Parasitos

NEWS FROM IUPS
NEWS IN PHYSIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

The Physiologist’s Ethical Dilemmas
Ewald R. Weibel, Past-President, IUPS and Chair, IUPS Ethics Committee
Department of Anatomy, University of Berne, CH-3000 Berne 9, Switzerland

Physiologists are bound to test their scientific theories in experiments on living matter and, ultimately, on living organisms—animals or humans. This confronts thephysiologist with ethical dilemmas: can we engage in physiological eperiments in the face of possibly harming the interests of living beings, or should we refrain from such studies, thus preventing the good that can be derived from scientific progress?

I

t is our business as physiologists to study life and the multitude of processes that make it happen, from the functioning of membrane channels,through the electrical activity and hemodynamics of the heart, to the integrative events in the brain. Our obligation is to study all of this with the approach of science, starting with a theory, leading to a hypothesis, which is tested by experiments whose results are analyzed, followed by a critique of the theory—and the game goes on. Most of this approach is common to all of science. But there isone significant difference: since our object is the understanding of life processes, the experimental tests of theories and hypotheses must be performed on living matter, from cells to whole organisms, even on humans. This raises ethical issues—and presents us with ethical dilemmas—because such experiments must, in part, be performed on living animals or on humans. Good experiments are, bynecessity, based on controlled interventions, on perturbing the normal functioning of the organism. This is also the case with the new physiological research strategy of functional genomics. Do we have the right to do such experiments, to interfere with the life of another creature, perhaps to cause suffering or even some risks? If so, how can this be justified and what are the conditions that must befulfilled? The basic ethical dilemma we are facing is this: can we engage in the physiological experiments that our scientific interests impose in the face of possibly harming the interests of living beings, animals or humans, or should we refrain from such studies? Clearly, these are very difficult questions, and they cannot be dealt with in any depth in this short note. I would therefore just liketo make a few reflections that I consider central to the issue, discuss existing guidelines for this work, and direct you to further reading on this matter. A good start is a small booklet published a few years ago and based on a symposium organized by IUPS and UNESCO in Paris, entitled The Ethics of Life (10). Here fundamental questions relating to physiological research and its ethicaljustifications—and limitations—are discussed. It contains a chapter on the “Respect for life and the foundations of bioethics” and one on “Respect for life and the law of the living” that show the vast complexity of the ethical issues we need to consider. The book also features chapters on legal aspects of the question as well as some historic back0886-1714/02 5.00 © 2002 Int. Union Physiol.Sci./Am.Physiol. Soc.

ground on physiological experimentation on humans and animals, to some of which I shall refer later.

Respect for life: a guiding principle
One of the key ethical concepts pertinent to this discussion is “respect for life,” a principle first proposed and discussed extensively by Albert Schweitzer early in the 20th century (12). Schweitzer starts with a fundamental statement thatimmediately defines our challenge and our responsibility: “I am life that wants to live in the midst of life that wants to live.” The central issue here is the will to live, the striving for life, which is common to all living beings, animals and humans, and which we humans must respect in all life forms. For Schweitzer, ethics is “that I experience the need to respect all will to live equally as I do my...