|
Although collecting regulations were less strict then than they are today, it is not clear that the live plants were taken out of Brazil with the proper authorization. Regulations in force today (including principles agreed upon at the Rio summit) would probably permit the collection of such plants for research purposes but would not allow for their commercial distribution without some form of compensation to the Brazilian government. Exact GIS coordinates for the three populations of this species have been obtained, but will not be released to the general public or scientific community. This species is currently in cultivation in two places in Brazil, but at least 20 plants are in cultivation at various universities and botanical gardens in the United States. Although the species has some attractive qualities, it grows slowly and probably has little potential for development as an ornamental. It would be of interest to collectors mainly due to its rarity. Species X is extremely rare and extremely significant evolutionarily, a combination which would give it the highest priority according to some conservation biologists. By any criteria, Species X is a rare, endangered species, but it has not yet been formally listed as such. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Should a coordinated attempt to preserve one or all of the natural populations be undertaken, even if the publicity engenders local hostility? Or is it sufficient to leave well enough alone, given that the species has survived this long, and hope that additional but as yet undiscovered populations are out there somewhere? 2. Scientific data, once published, are considered to be in the public domain. Data generated from federally funded research might be considered public property. Should the exact locality data of Species X be published, even if that exposes the species to unscrupulous collectors (both amateur collectors have been know to extirpate species in the wild, and in a few instances, overzealous biologist have apparently collected species to extinction)? 3. If money to fund research and/or conservation efforts related to Species X could be raised by selling plants grown in captivity, should any of that money be returned to the Brazilian government? 4. International and federal regulations governing species officially listed as rare or endangered can inhibit research efforts by making it extremely difficult to legally import material, while at the same time calling attention to the rarity of the species. Those who smuggle rare plants and animals are often not caught anyway, but a legitimate researcher or grower cannot afford to ignore legal restrictions. Should Species X be listed formally as being rare or endangered (e.g., CITES)? |
5. What if permit regulations for the collection and exportation of such plants for research purposes required that the material be destroyed upon completion of the research, unless the species were officially listed as rare and endangered? BIOETHICS INSTITUTE EXPANDS TO MICHIGAN STATE On May 5-10, 1996, Michigan State University hosted the Iowa State University Model Bioethics Institute on its campus in East Lansing, Michigan. As readers of the Forum know, the Institute is designed to aid faculty in the non-medical life sciences, and especially those in agriculture, food, and environmental sciences, to integrate discussions of ethical issues into their classrooms and labs. A total of 7 Institutes have now taken place over the past few years: 3 at Iowa State University; 2 at the University of Illinois; 1 at MSU; and one at Purdue University (see story below). The MSU Institute was funded in part by a major grant from the National Science Foundation and with financial assistance from the Deans Offices of the MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources; College of Natural Science; and College of Veterinary Medicine. Institute sessions were devoted to discussions of ethical theory and argumentation; to pedagogical issues; and to considerations of particular moral issues. Participants received case studies, classroom exercises, bibliographies, and other practical strategies useful in introducing ethics into life science classes. James Rachels (Alabama) began the week with An introduction to ethical theory. Participants had previously read his book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy (NY: Random House, 1986). Professsor Rachels discussed issues related to the challenge of cultural relativism; subjectivism; utilitarianism; the idea of absolute moral rules; and what a satisfactory moral theory would be like. He also discussed Pedagogy: Teaching students to evaluate moral arguments, focusing on the difference between validity and soundness in arguments; common mistakes students make in reasoning; and how can we teach the skills of self-reflective moral reasoning. Fred Gifford (MSU) discussed Pedagogy: How ethics differs from science, focusing on similarities and differences between empirical inquiry and normative inquiry. Gary Comstock (ISU) spoke on Pedagogy: How ethics differs from religion, addressing issues related to divine command theory; secular morality; the overridingness of morality; and whether one can be moral without being religious. Gary Varner (Texas A&M) discussed Animals, asking whether farm animals have moral rights, and whether defenders of humane treatment of animals have anything in common with defenders of animal rights. |
Lilly-Marlene Russow (Purdue) discussed the Environment, discussing the moral status of the environment and whether we should attribute inherent value to plants, animals and ecosystems. Fred Gifford discussed Biotechnology, asking, Who should own the products of genetic engineering? and What direction should research and public policy in biotech take? Tom Tomlinson (MSU) led a session on Pedagogy: How to use case studies to incorporate ethics into classes. Participants broke up into small groups to discuss ways to revise syllabi to introduce discussions of ethical issues relevant to theircourses, and again to brainstorm about Pedagogy: New institutional directions. How may graduates of the Institute influence their departments and colleges to encourage discussions of bioethics? Gary Comstock addressed Farms, asking whether there is a moral obligation to save the family farm? and, What are the social, cultural, environmental and spiritual advantages and disadvantages of large scale corporate ag? Will Aiken (Chatham) discussed Food. What obligations, if any, do we have to the hungry? How should those in the developed world relate to those in developing countries? Paul Thompson (Texas A&M) addressed issues related to Water and soil, such as: Who should control the right to use water for agricultural purposes? How should public policy be formed when property rights are in dispute? The week ended with a session on Pedagogy: Plenary session to report on planning of new directions, in which participants presented their ideas about ways to raise the quantity and quality of discussions of bioethics on their campuses. A total of 34 faculty members participated in the week-long conference: 18 from MSU and 16 others from around the world. PURDUE HOSTS BIOETHICS WORKSHOP On May 12-16, 1996, 26 life science faculty members from Purdue University participated in a Bioethics Workshop. A somewhat modified version of the Iowa State University Model Bioethics Institute, the Purdue conference was supported entirely with funds from Purdue and was directed by Professor Lilly-Marlene Russow of the Purdue Philosophy Department. Professor Martin Curd (Philosophy) joined Dr. Russow as a core faculty member and Dr. Mark Gibney (Political Science) lent technical assistance. Gary Comstock (ISU) served as consultant.
|