[Feature: Science, Technology, and Social Issues] Koichi Mikami: Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues of Science and Technology—Considering Ambiguity from the Perspective of the History of Science

In recent years, there has been a growing trend toward requiring the consideration of Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues (ELSI) when conducting research and development in science and technology. For example, in the Moonshot Research and Development Program, a large-scale R&D project led by the government, a support system that cuts across research goals has been established, and the examination of ELSI is being promoted.

However, such ELSI considerations are not necessarily progressing smoothly. In addition to the methodological question of how they should be conducted, there is still no clear answer that satisfies everyone regarding the objective of how the results should influence R&D in science and technology. As a result, while there is a demand for greater involvement from researchers in the humanities and social sciences, scientists often worry that this will cause delays in R&D, frequently leading to an unfortunate friction for both parties.

The style of simultaneously pursuing ELSI considerations alongside R&D was first realized in the Human Genome Project, which began in the United States in 1990. It appeared in Japan's Science and Technology Basic Plan—the foundation of the nation's science and technology policy—in the third phase (2006–2010), formulated after the completion of the Human Genome Project. Generally, the 17th century is said to be when the foundations of science as we understand it were established; compared to that history, this is a very recent development. Conversely, one could say that the meaning of science and technology has changed in the short span of the last 30 years.

In discussing for what purpose and how ELSI considerations of science and technology should be conducted, might it not be important to look back once more at the history of science?

It was not until the 20th century that interest in the history of science grew and it became established as an academic field. As represented by Galileo and Newton, the 17th century saw the aim of uncovering the hidden laws of nature through experiments and mathematics, laying the cornerstone of science. Later, through the Industrial Revolution, the recognition that science creates new technology grew stronger, and the relationship between science and society became closer. It was in the late 19th century that governments in modern states began to promote scientific research for the prosperity of their own nations. By the beginning of the 20th century, the development of science came to be seen as synonymous with the development of human civilization. This is precisely the background against which the history of science was systematized. In other words, the history of science emerged as an academic field aiming to describe the history of human civilization.

However, the image of science that emerged throughout the 20th century did not necessarily indicate the glorious development of human civilization. In World War I, which occurred in the early 20th century, the power of chemistry was directed toward the development of poison gas weapons. In biology, eugenics—proposed by Francis Galton following the theory of evolution by his cousin Darwin—gained widespread support as eugenic thought alongside worsening economic conditions, leading to discriminatory policies. Furthermore, the phenomenon of nuclear fission, discovered around the start of World War II, was applied in the form of atomic bombs. It came to be understood that if used incorrectly, science could cast a long shadow over human civilization.

If our understanding of science had stopped in the first half of the 20th century, the lesson might have remained simply that science and the technology it produces have negative aspects and must not be misused. However, as time passed, it became clear that the story was not so simple. Rachel Carson sounded the alarm in her book "Silent Spring" about the fact that pesticides used to make human life more convenient were simultaneously causing great damage to the natural environment. There was also the danger that nuclear power plants—supposedly a "good use" of nuclear fission—could lead to catastrophes affecting the surrounding area if an accident occurred. Furthermore, when in vitro fertilization was first successfully performed in the UK, it became clear that there was a wide gap between those who considered the new possibilities presented by technology to be desirable for society and those who did not.

In this way, the image of science that emerged in the late 20th century presented serious challenges that human civilization must face to achieve sustainable development. The distinction between "good use" and "bad use" is ambiguous, which is precisely why careful discussion and the best possible decisions as a society are necessary. The ELSI considerations undertaken in the Human Genome Project at the end of the 20th century can be positioned as one attempt to realize exactly that.

The Human Genome Project was originally a major research undertaking started because the development of science became linked with social interests. It was in 1953 that it was revealed that DNA, which makes up the genome of living organisms, takes a double-helix structure. Subsequently, sequencing technology to decode the base sequences of DNA was developed over a period of about 20 years. The first viral genome was decoded in 1977. While that viral genome had just over 5,000 bases, the human genome has 3.1 billion base pairs. The prevailing view at the time was that it would be nearly impossible to achieve the decoding of the human genome using the same methods. However, as the existence of markers that allow one to know the original sequence of DNA fragments obtained by cutting them into small pieces became known, the decoding of the human genome finally became realistic around 1980.

However, even if decoding the human genome were technically possible, it was expected to require enormous funds and time, leading to repeated discussions between US government agencies and scientists. Two expectations of benefits pushed the human genome decoding forward. One was the possibility that understanding of hereditary diseases would deepen and research toward treatment would leap forward. The other was the belief that the effects of radioactive substances on the human body could be more accurately understood. Thus, by the end of the 1980s, the policy for implementing the Human Genome Project was solidified, and final adjustments were made by welcoming James Watson, who revealed the double-helix structure of DNA, as the first director.

It was Watson himself who publicly stated that ELSI considerations needed to be made in conjunction with the implementation of the Human Genome Project. According to those involved at the time, there was no internal coordination whatsoever before he expressed such views to the mass media. It could be said to be one example of how the spontaneous words and actions of a single scientist moved history.

Of course, it was not without foreshadowing. During the discussions on the implementation of the Human Genome Project in the 1980s, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), an agency of the US Congress, and the National Research Council (NRC), an agency of the National Academy of Sciences, each investigated the significance and challenges of implementing the project and summarized their findings in reports. Those reports also mentioned various concerns surrounding human genetics research, including eugenic thought. The existence of these reports was known to members of Congress who held budgetary authority, and taking some form of action regarding such concerns was likely essential to obtaining budget approval for the project.

Thus, at Watson's suggestion, ELSI considerations were pursued simultaneously in the Human Genome Project. In fact, 3% of the total budget of the Human Genome Project was allocated to the ELSI research program that was established.

The Human Genome Project, which began in 1990 with the goal of finishing by 2003—exactly 50 years after the discovery of the DNA double-helix structure—was allocated a massive budget in the United States alone. Although it was only 3%, the budget for the ELSI research program was substantial considering the size of the total budget. For this reason, critical voices were raised regarding what kind of results were obtained from it.

Above all, Watson, the proposer, did not have a clear image of what the ELSI research program should tackle. The various concerns raised by the OTA and NRC in their reports were primarily related to human genetics research, and it is even possible that Watson, a biochemist, did not fully understand the details. While the reports discussed ethical concerns and social impacts, as well as the need for legal frameworks, they did not treat them collectively under the term "ELSI." For Watson, the "ethical, legal, and social implications" of the Human Genome Project were likely nothing more than the parts other than the scientific and technical aspects that the scientists participating in the project primarily worked on—in other words, an "other" category.

That is precisely why the ELSI research program was implemented as a grant-based research program. Since there was no clear image, it was difficult to specify the content of research to be implemented top-down, and interested researchers were required to propose research topics to be addressed bottom-up. For Watson, the fact that such a research program was being implemented was of great significance in itself, regardless of the specific content of the considerations.

Watson resigned from his position as director in the early stages of the Human Genome Project, but the ELSI research program continued under his successor, Francis Collins. A variety of research topics were handled, from educational content about heredity to counseling methods for genetic testing and even the issue of genetic discrimination. However, due to the lack of overall cohesion, many questioned its results. Nevertheless, Collins, who was a geneticist, seemed to understand the importance of the research topics being addressed better than Watson, and there is no doubt that the existence of the research program contributed to the development of human resources to tackle such issues. As mentioned earlier, the seeds Watson coincidentally sowed ended up having a major impact on subsequent R&D in science and technology both domestically and internationally.

If ELSI considerations in the Human Genome Project were one attempt to make the best decisions as a society regarding rapidly developing science and technology, it is important to scrutinize their content and refine them into more desirable methods. By doing so, our discussions on the ELSI considerations we should undertake for science and technology should also move forward.

Among the criticisms directed at the ELSI research program, a particularly important one is that no clear pathway was secured for it to influence the Human Genome Project. Regardless of the content of the issues addressed in the ELSI research program, the Human Genome Project proceeded as originally planned. Given the background of the program's launch as a form of "venting" to enable the implementation of the Human Genome Project, this could be seen as a natural consequence. Watson, the proposer, likely never considered it necessary for incidental efforts regarding "other" aspects to influence the research activities dealing with the scientific and technical aspects of the project. However, from the perspective of an attempt to make societal decisions about science and technology, this criticism—that the discussions held have no substantial influence on the target scientific research—points to a serious flaw.

In fact, in subsequent discussions in the United States, there has been a demand for the results of ELSI considerations to be appropriately reflected in the R&D of the target science and technology. This is clearly shown in national-level research projects on nanotechnology, which began in 2003, and synthetic biology, which started a few years later.

However, this is by no means easy. The style of the ELSI research program realized in the Human Genome Project assumes a division of labor between researchers working on science and technology and researchers working on the "others." This is because, while targeting the same science and technology, the two were thought to handle essentially different aspects, requiring different expertise. In the late 1950s, a figure named C.P. Snow pointed out in a lecture titled "The Two Cultures" the problem that researchers in the sciences and humanities had formed their own unique cultures, leading to the loss of creative opportunities where the two intersect. These separated efforts now had to be connected with clear intent.

The challenges caused by such a division of labor recall the process by which the history of science was established as an academic field. Even before the history of science formed a single academic system, it was not as if no one was interested in the history of science. Rather, looking back at the scientific knowledge presented up to that point should have been an important part of scientific research in order to move science forward. However, once it came to be regarded as an independent academic field with different expertise, the history of science became separated from scientific research. As a result, efforts to connect the two through university education and other means were required more than ever before.

If an unfortunate friction is occurring between scientists and researchers in the humanities and social sciences while pursuing ELSI considerations of science and technology, as mentioned at the beginning, it is deeply related to the historical trend of trying to clarify the roles each should play in relation to their division of labor—that is, their expertise.

If you try to divide roles, the possibility of things falling through the cracks increases, and above all, connecting the two is essential for us to face science and technology, requiring effort to that end. Such efforts exceed the scope of the roles given in the initial division of labor, and in that sense, is it not natural for frustration with the other party to grow? In recent years, proposals to overcome the division of labor have been made by both scientists and researchers in the humanities and social sciences, which seems to be a welcome development. It is, so to speak, an attitude of promoting collaboration between both sides for the healthy development of science and technology by daring to accept "ambiguity."

On the other hand, it is also true that there are voices calling for further division of labor. A typical example is the argument that the lack of clarity regarding what ELSI considerations of science and technology should specifically do is a problem, and that within ELSI, ethics and law—which correspond to specific academic fields—should first be left to ethicists and lawyers, who are the respective experts. Such an argument means glossing over the challenges that those experts could not handle with the remaining word "social" and entrusting the solution to someone else. This is exactly the same structure as when Watson tried to address the implementation of the Human Genome Project by making the scientific and technical aspects the domain of scientists and consolidating the "other" aspects into the framework of ELSI.

If the meaning of science and technology has changed over the past 30 years, it may be due to the fact that the role of scientists as experts has been limited to the specific activity of scientific research. As a result, while it has become difficult for other experts to be involved in scientific research, a twisted situation seems to have arisen where the involvement of other experts must be expanded for the sake of connection with society.

In the last few years, we have more opportunities to hear the phrase "opening up science." This carries the meaning of diversifying the points of contact between people and science and not making science something that belongs only to scientists. Similarly, is it not important to make efforts so that ELSI considerations do not belong only to experts in the humanities and social sciences, but allow everyone to join the discussion?