Column from November/December 2001 issue of ASPB News.

"Mokita": The truth we all know and agree not to talk about. Papua New Guinea

Scenario: In your lab meeting, the structure of plant genomes was raised. In particular, the discussion included the current estimate that more than 50 percent of the corn genome is similar in sequence to retrotransposons. The data linking retrotransposons and onco-genes was briefly explained. "So," asked an undergraduate as we walked away from lab meeting, "will I get cancer from eating corn?"

I have opined that bioethical discussions between scientists and their students and scientists and the public have been "mokita" (The Bioethics Imperative II, ASPB News, July/Aug 2001). However, the scene in the grocery store (The Bioethics Imperative III, ASPB News, September/October 2001) and the scene just described share two important other features: Learning often entails unlearning something else, and integrating new learning in a logical and meaningful fashion into what one already knows requires active and continuous logical analysis.

The woman in the grocery store needed to understand the terms "cloning" and "clone" before she could develop a personally meaningful stance on the food she wanted to feed her family. In the present scenario, the student either did not know or did not bring to bear his knowledge of the digestive tract; otherwise, logic would have steered him away from asking this question. It also became clear that he did not know that cancer is best thought of as a collection of diseases that begin and progress differently from each other in distinct tissues of the body. In sum, neither person had enough knowledge to even begin to formulate a well-considered "360 degree"-that is, a bioethical-stance on the topic.

Developing a bioethical stance also challenges our ability to dispassionately learn because we have to confront our own biases in the process. Goodness knows that people do not become scientists because they are all extroverts who are really great at dealing with tricky interpersonal interactions! Fortunately, the skills needed are learnable and teachable.

Following my argument, perhaps groups devoting themselves to opposing genetic engineering are now viable for all three reasons: Because the kind of real learning needed is tough to do, because discussions between scientists and the public have been mokita or just too time-consuming, and because everyone involved has to deal with his or her own biases (cultural, personal, and otherwise) to initiate the discussion. Through my bioethics discussions in classes and in the grocery store (!), I have become convinced that we can no longer afford the chasm between the public and ourselves to remain as deep or as unexplored as it has become.

Next issue: Ethics in data management…postponed from this issue.

See http://www.aspb.org/membersinaction/bioethics.cfm for additional supporting materials and to read other issues of the Bioethics Imperative featured in issues of the ASPB News.

Dina Mandoli
University of Washington, Seattle
mandoli@u.washington.edu

Supporting materials can be found HERE.