WE often hear people using terms such as ‘natural product’ and ‘unnatural sexual act’, but what does ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ mean? If we use ‘natural’ as referring to that which occurs freely in nature, then it begs the question— are all things that occur freely in nature ‘good’, and as a corollary — are all things that do not occur freely in nature ‘bad’?

Using these terms invariably invokes some “value judgement” by people. Yet, we can point to plants that occur ‘freely in nature’ that are poisonous (for example, bitter cassava with high levels of cyanide), and products that are manufactured for us (for example, antibiotics) that are beneficial to our health.

THE DEBATE

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, a United Kingdom-based charitable body funded by the Medical Research Council, the Nuffield Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust, says that confusion over what people mean when they describe occurrences in science, technology, and medicine as ‘unnatural’ could be causing persons to talk at cross purposes, and thereby hamper or prevent effective public discussions or debates.

Ideas and talk about ‘naturalness’ have dominated the media over the past year. Many persons have expressed their wish to use, consume, or practice things they would describe as ‘natural’, and criticise or condemn things that they perceive as being ‘unnatural’. Issues such as assisted conception (in vitro fertilisation), genetic modification (whether of foods or mosquitoes), homosexuality, and cloning come to mind. In fact, earlier last year, noted singer/songwriter Sir Elton John tweeted in an argument with Dolce and Gabbana: “How dare you refer to my beautiful children as ‘synthetic’?”

The Italian designers had said that “the only family is the traditional one, not the chemical offsprings or rented uterus: life has a natural flow, there are things that should not be changed”. They were also quoted as calling children born to gay couples through in vitro fertilisation as ‘synthetic’.

The famous pop singer Madonna, who has two adopted children of her own, also retorted that “all babies contain a soul however they come to this earth and their families. There is nothing synthetic about a soul. God has his hand in everything, even technology. Think before you speak”!

However, when the matter of gene editing was being debated in the British Parliament last year February, Bishop Keenan of Paisley argued that a technique to prevent mitochondrial DNA disorders “distorts the natural process of fertility”.

FIVE UNDERSTANDINGS OF NATURALNESS

A new report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics sheds light on the different ways in which people use and understand the concept of ‘naturalness’ in debates about science, technology, and medicine.

The council has set out five understandings of ‘naturalness’ that illustrate the different ways in which the terms ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ are used:

• Neutral: A neutral or sceptical view that does not equate naturalness with ‘goodness’.

• Wisdom of nature: The idea that ‘nature’ has found the correct or best ways of doing things and should not be ‘tampered’ with.

• Natural purpose: The idea that living things have ‘natural’ purpose, essence or functions that are linked to what is good for them and which science should not seek to change.

• Disgust and monstrosity: A response of disgust, revulsion or fear prompted by novel technologies.

• God and religion: The idea that certain technologies distort God’s creation or go against the will of God.

The critique issued by the chair of the Nuffield Council’s project on ‘naturalness’ states that it is too simplistic to suggest that ‘natural’ things are good and ‘unnatural’ things are bad, yet many examples of this are being implied through the media, in advertising and on the packaging of many products we buy. Another member of the council’s steering group on the issue pointed out that the use of such words by journalists, politicians and others to convey a good or bad view of science was lazy and clichéd.

Persons often have genuine concerns, beliefs and values that should be answered, and not just dismissed. Consequently, it was recommended that everyone involved in important debates about the matter should avoid using the terms ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’, unless they are willing to explore and engage with both the hopes as well as the fears that lie behind them.

WE MUST BE CAUTIOUS IN LABELLING.

The findings by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics were informed by an analysis of how ideas about ‘naturalness’ appeared in the media and in parliamentary debate, and in meeting with members of the public and experts such as journalists, parliamentarians, government officials, scientists, and representatives of civil society groups.

The concept was very heavily dependent on the use of language. Therefore we must be aware of how subtly people’s choice of words may transmit their own prejudices to others.

Derrick Aarons MD, PhD is a consultant bioethicist/family physician, a specialist in ethical issues in medicine, the life sciences and research, and is the ethicist at the Caribbean Public Health Agency – CARPHA. (The views expressed here are not written on behalf of CARPHA).