Science, philosophy, religion, and use of embryonic stem cells

Abstract

Authors' reply Sir—David Reardon states that it is not the nature of science to be able to discover, prove, or invent morality. As the eminent scientist Frans de Waal pointed out, however, “we seem to be reaching a point at which science can wrest morality from the hands of philosophers”.1de Waal F Good natured: the origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA1996Google Scholar In fact, neither religion nor philosophy has taught chimpanzees to behave morally by displaying an admirable social ethic.1de Waal F Good natured: the origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA1996Google Scholar, 2Baschetti R Evolutionary psychiatry.J R Soc Med. 1997; 90: 358-359PubMed Google Scholar Their moral acts, such as sharing of resources with non-kin, caring and consolation toward non-kin, and attempts to reconcile non-kin,1de Waal F Good natured: the origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA1996Google Scholar, 2Baschetti R Evolutionary psychiatry.J R Soc Med. 1997; 90: 358-359PubMed Google Scholar can be explained only by biological, evolutionary factors, such as the selective advantages of groups strengthened by the moral—ie, socially useful—behaviour of their members2Baschetti R Evolutionary psychiatry.J R Soc Med. 1997; 90: 358-359PubMed Google Scholar, 3Wilson EO The biological basis of morality.http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/biomoral.htmGoogle Scholar over groups undermined by the immoral—ie, socially dangerous— behaviour of their members.1de Waal F Good natured: the origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA1996Google Scholar, 2Baschetti R Evolutionary psychiatry.J R Soc Med. 1997; 90: 358-359PubMed Google Scholar Given that human beings and chimpanzees share a common ancestor and 98% of their genetic code,2Baschetti R Evolutionary psychiatry.J R Soc Med. 1997; 90: 358-359PubMed Google Scholar reason suggests that humankind's morality too has been genetically moulded by purely biological, evolutionary factors aimed at reducing physical and psychological sufferings, thereby favouring humankind's survival.2Baschetti R Evolutionary psychiatry.J R Soc Med. 1997; 90: 358-359PubMed Google Scholar, 3Wilson EO The biological basis of morality.http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/biomoral.htmGoogle Scholar Reardon's opposition to destructive human embryo research reflects the religious dogma claiming that a human embryo is a human life, because it has the potential to be born within 9 months. The fact that a human embryo has such potential, however, does not change its actual status of the embryo, which is merely an amorphous, microscopic agglomerate of insensitive cells. Similarly, the fact that a pile of bricks has the potential to become a house does not change its actual status of a mere pile of bricks. What differentiates a pile of bricks from a house is the human investment, in the form of labour, sweat, and care. Likewise, what differentiates a human embryo from a human being is the parental investment, which is a crucial evolutionary factor.4Garcia-Dorado A Some evolutionary properties of parental investment per offspring in a heterogeneous environment.J Theor Biol. 1990; 147: 101-114Crossref PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar In the case of a human being, the parental investment is represented not only by the parents' costly and loving cares aimed at bringing up a healthy and happy individual but also by the social efforts to form an educated and honest citizen useful to community. By contrast, in the case of an embryo, in stages at which its existence is generally unnoticed, the parental investment is nought. For this reason, the biological ethic suggests that to save a few microscopic and insensitive embryos representing no parental investment, at the expense of several suffering human beings representing great parental investment, besides emerging as an evolutionary nonsense, is an immoral act, because it deliberately hampers a reduction in human sufferings, thereby potentially jeopardising humankind's survival. The religious dogmatic opposition to research with human embryonic stem cells might fully reveal its intrinsic suicidal immorality if an unknown devastating disease, curable only by the therapeutic use of human embryos, will menace the survival of our species. Science, philosophy, religion, and use of embryonic stem cellsRiccardo Baschetti (Dec 15, p 2078)1 dismisses moral objections to stem-cell research that arise solely from religion and philosophy, not science. He argues that religious morality has been superseded by the objective biological ethic, which is aimed at avoiding pain and suffering. Full-Text PDF