The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology has, this year, been charged with re-examining the 24-week upper time limit for abortions. Written evidence was received over the summer and oral evidence in October 2007.
However, none of those providing evidence were permitted to address the ethical issues involved. The terms of reference for the inquiry explicitly stated that "the Committee will not be looking at the ethical or moral issues associated with abortion time limits." The Chair of the committee applied this restriction so rigidly that when a representative of the British Medical Association's Ethics Committee was being questioned, a gentle attempt to lob a moral ball into the court was swiftly knocked away with the phrase, "If we move into ethics we'll be all over the place."
In reality, the idea that you can talk about abortion without adopting some moral stance at the outset, is itself "all over the place". Whether we believe the foetus has rights of its own or that its rights are subordinate to those of the mother, we are adopting an ethical position. For some reason, the committee thought it could bypass these fundamental questions and examine the issue in the light of science alone. But how?
How, for example, can you treat the presence or absence of foetal pain, one of the supposedly purely "scientific" issues on which the committee received evidence, without reference to some ethical framework? The issue itself is only of any relevance if we believe that inflicting pain on a foetus is somehow wrong – and that is clearly a moral judgement.
Similarly, the committee explored whether a definition of serious abnormality is required for abortions beyond 24-weeks. The implicit assumption behind such abortions is that the suffering that would be experienced by a disabled infant justifies its abortion before birth. Yet, it is irrational to think that you can adjudicate on whether an extra digit represents significant suffering without considering the ethical questions involved. As one writer, commentating on the Chair's strenuous efforts to curtail the moral questions, put it, "Ethics may be messy but this attempt to stymie the debate served only to draw attention to the elephant in Committee Room 8."
It seems to me a given, then, that in relation to abortion it is simply impossible to ignore the moral issues. A discussion of abortion that addresses the scientific questions, but not the ethical, is nothing of the sort. Rather, all it does is conduct the scientific debate whilst drawing upon half-formed, unarticulated moral assumptions. That is ethics at its worst.
The broader question, though, is whether science should ever, or can ever, be undertaken in a moral vacuum? It is certainly the case that we still hear cries to this effect from certain quarters. Yet, it is sobering to remember that this year marks the 60th anniversary of the Nuremberg Doctor’s Trial, when 20 Nazi medical doctors were accused of war crimes relating to human experimentation. Many of these doctors were specialists, even leaders, in their field – in other respects they undoubtedly contributed to the sum of human knowledge – yet they also engaged in a program of slaughter that was barbaric.
In response to such barbarity, the Nuremberg Code for Human Experimentation was developed, which was subsequently followed, in 1964, by the World Medical Association’s Helsinki Declaration regarding medical research. That declaration rightly states that protocols for medical research "should always contain a statement of the ethical considerations involved". In addition, in reporting the results of medical research it notes that, "Both authors and publishers have ethical obligations." The second of these statements is particularly telling. The authors of the declaration were clearly aware that the way in which biased reporting of scientific findings can unduly distort the debate and, thereby, the conclusions that are reached.
Hence, the highest ethical standards must obtain not just in the conduct of the research itself, but also in those who report and comment on the results. Part of the reason for this is simply the recognition that scientists are humans, who are just as susceptible to undue influence as every other member of society. It is well recognised within the scientific community that every stage of the scientific process from funding, though the conduct of experiments, to reportage is susceptible to bias.
Even when scientists seek to be impartial, it is impossible to attain the mythical detached neutrality to which they aspire. Humanity is just not like that. It is precisely for this reason that the
The reality is that we all need checks and balances to ensure that our thirst for knowledge does not outstrip our degree of ethical formation. Humanity has learnt the painful lesson of conducting science without ethics. It is not reasonable, it is reckless. The history of the twentieth century has demonstrated that convincingly, which makes the behaviour of this particular select committee all the more remarkable.
The danger, of course, is that a precedent has been set, that those who wish to free science, even medical research, from the tiresome red tape of ethics committees will feel emboldened to pursue their course.
Dr Justin Thacker is Head of Theology at the Evangelical Alliance UK, having previously worked as a medical doctor, specialising in paediatrics. His regular comment on events of the week is available here.
