Protecting the “dignity of creation” and its effects on Swiss scientific research
The constitution of a small mountain country requires “account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms”. [1]
You`d think that such a constitution must be based on religions such as Buddhism which holds all living creatures sacrosanct from the single-celled to the high complex.
Actually, what is being referred to is the Swiss Federal Constitution. Based on this, the Gene Technology Law took effect in 2004 which stipulates that any scientific research should respect “the dignity of creation.” (German: Würde der Kreatur).
Animal activists were the first to agree that such a law is needed to protect the rights of animals, be it from toxicology studies to genetic manipulation. And rightly so. However, recent propsed addition to the Animal Protection Act actually requires everybody - not only scientists - but also farmers and pet owners to uphold the dignity of animals. Dog owners, for example, might be required to have a license, a document that may be granted only if they are proven to be capable of caring for their pets. Hamsters should only be kept in pairs and fish can only be killed under anesthetics.
But that`s not all. There is a new angle to this legislation that baffle both scientists and laymen alike. The “dignity of plants” has also been recently brought into the forefront which can drastically affect current as well as future plant research.
The main problem is how to define “plant dignity”, a term which is not clear to either plant biologists and funding agencies. The Federal Ethics Commitee on Non-Human Biotechnology (ECNH) gives the following concrete example:
“Terminator technology” is a genetic modification of plants so that a sown seed germinates normally, but the developing plant then produces seeds that are unable to germinate. What impacts does this technology have on agriculture? Does this affect the Würde der Kreatur in plants? And what precisely constitutes the dignity of a plant?” [1]
According to Nature News [2], ECNH
“… has created a decision tree presenting the different issues that need to be taken into account for each case. But it has come up with few concrete examples of what type of experiment might be considered an unacceptable insult to plant dignity. The committee does not consider that genetic engineering of plants automatically falls into this category, but its majority view holds that it would if the genetic modification caused plants to ‘lose their independence’ — for example by interfering with their capacity to reproduce. The statement has confused plant geneticists, who point out the contrast with traditional plant-hybridization technologies, for example in roses, which require male sterility, and the commercial development of seedless fruits.”
As a resident of Switzerland, I cannot help but wonder at the extremes and contrasts I have observed in this country. Respecting “dignity” of animals nonwithstanding, authorities granted the permission to shoot down a border-crossing brown bear earlier for human safety reasons, causing strong outcry in neighboring Italy.
Switzerland is home to 2 of the most innovative and highly respected research institutions in the world – European Organization for Nuclear Research- (CERN) in Geneva and ETH (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich. It is also the proud headquarters of two of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world – Roche and Novartis, both based in Basel. Yet, it has one of the most restrictive legislation on biotechnology research in Europe. While many European countries, including Germany are slowly easing up restrictions on stem cell research, Switzerland is moving in the opposite direction.
How the new legislation will affect research in Switzerland, only time will tell. Currently, Switzerland is home to many of the world`s talented scientists. Among many Europeans, most especially Germany, Switzerland is a highly desirable destination because it offers good research facilities, high pay, low taxes, and overall good quality of life. However, if such legislations make life difficult for these scientists, an exodus of of talent out of this country cannot be ruled.
Sources:
[1] Dignity of creation, ECNH
[2] Nature News 23 April 2008
One Comment
- Schiller Thurkettle replied:
As far as I know, the only way to determine the dignity in an organism is to discover what the organism considers offensive.
It’s nearly impossible to say what is dignified for humans, as a species. What is undignified for some is delightful for others.
This is completely impossible in the case of plants. Plants lack the moral sensibilities and personal preferences which might be offended by other organisms.
Indeed, from all evidence, plants are completely amoral.
My greatest concern is whether the reputation of the Swiss for careful philosophical reasoning will survive this monumental error.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:03 pm. Permalink.