Note of explanation: This text was a speech I delivered at the Spring Convocation of the University of Windsor (Windsor, Ontario), on 6 June 1992. It was meant to encourage and warn young graduates setting out on their life journey in an end-of-the-20th Century, beginning of the 21st Century world. I was surprised in two regards on rereading it for the first time thirty-two years later, in January 2025. First surprise—how much of my work in those subsequent years is foreshadowed in this speech. And second, its accuracy in identifying the problems individuals and societies would face as they journeyed into and through the 21st Century. These thoughts were much more intuitive than rational, exemplifying a theme in my later work—that there are multiple “human ways of knowing,” all of which needing to be employed in making decisions about ethics.
Copyright © 1992 Margaret A. Somerville
My aim, in this brief presentation, is to try to communicate a deep sense that I have, that our recent extraordinary scientific and technological progress may be predictive of a new paradigm that will resonate powerfully across society, to change it. This means that our new science will change, not only the way in which we view the world through the lens of science, but also what can be called our societal paradigm—the base from which we create and perceive the intangible fabric which makes up our society itself.
To explore this proposition we need, first, to ask what is happening in science and what messages this could provide that might be relevant to how we see ourselves and our society.
At two extremes, our current explorations of the rapidly expanding universe of knowledge, can be captured in the images of the journey into vast outer space—through space technology—and the journey into vast inner space—through genetics and biotechnology, in particular, mapping the human genome, which we are just beginning. Could it be that these two journeys might prove to be linked in some, as yet unknown or unrecognised ways?
The most dramatic linkage would occur if eventually our ability to manipulate the human genome enabled us to live on other planets. Thus, it may even be no accident that we have undertaken these two journeys concurrently, when our world is suffering from pollution and overpopulation.
Another possible link is that the knowledge gained from each of these journeys may yield similar kinds of difficulties with respect to our emotional and mental states; it can be “mind-altering” knowledge. Knowledge of the universe has altered our perception of who and where we are; knowledge of the human genome is likely to alter our perception of who and what we are. In both cases, because of this new knowledge, we may experience a great deal more difficulty living “comfortably.” For instance, can we be optimistic and live in joy if we know from birth, as we can—in some cases with genetic technology—what we are likely to die of?
Yet, another possible linkage between these two journeys occurred to me because of a telephone call I recently received. A worried Ottawa bureaucrat said: “We would like you to help us. What we need to know is: How can we get the public to eat transgenic fish?” The question sounds suspiciously like the first line of a joke—but it was certainly seriously meant. Transgenic fish are fish containing genes from a source other than the fish’s own naturally accessible gene pool. A favourite way of illustrating transgenesis, when this was still but a possibility, was in the form of the following question: What do you get when you combine duck genes and orange genes? The answer, of course, was either duck à l’orange or oranges that quack.
A current “real life” example of transgenesis, reported in a recent science newsletter, was the creation of bright blue roses, the consequence of transferring to the roses in question the blue gene from delphiniums. Another report, appearing in the recent press, suggested that vegetarians could become upset on learning that their baked potatoes had been protected against freezing by the insertion of a gene from a flounder—perhaps we could regard this as “twenty-first century fish and chips.”
These achievements in genetics, like space travel, are examples of doing the unthinkable—truly science fiction has become science fact—and of creating what can be called non-natural events—interventions that do not simply aim to imitate, repair, or improve upon nature, but to achieve outcomes that could never occur in nature. The main examples of this latter type of event, ones which captured the public’s imagination, are in organ transplantation and reproductive technology: a grandmother gives birth to her grandchildren, and a woman gives birth to a child genetically unrelated to her. The capacity to achieve such outcomes—to do the unthinkable and to create non-natural outcomes—has already caused a radical shift in our science, but, I would propose to you, it will also cause a radical shift in the cognitive paradigm that we use to perceive and “construct” our society.
The scientific paradigm that surrounds these events is that impossible combinations can occur—elements that are apparently unrelated to, inconsistent with, or even hostile to each other (e.g., transplanted organs and the recipients’ immune systems), can be accommodated within a structure that will allow them, not only to coexist, but also, to co-create a reality that could not be created other than by their interaction. In the case of many transplants, the reality created by doing the unthinkable, the non-natural, is life, as compared, if we do not do this, with death. The same could be true of our societies.
It is certainly not an original thought that the new paradigm that underlies new scientific theory and development, and which, initially, often goes unidentified, can also cause us to reconstruct our societal reality. We need to ask, is this happening now, or whether, perhaps, it has already happened but we have not yet recognised that this is the case?
I propose to you that we are currently in an unusual state of high activity in evolving a new societal paradigm and, I would like to suggest, that we should all make it part of our life journey in no matter what field we operate—whether the professions, business, industry, academia, or politics—to join the immensely exciting voyage to search for and help to give shape to this new paradigm.
Essentially, what is involved is the need to find new structures which will accommodate principles, concepts, attitudes, beliefs, values, and objectives that previously were thought to be entirely incompatible—“impossible combinations”—much as transplantation of organs from one person to another and crossbreeding a plant with an animal were, until very recently, thought to be “impossible combinations.”
It will require many attributes to undertake this journey well. Some of these attributes have rather old-fashioned names, but this should not cause us to underrate their importance or to dismiss them. These include courage, wisdom, good judgement, optimism, integrity, trustworthiness, and honesty, to name only some. It is interesting that the need for these kinds of attributes or characteristics has been discussed at a recent ANZAAS congress, including, under “impressive” titles such as emerging postmodernist philosophical concepts and virtue ethics. Such discussion at science conferences may be a new occurrence. It is not that, in the past, we thought that we did not need courage, wisdom, integrity, and so on. Rather, we did not identify the need to discuss this, because we thought that everyone recognised and agreed upon the need for those characteristics. We have learnt, to our sorrow and sometimes our horror, that this is not always true.
It may also be that we need more nuanced definitions of some of these attributes. Consider courage, for example. It may be less courageous—because it is often much easier, or more comfortable—for us to attach ourselves to a black or white pole of knowledge or belief, than to the grey middle, even when this is clearly not ethically justified. An honest choice to live in the grey middle, in contrast to the traditional way of thinking, may not be wishy-washy, but the most courageous—or even, sometimes, heroic—stance, especially because living there involves uncertainty and anxiety. Moreover, such courage or heroism is likely to go undetected. It is much easier to recognise heroism when it occurs at a pole.
The proposition that sometimes we ought to choose, at least, to start from the middle, rather than a pole, is likely to be very important to the new paradigm. It would mean, for instance, that businesspersons should not adopt a polar position that profit is always the dominant concern. Rather, in each case, such an aim would need to be considered relative to other issues, for instance, the concern to act ethically or to avoid harm to the environment. Perhaps, politicians will have the greatest difficulty with this model—they may find it hard to accept that integrity requires that they acknowledge that they do not know, in some circumstances, the best course of action, but that they, together with their electorates, will seek to determine how to proceed. This could be perceived as a politically nonviable stance but, in part, it is up to us, the public, to make sure that it is not. We cannot demand integrity and openness and then blame or punish politicians for communicating honest uncertainty. Regarding politicians, the “do something” syndrome is relevant—that is, our response, when faced with risk, and its accompanying uncertainty and anxiety, to feel that doing something is always better than doing nothing. We need to ask who is responsible for politicians’ shortterm “easy” answers to problems that need longterm “difficult” solutions. It may be that our demands, as the public, that politicians “do something” are to blame, especially when these consist of unrealistic claims for total elimination of risk and, even, for “miracles.”
May I, as an aside, suggest that we change the colour of our metaphor from black, white, and grey, to red, blue, and purplepink. This would create a middle comprised of the colours—purplepink—that are often associated with the imagination. If the exhilaratingly uncertain turned out to be “la vie en rose,” perhaps more people would want to live in it. On a black/white spectrum, most of us see ourselves as white and our opposites (opponents) as black, and their perception is vice versa. This means we keep “changing colour,” which augments uncertainty and conflict. We might not, however, want to change and call our opponents the “other” colour, if we saw ourselves—“us”—as either red or blue, and “them” as the “other” colour, rather than black or white.
It is, also, interesting to consider the political ideologies that tend to be represented by red and blue, and to consider whether we would ever claim to be the “other” colour. In addition, could attempting to live in the “purplepink middle” indicate that we need to develop new systems of governance that allow balance without integration. The notion of “equipoise” is an interesting concept in this respect. It requires that when we choose between two courses of action, both of which carry risks, we honestly do not know which is best. Or do liberal democracies based on well-functioning party systems provide a means for a society to live in the “purplepink middle,” although individual members who make up that society may not do so. Certainly, at least when they vote, all members of a society must choose to be either red or blue, although their political philosophy may be more purplepink. Within the context of this metaphor, what does the emergence of the green political movement mean? Does it indicate abandonment of the redblue continuum, because no position on that continuum is acceptable? Could it indicate a fundamental change in the current paradigm on which society bases itself?
I want to make clear that “living in the rose middle” does not mean the same thing as compromise—often, these days, a dirty word. Witness the somewhat self-righteous TV advertisement, “We make Saabs NOT compromises.” We will need to be open and “ethically tolerant,” while committed to our values—both as individuals and a society—in order to live with integrity in the rose or “purplepink middle,” and to develop the new paradigm of which I speak.
In developing this new paradigm, we will need to be aware that some of our “right” reactions can go wrong, if they become fanaticism, which some current examples of political correctness may be on the verge of doing. Extremism, even for a good cause, can be to move, for the wrong reasons, out of the open middle towards one or the other pole. These poles may have been redefined so that they incorporate the new value or values, nevertheless, we still need to be as careful about adamantly living at such a pole, as we do at any other. Further, we may still be seeking such a pole for the old-fashioned reason of a quest for certainty, even though we do so under an avant-garde banner, which often bears the name of one of—what have been called—the new “isms,” for example, “scientism,” the belief that science is the only valid source of knowledge.
We also need to be aware that some of our current polarisation can be overcome through astute recognition that apparently conflicting objectives are, in fact, consistent. For instance, there has been a loud, prolonged, and acrimonious debate on whether priority should be given to respect for the rights of persons with AIDS or protection of public health. Relatively recent research is showing, however, that these two objectives are consistent—in short, respect for individual rights is the course of action most likely to result in a maximum reduction of the transmission of HIV—that is, to achieve the public health objective. But this should not confuse us with respect to the conflict between the raisons d’être of these two objectives—one gives priority to respect for the individual and individual rights—in particular, the right to autonomy and self-determination—the other prioritises protection of the community, when these priorities conflict. There is a different worldview behind these two approaches and the values they reflect.
From a traditional perspective, one could argue that such situations force us to decide whether either the individual or the community takes priority. It may be possible, however, to argue for priority for the community for the sake of the individual, that is, to propose an apparently “impossible combination.” Such an argument would recognise the need of all individuals—hermits aside—to have a sense of belonging to a human community and, therefore, the need to protect communities. Care needs to be taken, however, that we do not use such arguments manipulatively or hypocritically, and as a semantic mechanism to override rights of individuals which should be given priority. We should keep in mind that human rights may be more threatened when we act purporting to do good to another, than when we acknowledge that we will harm another but argue that this is justified. In the former case, there is often a failure to recognise the harm involved, and, consequently, we avoid the burden of proving that our actions are, indeed, justified.
In other instances, the new paradigm will require overcoming “old” means of disidentification, and developing new feelings of identification, and new sensitivities. Some current trends, which are in essential tension, will need to be held in equipoise by the new paradigm. The present, apparently inconsistent, trends towards tribalisation (of which nationalism can be one form) and globalisation provide a prime example in this respect. In the past, we have disidentified from others on the basis of the territorial boundaries which kept us separate—indeed, this distinction is fundamental to national and international systems of law. These boundaries are no longer easy to sustain with modern travel and rapid communications—these have meant that the ability of people to move from one place to another has increased a thousandfold, while the speed of communications has increased a millionfold. Also, we cannot so readily disidentify from the victims of a war that takes place “live” (or should it be “dead”) on the TV in our living-room. Neither is it so easy to disidentify from the 40,000 children who die of hunger in our world every twenty-four hours, especially when we think of this as one hundred jumbo jet-loads of children crashing each day and killing all on board.
We are the new generation of explorers of our human mind, imagination, and spirit. The challenge for all of us is to create structures in which we can both personally identify and feel we belong in small groups, and yet recognise ourselves and all others as part of the one human family. Possibly, the feeling that we belong to a small group—at least to “a family” in an open sense of that term—is essential to our sense of wellbeing. It might even be the case that the human psyche is genetically programmed to respond to and to personally identify with only relatively small groups. However, while such identification remains essential to our sense of individual worth and wellbeing, it is also essential to our survival as a society, as a species, and as a planet, that we develop beyond this and find ways through which we can also allow ourselves to be sensitised to the fact that we live in a global community, without feeling overwhelmed or paralysed by anxiety, fear, or even guilt.
We will need to learn not to have an automatic reaction of seeking to flee to one or other of the “old, apparently certain, poles” when confronted by uncertainty raised by deeply disturbing, frightening, “foreign-to-us” issues at a global level. We, also, need to avoid fleeing to such a pole through false hopes, for instance, such as those that could be raised when appeals to family values are used as a political device as, for example, in the current United States’ election campaign. We need to develop a new structure, or structures, that will enable us both to maximise our respect for each other as individuals, and to recognise that we need, also, to protect our communities. To be fully human, most of us need to live in a community and these communities also need protection, sometimes, in clearly justified cases, at the expense of individual rights. Moreover, probably we now need an extended definition of community—one that includes our nonhuman animal neighbours and living ecosystem.
In short, we need a new code with which to access our individual and global worlds. It should be noted that I speak of only one such code, not two. We must not create a split between ourselves as part of society and ourselves as individuals, equivalent to the split seen in the mind/body duality of Descartes that ruled us as individuals, to our detriment, until so recently. The challenge is for each of us to be able to see ourselves, simultaneously, as an amazing phenomenon—a genetically unique, thinking, feeling, creative being—and, yet, at the same time, as a mere, temporary speck in an overwhelmingly vast, complex, almost unimaginable universe. Our late twentieth century science and technology, and the knowledge that this has brought us, means that we need to accommodate these two realities in new ways. It is the massive change in perception provided by science and technology, of both our vast outer spaces and vast inner spaces, that creates the need for the new societal paradigm for which we must search.
May I suggest to you that the “access code” we need might be comprised in, or of, the search for ethics—certainly, at least in part. I believe that this search for ethics represents our generation’s revolution in consciousness. We need to keep in mind that our legacy to future generations is not only in the form of genes, but also memes—that is, units of cultural information that we pass on to future generations. Most important among these are ethical memes. Ambassador Knut Hammarskjöld, an international diplomat, once told a meeting of international lawyers, “You are the sherpas (the bearers and guides) of the new ideas for the next generation.” We need to remember this and to consider the obligations of sherpas: to lead others to new heights and visions; to take responsibility for the safety of those they lead; not to seek recognition and to accept not always to be recognised; to carry burdens for others; to explore; to move forward on a basis of trust, loyalty, honesty, courage, and integrity. It is up to us to evolve this new paradigm and the ethics to inform it, both of which we so clearly need for the next stage of our journey.
There are some old notions, which in postmodernist ethics are, sometimes, called collectively virtues ethics. These would indicate that we need to be able to journey forward together in courage, wisdom, sensitivity, excitement, creativity, and imagination. But we, also, need to travel with a true sense of humour. Humour often relies on paradox and improbable juxtapositions and, therefore, fits well with the concept of “impossible combinations” I have proposed, and the search for a paradigm which will accommodate these, that is, a paradigm that will allow them to be “possible ‘impossible combinations.’” A true sense of humour will provide us with both the capacity to experience the wonder and awe of our own individuality—and how very important each of us is to ourselves and to one another, and, at the same time, the capacity to experience, fully, as my father once described it, “living with the universe.”
A Note on the Author: Professor Margaret Somerville is Samuel Gale Professor of Law Emerita, Professor Emerita in the Faculty of Medicine, and Founding Director Emerita of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law at McGill University, Montreal. Currently, she is Professor of Bioethics at the University of Notre Dame Australia, School of Medicine (Sydney).
23 January 2025 © AIOCS (for this version)
For an AIOCS Conversation with Professor Somerville, see
Please support our not-for-profit ministry (ABN 76649025141)
For donations, please go to https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/aiocsnet or contact us at info@aiocs.net