MALIM Bil.

10 (2009) 1

Modern Biotechnology:
Ethical Issues, Ethical Principles and Guidelines

LATIFAH AMIN

ABSTRAK

Bioteknologi moden telah menimbulkan kontroversi yang hebat di seluruh

dunia. Bantahan utama merupakan kemungkinan kesan buruknya kepada
kesihatan manusia, alam sekitar dan status ketidakaslian teknologi DNA
rekombinan. Prinsip umum etika adalah menghargai benda-benda hidup
dan perlunya terdapat keseimbangan antara faedah dan kesan buruk akibat
sebarang campur tangan manusia ke atas alam kehidupan. Keputusan yang
berasaskan etika perlu mengambil kira dua jenis pengadilan: fakta
(berdasarkan bukti-bukti saintifik dan teori) dan etika (berdasarkan teori-
teori falsafah moral yang bersesuaian). Sains cuba memahami apa yang
berlaku di dunia ini terutamanya hubungan sebab-akibat yang membentuk
kehidupan sementara etika berkaitan dengan apa yang patut kita buat atau
sebaliknya. Prinsip-prinsip etika menyediakan garis panduan untuk menilai
perlaksanaan sesuatu dasar. Penentuan mengenai apa yang sepatutnya
dilaksanakan akan dibuat setelah menimbang faedah sesuatu teknologi seperti
kejuruteraan genetik berbanding kemungkinan bahayanya. Walau bagaimana
pun, sebarang keputusan berasaskan etika yang melibatkan modifikasi
genetik telah terbukti amat mencabar kerana melibatkan begitu banyak aspek
kehidupan yang merangkumi aspek individu, perubatan, alam sekitar, politik,
perniagaan, haiwan, etika saintifik dan juga agama. Dalam kertas ini isu-isu
bioteknologi moden, prinsip etika yang bersesuaian dan garis panduan
bagaimana menangani isu-isu etika bioteknologi moden akan dibincangkan.

INTRODUCTION

Scientists have used biotechnology for centuries to enhance the production,

availability and quality of food and medicine. Some conventional biotechnology
techniques that has been documented for decades includes the use of
microorganism in fermentation to make bread, wine or applying rennin to make
cheese (Propst 1996; FAO 2001). However within recent times, the development
of modern biotechnology has involved powerful new techniques better known
MALIM Bil. 10 (2009) 2
as Molecular Biology that allows scientists to tackle the previous goals with
more finesse and speed such as recombinant DNA and genetic engineering, cell
fusion, bioprocess and structurally-based molecular design. Given that the
technology is new, has immense potential, is rapidly developing, and can be
applied to all living beings, it can be used for beneficial purposes but there are
also risks (Macer 2006). It is a sophisticated technology that needs advanced
laboratory facilities and particular environmental conditions that require
investment. Modern biotechnology has been particularly successfully used
and applied in food, agriculture, medicine and pharmacy.
Because modern biotechnology is still considered as a new technology
and the advancement in these areas have been so rapid, it has been the object of
some doubts, fears, concerns as well as an intense and divisive debate worldwide
on the potential risks to human health, the environment and society. Modern
biotechnology has been classified as a complex emerging issue that exhibits
high salience combined with limited knowledge on part of the public. Jacques
Diouf, the FAO Director-General, in the foreword of the FAO Ethic Series (FAO
2001), mentioned that technological advances and organizational changes
affecting food and agriculture systems over the past years have been both
radical and rapid; their repercussions, however, will be felt for a long time to
come and, in many cases, the consequences may be irreversible. Science
continues to broaden our horizons, offering us new options that invariably give
rise to controversy. The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
into the environment has become highly controversial worldwide. Many
consumer, environmental groups and some scientists (Bernauer & Meins 2001;
Regal 1994; Ho 1998/1999; Fagan 2000) have voiced strong concerns over the
immediate and long term effects of GMOs on human health and environment.
Broader social, ethical, religious, and economic issues associated with
biotechnology has also been raised (Thompson 1997; BABAS 1999). According
to Batalion (2000), the central problem underlying biotechnology is not just its
short-term benefits and long term drawbacks, but the overall attempt to ‘control’
living nature on an erroneous mechanistic view. We as human have conscience
and religious belief. Many religions do not allow unrestricted interference with
life such as genetic engineering (Epstein 1998). The pace of discovery in genetic-
based biotechnology is very rapid and there is anxiety that a kind of technological
compulsion (‘if we can do it, let’s do it’) will drive developments ahead of proper
ethical consideration of their propriety (Polkinghorn 2000). In this paper several
ethical issues related to modern biotechnology, key ethical principles and
guidelines on how to address the ethical issues related to modern biotechnology
will be discussed.
MALIM Bil. 10 (2009) 3

ETHICAL ISSUES

Basic categories of moral or ethical concerns regarding modern biotechnology

fall into two classes: intrinsic and extrinsic (Comstock 2000; Hamid 2000).

EXTRINSIC CONCERNS

Extrinsic objection refers to the concerns regarding the application of the

technologies such as the possible risks of different application of biotechnology,
consumer’s right and patenting issues. All these issues need to be addressed
as they have far-reaching consequences on the safety of human, environment
and society.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

GMOs are ‘novel’ products which have the potential to reduce or change nature’s
biodiversity (BABAS 1999; Phillips 1994; Third World Network 1995) or to upset
the balance of nature perhaps in unintended ways (FAO 2001). For example, the
environmentalists are concerned about the possibility of GM crops having
herbicide or insecticide resistance to cross-pollinate with wild or related species,
and unintentionally create hard-to-eradicate super-weeds respectively (Hails
2000; Kaiser 1999). There is also concern on the possibility of horizontal gene
transfer of transgenic DNA and the potential to create new viruses and bacteria
that cause diseases (Hails 2000; Phillips 1994; Ho 1998/1999). Certain genetic
alteration in animal or plant pathogens have led to enhance virulence and
increased resistance to pesticides and antibiotics (NAS 1987) and the potential
of GMOs to harm non-target organisms have been reported (Hails 2000; Goldberg
& Tjaden 1990; Ho 1998/1999).
On the other hand, the producers of GMOs claimed that their products
did not harm the environment but the fact that the risk assessment studies were
carried out by those with vested interests, the results have been questioned. At
the moment, the focus of scientists everywhere has been on the development of
new biotechnology products. Little efforts have been spent on independent
risk assessment studies other than those carried out by the producers. There is
a need for more comprehensive and long term studies on the impact of GMOs on
the environment.
MALIM Bil. 10 (2009) 4
SOCIOECONOMY

The social impacts of biotechnology in agriculture and food production have

been classified into three major categories (Thompson 1997; BABAS 1999):

1. Impacts on small farms. The most debated ethical issue in this context
concerns the possibility of market monopoly by big companies and
threatening the survival of small farms.
2. Impacts on the economies of developing countries. Many authors
have forecast serious impacts on rural economies of the developing
countries with a redistribution of benefits from small to large and better-
off farmers, according to the same pattern predicted for the
industrialized world.
3. Impact on scientific community. Many authors have predicted that
increasing commercialization of science would shift the focus of research
from publicly beneficial objectives to more profitable corporate activities.
These raised ethical concerns about scientific purity, the social function
of science and public trusts in scientists (Thompson 1997). However,
these concerns are not restricted to food biotechnology.

Some of these concerns have become realities. It is common knowledge

that most of the commercialized GM crops were dominated by a few giant
companies based in developed countries and many scientists are receiving
grants from industries. These situations need to addressed by governing
bodies at the international and national levels to make sure the benefits of
modern biotechnology products be made accessible to all regardless of economic
status and the scientific purity of research is maintained.

SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTIES

Scientists do not agree about the possible consequences of genetic engineering

to ecosystems, health and environment (van Dommelen 1999) while several
others have acknowledged the possible risks of GMOs to human health and
environment (Fagan 2000; Manual for Assessing Ecological & Human Health
of Genetically Modified Organisms 1998; Ho 2001). Some analysts have also
recognized the inadequacies of scientific risk assessment as a mean of predicting
and assessing the likely consequences of new technologies (Van Dommeln
1996; Wynne 1992; Stirling 2000). According to Wynne (2002), the
institutionalized expressions of the precautionary principle explicitly
accommodate recognition of scientific uncertainty as a problem - ‘where there is
MALIM Bil. 10 (2009) 5
scientific uncertainty, the precautionary principle may be applied’ (UK
Government 2001). This principle recognize the possible need to intervene to
protect the environment or health in cases when there is scientific uncertainty
about the harmful effects of whatever process in question. This is because the
‘theoretical harm’ of GMOs release into the environment, if it did occur, would
be very extensive, perhaps delayed, costly and difficult or impossible to remedy
(Heinemann 1997; Ho 1998/1999; Epstein 1998).
Looking at the endless divisive debate and limited independent
information on the safety of GMOs worldwide, these scientific uncertainties are
real and need to be addressed in a realistic manner. This can be done by first of
all acknowledging the existence of scientific uncertainties followed by giving
independent risk assessment studies the same priority as product development
studies.

CONSUMER’S RIGHT TO FOOD SAFETY AND INFORMATION

Basic consumer claims concerning GM food are about the rights to health to be
informed and to choose (BABAS 1999). The first one refers to food safety and
the right of consumers to have their health protected from possible hazards
derived from eating GM food. Three main areas of concerns area: toxicity,
allergenicity and nutritional value. The second issue is the right of consumers
to know the information about the foods offered to them (mainly the natural or
GM character of food products and their composition) so that they can make an
informed choice. This freedom is important because there are food related
religious or cultural belief such as the halal (Muslim dietary rule) and kosher
(Jewish dietary rule) practices, as well as vegetarians.

PATENTING

Some of the issues in patenting of GMOs is that patenting which allows big
corporations to have monopoly of genetically modified plants and animals
violates the sanctity of life (Uzogara 2000). Many critics also oppose the fact
that seeds are now regarded as propriety products, moreover with the ‘terminator
gene’ technology which renders the seeds sterile (Koch 1998). The farmers are
force to buy new seeds each year from multinational companies instead of
sowing seeds from previous years’ harvest.
MALIM Bil. 10 (2009) 6

INTRINSIC CONCERNS

Intrinsic objection alleged that the process of modern biotechnology is

objectionable in itself. This belief is associated with the unnaturalness claim,
changing nature and to play ‘God’. People’s beliefs about nature play a role in
their evaluation of the products of biotechnology (BABAS 1999). They embody
values and prescriptions about what is morally right or wrong to do to the
natural world. The argument is as follows: ‘Nature and all that is natural is
valuable and good in itself; all forms of biotechnology are unnatural in that they
go against and interfere with nature, particularly in the crossing of natural species
boundaries’. In some cases the general moral concerns include a religious
dimension when they are accompanied by an underlying set of religious beliefs
and principles concerning the relationships between God, nature and human
beings (BABAS 1999). The central problem underlying biotechnology is not
just its short term benefits and long term drawbacks, but the overall attempt to
‘control’ living nature on an erroneous mechanistic view (Batalion 2000). Many
religions does not allow unrestricted interference with life such as genetic
engineering (Epstein 1998). In Islam for example, scientific research is encouraged
in order to understand natural phenomenon and the universe, and to observe
the signs of Allah’s glory and ultimately to find the truth (Hajj Mustafa 2001).
However, not everything that is applicable is necessarily applicable, it is
important to consider fully the purpose and any harmful effect towards human,
environment and society and must be in line with the rules of Shari’ah (9th Fiqh-
Medical Seminar 2002; Hajj Mustafa 2000). Issues of halal products and sources
of genes are also important for the Muslims and the second issue, for the
vegetarians too.

KEY ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

There are many ethical traditions or principles proposed by philosophers. Spier

(2002) proposed that ethical traditions can be classified into two broad divisions:
secular and spiritual. The secular (western) division composed of the many
ethical or moral philosophy theories or traditions available while spiritual refers
to the religion. Nicholas (2000) suggested two strand of thinking around ethics
and life sciences: bioethics and environmental ethics. Each strand of thinking
highlights and frame issues in related but different ways.
Majority of philosophers believe that there is no single principle or
tradition that should determine our conduct or the making of policies (Nicholas
2000). More than one approach is needed to deal with the range of issues raised
by genetic modification. The BABAS report by EFB Task Group on Public
MALIM Bil. 10 (2009) 7
Perception of Biotechnology (1999), The Nutfield Council on Bioethics (1999),
Comstock (2000) and Thomas (2001), recommended the use of at least three
different theories to make decision on GMOs related issues. The three most
common theories or principles relevant to GMOs are the rights theory,
utilitarianism and the theory of justice. Nicholas (2000) also suggested the use
of those theories under the bioethics branch. Nutfield Council on Bioethics
(1999), and Thomas (2001) also highlighted the need to consider environmental
ethics as well. Another important principle that should be considered is the
Precautionary Principle that have been incorporated into the Rio Declaration as
Principle 15 and have been rectified by most countries (BABAS 1999; Nutfield
Council on Bioethics 1999). Besides the earlier mentioned theories and principles,
another important tradition that need to be seriously considered is the religious
or spiritual aspects and cultural values of people in certain country (Gunn &
Tudhope 2001; Hamid 2000). Some of the principles which are relevant to GMOs
are described below:

RIGHTS THEORY

The basis of this theory: always act so that you treat human beings as
autonomous individuals, and not as mere means to an end (Comstock 2000). It
refers to the right of an individual to make choices about their own life, and not
to be subjected to the imposition of others. Some of the earlier right theorists are
John Locke and Thomas Jefferson (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Beyleveld and Kinderlerer (1995) suggested the use of the ethical standards in
the international human rights conventions (which are part of international law),
which has been accepted by very widespread consensus worldwide, at the
political or regulatory level. There has been many criticisms of the rights theory
too whereby the common thread is that rights doctrines are in some way
excessively individualistic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

THEORIES OF JUSTICE

Theories of justice such as utilitarian, liberitarian, communitarian or egalitarian

are engaged in various ways with the question of the basis on which to distribute
resources-on the basis of need, effort, contribution, merit, or the free market
(Nicholas 2000). One of the most influential philosopher of the late 20th century
is John Rawls, who develop his theory of justice by using both utilitarian and
liberty principle (Kay 1997). According to Oyeshile (2008), the plausibility of
Rawls' maximin principle lies in the fact that social harmony is indispensible in
MALIM Bil. 10 (2009) 8
maintaining social order. The society has to operate with such principles of
justice that cater for the well being of the less fortunate members of the society.
Oyeshille (2008) further argued that the problems with that principle is not
withstanding but it is a useful axiom for the egalitarian society.

CONSEQUENTIALISM AND UTILITARIANISM

Consequentialism argues that one knows what is the appropriate action, not on
the basis of universal duty, but rather on the basis of the outcomes of one’s
actions (Thomas 2000). This approach is frequently assumed in discussions of
biotechnology, such as those around risk and benefit - it is the consequences of
the use of a biotechnology that are seen as important, rather than any pre-
existing understanding of one’s duty or the appropriateness of maintaining a
given set of relationships. Thus, a consequentialist would not be concerned
with moving genes across species per se, but would judge the appropriateness
of that decision on the basis of the possible or likely outcomes of doing so.
Although consequentilism is one of the most influential moral theories that can
guide our actions, some claim that consequentialism lacks moral values. Mc
Elwee (2009) argued that consequentilism limits itself to claims expressed in
terms of reasons of action or the comparative value of actions, and eschews
altogether the traditional moral categories of wrongness, permissibility and
obligation.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

This principle can be thought of as a simple welfare theory (Nicholas 2000). In

light of the unknown and unpredictable consequences and risks of biotechnology,
opponents argue that regulatory policy should approach biotechnology from
the stance of the precautionary principle. With the precautionary principle as
the default mode of regulation, regulatory policy should evaluate biotechnology
for its human health, animal health, environmental, social, economic, cultural,
ethical, and communitarian impacts (Draft Negotiating Text 1998). In other words,
opponents of biotechnology insist that the regulation of biotechnology be a
technology assessment, not a product regulation.
The precautionary principle has four components while others argue
that the precautionary principle must be strengthened by adding four additional
components (BNA 1999; Kershen 1999):
MALIM Bil. 10 (2009) 9
1. Taking precaution in the face of scientific uncertainty.
2. Exploring alternatives to harmful actions.
3. Placing the burden of proof on proponents of an activity or product
rather than on victims or potential victims of the activity.
4. Using democratic processes to carry out and enforce the principle,
including the public right to informed consent.
5. Precaution must be the default mode of all technological decision
making.
6. Past technological decisions must be re-examined and reformed, if
needed.
7. Precaution demands that the mode of regulation fits the scope of the
threat.
8. Society must identify and accommodate itself to broad patterns in
ecological processes.

I strongly propose that this principle be adopted in the present situation

whereby adequate and independent risk assessments are still limited. If sound,
complete and independent risk assessment studies are fully available in the
future, then the use of this principle can be made optional.

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

Environmental ethics draws deeply on our understandings of ‘nature’ and of

‘creation’, for which every culture has its myths and worldviews (Nicholas,
2000). This is an area where, in contrast to ‘bioethics’, there is a significant and
explicit input from spiritual/ religious traditions. Generally, two broad approaches
of environmental ethics can be discerned (Nicholas 2000). Some approaches are
human-centred; the environment is valued for what it can provide for humans,
and we protect it so that the resources will be there for our use and that of future
generations. In the ecocentric approach, the environment is valued not for what
it can give us, but because it has intrinsic value, separate from any value that we
may give it. This is a position held by some secular environmental movements,
but the same value is expressed in some Christian traditions that see the value of
creation as coming from God, with humans merely custodians of it.
Both the ecocentric and human-centred approaches can accommodate
a position that recognises that humans are not outside the natural world, but are
part of the biosphere, that actions we take that have an impact on the environment
will also affect humans, and that our own health and survival requires us to
attend to the health and sustainability of the planet. This orientation has been
captured in recent decades by the concept of Gaia, which is used both as a
MALIM Bil. 10 (2009) 10
scientific theory and as a spiritual concept. The ethical implications of the Gaia
concept can be interpreted in different ways either as the consequential
imperative that we must care for the environment to ensure our own survival
(which we value), or as the responsibility or duty to care for something entrusted
to our care or over which we have some power, and of which we are a part.

RELIGION

The spiritual division refers to religion or the belief of individual or people.

Kershen (1999) emphasized that the acceptance and success of biotechnology
will be based on the ideological beliefs and the cultural values adopted by
individual human beings who, in turn will shape societal beliefs and values.
There are principles or guidelines on how should we live and what is the right
thing to do in most religions. In Islam for example, the sources of rules are first
and foremost is the al-Qur’an, followed by the sunnah or hadith (traditions of
the Prophet Muhammad) (Hamid 2000). In facing a problem that is not answered
in a straightforward manner by earlier two sources, ijma’ (consensus) have to be
sought collectively from the views of mujtahid (Muslim jurists who are competent
enough to deduce precise inferences regarding the commandment from the al-
Qur’an and sunnah). The use of Qawaid Fiqhiyyah (Islamic Legal Maxim) to
achieve the syariah’s objective is also useful and relevant to strengthen the
earlier verdict (Mohamad Akram 2006).

ADDRESSING ETHICAL ISSUES OF MODERN

BIOTECHNOLOGY

Ethically justifiable conclusions depend on two kinds of judgements: factual

(based on scientific evidence and theories), and ethical (based on the best
available moral philosophy theories) (Comstock 2000; Thomas 2001). Decisions
on what is right to do will be made after balancing the benefits of a technology
like genetic engineering with its potential harms. However, ethical decisions
concerning genetic modification has proved to be very challenging because it
brings together so many ethical aspects of our life that include personal, medical,
environmental, political, business, animal and scientific ethics besides religion.
A method for addressing ethical issues related to modern
biotechnology as recommended by Comstock (2000) with several modifications
is suitable for use in Malaysia. He suggested working methodically through a
series of questions:
MALIM Bil. 10 (2009) 11
WHAT IS THE HARM ENVISAGED?

Describe briefly (a) the harm or potential harm; (b) who are the stakeholders,
that is, all of the persons and non-persons (animals, ecosystems, other nonhuman
entities) who may be harmed; (c) the extent to which these stakeholders will be
harmed; and (d) the distribution of harms (are those at risk of being harmed the
same or different from those who may benefit?).
A technology is acceptable if it creates an acceptable set of
consequences for every member of society (Fischhoff 1999). So in order to
determine acceptable risk-benefit tradeoffs, it may be useful to ask or survey a
properly chosen sample of citizens to study their attitude and acceptance towards
the tradeoffs. The Malaysian stakeholders in the Klang Valley for example were
more supportive of GM palm oil (modified to reduce its saturated fat) and GM
insulin compared to GM soybean (resistant to herbicide) (Latifah et al. 2009). In
Islam, the analysis of risk-benefit related to modern biotechnology is provided
under the Maqasid Syariah principle.

WHAT INFORMATION DO WE HAVE?

Sound ethical judgments go hand-in-hand with thorough understanding of the

scientific facts. In a given case, we may need to ask: (a) Is the scientific information
about harm being presented reliable, or is it fact, hearsay, or opinion? (b) What
information do we not know that we should know before making the decision?
In the case of modern biotechnology products, there is limited
information on their safety. This scenario stresses the need for more balanced
approach by scientists and governments in giving equal importance to
independent risk assessment studies besides product development.

WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS?

In assessing the various courses of action, emphasize creative problem-solving,

seeking to find win-win alternatives in which everyone’s interests are protected.
Here we must identify (a) what objectives each stakeholder wants to obtain; (b)
how many methods are available by which to achieve those objectives; (c) what
are the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative?
In case of conflict between several options, Josephson Institute (Svatos
2000) recommended that the option which presents an ethical value (such as
trustwortiness, respectful, responsible, fair, caring, civic virtue) is chosen
compared to non-ethical values (such as money, power). For example, the
MALIM Bil. 10 (2009) 12
company Pioneer Hi-Breed has chosen an ethical option by withdrawing its
products, GM peanuts (which contain a gene from Brazilnut) which has been
found to be allergenic despite having invested much money on the development
of the GM peanuts (Nordlee et al. 1996).

WHAT ETHICAL PRINCIPLES SHOULD GUIDE US?

Since ethical theorists are divided about which theories is best, and each principle
has its own strengths and weaknesses, I agree with the suggestion by Comstock
(2000) to use at least three most common principles relevant to modern
biotechnology, one by one. Should all three principles converge on the same
conclusion, then there is good reason to think that the conclusion is morally
justifiable.
However, I strongly recommended the use of additional theories/
principles such as environmental ethics as highlighted by the Nutfield Council
on Bioethics (1999) and Thomas (2001), and the Precautionary Principle (BABAS
1999; Nutfield Council on Bioethics 1999). I also strongly agree with the
proposition by Gunn and Tudhope (2001) and Hamid (2000) that the religious or
spiritual aspects and cultural values of people need to be seriously considered
especially in multi-ethnic and multi-religion country such as Malaysia.
In Malaysia since the majority of the citizens are Muslims and the
official religion is Islam, Divine law should be used as the moral basis for law and
society (Hamid 2000; Majdah 2001). The prohibitory status of modern
biotechnology applications should be studied case by case and in line with the
Islamic principles. In Islam, the sources of rules are first and foremost is the al-
Qur’an, followed by the sunnah or hadith (traditions of the Prophet Muhammad)
(Hamid 2000). In facing a problem that is not answered in a straightforward
manner by earlier two sources, ijma’ (consensus) have to be sought collectively
from the views of mujtahid (Muslim jurists who are competent enough to deduce
precise inferences regarding the commandment from the al-Qur’an and sunnah).
The last source of guideline for the Muslims is aq’il (reasoning). Issues of halal
is also very important for Muslims (BABAS 1999). The acceptance of modern
biotechnology applications by other major religions in Malaysia such as Buddha,
Hindu and Christian should also be considered.

HOW DO WE REACH MORAL CLOSURE?

Does the decision we have reached allows all stakeholders either to participate
in the decision or to have their views represented? If a compromise solution is
MALIM Bil. 10 (2009) 13
deemed necessary in order to manage otherwise intractable differences, has the
compromise been reached in ways that has allowed all interested parties to have
their interests articulated, understood, and considered? If so, then the decision
is justifiable on ethical grounds.
For example before the start of large scale production of a biotechnology
product or even better at the product development stage in Malaysia, the views
of relevant stakeholders such as the representatives of the consumers, the
industries, the religious scholars of major religions in Malaysia, policy makers
and the scientists be sought. If all stakeholders agree on a certain decision
whether to support, reject or delay decision for certain valid reasons such as to
gather more information, the relevant authorities in Malaysia have to abide by
the decisions.

CONCLUSION

Modern biotechnology if applied responsibly, have vast potential to benefit

mankind and the environment. At the same time, the speed of genetic change by
genetic engineering may represent a new potential and unexpected impact on
biosphere (FAO 2000). It is not possible to make sweeping generalizations about
modern biotechnology; each application must be fully analyzed on a case-by-
case basis. Through complete and transparent assessments (scientifically and
ethically) of modern biotechnology applications, and recognition of their short
and long term implications towards human, environment and society and
acknowledging scientific uncertainties and taking possible precautionary
measures, only then, the controversies can be less contentious and more
constructive, and the full benefits of modern biotechnology may be maximized.
Ethical guidelines regarding the status of modern biotechnology applications in
Malaysia should be in line with the Islamic principles as well as the consideration
of the acceptance by other major religions in Malaysia.

REFERENCES

BABAS. 1999. Ethical aspects of Agricultural Biotechnology. Report of the EFB

Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology. Cambridge
Biomedical Consultants, The Hague.
Batalion, N. 2000. Harmful effects of genetically modified foods. http://
www.cqs.com/50harm.htm. [27 March 2001].
Bernauer & Meins. 2001. Scientific revolution meets policy and the market:
explaining cross-national differences in agricultural biotechnology
MALIM Bil. 10 (2009) 14
regulation. Frontiers in Biotechnology - Lecture Series, October 12th,
Skerman Building 65, Room S305, University of Queensland, Australia.
Bevleveld, D. & Kinderlerer, J. 1995. About biotechnology, law and ethics. BINAS
News 1 (2): 3-5. http://binas.unido.org/binas/binasnews/i2-95.pdf . [24
April 2002].
Bureau of National Affairs (BNA). 1999. Environmental rules should be based
on precautionary approach, scientists told. Environmental Reporter,
29(38): 1887.
Comstock, G. 2000. Ethics and genetically modified crops. A Brief for the Royal
Commission on Genetic Modification of New Zealand, 8 October 2000.
Draft Negotiating Text of the Biosafety Protocol, Article 14. Risk Assessment,
UNEP/CBD/BSWG/6/2/ (18 Nov. 1998).
Epstein. 1998. Ethical and spiritual issues in genetic engineering. Ahimsa Voices:
a Quarterly Journal for the Promotion of Universal Values, 5(4), Oct.
1998: 6-7.
Fischhoff, B. 1994. Acceptable risk: a conceptual proposal. RISK: Health, Safety
& Environment, No. 5, Winter: 1-28.
FAO. 2001. Genetically modified organisms, consumers, food safety and the
environment. FAO Ethic Series, No. 2. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/
DOCREP/003/X960E/X9602E00.htm. [29 July 2002].
Fagan. [n.d.]. http://www.netlink.de/gen/fagan.html. [21 April 2000].
9th Fiqh-Medical Seminar. http://www.islamset.com/healnews/cloning/view.html.
[2 June 2002].
Gunn, A.S. & Tudhope, K.A. 2001. Genetically modified organisms in the field:
an analysis of the report of the Royal Commission on genetic modification.
Australasian Association of Philosophy (New Zealand Division) Annual
Conference. Auckland, New Zealand.
Hajj Mustafa Ali al-Haydari. 2001. Genetic engineering. http://
www.nuradeen.com/CurrentIssues/GeneticEngineering.htm. [2.6.2002].
Hamid K.Ahmed. 2000. Islamic views on GE.http://member.tripod.com/~ngin/
211.htm. [2 June 2002].
Hails, R.S. 2000.Genetically modified plants - the debate continues. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution 15 (1):14-18.
Heinemann, J.A .1997. Assessing the risk of interkingdom DNA transfer. In:
Nordic seminar on antibiotic resistance marker genes and transgenic plants.
Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board (ed), Oslo: 17-28.
Ho, M.W. The unholy alliance www.argonet.co.uk/users/john.rose/ho.html [5
August 2002].
Ho, M.W. 1998/1999. Genetic engineering dream or nighmare? The Brave New
World of Bad Science and Big Business. Gateway, Gill & MacMillan, Dublin.
Kaiser, J.1996. Pests overhelm Bt cotton crop. Science 273: 423.
MALIM Bil. 10 (2009) 15
Kay,C.D.1997. Justice as fairness. http://truth.wofford.edu/~kaycd/ethic/
justice.htm. [1 August 2002].
Kershen, D.L. 1999. Biotechnology: An essay on the academy, cultural attitudes
and public policy. AgBioForum 2(1), 1-3.
Koch, K.1998. Food safety battle: organic vs. biotech. Congressional Quarterly
Researcher 9 (33): 761-784.
Latifah Amin, Jamaluddin Md. Jahi, Abd Rahim Md Nor, Mohamad Osman &
Nor Muhamad Mahadi. 2009. Attitude to Modern Biotechnology in
Malaysia. International Journal of Public Opinion Research (in press).
Macer, D.R.J. 2000. Bioethics: perceptions of biotechnology and policy
implications. International Journal of Biotechnology 3: 116-133.
Macer, D. R.J. 2006. A Cross-Cultural Introduction to Bioethics. Christchurch,
N.Z.: Eubios Ethics Institute.
Majdah Zawawi. 2001. Human Cloning: A Comparative Study of the Legal and
Ethical Aspects of Reproductive Human Cloning. IKIM: Kuala Lumpur.
Mc Cullum,C. & Pimentel, D. 1998. Biotechnology in agriculture and the
environment: benefits and risks, in Thomas, J.A.(editor). Biotechnology
and Safety Assessment. Braun-Brumfield, Inc.: 77-217.
McElwee, B. 2009. The wrights and wrongs of consequentialism. Philosophical
Studies. http://www.springerlink.com/content/h356221116453253 [13
October 2009].
Mohamad Akarm Laldin. 2006. Islamic Law: An Introduction. Kuala Lumpur:
International Islamic University of Malaysia.
NAS (National Academy of Science). 1987. Introduction of Recombinant DNA-
Engineered Organisms into the Environment - Key Issues. National
Academy of Science: Washington D.C.
Nicholas, B. 2000. The ethical issues of genetic modification. Background
paper for the report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification,
N e wZ e a l a n d . www. g m c om m i s s i o n . g ovt . n z / p u b l i c a t i on s /
Ethics_Barbara_Nicholas.pdf . [4 June 2002].
Nordlee, J.A., Taylor, S.L., Thomas, L.A. & Bush, R.K. 1996. Identification of a
Brazil nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. The New England Journal of
Medicine 334: 688-692.
Oyeshile, O.A. 2008. A critique of the maximin principle in Rawls’ theory of
justice. Humanity & Social Sciences Journal 3(1): 65-69.
Phillips, S.C. 1994. Genetically engineered foods: do they pose health and
environmental hazards?, CQ Researcher 4(29): 673-696.
Polkinghorne, J.C. 2000. Ethical issues in biotechnology. TIBTECH 18 (1): 8-13.
Propst. 1996. Biotechnology: concepts and techniques.
http://www.biotech.nwu.edu/nsf/propst.html. [27 March 2001].
Regal, P.J. 1994. Scientific principles for ecologically based risk assessment of
transgenic organisms. Molecular Ecology 3: 5-13.
MALIM Bil. 10 (2009) 16
Spier, R. 2000. Ethical system. EU Advanced workshop in Biotechnology ethics
and public perceptions of biotechnology. St. Edmund Hall, Oxford. June:
17-26.
Stirling, A. 2000. Scientific Knowledge and the Precautionary Principle.
European Commission: Brussels.
Svatos,M. 2000. Introduction to ethics. http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/
publications/bioethics/introduction.html. [27 March 2001].
The internet encyclopedia of philosophy. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/
ethics.htm.[1 August 2002].
The Nutfield Council on Bioethics. 1999. Genetically Modified Crops: The
Ethical and Social Issues. Nutfield Council on Bioethics, London.
Third World Network. 1995. The need for greater regulation and control of genetic
engineering. A Statement by Scientists Concerned about the Trends in
the New Technology. Penang: Third World Network.
Thomas, S. 2001. Ethical and social considerations in commercial uses of food
and fiber crops. Proceeding of the first International Symposium on
Ecological and Societal Aspects of Transgenic Plantations. Strauss, S.H.
& Bradshaw, H. D. (eds).College of Forestry, Oregon State University: 92-
98.
UK Government. 2001. Interim Response to the Report of BSE Inquiry, presented
to the parliament by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Feb
2000, by Command of Her Majesty, CM 5049 (UK Government: London);
23.
Uzogara, S.G.. 2000. The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the
21st century: A review. Biotechnology Advances 18(13): 179-206.
van Dommelen, A. 1999. Scientific controversy in biosafety assessment. In, van
Dommelen, A. (ed). Hazard identification of agricultural biotechnology.
International Books: 15-45.
Weil, V. 1996. Biotechnology: Social impact and quandaries.
http://www.biotech.nwu.edu/nsf/weil.html. [27 March 2001].
Wynne, B. 1992. Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science
and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change 2:
1-22.
Wynne, B. 2001. Managing scientific uncertainty in public policy. Background
paper for Biotechnology and Global Governance: Crisis and
Opportunity. April 26-28, 2001. Cambridge. http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/
conferences/biotech/Backgroundpapers.html. [6 August 2002].

Pusat Pengajian Umum

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia