It’s time for a conversation about justice, top Catholic scholar says

Famed ethicist Alasdair MacIntyre called upon academia and other Catholics and intellectuals to invest in the “expensive conversation” about justice, and to sharpen their understanding of what constitutes human dignity. MacIntyre, whose teaching career spans 70 years and includes some of the most important books on virtue ethics such as "After Virtue" and "Dependent Rational Animal," gave a reflection entitled “Human Dignity: A Puzzling and Possibly Dangerous Idea?” at the University of Notre Dame’s de Nicola Fall Conference Nov. 12. During the presentation, he argued that the modern term “human dignity” is doing the work that justice should be doing and that the current definition of human dignity and its implications have puzzling limitations. He posed the question of whether or not Hitler has human dignity— and if he does, what is he afforded by it? Can human dignity never be lost, MacIntyre asked. He analyzed the limits of the modern conception of human dignity, which differs starkly from the Thomistic understandings of "dignitas" advanced by the Belgian Thomist Charles De Koninck. According to this view, which MacIntyre asserted was a more accurate understanding of the term, human beings have dignity in virtue of what they can become--not because of the simple fact that they are persons. Accordingly, this means that human beings can also lose their dignity through sin. “A bad human being is worse than a bad animal,” he said. It also means that in order to live a dignified life, in addition to having access to basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter, human beings must be given the chance to exercise virtues which ennoble their nature and bring it to its highest level of flourishing, MacIntyre said, adding that this requires a social restoration of the common good. MacIntyre critiqued pervasive individualist ethics, which often focus on negative prohibitions rather than the common good. He gave the example of a state that outlaws slavery, but does nothing other than allow them to live in “miserable freedom.” The elimination of evil did not ennoble the former slaves in the way it should, he argued, which is a problem of conceptualizing and seeking the common good. “One cannot have a care for human dignitas if we ascribe to political and social individualism,” he decried. MacIntyre also argued that a state that outlaws abortion, but then fails to provide basic medical and maternity care as well as economic provisions, exemplifies this same individualist ethos centered on eliminating negative prohibitions but not aimed at achieving the common good. His remarks come as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in one of the most significant challenges to Roe v. Wade since its inception— Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Many believe Dobbs will overturn Roe. During a Q&A Nov. 12, several participants questioned MacIntyre’s assertion that human dignity be recognized in its potential form rather than by virtue of the fact that a human being is a human being, citing concerns for the implications on moral arguments against embryonic stem cell research. MacIntyre responded that too many are attempting to make the modern term human dignity— widely used in United Nations documents and constitutions in the post-war period because it allowed fighting political, religious, and philosophical factions to bridge unsurmountable gaps because of its lack of definition— to do the work that properly belongs to understanding the virtue of justice. Justice, which Aristotle defines as rendering to another person his due, is where answers to questions of embryonic stem cell research and torture properly belong, MacIntyre said. He said the dignity of an embryo, or of Hitler, lies in his or her potential and urged the attendees to have “expensive conversations” about the question “what is justice?” so they can better articulate what is owed to human beings. MacIntyre has often written about the loss of moral vocabulary and vision in today’s world. The philosopher considers this to be one of the biggest obstacles to allowing human beings to flourish, since the path to happiness through virtue is largely unknown. This was MacIntyre’s 20th contribution to the de Nicola Fall Conference on Ethics.

IVF 'mix up': US couple say they gave birth to wrong children

Share this with Facebook

h/t The BBC News website

#Image copyrightSCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

Image captionThe couple said they turned to IVF after years of trying to have children

An Asian couple who tried to conceive through IVF has claimed that a mix-up at a California fertility clinic left them pregnant with the wrong children.

A lawsuit filed by the couple in New York states that the couple was shocked to give birth to two boys who were not of Asian descent, US media reported.

The lawsuit says DNA tests confirmed the children were not related to the couple and they relinquished custody.

The fertility clinic has not commented on the allegations.

The couple - identified in the lawsuit only as AP and YZ to minimise the "embarrassment and humiliation" - say they tried for years to get pregnant before spending more than $100,000 (£80,000) on the IVF, or in vitro fertilisation, including medication, laboratory fees, travel and other costs.

IVF is the process of fertilising an egg outside of the woman's body, before returning it to the womb to grow and develop.

The lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of New York last week, accuses CHA Fertility and two men identified as its co-owners and directors of offences including medical malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

It reportedly notes that after giving birth on 30 March, the couple "was shocked to see that the babies they were told were formed using both of their genetic material did not appear to be".

There were earlier signs that things were amiss when a scan revealed they were expecting boys, despite the fact that the doctors had said they did not use male embryos during the treatment.

Doctors reportedly told the couple that the scan was inaccurate, before they went on to have the baby boys in April. In addition to not being related to the couple, the children were not related to each other, according to the lawsuit.

On its website, CHA Fertility says it delivers the "highest degree of personalized care...with the utmost sense of duty".

The BBC has contacted the company for comment.

Lawyers for the couple told the BBC their clients suffered from "the grossly negligent and reckless conduct of CHA fertility".

"Our goal in filing this lawsuit is to obtain compensation for our clients' losses, as well as to ensure that this tragedy never happens again," the lawyers said.

What does it mean to be a genetic parent?

by Xavier Symons | 10 Mar 2018 |

In a world where assisted reproduction is becoming increasingly common, bioethicists are beginning to ask the question: “what counts as genetic parenthood?”.

It is tempting to think that genetic parenthood is about sharing half of one’s genes with another person. But this alone is not enough. Imagine a situation in which you had an identical twin, and your twin had a child. The child of your identical twin would share half of your genes. But would this make you their parent as well? Our intuitions tell us “no”.

In a new article in The Philosophical Quarterly, State University of New York philosopher Monika Pitrowska attempts to offer an account genetic parenthood that deals some of the complexities of the parent-offspring relationship. According to Pitrowska, there are three criteria that must be met for something to count as genetic parenthood: overlap, development, and persistence.

Readers may consult the article for a full development of the argument. Yet to provide a basic summary, Pitrowska argues that mere genetic similarity, or causal relationships between parents and children, are insufficient as a definition of parenthood. An vital feature of genetic parenthood is the passage of genetic material from one generation down through several successive generations. Pitrowska develops an definition that tracks this specific feature of parenthood.

As Pitrowska observes, the question of genetic parenthood is more than an esoteric, philosophical matter. While assisted reproduction has transformed society’s understanding of the family unit, our concern to know our genealogy remains. Furthermore, in a world where we are questioning whether mitochondrial replacement therapy creates three parent babies, or whether surrogates have a genetic link to the children they bear, it is important to achieve conceptual clarity.

Three-parent babies green-lighted in the UK

h/t Bioedge

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."

When stem cell treatments go wrong, they really go wrong

h/t Bioedge

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.

Catholics shouldn't totally reject human gene editing – but it still has ethical problems

h/t CNA

By Adelaide Mena

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.”

Woman's bid to use deceased daughter's eggs continues

h/t BBC news website

• m the sectio

Image copyrightPA

A 60-year-old woman who wants to use her late daughter's frozen eggs to give birth to her own grandchild is continuing her legal battle.

The woman is appealing against the UK regulator's refusal to allow her to take her only child's eggs to a US clinic to be used with donor sperm.

Her daughter, who died five years ago, was said to have approved of the plan.

The mother lost a High Court case last year but was subsequently granted permission to challenge the decision.

The latest round of the case is being heard at the Court of Appeal in London, before a panel of three judges.

'Natural sympathy'

The UK fertility regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), said, in 2014, the daughter's eggs could not be released from storage in London because she had not given her full written consent before she had died, from bowel cancer at the age of 28.

But, in the latest legal proceedings, lawyers acting for the mother told the judges she wanted to fulfil her daughter's wishes to carry a child created from her frozen eggs and "raise that child".

Jenni Richards QC added the eggs would "simply be allowed to perish" if the court did not rule in her favour.

Meanwhile, Catherine Callaghan, appearing for the HFEA, said in a written argument before the court: "It is natural to feel sympathy for the appellants' loss and for their wish to keep their daughter's memory alive by trying to conceive a child using their daughter's eggs."

But it was not the court's role to decide whether it would have permitted the mother to undergo fertility treatment using her daughter's eggs.

Ms Callaghan added: "Rather its role is to determine whether Mr Justice Ouseley erred in concluding that the HFEA's statutory approvals committee acted lawfully and rationally in exercising its broad discretion to refuse to authorise export of the frozen eggs to a treatment centre in New York for use in the way proposed."

'Required consent'

During earlier High Court proceedings in June 2015, the court was told her daughter was desperate to have children and had asked her mother to "carry my babies".

Lawyers acting for the mother and her 59-year-old husband told Mr Justice Ouseley the daughter would have been "devastated" if she had known her eggs could not be used.

But the judge ruled that the HFEA was entitled to find the daughter had not given "the required consent" and said there had been no breach of the family's human rights.

Although she consented for her eggs to be stored for use after her death, she did not fill in a separate form outlining how she wished them to be used.

He said he was dismissing the case "conscious of the additional distress which this will bring to the claimants, whose aim has been to honour their daughter's dying wish".

It was thought if the case had been successful her mother could have become the first person in the world to become pregnant using a dead daughter's eggs.

In February 2016, when seeking permission to appeal, her lawyers argued there was "clear evidence" of what the daughter wanted to happen to her eggs when she died.

'Prospect of success'

Lord Justice Treacy said the case papers had left him doubtful as to whether there would be "sufficiently strong" reasons to allow the challenge to continue further.

But after hearing submissions in court, he concluded there was "an arguable case with a real prospect of success".

IVF an “evolutionary experiment” – genetics expert

A leading evolutionary biologist has labelled IVF an “evolutionary experiment” that may have serious effects on children in later life.
Speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Washington DC, Dr Pascal Gagneux of University of California, San Diego said that the long-term effects of IVF are still unclear.

"…We're engaging in an evolutionary experiment ... I would compare it to high fructose corn syrup and fast food in the US. It took 50 years; it was fantastic, you got bigger and healthier, and now the US are the first generation that are shorter and heavier and die younger. But it took 50 years…”

He noted that the oldest IVF child in the world is only 39.

According to Dr Gagneux some possible long-term side-effects are diabetes, high blood pressure and even premature death. He cited a study in which a large group of IVF and naturally conceived children were taken to a high altitude, low oxygen environment that mimicked the effects of ageing.
Heart and artery malfunction was reported "very convincingly" in the assisted reproduction children, including those with brothers and sisters who were conceived naturally, Dr Gagneux said.
A number of IVF specialists have responded to Dr. Gagneux’s remarks, saying he lacked evidence for his bold claims.  Allan Pacey, Professor of Andrology at the University of Sheffield, said: “There is a wealth of epidemiological evidence to suggest that the babies born through IVF technologies are on the whole as healthy as their naturally conceived counterparts.

“Where some differences have been observed, these are largely explained by genetic defects in the sperm of the father rather than the fact that fertilisation and embryo development occurred outside of the body. I don’t share the concerns raised by Dr Gagneux. If we were always led by the precautionary principle, medicine would never make any advances.”

h/t Bioethics

Scientists seek permission to genetically modify embryos

h/t BBC news

UK scientists are seeking permission to genetically modify human embryos for the first time.

Researchers at The Francis Crick Institute in London want to use a controversial genetic technique to carry out research into infertility.
The embryos would be destroyed after the research and not implanted into the womb.
The government's fertility watchdog said it had received the application, which would be looked at in due course.
In the UK, it is illegal to use gene editing of embryos in IVF treatment, but it is permissible for research purposes, under a licence.

"We have recently received an application to use Crispr/Cas9 (gene editing) in one of our licensed research projects, and it will be considered in due course," said a spokesperson for the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority (HFEA).

Image copyright Thinkstock

---

Analysis: By Helen Briggs, Health Editor, BBC News Online
When scientists in China announced they had genetically modified human embryos in a world first earlier this year, there was an outcry.
The embryos were never destined for use in IVF, but there were concerns the work could be a slippery slope towards designer babies.
The technique - known as gene editing - can make precise changes to DNA. But any alterations would be passed on to future generations if the embryos were ever to be used in human reproduction.
It would be illegal to do this under British law, although it is permissible to use the technique for research purposes, where the embryos are eventually destroyed. The Francis Crick Institute is the first to apply for a research license, making it something of a test case.
The researchers want to use the technique to look at the earliest stages of human development, in the hope of better understanding why some women have miscarriages.
The HFEA will now consider the application, but no decision is expected for some weeks or months. Most scientists agree that genome editing should not be used for reproductive purposes at present. But they say this is not a reason to block research.

---

'Foolish'

Research leader, Dr Kathy Niakan, said the aim was to understand the genes that human embryos need to develop successfully.
"Importantly, in line with HFEA regulations, any donated embryos would be used for research purposes only," she said.

UK scientists are poised to make a world-leading contribution to this exciting field

Dr Sarah Chan, University of Edinburgh

"These embryos would be donated by informed consent and surplus to IVF treatment."
Group leader of the institute, Prof Robin Lovell-Badge, added that any use of the technique for altering the genes of embryos intended for reproduction would be "foolish" at this stage.
"We are fortunate to have good regulations in the UK that permit research with a licence, but not the implantation of any embryo that has had its genome modified," he said.

Moratorium

Scientists say the new technique, called Crispr/Cas9, means that genomes can be manipulated in a more precise way than before.
However, there have been calls for a moratorium on such research, amid moral and ethical concerns.
Earlier this year, Chinese scientists announced that they had genetically manipulated human IVF embryos for research purposes in a landmark study.
The US later imposed a moratorium on federally-funded research in this area.
In the UK, experts recently called for debate on whether editing human embryos would ever be justified in the clinic.
Weeks later a group of influential scientists belonging to the Hinxton Group said it did not approve of GM babies being born yet, but the idea might one day become morally acceptable.
Dr Sarah Chan of the University of Edinburgh said the news that UK scientists had applied to the HFEA for a licence to perform genome editing research using embryos should be cause for confidence, not concern.
"UK scientists are poised to make a world-leading contribution to this exciting field," she said.
"At the same time, we should be reassured to know that this work is being carried out under a robust regulatory scheme that ensures high scientific and ethical standards."

Donor dad not the genius he said he was

Donor dad not the genius he said he was

UK approves three parent babies

The UK has now become the first country to approve laws to allow the creation of babies from three people. 

The modified version of IVF has passed its final legislative obstacle after being approved by the House of Lords.

The fertility regulator will now decide how to license the procedure to prevent babies inheriting deadly genetic diseases.  

The first baby could be born as early as 2016.

A large majority of MPs in the House of Commons approved "three-person babies" earlier this month. 

The House of Lords tonight rejected an attempt to block the plan by a majority of 232.

Power packs

Mitochondria are the tiny compartments inside nearly every cell of the body that convert food into useable energy.  

But genetic defects in the mitochondria mean the body has insufficient energy to keep the heart beating or the brain functioning.

The structures are passed down only from the mother and have their own DNA, although it does not alter traits including appearance or personality. 

The technique, developed in Newcastle, uses a modified version of IVF to combine the healthy mitochondria of a donor woman with DNA of the two parents.

It results in babies with 0.1% of their DNA from the second woman and is a permanent change that would echo down through the generations. 

Timeline

■   March to August - The UK fertility regulator will develop and then publish their licensing rules for assessing applications to perform three-person IVF

■   Early Summer - The team in Newcastle publish the final safety experiments demanded by the regulator

■   29 October - Regulations come into force 

■   24 November - Clinics can apply to the regulator for a licence 

■   By the end of 2015 - the first attempt could take place

'Hope'

In the debate, health minister Lord Howe said there was an opportunity to offer "real hope" to families. 

He stated the UK was leading the world and that three safety reviews by experts suggested it would be safe.

Lord Howe told the House: "Families can see that the technology is there to help them and are keen to take it up, they have noted the conclusions of the expert panel.

"It would be cruel and perverse in my opinion, to deny them that opportunity for any longer than absolutely necessary."

Lord Deben, the former government minister John Gummer, countered that there were "real doubts about safety".

He also voiced concerns about whether the creation of such babies would be legal.

"It is quite clear that there is considerable disagreement, let me put it simply like that, about whether this action is legal under European law." 

Baroness Scotland of Asthal, a former Labour attorney general, also questioned the legality asking: "Why the haste? 

"Everyone agrees we have to get this right. If we're going to do something which everyone agrees is novel, different and important internationally we really have to be confident that we are on solid ground. If we are not we give a disservice."

Fertility doctor, Lord Winston, told the House there were comparison with the early days of IVF which was "also a set in the dark".

He added: "I don't believe my Lords, in spite of what we've heard this evening, that this technology threatens the fabric of society in the slightest bit." 

Sally Cheshire, the chairwoman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, said: "Britain is the first country in the world to permit this treatment, and it is a testament to the scientific expertise and well-respected regulatory regime that exists across the UK that Parliament has felt able to approve it. 

"The HFEA now have to develop a robust licensing process, which takes into account on a case by case basis the technical and ethical complexities of such treatments to ensure that any children born have the best chance of a healthy life. 

"The HFEA has a long tradition of dealing with medical and scientific breakthroughs, ensuring that IVF techniques, pioneered in the UK and now practised across the world, can be used safely and effectively in fertility treatment."

Prof Alison Murdoch, who was instrumental in developing the technique at Newcastle University, said: "For 10 years we have publically discussed mitochondrial donation to explain how it could help patients whose families are blighted by the consequences of mitochondrial abnormalities. 

"Whilst acknowledging the views of those who have a fundamental objection to our work, Parliament has determined that we should continue. We hope that opponents will accept its democratic decision.

"The science will be reviewed and, if accepted, we hope to be able to submit a treatment application to the HFEA when regulatory policies have been determined."

Objections 'hopeless'

James Lawford Davies, a lawyer from Lawford Davies Denoon which specialises in the life sciences, told the BBC: "All of the legal arguments made in opposition to the regulations are hopeless. 

"The regulations do not breach the Clinical Trials Directive which applies only to medicinal products. 

"The regulations do not breach the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms which prohibit 'eugenic practices' as this is intended to prevent practices such as forced sterilisation and reproductive cloning, not treatments intended to prevent the transmission of disease."

The Catholic and Anglican Churches in England said the idea was not safe or ethical, not least because it involved the destruction of embryos. 

Other groups, including Human Genetics Alert, say the move would open the door to further genetic modification of children in the future - so-called designer babies, genetically modified for beauty, intelligence or to be free of disease.

Estimates suggest 150 couples would be suitable to have babies through the technique each year. 

If the measure goes ahead, the first "three-person" baby could be born next year.

The Science of Life - Bioethicist Speaks on Importance of One of Us Campaign

By Elisabetta Pittino

ROME, June 04, 2013 (Zenit.org) - Elisabetta Pittino of the “One of Us” Campaign interviewed Professor Justo Aznar Lucea, Doctor in Medicine from the University of Navarra and Director of the Life Sciences Institute at the Catholic University of Valencia, to learn about the scientific basis of the “One of Us” initiative.
Prof. Aznar was the Head of the Clinical Pathobiology Department of the Hospital Universitario La Fe Valencia, from 1974 until his retirement in June 2006.
He has published 507 research papers, about 300 of those in some of the most relevant scientific publications. He directed 20 doctoral theses and 30 chapters in various books.
He has received several awards including the "Alberto Sols", the "Santiago Grisolía" and the prize "Health and Society", in his first call, to the best "Career Development" of Valencia issued by the Department of Health of the Government of this region.
He is a member of the Medicine Royal Academy of Valencia.
* * *
Q: Scientifically, when does human life begin?
Prof. Aznar: There is no doubt that human life begins with fertilization of the egg by the sperm. Fertilization initiates the development and activates the division of the zygote sustaining the development of that human being live without interruption (Annex 1).
Q: We can call the embryo "One of Us" ...
Prof. Aznar: After showing, in the previous question, the zygote and the early human embryo, from a biological standpoint, are living beings of our species, there is no difficulty to say that the embryo is "One of Us".
Moreover, in this struggle to defend the life of the human embryo, those who advocate that early human embryo is not a living being of our species, but a conglomeration of cells without any ontological or biological value, will have to demonstrate it is as they say, and it is something that so far nobody has being able to prove.
Q: Why, if science is so simple in showing the very beginning of human life with the conception, has the non scientific concept of a “pre-embryo” introduced and diffused?
Prof/ Aznar: The term “pre-embryo” is a semantic trick introduced by Clifford Grobstein (U.S.) in 1979 and confirmed and disseminated by the Warnock Report in 1984.
Without a doubt, the term pre-embryo is unscientific, and is solely intended to deprive human embryo, from fertilization to implantation consolidation, at about day 14 of life, its living human character, and in this how to manipulate and even destroy it without any moral responsibility. This is the only possible justification for using the term pre-embryo.
Q: What are differences between the embryo before the implantation and the embryo after the implantation? Is there any change in the humanity of the embryo? What is the difference between the embryo, the fetus, and the newborn? Are these differences substantial or not?
Prof. Aznar: There is no scientific evidence to endorse any biological differences between pre and post implanted embryo. From fertilization embryo development is continued, so to say that there are biological differences between before and after implantation is a semantic manipulation, which was proposed in the Warnock Report, expressing human life begins with gestation.. This undoubtedly led to deprive the human embryos of its biological and ontological status to manipulate them without any ethical responsibility. To hold this position is to ignore the biological reality of the human embryo and manipulate language for false purposes.
Q: What do you think about the "One of Us" campaign? Do you think it is right to ask to stop any research that Imply the destruction of human embryos?
Prof. Aznar: Of course the goal of the “One of Us” campaign is not only appropriate, but necessary.. We believe that it is not only positive for its immediate purposes, to promote a legislative initiative to prevent the manipulation and destruction of human embryos in the European Community, but also because the campaign itself is a magnificent instrument to support the defense of human life; it is needed to offer arguments that endorse this initiative when requesting people’s signatures. That is wahy we believe that an important part of this campaign is to properly train those gathering signatures, for them to be able to explain in depth the reasons that supports this request to the people.
Q: Do you think that limiting the research will open new fields?
Prof. Anzar: Certainly, when one initial scientific experience results immoral, and its lack of ethic principles recommend stopping that practice, this can stimulate to find alternatives to achieve the same benefit but ethically.
The main difference between human beings and animals is that the human is a moral being, it means that humans have to answer to the ethical implications of the actions taken, and scientists, as human beings, should respond similarly. Therefore, the negative ethical evaluation of any research activity should lead to stop it, but it also must open the door to other ethically acceptable research solutions.
A paradigmatic example of this are the experiences of Shinya Yamanaka, which led him to get cellular reprogramming and the regeneration of adult stem cells, which is why he was awarded the Noble Prize in Medicine in 2012, since his initial motivation to enter into these experiences were essentially ethical concerns.
Q: Is it right to sacrifice the life of some people to save other people?
Prof. Anzar: According to Kant’s imperative that affirms that human beings by their own dignity can never be used as a means to anything, even good, but always as an end for the actions that affect their own good, we seem to sacrifice embryos to achieve a third human benefit. Thus, it has no ethical justification.
Historically there are many previous experiences that support this claim, but I would refer to as a paradigmatic example made by Nazis with prisoners in concentration camps to experiment medical techniques that could be useful for German soldiers at war.
Q: The research on embryo stem cells, that kill many human embryos, after many years has not given any practical result ... why?
Prof. Anzar: This question is not correct; first we would need to differentiate between experimental and clinical results and essentially observe that on the ethical screen.
Certainly human embryos are a useful material for biological experiments, especially related to the development of human life in its earliest stages. I mean, it is undeniable after years of research with embryonic stem cells these practices are biologically useful, but it happens that these experiences, even though useful, are always unethical.
However, from the therapeutic point of view it is true that only a few clinical trials with embryonic stem cell are underway and that on the contrary there are huge numbers, more than 3000, with adult stem cells for therapeutic purposes.
Q: Adult stem cells: yes to research? Why?
Prof Aznar: Adult stem cells are particularly useful for use in restorative and regenerative medicine, one of the most attractive therapeutic possibilities of this century in which we are.
As previously stated currently numerous clinical trials are using these cells.
Essentially we can say that adult stem cells are the cells used in clinical practice today, because both embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells are much more in an experimental phase.
Q: As a scientist, a doctor, a bioethicist, and as a teacher, do you think that in signing "One of Us", the European Citizens can help science and help Europe to come out from the crisis?
Prof. Anzar: I think that to affirm the signing of "One of Us" can help improve the crisis in Europe. However, that is if you think of the moral crisis, which surely is the foundation of all the crises, including the economic. I believe that in signing this legislative initiative, as scientists, doctors, bioethicists or teachers, may favor an in depth analysis of the moral crisis that exists in Europe, laying the groundwork, along with other actions, allowing us to start a new path to go out of it.
Q: So, would you appeal to your colleagues, to your students, to all the people to sign "One of Us"?
Prof. Anzar: As Director of the Institute of Life Sciences at the Catholic University of Valencia I proposed to the Board of Governors of the University to campaign to collect signatures from teachers and students to "One of Us". This campaign is underway and we have over 1500 signatures collected.

Three parent babies - no longer 'playing God'

Britain is likely to become the first country to allow "three-parent babies", according to our  science reporter Nick Collins. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has recommended that the process – which involves taking a donor's egg and replacing its nucleus with that of the would-be mother, before undergoing IVF – be made legal for people trying to have children.

It's "three parents" only in that the DNA in the child's mitochondria (the little ex-bacteria which live in our cells and provide energy) will come from the donor, rather than the mother. As Nick points out, that makes up around 0.02 per cent of the total DNA in the cell, and is entirely separate from the nuclear DNA. But what's interesting is why the HFEA is recommending it: not only because it's safe, but because after a major consultation, it found that "there is broad support" for the procedure among the public.

I find that interesting because it's another step taken along the "playing God" route. IVF itself and test-tube babies were once thought of as playing God, but they're standard now. Stem cell research was playing God, but has become more accepted. Genetic engineering is still viewed with a bit of the Biblical fear, but steadily it's becoming more widespread.

As I've written plenty of times before, the "powers we dare not mess with" thing is as old as humanity: I dare say the first people who made fire were warned that they shouldn't meddle with things beyond their ken.But as Douglas Adams said and as I've also written before, technologies that are around when you're born are just ordinary; techologies invented before you turn about 35 are revolutionary and exciting; technologies invented after you turn about 35 are unnatural and wrong. Enough people must have been born since genetic modification became a useable technology for the balance to have shifted into the first two categories. Presumably the balance will shift even further in the next few decades, until mitochondrial replacement technologies – and people with "third parents" – are no more remarkable than contact lenses or artificial hips.

The really interesting question is: what's next? Will human cloning start moving from the basket labelled "unacceptable affront to nature" into the one saying "controversial technology"? And from there, one day, to "standard practice"?

Screening breakthrough could lead to eugenics, says pro-life group (ht The Catholic Herald website)

A new breakthrough in foetal screening could lead “down the path of eugenics”, a pro-life group said today. The charity Life said that a “real danger exists” that such genetic testing could lead to wide-scale abortion for disability. The prenatal test, which is able to predict a foetus’s genetic code as early as 18 weeks, will allow unborn babies to be screened for 3,500 genetic disorders. Scientists from the University of Washington believe the test, which raises many ethical questions, will become widely available in the future. Currently more than 2,000 disabled unborn children are aborted every year in Britain, a figure that Life said could increase. Life spokesman Mark Bhagwandin said: “How can it be that in this modern age of equality and non-discrimination thousands of babies are being screened and aborted because they are genetically defective?” Down’s syndrome is currently the only genetic disorder routinely tested for on the NHS. The American scientists say the tests will be a considerable improvement on the existing invasive method of screening. While recognizing “the positive potential that these new tests may bring”, Life said they could be misused. But the tool of genetic screening itself is not a detrimental factor, “it is how it is wielded”, said Mr Bhagwandin. Mr Bhagwandin also said that genetics were not the whole picture. He said: “Human beings are greater than the sum of their genes and science cannot yet measure what makes us truly human – courage, compassion, creativity.” By Francesca Gillett on Friday, 8 June 2012

Richard Dawkins and George Cardinal Pell in an Australian TV debate – excellent

Of general interest but of particular interest to those studying AS, this televised debate is excellent. I suggest all AS students watch and note its content for assistance with the Science and Religion chapter.

Click here: Dawkins & Pell

Below is a rough guide to the debate using the questions being asked by the audience to move through the content.

1.20          Is goodness dependent on God?

5.40          Why bother being good?

7.20          Without religion aren’t we only left with Darwinian survival of the fittest?

14.0          Mr Dawkins – are you an atheist or an agnostic?

21.0          How does the ‘Big Bang’ create ex nihilo?

28.40      Cardinal Pell clarify the dichotomy between science and religion

                        And clarify the concept of the soul (31.20)

38.40      Why does Cardinal Pell require different standards of evidence for the issue of climate change and the existence of God?

41.0          What happens to atheists after death?

47.18      Is it OK to teach children that God does not exist?

50.10      Why is there suffering?

54.45      How can the Catholic Church oppose ‘gay marriage’?

57.80   Are there health benefits to belief?

Pope Encourages Scientists in Efforts to Solve Infertility

But Says Vocation to Marriage Isn't Frustrated When Conception Is Impossible

By Kathleen Naab
VATICAN CITY, FEB. 27, 2012.- The scientifically best approach to infertility, and also the one most respectful of the persons involved, is a pursuit of diagnosis and therapy, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope affirmed this Saturday when he received some 200 members of the Pontifical Academy for Life, convened for their 18th general assembly, which was on the topic of infertility.

"The pursuit of a diagnosis and of a therapy represents the most scientifically correct approach to the question of infertility, but also that which is most respectful of the integral humanity of the subjects involved," the Holy Father said. "In fact, the union of the man and woman in that community of life that is matrimony constitutes the only dignified 'place' in which a new human being, which is always a gift, may be called into existence."

The Pontiff said he encourages "intellectual honesty," which is "the expression of a science that keeps the spirit of the pursuit of truth alive, in the service of man's authentic good, and that avoids the danger of being a merely functional practice. The human and Christian dignity of procreation, in fact, does not consist in a 'product,' but in its connection with the conjugal act, the expression of the love of the husband and wife, of their union that is not only biological but also spiritual."

Vocation to love

Benedict XVI acknowledged that science cannot find a remedy for every cause of infertility.

He affirmed the Church's attention to infertile couples and its support of medical research.

"The science, nevertheless, is not always able to respond to the desires of many couples," he said. "I would like again to remind the spouses who experience infertility that their vocation to marriage is not frustrated because of this. The husband and wife, because of their baptismal and matrimonial vocations themselves, are always called to work together with God in creating a new humanity. The vocation to love, in fact, is a vocation to the gift of self and this is a possibility that cannot be impeded by any organic condition. Therefore, where science cannot find an answer, the answer that brings light comes from Christ."

Whose design will be used for designer brains?

Dr Paul Root Wolpe is the senior bioethicist at NASA and a pioneer in the field of neuroethics. Peering into his children's and grandchildren's future, he sees an America that rewards competitiveness and productivity over relationship-building, and suspects that future generations will face intense pressure to enhance their minds and bodies in unhealthy ways. If parents already use Ritalin to give kids a competitive edge, what will happen when we can genetically engineer their talents? 

by Michael Cook | Feb 20, 2012

Ethics of stem cell research

Benedict XVI is acknowledging the temptations facing scientists who seek cures for degenerative illnesses, but he says that not even one human life can be destroyed for the benefit of another.

The Pope said this Saturday in an address to some 250 participants in an international conference on "Adult Stem Cells: Science and the Future of Man and Culture." The symposium was promoted by the Pontifical Council for Culture in collaboration with the U.S. Stem for Life Foundation.

The three-day meeting examined the use of adult stem cells in medicine, both from the perspective of science, and from that of its cultural, ethical and anthropological implications.

The Holy Father recalled that, because of human beings' immortal souls, "there are dimensions of human existence that lie beyond the limits of what the natural sciences are competent to determine."

And, while recognizing the desire to find cures for illnesses, acknowledging that "it is tempting for scientists and policy-makers to brush aside ethical objections and to press ahead with whatever research seems to offer the prospect of a breakthrough," still, he affirmed, "those who advocate research on embryonic stem cells in the hope of achieving such a result make the grave mistake of denying the inalienable right to life of all human beings from the moment of conception to natural death."

"The destruction of even one human life can never be justified in terms of the benefit that it might conceivably bring to another," he stated.

The Pontiff moreover recognized the possibilities for adult stem cell research, assuring that the Church "naturally offers her encouragement to those who are engaged in conducting and supporting research of this kind, always with the proviso that it be carried out with due regard for the integral good of the human person and the common good of society."

"Dialogue between science and ethics is of the greatest importance in order to ensure that medical advances are never made at unacceptable human cost," he said.

Benedict XVI clarified that the Church's efforts to draw attention to the defenseless is not only an endeavor to protect the unborn, but also those who do not have easy access to expensive medical treatments.

"Illness is no respecter of persons," he said, "and justice demands that every effort be made to place the fruits of scientific research at the disposal of all who stand to benefit from them, irrespective of their means."