perfection. Green himself suggests that Jewish bioethics based on these principles could be open for rather progressive forms of human genetic self-modification, including forms of human enhancement.
In many Muslim-dominant countries stem cell research is accelerating rapidly although Islamic ethics of human embryonic stem cell research have yet to reach consensus. This is at least the interpretation of Siti Nurani Mohamed Nor. According to her, a perusal of various scholarly Islamic writings suggests that there is a plurality of views regarding the beginning of life, but there is consensus regarding the existence of potential life in the human embryo; accordingly, the Quran declares that the unborn baby has the undeniable right to inheritance. Potentiality, according to Islamic interpretations, does not, however, accord exclusive rights to the embryo, including the right to life. Instead, lawmakers consider every action in light of the choice of the lesser of two evils, in this context foregoing the potential of gene technology vs. infractions of the maqasid al sharia (the objectives of Islamic law) which are defined by five basic human interests: life, religion, property, intellect, and family lineage. Islamic scholars find that human embryonic stem cell research does not contravene all five maqasid. There is life in these cells but the crime committed against them is minor according to the Sharia. Next, research in this area does not transgress religious barriers because it does not constitute playing God. Third, organ and body parts, including cells and tissues are not considered the property of human beings and consent is, therefore, unnecessary. Fourth, research is highly regarded as extending and protecting the intellect, and seeking knowledge is a noble act in Islam. Finally, research on genetic materials is allowed as long as regulations and controls are laid down to ensure that family lineage is protected within the bounds of legal marriage.
According to Pinit Ratanakul, it is – at least in principle – not difficult for Buddhism to cope with new scientific achievements such as genetics and biotechnology. The basic teachings of kamma and human nature do not exclude 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
