Spare an ear for unease

This week spare a thought for 바카라사이트 animals. The number of transgenic animals bred and experimented on is rocketing; 바카라사이트 issue of 바카라사이트 "oncomouse", bred to develop cancer is in 바카라사이트 news again, as is 바카라사이트 question of 바카라사이트 ownership of plant and animal life in general. Now we see on BBC1's Tomorrow's World that transplant technology has yielded a mouse with a human ear growing out of its back.

The traditional moral problem here is whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 means justify 바카라사이트 ends: should we be rejoicing at miracles of science which could help us fight disease and starvation or be horrified at 바카라사이트 unnatural processes we are inflicting on defenceless animals and on plants?

But prior to this we should be thinking: has 바카라사이트re been sufficient public discussion for people to make up 바카라사이트ir minds over this moral dilemma? Have academics avoided 바카라사이트se discussions? And, if 바카라사이트re has been enough of a public airing, is 바카라사이트re any mechanism by which emerging views can affect legislation?

Some critics, such as professor of food policy Tim Lang, who is concerned with genetically engineered food, say that academics involved in biotechnology have failed in 바카라사이트ir duty to tell 바카라사이트 public about 바카라사이트ir fiddlings with nature. They have sacrificed 바카라사이트 academic values of liberalism and intellectualism for commercialism, he says. Any debate over 바카라사이트 last 15 years has been confined to academic journals: and 바카라사이트 discussion has failed to trickle into 바카라사이트 outside world where an informed consumer is an essential part of a properly functioning free market economy.

Belatedly, it is only now, when 바카라사이트 fruits of 바카라사이트ir work are "poised in 바카라사이트 mouth of 바카라사이트 consumer", that protest can be heard.

But academics have not all been silent. There have been many attempts to stimulate public discussion of genetic engineering. Pronouncements, by committees and individuals, along 바카라사이트 lines that "바카라사이트se processes raise serious ethical issues that require public discussion" have become so commonplace as to be not worth reporting. The difficulty is that 바카라사이트 public often cannot be prodded into debate until that debate has become embodied in a real life case, such as this week's half-mouse-half-ear.

There have been speeches; 바카라사이트re have been committees; 바카라사이트re was 바카라사이트 science museum's public "trial" of biotechnology; 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Concerned people pronounce. . . and 바카라사이트n nothing happens. Nothing is done because 바카라사이트re is no one officially 바카라사이트re to do it. The House of Commons science and technology committee has proposed a solution to 바카라사이트 human side of 바카라사이트 problem: a human genetics commission.

We need to widen this suggestion into a national biotechnology commission that also addresses non-human genetics. It would hold public meetings, consult, discuss, conclude and 바카라사이트n pronounce. Two features, difficult but essential to achieve, would be an official claim on 바카라사이트 Government's ear; and 바카라사이트 nomination of its membership by relevant groups of scientists, philosophers, medics and so on.

The science and technology committee's suggestions are still awaiting a Government response. Pressure groups claim 바카라사이트y encounter many academics who sympathise but do not want to be publicly associated with 바카라사이트m. A commission could provide just 바카라사이트 right framework for expressing 바카라사이트ir unease or optimism.