I suspect Nucleus readers would endorse the concepts of the group Médecins Sans Frontières (doctors without borders) who take clinical care into war zones and advance arguments into political places where advocates have hitherto feared to tread. But do we go along with what I am here christening 'bioethics sans boundaries' - bioethics without boundaries'?
While such actions would have sent the scientists to prison in many countries, this announcement was trumpeted in Britain as a breakthrough for biotechnology. Mankind had taken one huge step nearer the 'holy grail' of providing, for research or therapeutic purposes, new human tissue grown from embryonic stem cells. In future clinical use this tissue - these organs, perhaps - would be almost identical genetically to the original donor and therefore not at risk of rejection after transplant. This possibility of growing your own spare parts was ridiculed as science fiction just a few years ago, but is now much nearer.
British media coverage almost ignored the huge wastage of early human life involved - one stable cell line from 242 tiny humans. But I mention this development just to underscore that science fiction is rapidly becoming 'science fact'. Elsewhere in this edition of Nucleus (pp12-19), my colleague Philippa Taylor from the Centre for Bioethics and Public Policy (CBPP) writes about cybernetics and nanotechnology. Whilst perhaps in some ways less controversial than human cloning, these emerging biotechnologies are accelerating towards us limited only by budgets and by what some scientists think they can get away with. How should bioethics be responding?
The Warnock Report of 1984 led to the 1990 Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act, which set the parameters for research and clinical practice in the UK and, arguably, the rest of the world. And so, in 2004, we have cloned human embryos. Bioethics is currently about making human life.
But Philippa's article on cybernetics and nanotechnology is partly about a future world of transhumanism, of manufacturing what some would see as ever more perfect 'post-humans'. Bioethics now has to consider, before it's too late, the faking of human life.
But if we believe in boundaries, and are to set them, where do we find them? Another article in this edition (pp26-33) considers postmodernism, the dominant cultural force prevailing in the rich and powerful parts of the world. Decisions are made individualistically, relativistically and subjectively - on the basis of 'I feel' rather than 'we think'. We must turn to the Bible for God's view. Whilst we will not find a blueprint for every individual bioethical decision there, we do find principles that should guide and instruct us.
The language of the image of God informs us that unlike the animals, humans are unique in God's eyes. We are meant to reflect God's glory out into the world and, as the image on a coin represents the ruler so pictured, we are intended to represent our ruler. We were also created for relationship with him and for special relationships with all fellow humans. Cloning human beings is therefore not the same ethically as cloning other animals!
The language of 'rule over' perhaps comes across as a little harsh. The concept is one of stewardship, of shepherding the world for God, and of being accountable to him for what we have done. The link between God's creation and our stewardship of it was well put in the lovely description of scientific research as 'thinking God's thoughts after him'.[2] This is what Christians in scientific research and bioethics should be doing.
Rather than thinking God's thoughts after him, many in bioethics seem, like those at the time of the Tower of Babel,[3] to be thinking their own thoughts ahead of him. Recognising that some do not take the Bible seriously, we will often have to use different language in our debates, but concepts of human dignity and worth may well bridge that gap and allow us to communicate with those who do not naturally share our views.
Indeed, one of the most interesting aspects of the developing global dialogue in bioethics is the progressive emergence of coalitions of unlikely co-belligerents. Greens and feminists, who would not necessarily agree with our misgivings about taking life in abortion, may well side with us on the making life of cloning, or the faking life of cybernetics.
Athlete Dwain Chambers has just been banned from world athletics for two years for using steroids. Tennis player Greg Rusedski has recently weathered a storm of controversy, and Manchester United would probably be doing better if Rio Ferdinand were not on a lengthy ban for failing to attend a drug test.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of those individual cases, most spectators and almost all sportsmen and women say they are opposed to the use of performance enhancing substances. Diet and training are okay to build up power and stamina, but as soon as hormones or drugs enter the picture they cry 'It's not right!' That intuitive reaction reflects the fact that we are all made in the image of God and therefore have innate standards of justice.
If analogies have any value as limited tools to help our understanding, perhaps we can take that cry of 'It's not right' to the post-human and the cyborg. Manufacturing such blasphemies is not what God put us here for. Bioethics must have boundaries.
Human cloning confirmed
In February scientists in South Korea confirmed in a reliable scientific journal that they had successfully used cell nuclear transfer technology (that which led to the birth of Dolly the sheep) to clone human embryos. Thirty of 242 cloned embryos developed normally for six days to reach the blastocyst stage, before attempts were made to extract embryonic stem cells from them. Cells were isolated from 20 of the embryos and just one stable cell line was then successfully cultured.[1]While such actions would have sent the scientists to prison in many countries, this announcement was trumpeted in Britain as a breakthrough for biotechnology. Mankind had taken one huge step nearer the 'holy grail' of providing, for research or therapeutic purposes, new human tissue grown from embryonic stem cells. In future clinical use this tissue - these organs, perhaps - would be almost identical genetically to the original donor and therefore not at risk of rejection after transplant. This possibility of growing your own spare parts was ridiculed as science fiction just a few years ago, but is now much nearer.
British media coverage almost ignored the huge wastage of early human life involved - one stable cell line from 242 tiny humans. But I mention this development just to underscore that science fiction is rapidly becoming 'science fact'. Elsewhere in this edition of Nucleus (pp12-19), my colleague Philippa Taylor from the Centre for Bioethics and Public Policy (CBPP) writes about cybernetics and nanotechnology. Whilst perhaps in some ways less controversial than human cloning, these emerging biotechnologies are accelerating towards us limited only by budgets and by what some scientists think they can get away with. How should bioethics be responding?
Human life: taking it, making it, and faking it
About 20 years ago, when I was working as a general practitioner, I began to get interested in what we now call 'bioethics'. Although the Warnock Committee was sitting to consider the then new subjects of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and embryo research, the main topics we considered were abortion and euthanasia. They concerned the taking of human life.The Warnock Report of 1984 led to the 1990 Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act, which set the parameters for research and clinical practice in the UK and, arguably, the rest of the world. And so, in 2004, we have cloned human embryos. Bioethics is currently about making human life.
But Philippa's article on cybernetics and nanotechnology is partly about a future world of transhumanism, of manufacturing what some would see as ever more perfect 'post-humans'. Bioethics now has to consider, before it's too late, the faking of human life.
Bioethics with boundaries?
Most reasonable people can be persuaded that there ought to be some limits on science. In fact the question of human cloning will be considered again by the United Nations this autumn and there is every possibility of a majority agreeing to ban all forms of human cloning. Whether such a ban could ever be enforced, particularly after the South Korean announcement, is of course another matter.But if we believe in boundaries, and are to set them, where do we find them? Another article in this edition (pp26-33) considers postmodernism, the dominant cultural force prevailing in the rich and powerful parts of the world. Decisions are made individualistically, relativistically and subjectively - on the basis of 'I feel' rather than 'we think'. We must turn to the Bible for God's view. Whilst we will not find a blueprint for every individual bioethical decision there, we do find principles that should guide and instruct us.
What does the Bible have to say to bioethics?
In Genesis 1:26-28 we read how as the pinnacle of his creation, God 'created man in his own image... male and female he created them' and how 'God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over... every living creature"'.The language of the image of God informs us that unlike the animals, humans are unique in God's eyes. We are meant to reflect God's glory out into the world and, as the image on a coin represents the ruler so pictured, we are intended to represent our ruler. We were also created for relationship with him and for special relationships with all fellow humans. Cloning human beings is therefore not the same ethically as cloning other animals!
The language of 'rule over' perhaps comes across as a little harsh. The concept is one of stewardship, of shepherding the world for God, and of being accountable to him for what we have done. The link between God's creation and our stewardship of it was well put in the lovely description of scientific research as 'thinking God's thoughts after him'.[2] This is what Christians in scientific research and bioethics should be doing.
Rather than thinking God's thoughts after him, many in bioethics seem, like those at the time of the Tower of Babel,[3] to be thinking their own thoughts ahead of him. Recognising that some do not take the Bible seriously, we will often have to use different language in our debates, but concepts of human dignity and worth may well bridge that gap and allow us to communicate with those who do not naturally share our views.
Indeed, one of the most interesting aspects of the developing global dialogue in bioethics is the progressive emergence of coalitions of unlikely co-belligerents. Greens and feminists, who would not necessarily agree with our misgivings about taking life in abortion, may well side with us on the making life of cloning, or the faking life of cybernetics.
Doping in sport - another analogy?
In her article Philippa draws attention to Professor John Wyatt's analogy of each human being as a priceless picture, a masterpiece (think about that word!). He would say that in medicine we have a mandate to restore the masterpiece, but not to wipe the canvas clean and paint a completely new portrait. Philippa asks: when does ethical treatment cross the boundary and become unethical enhancement? I wonder if the current furore in British sport about performance enhancement sheds any light and might provide a useful starting point for discussion with colleagues?Athlete Dwain Chambers has just been banned from world athletics for two years for using steroids. Tennis player Greg Rusedski has recently weathered a storm of controversy, and Manchester United would probably be doing better if Rio Ferdinand were not on a lengthy ban for failing to attend a drug test.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of those individual cases, most spectators and almost all sportsmen and women say they are opposed to the use of performance enhancing substances. Diet and training are okay to build up power and stamina, but as soon as hormones or drugs enter the picture they cry 'It's not right!' That intuitive reaction reflects the fact that we are all made in the image of God and therefore have innate standards of justice.
If analogies have any value as limited tools to help our understanding, perhaps we can take that cry of 'It's not right' to the post-human and the cyborg. Manufacturing such blasphemies is not what God put us here for. Bioethics must have boundaries.
