Synogenes.com

The Human Fertility and Embryology Act from 1990 is being overhauled and the current white paper proposes to ban the use of hybrid-embryos conforming to public concern.

Opponents are concerned about the ethical and moral issues involved though thre is already a move to collect the skeptical comments from some scientists. Already the camp opposed to the process are using the american technique of raising the certainty threshold before a scientific proposal can be researched. It's been well-tested in the US: someone challenges the proposer to acknowledge that there is some doubt about the outcome of the research and on that basis, argues that the proposal won't deliver and is therefore not worth doing. This approach has been used to prevent climate research, to oppose pesticide limitation, limit stem cell research, and as part of widespread opposition to environmental controls. Now the approach is being used in the UK to limit stem-cell research.

Any scientist worth the name will argue that there is always doubt - that's why we do experiments and study real-world data. In the case of the hybrid embryos, there's no guarantee that they will deliver everything we need in terms of stem cell research but that's not a reason for rejecting the proposed work.

The stronger case is made by those who have moral or ethical objections but these are quite vague. A common objection is that it is playing God, creating a "something", a potential new species which has not naturally arisen. This is tantamount to saying that if variation arises naturally then it's OK to exploit it, but not using techniques to induce those variations. This objection unravels when we look at animal husbandry, and especially so in the deliberate manipulation of plant species. Agriculture has been doing this kind of artificial manipulation of nature for centuries. The only difference is the timescales.

When we think of playing God, we are of course invoking the presumed capabilities of a mythical all-powerful being, the perjorative intent of the phrase being used to make us think that the process is inherently wrong, not because the outcomes may be harmful but the very act of manipulating nature is wrong in itself. This seemingly goes not apply to the use of electricity, or even fire, processes which directly and deliberately manipulate nature. It also divorces the consequence from the cause, which is actually the whole point of ethical argument. Is it wrong to produce antibiotics for example? For years we have been using bacteria to produce quantities of antibiotics:
Research is very well established in this area.

But to be fairer, the concern is often really about the "human" part of the process, the human DNA. Here the moral issue really comes down to the religious basis for the objections. It;s about interfering with human biology at a low level. Medical intervention is apparently acceptable but low level cellular intervention is a problem. But what exactly is human? Is it the DNA, which can be constructed from inert constituents and assembled - it hasn't been done yet but the technology is available? And what of the living host cell that would have such DNA introduced to it? If we judge it to be human, what then of the so-called soul? At what point does conception take place? Would such a hybrid be 1% host soul? Soulless? Incomplete soul? The raise absurdly doctrinal questions for religious people reminiscent of the Inquisition.

One argument though is based on statistics. The claim is that such embryos would be 99% human. But in fact we share 85% of our DNA with mice. Does that make us 85% mice or mice 85% human? And in fact at the level of genes, we share 99%.

So some of the confusion is around what constitutes a human. As the mysteries of life are unravelled, there will soon be nothing supernatural about creating living tissue and the ethical issues will properly concern our understanding of what constitutes a person. Collections of cells grown in a culture do not constitute a person and the ethical question is really about whether it is moral not to study such tissues.

As Dr Stephen Minger of King's College, London, put it:
At present we have no therapies to even alleviate the symptoms for conditions such as Alzheimer's, spinal muscular dystrophy and motor neuron disease, never mind make an impact on disease progression.

So the ethical dilemma is in practice about stopping research because of quasi-religious notions of what being human consists of. The consequence of preventing this research is the rather uncharitable condemnation of sufferers from incurable diseases to continued suffering.

The possibilities for medical research now becoming available are precisely brought about because we are understanding that the biochemistry and genetics of living organisms has an enormous amount in common. Human life is not special and that is the broadside to religious thinking for it undermines the notions of chosen peoples, creation myths, notions of souls, sins, redemption and some all-powerful being that supposedly created us.

Because science is demonstrating life to be prosaic, commonplace, generic, mundane, and above all intelligible, religious and mythical interests are coming to the fore. Building on popular prejudice, they seek to role back scientific research but it's the people who suffer incurable diseases who will pay the price.

The case of the boarding house owners recently who wanted to prevent gay couples renting rooms brings into focus an issue between having beliefs or opinions, and having the right to act on those beliefs and opinions in ways judged not to be in the interest of society.

The boarding house owners with strong Christian beliefs felt that anti-discrimination law forces them to condone practices they do not approve of. They argue that the boarding house is their home and that this therefore affords them particular rights.

On the other hand, they are offering accommodation as a business and cannot legitimately turn down the business if such a rejection is based on discrimination. Subjecting people to discrimination is of course illegal but businesses make decisions all the time about the deals they make and the people they trade with. Boarding houses may well turn away people they feel would be trouble. Pubs refuse to serve customers on the same basis.

In the late 50s and 60s, it was common to see signs in boarding houses rejecting Irish and black people. Such odious racism is a thing of the past but the justification of prejudice based on religious faith is now current again.

The law exists to ensure that people who hold strong views are not thereby empowered to act on those beliefs if those actions infringe the rights of others. Consequently, if the owners of boarding houses want to offer their accommodation to the public, it has to be free of discrimination. If they do not want to trade under those legal conditions, they are of course free to cease trading. What they are not entitled to do is to make themselves exempt from the law based on some supposed status of their religious belief.

The notion that people have to serve some religious authority over and above the law is not just unacceptable in a democracy, but it is completely unworkable. The first time a Jedi knight had a conflict of interest with a Buddhist, the entire legal process would fall apart! If we included any of the thousands of other religious faiths, the plethora of justifications for prejudice would cascade out of control. All these things would be justified by irrational beliefs.

The absurdity of justification of prejudice by religious belief will be rightly exposed but by extension we should question how we can establish any moral basis for behaviour based on such irrationalism. You can’t discriminate against gays booking rooms. You should also be prevented from terrifying small children with stories of perdition and hell for those without faith.

Religions differ in their attitude to the environment. Those who believe religious texts as the literal truth, adopt the same attitude as those people who existed at the time the books were written. That puts a curious slant on the relationship between technology and nature because clearly the viewpoint of someone for whom a wheel was the cutting edge of progress, will see the resources of nature as quite different from say, a climate scientist of today.

Whereas they knew nothing of the limited nature of world resources, of the poisoning of the atmosphere and the fragility of the ecosystem, we know a great deal about it. The historical context of religious texts makes it impossible to assume the same relevance for social and ethical messages today.

When it comes to the environment, these books are scary, and if taken literally they threaten to undermine responsible actions to turn back global warming and pollution. The religious texts of the Christian tradition are overwhelmingly of the view that the earth was made for humans to exploit. Nature is given a purpose – to provide man with raw materials, for man’s consumption.

The inevitable consequence of this approach is that any interference with the free exploitation of the resources of the earth is contradicting the will of God, so the religious right in the USA consistently oppose environmental controls. See for example:

some interesting articles.

Last year, the increasing irrationality of the Christian fundamentalist positions led some theists to join forces to oppose them. Instead of disregarding nature as being there solely for the benefit of man, they proposed a greater focus on God-followers being stewards of the earth, protecting nature because man is some form of higher being, above the beasts and below the immortal.

See for example the hedging of bets in:
this report.

The problem comes though in trying both to claim special status for humans, at the same time as acknowledging the sheer prosaic and indiscriminating forces of nature. That man is just one species amongst many, with a common biology, interdependent in an environment which provides the stimuli for adaptation and selection, which permits the specialisations leading to evolution, is a step too far for irrationalists. But taking the environmental issues seriously leads inexorably to such considerations.

So the irrational theists are in a double-bind. To maintain that they have something relevant to say, they have to address environmental issues. But in doing so, they have to assert rational argument which exposes their own irrationalism. Hence the casuistry and theological confusion.

Nevertheless, the ethical principle which derives from secular society is having an effect on the often thick skin of the religious, and New Scientist has reported that the Christians are starting to listen to science. See:
Climate change unites science and religion.

Who knows, they might even persuade a few fundamentalists to read Darwin... In the meantime, if they can persuade their blind fundamentalist to stop interfering with and suppressing climate research, pollution enquiries, and protective legislation, that would be a start.

In the USA, science is often attacked on the basis of concern over sound science - if the science challenges corporate interests it is challenged on the grounds that it is not sound science, that it is in fact junk science. This has been a favourite tack for the religious right for years (Sound Science). Maybe we'll see the theists reeling in their antiscience friends as a practical show of their appreciation of the rationality of science and what it tells us.

I'm not holding my breath...

Cardinal Murphy O’Connor, supported by a couple of C of E Archbishops, namely Rowan Williams (Cantebury) and John Sentamu (York), are seeking exemption from a law about prejudice because they don’t want to have to abide by it.

United in prejudice?

The argument goes something like this. Catholic adoption agencies won’t refer children for adoption if the applicants are gay because they feel bound not to by their beliefs. The law says you cannot discriminate in this way but the theists are claiming that they should be exempt because it is a “right of conscience”.

Secular politicians are rightly worried that this opens an easy justification to any prejudiced group of people to discriminate on any grounds they like so long as they claim it as a deeply held belief. Racists, for example, could have deeply held convictions which would then justify them racially disciminating against people, for example if they were running a business which interacted with the general public. Clearly such a let-out is absurd.

Once again, the religious are claiming special dispensation for their beliefs over and above the law of the land. If someone is running a business which is falling foul of the law, they, like all other citizens, are expected to change their practice to comply with it. And that’s the case whether it’s over discrimination, misleading advertising, health and safety, equal opportunities, or any of the thousands of other regulations which are in place to prevent abuse and ensure fair play.

So the catholics have issued a threat: either they are exempt from the law, or they’ll close down their adoption agencies. But surely, if these agencies are discriminating against people and unfairly prejudicing their case for adoption, they should be closed down? In fact, if the law goes through, and they try to stay in business, they may not have a choice.

The fact that these religious institutions are making threats in order to continue their policy of discrimination makes it very plain that they should not be involved in adoption activities at all. If a public servant exercised such discriminatory practices, they would be immediately called before a disciplinary panel.

Where there is a clear conflict of interest, as in the case of Ruth Kelly, we have every right to expect her to support the rule of law. If she cannot square that with her conscience, then she clearly cannot continue doing the ministerial job. Stephen Pound, a catholic labour MP, asks “does she have to abandon her ambition or her faith?” Good question! If her faith compromises her ability to put the state over the church, the law above prejudice, then she should go. There cannot be compromise on this.

Religious beliefs have to be judged against social standards. Whatever your beliefs, there is no automatic right to act on those beliefs. We mediate between thought and action in the form of socially acceptable rules, coded into laws, as a means of protecting people against irrationalism. Whether you think you are Napoleon or an Archbishop, you don't get special treatment because of your beliefs.

Last week, the catholics were threatening the government that unless they were given exemption from anti-discrimination law, they would close their adoption agencies.

This is the same threat that was used in the USA when anti-discrimination legislation was passed there too. In that case, only two agencies actually closed because the catholics don't want to lose access to the young, especially vulnerable young people who will be more susceptible to catholic indoctrination.

See the Washington Post article.

Even if they do decide to close, the cases would simply be referred to other adoption agencies so the idea that there would be massive disadvantage to the children is ridiculous.

What is incontrovertible is that the children placed for adoption would no longer be labelled as catholic children, there would no longer be a certainty that they would be subjected to superstitious indoctrination and moral coercion. At least if they are referred to a secular adoption agency, they will be free from the clutches of the catholic church.

It is no accident that the catholic church wants to involve itself in the welfare of the young - it is the clearest method of inculcating religious belief in people with the best chance of persistence. Catch them young and they will believe what they are told by people in authority.

There is every reason to oppose the role of the catholic church in adoption agencies and it is to be hoped that preventing them discriminate will bring other benefits as well like freeing vulnerable children from being subjected to religious indoctrination. The removal of the catholic church from adoption agencies could be of enormous benefit to large numbers of children.