GenEthics and Religion. Группа авторов
genetic manipulation through gene therapy. The reason for this liberal attitude of Buddhist ethics towards human genetic manipulation, and potentially some forms of human enhancement, is to be found in a general and structural affinity of Buddhism and science, as both see the need for the verification of truth by reason and experience. Beyond this explanation one might assume that it also might have to do with the fact that, in contrast to Western traditions, Buddhism denies the uniqueness of the individual person as a biographical unit of mind and body. However, its teaching of inter-dependence opposes any intervention that has negative social effects. Accordingly, in Buddhist ethical thinking only somatic cell therapy is acceptable, and only for therapeutic purposes, whereas its use, e.g., in cosmetic medicine, for self-enhancement is not. Similarly, germ line cell therapy is ethically questionable due to its potentially negative effects on humanity. The same applies to human reproductive cloning where possible negative effects are considered to outweigh positive ones.
In contrast to this quite accepting attitude towards genetic manipulation in general, Ratanakul argues for a rather restrictive position concerning embryonic stem cell research. This follows from the categorical Buddhist precept to avoid any killing of human life. Despite its open and tolerant spirit the Buddhist position on the preciousness of embryonic life is uncompromising even in the case of excess embryos. According to Ratanakul's interpretation of Buddhist ethics, this precept even outweighs the ethical principle of compassion with such human beings whose quality of life might profit substantially from the results of such research.
Beyond Playing God
To keep up with the rapid progress of modern gene technology religious ethics must engage in new ideas and unorthodox ethical reflections. Denying such reflections would risk rendering religious ethics a mere mouthpiece of anti-technological fears and instincts and a public morality mirroring such attitudes. Avoidance of such attitudes will require diligent efforts to understand relevant forms of biotechnology and their potential risks and benefits, as well as critical self-reflection among religious ethicists.
In the sacred texts of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism, of course no direct reference is made to the ethical dimension of gene technology. Nevertheless, there are concepts of life, principles of ethics, and principles of dealing with the creative potential of humanity in all these scriptures. In addition, all religions have more or less established traditions of sophisticated ethical debate on those subjects and as they pertain to intricate questions of human life. Religious debates, including those on ethical topics, may be treacherous, highly ambiguous, and – at least for outsiders – often irrational. Still, these debates have their own logical framework, and by and large they endeavor to be of public relevance. This does not mean that bioethical debates within religious communities are less intense and rigorous than those in secular environments – quite on the contrary. Indeed, pluralism is not only a characteristic of the modern world but also of the history of religions – religions needed to find ways to deal with pluralism all along.
Despite their wide diversity, all ethical debates among religions are probably based on a common, shared view of humanity as the most tenuous form of life on earth. Human life is itself playing God, without being God. The preservation and reflection of this knowledge may be the very reason why religious ethics is not only useful but perhaps even fundamentally necessary for both individuals’ and societies’ discourse on gene technologies. This knowledge may indeed be why humankind has adopted religious thought and practice throughout history.
Context, Acknowledgments, and Dedication
This volume goes back to a conference held in Basel on May 22 and 23, 2008, entitled “GenEthics and Religion: Advancing the Public Dialogue on Human Gene Technology and Bioethics as Reflected in Religious Thought” – a joint event organized by the Faculty of Theology of Basel University, the Science and Ethics Advisory Group (SEAG) of F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, and S. Karger Publishers.
The editors wish to thank the F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG for their generous support of the conference and this volume. They would also like to express their gratitude to the Karger Publishing House, especially to Messrs. Thomas and Steven Karger and Mrs. Gabriela Karger. Their initiative was essential for this enterprise; they served as active members of the organizing committee and accepted this volume for publication. We also thank S. Karger Publishers for untiring support throughout the publication process.
The editors wish to dedicate this volume to the memory of Mr. Steven Karger who passed away several weeks before the conference, on March 5, 2008, at the age of 49 years.
Georg Pfleiderer, Basel
Gabriela Brahier, Basel
Klaus Lindpaintner, Newark, Del.
Footnote
1 Habermas J: Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur. Auf dem Weg zu einer liberalen Eugenik? Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 2001.
Foundations: Hermeneutic and Conceptional Reflections
Pfleiderer G, Brahier G, Lindpaintner K (eds): GenEthics and Religion. Basel, Karger, 2010, pp 12–27
______________________
Genes – Cells – Interpretations What Hermeneutics Can Add to Genetics and to Bioethics
Christoph Rehmann-Sutter
Institute for the History of Medicine and Science Studies, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
Prologue
I began to write this text when I had to wait a few hours for a flight connection at London Heathrow. I sat down with a coffee and my laptop at a small table, a bit away from the crowds. The topic I was thinking about was how we can make sense of what we know about the genes in our bodies. We know about genes and DNA, about genetic risks associated with mutations we happen to carry, and about the genome functioning within us. All this is something of us, something that belongs to our embodiment, makes it possible for us to live. I listened and looked around.
Complexity is within me, and outside as well. The acoustic space around me was filled by a constant rush from an enormous air ventilation system in the airport hall, an occasional squeak of a not too well lubricated escalator going down to the arrivals level, the chat of some fellow travelers nearby, and a strong, slowly speaking female voice over the loudspeakers giving instructions to two individuals to ‘go immediately to gate 14’. Signs everywhere with written instructions for passengers to go here or there, invitations to buy this or that, screens announcing the next flight departures and the corresponding gate numbers. Here, you just need to know where you want to go, to have the right ticket ready, and this immense machine of air transport will interact with you and take you there, I thought. The planes outside seemed like external extensions of the airport machine, little spin-off machines, which fly away and distribute people to places far off around the globe. That complexity outside was clearly a human-made construct, easy to read, made to be easy to read. Instructions all around. But our bodies? Do the genes make them readable for us too, testable and foreseeable? Genomes as our bodies’ instruction books? That was the question I wanted to think about.
Nobody would doubt that in an airport, the texts we see all around us are texts indeed. The act of gathering information from screens and panels (or from a hastily spoken ‘Hi'ere, how're you?’ at an immigration officer's desk) is essentially a complex act of understanding, and sometimes, if it is not entirely clear what it means, even interpreting. There is a meaning in all these signs. They really are signs, not just things that look like signs. Signs are fascinating constellations. Language is not an object. Language speaks. The information that is understood by passengers making their way through the airport is essentially lingual in its form. Its origin is a human mind, therefore those hearing or reading the messages know that what they hear and see are indeed messages: complex signs