Ethnobotany, Property and Biodiversity:
Ethical Dimensionsof Multi-Institutional Interests
by Jordan E. Erdos May/Mayo 1998 How should scientists contracted by pharmaceutical industries and government health agencies, operating within the framework of multiple ethical systems stemming from various institutions, approach partnerships with indigenous peoples whose ethos stems from entirely different histories and circumstances? To answer this question, it is imperative to assess the distinct ethical systems in operation. The ethnobotanist, as a purveyor of Western thought and belief systems, as a scientist and medical practitioner, as a member of an academic community and as a contracted employee, enters research bearing the responsibility of multi-institutional ethical systems. The indigenous person, as a member of a collective society with no written tradition, likewise follows a moral code, although it is often more difficult to determine. While the motivation and morality of the ethnobotanist may be assessed through an examination of the vast written literature of Western ethics, it is a difficult task to explicitly reveal the indigenous ethical system. For this reason, I will be employing what Lovin and Reynolds have termed "ethical naturalism," in which moral beliefs and practices are identified by assuming "morally correct choices are those which enable persons and communities to flourish within constraints and possibilities set by the general requirements of human nature and the particular condition of their own lives." (Lovin and Reynolds 1985). By providing a picture of indigenous life, as recorded by anthropologists and ethnobotanists themselves, there should emerge a recognizable ethical system. | |
|
