George P. Smith II, professor emeritus at The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law (Catholic Law), recently published an article in the Oregon Review of International Law (ORIL). “Restricting Scientific Legitimacy in the Age of Biotechnology?” (24 Oregon Review of International Law 1-38 (2023)) is Smith’s most recent investigation into “the steps which need to be undertaken in order to assure that scientific conduct is legitimized—and thereby recognized—as indispensable for global peace and for progress.”
The article is available for download here. Below is its abstract.
Abstract
In this, the Age of Biotechnology, there is no more pressing question than whether a philosophy of science exists and translates into a notion that—with or without qualification—the sovereignty of science is central to the advancement of society and should be emancipated totally from concurrence or oversight by society at large. Far too many Americans choose neither to be “informed” nor to accept the responsibilities of citizenship to participate fully in a deliberative democracy. They have chosen instead to exercise their “right” to remain ignorant. And, consequently, science reigns without restraint or even review. The scientific community has a coordinate responsibility to society in general to disclose and to educate its research agendas to the public in a transparent and understandable manner. In order to achieve this, however, factual data—not “junk” science—is an absolute requirement for an “educated” partnership of interest between society and science in order to flourish.
It remains for lawmakers and the courts to be in alignment with the march of science. For society to remain apathetic and for the legal system to fail to be responsive to advancement, guarantees societal malaise, or uneasiness, and results in an absolute sovereignty of science. Both in dialogue and in policy making, however, a principle of precaution has been introduced and accepted domestically and internationally as a means of mediation. This principle serves as a construct for evaluating scientific and biotechnological undertakings which would create more potential risks rather than benefits conferred, before proceeding. In essence, this then is a cost/benefit analysis.
This Article investigates the steps which need to be undertaken in order to assure that scientific conduct is legitimized—and thereby recognized—as indispensable for global peace and for progress. A contemporary philosophy of science embraces the positive value of scientific investigations that are not only useful and practical, but—at the same time—view biotechnology as a tool for viewing the whole of life in a positive, affirming way for pursuing that life. Such a philosophy must seek to accommodate what may be seen as a shared partnership rather than codify an absolute sovereignty of science.