Bio ethics
Ethical limits on how living things and biological resources are used, and how law turns them into rules
In one minute
Science lets people change crops, patent genes, clone animals and test medicines on living creatures. Bio ethics asks where the limits should be.
In environmental law it guides how biodiversity, genes and animals may be used. Exams ask for its principles, its three viewpoints and the laws that apply it.
Exam focus
- Frequency: No data
- Usually asked as: No data
Legal provision
- Section 3(1), Biological Diversity Act, 2002: certain persons (foreign nationals, non-resident Indians and certain bodies) need the previous approval of the National Biodiversity Authority. Without it, they cannot obtain a biological resource occurring in India, or knowledge associated with it, for research, commercial use or bio-survey.
- Section 2(c), Biological Diversity Act, 2002: biological resources include plants, animals, micro-organisms or parts of their genetic material and derivatives (naturally occurring biochemical compounds, but not value added products), and not human genetic material.
- Section 21, Biological Diversity Act, 2002: the Authority must ensure that its terms of approval secure fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of the resource.
- Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992, Nagoya Protocol, 2010 and Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 2000: the treaties on conservation, sharing of benefits and safe handling of living modified organisms.
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Article 51A(g), Constitution of India: the law on animal suffering and the duty of compassion for living creatures.
Meaning and definition
Bio ethics is the study of the moral questions that arise when living organisms are used in medicine, biotechnology, agriculture and research. It began in medicine and now covers the environment: how people may use biodiversity, genes, animals and ecosystems.
- Bio ethics
- Autonomy and consentPeople and communities must be told and be free to agree or refuse.
- BeneficenceAim to do good for people and nature.
- Non-maleficenceAvoid harm that can be avoided.
- JusticeShare benefits fairly; do not load risks on the poor.
- Respect for lifeLiving beings, not only humans, have value.
Detailed explanation
Step 1: why law needs ethics
Law cannot list every future use of science in advance. Ethical principles tell decision-makers where to draw the line. One question is whether a modified crop is safe to release. Another is whether a company may take a plant's medicinal use from a local community.
Step 2: the five principles
- Autonomy and informed consent: those whose knowledge or resources are used must be told and must be able to agree or refuse.
- Beneficence: actions should aim to do good for people and nature.
- Non-maleficence: avoid avoidable harm. In environmental terms this is close to the precautionary principle (act to prevent serious harm even when science is not yet certain).
- Justice and fair sharing: benefits must be shared fairly, and risks must not fall mainly on the poor.
- Respect for life: living beings have value that limits how they may be used.
Step 3: the Biological Diversity Act, 2002
The Act turns these principles into rules. A person who wants to use India's biological resources for research or commercial use, and who falls in the listed groups, needs approval. The National Biodiversity Authority fixes terms for fair and equitable benefit sharing. This answers biopiracy (taking biological resources or traditional knowledge without permission or fair sharing).
Example. A drug company learns that a tribal community in the Eastern Ghats treats wounds with a forest plant. It wants to develop a commercial drug. If the company is a foreign body, it needs approval first. The Authority sets terms so that the community shares in the benefit.
Step 4: treaties and biosafety
The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) has three aims: conservation, sustainable use and fair sharing of benefits. The Nagoya Protocol (2010) adds rules on access and benefit sharing. The Cartagena Protocol (2000) sets safety steps for the cross-border movement of living modified organisms. In India, genetically engineered organisms need clearance under rules made under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, through the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee.
Step 5: animals
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 restricts needless suffering. Article 51A(g) asks every citizen to have compassion for living creatures. In Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, the Supreme Court held that Jallikattu and bullock-cart races, as practised, violate the Act.
Don't confuse: three ethical viewpoints
| Point | Anthropocentric | Biocentric | Ecocentric |
|---|---|---|---|
| Centre of value | Humans | Every living being | Whole ecosystems and species communities |
| Why protect nature | It serves human needs | Life has value of its own | Systems such as rivers and forests deserve moral concern |
Inside the concept. A town protects a forest because its water supports the city. That is an anthropocentric reason.
Just outside it. A court protects a river as a living entity with its own worth, whether or not people use it. That is ecocentric reasoning.
Common mistakes
- Writing that bio ethics is only about medicine. It also covers biodiversity and animals.
- Mixing up the three viewpoints.
- Saying the Biological Diversity Act bans all use of biological resources. It requires approval and fair benefit sharing.
- Confusing the Nagoya Protocol (access and benefit sharing) with the Cartagena Protocol (biosafety).
Apply it
Problem
A company incorporated abroad wants to collect a forest herb in Andhra Pradesh to develop a commercial skin cream. The village that uses the herb was not consulted.
Issue. What approval and sharing does Indian law require?
Rule. Under section 3 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, such a body needs the previous approval of the National Biodiversity Authority. Section 21 requires fair and equitable benefit sharing.
Application. The company is not incorporated in India, so it falls within section 3(2). Without approval, collection is not allowed. Terms must secure a share for those who conserve the resource.
Conclusion. The company must obtain approval and agree to benefit sharing before it collects the herb.
Leading case laws
- Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014)
Facts. The Animal Welfare Board said Jallikattu and bullock-cart races inflict pain on bulls and violate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The organisers relied on culture and tradition.
Principle. Jallikattu and bullock-cart races per se violate the Act, and the Tamil Nadu Act on them was void under Article 254(1).
Why it matters. It reads Article 51A(g) with the Act and treats animal welfare as part of ethical and constitutional concern.
How to write this answer in the exam
5-mark answer
- Meaning of bio ethics.
- Core principles.
- One law that applies them.
10-mark answer
- Meaning and why law needs ethics.
- Five principles, with the link to the precautionary principle.
- Three viewpoints: anthropocentric, biocentric, ecocentric.
- Biological Diversity Act, 2002: sections 3 and 21 and biopiracy.
- Treaties: CBD, Nagoya, Cartagena; GEAC clearance.
- Animal law and the Nagaraja case.
Key points to remember
- Bio ethics: ethical limits on using living organisms and biological resources.
- Principles: consent, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, respect for life.
- Viewpoints: anthropocentric, biocentric, ecocentric.
- Biological Diversity Act, 2002: approval (section 3) and benefit sharing (section 21).
- CBD 1992, Nagoya 2010 (access and benefit sharing), Cartagena 2000 (biosafety).
Quick self-test
1. What is biopiracy?
Taking biological resources or traditional knowledge without permission or fair sharing of benefits.
2. Which Protocol deals with safe movement of living modified organisms?
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 2000.
3. Which body fixes benefit sharing under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002?
The National Biodiversity Authority, under section 21.