null
Lucia A Keegan  07/27/2006 09:42:34 AM  From  DB/Inbox:  Lucia A Keegan

Cable 
Text:                                                                      
                                                                           
      
UNCLAS        PARIS 05028

SIPDIS
cxparis:
    ACTION: UNESCO
    INFO:   POL ECON AMBU AMB AMBO DCM SCI

DISSEMINATION: UNESCOX
CHARGE: PROG

APPROVED: AMB:LVOLIVER
DRAFTED: SHS:JHOFF
CLEARED: DCM:AKOSS

VZCZCFRI483
RR RUEHC RUCNSCO
DE RUEHFR #5028/01 2061315
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 251315Z JUL 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9773
INFO RUCNSCO/UNESCO COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 005028 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
NAIROBI FOR LEVINE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: UNESCO TBIO
SUBJECT:  UNESCO ETHICS PROGRAMS, THE SKY'S THE LIMIT 
 
REF:  PARIS 03497 
 
¶1.  Summary and comment.  The World Commission on the Ethics of 
Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) held an "extraordinary" 
session in Paris on June 27-28, 2006.  This meeting was held to 
brief members on current activities and to obtain recommendations on 
next steps in three areas of "ethics" work in particular: 
nanotechnology, the environment, and science.  The Commission also 
approved a recommendation concerning ethics in science and 
considered policy documents on ethics in nanotechnology and the 
environment, both of which will be considered at the next ordinary 
session, in 2007. 
 
¶2.  Background: COMEST was created in 1998 to advise UNESCO on 
ethical issues, exchange ideas, promote dialogue and detect early 
signs of risk associated with science and technology.  The Director 
General (DG) chooses the 18 Members of COMEST, who serve as 
independent experts and not as representatives of Member State. 
Amcit Midge Decter is one of the members.  In addition, the 
presidents of various other scientific and UNESCO bodies are 
ex-officio members; this includes the presidents of the 
International Bioethics Committee (IBC), the Intergovernmental 
Bioethics Committee (IGBC), the International Council of Scientific 
Unions (ICSU), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission 
(IOC), and the Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs. 
 
¶3.  Henk ten Have, director of UNESCO's division of ethics of 
science and technology in the sector of social and human sciences 
(SHS), reviewed for the Commission the various activities relating 
to ethics of science and technology underway within SHS. 
 
--GLOBAL ETHICS OBSERVATORY 
He described work in the Global Ethics Observatory to create 
databases of ethics experts, institutions dealing with ethics, 
teaching programs, and related legislation guidelines and polices. 
He described capacity building efforts to promote teaching. 
 
--ETHICS OF OUTER SPACE 
According to Ten Have, the main activities in this area are said to 
relate to consciousness raising.  UNESCO and numerous other 
organizations (e.g., the European Space Agency) are co-sponsoring a 
conference October 26-27, calling attention to ethical issues 
related to space. . 
 
--SCIENCE ETHICS 
Ten Have said the idea originated with member countries that wanted 
to develop a code of conduct to protect against bioterrorism.  Those 
countries (unnamed) felt that scientists don't know that their work 
can be used for bad as well as good.  The discussion focused on a 
possible pledge, like the Hippocratic Oath, but then expanded to 
include other issues-economic and political pressures on scientists. 
 The Executive Board in April 2004 directed that studies be 
undertaken to determine the feasibility of drafting a declaration on 
science ethics.  There were two meetings in this direction (a 
meeting of experts in Paris, March 2005, and a meeting of COMEST in 
Bangkok later that month).  The Executive Board in September 2005 
renewed the directions for a feasibility study, but at the urging of 
the U.S. the General Conference in October 2005 halted that in favor 
of reflection by the DG on the topic (Resolution 39).  This 
reflection is now underway, assisted by consultations around the 
world.  The DG is to report to the Executive Board in October on his 
reflections. 
 
¶4.  In addition, SHS is analyzing various existing codes of conduct. 
 It is also examining the Recommendation on the Status of Scientific 
Researchers adopted by the General Conference in 1974 to see if the 
Recommendation is still valid, why has it not been invoked by Member 
States and whether it should be bought to the States' attention 
again. 
 
¶5.  Prof. Sang-Yang Song of Korea summarized the consultations that 
have been held to inform the DG's reflection.  As he characterized 
them, there were no objections to developing a universal code, 
except at the consultation in Geneva, where the U.S. made a forceful 
intervention. He quoted portions of the U.S. intervention, in 
particular the opposition to the development of new normative 
instruments.  According to Song the U.S. view was a minority 
opinion.  It should be listened to, but since (he said) one cannot 
make a clear distinction between normative instruments and 
reflection, the majority view (that a code should be developed) 
should be followed.  (Comment:  Song earlier showed a strong 
anti-American streak in a paper he wrote for the consultations, 
indirectly accusing the United States of using germ warfare during 
the Korean War.) 
 
¶6.  Song's intervention also recalled that ten Have had told health 
attach on May 19 (reftel) that the U.S. intervention in Geneva was 
"strong" and impliedly unnecessary since the earlier consultation 
(in India) had agreed that there was no need to develop a new 
normative instrument or change the 1974 Recommendation and that they 
would not be proposing to amend the 1974 Recommendation or to 
develop a new normative instrument.  (Comment: Prof. Song's summary 
demonstrated the importance and value of the Geneva intervention; 
without it, he apparently would have reported that there was 
unanimous consensus to go forward with a new code.) 
 
¶7.  There was a discussion about what COMEST should do in light of 
the General Conference Resolution 39 directing that the DG reflect 
on the issue of ethics in science rather than doing a feasibility 
study of a declaration.    Midge Decter pointed out that the codes 
of conduct are all quite basic ("anodyne") and that they are written 
at the highest level of principle. One does not need a code of 
conduct to be informed that fraud is bad.  There was general 
agreement that the issues are how a code is implemented and to whom 
it is addressed (should it include funders as well as scientists). 
The COMEST chairperson concluded the discussion by saying that 
COMEST would redefine the 1974 Recommendation in light of different 
circumstances (the rights of researchers in that document, she said, 
is important in developing countries) and would "systematize" the 
different existing codes of conduct by comparing them and 
identifying common values.  The president of the IBC, noted the 
contradiction between saying that COMEST is considering revisions to 
the 1974 Recommendation and that it was not considering normative 
instruments (because the 1974 Recommendation is a normative 
instrument and could be changed only by another one).  She said she 
was (correctly) "confused." 
 
¶8.  COMEST approved a recommendation to the DG that contains several 
provisions that, read together, imply work leading to normative 
instruments: 
 
Further consultations and reflections should be carried out  "in 
order to identify a general ethical framework to guide scientific 
activity that will cover other stakeholders beyond the focus on 
scientists"; 
 
UNESCO should "work out such a general ethical framework"; 
 
The "subsequent elaboration and/or implementation of specific codes 
of conduct...." 
 
(Comment: This will be raised at the next Executive Board.  The U.S. 
should be prepared to clarify that this relates to existing codes, 
and is not an invitation to support work by UNESCO on developing new 
codes or revising the 1974 Recommendation.) 
 
¶9.  ETHICS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY 
 
Ten Have reminded the group that the ethics of nanotechnology are 
not now in the Work Program and asked if COMEST believed that UNESCO 
should work on that topic, and if so, what should it do?  As thus 
phrased, of course, there was only one answer, and it was supplied 
by the Chairman:  COMEST can, and should, advise the DG to include 
the bioethics of nanotechnology in its work program, but governments 
decide.   The question will come back for action at the COMEST 
meeting (in Africa) in 2007. 
 
¶10.  ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS 
 
Prof. Johan Hattingh of South Africa presented the work of the 
expert group on environmental ethics.  A book on the topic is 
scheduled to come out by the end of the year.  In addition, a draft 
policy advice prepared by the Bureau was presented.  If approved, it 
would be adopted by COMEST at its 2007 meetings.  The document is 
not worth describing in detail, but we have included a few 
interesting statements from it below: 
 
Every form of life should be respected, regardless of its utility to 
human beings. 
 
Emphasizing the primacy of individual beings may threaten 
biodiversity. 
 
Safeguarding the biosphere is probably more important than the 
preservation of any single individual, species, or ecosystem. 
 
Every human (present or future) has a right to an environment that 
is conducive to his health and well-being, and also a responsibility 
towards environmental protection. 
 
The consequences of environmental degradation are often borne 
disproportionately by disadvantaged groups. 
 
The precautionary principle seems to be susceptible of consensus but 
needs better understanding. 
 
When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is 
scientifically plausible but uncertain, action shall be taken to 
avoid or diminish that harm. 
 
UNESCO could promote the consideration of Earth as a whole, 
including renewable and non-renewable resources as global commons. 
 
Ethical concern for the environment is a shared responsibility and 
should not be delegated to any organization or group alone. 
 
In ethical terms, the burden of proof should lie with those who 
commit action that endangers living beings or the environment. 
 
A fair and pragmatic approach to the emission of greenhouse gases 
would be to move gradually towards quotas that would not be indexed 
to GDP (Kyoto protocol) but rather would be based on population. 
 
War is a major threat to the environment. 
The international community may be willing to proclaim the necessity 
to move towards mandatory ethical education for scientists. 
 
Proposal to create a World Committee of Environmental Ethics (WCEE) 
and National Committees of Environmental Ethics (NCEE). 
 
UNESCO could explore ways to develop alternative paradigms of 
thought and action to determine if they can replace dominant 
paradigms of thought and practice 
 
¶11.  A few of the COMEST members thought the document was good. 
Most were dismayed by it, for a variety of different reasons.  Prof. 
da Silva, who works to save the Amazonian rain forest, was opposed 
to it on many grounds:  it pitted science against the culture of 
ethics; was "religious" in protecting all forms of life, instead of 
considering the practical benefits of diversity.  In other words, we 
have an "interest" in biodiversity, not "respect" for it.  Others 
pointed out that the document makes a statement of position when 
COMEST should be deciding only whether to advise DG that UNESCO 
should do work in the area.  The upshot was that COMEST members 
would be given a chance to comment on the document, and it will be 
considered again at the 2007 meeting (there was discussion as to 
whether that would provide enough time, depending on the uncertain 
timing of the 2007 meeting, for the DG to put a proposal before the 
next General Conference). 
 
¶12.  AVICENNA PRIZE 
 
This prize, sponsored by Iran, goes to a scientist for work in the 
field of ethics.  It is a cash award, plus a week in Iran 
(teaching).  The DG will soon be sending a letter requesting 
nominations. 
 
¶13.  NEW TOPICS FOR COMEST CONSIDERATION 
 
Finally, there was discussion of other areas that might be of 
interest to COMEST: biometrics, robotics, neuroscience, 
communications (tracking people), privacy vs. security.  The Bureau 
will consider topics for future COMEST attention. 
 
¶14.  GUIDANCE FROM MEMBER STATES 
 
There was much discussion during the session of the fact that with 
respect to bioethics there is a governmental body (IGBC) to help 
steer the experts (IBC) but that for other ethical issues, there is 
no Member State organization between the COMEST and the DG to give 
COMEST political input. (Comment: In fact the IBC ignored the 
recommendations of the IGBC in preparing its draft of the universal 
declaration on bioethics for submission to the member states.) 
 
¶15.  Comment.  The internal dynamics of COMEST (and indeed of any 
group similarly constituted) mean that it will pose a constant 
problem of meddlesome activism.  Being named an "expert" to advise 
the Director-General of UNESCO on important issues of science and 
ethics is clearly a heady broth.  The members felt an 
obligation/opportunity to play a role.  The aggregated effect of 
these individual motivations is reinforced by an institutional 
reality: once having been created, COMEST must carry out the mission 
it is given (which in its case  is very broad).  Finally, the 
discussion at the meeting and the activities being undertaken by the 
Secretariat demonstrated how Member States' efforts to influence 
 
SIPDIS 
UNESCO actions are like pillow punching.  Their efforts to control 
activities result in activities that are beyond their control (and 
often even beyond their knowledge). The COMEST members recognized 
that because of the General Conference Resolution 39 normative 
instruments are not (currently) in their armamentarium.  However, 
expert groups, appointed by the Secretariat, and the Secretariat 
themselves, are preparing policy documents to bring to the Member 
States (which then requires great effort to modify or reject them) 
and producing publications without any Member State review.  At one 
point, one COMEST member noted that this was an important way of 
exercising their independence.  Thus pressure for normative 
instruments can be built through "experts'" pronouncements, 
publications, policy documents, and the like.  Even if Member States 
do not adopt a normative instrument, these various sources can be 
referred to as de facto standards. 
 
Oliver