THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

iota. It is this biota that becomes the subject matter of investigation. It also develops from the
embedded values that are ingrained within the subject matter that is under trail. 433
Bioethics is therefore a product not necessarily incommensurable and even not invisible! It is
the state of the common mind reflected in the institutional order. It is not a special science
restricted to or within a particular field and subject-matter. But rather the main concerns are
with the methods of inquiry and particular apparatus that are peculiar to the kind of task in the
particular realm. 434 In this regard, the ethical problem is the general problem in contrast with
which it is possible to speak of others as "special". Special because, we are somewhat dealing
with biological issues but with ethical leanings.
Therefore, ethical issues derived from this type of perspective will support and reinforce the
basic insights underlying bioethics' current efforts to revolutionize biodiversity and natural
resource conservation within an integrated institutional program. 435 The only danger of the
latter effort is being undermined by an ethical analysis that is premised on the ground that
there are alternative, individualistic and varied views of ethics, as seen in the neoclassical
institutionalism and ethical paradigms. Thus as Klein and Edythe noted, for purely bioethical
analysis to be conducted, the institutionalist perspective would seem, once again, to premise
insights more in accordance with the needs of the transition underway, regarding biodiversity
and natural resource usage today, than does the mainstream alternatives. 436
In the theory of institutionalism and more so in the ethical progress, Ayres postulates his
critique of classical and neo-classical ethical thought with a reminder that whether we take it
or not, bioethics continues to be an undertaking involving a price, a price in the sense that
ethical issues based on rationalism, which is based on economics rather than moral and social
decisions. We are therefore talking of a science of value evaluation. 437 The analysis drawn
from the above postulation informs that efforts to understand bio-ethics will therefore be
found more meaningful if it is more associated with economics and less associated with moral
or social relationships. Therefore, if bioethics has meaning related to economics, the problem
of bioethics and institutionalism is to elicit that meaning.
The above analysis presents the point of departure which is critical in the search for both a
common good, common ground and a shared perspective that is necessary to ensure fruitful
mitigation and collaboration between institutionalists, economists and bioethicists. In
reference to understanding biodiversity, the challenges surrounding the amelioration of
institutionalists, economists and bio-ethicists include: the introduction of technological and
biochemical resources to the biodiversity sector, especially issues surrounding the genetic
engineering prowess and threats evidenced by modern science research on one hand and the
433 Lantos, J. D. 1994. "Ethics Committees and Resource Allocation." BioEthics Forum 10 Summer Fall.
434 Ibid.
435 Klein, P.A and Edythe S. M. 1996. Concepts of Value, Efficiency, and Democracy in Institutional
Economics.Journal of Economic Issues 30: 267-77.
436 Ibid.
437 Lawson, C.L. 1998. The second Stage of Bio-ethics and Institutionalist Economics. Journal of Economic
Issues 32:1187-1192.
90