[document 1] [republished with the permission of the writers] ----------------------------------------------------------- Scientists' Responsibility For Survival Of The Human Species VAN RENSSELAER POTTER AND RICHARD GRANTHAM In his book A Sand County Almanac (New York, Oxford University Press, 1949), Aldo Leopold cited the need for an environmental ethic--what he called a "land ethic"--that addresses the obligation of human beings to plants, animals, soil, air, and water. Leopold--a trained forester who became a professor at the University of Wisconsin--noted in his book that "A land ethic ... reflects the existence of an ecological conscience." Before Leopold expressed his ideas--indeed, ever since Socrates first posed the question "How should one live?"--ethics had chiefly been concerned with individual actions and whether they are good or bad in a societal context. But in putting forth his notion of "ecological conscience," Leopold broadened the consideration of ethics beyond determinations of "good" and "bad"--and beyond the merely "societal" implications of those actions. He observed that while an ethic, philosophically, is "a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct," an ethic, ecologically, is "a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence." According to Aldo Leopold, in short, social activity is ethical if it seeks to maintain an environment that favors continued existence. Now, more than 40 years later, his son Carl Leopold, who is W.C. Crocker Scientist Emeritus at Cornell University's Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, calls for "a major concordance between science and ethics" (The Scientist, Jan. 6, 1992, page 11). In his essay, he takes a step that in some ways extends his father's views by focusing on the relationship between science and ethics. Disquieted by his perception of current scientific attitudes, he expresses the opinion that, among all human beings, it is largely the responsibility of scientists-- individually and collectively--to engage committedly in broadening and enriching the entire spectrum of human ethical concerns. However, while the younger Leopold does not deal with the issue of human survival specifically, he does harbor hope--unlike his father--that scientists will become involved in expressing and promulgating the land ethic. In his essay, he does not demand this by name; but in urging a concordance between science and ethics and in mentioning the biosphere, he expresses the belief that scientists are well positioned to exert influence on global environmental policy as an ethical imperative. Needed Synthesis The authors of this essay are two emeritus professors--one (Potter) having invented the concept of global bioethics (the equitable application of medical and biological knowledge to assuring the survival and well-being of our species and the biosphere), and the other (Grantham) having invented the concept of geotherapy (environmental care for a sick planet). We believe that these two concepts serve as an urgently needed synthesis of the views of Aldo and Carl Leopold in the interest of human survival. When human survival was not doubted, ethics was a less compelling issue. But when weapons of mass destruction were developed, assurance of survival was shaken. While these weapons remain a source of concern, it is now becoming apparent that overpopulation, resource waste, and toxic pollution are also threats to our future. When survival becomes a goal, as opposed to pleasure or salvation, we can ask what ought we to do, and science can provide information and plans on how to deal with uncontrolled fertility, resource waste, and pollution. Impediments Few people or groups, however, seem to regard human survival as a moral issue. Clearly, no organized religion, liberal or fundamentalist, has addressed the problem. How could they, concerned as they are with individual salvation? Likewise, no national government or international body has taken responsibility. How could they, with politicians eyeing only the next election, and with the United Nations kept busy coping with interethnic brush fires and a myriad of other pressing problems the world over? And how could all the multinational and national corporations, frantically trying as they are to generate profit-making products from available resources? As one of us (Potter) pointed out in 1990, getting to the year 3000 is a difficult matter when the mass of individuals who make up society have inherited "evolution's fatal flaw"--a built-in instinct that calls for survival and reproduction in the here-and-now, with no instinctual concern for survival of the species in the long term. Only massive changes in societal behavior through conscious cultural evolution--not biological evolution, and not cultural evolution guided by the instinctive "fatal flaw"--can guide the species into the future. The issue is a moral one, and only an ethic informed by biological knowledge in medicine and in ecology--a "bio-ethic," to be broadened into a "global bioethic"--can realistically deal with the problem. We believe that the universities of the world could and should be held responsible for human survival into the distant future. Only within the university milieu can interdisciplinary discussion be organized to overcome the "fatal flaw" and develop a sound program of conscious cultural evolution- -through education--with moral authority as to what society ought to do to preserve the future and occupy the ethical high ground. But will the universities accept their share of the responsibility? Again we ask: How can they, when emeritus professors are the only members of the scientific community who will address the issues? Under the present system of promotion and tenure, only the academic scientists of narrowest specialization can expect to gain tenure. When a successful research career has blossomed into a tenured position, the momentum--with its accretion of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows dependent upon grant renewals--makes it very difficult for an individual to think and act on behalf of generations far in the future. We call on university leadership to foster not only interdisciplinary discussions, but also disciplinary research that is mission-oriented toward survival. Signs Of Progress Emeritus professor James V. Neel of the University of Michigan issued a call last year for diverse scientific societies to develop "carefully crafted resolutions expressing the gravity of the complex array of ominous situations with which humankind is now confronted." As a population geneticist, he personally seized the initiative to assert priorities in the application of genetic principles to the human condition as we face the alternatives before us. Neel listed several concrete objectives and action plans that deal with the problems facing us. He called, for example, for improved prenatal care and diagnosis; and he advocated freedom of choice in the termination of pregnancy. Despite Neel's challenge to scientific societies, it is nearly impossible for them to respond on behalf of their membership, not only because of the diversity of opinion, but also because they cannot afford to antagonize the governmental and corporate forces that support their members or to suggest that mistakes have been made in the past. Does this mean that scientific societies have done nothing? No. Despite these operational hazards, several remarkable statements have recently been made by spokespersons for broadly based scientific groups. In these cases the gravity of our present situation was clearly recognized. First came a resolution published in April 1991 by the Council of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In its preamble, the council stated that AAAS is concerned that continued rapid growth of the human population contributes directly to human suffering throughout the planet, impedes sustainable economic development, increases international tensions, and exacerbates environmental degradation that endangers the survival of the human and many other species. We cannot imagine a more succinct and forthright statement issued by any individual or organization. To our knowledge it is the first time that spokespersons for any scientific organization have taken such a position. Following its bold statement, the council passed a resolution calling on the United States government for additional population/family planning funding for domestic and international contraceptive research efforts. The council did not attempt to proclaim its resolution as a "major concordance between science and ethics," although that conclusion might be arrived at by others. If its resolution leads to increased funding for contraceptive research, overpopulation and its dire effects might be brought under control, despite the resistance of some religions and governments. Another significant breakthrough occurred when the officers for two major broadly based scientific groups took a position in February 1992. Representing the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Great Britain's Royal Society, the joint statement called for curbs on population growth and widespread behavioral changes throughout the world to avoid possibly irreversible damage to the earth's capacity to sustain life. Certainly this is the first time that these prestigious organizations have taken such a forthright position. But, as in the case of the AAAS council, the panels didn't go quite far enough, discreetly avoiding any hint that they were willing to venture onto ethical turf of the Leopold variety. A third breakthrough occurred earlier this year when the Worldwatch Institute--a Washington, D.C., think tank for "sustainable development"-- after publishing an annual "State of the World" report in book form every year since 1984 (giving mixed signals of hope and warning for the future), called for an "environmental revolution." By this step, the institute was in effect calling for everything that global bioethics and geotherapy stand for: massive changes in societal and individual behavior in order to check the increase in the human population and to preserve and restore the natural environment. Lester Brown--an agriculturist and Worldwatch Institute's director--wrote the final chapter of the 1992 State of the World, in which he commented that if the "revolution" is to succeed, it will need the support of far more people than it now has. In addition to overcoming vested interests, the needed activism must also overcome human inertia (Brown's way of characterizing evolution's aforementioned "fatal flaw"). The Worldwatch Institute's 1992 conclusions are consistent with those arrived at by the AAAS council, NAS, and the Royal Society; but, like them, Brown avoids dwelling on ethical implications, although he and his staff do offer many hopeful examples of constructive activity. Course Of Action The foregoing accounts of well-intentioned movement in the right direction buttress the position that geotherapy and global bioethics supply a viable response to Carl Leopold's call for ethics with a scientific base. For it is clear that a vital link is missing from the aforementioned three advances. To accomplish the goals seen by Carl Leopold--and also by Lester Brown--it is clear that a conscious cultural evolution needs to have the support of the scientific community. One way to catalyze such a transition is by means of specifically targeted interdisciplinary conferences and symposia. To this end, one of us (Grantham) organized a conference on "Modelling and Geotherapy for Global Changes" last year in Lyon, France. Representatives of numerous disciplines were present. During the meeting a declaration was endorsed unanimously by the participants, whose names are listed in a recently published conference report (Global Environmental Change, March 1992, pages 66-67). Following are the principles in our "Declaration for Geotherapy and Global Bioethics": * Accelerating environmental degradation threatens the habitability of the biosphere. We believe that corrective action is possible and urgent. * Our goal is long-term survival in an acceptably maintained global ecosystem. * We as human beings need to take full responsibility for our actions by not sacrificing natural resources for short-term gains and by working directly to make the world a better living place. * This choice will influence our future biological and cultural evolution; we cannot avoid it without grave consequences. * A global bioethic should be further developed to guide and motivate geotherapy and our cultural evolution. * A root problem is excessive demographic growth; the earth's carrying capacity is being exceeded. With present lifestyles and patterns of development, pollution of all kinds will increase as long as the population increases. * We declare that scientists should adopt the aforementioned goals and participate in meetings at all levels to apply these principles. Van Rensselaer Potter is Hilldale Professor of Oncology, Emeritus, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Richard Grantham is Professor Emeritus, Institut d'Evolution Moleculaire, Universit Claude Bernard Lyon I, France. (The Scientist, Vol:6, #11, May 25, 1992) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) =========================================================================== [document 2] ------------------------------------------------------------ Global Change: A Challenge And Opportunity For Basic Research THOMAS F. MALONE For hundreds of millions of years, the changes in global environment that nourish human life have had their natural roots in the interaction of physical, chemical, and biological systems driven by solar energy. Within the last century, however, socioeconomic forces--manifestations of the expanding power of human activity on planet Earth--have emerged as a perturbing influence in that environment, strong enough to seriously deplete stratospheric ozone, to foster ominous changes in climate, and to threaten biodiversity. At present, with the rate at which these socioeconomic forces-- along with structural changes under way within them--are growing, global society is following a trajectory that will lead, by the middle of the next century, to an unsustainable, inequitable, and unstable world. For example: * If regional population growth between now and 2050 were to proceed at the rates of the 1990s, world population would grow threefold (from 5 billion to 15 billion). * For every person added to the population in the 46 industrial nations, 12 would be added in the 62 poorest and least-developed countries. * In 2050, 11 percent of the world's population (in industrial nations) would be generating and consuming 41 percent of the world's economic output, while 50 percent of the people (in the poorest countries) would have to share only 11 percent. The resulting stress on the environment from soaring economic development in some parts of the world would combine with severe stresses from exploding population growth in other parts, thereby jeopardizing the environment's capacity to nourish and sustain human life. The socioeconomic result would clearly be inequitable. It would almost certainly be unstable. In August 1993, several dozen natural scientists, engineers, social scientists, and others gathered at a conference sponsored by Sigma Xi in Research Triangle Park, N.C., to explore ways in which future demographic and economic growth might be modified to change the societal trajectory. The endpoint of the desired trajectory would be a society in which all of the basic needs and an equitable share of human aspirations could be met by successive generations, while maintaining in perpetuity a healthy, physically attractive, and biologically productive environment. The conclusion was reached at the conference that achievement of this goal during the 21st century would require an unprecedented international effort to (1) deepen an understanding of how physical, chemical, biological, and social systems interact to regulate the global environment; (2) stabilize world population; (3) transform an energy- and technology-driven economy into one that is environmentally benign; (4) reduce poverty everywhere; and (5) re-examine societal goals and human behavior in order to give greater emphasis to the quality of life in both industrial and developing countries. The keystone of this effort would be a program aimed at fully utilizing the constant torrent--the "cascade"--of knowledge that drives human progress. In this effort, scientists would be called upon to play a major role. For this cascade largely rushes forth from a process involving discovery (basic research), integration (interdisciplinary collaborations), and dissemination (through formal and informal education) of knowledge concerning the nature and the interaction of matter, energy, living organisms, information, and human behavior. The fountainhead of this cascade--discovery--is the primary mission of basic research and the major concern of the individual investigator. Thus, given its vital role in human progress, a strong case for its support can be made, even in the current period of fiscal austerity. New patterns of interdisciplinary collaborations among physical, biological, and social scientists, engineers, and scholars in the humanities will be imperative to develop the cascade's integrative stream. Revolutionary changes are needed in the educational system to strengthen dissemination. And new modes of communication and cooperation will be necessary among business and industry, governments, and academia to facilitate application of new knowledge. Already, dramatic advances in computer and communications technologies are enabling the fluent exchange of information across the globe--and developments to come are likely to open still more avenues for worldwide cooperation among individuals and institutions. For example, a four-tiered "Global Array of Nested Networks" (GANN) proposed during the Sigma Xi workshop is an innovation that would link individuals, educational institutions, researchers, and policymakers in an interactive communications system geared to both stimulate and apply the flow of new knowledge worldwide. For now, the challenge for the scientific community includes the exercise of leadership in inaugurating an era in which the cascade of knowledge is channeled to change the potentially tragic trajectory that society currently is following. Thomas F. Malone is Distinguished University Scholar at North Carolina State University and director of the Sigma Xi Center in Research Triangle Park, N.C. A summary report of last August's meeting--"International Networks for Addressing Issues of Global Change"--may be obtained by writing: Sigma Xi Center, Box 13975, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709. (The Scientist, Vol:8, #10, May 16, 1994 (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)