Nadja Tollemache opened the session by suggestion of precautious uses of genetic engineering technology. Then she raised the question ‘is ban on GMO appropriate?' and concerns on the cost of scientific access. Finally, the public should get accurate and unbiased information to make decision.
Dr Banpot Napompeth, as a co-chair of the session, gave the general background on GMO and its regulation. Good governance instruments for GMOs have come in several levels from International, Regional, National and Institutional regulations. The last two levels of regulations are the most important as they serve the needs of local public community. He finally concluded his remark by stating the recommendations by Nuffield Council on Bioethics, UK, which may be applied to other countries that
• GM technology should be maintained and developed
• An advisory committee should be established to consider scientific, ethical issues and public values
• Not enough evidence to justify a moratorium on GM crop research, field trials or limited release of GMOs into the environment
• GMO-FFPs, that have been evaluated for food safety, are safe for human consumption
The speaker, Dr. Sakarindr Bhumiratana, the President of NSTDA, divided ethical paradigm into 3 classes: 1) Consequentialist Ethics, 2) Ethics of Autonomy/Consent and 3) Ethic of Virtue/Tradition. Consequentialist perception on agricultural biotechnology emphasizes on promotion of people needs and preferences. Depending on how the question is raised, if the question is whether this technology has an economical impact, the answer is usually that it does. However, if the question is whether it has an impact on the environment, the answer may be ‘yes' or ‘no' depending on the nature of each GM crop. Therefore, each GMO needs to be considered on the case-by-case basis. Dr. Sakarindr described ethics of Autonomy and consent on the uses of GM technology by emphasizing on the right of public to access unbiased information in order to make decision. It is also important for public to have alternatives whether to choose GMOs or not. The last paradigm on ethic is virtue/tradition that the way of life and real human values should not be affected by GMOs. Dr. Sakarindr finally suggested tools to balance all three points of ethical arguments, which are 1) Risk assessment, 2) Regulation and 3) Communication.
Mathias Kaiser, the Director of NENT, Norway, gave agreeing comments that a general ban on GMOs is not a solution and is even unethical in some cases. He also agreed that assessment of GMOs should be conducted on a case-by-case and step-by-step basis. He also mentioned that the consequences of GMOs utilization in a long run are more important than the nature of the technology itself. Finally, he emphasized that all parties, especially scientists, should establish an adequate framework to represent scientific uncertainty.
Dr. Banpot closed the session by encouraging on more activities, which support the capacity building and public education to improve public understanding on GMOs.