At the beginning of the new century, no technology has a greater capacity to generate complex emotions and excite the imagination than biotechnology, as people grapple with the hopes and fears sparked by developments in the field.
The varieties of -- and terminology associated with -- biotechnology alone are impressive enough: "genetic chip," "DNA fingerprinting," "gene screening," "genetic test," "gene therapy," "gene improvement," "gene map," "gene order," "designer babies," "cloned animals" and "genetic food." The list goes on.
Biotechnology and the products of genetic engineering are everywhere and are utterly bewildering.
Although scientists all welcome the benefits that biotechnology can potentially bring to society and are optimistically embracing the technology, many people are confused and worried because of the high degree of uncertainty associated with the technology.
Sensationalist media coverage has also meant that many people unfamiliar with biotechnology feel terribly remote from the mysterious phenomenon conjured up by the media.
In today's society, biotechnology is only one of many cutting-edge technologies. It is a technology, however, which is controversial because it touches on some extremely sensitive aspects of society and threatens some key human values.
To its opponents, biotechnology has encroached upon and disturbed the sanctity and wholeness of life. Since it is a technology which actually seeks to influence the human evolutionary process, for some people, it violates the laws of God and defies nature.
Indeed, biotechnology has been criticized for "playing God."
To its supporters, biotechnology has the potential to expand medical possibilities, by strengthening the effectiveness of therapies, improving health, or helping infertile couples to have babies. Since it has the potential to bring us so many advantages, its supporters say, it is a risk worth taking.
The use of such a technology has many implications for society and requires public debate. Given the unfamiliar and highly sophisticated nature of the technology, however, can a debate on the issue be one in which the public can easily participate?
Today, many organizations and individuals have already taken sides on the issue in order to influence public opinion.
What is worrisome is that those involved in the debate often fail to keep an open mind and to communicate with each other on the basis of facts and reason. Once the opponents of the technology confront those in favor, communication between them soon degenerates into a fight between competing ideologies.
Such crass debates do not inspire the public, instead they may tend to confuse people. Fortunately, as far as I can see, such chaos has not yet occurred in Taiwan.
To avoid being trapped in the chaos of such false communication, we should enhance the public's right to know and participate in the development of biotechnology.
Meanwhile, we should encourage experts and scholars to promote civil education in modern technologies and establish courses in the field in schools and local communities. We should also encourage research into the ethical, social, and legal aspects of biotech-nology.
The proactive generation of the infrastructure of a "technological civil society" (
RSS