I think about the wonder of science and finding things...
0:16:33 > 0:16:36SUSAN: If I'm honest, like with Mark,
0:16:36 > 0:16:40my immediate goal is to solve the problem. Is to solve the problem.
0:16:40 > 0:16:43Motivation, I think, is a very important question.
0:16:43 > 0:16:47There's an awful lot of suspicion of research.
0:16:47 > 0:16:51For example, the attack on genetic modification's always been based on
0:16:51 > 0:16:55great, big corporate concern to make lots of profits.
0:16:55 > 0:16:56Now, there's no doubt
0:16:56 > 0:17:00that some pharmaceutical companies have misbehaved.
0:17:00 > 0:17:03But, by and large, what I think is very important to remember
0:17:03 > 0:17:06is that most people who work for companies
0:17:06 > 0:17:09are actually motivated to try and improve the human race.
0:17:09 > 0:17:13Secondly, in same ways, motivation is unimportant.
0:17:13 > 0:17:16Because the question is not who paid
0:17:16 > 0:17:19or what were his motives or her motives,
0:17:19 > 0:17:23but, is the research reproducible?
0:17:23 > 0:17:29Does it stand up? Is it something which can, in fact, be supported
0:17:29 > 0:17:32on objective grounds? Because if someone is motivated
0:17:32 > 0:17:36by the worst possible motive, produces good research,
0:17:36 > 0:17:37that is good research.
0:17:37 > 0:17:40TINA: So let's all use Joseph Mengele's research, then.
0:17:40 > 0:17:43- SIR WALPORT: No, come on. - Well, that is...
0:17:43 > 0:17:45His research is reproducible.
0:17:45 > 0:17:47It's abhorrent, but it's reproducible.
0:17:47 > 0:17:51SIR WALPORT: Research does have to be conducted ethically.
0:17:51 > 0:17:54Well, I don't think that is what Dick is saying, actually.
0:17:54 > 0:17:56MARK: We don't know the extent to which
0:17:56 > 0:17:59Mengele's research is reproducible,
0:17:59 > 0:18:01because it's not published in an open fashion
0:18:01 > 0:18:05and this is one of the critical things about science,
0:18:05 > 0:18:08that results are published so they can be challenged
0:18:08 > 0:18:12with all the data there and the workings there,
0:18:12 > 0:18:16so that people can go back and examine it and it's the...
0:18:16 > 0:18:19Everybody always asks, "What are the motives for doing it?"
0:18:19 > 0:18:24And they ought to be asking, "What are the results of the research?
0:18:24 > 0:18:25"Have they been peer reviewed?
0:18:25 > 0:18:29"Have they been independently tested? Have they been reproduced?"
0:18:29 > 0:18:32It doesn't matter whether if it's been done by Monsanto
0:18:32 > 0:18:36or by Greenpeace. The question is, is it good research or bad research?
0:18:36 > 0:18:39SIR WALPORT: But hang on, there are limits on how you find things out.
0:18:39 > 0:18:41Absolutely, unequivocally.
0:18:41 > 0:18:45TINA: It sounds like there aren't, if I listen to what Dick's saying.
0:18:45 > 0:18:47- ALL: No! - It doesn't matter what you do,
0:18:47 > 0:18:50so long as you can repeat your experiments
0:18:50 > 0:18:52and show that you have results.
0:18:52 > 0:18:56But it seems to me, you say, "Look. I can associate Hitler with Mengele.
0:18:56 > 0:18:57"Mengele was a scientist,
0:18:57 > 0:19:00"therefore I've got a problem with science."
0:19:00 > 0:19:04- It's just not a good argument. - Exactly! I completely agree,
0:19:04 > 0:19:08which is why I think you're making a really bad argument.
0:19:08 > 0:19:10PETRA: Repeating research is important,
0:19:10 > 0:19:13but it's contextualising and appraising it.
0:19:13 > 0:19:14When work is in the public domain,
0:19:14 > 0:19:16I can look at motivation.
0:19:16 > 0:19:19I can start asking questions about who's done the research
0:19:19 > 0:19:22and why they might have been interested in the question.
0:19:22 > 0:19:25- DICK: Right.- And that is important.
0:19:25 > 0:19:28SUSAN: The central issue is what are we going to use science for?
0:19:28 > 0:19:30There's a term called transhumanism.
0:19:30 > 0:19:33Transhumanism, which was described recently
0:19:33 > 0:19:36- as the world's most dangerous idea...- BRYAN: I second that.
0:19:36 > 0:19:39..is you can enhance physical and mental powers by
0:19:39 > 0:19:42artificial means whether they are biomedical or physical.
0:19:42 > 0:19:45You could have implants in the brain or genetic manipulation
0:19:45 > 0:19:47or cognitive enhancers or whatever.
0:19:47 > 0:19:51The notion being, that above and beyond your healthy norm,
0:19:51 > 0:19:54you go beyond into some other stratosphere of perfection
0:19:54 > 0:19:56which I think is a sinister notion.
0:19:56 > 0:19:58Isn't the point that we've got to hope
0:19:58 > 0:20:03that we live in societies which will actually put limits on what's done?
0:20:03 > 0:20:06And so... I mean, for example,
0:20:06 > 0:20:10for a long time there's been the ability to investigate
0:20:10 > 0:20:13whether a couple who've had a child
0:20:13 > 0:20:16with a severe genetic disease have the opportunity
0:20:16 > 0:20:19to identify whether a subsequent pregnancy's affected.
0:20:19 > 0:20:20And there are options.
0:20:20 > 0:20:22There's IVF, there's abortion.
0:20:22 > 0:20:25So we've been doing that for a very long time.
0:20:25 > 0:20:27And I think most medical practitioners, not all,
0:20:27 > 0:20:31would think that was reasonable to do and society at large has thought,
0:20:31 > 0:20:34in a regulated way, it's a reasonable thing to do.
0:20:34 > 0:20:37But I hope no-one round the table would think it was reasonable
0:20:37 > 0:20:40to select children on the colour of their eyes,
0:20:40 > 0:20:42or the colour of their hair or...
0:20:42 > 0:20:43DICK: Male or female.
0:20:43 > 0:20:46SUSAN: OK, who is physically and mentally perfect, then?
0:20:46 > 0:20:50Wait, there's an important add-on to what Mark's just said too, there.
0:20:50 > 0:20:54Which is that, the whole debate about so-called "designer babies"
0:20:54 > 0:20:58that is happening at the moment,
0:20:58 > 0:21:01is, by and large, founded on a science fiction
0:21:01 > 0:21:03rather than on actual science.
0:21:03 > 0:21:05In that, with the except...
0:21:05 > 0:21:09OK, at the moment, we have the technology to look for single genes
0:21:09 > 0:21:14in embryos that have been created by IVF and ensure that the embryos
0:21:14 > 0:21:18that do not carry Huntington's disease or cystic fibrosis
0:21:18 > 0:21:22are not implanted. It is a HUGE step
0:21:22 > 0:21:28from that to attempting to select the dozens or hundreds or genes
0:21:28 > 0:21:31that might influence intelligence or height or good looks or something.
0:21:31 > 0:21:33For a large number of reasons.
0:21:33 > 0:21:38And I think it's very important that, at least in the short to medium term,
0:21:38 > 0:21:40that, actually, ethical arguments
0:21:40 > 0:21:43about what is and isn't acceptable ethically
0:21:43 > 0:21:46are grounded in what's actually possible
0:21:46 > 0:21:49rather than what might happen in 50 or 100 years' time.
0:21:49 > 0:21:51Couldn't you argue the opposite?
0:21:51 > 0:21:54You could argue that given that we're not there,
0:21:54 > 0:21:57this is the time to decide the ethical position.
0:21:57 > 0:22:00BRYAN: Transhumanism is the point. I've spent time with transhumanists
0:22:00 > 0:22:03and 50% are crazy, but 50% are quite intelligent.
0:22:03 > 0:22:07And the argument is that you'd basically be consumer pressure.
0:22:07 > 0:22:10Now, because of consumer pressure, I want my baby to be X.
0:22:10 > 0:22:11Now, it may be a simple decision
0:22:11 > 0:22:14about what we agree is a medical condition,
0:22:14 > 0:22:16but it may not. It may be something else.
0:22:16 > 0:22:19Now, when you get to that point, it's a consumer pressure.
0:22:19 > 0:22:21And that will come.
0:22:21 > 0:22:24And transhumanists are all for it.
0:22:24 > 0:22:26SUSAN: Can I answer that? It's an important...
0:22:26 > 0:22:28What is THE perfect brain?
0:22:28 > 0:22:31You know? Is it that you have prolonged attention span?
0:22:31 > 0:22:34Is it that you have a better memory? No, because computers
0:22:34 > 0:22:37can do those things and I don't think one would point
0:22:37 > 0:22:39to Beethoven, Shakespeare and Einstein
0:22:39 > 0:22:42and say that what they had in common was an attention span.
0:22:42 > 0:22:43So, the notion is
0:22:43 > 0:22:47that there's no such thing as THE perfect brain anyway.
0:22:47 > 0:22:49Surely the whole idea is that we're diverse...
0:22:49 > 0:22:53BRYAN: Because we're human, we don't know what a human enhancement is.
0:22:53 > 0:22:54Exactly, that's my point.
0:22:54 > 0:22:56This is sophistry.
0:22:56 > 0:22:59We're talking about parents who want their children to be
0:22:59 > 0:23:01more intelligent rather than less.
0:23:01 > 0:23:04More beautiful rather than less beautiful.
0:23:04 > 0:23:05More tall rather than less tall.
0:23:05 > 0:23:09So, you're a parent, let's say. OK, let's challenge you, Michael.
0:23:09 > 0:23:13- OK, you have children. You want your kids to be more intelligent?- Yeah.
0:23:13 > 0:23:16What will they be able to do with this more intelligence?
0:23:16 > 0:23:20Will they write more symphonies, will they write novels?
0:23:20 > 0:23:24I think they'll have a better life, because they'll be engaged
0:23:24 > 0:23:27in lovely conversations. I think they'll earn more money.
0:23:27 > 0:23:29Oh, that's interesting.
0:23:29 > 0:23:33But this more that you're going to give them, this "more intelligence",
0:23:33 > 0:23:36Is it a better memory? A longer attention span? What is it?
0:23:36 > 0:23:40No, really. I think you're being absolutely sophistical.
0:23:40 > 0:23:44Go... Go out and ask, just ask anyone. Do you want to be...
0:23:44 > 0:23:47- Do you want to be brighter or less bright?- I'm asking you.
0:23:47 > 0:23:49Yes, and I am answering you.
0:23:49 > 0:23:51- What...- I've answered you already.
0:23:51 > 0:23:53I want them to have the quality of conversation,
0:23:53 > 0:23:55I want them to have earning power.
0:23:55 > 0:23:59Do you think we've all got brilliant memories round the table? No.
0:23:59 > 0:24:00DICK: Susan. Susan, just a moment.
0:24:00 > 0:24:04There are certain things which are already possible.
0:24:04 > 0:24:08I mean, it may well be that we can stop people having
0:24:08 > 0:24:14Huntington's chorea. There are certain...health effects
0:24:14 > 0:24:16which could be prevented.
0:24:16 > 0:24:22Now, it's not an awfully long step to stop people being too short.
0:24:22 > 0:24:27You can begin to influence the way in which people develop.
0:24:27 > 0:24:33Now, this does raise certain ethical problems.
0:24:33 > 0:24:35You can't deny that.
0:24:35 > 0:24:37SUSAN: How short is too short? 5ft 4? 5ft 5?
0:24:37 > 0:24:39It's not... Wait a moment.
0:24:39 > 0:24:40You're avoiding the issue.
0:24:40 > 0:24:44I want to know how short you can be before you have to be manipulated.
0:24:44 > 0:24:47No, but that doesn't deal with the question, Susan.
0:24:47 > 0:24:51The answer to your question. The question to your ques...
0:24:51 > 0:24:54The answer to your question is 5ft 7, now let's move on.
0:24:54 > 0:24:57Tina, is there any moral difference between selecting an embryo
0:24:57 > 0:25:00that doesn't have Huntington's chorea
0:25:00 > 0:25:03and selecting an embryo that doesn't have blue eyes?
0:25:03 > 0:25:04I think there is,
0:25:04 > 0:25:06but I'm cautious on all this.
0:25:06 > 0:25:10I mean, this is a question not about human perfectibility
0:25:10 > 0:25:13which is such a myth and such a fantasy.
0:25:13 > 0:25:17But about suffering and our capacity to alleviate it.
0:25:17 > 0:25:20And I can't give a clear answer to that,
0:25:20 > 0:25:22because I think we need to go on a case by case,
0:25:22 > 0:25:26painful struggle, to say, where can we alleviate human suffering?
0:25:26 > 0:25:30And if we want to do that, there are millions of children in this world
0:25:30 > 0:25:34we could just give a square meal to tonight. That would be enough.
0:25:34 > 0:25:37I know, I know, I know. All right, let me give you another issue.
0:25:37 > 0:25:41Is there any moral difference between selecting whether the baby
0:25:41 > 0:25:43is relieved from having Down's syndrome
0:25:43 > 0:25:45or whether the baby is going to have blue eyes?
0:25:49 > 0:25:53- I'm...not sure.- All those kids out there with Down's syndrome
0:25:53 > 0:25:56- are waiting to hear your answer. - That's why I'm not sure.
0:25:56 > 0:25:58I fear a world where we judge perfectibility
0:25:58 > 0:26:01on external criteria that you... I mean, you, Michael.
0:26:01 > 0:26:06You want genetic manipulation so that you can have richer, brighter kids.
0:26:06 > 0:26:10If the economic meltdown is anything to go by, if you want richer kids
0:26:10 > 0:26:13you should get a gene that is stupid and short-sighted.
0:26:13 > 0:26:15Then your kids will be richer.
0:26:15 > 0:26:18Yes, but I don't think your abuse of me entirely deals
0:26:18 > 0:26:19with the moral problem.
0:26:19 > 0:26:23I can't ENTIRELY deal with moral problems, none of us can.
0:26:23 > 0:26:26We have to say, what CAN we do? What SHOULD we do?
0:26:26 > 0:26:28And what good will it do, if we do it?
0:26:28 > 0:26:32And every capacity we have, we need to ask those questions.
0:26:32 > 0:26:35DICK: Tina, you haven't answered the question.
0:26:35 > 0:26:38Because the question is that there's a very big moral difference
0:26:38 > 0:26:41between selecting somebody who's got blue eyes
0:26:41 > 0:26:43- and somebody who's got Down's syndrome.- No.- Why?
0:26:43 > 0:26:46What's the moral difference?
0:26:46 > 0:26:48There are a lot of differences.
0:26:48 > 0:26:49One is irrelevant,
0:26:49 > 0:26:52the other makes a huge difference to the future of their lives.
0:26:52 > 0:26:55SIR WALPORT: The issue that we're not discussing
0:26:55 > 0:26:57is the potential harm from making the choice.
0:26:57 > 0:27:00You go through a process of in vitro fertilisation,
0:27:00 > 0:27:02it has side effects.
0:27:02 > 0:27:05You go through abortion, again there are risks.
0:27:05 > 0:27:07The discussion becomes interesting
0:27:07 > 0:27:11if you get into a universe where you can create an egg in the laboratory,
0:27:11 > 0:27:12you can create a sperm,
0:27:12 > 0:27:15then you can start the selection and there's no harm.
0:27:15 > 0:27:17And that's where this is a decision
0:27:17 > 0:27:20that shouldn't be made by scientists any more.
0:27:20 > 0:27:23It's one that, actually, the whole of society has to debate.
0:27:23 > 0:27:27What does the whole of society mean? Does it mean anything?
0:27:27 > 0:27:31Well, here we mean parliamentary democracy, actually. We mean...
0:27:31 > 0:27:34Well, it's the b... It's the best we can do.
0:27:34 > 0:27:37And actually, on in vitro fertilisation and embryo research
0:27:37 > 0:27:38Parliament has done well.
0:27:38 > 0:27:42- The track record isn't all bad...- Mixed.
0:27:42 > 0:27:45SUSAN: Leaving that is the very exciting question,
0:27:45 > 0:27:47what kind of society do we want?
0:27:47 > 0:27:49What people do you want your kids to be?
0:27:49 > 0:27:52What values and features do we want them to have?
0:27:52 > 0:27:54For the first time, this is what's so exciting,
0:27:54 > 0:27:59biomedical science has freed us up to have longer lives,
0:27:59 > 0:28:02to be freed up, technology's freed us from the drudgery of everyday,
0:28:02 > 0:28:05so for the first time EVER we can have these issues.
0:28:05 > 0:28:08And it's exciting, but it's a very scary time as well.
0:28:08 > 0:28:10Thank you all very much indeed.
0:28:10 > 0:28:15'In tomorrow's world of impeccable blue-eyed babies,
0:28:15 > 0:28:17'carbon neutral electricity,
0:28:17 > 0:28:19'and plentiful, aphid-resistant crops,
0:28:19 > 0:28:22'let us hope that our weather will be calm
0:28:22 > 0:28:24'and our polar bears will be safe.
0:28:24 > 0:28:29'But if so, as we sit down to our perfectly balanced meals
0:28:29 > 0:28:31'at the dinner party of the future,
0:28:31 > 0:28:34'will there be anything left to talk about?'
0:28:42 > 0:28:45Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd
0:28:45 > 0:28:48E-mail subtitling@bbc.co.uk