In a lecture last week at Penn State, renowned sociobiologist E.O. Wilson used Paul Gauguin's "Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?" (above) to introduce his ideas on eusociality. According to Wilson, Gauguin's three questions are the central questions of religion and philosophy. However neither is equipped to answer them.

Wilson asserts that religions do not have the necessary scientific understanding of the universe and offer competing accounts. And since the decline of logical positivism, philosophy has "scattered in a kind of intellectual diaspora and into those areas not yet colonized by science". In a leap of logic, Wilson concludes, "by default therefore, the solution to the great riddle, if it has an answer, has been left to science".

Wilson claims that eusociality and evolutionary biology provide the best answer to Gauguin's questions. Rather than address the veracity and usefulness of Wilson's eusociality (something that extends beyond my discipline), I want to pause and focus on the type of answer that Wilson's eusociality is and whether it address Gauguin's questions.

Gauguin's "Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?" is considered to be his most significant work. It is also reported that he intended to commit suicide after its completion, a fact relayed by Wilson. Gauguin was approximately fifty at the time of completing the work, however its title and origins go back to his childhood when he was a student under the Bishop of Orléans, Félix-Antoine-Philibert Dupanloup.

Dupanloup developed a catechism for his young students to encourage them to reflect on the nature of life. The catechism revolved around three questions: where does humanity come from, where is it going to, how does humanity proceed? While Gauguin disliked his school years and later clashed with the Catholic Church, these three questions clearly held a lasting significance for him, inspiring one of his greatest works.

In painting a scene of life moving from birth to death, the viewer is left questioning with Gauguin: Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? Clearly many answers are possible, including Wilson's eusociality, however different disciplines will hold different answers of different significance. In response to the question, 'what are we?', a biologist could start explaining the anatomical structure of a human, but this does not address the existential character of the question.

In asking 'what are we?' or 'who am I?' the question directs our inquiry beyond descriptive facts of biology or anatomy to philosophical and ethical notions of identity and self-understanding. These answers certainly include the biological, identity and self-understanding are to abstracted from the body, but nor are they reduced to it.

In his lecture Wilson describes the task of science as discovering "the knowledge of the real world [that] can be tested and shared with every person". This is a fine description if by "real world" Wilson means the physical or sensible world. But if "real world" means the world of human interaction and concepts, such as freedom, morality, and meaning, then Wilson either misunderstands science or misunderstands the way non-physical ideas operate in the world.

In discussing Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy, Michael Sandel addresses the role of science. "Science can investigate nature and inquire into the empirical world, but it cannot answer moral questions or disprove free will. That is because morality and freedom are not empirical concepts. We can't prove that they exist, but neither can we make sense of our moral lives without presupposing them." (Justice, 2009: 129) It is important to be aware of the boundaries separating disciplines and the different questions they seek to answer.

In recent years, some populist scientists have "colonized" questions that go beyond the empirical and physical. In using the methods of natural science, questions of morality and meaning have been flattened and reduced to biophysical explanations (for an example of where these issues are currently unfolding see neuroethics). In so doing, the scope of possible answers are reduced to the empirical, or alternatively questions that extend beyond the empirical are discounted as "silly". 

Importantly, scientists have answered many questions, helping us to better understand the physical world and our place in it. But while natural science is a powerful tool, it is not the only tool we have and it is not always the most appropriate. Questions such as 'why are we here?', 'where are we going?', or 'what is the purpose of existence?' are significant questions that have occupied humanity for millennia. Importantly, these questions remain unanswered, not because there are no answers, or philosophers have used the wrong method, or that we have not applied ourselves with the necessary vigor, but because of the nature of the question does not allow for stable or final answers.

Some questions are for answering, and some are for wrestling. Gauguin wrestled with these questions, not in anticipation of an answer. I will not speculate on the kind of answer that would have satisfied Gauguin, but I will venture to suggest that Wilson's eusociality would not have sufficed. This is not because eusociality is necessarily wrong, but that it is an answer to a different question. Eusociality tries to describe how social interaction evolved. For Wilson, the 'why' of human social organization is that it is adaptively advantageous. This may be correct but it does not and cannot address questions about why this is so, who we are and what should we do. Gauguin's questions are about existence, meaning and purpose, not description, process or mechanism. As evidenced by Gauguin's own approach, they are to be wrestled with over a lifetime. 

To view the lecture online, visit mediasite.

On Monday October 24, David Castle, Chair of Innovation in the Life Sciences, ESRC Innogen Centre, University of Edinburgh, visited Penn State as part of the 2011-2012 Food Ethics Lecture Series. His visit commenced with a lecture entitled "Personalized Nutrition: Ethical and Regulatory Aspects." The lecture illustrated the impact of the human genome project (HGP) on innovations that improve health care, like more and better diagnostics. A central motivation underlying the HGP has been to bridge the gap between generalized human genomic knowledge and individual genetic applications. Personalized medicine remains in the future, but achieving some measure of personalization in nutrition may have better prospects. Nutritional genomics and genetics--aka "nutrigenomics"--has been the object of intense ethical and regulatory scrutiny, however, in part because of early direct-to-consumer offers. While concerns about safety must be explored, an overarching framework for assessing risks and benefits has not been agreed upon, much less deployed. A piecemeal approach to weighing ethical and regulatory considerations regarding new science and technology raises problems for personalized nutrition.

The lecture was followed by an evening seminar entitled "On Farm Performance of Herbicide Tolerant Crops." Readings for the seminar presented the results from a recent study of on-farm benefits of herbicide tolerant canola in Western Canada. The three parameters of the study--economic, environmental and toxicological--were designed to investigate on-farm benefits from use of GM Herbicide-tolerant Canola. The results of the study showed the impacts of Canola use to be favorable with regards to each of the above parameters. Discussion in the seminar focused on the methods used and the outcomes of this study, and discussed whether other measures ought to be considered. Some of the questions raised during the seminar regarded the particular claims made in the published outcomes suggesting direct correlation between no-till techniques and HT crops, as one cannot necessarily be said to cause the other. Other matters of concern not covered by the study include the problem of increased herbicide residue on HT crops. Castle addressed the need for more expansive research on the use of HT crops, stressing that the study undertaken by him and his colleagues dealt with a specific crop in a particular context.  

David Castles lecture can be viewed online via mediasite.

George H. Bush famously renounced it, but Hungry Jack's (Australian franchisee of Burger King) is planning to introduce broccoli as a side dish to compliment its Whopper™. However, this move has angered some public health advocates and confused others, provoking the question: What motivates a burger and fries chain to add raw broccoli, celery, carrots and hummus to its menu?

According to Aaron McKie, Hungry Jack's CEO, the introduction of raw vegetables to the menu provides customers with "a healthy snack of necessary nutrients without unwanted kilojoules and creates a whole new product category for fast food". For McKie, the introduction of broccoli is a simple of harmony of customer choice, nutritional health and the prospect of new markets. 

Like the US and other Western nations, Australian politicians and health officials are concerned about the effect of diet on body weight and health, and it is the fast-food chains that are often targeted as key contributors to increase in body weight and decline in population health. In this context is the introduction of raw vegetables to the Hungry Jack's menu merely good business practice, combining entrepreneurial dare with social responsibility, or is there a more dubious motivator?

Professor Mike Daube of the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Curtin University suggests the motivation may not be customer health or choice, but a strategy to divert scrutiny over the health impact of its traditional products that are high in salt and saturated fats. In an interview with associated press  he said ''If Hungry Jack's thinks selling a few sticks of celery is going to take the heat off them, then they are wrong''.

While the inclusion of broccoli on a restaurant menu may appear an innocuous event, the contemporary politics of health and food produce the conditions in which such a move raises questions of motivation, intent and honesty. However it is also this political context that prompts burger and fries chains like Hungry Jack's and McDonald's to act in the interest of the public good and offer broccoli and salads. Yet the question remains, is health and nutrition a real concern of fast-food outlets, politicians and even customers - or is it a game in which we all participate?

Among the substantive criticisms of the USDA's MyPlate:

MyPlate does not tell consumers that whole grains are better for health than refined grains; its protein section offers no indication that some high-protein foods -- fish, poultry, beans, nuts -- are healthier than red meats and processed meats; it is silent on beneficial fats; it does not distinguish between potatoes and other vegetables; it recommends dairy at every meal, even though there is little evidence that high dairy intake protects against osteoporosis but substantial evidence that high intake can be harmful; and it says nothing about sugary drinks. Finally, the Healthy Eating Plate reminds people to stay active, an important factor in weight control, while MyPlate does not mention the importance of activity.

In response to your discussions in the Paterno Fellows Forum, please post a response of 250-500 words to one of the following questions. In order to facilitate discussion, please reply to the post that elaborates on the individual question your group answered:

1) What responsibility do government, industry, and individuals have to address the problem of obesity in the Unites States, and what should they do? (Paul Thompson, MSU)

2) Under what conditions, if any, should we eat "animals"? (Donald Thompson, PSU)

3) Should we strive to buy foods that are grown locally and, if so, to what extent? (Bryan McDonald, PSU)

4) Do we have a responsibility to explore who benefits and who is harmed by the food we eat, and if so what should we do? (Susan Squier, PSU)            

5) Should corporations patent seeds they develop in their research? (Leland Glenna, PSU)

The Rock Ethics Institute's Food Ethics Lecture Series began on August 29^th, 2011 with a presentation by Paul Thompson, W.K. Kellogg Professor of Agricultural, Food and Community Ethics at Michigan State University, entitled "What Makes Food Good? The Terrain of Food Ethics and the Agrarian Tradition." In this lecture, Thompson first introduced his audience to the broader terrain of food ethics and then presented them with three ethical challenges within this terrain: (1) the complex relationship between economic growth and global food security; (2) health problems related to food consumption, such as obesity, for which we lack an appropriate moral vocabulary; and (3) the disconnect between narratives of our agrarian past and current practices of material food production. The lecture is available for viewing via mediasite.

Prof. Thompson's talk was followed by an evening seminar entitled "Food, Community and Focal Practice" where faculty and students had a chance to discuss further his book The Agrarian Vision: Sustainability and Environmental Ethics in relation to Albert Borgmann's work on "the culture of the table." Borgmann's expression, "the culture of the table," articulates certain practices associated with the local food movement and sustainable agriculture within the context of moral philosophy. Such a culture is one where agriculture and food, in both its preparation and consumption, can be understood as focal practices; they are accordingly regarded as "the most promising places of an environmental and moral renewal." Thompson's work supplements Borgmann's analysis of focal practice with a discussion of how food habits and practices might be understood to underwrite an actual moral community, even when members of the community are relatively unaware of it. Thompson thus asks, "Are Focal Practices Elitist?" acknowledging that some versions of a practice-based moral community can tend toward exclusion and repression. Seminar participants thus discussed the domains of moral ontology which determine acts of choice or decision making, and as such fail to be adequately acknowledged or valued in moral theories that focus narrowly on human action as a function of choice or will.

The last event in Prof. Thompson's visit to Penn State was an undergraduate Paterno Fellows Forum on the afternoon of August 30^th. In this session, The forum featured Prof. Thompson and a panel of experts from the Penn State Community, Professors Donald Thompson, Leland Glenna, Bryan McDonald, and Susan Squier, talking about what they perceive to be some of the most pressing food-related questions we face today.