When science and ethics collide
Science is sometimes too disconnected from society’s values and beliefs, says new centre director

by Patty Pitts

In a world filled with conflicting philosophies, ethnic strife, and bombastic marketing, scientific research is often seen as a cool, calming voice of reason. But increasingly the soothing, seemingly objective results of painstaking research are being given a collective cold shoulder by a once-receptive public.

The new director of UVic’s Centre for Studies in Religion and Society thinks he knows why.

“Whose values are being used to guide the research?” asks Dr. Conrad Brunk. “Governments look to science for advice because it’s seen as value-neutral, the perfect fit for a pluralistic society. But it’s evident that science often isn’t value-neutral, and if value judgments are being made, shouldn’t they be transparent and open?”

The porous point between personal values and beliefs and scientific research has been the focus of Brunk’s work for the past decade. A former philosophy professor and dean of Conrad Grebel University College at the University of Waterloo before coming to UVic, he sees his research interests dovetailing perfectly with the goals of the centre.

“The centre’s interest is in the intersection of science and religion,” says Brunk. “We live in a society in which most people’s values are rooted in some sort of religious tradition, even if they no longer practise that tradition. The religious component of these issues is very important. How should a democratic, pluralistic society negotiate these issues? Why should values with a religious base have less political weight?”

Brunk’s ability to peel back the veneer of scientific objectivity to reveal the sometimes conflicting values that influence research results has led to his participation on several international and national committees advising government on thorny regulatory issues. He’s co chair of the Royal Society of Canada’s expert panel on the future of food biotechnology and was recently appointed to the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee.

To illustrate how differing values can produce wildly divergent scientific results and subsequent public scorn, he refers to a book he co-authored analysing a dispute over the delicensing of a chemical pesticide.

“The government scientists thought the risk was a million times higher than the risk reported by the industry scientists. Each side followed a different set of values that influenced the handling of various uncertainties in the science. Do you base the result on the farmers who follow the pesticide use directions and use protective clothing or do you base your results on those who don’t, knowing that 90 per cent of the farmers don’t use protective clothing.

“Do you err on the side of human health or the health of the agricultural economy?”

Clearly, there are no simple solutions but, says Brunk, scientists persist on trying to provide simple, sweeping answers to an increasingly skeptical public.

“Scientists don’t like to say what they don’t know. They feel that the public can only tolerate a ‘zero risk’ message.” Brunk argues that scientists don’t give the public enough credit to handle more nuanced information. “The scientific community is beginning to understand that it has to translate its results better.”

At the centre, Brunk will continue his research into the way science is used to deal with health and environmental issues. He’s interested in how values are embedded in research procedure and committed to ensuring those values reflect the ones held by society.

He’s not a complete stranger to the Sedgewick Building. He first came to campus for six months in 1997 as a research fellow to work on an article on the court-ordered settlement by Dow Corning following allegations of illnesses caused by its silicone breast implants. He’s also participated in past centre projects involving restorative justice and the ethics involved in the various fisheries on Canada’s coasts.

Brunk describes coming to UVic “to be paid to do what I love to do” as an exciting challenge. He says he finds the natural environment of Vancouver Island “breathtaking. It’s mystical to me. Every morning I stand on the balcony of my home and say ‘I can’t believe I live in this place.’”