The scientific advances of the 18 th , 19 th , and 20 th century can be matched by human rights developments during the same period – despite occasional severe setbacks caused by wars.
The 18 th century saw the adoption of the American Bill of Rights in 1789-1791 and the adoption by the French of the Declaration of Rights in 1789 and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen in 1793. During the 19 th century slavery was abolished in Great Britain in 1833, in France in 1848, and undertaken to be abolished by the signatory nations of the General Act and Declaration of Brussels in1890.
In the 20 th century – despite the serious setbacks of the two World Wars and numerous regional and civil conflicts - a plethora of international human rights declarations, conventions, covenants and charters were introduced by the League of Nations, the United Nations and other bodies and regional groupings. The Covenant of the League of Nations (1919) provided for the protection of colonial peoples subjected to mandated rule after the end of the First World War. The League also introduced the Slavery Convention of 1926 to extend the work of the Brussels Act, while the International Labour Organisation outlawed forced labour.
The United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations, introduced a large number of human rights declarations and covenants during the 20 th century, the most important of which are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979), and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Some of these documents have been strengthened by optional protocols. There are also regional human rights instruments such as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950); the American Convention on Human Rights (1969); the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (1981); the Arab Charter on Human Rights (1994); and the Commonwealth of Independent States Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1995); some of which have enacted additional conventions, charters and protocols.
This paper deals with human rights, science and ethics, and the link between ethical principles and science and how such ethical principles relate to human rights in the context of science. The ‘Georgetown' classification of the principles of biomedical ethics has been selected as a useful tool to apply to human rights and science.
The Georgetown classification of ethical principles suggests four categories: (a) autonomy, (b) beneficence, (c) non-maleficence, and (d) justice. Each of these will be considered in the context of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and science.
• Autonomy
The principle of autonomy recognises the rights of individuals and societies to make decisions about themselves. It is reflected, for example, in the UDHR in the articles dealing with life, liberty and security; privacy; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. When applied to science autonomy refers to the duty of scientists to respect the rights of individuals and communities to make decisions about themselves.
The application of the principle of autonomy to science means that there is a duty on scientists to respect the freedom of individuals and societies to make decisions about themselves – whether as subjects or beneficiaries of scientific research. For instance, where research is conducted on human subjects a proper informed consent must be obtained from them and they should not be exposed to perverse incentives to encourage them to participate (e.g. paid remuneration rather than compensation). Furthermore, subjects who participate in human genome or other research have the right to have their privacy respected – unless they consent to disclosure. Likewise, people who buy fruit, vegetables or grains have the right to know which crops have been subjected to genetic modification, particularly where animal genes have been used, as this may have significant religious or cultural implications.
• Beneficence
The principle of beneficence recognizes the duty to do good for individuals and society. For example, it is reflected in the UDHR in the references to the rights to an effective remedy and an adequate standard of living. When applied to science it refers to the duty of scientists to do good for individuals and society.
The application of the principle of beneficence to science means that scientific studies and their practical implementation should be done for the good of human kind. For example, when the products of science harm individuals or societies,(eg. as happened during the Thalidamide drug disaster in England, or the Union Carbide catastrophe in Bhopal, India), adequate compensation should be paid to the injured individuals and their families. Governments must put in place mechanisms to ensure that the victims of such scientific tragedies are given effective remedies.
A good example of beneficence by science has been the improvements in sanitation, water purification and disease prevention that have drastically reduced mortality rates over the centuries in the developed world. Such measures need to be increased in the developing world to ensure that its citizens attain a similar adequate standard of living.
An emerging, but controversial, area of scientific research that may have major future benefits for humanity is stem cell research.
• Non-maleficence
The principle of non-maleficence recognizes the duty not to harm individuals or societies. For example, the principle can be found in the provisions of the UDHR that deal with the rights to freedom from discrimination and freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The application of the principle of non-maleficence to science means that scientists should not harm individuals or societies. For example, scientists must not conduct discriminatory biological experiments aimed at harming particular race or ethnic groups, as occurred in Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa. Likewise, subjects of scientific research should not be exposed to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as occurred in both these countries. The products of science should also not lead to inhuman treatment, for instance the development of chemical weapons (eg.the use of mustard gas during the First World War), and weapons of mass destruction (eg. the atom bombs dropped on Japan during the Second World War). The same applies to the experiments conducted by the Japanese Imperial Army regarding frostbite, pressure chambers, vivisection and biological warfare in Manchuria during World War Two.
• Justice
The principle of justice recognises that individuals and societies should be treated equally and fairly. This is reflected, for example in the provisions of the UDHR that deal with equality in dignity and rights, and the fact that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms in the UDHR without distinction and that everyone is equal before the law and should not be discriminated against.
The application of the principle of justice means that scientists should treat individuals equally and fairly. There should be no place in science for pseudo-scientific practices such as eugenics that sought to classify people according to race for political purposes to maintain racial purity and superiority in the United States, Nazi Germany and South Africa. Scientists should not be involved in programmes that distinguish people in order to prevent them from entitlement to all the rights and freedoms in the UDHR. This was done during the segregationist years in the United States, the Nazi era in Germany, and the apartheid period in South Africa, when scientists were involved in developing race classification criteria to support legally sanctioned racial discrimination.
Scientists should use the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice as their guidelines when conducting research or allowing the fruits of their research to impact on individuals and societies.
If the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice are followed by all scientists their conduct will be consistent with international human rights norms and standards.
If these ethical principles are followed by scientists living in democratic countries their conduct will also be consistent with their countries' constitutional imperatives and legal requirements.
*B Comm LLB (Natal) LLM (London) Ph D (Natal), Advocate of the High Court of South Africa, James Scott Wylie Professor of Law University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa and President of the Commonwealth Legal Education Association.
American Bill of Rights (1789-1791).
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1793).
General Act and Declaration of Brussels (1890).
Covenant of the League of Nations (1919) Article 22.
Slavery Convention (1926) Preamble.
Convention Concerning Forced Labour (1930) Article 1.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966).
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979).
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950).
American Convention on Human Rights (1969).
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (1981).
Arab Charter on Human Rights (1994).
Commonwealth of Independent States Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1995).
Tom L Beauchamp & James F Childress Principles of Biomedical Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press, 3 ed. 1989.
See generally Beauchamp & Childress 67-113.
See generally Judith Areen, Patricia A King, Steven Goldberg, Lawrence Gostin & Alexander Morgan Capron Law, Science and Medicine , New York: Foundation Press, 2 ed 1996 1041.
For international ethical principles governing research see the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (1964), as amended.
Generally on the ethical problems concerning the human genome project see Kennedy I & Grubb A, Medical Law: Text with Materials , London: Butterworths, 2 ed. 1994, 4-8; Areen et al 1-31.
See generally Beauchamp & Childress 194-249.
Cf Charles Marwick ‘Funding stem cell research' 281 JAMA 692 (1999).
See generally Beauchamp & Childress 120-184.
See Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10 , 1949; cf Areen et al 993-100; Kennedy & Grubb 1011-1024.
See generally Jerome Amir Singh The Biological Manipulation of the Human Species in Southern Africa by Means of Chemical and Biological Weaponry – Medico-Legal Implications , Durban: Unpublished Ph D Thesis, University of Natal, 2002.
See generally, Sheldon H Harris Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare 1932-45, and the American Cover –up , London: Routledge 1994.