Jesus doesn't even make the top three when it comes to things Britons associate with Easter, according to a poll by YouGov.
Just 55% of people said that they personally associate Christ with Easter despite the very obvious fact that the Easter weekend constitutes the biggest event in the Christian calendar.
This makes Jesus the fourth most common Easter associated for people in the UK - behind chocolate Easter eggs (76%), bank holidays (67%) and hot cross buns (62%).
Use regions/landmarks to skip ahead to chart.
What do Britons associate with Easter?. Proportion of respondents selecting each option
Long description.
No description available.
Structure.
Chart type: column chart.
column series with 12 columns.
The chart has 1 X axis displaying categories.
The chart has 1 Y axis displaying values.
Chart graphic.Among young people Jesus is even less likely to be associated with Easter, with just 44pc of those aged 18-24 and 45pc of those aged 25-49 picking him as an option.
Jude Ower loved playing video games as a child, but she never dreamed that her passion would eventually become a force for good and win her accolades and honours.
After 12 years making games for education and training, she went on to create an international games platform with a social conscience - Playmob.
"After the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Zynga, the creator of Farmville, launched a campaign to raise funds for the victims by selling an in-game item, with a percentage of each purchase going to help the victims," she explains.
"It was massively successful and raised over $1m in a matter of days. It was then I thought: 'Maybe I could make a platform that connected games and causes?'"
Playmob pairs games developers or businesses with a charity and then sets up in-game advertising campaigns. By clicking on links within the game, players can make donations.
The campaigns have helped more than 3,000 teenagers receive counselling for cyber-bullying, provided protection for 31 pandas, and secured education for 8,500 children in Africa and Asia, the company says.
"With Playmob we can track the social impact, such as number of trees planted, number of meals provided, water wells built, and so forth," she says.
"This allows players to see that the more they play and interact with the branded content, the more good they do."
So far the games platform has raised more than $1m for charities over the past five years, and more than 1.5 million players have interacted with charitable in-game content.
Her success saw her awarded an MBE (Member of the Order of the British Empire) in 2015 for services to entrepreneurship and she's been voted one of the top 100 Women in Tech in Europe.
Ms Ower is just one of a growing number of entrepreneurs - many of them women - exploring how technology can be harnessed in the cause of philanthropy.
This is tech for social good, or "philtech" as it's sometimes called.
Image copyrightSUMMERYImage captionErin Michelson had all the trappings of financial success but felt "terribly unhappy"
Erin Michelson's high-flying banking career took her to Hong Kong, Chicago, New York and San Francisco, where she rose to vice president and director of philanthropic management at Bank of America.
But despite seemingly having it all, she felt there was something missing.
"I realised that even though I had all the trappings of success, I was terribly unhappy," she says.
"So I quit my job, sold everything I owned, set up a charitable fund, and headed out on a two-year around-the-world trip volunteering with humanitarian organisations."
Taking only one suitcase, she spent 720 days travelling to 62 countries across all seven continents - an adventure that helped her find meaning in her life, she says.
After writing a book about her experiences, she returned to San Francisco and founded Summery, a data analytics company that has developed a piece of online software similar to the Myers-Briggs personality test.
Image copyrightSUMMERYImage captionSummery helps firms match their charitable projects with their employees' personalities
The program combines behavioural science and analytics to give employers an idea of their staff's social priorities and attitudes towards giving, which she says helps inform companies how to focus their charitable efforts.
"The test matches you with one of 10 'giving' personalities and provides a snapshot of your giving DNA, one of 59,048 possibilities," says Ms Michelson.
By taking the guesswork out of charitable giving, she says it can improve the relationship between employer and staff, to everyone's benefit.
"Engaged employees lead not only to better corporate performance, but also significant cost savings through stronger retention and more targeted recruitment based on cultural appreciation," she says.
Richard Craig, chief executive of the Technology Trust, which helps charitable organisations use tech more effectively, says: "Over the last couple of years there has been a noticeable trend in graduates specifically looking for roles in charities and non-profits who might previously have looked to careers in the City, for example.
"I am seeing the same trend with technology start-ups, with a proportion looking to deliver social good either as non-profits themselves, or commercial organisation with social purpose."
Image copyrightEDUARDO PAPERINIImage captionGood-Loop's Amy Williams says she saw "untapped potential" in online advertising
It was while working for an advertising agency in London that Amy Williams had her "philtech epiphany".
"I saw firsthand the huge amount of money that gets passed from one big conglomerate to another, buying and selling the cheap commodity of our attention online," she says.
"The stark contrast between these two worlds really hit me - £4.7bn was spent on online advertising in the UK last year."
She quit and went travelling, working as a volunteer for a small charity in Argentina called Food For Thought, which specialises in nutrition education for kids.
"I started started to see the untapped potential within online advertising to make some real positive impact."
Inspired by her experiences, she founded Good-Loop, a company that rewards viewers of video ads with donations to their chosen charities.
Brands create a video and if the visitor watches it for 15 seconds or more, the advertiser pays 50p - with 50% of that going to the chosen charity, 40% to the content creator, and 10% to Good-Loop.
She says the process makes viewers more engaged with brands because they have opted to watch the content rather than having it forced upon them.
Playmob's Jude Ower believes recent political events in Europe and the US have fired up younger generations to get more involved in socially responsible causes.
"We are seeing people leave well-paid jobs to take a risk and set up on their own, not just in the hope of creating a successful start-up, but to do something with purpose."
Warning to Not Misuse Biotechnologies, Reminds That Sciences and Technology Are Made for Man and World, Not Vice Versa
PHOTO.VA - L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO
“The principle of accountability is an essential cornerstone of human action, and man must answer for his own acts and omissions before himself, others and ultimately God.”
Pope Francis sent this strong message to members of the National Committee for Biosafety, Biotechnology and Life Sciences at an audience in the Vatican, this morning, April 10, 2017, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the institution of the committee at the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.
The Pontiff began greeting those present and acknowledging that the themes and issues that their committee faces are of great importance for contemporary man, both as an individual and in the relational and social dimension, starting with the family and also in local and national as well as international communities, and in care for creation.
With this in mind, the Pope stressed, “let me remind you that the sciences and technologies are made for man and for the world, not the man and the world for science and technology.”
“They are at the service of a dignified and healthy life for all, now and in the future, and make our common home more liveable and supportive, more careful and guarded.”
The Pope had began his address recalling that in the book of Genesis, we read:“the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it” (2:15). Francis reminded them of how essential it is that they remember that in whatever they do, they are to “cultivate” and “keep” the garden of the world, which entails caring for, protecting, overseeing and preserving.
Predict, Prevent Manipulation of Life
“Your task,” the Pontiff highlighted, “is not only that of promoting the harmonious and integrated development of scientific and technological research that relates to the biological processes of plant, animal and human life; you are also asked to predict and prevent the negative consequences that can result in a distorted use of knowledge and skills to manipulate life.”
The scientist, like the technologist, the Pope explained, is called to “know” and “know how” with increasing precision and creativity in his or her field of competence and, at the same time, “make responsible decisions on steps to be taken, and those before which it is necessary to stop, and take a different road.”
Accountability
“The principle of accountability is an essential cornerstone of human action, and man must answer for his own acts and omissions before himself, others and ultimately God.”
Technologies, even more than sciences, the Pope stressed, put in the hands of man an enormous and growing power.
“The major risk,” he highlighted, “is that citizens, and sometimes even those who represent them and govern them, do not fully realize the seriousness of the challenges that arise, the complexity of the problems to be solved, and the danger of misusing the power that sciences and the technologies of life put in our hands (see Romano Guardini, The end of the modern era , Brescia 1987, pp. 80-81).”
Pope Francis concluded, saying, “May the Lord bless each one of you, your families and your valuable work,”and saying pray for me as I pray for you.
They also fear that shared standards around ethical trade will be lost if more firms drop Fairtrade.
So what prompted Mondelez's change of approach, and does it leave the future of the Fairtrade mark in doubt?
Mondelez's change of approach
Broadly, Fairtrade works as a voluntary certification system which holds adherents to strict standards - in particular paying a minimum price for raw materials such as cocoa, sugar and coffee.
But Glenn Caton, northern Europe president at Mondelez, tells the BBC that while his firm and Fairtrade have the same goals, "sustainability is about much more to us than price".
"The next generation of farmers aren't taking on cocoa farming like they used to because it is so unprofitable, so we have to make sure their communities thrive and this means investing more in their communities," he says.
Image copyrightCOCOA LIFEImage captionMondelez's Cocoa Life scheme aims to invest more in cocoa-producing communities
As such, Mondelez wants to lead its own sustainability efforts - investing more in areas such as its supply chain, bonuses for farmers, training and climate change prevention.
The Fairtrade Foundation has welcomed the move, too, which it says will leave farmers in developing countries like Ghana at least as well off, if not better-off.
"The relationship is not ending, it's changing," says policy and public affairs director Barbara Crowther, pointing out that the Fairtrade Foundation will remain a partner to Cocoa Life - independently assessing its progress and reporting its findings.
Fairtrade exodus?
The big question now is whether other firms will also choose to abandon Fairtrade certification and adopt their own systems of self-regulation.
Certainly criticism of the Fairtrade system is mounting in the cocoa industry, says Dr Steve Davies of the Institute of Economic Affairs.
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionThe next generation is not taking on cocoa "because it is so unprofitable", say Mondelez's Glenn Caton
The big issue is that most cocoa producers are small farmers who can't achieve the economies of scale of bigger farms, and that leaves many vulnerable to risks like drought and struggling to survive.
"Fairtrade does bring benefits to some producers, but it will not be a way of transforming the world trade system as some people seem to see it," he says.
"The only way to improve conditions for people working at bottom of the supply chain - those farming raw materials like cocoa - is by investing in the supply chain. Price floors might help but will only go so far."
Complex systems
Another issue, says Tobias Webb, of supply chain consultancy the Innovation Forum, is that firms can find the web of overlapping ethical trade certifications out there complex to manage.
These include not just Fairtrade's, but the Rainforest Alliance - which is dedicated to the conservation of tropical forests - and UTZ, the world's most prevalent label for sustainable farming.
"Producers can end up putting four or five labels on their products, and achieving each one requires a costly and time consuming audit.
Image copyrightFAIRTRADEImage captionMany small farmers struggle to produce cocoa profitably
"So many businesses like Mondelez are now moving towards in-house systems where they work in partnership with the NGOs as independent observers.
But not everyone wants to see Fairtrade stepping back from its role as a leading promoter of ethical trade.
Anna Taylor, executive director of think-tank the Food Foundation, says the UK has seen a "rapid rise" in Fairtrade sales in the last two decades which has been of huge benefit to farmers in the developing world.
Fairtrade cocoa products by volume increased 6% in the UK in 2015, and around 4,500 products in 74 countries have the Fairtrade mark worldwide.
'Black-box supply chains'
The risk, she adds, is that we could lose a transparent set of universal standards that consumers "trust, see and recognise".
"Consumers more than ever want to be able to trust where their food comes from and are worried about 'black-box' supply chains."
Mr Webb sees another potential risk in big firms pulling away from the Fairtrade system.
Image copyrightFAIRTRADEImage captionMondelez and Fairtrade will continue to work together to improve conditions on cocoa farms
"Will NGOs still be able to resource themselves to play the role of the critical friend? There is potentially a risk there that there is no independent observer - but firms do understand they need that credibility."
Ms Crowther says the Fairtrade Foundation does not see Mondelez's move as a threat to its future, and welcomes companies "taking ownership" of their sustainability challenges.
She adds that her organisation is also evolving to meet the cocoa industry's changing needs and moving beyond its historical focus on price regulation.
"If there is an opportunity to innovate in different way then we welcome it. It's also worth mentioning that Mondelez will continue to source the same amount of Fairtrade-certified sugar for its products.
"We are still the most recognisable ethical-trade mark globally and that's not going to change," she adds.
A genetically engineered baby could be born in the UK before Christmas. The UK government has given a licence to Newcastle University to create three-parent embryos to combat mitochondrial diseases.
The UK’s fertility authority, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority(HFEA), had already announced in December that licences for the controversial procedure were to be granted on a case-by-case basis. It appears that a number of couples have applied for the procedure, so the University will have no trouble in enrolling patients.
Sally Cheshire, chair of the UK’s fertility authority, said: “I can confirm today that the HFEA has approved the first application by Newcastle Fertility at Life for the use of mitochondrial donation to treat patients. This significant decision represents the culmination of many years hard work by researchers, clinical experts, and regulators, who collectively paved the way for Parliament to change the law in 2015 to permit the use of such techniques.
“Patients will now be able to apply individually to the HFEA to undergo mitochondrial donation treatment at Newcastle, which will be life-changing for them, as they seek to avoid passing on serious genetic diseases to future generations.”
Critics described the move as “ethically reckless”. Mark Bhagwandin, of the pro-life charity Life, told the Daily Telegraph:
“We had hoped that the HFEA would have listened to the thousands of people who have expressed concern about three parent embryos. Instead it has ignored the alarm bells and approved a procedure which will alter the human genome. It is at the very least reckless and irresponsible given that we have absolutely no idea what the long term consequences are to us interfering with the human genome.
"Whilst we are deeply sympathetic to the plight of people with mitochondrial related diseases, the end does not always justify the means. Our understandable search for therapies to help overcome illness and disabilities must be done in an ethical way and balanced against the unconditional acceptance of all human beings, whatever differences they may have."
Three elderly women in Florida have been blinded by an unproven treatment, as a reminder of how dangerous stem cell therapies can be. The New England Journal of Medicine reports that the women signed up for a purported clinical trial in 2015 – for which they had to pay US$5,000. Within a week, they experienced a variety of complications, including vision loss, detached retinas and haemorrhage. Before the surgery, the vision in their eyes ranged from 20/30 to 20/200. They are now blind.
The article is a "call to awareness for patients, physicians and regulatory agencies of the risks of this kind of minimally regulated, patient-funded research," said Jeffrey Goldberg, of Stanford University School of Medicine and a co-author.
"There's a lot of hope for stem cells, and these types of clinics appeal to patients desperate for care who hope that stem cells are going to be the answer, but in this case these women participated in a clinical enterprise that was off-the-charts dangerous," said Thomas Albini, another co-author.
At the clinic, U.S. Stem Cell Inc, fat cells from the patients’ abdomens were processed to obtain stem cells which were injected into their eyes. Patients reported that the entire process took less than an hour. The patients had both eyes treated at once -- even though most doctors would opt for a conservative approach to observe how the first eye responds.
"There is a lot of very well-founded evidence for the positive potential of stem therapy for many human diseases, but there's no excuse for not designing a trial properly and basing it on preclinical research," Goldberg said.
The "trial" lacked nearly all of the components of a properly designed clinical trial, including a hypothesis based on laboratory experiments, assignment of a control group and treatment group, collection of data, masking of clinical and patient groups, and plans for follow-up, Goldberg and Albini said. "There was a whole list of egregious things," Albini said.
In the latest wrinkle in debates over personhood, a Māori iwi (tribe) in New Zealand has succeeded in getting Parliament to recognise the Whanganui River as a legal person.
"It's not that we've changed our worldview, but people are catching up to seeing things the way that we see them," Adrian Rurawhe, a Māori member of Parliament. The North Island river, New Zealand’s third longest, also known by its Māori name of Te Awa Tupua, will be represented by two legal guardians, one appointed by the iwi and the other by the government.
The settlement, which has been in dispute for at least 140 years, also includes NZ$80 million in financial redress and $30 million toward improving the environmental, social, cultural and economic health and well-being of Te Awa Tupua.
Riverine personhood is an untested concept in a Western legal system. According to the government, Te Awa Tupua will now have its own legal personality with all the corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a legal person. Lawyers say that the river cannot vote and cannot be charged with homicide if people drown in it. But it will have to pay taxes, if liable. The gender of the river is unspecified at the moment.
"I know the initial inclination of some people will say it's pretty strange to give a natural resource a legal personality," said New Zealand's Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson. "But it's no stranger than family trusts, or companies or incorporated societies."
As soon as the third reading of the bill passed, members of the gallery broke into a waiata (a song of celebration) which is well worth watching.
The Journal of Practical Ethics recently
posed 20 hardball questions to Peter Singer about his philosophy. It is a terrific
insight into his thinking as his long career draws to a close.
About utilitarianism: Why
do many intelligent and sophisticated people reject utilitarianism? Some people
give more weight to their intuitions than I do—and less weight to arguments for
debunking intuitions. Does that reduce my confidence in utilitarianism? Yes, to
some extent, but I still remain reasonably confident that it is the most
defensible view of ethics. I don’t know if everyone will accept utilitarianism
in 100 years, but I don’t find the prospect frightening. It would only be
frightening if people misapplied it, and I do not assume that they will.
On critics: There
have been many critics of my views about euthanasia for severely disabled
infants. I had some good discussions with the late Harriet McBryde Johnson, who
was not a philosopher but a lawyer who had a rich and full life despite being
born with a very disabling condition. As long as she was alive, when I wrote
anything on that topic, I wrote with her potentially critical response in mind.
The objective truth of
morality: You could just say “these are my normative views, and I’m
going to treat them as if they were true, without thinking about whether moral judgements really can be objectively true.” If you do that, then in practice
your decisions will be the same whether or not moral judgements can be
objectively true. But given that I think morality is highly demanding, it
becomes easier to say that, since morality is so highly demanding, and there is
nothing irrational about not doing what morality demands, I’m not going to
bother doing what I know to be right. If there are objective reasons for doing
what morality demands, it’s more troubling to go against them.
On absolute moral
standards: There are still absolutists. Some are proponents of the “new
natural law” tradition, which has its roots in Catholic moral theology, even
though it is presented as a secular position. Others are Kantians, many of them
outside English-speaking philosophy. In Germany, for example, you would find
wide support for the idea that we should not torture a child, even if (as in
Dostoevsky’s example in The Brothers Karamazov) that would produce peace
on earth forever. To me it seems obvious that if by torturing one child you
could prevent a vast number of children (and adults) suffering as much or more
than the child you have to torture, it would be wrong not to torture
that child.
On inconsistency: The
view that I take in Practical Ethics and some other writings is not
that not aiding is the same as harming in all respects... [So why not donate a
spare kidney?] don’t think I’m weak-willed, but I do give greater weight
to my own interests, and to those of my family and others close to me, than I
should. Most people do that, in fact they do it to a greater extent than I do
(because they do not give as much money to good causes as I do). That fact
makes me feel less bad about my failure to give a kidney than I otherwise
would. But I know that I am not doing what I ought to do.
On adopting out a
[hypothetical] Down syndrome child: For me, the knowledge
that my [hypothetical] child would not be likely to develop into a person whom
I could treat as an equal, in every sense of the word, who would never be able
to have children of his or her own, who I could not expect to grow up to be a
fully independent adult, and with whom I could expect to have conversations
about only a limited range of topics would greatly reduce my joy in raising my
child and watching him or her develop.
On dogs, pigs, and
disabled babies: Most people think that the life of a dog or a pig is of
less value than the life of a normal human being. On what basis, then, could
they hold that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being
with intellectual capacities inferior to those of a dog or a pig is of equal
value to the life of a normal human being? This sounds like speciesism to me,
and as I said earlier, I have yet to see a plausible defence of speciesism.
After looking for more than forty years, I doubt that there is one.
On bestiality and
infanticide: I don’t put forward provocative views for the sake of doing
so. I put them forward where I think they have a basis in sound argument, and
where it serves a purpose to have them discussed. I hope that other
philosophers will do the same.
On the future:
I worry that if people who think a lot about others and act
altruistically decide not to have children, while those who do not care about
others continue to have children, the future isn’t going to be good.
On moral bioenhancement: I
have some practical concerns: will it work? Will there be unexpected negative
side-effects? But suppose that we can put aside those worries and can be highly
confident that the proposed bioenhancement will reduce suffering and increase
happiness for all affected—then I have no problem with human bioenhancement.
Indeed, it would be a very positive thing. As for moral bioenhancement
specifically, I doubt that it will happen quickly enough, or spread widely
enough, to solve the global moral problems like climate change that we face
right now. But once again, if we could do it, that would be very good.
Washington
D.C., Feb 23, 2017 / 02:50 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Recent
American guidelines for human gene modification have raised important ethical
questions, especially with regard to modifying the genes of unborn children and
of reproductive cells.
The
National Academy of Sciences last week released a 261-page report on guidelines for
editing the human genome to treat diseases and other applications. The report
covers a wide array of topics, from the editing of adult cells for therapies
such as cancer treatment, to the editing of embryos and germ cells
(reproductive cells, i.e. ova and sperm), to the question of human enhancement.
John
DiCamillo, an ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, spoke to CNA
about the perils and the promises of gene editing, as well as the oversights
contained in the National Academy of Sciences' report.
“Gene
editing generally can be morally legitimate if it has a directly therapeutic
purpose for a particular patient in question, and if we’re sure we’re going to
limit whatever changes to this person,” DiCamillo explained. In this regard,
the report’s guidelines for laboratory treatment of somatic – or
non-reproductive – cells and human trials of somatic cell treatments were
reasonable, he noted.
DiCamillo
pointed to upcoming clinical gene therapy trials for cancer and proposed gene
therapy treatments for disorders such as sickle cell disease. However, it’s
important to limit these trials to non-embryonic persons, to ensure that the
modifications – intended as well as unintended – are not carried in the
patient’s reproductive cells.
While
this would mean that patients treated for inheritable diseases “could still
transmit it to their children,” any children who then developed the disease
could themselves be treated through the same process.
The
question of transmission to descendants opens two more points discussed in the
National Academy of Sciences report: the modification of ova and sperm, as well
as edits to the genomes of embryos. Both changes would mean that people would
maintain these edits in all of their cells for all of their lives – and could
pass on these edited genes to new generations.
“There
could be limited situations that could exist where the germ line could be
legitimately edited. In other words, making changes to sperm, to eggs, or to
early embryos as a way of potentially addressing diseases – inheritable
diseases and so forth,” DiCamillo stated.
However,
permitting edits to germ line cells could also be “very dangerous on multiple
levels,” he warned.
There are
considerable, and not yet fully controllable, risks to genetic manipulation. A
person conceived with edited genes could experience a range of “unintended,
perhaps harmful, side effects that can now be transmitted, inherited by other
individuals down the line.” An embryo who experiences gene modification could
also carry and pass on edited genes, particularly if edits were performed
before his or her reproductive cells began to differentiate themselves.
The
National Academy of Sciences' regulations surrounding germ cells and embryos
are also problematic for what they overlook, DiCamillo commented.
Manipulating
sperm and ova requires removing them from a person’s body; if conception is
achieved with these cells, it is nearly always through in vitro methods. This
practice of in vitro fertilization is held by the Church to be ethically
unacceptable because it dissociates procreation from the integrally personal
context of the conjugal act.
In
addition, scientific researchers rarely differentiate between experimentation
on sperm or ova – which are cells that come from a human subject – and embryos,
which are distinct persons with their own distinct genomes, DiCamillo noted.
The
National Academy of Sciences’ guidelines reflect this lack of distinction
between cells and embryos. “That’s very misleading because embryos are not germ
line cells; they are new human beings,” DiCamillo said.
For
research on embryos to be ethical, he continued, therapies should be ordered to
treating and benefitting that “that particular embryo, not just for garnering
scientific knowledge or seeing what’s going to happen.” DiCamillo condemned
policies that see destruction of embryonic persons as a back-up if research
does not go as planned, as well as current policies that require destruction of
embryos as standard procedure.
“We’d be
in that area of very dangerous exploitation of human life and destruction of
human life,” he warned.
While the
guidelines stumble across ethical roadblocks in regards to gamete and embryo
research, the new report’s rules regarding human enhancement are strong,
DiCamillo said.
The
ability to edit genomes could also be used for purposes other than medical
treatment. A whole host of human traits could be enhanced or changed, such as
vision, intelligence, or abilities. “There’s any number of things that we could
do to change the qualities of human beings themselves and make them, in a
sense, super-humans … this is something that would also be an ethical problem
on the horizon,” he warned.
The existence
of these gene altering therapies raises a question of how much modification and
enhancement is permissible. DiCamillo praised the report for its recommendation
“entirely against enhancement efforts and that these should not be allowed.”
Currently,
gene editing of both germ cells and somatic cells is legal in the United
States, including on embryos. However, various US government institutions have
policies in place prohibiting federal funding of such research efforts on germ
cells and on embryos.
Furthermore,
Food and Drug Administration regulations prohibit gene modification on viable
human embryos – meaning that human embryos who receive gene modification are
always destroyed.
The new
guidelines from the National Academy of Sciences are significant because they
lay a groundwork for future policy on human gene modification. They cautiously
welcome the use of gene therapy on human embryos who are not later targeted for
destruction after experimentation concludes.
DiCamillo
recalled, however, that “they are merely guidelines – they are advice from the
National Academy of the Sciences to the government in regards to future policy.
This is not itself a new regulation or policy that the government has
established.”
The
ethics of gene editing has been questioned for several years – the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith addressed the issue in Dignitas
personae, its 2008 instruction on certain bioethical questions.
It has become more pressing recently, however, because a new technique known as CRISPR is easier to use and less
expensive than previous means of gene editing.
Although
the ethical questions surrounding gene modification are many and there are a
number of problematic applications of these technologies, DiCamillo cautioned
Catholics not to renounce completely human gene modification: “We don’t
want to be hyper-reactive to the dangers. We have to realize there’s a great
deal of good that can be done here.”
He
pointed again to the kinds of modifications that can treat deadly genetic
diseases and treatments that can be done in an ethical manner, with full
respect to the dignity of human persons.
“We do
need to be attentive to where the dangers are,” he warned, “but we don’t want
to … automatically consider any kind of gene editing to be automatically a
problem.”
