HOLISTIC SCIENCE

A Tapestry of Essays
by
Robin Wilding

The Wound of Science

The symptoms of the wound, to which Mattieu Ricard refers, is a diminished sense of
values, a distance from nature. The scientist claims the right to be free to pursue her path of
enquiry and to be free of obligation to society. The applications and broader consequences of
scientific discoveries are not responsibilities scientists want to be burdened with. The creed of
science is to be value free in order to be objective. There are however some notable
exceptions. Many ecologists are deeply concerned about the impact of human activity on the
quality of the environment and the diversity of species. Field biologists are similarly
committed to protecting wild life. A strong ethical thread also runs through some research
into health care. Those closest to the large scale suffering, such as community health workers
and public health advisors appeal for more money to be spent on public health research.
Cleaner water, sanitation, housing, nutrition and access to health care are fundamentals of
health for most of the world’s populations. But these are not favorite research topics and are
often pushed aside by more exciting frontier breaking projects when the money for research
is divided up
The race for first place
The scientist with personal aspirations and ambitions to be famous, is keenly
competitive, yet quite well tolerated. A scientist who fails to keep ahead of the opposition and
who cannot attract substantial funding for projects which have potential market value is not in
the running to head a research team. The competitive strategy between scientists prevails with
some occasional relief brought about by cooperation when it seems in every ones interest. But
the interests served are still those of the institutions or corporations funding the research. The
recent pact reached between the competing teams in the race to decode the human genome
was about science politics rather than altruism. Neither team wanted to be second, so they
agreed after tense hours of negotiation to accept a tie for first place and share all the

Holistic Science 3 The Wound of Science Page 1 of 10

information. The Independent newspaper on July1st 2000 reviewed a sample of editorials in
response to the genome breakthrough. The two science journals, New Scientists and Nature
both complimented the teams on reaching a peaceful settlement and keeping the information
public. There was no concern with the human problems which might lie ahead, as
consequences of the much heralded breakthrough. There was however wide concern in the
”lay” press. The Economist warned of ethically uncharted territory. USA Today called for
new regulatory and ethical thinking. El Mundo (Spain) applied the Biblical narrative and asked
what price humanity might have to pay for eating the apple.
There is a strong smell of greed, academic, corporate and government which drives
this project. Talk of reducing human suffering is just that. What relief does the genome
project promise to the millions of malnourished children in Africa with malaria, whose
parents are dying of AIDS?
Genetic engineering
The scientific principles underlying the alteration of the characteristics of an organisms by the
addition of foreign (transgenic) genetic material are flawed. This topic is thoroughly treated in
Mae Wan Ho’s book “Genetic Engineering, dream or nightmare”. She argues that the
technology of genetic engineering is far from harmless and the use of genetically modified
organisms is unsafe and unethical. Artificial vectors (vehicles) have to be made to transfer
genes of one organisms to those of a different species. This is called horizontal transfer.
These vectors are themselves viruses capable of causing cancers and resisting antibiotics. Just
as antibiotics increase the traffic of DNA between microorganisms and so helps different
species trade antibiotic resistance, so vectors encourage the unpredictable transfer of DNA
between species. This transfer is not under laboratory control but happens in the natural
environment. Anti-biotic resistant marker genes from transgenic plants have shown up in soil
fungi and bacteria. So no one knows what gene trading in cancer causing or antibiotic
resistance is going to find its way into the food chain. Viral DNA can survive digestive juices
in mice and make its way to the cells of a foetus. No claim for safety can be made until it is
too late.
The euphoria generated by the technology of modifying the genome of an organism led to
grandiose ideas of designing crops which would be more resistant to pests and weed killers.

Holistic Science 3 The Wound of Science Page 2 of 10

The results so far have been poor, but the price is incalculable. Pest resistance is commonly
achieved by adding genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuriniensis,(Bt) which code for
substances toxic to insects. The transgenic plant is not only toxic to insect pests but kills bees,
butterflies and birds who feed on the plant. Strains of insects resistant to the Bt toxins are
extremely difficult to control requiring supplementary spraying. Plants engineered to be
tolerant to herbicides encourage the use of broad spectrum, non-specific herbicides (produced
by the same manufacturers who sell the transgenic seed). These herbicides, such as
Monsanto’s “Roundup” kill many plant species indiscriminately. In the United States the Fish
and Wildlife Service has identified 74 endangered plant species threatened by the use of
herbicides such as glyphosphate. Mae Wan Ho concludes; “There is no need for genetically
modified crops. They will not feed the world; on the contrary, they will undermine food
security and biodiversity”
Why then have scientists thrown themselves into the process? There is a shadow here which
seeks to dominate nature. There is another which is about greed, driven by the promise of
huge profits. At all stages in this woeful scenario of genetic engineering there are large
amounts of money being made, and the promise of more. Many of the present day leading
molecular geneticists either own biotech companies or work for them. Research is not neutral,
but well focused towards the monopoly of the worlds seed resources, fertilizer, pesticides and
herbicides. The motive is profit. The results will be progressive impoverishment of developing
nations, loss of diversity and stability of indigenous food plants, and irreversible long term
environmental damage.
A group of scientists have drawn up a statement calling for a moratorium on GE
biotechnology (reproduced at the back of this book). In 1999 Mae Wan Ho reported that more
than 100 scientists had signed it. That represents a tiny percentage, perhaps less that 0.1% of
scientists who have seen the shadow.
Academic freedom
Scientists will defend their rights to explore without constraint or interference. There
are rules which govern the conduct of the explorer, but they are about the way the science is
done rather than safeguards against what is done. J.R Oppenheimer, the director of the
Manhattan project to build an atomic bomb, questioned well after the carnage, the need for a

Holistic Science 3 The Wound of Science Page 3 of 10

bigger bomb. “Wasn’t the A bomb enough?” For that question he lost his security status. He
was accused of standing in the way of progress. In a retrospective view of J.R. and those
events, Lynn Margulis reveals Oppenhiemer’s obsession with the “how” of the A bomb, but
never, until too late asking “whether or not”.
The ethics of science are really club rules, how to be a decent well mannered explorer.
One of the most important rules is about not thieving other peoples ideas and calling them
your own. Hence the relief when the genome race was declared a tie and disallowed
ownership of the codes. It is also very bad form to thieve other scientists’ technicians. Some
scientists acknowledge in their publications, the name of the technician who did all the actual
work though this is not routine. The order of authors named in a publication is a touchy
business often best agreed to before the work is begun so that there are no recriminations
afterwards. As in the genome project, there is often a race on for first place. At the top of the
league there is also a race for a Nobel or other science prize. The ethics get thinner where the
stakes are highest. Candace Pert writes of the tension amongst scientists at the National
Institute of Health in Washington DC. The ethical code requires loyalty to your team and
your boss and discretion about what is going on in your you lab. Occasional lapses of ethics
by powerful scientists may be ignored. There was very little concern shown by the scientific
community over the failure to acknowledge the crucial contribution to the discovery that
DNA was a double helix, made by Rosalind Franklin. In “The Double Helix” in which James
Watson tells his side of the story, “Rosy” is described as being obstinate but “quite attractive
if she would only do something with her hair”. Candace Pert is critical of Watson’s
“unabashed sexism” in his dismissal of Franklin as a serious scientist whose work provided
crucial information for the model which Watson and Crick devised.
Pert’s own experience of sexist attitudes in awarding grants and prizes to women leave no
doubt in her mind that the “rules” of science are made by men, for men. It was not only
Franklin who had cause for grievance. Watson’s co-workers Francis Crick and Maurice
Wilkins, protested about parts of the account and succeeded in prevented its publication by
Harvard University Press. In his review of the many commentaries about the eventually
published book by Watson, Gunther Stent reveals the wide range of opinion expressed by the
scientific community of the time. Some of those hostile to the book condemned the way

Holistic Science 3 The Wound of Science Page 4 of 10

science was portrayed as ruthless and unethical. But that, as others have argued, is exactly
how some scientists scrabble and claw their way to Nobel prizes.
The ethics of science are supposed to apply to those of equal fighting weight, but the
weaker or younger need to be watchful. Young and female Candace Pert did the substantial
work in discovering the cell receptor for opiates. But it was the three research heavyweights
who got the Lasker Award, a prestigious science prize. Pert did not get a mention. She made
the mistake of breaking the club rules of loyalty, and blew the whistle. The promise of a Nobel
prize was denied them all. The Nobel committee do not like brawls in the clubhouse.
Robert Wright in “The Moral Animal” recounts the events at the time Wallace and
Darwin’s theory of evolution was presented to the scientific establishment for the first time.
The eminent Darwin was as culpable in disposing of the young Wallace, as Henry II was in
having Thomas Beckett killed. Darwin did not hold the knife, but he managed to convey his
desires to other heavyweights of the day who did the job for him. Wallace’s paper, which he
sent to Darwin in the hope of approval, was forwarded by Darwin to Hooker and Lyell who
were entrusted to deal with it. Darwin wrote a hand wringing note to Lyell, in which he
modestly retired from any claim to publish his own work “So all my originality, whatever it
may amount to will be smashed.” His friends could not see this eminent man’s work
“smashed” and suggested it would not be out of place to present his as yet unpublished work
alongside Wallace’s. At the Linnean Society meeting, they introduced his work as “ the
leading results of his (Darwin’s) labour’s, as well as those of his able corresponded”.That was
the end of any claim Wallace would otherwise most certainly have had, to be first in
publishing a theory of evolution by natural selection. Wright concludes that in spite of the
evidence, a “sanitised” version of Darwin’s’ ethical behavior is the one that survives in
science history books. Both Darwin and Oppenhiemer questioned their actions in later life. In
an epilogue to “The Double Helix” Watson gives due credit to Rosalind Franklin, regrettably
not before her untimely death..
Science and Animal Rights
There have been notable gains in the last 50 years in strengthening regulations protecting
human and animal participants in research. Just when all seems to be going as planned, news
breaks of some infringement, such as the recent discovery that hearts were removed from

Holistic Science 3 The Wound of Science Page 5 of 10

dead infants at autopsy for research. When scientists want material, whether human or
animal, they do not have a good record of self restraint and ethical behavior. The growth of
ethics in animal experimentation has been forced on scientists by protest groups. It is only by
tireless effort of some watchdog groups with notable contributions from Peter Singer and
Monheim Fadali which have established and made enforceable this protection.
There is a disturbing feature of extremists animal rights protest groups that has emerged in the
last five years. There are at least two movements which are frankly military. They threaten
violence to scientists and laboratory workers alike and destroy property. Colin Blakemore,
professor of physiology at Oxford University has been one of the many targets of these
extremist groups since defending research that required animal testing. Two bombs have been
delivered to his home and his daughter’s have been threatened with kidnap. He suggests that
the deteriorating situation is due to failure of government and the scientific community to
generate an informed public dialogue. The juxtaposition of “informed” and “dialogue”
suggest that really what needs to happen is public education, the thrust of the body which
Richard Dawkin chairs, dedicated to the advancement of Public Understanding of Science.
The Prime Minister, Tony Blair (Independent 18/11/00) comes into the debate with an attack
on anti-science attitudes and issues a stern warning that assaults on research will not be
tolerated- they could deprive Britain of the benefits of cutting edge research, such as
genetically modified crops. It could be that many members of the public are outraged with the
dehumanising and dangerous consequences of uncritical, profit sustained science which
threatens the environment and societal values. Are they to be pacified , like anxious ignorant
children with a lecture on the benefits of to the worlds of animal experimentation? The
attitude is arrogant and an insult to ordinary common sense which is located in the heart and
mind of John Bull. It is rather like assuming that it is necessary to raise your voice and to
repeat yourself when speaking to someone who does not seem to understand or perhaps just
disagrees.
Steven Rose reminds those concerned that if animals deserve rights then they are not far from
human’s who also deserve rights. They are so close to us that we can indeed learn from
animals about human illness and treatment. Rose regrets the death of multitudes of animals
but justifies it in the quest for knowledge. It is an inevitable paradox, he writes, that the study

Holistic Science 3 The Wound of Science Page 6 of 10

of life demands the destruction of life. Some forms of life are just more important to us than
others. We always get more upset when we come upon a bird or small mammal suffering,
than we do when finding a dying weed. But if we had to save either our pet dog from the fire,
or the neighbor’s child, we would not hesitate to save the child first.
Western religions have not shown public concern for the rights of animals. The
Bible tells us that God gave us dominion over the animals. While the grace of St. Francis
reminds us that it is good to be tender to the little birds and beasts, and while we do look
askance at people who eat squirrels, dogs and horses, there is a thriving industry in the
Western world which relies on slaughtering lambs, calves and piglets. The killing, if it were
done by sneaking up unsuspecting on a quietly grazing animal, might be tolerable. The honor
and dignity given a buck shot dead by the arrow from a San (bushman) hunter, and the soft
words of respect and kinship said to the dying animal are in marked contrasts to our killing
style, carried out with apparent church approval. The conditions under which animals are kept
while getting fat and juicy for the slaughter house, and the clear panic which is transmitted to
those about to be lead there, is enough to make most sensitive folk become vegetarians. But
western religions have not applied pressure on the public, including scientists on behalf of
animals. They have, on the other hand, applied themselves to rescuing the heathen hunter
gatherers from sin. They might have done better to learn from the San a love and respect for
nature than to lead him to church.

In- house discipline

Scientists whose work involves the treatment of humans or animals, or their use in
experimentation have claimed, and been given the responsibility for monitoring the conduct
of their members. They have their own internal disciplinary process. It is claimed that those
who best understand the circumstances of the case brought against a practitioner are best able
to judge. There is usually no place for uniformed lay people on scientific disciplinary
committees. This is however at least one such committee, the British General Dental Council,
who have decided to increase the number of lay people who serve on such committees. This
move has been prompted by both public and professional demand for the immediate

Holistic Science 3 The Wound of Science Page 7 of 10

withdrawal of the right to practice of practitioners guilty of misconduct. When there is
something deeply wrong, such as the string of medical practitioners in the United Kingdom
who have either murdered or maimed their patients, and been allowed to continue to do so
while their case was pending, it does seem that in house discipline is not working. The
Ledward inquiry criticised the lack of controls over rogue doctors. Three pressure groups have
arisen calling for greater safeguards and independent enquiry of patient complaints. The
process of control of doctors by doctors is questionable. A darker allegation by some women
is that there is a tolerance among male doctors for their colleagues mishaps which involve
women. The point has been made that men do not seem to suffer at the hands of urologists.
We would all like to trust that in vocations such as medicine and law enforcement there is no
place for racism or chauvinism of any sort. Sadly such trust is misplaced.
Environmental hazards of science
It is the application of science in technology that has the greatest potential for environmental
harm. An ethical concern for the biosphere is clearly not on the agenda of industrial or
corporative projects. It has also been ruled out of order by the scientists who merely develop
the knowledge and like J.R. Oppenheimer, do not go so far as to ask what is to be done with
it. It is then left for governments to establish laws limiting the environmental impact of all
industries, but especially those selling biotechnology. But when large sums of money are at
stake it is clear that most governments are vulnerable to lobbying or even bribery. The recent
special case made by the British government in allowing cigarette sponsorship for its motor
racing Grand Prix event is an example.
Mae Wan Ho points out that only 49 of the worlds 100 largest economies are countries; the
rest are multinational companies. If the motive for those companies is profit, and the goals
shared by many of the wealthy nations is progress, then the voices of concern for this planet
need to rise up and be heard. It would be heartening if those voices had a good stiffening from
scientists. But many are on the other side. The appointment by governments of science
advisors sympathetic to government policy provides a respectable gloss to the political agenda
of the day. The announcements made by such apparently independent experts can be highly
supportive. A press release by Sir John Krebs, chairman of the United Kingdom government
appointed Food Standards Agency came out at a time when the government most needed to

Holistic Science 3 The Wound of Science Page 8 of 10

create a diversion. The message was in support of government policies on genetically
modified foods. The report rubbished organic food as a waste of money, and no more
nutritious than non-organic foods. Sir John, an eminent scientist, said nothing of the benefits
of organic farming methods to the environment, or a lack of pesticide residue in organic
crops, both significant reasons the concerned public is willing to pay more for organically
grown food. Had Krebs simply failed to inform himself or was he somehow obliged to make
the right noises?
The credibility of the government/scientist alliance has received further damage in the UK as
the full facts begin to emerge in the Phillips report, of the spread of BSE (mad cow disease)
and the associated and deadly to humans, variant Creudzfelt-Jacob disease. Both government
departments and science chiefs suppressed warning about the human risk of eating beef. They
also failed to implement recommendations prohibiting the recycling of animal remains into
animal feeds. The public was repeatedly misled. Scientific information which would have
given them the option to choose was withheld. Colin Blakemore, writing in the Daily Mail
(26th Oct 2000) believes this arrogance was irresponsible. As professor of physiology at
Oxford, he is rightly concerned that this parental treatment of the public is leading to a
growing distrust of science, a worrying trend “when our future depends on the sensible
judgement about the application of science”.
Summary
Whilst there is much that is honorable and decent in the treatment of humans and animals,
and concern for the environment, there is a dark side to the record of ethics in science. The
pressures of profit, competition, selfishness and irresponsibility are ordinary human attributes.
The public has raised a dissenting voice, over animal experimentation, environmental
protection and malpractice of doctors and dentists. The clamour has not always been well
received and at times has been greeted with open hostility. The processes by which scientists
are constrained need to be reviewed so that their activity is in step with public idea of what is
acceptable and what is not. The humane application of knowledge is too important to be left
to scientists.

Holistic Science 3 The Wound of Science Page 9 of 10

Holistic Science 3 The Wound of Science Page 10 of 10