PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE AND ETHICS “ All different – All Equal ” European Youth Event...

PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE AND ETHICS


“All different – All Equal”

European Youth Event

Rosalia AZZARO - CERIS

Marina BALDI - IBIMET

CNR Rome

National Research Council

BIOETHICS, EDUCATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS





This presentation is a summa of two communications at

different places:

European Youth Event “All different – All equal” (by

Conseil of Europe) in St Petersburg – Sept 2006, given by

Dr R. Azzaro

6th Conference of the European Meteorological Society in

Ljubljana – Sept 2006, given by Dr M. Baldi





All people know that in the present world it is important

the dissemination and understanding of scientific results,

not only by politicians and by decision makers, but also

by the general public at all levels of education.

Several initiatives of Public Understanding of Science,

are more often promoted by different Institutions.

although, in my opinion, there is a lack of adoption of

proven and successful methodologies.





The Committee on Bioethics played an important role in keeping the debate on Science , Ethics and Society.

By assessing different scientific questions - from experimentation on animals to the use of stem cells - both from a scientific and a moral point of view, a conviction emerged: that the study and elaboration of complex argumentations were nearly useless, if we couldn’t “transmit” the message.





I am a researcher of philosophy, but as member of this Committee for many years, I felt the responsibility to have a major role also in promoting Projects of Public Understanding of Science.

Two events have been organized in Rome by CNR/Ceris,

whose I was the coordinator: •CLISCET :Climate, Science and Ethics, 1thDecember 2004

•LEDER: Alterum non laedere?, 13th March 2006

http://www.ceris.cnr.it/Bioetica.html





These initiatives, started also from the consideration

that there is a lack not only of links between scientific

policy and science, with a subsequent lack of counseling

and advertising, but also a lack of trait-d’union

between the scientific community on one side and

media, society and institutions on the other side.

http://www.ceris.cnr.it/Bioetica.html CLISCET LEDER





But as a matter of fact, those meetings are the result of an idea

born during my studies in philosophy and ethics of research.

The ethic answer born from the aim at making the protagonists

of the debate: scientists, decision makers, as well as the public

opinion and particularly those representing the future of science,

i. e. young people, conscious of problems and possible solutions.

“Philosophia nos docet non solum verum et bonum,

sed etiam intelligentiam rerum utilium

ad vitam beatam”*

* SENECA





Science and philosophy need one another:

• so that science shall be not only rational but also wise, fully human…

• and so that philosophy shall be alive and at service of life

That is what we are trying to do.

Do two cultures have inevitably to exist?





From the Italian Constitution:

• Art. 9: “Republic promote cultural development and scientific research and technology”

• Art. 33: “Arts and Science are free as well as their teaching”

•Art. 4 : “Every citizen has the duty, according to personal potential and individual choice, to perform an activity or a function that contributes to the material or

spiritual progress of society”.





• However, does the reference to the moral or “spiritual progress” of society belong to the

concept of “laicity” of State?

• The rule of law is in service of the total, not only material of human being, which is subsistent rightl*

* A. Rosmini, the best italian Philosopher of XIX century





progresso morale

No21%

I don't know11%

Yes68%

No

I don'tknow

Yes

3) Manhood’s moral progress stands behind in comparison with scientific achievements?





By means of an original but well-adopted model of PUS, our Project given young people the opportunity for transmitting scientific information and reflecting from an ethical point of view.

Because…“the cause of humanity is better served if science allies itself to conscience”, by using “the power of intellects and consciences” (speech of His Holiness Pope John Paul II at the UNESCO House, 1980).

The scientists of tomorrow need to become acquainted with a propositional idea of ethics in the scientific research, i.e. not only do not make all that is possible from a technical point of view, but also searching and doing all that is possible for the common well-being of the global community.





Dissemination process is necessary in order not only to

supply to the lack of correct information, but also to help

to answer the question: “What can be done by the

Community and by the single citizen?”,

this question being the most urgent and requiring a global

approach, leading to the adoption of the more suitable

adaptation of research policies at national and

international levels.





A confirmation thereof arrived from the 6th Framework

Programme of EU (2002-2006), which included a specific

Action Plan on “Science and society”, with activities “to

encourage the development of harmonious relations between

science and society and the opening up of innovation in

Europe as a result of the establishment of an informed

dialogue between researchers, industrialists, political decision-

makers and citizens”.





In the FP7th of UE (2007-2011), we find the chapter Science in society:

“With a view to building an effective and democratic European Knowledge society, the aim of this section of the FP7 proposal is to stimulate the harmonious integration of scientific and technological endeavour, and associated research policies in the European social structure, by encouraging a Europe-wide reflection and debate on science and technology, and their relation with society and culture”.

The initiative undertaken in this field will provide support to a number of actions, “for enhancing citizen trust in science”.





6th Framework Programme of UE (2002-2006) …to encourage the development of harmonious relations between science and society… …informed dialogue between researchers, industrialists, political decision-makers and citizens”.

FP7 of UE (2007-2011)… to stimulate the harmonious integration of scientific and technological endeavour, and associated research policies … by encouraging a reflection on … science and technology, and their relation with society and culture”.

But we notice that the general trend seems to have changed: this is no more a question of activating a virtuous circle of dialogue and constructive relationships between partners equal in dignity (science, institutions, society);but of a communication “in one sense”:

from the scientific world towards “the others”, who play a passive role of reflection, in order to understand the importance, and more than that, the necessity of scientific research for a “democratic European society”.





“Research on new renewable energies, solutions for world hunger and food security;

projects against environmental pollution; food and water for everybody, North and

South of the world; three big diseases to defeat (cancer, HIV, malaria) … All these

are realizable objectives; we must believe in them and give full power to science»”*.

This message is evident. But which relation has ethics to that?

Should we give full liberty to science?

*Umberto Veronesi, Corriere della Sera, 22nd September 2005.





Many people think, as we do, that as to scientific issues of common interest, a real democratic participation is necessary.

Of course, scientific results cannot be submitted to citizens’ judgement!

However, at the same time it’s true that “the obligation to account to authorities and citizens for a correct use of resources and results obtained in the research has become mutual not only between science and politics, but also with regard to civil society”*.

When we say “obligation” and “to account for” (= “res pondere”, i.e. responsibility) we are speaking about morality and ETHICS. *Azzaro R., Questions of Ethics: Science and Society, in The El Dorado of the new Biology. Prometheus, Franco Angeli Ed., 2003, p. 134 .





But…as a matter of fact, people don’t trust politicians, scientists and mass media!

The FP7 of EU wants to promote“improved communication between the scientific

world and the wider audience of policy-makers, the media and the general public”.

Now, this is considered as a key point necessary for a retrieval of attention

and trust, from citizens: from a simple understanding of scientific facts,

to the necessity of an active participation and a conscious ethical debate.





CLISCET

Climate: Science and Ethics

LEDER

Libertà ed Etica Della Ricerca

Some more about our CNR/CERIS Projects of PUS

National Research Council





To experiment a methodology of Public Understanding of Science

(PUS) which helps:

1. To explain what are really scientific questions

2. To favour direct connection between scientists, institutions

and public

3. To favour personal meditation about ethical questions

4. To suggest and accept the better solution.

Common objectives





MethodologyThe adopted methodology has the following structure:

a) first contacts with italian and international high schools, through cultural attaché of interested Embassies, namely those of USA, UK, France, España;

b) Meetings and agreements with teachers of one class in each school;

c) dispensation via e-mail of a 1th Questionnaire, in order to evaluate scientific acknowledgment and personal opinions on bioethics topics, which will be treated;

d) scientific information on the same topics by means of telematic documentation;

e) activating on demand of discussion groups on the treated topics;

f) meeting and debate at the CNR headquarter between scientists and public with active participation of students;

g) dispensation via e-mail of a 2nd Questionnaire in order to survey the different steps of learning and possible variations of interest and opinions;

h) Data analysis and pubblication of results by CNR researchers.





Society and Institutions have responsability to understand science and scientific results

Scientists have to explain to the Public and to the Institutions their results

It is necessary to disseminate correct information and understanding of results

Understanding of Science can help in the direction of a better society

What is Public Understanding of Science?





1.13 Con Public Understanding of Science si intende

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Società e istituzioni hanno la responsabilità dicomprendere la scienza

Sono necessarie divulgazione e comprensione deirisultati scientif ici

BUT the understanding of science, even if considered as an important factor for “being better citizens”, is seen as an “optional element” rather than a responsibility to be taken by society and institutions.

Public Understanding of Science





• To understand the problem and possibly what is necessary to do

• To activate relationship between science, society, institutions

• To favour meditation on responsible and common solutions to questions posed by the ethics

Specific Goals of CLISCET and LEDER

... why ethics?





Why ethics?

1. To explain the problem and what is necessary to do =

2. To activate direct and positive relationship =

3. To help towards responsible solutions =

They are all ethics issues

ethichs of information

to assume responsability

to work for common benefit





What is ethics (in relation to science)The word int-elligence, as knowledge, come from

“INTUS – LEGERE”

INTUS = INSIDE, LEGERE = TO READ

… it is to read inside (to understand): as the Science does

… it is to read inside in the human being: as moral philosophy

… to will the true/good which has been seen

Ethics is…“INTELLIGENCE WHICH LOVES” (Dante, Rosmini)

Because ethics desires the real good, for itself and for everybody.

Ethics is for human being. It is the first value for humans.

Ethics is a “friendly light” (Newman)





Methodology adopted

Progetto diPublic Understanding of Science

CLISCET

IL CLIMA: SCIENZA ED ETICA

Presentazione degli aspetti scientifici ed eticiDibattito pubblico

Aula MarconiPiazzale Aldo Moro, 7

Roma, 1 Dicembre 2004Ore 9.00

Segreteria scientifica:Rosalia Azzaro, Cnr-Ceris, [email protected] Baldi, Cnr-Ibimet, [email protected] Claudio Rafanelli, Cnr-Isac, [email protected]

Con il patrocinio di:Consiglio Nazionale delle RicercheComitato Nazionale per la Bioetica Ambasciata degli Stati Uniti d’AmericaAmbasciata di Spagna

Insegnanti e scuole in Roma:

Fiona Leckie, Marymount International School; Emma Perrelli, Liceo Cervantes: con los auspicios de la “Consejería de Educación y Ciencia” de la Embajada de España; Dominique Depriester, Lycée Chateaubriand;Olga Iannelli, Liceo Classico Dante Alighieri; Letizia Simeone, Liceo Scientifico J.F.Kennedy; Claudia Bolle, Istituto Statale G. CaetaniGiovanni Colella, Istituto Tecnico Aeronautico De Pinedo

Public

Event





4 italian high schools 3 international high schools

(US, France, Spain)

Participating Schools

0 5 10 15 20

Caetani

Cervantes

Chateaubriand

D.Alighieri

De Pinedo

J.F.Kennedy

Marymount

1st Questionnarie - Nr of participating students

f m

Total: 148 students (age 16-19) 69 males, 79 females

1st Questionnarie - Nr of participating students

69

79

f m





Speakers at the public Event of CLISCET

Chair: Dr Mario Tozzi geologist, scientific writer

Mariano Barriendos Vallvé, Professor at the University of Barcelona, Spain

Vittorio Canuto, Professor at the Columbia University, New York

Franco Prodi, Professor at University of Ferrara and Director of ISAC-CNR

Mario Tassone, deputy Minister of Transportation and President of the Committee on Innovation and Development





Three main GOALS

1 – To check the degree of knowledge on the

specific topic

2 – Sensibilization on Science and Ethics

3 - To promote participation of science,

society and institutions





Objective 1To check the degree of knowledge on a specific topics

To inform correctly, and actively, i.e. not only through the media: this is the first step towards the solution of a problem.

Analysis of 2 questions: Information sources Kyoto protocol





1 TV 2 Newspapers 3 Magazines 4 Scientific Journals 5 Radio 6 Internet 7 Friends 8 Family 9 School 10 Museiums and library 11 Environmental associations 12 Associations of consumers

Information sources onSCIENCE and CLIMATE





0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

frequency

TV InternetNewspapers Family School Radio Magazinessc.

Friends Scientificjournals

AssociationsMuseumsAssociationsof

consumers

Information sources

Questionnaire 1

Information sources

Questionnaire 2

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

frequency

TV SchoolNewspapersInternet Family Magazinessc.


MuseumsAssociations Radio Associationsof

consumers

Information sources

-0,15

-0,10

-0,05

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

TV InternetNewspapersFamily School Radio Magazinessc.


AssociationsMuseumsAssociationsof

consumers

Change of the information sources





True False Don’t

know

- An agreement on the reduction of GHG

- A specific law on climate

- A final resolution to eliminate the greenhouse effect

What is the Kyoto protocol?





Answer n.1: An agreement on the reduction of GHG

16 10 8

41

6

49

81

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

No indication FALSE I don't know TRUE

What is Kyoto protocol?

questionnaire 1 questionnaire 2





What is your interest in:

Alto Medio Basso1. Science and technology 2. Politics of science 3. Climate change 4. Environmental Issues 5. Renewable energy sources 6.Relationship between institutions, science and society 7. Developing Coutries

Objective 2 - Sensibilization on science and ethics





Questionnaire 2

Objective 2 - sensibilization on science and ethics

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

%

Developingcountries

Environmentalissues

Science andtechnology

Climatechange

Renewableenergy

Relationshipbetween

science andsociety

Politcs ofscience

Interest on different themes

high low

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

Developingcountries

Environmentalissues


Climatechange

Renewableenergy

Relationshipbetween

science andsociety

Politcs ofscience

Interest on different themes

high low

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

Developingcountries

Environmentalissues


Climatechange

Renewableenergy

Relationshipbetween

science andsociety

Politcs ofscience

An "high" level of interest

questionnaire 1 questionnaire 2

Questionnaire 1





Q Values of Science (points: 1 to 5)- Autonomy - Credibility - Social usefulness - Generality of results - Respect of human beings - Assistance to developing Countries- Economic productivity - Security of applications - Cultural progress

Objective 3 To promote communication and participation

Science, society and Institutions have common VALUES





Questionnaire 2

Values of science

1th (red) = more

important

Questionnaire 1

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Credibility Respect ofhuman being

Socialusefulness

Economicproductivity

Truth ofresults

AssistancetoDeveloping

countries

Culturalprogress

Security ofapplications

Autonomy

1 2 3 4 5





Themes to be treated in a future projectQuestionnaire 2

Preferences expressed by male and female

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Staminal cellsAnd clonation

Energy and consumption

Artificial insemination and quality of life

Food securityAnd emergency

Sustainable development

male female





Some Considerations…….

+ Lot of work for students and cooperation of Professors

+ … a lot of work for us to:

1. Organize

2. Convince schools and Institutions

3. Fight with bureaucracy

Cost of each project Conference Room: offered free of charge by CNR

Coffee break: 5000 EUR Travel expenses for speakers 3500 EUR Consumables 500 EUR

Total 9000 EUR





XV Week of Scientific & Technologic Culture

Science at the top: excellent laboratories in extreme environment

Ministero dell’Istruzionedell’Università e della

Ricerca

CNR 2005

Another event……..





Several Considerations…The experiment was succesfull. There was a positive and active answer. Students have learned that:

- it is important to get the correct information- scientists can give answer, however the answers are not final- it is necessary to focus on the relationship beteeen science and institutions.

This new method works, however it is necessary to work more on it OK: there are more elements to work on in order to improve it.

Another Project has been carried out in 2006: LEDERLEDER





LEDER – Alterum non ledere?

Responsabilità e futuro della scienza

Aula MarconiPiazzale Aldo Moro, 7Roma, 13 Marzo 2006

Ore 9.00

Responsabile scientificoRosalia Azzaro, Cnr-Ceristel. 06 4993 [email protected]

Con il patrocinio di:

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche

Comitato Nazionale per la Bioetica

Istituzioni coinvolte

CNRIstituto sull’Impresa e lo Sviluppo (CERIS - Roma)Istituto di Tecnologie Biomediche (ITB)Istituto di Biometeorologia (IBIMET)Istituto sull’Inquinamento Atmosferico (IIA)Istituto di Scienze dell’Atmosfera e del Clima (ISAC)

ISS Settore Documentazione, Unità di Bioetica

Scuole RomaLiceo Classico “Dante Alighieri”Liceo Scientifico “J.F. Kennedy” Liceo Scientifico “Einstein”Liceo Scientifico “E. Torricelli” Lycèe “Chateaubriand”Liceo “M. Cervantes”Istituto Tecnico Aeronautico “F. De Pinedo” Campobasso Istituto di Istruzione Superiore “S. Pertini”

LecceIstituto Tecnico Attività Sociali “G.Deledda”

RelatoriIvo Allegrini, Direttore IIA – CnrRosalia Azzaro, CERIS – CnrCaterina Casarano, Onlus Italia solidaleGiuseppe Cipolloni, già Min. Plen. MAERoberto De Mattei, vice Presidente CnrM.Luisa Di Pietro, Istit. Bioetica UCSCVittorio Mathieu, Univ. Torino e CNBLuca Pani, ITB – CnrCarlo Petrini, ISS - Unità di BioeticaBruno Silvestrini, CNBS.E. Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Cancelliere della Pontificia Accademia delle ScienzePaolo Vezzoni, ITB - Cnr

Public Event





8 italian high schools 4 international high schools

(US, UK, France, Spain)

Participating Schools

53%47% female

maleType of school

59%29%

12%

scientific

technical

classical

Total: 212 students (age 16-19) 99 males, 113 females





Speakers at the public Event of LEDERIvo Allegrini, Direttore IIA – Cnr

Rosalia Azzaro, CERIS – Cnr

Caterina Casarano, Onlus Italia solidale

Giuseppe Cipolloni, già Min. Plen. MAE

Roberto De Mattei, vice Presidente Cnr

M.Luisa Di Pietro, Istit. Bioetica UCSC

Vittorio Mathieu, Univ. Torino e CNB

Luca Pani, ITB – Cnr

Carlo Petrini, ISS - Unità di Bioetica

Bruno Silvestrini, CNB

S.E. Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Cancelliere

della Pontificia Accademia delle Scienze

Paolo Vezzoni, ITB - Cnr





Genome and new medicaments:

7. Pharmacogenomics seems to be an opportunity for providing personalized treatmets:is it possible to satisfy individual interests, collective benefits and profit for industries?

no26%

abstained2%

yes43%

I don't know29% sì

no

non so

astenuti

…Genetic researches will offer us new methods of medical treatments. Which relation with environment and individual, collective and economic interests has this new approach, personalized to “gene as medicament”?

1. Genome and new medicaments:

SUBJECT 1




European Youth Event2. Genetics and procreation:

10. How could you describe a human embryo?

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

a human being who is worthy of respect

“one of us” in the first stages of development

a living substance available for a good purpose

a growing cell clot

other

…Why free scientific activity should keep itself within certain limits as regard to human embryo?And what’s the reason why people apply to artificial procreation:are there environmental and cultural reasons besides the genetic ones?

65% of young people expressed a great consideration for human embryo: 38% a human being who is worthy of respect 27% “one of us” in the first stages of development. On the contrary, for 31% of interviewed people, embryo is “a living substance available for a good purpose” (17%) or only “a growing cell clot “ (14%).

SUBJECT 2





3. Environment and development

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Natural catastrophesLack of natural resources

Agricultural protectionism of other countriesForeign debt

Cultural incomprehensionsInternal warsLack of help

Lack of safeguard of local resources and interestsEconomic stagnationStructural inferiorityLack of investments

Governmental incapacity and misusesDrought and inadequate water management

SUBJECT 3 16.“Many countries improved their economies, while Africa moves back: what stops its development?





ETHICS OF RESEARCH

- Knowledge cannot have borders (27%), liberty of science must be safeguarded firstly from economic and political influences (31%), and other kinds of conditioning (religion and public opinion) (10%): but limits must exist (21%), for instance with rules given by scientists to themselves (10%).

15) Which description corresponds to your idea of liberty of scientific research?

31

27

21

10

10no conditioning from pow er (political, economicetc.)

the w hole know ledge cannot have borders

science and technology should not have limits

no external conditioning (Church, public opinionetc.)

scientists should give themselves rules





16. La scienza moderna non può accentrarsi solo sul modello descrittivo, ma anche sulla comprensione del suo significato". Sei d'accordo?

si78%

no5%

non so17%

si

no

non so

16. "Modern science cannot focus on descriptive models, but also on the understanding of its significance”*: do you agree?

What is the meaning of science?

* Pavel Florenskij)





Sacrum has been considered by ancient people what we must “separate” (= sacer) from the rest.

A laical state, on the contrary, means that in it different but not separated ways of feeling and points of view may coexist.

Different fields - policy and society, scuence and faith - may coexist in an open dialogue, which in a laical state is not seen as something unconciliative with prejudice.

SOME CONCLUSIONS





In a civil, laical and democratic society, a real possibility is

a movement of interrelationships between quite different

subjects, which don’t substain private interests but “an

equal and solidary research of public welfare” (as it is

written in the Italian Constitution).

This reasearch gives a common “sense” to every acitivity,

including the cultural and scientific ones.





Results show how the main aim of the project, i.e. to

experiment a new methodology of dissemination,

communication, and, possibly, of meditation, on issues

related to the scientific findings in science, through the

establishment of relationships between scientist and cultural

institutions, schools, politicians, has been successfully

achieved, making the method a prototype to be adopted in

the future with a wider audience in order to communicate

research results on scientific issues of interest.

Main Results

PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE AND ETHICS “ All different – All Equal ” European Youth Event...

Documents

Transcript of PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE AND ETHICS “ All different – All Equal ” European Youth Event...