Seeing the duties to all.
L. Zoloth
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3528494
2001-03-04
The Hastings Center Report
Abstract:As the biotech revolution hits full stride, one is as likely to find stories on emerging medical technologies in the business section as in the science section. As the New York Times notes, reporting the case of academic researcher Kirk Hammond, also founder of the company Collateral Therapeutics, "With the biomedical revolution in full swing, academic scientists who lack industry ties are as rare as giant pandas in the wild."[1] Conflicts of interest for clinical researchers have long been seen as an issue in bioethics. Yet bioethicists themselves negotiate with temptations as potent as those faced by research scientists. We are funded not only by universities, but by private donors directly or only once removed from the very industries we assess. This article reflects on this emerging problem: the conflict faced by a bioethicist who participates as a consultant in research, often in the private sector and often on new biotechnology or pharmaceuticals. I will make two claims about conflicts of interest in the field of bioethics. The first is that there is and should be a conflict of interest whenever we take a realistic look at any new technology. It is in the nature of bioethics that contention is a part of moral reflection, that competing moral appeals call upon our loyalty. Only by a stark appraisal of the deep calls to conscience that participation in bioethics consultancy ought to provide can we understand the depths of the potential breaches of ethics in the work. The second claim is that to focus the question posed by conflicts of interest on rules about finances is a diversion, a necessary but ultimately simplistic account of the temptations of power and influence that are part of the work of the bioethicist. I hope here to raise some preliminary questions for our further exploration.[2] It is my contention that the questions that should animate us are not the normative or regulatory ones, but epistemic and ontological ones: How can one know what one needs to know to consult on a new technology? Who does one become by taking part in this consultancy? The Duty to the Third To be observant as a consultant is to notice conflict. When bioethicists are invited to consult on biotechnology, their role is to introduce the social--implications for the future, the history of past abuses, and the present considerations of justice. Conflict is the only meaningful possibility for the debate. Every interaction of abstract principles occurs within a narrative context, every boardroom discussion takes place within a larger social and political frame--the marketplace, the clinic, the public square--and it is the role of the ethicist to pull the narrative frame from the private view within the institution to the larger world that surrounds the institution, a world of obligation, of suffering, of injustice, and of potential. It is this ability, this role of narrative construction, that allows for reflection and assessment. It is made possible by the presence of what Levinas calls "the third," the witness to the interaction of the self and the constantly calling other that interrupts the self.[3] Because it is the presence of the "third" that makes judgment--and hence justice--possible, it is important to see the problem of conflict as a radical opportunity, not an avoidable mistake. Only in the frank confrontation with an alternative view is it possible to understand the total alterity of another and the need to include this alternative in our deliberations. Because the narrative of the poor, the uninsured, or the marginalized might not be represented at the table, the ethicist is entrusted with their story. The bioethicist might also hear from a range of more particular communities--disease groups, disabilities groups, patient advocacy groups. In all of this, it is being alive to the double-horned dilemma that is useful. We hold things in tension--the reasonableness of a marketplace, the realpolitik of private financing, the nature of social constraints of our health care funding, and the aspirations of justice. …