Scientific research is not in itself either good or bad. It simply adds to the sum of human knowledge. But the questions opened up by that research can be explosive. The Center for Ethics in Science and Technology ventured into that volatile area over 13 years ago holding discussions on some of the most controversial subjects in the sciences. Now the center is about the hold its 100 talk tonight at the Fleet science center. On the subjects have changed over the years, the strong opinions have not. Joining me is Michael Kalichman, cofounding director of the Center for Ethics in Science and Technology and director of UC San Diego's research ethics program. Into the show. And delighted to be here. What were some of the most controversial topics when the center was founded in 2004. There were two of them. One is probably the best-known to your listeners and that is stem cells. Beginning in the early 2000's there was hype about human embryonic stem cells. For many people the use of a hemi them -- human embryo was 10 to using a child for research. For others it was a tool that could help us better understand all of human disease and one that for those people did not seem to be problematic. There was a clash we tried. What was the other? It was a prompt for this, some work done at the neurosciences Institute on what they called robotic like devices. Where in essence, you have machines that are learning to do better and better. Is one of my colleagues used to say, they will get better and better, I'm just going to be the same. Are we going to do is we move into the direction of artificial intelligence and smarter machines? Stem cell research in artificial intelligence a controversial in some quarters. But much less so. Is that because the controversies have been resolved or have we just got more used to the idea? I think the answer is both. For the stem cell area one of the things that happened was that scientists, in attempts to better understand biology, discovered methods to produce the same cells they would've gone from human embryos in other ways that didn't require the embryo. But the same time, we had many more issues come up, the technology has evolved, people look elsewhere and worry about other things. What would you say now the most controversial research areas are? For me what I see the most new stories about is things like artificial intelligence. And the intelligence behind a potential driverless car. Other areas in the news are questions about climate change. Vaccines. Both of which have been around for a long time. But acutely, we're seeing more concern about them because of public and governmental worries about science literacy, science understanding. Science respect. These have become issues that are more controversial in the public eye. Can you describe how a typical Center for Ethics in Science and Technology discussion takes place? Does it start with a pro and con argument? And speakers on aspects of the research? No. That's one thing that makes us unique. Our premise is that we start with the science. We want to understand what is being done. Why the being done. How far along are people? What is possible and impossible? Those are simply the questions the scientists working on this can tell us. Having done that did we want to engage the audience in a conversation about where the ethical challenges are. The ethical challenges might be a question of who is going to have the benefit of this technology? What are the risks that go with it? The purpose of this is not to stop the technology but to figure out how we can move forward in the best possible way. Is very particularly memorable discussion among the 100? I think the vaccine story is one that helped frame the way I try to approach these discussions. Most members of the scientific community look at vaccines as a net that if it. They are pretty confident the evidence and problems are -- the evidence for problems are minimal where his date produce tremendous benefit. I remember having people in those discussions who would join us and make the case that vaccines had been created, even though it was known they were harmful, created to try and deal with diseases that the scientific committee had created in order to make money. My first inclination is a scientist and academic was to say this person is perhaps making this up or they are ignorant. Which is the easy answer. More difficult answer is, this is someone who heard certain things and believe them. This was a genuine concern on this part. We train do with the programs is not start with the presumption that the opposition or person with a different opinion is evil or ignorant. But instead say, let's have a thoughtful conversation and try and figure out what we can agree and then dig deeper where we find disagreement. And see if we can move forward. What is your assessment on the degree of scientific literacy out there among the general public these days? There are two ways to answer that. One is whether it has been changing in recent years. There are surveys that have been done by National Science Foundation, science and engineering indicators, I think it would be hard to say science literacy has gone up or down. Another way to answer it is, over this period of time have seen science literacy is frighteningly low. In this country and in many in the world. People don't know the center of the earth is very hot. They don't know whether the sun revolves the earth or the earth revolves around the sun. So that is a backdrop. And that backdrop is now in the current political conversation moved to the forefront where it seems many people who perhaps lack that respect for an understanding of science by be having more sway in where we go and don't go. What is tonight's subject? I hope to do to -- 2 things. One is to reflect back on the topics and kinds of questions and themes that have come up. And then to look forward. Where should the center go? We're going to ask the audience in small groups to come up with ideas about what our programs should look like. Topics we should cover. How we should engage the public. I've been speaking with Michael Kalichman cofounding director for the Center for Ethics in Science and Technology. The 100th discussion takes place tonight starting at 5 PM at the Fleet science center. Thank you very much Michael. Thank you.
The questions raised by scientific research can be explosive. Should we edit our children’s genes? What safeguards should we put in place for artificial intelligence? How should the public be informed about clinical trials?
The Center for Ethics in Science and Technology ventured into that volatile area over 13 years ago, holding discussions on some of the most controversial subjects in the sciences. The Center will have its 100th talk Wednesday night at the Fleet Science Center.
Co-founding director Michael Kalichman said local research into embryonic stem cells and self-learning machines prompted the center’s creation in 2004, providing a venue for scientists to engage directly with the public about their concerns.
For the 100th talk, Kalichman will focus on research on vaccines, personalized medicine and climate change.
“All three of those topics weren’t in the Center’s line of sight (in 2004). Some of our big questions now were different than they were back then. That’s a sign of progress, I guess,” he said. “I say, ‘I guess,’ because, how much of this means we are simply never learning our lessons and how much is that the challenges are simply new?”
Kalichman joined KPBS Midday Edition on Wednesday with more on how science ethics discussions have changed over the past decade.
