Page - 112 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

The most important socio-technical alternative might be the UN and WHO strategy to eliminate malaria until 2030. (WHO 2015b) This strategy is merely based on more or less low tech use like • long lasting insecticidal nets • indoor residual spraying • prevention of risk groups (pregnant woman and children under five years) by chemoprophylactic treatment • increased access to diagnostics and medical treatment in epidemic regions (e.g. artemisinin-based combination therapy). Crucial is a minimally functional health care system, affordability of diagnostics and medicaments as well as educating and empowering of communities so that their can reduce the malaria risk themselves. Important successes of the global strategy have already been reported: the malaria incidence rate declined by 37% and the mortality rate by 60% since the turn of the century (WHO 2015a). Therefore, the hopes are high that global malaria elimination is possible like in many world regions in the past. But this important task can only be accomplished if sufficient funding can constantly be raised (several billion dollars a year). One should also remark that in several countries past (successful) elimination campaigns also had harmful side effects on the environment by massive use of DDT. Furthermore, first resistances of mosquitos against insecticides have been developed then. Improper use of malaria drugs, which mostly have to be taken in suitable combinations, has also lead to resistance of the malaria parasite. A global malaria elimination strategy has to include more than vector control: the interruption of the parasite cycle as a whole has to be considered. Therefore, the UN/WHO strategy cannot be replaced by anything else. However, may be new technological tools could be added to that. Normative questions, values and interests involved Values and value judgements are involved in the development of novel technology. That is also the case for gene drive R&D. Often scientists and decision-makers state: “risk has to be balanced against benefit”. That sounds good because risk assessment plays an important role then. But this can lead to a purely utilitarian ethical position. Weighing positive and negative consequences is advisable but ethical reflection should heed all ramifications of scientific- technological development and also serious fundamental problematics. Deduced from Hans Jonas´ principle of responsibility (Jonas 1979) high importance is attached to the fundamental precautionary principle – at least in the framework of the European Union. This “conservative” positioning calling for the preservation of nature can be combined with an unfolding principle calling for a just developmental progression of humankind which depends partly also on novel technology. The latter can be associated with Ernst Bloch´s principle of hope if the technology invented is in harmony with nature which Bloch has named “alliance technology” (Bloch 1959). Both principles together could give orientation also when judging about the best acceptable ways to malaria elimination. The perception of the role of humans in nature is also highly relevant. Is humankind seen as manager of all life on earth, what can be deduced from “modern” statements like that one of 112