Bioethics Expert Issues Warning

ROME, SEP 6,2000 (ZENIT.org). - As debate rages over the British and U.S.
decisions to approve the cloning of cells derived from human embryos for
therapeutic research, the Italian newspaper "Avvenire" interviewed
Daniel Callahan, who founded the first Bioethics Center in New York in
the 1960s.

-- Avvenire: The European Union and the United States remain divided
over transgenic foods in general and human cloning in particular. The
United States would prefer a more open attitude, even offering medical
guarantees. What are the ethical problems?

-- Callahan: Every genetic technique entails ethical problems. The
cloning of cells obtained from the embryo seems like an atomic bomb.
Today we have no idea where it could lead us. This is really slippery
ground. Moreover, biotechnology in medicine affects a minority of people
with health problems, whereas nourishment is a primary good that - like
air and water - affects the human species. We wonder if it is really
safe, if there are health risks, what happens in countries where it is
produced. Then, if the production is controlled only by some
multinationals, what will poor or developing countries do, if they must
depend completely on these giants? These are the ethical problems.

-- Avvenire: The British and U.S. governments are united in the face of
the problem of embryonic cloning. What does this mean?

-- Callahan: Whoever likes new technology tries to go ahead no matter
what the cost, and the greater part of North Americans take this
position. Then there are the apocalyptic, who, as far as possible, try
to put the brakes on progress in new technology, adducing catastrophic
risks. A third way is upheld by bioengineering, applied to medicine and
foods. It can be very useful, but it must be applied gradually,
evaluating the risks carefully.

Moreover, as the debate has more than one emotional hue, there are valid
health and environmental arguments against such practices. When
researchers introduce a new gene in an organism, there are effects that
could cause unforeseen mutations, unleashing unexpected reactions.

-- Avvenire: Scientists insist that embryonic cloning would make
possible the cure of incurable and debilitating sicknesses, especially
in the elderly.

-- Callahan: They could direct themselves to other research without
having to trespass the limits of the ethical. From many quarters there
is also criticism of experimentation on animals. It will be a colossal
business, and we already see a divided and litigious political class.

-- Avvenire: What do you say to scientists who, contrary to the limits
imposed by governments, justify their own research, claiming plurality
of options?

-- Callahan: Although pluralism must be respected, it is necessary that
general solutions and norms be elaborated that are not just based on
consensus or procedure, but that commit groups. If personal morality is
lowered to the mere exercise of free choice, without any available
principle for a moral judgment on the quality of these choices, then the
law will be inevitably used to fill the resulting moral void. This is a
situation in which science, technology and, almost inexorably, medicine
itself are debating.

-- Avvenire: The Human Embryo Research Panel requested government funds
for research on human embryos that are left over, regarding them as a
developing form of human life which, although worthy of respect, does
not have the moral state of a newborn or a child. What do you think of
this?

-- Callahan: The panel has not told us why it is a duty to carry out
research that requires such techniques, and has not explained
persuasively to us in what way such research is compatible with respect
for the moral state of the fetus.

I maintain that the best and most honest way to defend embryo research
is not, as the panel does, to show that research must prevail over the
respect ? owed to the embryo, but which simply denies any value to
pre-implant embryos. If you look at it under the rhetoric of respect,
this is the real meaning of what the panel has done.

Research that is within moral limits is worthy of respect. Research that
relentlessly tries to find a way to avoid them, proposing any alleged
greater good, is not. All research on the human being, whether in the
fetal, newborn or adult state, obliges one to consider him and treat him
as a human subject, respecting his dignity and rights.
ZE00090623