Vicente Bellver

The power created by technoscience during the 20th century has turned human beings into global ecological agents. In the face of this challenge, unique in the history of humankind, there are three answers that have been proposed: to accelerate the process of human control over nature ; to revert the present situation to a previous stage in which nature recovers its independence from human beings ; and to maintain the current system with some measures to solve the side effects. The technocratic paradigm does not recognize the value and limits of nature. Decrecentism ignores the duty of using technology to provide more dignified, decent life conditions for humanity. And ecocapitalism is the contemporary version of an economic system which produces growth as well as inequality and environmental degradation, and that it is constantly reinventing itself to remain legitimate and keep its hegemony. Beyond the specific limitations of each of the models above, they all share a problem in their foundation: human beings are only marginally considered. In this chapter, I will offer an alternative to these models based on the UDHR. This Declaration recognizes the dignity of all human beings, the need to create the conditions for all people to exercise their rights, and the existence of duties to the community as a condition to full human development. The Declaration of Stockholm and of Rio materialize these synchronic and diachronic ecological justice demands.

One of the most relevant effects of bioethics emergence has been the spread of deliberative bodies on bioethics matters. Their features are very wide, depending upon the entity that creates them, their regional scope, the issues they deal with, the ruling strength of their agreements, etc. Among them, international bioethics committees are particularly relevant due to the huge impact of their work on global public opinion, as well as on the policies approved by governments all around the world. These bodies are presumed to adopt their decisions, as well as the other bioethics committees, after deliberating on facts and values (Gracia 2001).

Este trabajo se plantea tres cuestiones dirigidas a mejorar las propuestas sobre la gobernanza y regulación de la biología sintética. En primer lugar, se refieren algunos de los hitos científicos que han jalonado su desarrollo y el modo en que han influido en los debates ciudadanos sobre ella. En segundo lugar, se trata del marco jurídico internacional, con el fin de indagar en los principios sobre los que se sustenta y debería sustentarse. Por último, se revisan críticamente los informes acerca de los aspectos éticos y sociales de la BIOSIN, publicados por organizaciones gubernamentales y no gubernamentales en los últimos diez años.