Last October 13, in the presence of authorities from Universidad Anáhuac Querétaro, Prof. Alberto Garcia, Director of the UNESCO Chair of Bioethics and Human Rights, established at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum and the European University of Rome, Part of RIU, signed a new agreement to implent new projects with students and professors from the two institutions specifically the faculty of bioethics, medicine, science and health.
On October 6, 2022, Prof Fr. Joseph Tham, LC, participated in the Conference organized by Holy Spirit Seminary College Bioethics Resource Centre and Diocesan Bioethics Committee.
Abstract
We can distinguish between somatic and germline gene editing, and then between therapy and non-therapeutic enhancement. So in effect, there will be four areas to consider.
Most people would be in favor of somatic gene editing for therapeutic purposes. This is already being applied for some people with single gene diseases. The main issues here are safety of the procedures, and fair distribution of scarce resources.
Most people are also against the use of gene editing on germline, ie, embryos or gametes, for the purpose of enhancement. This is the typical designer baby scenario where parents want their children to have special potentials like height, strength, intelligence, longevity, etc. It would be against human dignity and fairness, and has be portrayed in the novel Brave New World.
The ethics of enhancement of somatic cells is more complex. This is being proposed to make people live longer, stronger, resistant to diseases etc. It is similar to the issues of doping in sports, where some people have greater advantages than others. Other than the issue of safety, the main issue is discrimination and justice. As we see in the film GATTACA, there will be creation of classes of people with this technology.
The use of gene editing to treat germline or embryos is also problematic. At the present, there is really no need to advance this technology as the current practice is that of screening out the genetically defective embryos. Clearly, from the Catholic perspective, any use of IVF and manipulation of the embyros are unethical.
From September 20th to 23rd, the much anticipated 8th International Bioethics, Multiculturalism and Religion Workshop took place in Bangkok, Thailand. It was the first workshop since the hiatus caused by the pandemic, consequently, it was held both in person and virtually via Zoom. The workshop was organized by the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights in collaboration with the Chulalongkorn University.
The topic of this workshop was the importance of protecting the environment, biosphere, and biodiversity. The theme was chosen in light of the United Nations’ recognition that access to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a human right. The aim of the workshop was to better understand how different traditions conceptualize the relationship between humanity and nature, and consequently the ethical approach to tackling the current climate issue. This year’s participants included scholars from traditions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Secularism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism. Due to a change in methodology in this workshop, each academic had 15 minutes to present their paper, followed by a response by a scholar from a different tradition. Each exchange concluded with a 45-minute question and answer session from the audience.
The workshop opened with a series of speeches by Somsong Ngamwang, director of the Bureau of International Cooperation, Alberto Garcia, Dean of the Faculty of Bioethics and Chairholder of the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights (Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum, Rome), Suradech Chotiudompant, Dean of the Faculty of Arts of Chulalongkorn University, and Joseph Tham, the coordinator of this workshop, all highlighting the need for public discourse about climate action from a religious perspective and also expressing gratitude to organizations that facilitated the workshop.
The first presentation was given by Luzita Ball, a trustee of the Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Science, representing the Islamic faith. In her presentation, Ms. Ball explained that according to the Qu’ran and the Hadiths, nature is a beautiful thing that is created by Allah and humanity has taken up the responsibility to be nature’s stewards (Khilaafah). To illustrate her argument, Ms. Ball points out the diversity both between and within species are signs (ayahs) of Allah’s beauty, intelligence, power, compassion, and love. With regard to Islam’s approach to managing the environment, the speaker provides two key arguments. First, she points out that is imperative for humanity to recognize the best outcome for both nature and men lies in true balance. As a result, when deliberating climate issues, one must take humanity and nature into equal consideration, so that the benefits of climate actions taken could be maximized. Secondly, Ms. Ball adds that there are existing systems in place in Islamic law, such as well-defined areas where the killing of wild animals and the harvesting of most vegetation is forbidden (Harim) or conservation zones (Hima) are used to protect the environment from over-exploitation and damage. To conclude her presentation, Ms. Ball highlighted the importance of environmental justice at all levels of society.
The response to Prof. Ball’s presentation was given by Prof. David Heyd, Professor of Philosophy at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, from a secular Jewish perspective. He begins by describing Judaism as the “Sister Religion” of Islam on the basis of their similarities in content and teachings. However, Prof. Heyd highlights some key differences such as the proactivity of humanity taking responsibility for maintaining the earth within the Islamic tradition, whereas it was imposed on men in the Judaic tradition. Furthermore, he argued that the Judaic approach to nature is more anthropocentric to that of Islam because it focuses more on how God created the world so that men can benefit from it as a result.
The second session commenced with a presentation by Prof. John B. Appleby, lecturer in medical ethics at Lancaster Medical School on “Environmental Beneficence”. The idea of “Environmental Beneficence”, as Prof. Appleby describes, is the patient-physician decision-making framework that aims to give priority to sustainability while also preserving the quality of care provided to patients. He argues that this is necessary as the current state of healthcare negates the long-term effects of climate change on health and wellbeing. Prof. Appleby concludes his presentation by advocating for change in the classroom, clinics, and with the public, so that sustainability would be part of the everyday conversation when patients receive healthcare.
The response to Prof. Appleby’s paper was given by Prof. Roland Chia, Professor of Christian Doctrine at Trinity Theological College. He questions the lack of philosophical premises and metaphysical assumptions that underlies Prof. Appleby’s arguments, stating that there would be no ethics without some understanding of the world and the relationship between man and nature. Prof. Chia further provides the idea of “Environmental Beneficence” with a Christian metaphysics that recognizes the importance of considering the prosperity of future generations when making decisions about current issues.
In the afternoon of the first day, two keynote speakers, Henk Ten Have and Denis Chang, respectively gave presentations titled UNESCO on Environment and Integral Ecology, Natural Order & Relational Self: Towards a “Postsecular” Synthesis in an “Ecological Age”. Prof. ten Have framed workshop’s discussion by reinstating UNESCO’s position on protecting the environment and by emphasising the indispensable value of local wisdom and knowledge in creating a sustainable environment for future generations. Meanwhile, Prof. Chang’s presentation provided an overview of past and current philosophical approaches to understanding the role and responsibility of humans in relation to the environment. The speaker also highlighted one of the contemporary figures in climate action – Pope Francis and his encyclical Laudato Si’.
The afternoon roundtable featured Prof. Chris Durante, Prof. Vardit Ravitsky, Prof. David Barr, and Professor Sumalee Mahanarongchai. The traditions highlighted in this discussion include Orthodoxy, Secularism, Christianity (specifically Protestantism), and Thai Buddhism. Orthodoxy, as represented by Prof. Durante from Saint Peter’s University, considers humanity’s current failure to care for the environment as a moral one and categorises it as a sin. This categorisation is based on the panentheism of Orthodoxy, the belief that “all is in the Divine” and “the Divine is in all”. Prof. Durante concluded that the key to ending such sins against nature is through the transfiguration of self and community.
On the other hand, Prof. Ravitsky argued that despite human fallibility, societies have made great strides towards protecting the environment and there should be elements of rational optimism in the future of mankind. Meanwhile, Prof. Barr acknowledges that because of the fractured nature of Protestantism, its stance on the environment is equally splintered and susceptible to external influences such as political ideologies. Prof. Mahanarongchai’s response to Prof. Barr explores religion as a political tool that possesses its own hierarchies of power and how it can that affect policymaking by influencing politicians.
On the second day of the workshop, the participants turned their focus toward the Eastern traditions. The morning began with the Daoist tradition represented by Dr. Edmund and Christine Lai which called for a return to the Dao, harmony between heaven, earth, and human, by returning to authenticity through simplicity. In response to their presentation, Dr. Aasim Padela, Professor of Bioethics and Medical Humanities at The Medical College of Wisconsin, offered the monotheistic Islamic narration of creation, which also creates a hierarchy amongst creatures in contrary to Daoist beliefs.
Afterwards, the second round table of the morning focused on Confucianism as presented by Jonathan Chan, Former Professor of Centre for Global Studies, Shantou University. Prof. Chan puts forward the thought-provoking question that if the value of non-human living things is to be considered lower than humans, exactly how much lower are they? Is there a quantifiable way to make such assessment?
In the afternoon, a public discussion was held at Chulalongkorn University. The panel included Prof. Durante, Ms. Ball, Fr Anil Sakaya, and Prof. Ravitsky, moderated by Fr Tham. The panel discussed the emerging role of bioethics in the field of environmental science. The public discussion was attended by Buddhist monks representing a university in Bangkok and several external academics. The topics of discussion included whether intelligence in animals increases the value humans arbitrarily assigned to them to whether it is ethical to exterminate a whole species of mosquitoes to protect humanity from malaria.
The final day of the workshop began with the presentation by Prof. Ellen Zhang titled A Construction of Environmental Ethics from a Buddhist Perspective, in which she drew connections between the Mahāyāna and Theravāda branches of Buddhism. One of the key idea Prof Zhang presented was that because all things in this world are interconnected through a complex network, if one thing is destroyed, others will be affected as well. A response was made by Prof. Ruping Fan, who provided a Confucian argument that caring for the environment is a form of love, but of a lesser importance compared to the main tenets of Confucianist thought such as filial piety. The discussion continues as Fr Anil, a buddhist monk, gave a presentation focusing on the role of Thai monks in environment protection, for example, monks who collect plastic bottles to be made into robes. Furthermore, the presenter points out that while Buddhist teachings do not have specific content on the human imperative or responsibility to the environment, it is the duty of the devotees to exercise their consciences while using natural resources, with consideration to the constant state of change.
Lilian Santos, a bioethicist from the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum in Rome responded questioning whether Buddhism takes a stance on any other bioethical issues, such as artificial intelligence.
The second session of the morning was a panel discussing the Judaic approach to ethical environmental action. Prof. Jonathan Crane from Emory University discusses his proposal for non-anthropocentrism, the understanding that humans are to co-exist alongside all things nonhuman, and be equal to everything else in this world, “humans are but one bit in the vast unfolding cosmos”.
Prof. Paul Macneill from the University of Sydney responded to Prof. Crane’s paper questioning what are the practical terms of the duty that are described by Prof. Crane and who has responsibility to fulfill that duty within the non-anthropocentric framework. Alternatively, Prof. Macneill suggests that the Hindu tradition has always been anthropocentric, focusing on the suffering and enlightenment, and argues that a new approach is needed for religious environmental ethics.
The last roundtable of this workshop included Prof. John Lunstroth, Fr. Sameer Advani, Prof. R. R. Kishore, and Prof. Soraj Hongladarom, discussing environmental protection from the Hindu perspective. Prof. Lunstroth puts the term “religion” under scrutiny, arguing that Hinduism is actually a cosmological philosophy or a moral guide for daily life rather than a religion with clear and fixed doctrines. However, due to colonial expansion, attempts were made to mold Hinduism into a religion of nature in order to put it into a sort of category. Prof. Lunstroth goes on to argue that if considering Hinduism in its pre-colonial form, it appears to worship trees and animals despite the teachings of Ataiva, the oneness of all things.
In response to Prof. Lunstroth’s argument, Fr Advani questions not whether colonialism influenced the perception of religion in non-Western cultures, but rather “how profound, how fundamental, how transforming was that change”. This discussion was followed by Prof. Kishore outlining how Hinduism perceives the nature of the natural world through excerpts of key Hindu texts such as the Atharva Veda. The final presentation was given by Prof. Hongladarom, who has been critical to the success of this workshop. In his presentation, he compared and contrasted the Hindu tradition and the Thai Buddhist tradition, he pointed out that neither of these Eastern traditions believe that humans are in anyway superior to other living or non-living beings but rather only a part of the whole.
In conclusion, this workshop explored a wide range of ideas, from theological to political aspects of religion, and how they perceive humanity’s reasons to protect the environment and prevent further damage. As a participant of this workshop, I went away learning that protecting the environment is not a subject of dispute, but the debate of finding the most ethical and efficient way to go about doing so is one that will carry on in the foreseeable future.
Considering the continuous advances in the scientific and technological fields today, our world changes daily, but not always in a beneficial way. This is why bioethics steps in as a way to ensure that humanity and the environment are affected positively by these advances. According to the field of bioethics, it is crucial that our lives, the lives of others and of our future generations deserve compassion, care, and love in how we implement such technological improvements.
A practical example of a way to ensure respect for mankind in the biomedical context is the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Paris on October 20, 2005. Indeed, one of the fundamental aims of the Declaration is the establishment of a universal framework of principles and procedures. The latter are intended to guide states in the formulation of their legislation, policies or other instruments in the field of bioethics in order to promote respect for human dignity.
Nevertheless, the Declaration is not the only tool used to ensure respect for the life of human beings and fundamental freedoms as scientific research advances. Another impactful response to the ever-increasing dilemmas that science and technology present for humankind and the environment, is given by three different Art Global Competitions. These competitions were organized by the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights (Rome, Italy) respectively in 2011, 2013, and 2015 in different countries. The international character of such exhibitions contributed to one of the fundamental aims of the Declaration, that is to say, the multidisciplinary and pluralistic dialogue on bioethical issues. Therefore, these thought-provoking art exhibitions allowed the intersection of bioethics, arts, aesthetics, axiology, ethics, human rights, creativity, and technology.
The three exhibitions are a perfect manifestation of the so-called “aesthetic experience”. As Prof. Alberto García Gómez, Chairholder of the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights, claims, the aesthetic experience is a way of discovering and seeing the ordinary through a deep and meaningful sensibility. In other words, it consists of a privileged view that allows a deep cognitive learning of the surrounding world and mankind. Another scholar who further expands on the concept of the aesthetic experience is Francisco Bueno Pimenta who analyzes the five consequential phases characterizing this universal phenomenon: the mental triggering; the interconnection between images, sounds and emotions; the encounter with beauty inhabiting both physical and human nature, works of and human thoughts; a deep contemplation of such encounter; and a final renewed vision of reality. The last phase allows mankind to be guided by ethical values and principles in order to be able to distinguish between correct and incorrect, appropriate and inappropriate actions.
More specifically, the First Global Art Competition which took place in New York expanded upon the notion of human vulnerability which has been previously discussed in a workshop hosted by the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights from the 9th to the 11th of October 2011 in Rome. The principle of human vulnerability and personal integrity are both included in Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights. Thus, to deepen the understanding of such principles, bioethics experts from the world’s major religions—Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism—met to discuss the meaning and implications of this principle in their traditions. In order to expand their audience, a call was made to the international art community: artists around the world were invited to creatively interpret the ethical ideals of respecting cultural diversity and inspiring compassion toward all human life.
Two years later, in 2013, the competition expanded to three categories: Fine Art, Photography and Student Art. The inclusion of other categories in the exhibition allowed a broader range of artists with different expertise to participate and also allowed the aesthetic experience to manifest itself through further media. In the 2013 edition which took place in Hong Kong, China, the main theme was centered around the notion of respect for all cultures and religions as a response to the impact of life sciences on present and future generations. In other words, the UNESCO Chair called on artists to illustrate love, compassion and care, in a way that could reflect Articles 12 and 18 of the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights. The two articles deal with the importance of cultural diversity and pluralism, especially in public debates and decision-making processes addressing bioethical issues. The scope of the exhibition further reinforces the value of the aesthetic experience and shows how the concept of beauty and art in general have the power to enhance human behavior, specifically in the biomedical sphere.
the third edition of the Bioethics Art Competition also included more than one category: Fine Arts and Photography. The exhibition took place in Houston, USA in 2015 and was based on the concept of healing. Artists devised ways to express the gift of healing through body, mind and spirit, and finally submitted their works of art both in visual and written statements. The success of the competition was evident in the high number of artists who submitted their art pieces: more than 400 artists from 32 different countries were involved in this project. The main theme of the competition can be considered to be more extensive than in the previous competitions since it was not related to specific articles in the Declaration. The references to the principles included in the document are therefore more linked to the artist’s subjective interpretation of the subject. For instance, Sabine Blodorn and Ted Shaw’s paintings, respectively entitled “You, too” and “The awareness of unity”, make references to the concepts of solidarity and mutual support, included in Article 13 of the Declaration. In the first painting, the two floral elements represent two human figures who identify with one another in moments of joy and excitement through their contagious smiles. In the second painting, the concept of solidarity is evoked by the unity of colors that constitute “a performance of energy”, as the artist Ted Shaw states. The chromatic dynamism stands for the universal and personal creative forces interacting with each other, similar to when the surrounding universe and human ego encounter.
As discussed above, in the case of the art competitions, a theme was first established by the board members and only then the works of art were created to reflect such a topic. However, bioethical issues in the sphere of art can also be addressed differently. As a matter of fact, by adopting a careful bioethical point of view it is possible to analyze existing art pieces in connection to the principles of the Declaration, and more generally to ethics and health. Of course, this view applies to works of art taken from all art historical periods and made in different media, such as painting, photography and sculpture, as in the case of the second and third global art competitions. Examining works from Neoclassicism and Romanticism, for example, reflects what Socrates claimed about the concept of beauty. According to his moral vision, the concept of beauty can only be fulfilled when it is related to something useful and practical. In other words, beauty always needs to express an end and more specifically the activities of the soul. Considering Socrates’ vision, if a bioethical point of view is applied to works of art, it is possible to conceive them as a product of physical beauty combined with the power of moral beauty. In other words, it would allow the public to view art pieces as promoters of ethical and responsible actions, just as the aesthetic experience teaches us.
In conclusion, as Alberto García Gómez reminds us, the irruption of beauty and art within the bioethical debate would only contribute to its enrichment and theoretical expansion. This is because artists and their masterpieces ask unsettling questions that are deliberately ignored in today’s world.
Plantas de energía nuclear ucranianas en peligro de ser usadas como armas de bioterrorismo: ética computacional, equidad en salud y análisis de la rentabilidad en la prevención y respuesta impulsadas por la IA, pp. 607-638
Bioética y ecología integral: el papel de las universidades en el cuidado de la casa común, pp. 667-684
Iniciativa ciudadana versus despenalización del aborto, pp. 701-736
Algunos problemas de la objeción de conciencia, pp. 771-804
Vacunación: entre la autonomía y la solidaridad. El equilibrio de principios desde una perspectiva bioética global frente a la pandemia del COVID-19, pp. 837-860
