"Technological research must never become an end in itself"
The liberal political scientist, Dr. Jorgo Chatzimarkakis,the only German delegate on the “commission for the assessment of technological consequences” at the European Parliament in Brussels, talks about ethical boundaries in medical research.
Are the technological consequences for humanity being taken into account sufficiently in neuro-biological research?
In the past, the debate about modern biomedicine was always held from the point of view of two antagonistic positions. The supporters regard any restriction to scientific research as unacceptable. The opponents counter that by saying that there are absolute boundaries that man cannot cross without abusing creation. Of course, biotechnology must always preserve human dignity without fail, but precisely this dignity is not easy to define and its various assets cannot be offset against each other. In this area, the politicians have to find a practical norm that is free of all ideology, that gives scientists enough freedom and at the same time does not crush the sensitivities of many Europeans.
Where are the boundaries of the latest biotechnology?
That’s quite clear – in the social benefits. Technological research, particularly in medicine, must never become an end in itself. The benefits of biotechnology can scarcely be overestimated wherever it helps to alleviate the great scourges of humanity, such as hunger and sickness. However, when it “only” serves to make life more pleasant, it must be weighed up carefully against any possible negative effects or risks. A healthy, critical basic attitude in society toward the consequences of biomedical procedures will help to ensure that ethical and psychological issues play a significant role in the media and in scientific circles.
Which risks can you envisage if variations to the norm are regarded as a sickness?
Illness can never be used to judge the value of a person. Thomas Mann opened up this debate in a peerless away in his novel, ‘The Magic Mountain’ – and it is still going on. However, Europe has learned a great deal in the last few decades. The main problem is that not every deviation from the average or from the familiar functioning of the body is necessarily an illness or needs to be treated. In the same way as Europeans have ultimately recognized their national differences as a positive, we must also regard the differences between individuals as a positive gain. And if you look closely, some of these so-called “abnormalities” actually appear quite pleasant at a second glance egardless of any neurobiological findings
Medicine in the age of bio-politics where is the greatest need for action?
The politicians do not need to react to every new discovery with a debate on principles and a handful of draft laws. The expectations of politicians and the patients are already firmly set: Bio-technology must contribute to easing suffering. Whenever it manages to do that, it will also receive the support of the politicians. In the same way, politicians must leave scientists enough leeway to develop and to prove their ability. This debate can never be finished, because ethical boundaries are always subject to constant change, and you have to discuss them without always needing to come up with a new law. However, we must always pay the greatest attention to the patient. Above all, he must always be supported in his right for information. The way that the health insurance companies, the doctors and the politicians sometimes make decisions over his head is definitely a violation of all ethical rules. We certainly need more transparency, more maturity and more co-determination in this area. In that way, the well-informed patient can change from being the object to the subject of a sensible medical policy. To put it plainly: It is only with a “bio-political renaissance” that we will be able to keep pace with the global bio-tech scene, without losing sight of our specifically Euro-centric ethics at the same time.
