'get out of the way' of biomedical progress.

A laudable sentiment except for one major flaw.  Ethicists do not stand in the way of medical progress they stand in the way of unethical behaviour.

If Prof. Pinker thinks that 'medical progress' can be made in a world motivated by greed, pride and arrogance then he is mistaken.  Progress 'at any price' is not progress.  Those involved in medical research are not simply driven by a desire to rid the world of its evils, to conquer pain and disease.  Money, ego and fame are potent influences on behaviour.

Bioethics are the gatekeeper to protect us all from the foibles of corruption.  Biomedical science is now sadly acknowledged to be the most corrupted of all sciences.  No one should stand in the way of progress but we need ethicists to make sure that it is progress that we are talking about. 

Actually, No! and that is why 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280625983_BIOETHICAL_MANIFESTO_OF_EVOLUTIONARY_CHRISTIANITY

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244995094_Theory_of_Creative_Processes_as_a_Scientific_Basis_of_Biocentrism_in_ECO-_And_Bioethics_%28in_RussianEnglish%29

Article Theory of Creative Processes as a Scientific Basis of Biocen...

Conference Paper BIOETHICAL MANIFESTO OF EVOLUTIONARY CHRISTIANITY

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245031218_SCIENCE_AND_RELIGION_SYNTHESIS_INSTEAD_OF_CONFRONTATION

Conference Paper SCIENCE AND RELIGION: SYNTHESIS INSTEAD OF CONFRONTATION

Simple answer is no. Can we improve oversight and review process? Yes.

Only if you think we should do whatever science lets us do. Many medical advances are of course genuinely beneficial: we need to be clear on that from the start, because anyone who interrogates the social or economic consequences of modern medicine is often wrongly labelled as a knee-jerk opponent of progress. But the uses to which medical advances are put can also be misuses, although that position might be denied by uncritical advocates of letting science do whatever it likes. Actually very few clinicians would take that extreme position. Far from a stand-off between ethics and research, we are seeing many instances of co-operation between them to produce a better clinical result with a sound ethical basis: for example, the announcement this week of a successful Ebola vaccine developed through an alternative method of clinical trials, which didn't meet the 'gold standard' for randomised clinical trials but also avoided the ethically unacceptable administration of a placebo to patients suffering from Ebola. 

 No, it should not. I know someone (I will not name the group) who studied effects of pesticides on the precious and endemic cave loach, Nemacheilus evezardi. Why one should find out LD50 of a pesticide on this species? 

It's an odd thing to say, because certainly there are some ethical limits to research. What's the alternative to discussing them and making policy responsive to ethical deliberation?

There is no such a straight Yes or No answer. I would think that it is a case by case basis because unknowns surface differently in individual case. One important factor is to know how to manage the risk (positive and negative outcomes) if we support a particular biological research.

I think he clearly overstates the problem and minimizes past problems of failed oversight. For those interested I distilled some thoughts in this commentary.

http://www.cfp.ca/content/57/10/1113.full

CRISPR-CAS9 may be promising, but it should be noted that it was one of the inventors of the technology, a molecular biologist, who issued cautions and called for ethical deliberation. This is a responsible thing for a scientist to do.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/06/25/ethical-and-regulatory-reflections-on-crispr-gene-editing-revolution/

'get out of the way' of biomedical progress.

A laudable sentiment except for one major flaw.  Ethicists do not stand in the way of medical progress they stand in the way of unethical behaviour.

If Prof. Pinker thinks that 'medical progress' can be made in a world motivated by greed, pride and arrogance then he is mistaken.  Progress 'at any price' is not progress.  Those involved in medical research are not simply driven by a desire to rid the world of its evils, to conquer pain and disease.  Money, ego and fame are potent influences on behaviour.

Bioethics are the gatekeeper to protect us all from the foibles of corruption.  Biomedical science is now sadly acknowledged to be the most corrupted of all sciences.  No one should stand in the way of progress but we need ethicists to make sure that it is progress that we are talking about. 

Sometimes ethicists can "get in the way" of scientific progress. I have witnessed this when serving as an ethics consultant to a task force working on a very sensitive topic. The task force had been told by a well-known bioethicists that their research was unethical and could not be done, and said so in very dogmatic terms. However, the research was exceedingly important and conscientious doctors were worried about their practices, which would continue uninhibited unless retrospective studies were done to properly evaluate the ethics of what was basically the standard of care. When it happens, the ethicists are abusing their role as ethics consultants or as members of review boards. Ethicists functioning on review boards, as I have done, are instructed that they should be helping researchers to do their research ethically, rather than make dogmatic proclamations. They point out possible ethical problems, and help the researcher to revise the protocol in order to void those problems. The process helps to ensures publication of the research, thus actually furthering the progress of science.

Another point to keep in mind is that when ethicists raise questions which seem to be obstructionistic to the researchers, they are raising questions that very well might be in the minds of the public, and their discussion provokes awareness of the issues, clarification of the concepts, and public education, which very well may be helpful in clearing the path for scientific research that has been blocked by ignorance, political affiliation, errors in interpretation of religious obligations, and misunderstanding of the science involved.

Playing Devil's advocate I would say "yes" and "no".  Because much of my own writing has been in the area of emerging technologies, I fully appreciate the need for a reasoned social dialogue about the goals and potential untoward consequences of these powerful technologies.  Unfortunately, bioethicists haven't always been the ideal facilitators of such a conversation. 

Decades after the introduction of intensive life support technologies, we still struggle with the ethics of basic end of life decisions, overtreatment, disparities in treatment and cost of these technologies.  In part, the conversation involves profound questions but it also requires practical, sensible, plain-spoken dialogue which many bioethicists seem incapable of having.  Abstract, esoteric, inaccessible essays and lectures may have academic value but far less helpful in the real world where real people are having a hard time posing basic questions about the wisdom of a particular course of action.  Punctuate those with philosophical arrogance and lack of basic intellectual humility and communication breaks down rather quickly. 

Rather than passing judgment on emerging technologies, perhaps bioethicists should consider more practically their role as mediators of a conversation, bringing a specific language and set of lenses to help stakeholders arrive at their own more refined and informed conclusions.

Hi Owen,

No, bioethicists should not get out of the way. 

Barry Turner (another commenter on this page) is right to state that 'Ethicists do not stand in the way of medical progress they stand in the way of unethical behaviour'.  That's exactly the point.

I've been working in bioethics in the field of biosecurity for years.  It's a sad fact that most people, including scientists and Steven Pinker, confuse 'ethics' with 'personal values' and 'personal opinion'.  Ethics are a public set of values around the value and importance of human beings (and in some contexts, animals, or the environment).  Ethics are not personal and are not limited to the here and now, where emotions and personal immediate gain can be had.  By definition, ethics are concerned with the 'big picture' beyond the immediate gratification of a few (on a population level). 

This does not mean that ethicists are immune to personal feeling and emotion.  Yes, we all know friends and relations who have died from cancer and so on....and yes, we all wish a magic wand could be waved immediately over them to let them be cured and live.  However, we know enough today from history to show that what looks like a panacea now can become a weapon against even more people in the future.  We must chew hard on new technologies before letting the cat out of the bag.  Once out there, it can't be put back in.

Matthew Meselson (Harvard) said in 2000:  'Every major technology — metallurgy, explosives, internal combustion, aviation, electronics, nuclear energy — has been intensively exploited, not only for peaceful purposes but also for hostile ones. Must this also happen with biotechnology, certain to be a dominant technology of the twenty-first century?'

Figures from major market analysts in 2010 and 2011 showed that the biotech market (including pharmacy and medical research) was worth:

North America   $204 billion

Europe        $102 billion

Rest of the world  $100 billion.

Do we really believe that when vast sums of profit from this sector are at stake that those involved will be effectively 'self managing' when it comes to asking the big ethical questions?  

I regularly meet with scientists who say they use the 'cost-benefit' approach when 'evaluating' their own research for ethics.  Two points emerge from this.  I have NEVER met a scientist who has been formally trained in ethics - most think that their personal values equate to ethics, and couldn't name a list of ethical principles if asked.  Secondly, when huge grants and fame are at stake, what scientist is realistically going to conclude that the 'costs' of his research outweigh the 'benefits', thus leading him to abandon or change his research plans and activities?

I do have a problem with some ethics committees - and I would ask here that ALL ethics committee should be made up ONLY of people formally trained in ethics - who sit there in judgement of research from a position of lack of expertise.  What ethics committees and ethicists should be doing is helping researchers to find the least harmful way forward in their research.  There will probably be only a tiny number of research activities that should be banned permanently (I can't think of any). 

My research focuses on this - helping scientists to identify the risks in their own work, then taking mitigating actions to minimise the risks of an adverse outcome.  This is NOT the same as telling them not to do the work or putting long term blocks on research.

Pinker says:

'Of course, individuals must be protected from identifiable harm, but we already have ample safeguards for the safety and informed consent of patients and research subjects'.  Well, no we don't.  In my field, biochemical security, to prevent the development of weapons (even unintentionally) from 'benign' science research, the existing controls do not cover all the bases. If they did, we wouldn't need accident logs in labs.  We would not need to ask scientists to put moratoria on their work while we consider the implications.

Pinker also says: 'Some say that it’s simple prudence to pause and consider the long-term implications of research before it rushes headlong into changing the human condition. But this is an illusion.'  Really?  What about the 2011 H5N1 flu experiments in the US and the Netherlands?  Should we really be making 'new' pathogens in the lab 'just in case' they emerge in nature? 

Pinker says that 'slowing down research' has a massive human cost - but fails to consider the possible human cost if biotech or medical research is misused because we rushed to meet the needs of a few at the cost of the many in the future.  He also states that 'prediction beyond a horizon of a few years is so futile that any policy based on it is almost certain to do more harm than good'.  Where is the evidence for that?   We only need to look at the development of nuclear weapons to see how 'futile' that argument is. 

I agree that scientists cannot be expected to see years into the future.  However, they should be expected to account for what can be 'reasonably forseen' AT THE TIME OF THEIR WORK. 

If you are interested in looking at my arguments further, have a look at my RG page, especially 'Dual Use' and 'Moral and Ethical Decision Making'.

Hope you find this helpful!

My reply would be that the role of philosophers has always been to get in the way- Socrates was called a gadfly- so its in the job description!! 

I think we should distinguish between the role played by bioethicist in public discussion and in ethics committees. I guess our role in public discussion is truly relevant since we might be able to provide for good arguments that could make easier for public opinion to arrive into some conclusion. 

In the case of ethics committees, instead, I am much more doubtful. I think that in some cases bioethicist play a role to which they are not empowered. And sometimes they seem to search for ethical issues only to justify their presence in the committee. In doing so, they really compromise the key role we should play in sciende development. 

There is really only one good thing to say about this piece by Pinker - it generates debate about ethics! Otherwise he has certainly lowered the esteem I held for him by such spurious correlations, emotional dredging, idealistic forecasting, over-extended trends, and straw man arguments. Of course consideration must be given to the ethical risks associated with biomedical developments. The real issue is how to do that - and do it well. It must be transparent, based on agreed sound ethical principles, facilitative and supportive of robust research. Necessarily forcing people to 'stop and think' is sound ethical practice - to think about the impact both of research findings and research practice is the sign of high quality research practice. Sadly that might impose some minor delays on research progress, but it is in the longer term interests of us all. The variations in experience of more formal ethical review is very much dependent on the location of the ethics committee. So one can understand the frustrations experienced in the US when IRBs are more concerned with corporate image and institutional protection. It is not the case elsewhere - in the European Commission, for example, ethics committees are composed of multidisciplinary experts who operate in an independent capacity to advise the Commission's research funding and protect the interests of those who might be harmed (humans and animals of course).

Yes, they should get out of the way. Especially if they are pushing a religious agenda.

as for religion                           https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299538236_Evolutionary_Theology_and_Bioethics

Article Evolutionary Theology and Bioethics

Are you seriously claiming to have inside knowledge of the attitude of a putative creator to humans? And, furthermore, that this knowledge should be a basis for the ethical treatment of animals?

Have you thought about something a little more grounded in reality, i.e. without resorting to claims about an invisible sky pixie?

Do you seriously think that the human intellect is the most perfect mind in the universe? I would not advise conducting the debate in such a tone. Then you say - give evidence that there is a higher mind of the Creator. I suggest to people of your mentality: offer scientific analysis of the material reality of biological evolution, and do not be confused by what I see in it a manifestation of the will and intent of the Creator. From a purely scientific point of view within the theory of the creative processes, the Earth is an intuitive thinking brain in which the thought process unfold evolutionary, thought forms are the biological species. The coevolutionary interaction matrix which manifests itself through their instincts can be interpreted as "genes ethics." The latter is logical to extrapolate, having understood the trend of development, "ethics noosphere", i.e. bioethics.                https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244995094_Theory_of_Creative_Processes_as_a_Scientific_Basis_of_Biocentrism_in_ECO-_And_Bioethics_in_RussianEnglish

Article Theory of Creative Processes as a Scientific Basis of Biocen...

"Then you say - give evidence that there is a higher mind of the creator."

Not just evidence of it, but also how you come to know it so intimately that we should consider it seriously.

"I suggest to people of your mentality: offer scientific analysis of the material reality of biological evolution..."

That is a very weak attempt at shifting the onus of proof. That onus is on you as the proposer.

Your ideas might be acceptable to a journal refereed by other (western-style) deists who don't question the existence of invisible sky gods, but why should other people accept them as a basis for bioethics?

It was my understanding that this thread was about bioethicists and their role in scientific progress.  Bioethicists actually obstruct medical progress very little but commercial interests do.

The greatest obstruction to medical science getting to the patient is the private profit of the pharmaceutical and medical device industry who employ patents extremely skilfully to ensure that they monopolise treatments and cures for as long as possible.  Their motivation is money.  If there is a 'protectionism' direction preventing life saving and life improving medical interventions it is the protection of wealth, not ethics that is behind it.

¡Bravo, dear Barry! That is why so much of scientific research is stunted or stillborn. 

Best regards, Lilliana

To: Leo Lazauskas .

Let's go back to the original question – “Should bioethicists 'get out of the way'?” I say –NO, explaining "why" from the standpoint of evolutionary theology. My goal - to show these moral values, because our practice  are derived from it. Secondly,  on your opinion - “Yes, they should get out of the way. Especially if they are pushing a religious agenda” - I would like to show that the Evolutionary Christianity does not contradict with science in general and with evolutionary theory in particular.   Historically, we have discussed the prejudices of orthodox religion in relation to science, nowadays relevant issues of prejudice orthodox science against religion is actual (Dawkins, “Militant atheism’  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A ).

 «But why should other people accept them as a basis for bioethics?» - They have not to share these values, because our choice to believe in the Creator, or to believe in the absence of the Creator, or to believe in the impossibility of choosing between these two faiths (agnostics faith) is an act of freedom of our will.  In our scientific practice, we need to follow up some rules which adopted in society on the basis of consensus, and community is responsible for all consequences. In our personal life, we can follow the bioethical rules that are in line with our moral choice, unless otherwise provided by law, such as cruelty to animals. «Have you thought about something a little more grounded in reality, i.e. without resorting to claims about an invisible sky pixie? ». - I gave you the answer, how to find a scientific basis for bioethics (ethics Noosphere), based on  detecting and extrapolating of the "ethics of genes" in biological evolution.

At last, but not least, if you have chosen a solely rational way towards the God, then I can help you by referring to the article: Idlis G.M.,” From the anthropic principle towards reasonable fundamental principle”.  Russian Academy of the Sciences, Philosophy Institute, Global Evolutionism, Moscow, 1994 (in Russian), http://rusnauka.narod.ru/lib/philos/globevol/idlis.htm, in which the conclusion from the perspectives of quantum mechanics was made "Supreme Mind emerging on the highest level of a natural self-organization, unlike typical intelligent individuals, cannot be a product of this self-organization , instead appears as its' universal fundamental principle ".   I did not check the article's mathematical manipulations since my faith in God does not depend on it! Good luck!

P.S. Here eternal problem of the unpredictability of the results of scientific experiments and the predominance of economic interests of morality have already discussed by other authors.

"to whom it may be interested" my answer to Prof. Dawkins

Dear Prof. Dawkins, 

I deeply share the Darwin-Wallace theory and teach it to my students at the courses such as “Evolutionary modeling" and “Creativity processes theory”,  moreover, I refer to your remarkable concepts (the memes, replicators,  survival machines) in my own lecture and refer to your works in my own articles! But I much regret that you spend your precious time for an a priori futile war against religion, which has got nothing to do with the fight for freedom of will! God has given it to us and the religious leaders destroying this liberty are indeed breaking the will of the Creator! Maybe you would 

rather learn the "atrophic principle" more deeply and answer the question "why was the evolution ever possible?” before becoming, as Lenin called the Bolsheviks, a militant atheist! I lived in a country where militant atheism was a state religion (there was an obligatory course at high school - s.c. 

"Scientific atheism"!) and where religious people were not only derided, but very often simply physically destroyed under a "red fascism” regime… 

If you or someone else would be interested to hear out a world outlook where science and religion synthetically combined, you can refer to these links:  

SCIENCE AND RELIGION: SYNTHESIS INSTEAD OF CONFRONTATION –

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245031218_SCIENCE_AND_RELIGION_SYNTHESIS_INSTEAD_OF_CONFRONTATION

 Theory of Creative Processes as a Scientific Basis of Biocentrism in ECO- And Bioethics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244995094_Theory_of_Creative_Processes_as_a_Scientific_Basis_of_Biocentrism_in_ECO-_And_Bioethics_in_RussianEnglish

In conclusion I cannot resist the temptation of telling you that I am not just sharing your memes concept, but, not being familiar with your remarkable works yet, in USSR, argued that the thought is a form of living in a psychic reality from the perspective of my "Creativity processes theory" in general 

and, in particular, of the fact noted by a genius scientist Hans Selye about "seven stages" of a birth of the biological child and a birth of an idea. Reading your famous “The Selfish gene" allowed me as well to find the additional arguments for building the concept of "Geo-Solaris" interpreting 

the planet as an intuitive-thinking brain, "ethics of genes" concept, "ethics of meme" and others. Thank you very much for your great contribution to science, but I implore you not to spend your time for a futile war at religion! 

Sincerely yours 

Alexander G. Yushchenko 

Article Theory of Creative Processes as a Scientific Basis of Biocen...

Conference Paper SCIENCE AND RELIGION: SYNTHESIS INSTEAD OF CONFRONTATION

All you have given us is some silly musings from that jejeune jesuit de Chardin based on an imaginary being and the equivalent of a spirit world.

By all means, believe what you like, but don't expect scientists and researchers to be guided on what is ethical and necessary by that twaddle.

Dear Stefan, I have been arguing exactly your point under other questions, and there is a general stubborn attitude about conflating ethics and morals. I just cannot understand this because for me the difference is perfectly clear and singularly useful to detect how religious moralism infiltrates research while calling itself ethical.

Best regards, Lilliana

I'm glad people like Dawkins continue to fight against religious interference.

"Thank you very much for your great contribution to science, but I implore you not to spend your time for a futile war at religion!"

It's not a futile fight.

Aristotle's "scientific" ideas, promoted by the Catholic church, held back science for nearly 1500 years.

Catholics, and many other religious fundamentalists are still poking their noses into scientific matters, the bedrooms of consenting adults, and have the gall to (pardon the pun) pontificate on the reproductive rights of women.

To: Leo Lazauskas.

« All you have given us is some silly musings from that jejeune jesuit de Chardin based on an imaginary being and the equivalent of a spirit world…., have you thought about something a little more grounded in reality, i.e. without resorting to claims about an invisible sky pixie?.... but don't expect scientists and researchers to be guided on what is ethical and necessary by that twaddle”.

   -  I have already suggested to you not to hold the discussion in such a tone. My colleague, I find that you are very unethical leave alone bioethical. More so, your ideas about the Creator of the universe are strongly limited to child’s picture, representing him, as “old man in a white beard sitting on a cloud”. You obviously have no idea how many great scholars recognize the existence of higher intelligence in the organization of the universe. I shall limit myself to a quote, which has direct relevance to the topic under discussion

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind» - Albert Einstein!

 «Aristotle's" scientific "ideas, promoted by the Catholic church, held back science for nearly 1500 years». -  First of all, the belief in the existence of a Creator and religious practices are not the same thing, do not be confused. Secondly, you would benefit from familiarizing yourself with the theory of Karl Popper on the homology of the evolution of knowledge and biological evolution, before giving disparaging assessment of the Aristotle historical contributions of the development of science from the standpoint of modern knowledge.

As for the «militant athletics war" - it is really a stupid war, atheism is a belief in the absence of the Mind of the Creator of the universe, because atheists have no any scientific evidence. Any faith is not the subject of discussion it is the subject of the freedom of our will.

I do not want to discuss with you any more on the topics that you have naive ideas about, sorry. But it would be really interesting to hear your opinion about whether there are any restrictions on scientific experiments, especially with regard to living beings, or is everything permitted? And if so, why do you think so? And how many scientists do you think share your point of view? Thank you.

P.S.

On the issue of abortion, I have already expressed my opinion.

Dear all, science and religion do not mix, as René Descartes himself expressed. In his Meditations on First Philosophy he never managed to prove God's existence, so he decided to accept God's existence through the genius malignus strategy, which fails because of its redundancy. Descartes never went further on the topic on the wake of terrible persecutions by the church agains the new scientists. He eventually left France.

Belief is about prayer and faith, and science is about experiments and evidence. Thus, they are utterly incompatible in method and in their proof of certainty. This is an easy one. So, scientists, leave religious people alone. Religious believers, don't come into science if you cannot come up with evidence. 

Best regards, Lilliana

An appeal to authority?

"You obviously have no idea how many great scholars recognize the existence of higher intelligence in the organization of the universe."

They don't have proof that here is such a higher mind, but they impose it on others as if they do. Duplicitous and deceitful.

According to opinion Dr. Leo Lazauskas ·they are “Duplicitous and deceitful” J http://www.famousscientists.org/25-famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/

According to opinion Dr. Leo Lazauskas ·they are “Duplicitous and deceitful”

You still don't get it. As long as they don't use their delusions to impose restrictions on others, it doesn't matter what nonsense they believe in.

Dear Prof. Lilliana Ramos-Collado,  

 I did not get any specific answers from Dr. Leo Lazauskas to the questions about his views on bioethical limitations both on the subject and research methods. Maybe you would like to answer, explaining at the same time the origin of your moral and ethical values?  WHAT SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THESE VALUES DO YOU HAVE? It is obvious that  for Dr. Leo Lazauskas there are no restrictions and anything goes as for Mr. Raskolnikov before his repentance ...

 With regard to the outstanding scholar Descartes, he is well known for his classic ontological proof of God's existences.  I mentioned a modern work, which is done from the standpoint of quantum mechanics. Can Dr. Leo Lazauskas refute this scientific evidence?

It is known that Descartes was persecuted by Protestants, while Catholics patronized him, the first are responsible for it before the Creator. Who would say that churches and clerics automatically are holy and we must regard their actions as inevitable consequences of the belief in a Creator?

Your mention of Descartes is a Freudian slip, bioethically speaking. Do you share his bioethical views that guided science and caused butchering of living animals without anesthetic until the 60s of the 20th century? Do you subscribe to the words of Descartes - "They (animals) ... machines. They do not feel neither pleasure nor pain, and nothing at all. Although they squawk when they are cut with a knife, and writhe to avoid contact with a hot iron, it does not mean anything in their efforts "?!

P.S.

In conclusion, I note, once again, that I clearly understand and it can also be seen from my publications, the difference between the methods of science and religion and I use bioethical arguments on both sides of human knowledge.

Sincerely,

Prof. Alexander G. Yushchenko

To me you are like David Icke, who claims there are reptoids running the world, but can't show an actual instance of such beings.

The onus is on you (and Descartes and Icke) to show the existence of a creator you have posited, and with the qualities you have attributed to it. It's not up to me to refute it. You are the one claiming to know with certainty about invisible entities, and also that others should accept their existence without question.

Citing other believers in support of your eldritch imaginings is nothing more than an appeal to authority. It's fallacious at best, and cherry-picking at worst, because you don't mention the detractors. Must we be sympathetic to (modern) believers in the life force "qi" just because it was posited by ancient medicos?

What makes your favoured religions the ones we must accept as correct? Must we also accept the ethical strictures imposed by hundreds of other religions and "philosophies" too: Jains, Hindus, neo-pagans, Shiites & Sunnis, Discordians, Pastafarians, or the one that promises eternal salvation or triple your money back?

1)   I would like to remind you about my request

“I do not want to discuss with you any more on the topics that you have naive ideas about, sorry.”

and, also, my answer

2) «But why should other people accept them as a basis for bioethics?» - They have not to share these values, because our choice to believe in the Creator, or to believe in the absence of the Creator, or to believe in the impossibility of choosing between these two faiths (agnostics faith) is an act of freedom of our will.

And much more impotant –

3) Would you like to answer of these unanswered questions instead?

“But it would be really interesting to hear your opinion about WHETHER THERE ARE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO LIVING BEINGS, OR IS EVERYTHING PERMITTED? AND IF SO, WHY DO YOU THINK SO? And how many scientists do you think share your point of view?”

Thank you!

Biomedical and bioethics ethics represent some of the oldest and most profound human 'rules' in our history.  I have taught the history of biomedical ethics for many years and have always been enthralled by the subject that can trace its history back over 4,500 years.

With such a long history bioethics has seen many religions come and go.  Its first manifestation occurred before Judaism, Christianity and Islam had been invented.  The biomedical ethics from the code of Hammurabi predate all of the monotheistic religions and the medical ethics of the Greeks and Romans, while addressing themselves to deities of one sort or another also exist in the absence of a creator.

Religious doctrines have contributed significantly to bioethics and biomedical ethics but they are not indispensable.  Ethics can thrive perfectly well in the absence of any religion and ethical principals can be just as easily disrupted by religion as supported by it.  

" WHETHER THERE ARE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO LIVING BEINGS, OR IS EVERYTHING PERMITTED? AND IF SO, WHY DO YOU THINK SO?"

Of course there should be restrictions. I don't need a belief in imaginary higher intelligences, or religious advice, to judge the Tuskegee experiments

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment) as vile.

As for animal testing, that depends on many things. Hindu scientists might be repulsed by experiments on cattle; some Jain scientists would not allow experiments that harmed insects, some strict vegans would prohibit using eggs, silk or honey.

(An incidental tangent, since you mentioned Dostoyevsky earlier... We read Crime and Punishment in year 9 of school. One day a classmate confided to me that he saw nothing wrong with what Raskolnikov did by murdering Ivanovna. I saw him on TV about 15 years later when he was arrested in South Australia for murdering his fiancee after forging several insurance documents. So, no, I don't believe that anything "goes".

Nor do I believe that any writer is necessarily the holder of universal truths, or an infallible guide in ethics. Dostoyevsky was an elegant, genius to me when I was 14-18; saccharine and over-sentimental when I was 30, and his later "slavophile" phase in Diary of a Writer was verging on insane. And similarly with Nietszche.)

Dear Dr. Turner,

Thank you for your reflections. I also have taught “Bioethics” including historical human attitude to this problems. I had paid special attention the ethics of virtual living beings and artificial intelligence, because my specialty was “Knowledge based system”. I found that bioethical principles are similar in many religions and can be studied within evolutionary theology. As any religion is a subject of the freedom of our will and implementations of its moral values depends on how many people share it. Moreover, it seems to me the Christianity is more anthropocentric than many others, and that is why I tried to develop the Evolutionary Christianity paradigm to overcome this. I have spent some extra efforts trying to find a journal which would publish my article because purely orthodox did not agree to do it.  Basically they resented the assumption that Christ is related to other animals by his mother, which is resulting from evolutionary theory J… But what do you think – where can we get our ethical values now? Should they have strong scientific background? As for me, I also try to find a scientific basis for bioethics “ethics of Noosphere”, based on detecting and extrapolating of the "ethics of genes" in biological evolution, because science is an argument for atheists.    

Regards,

Alexander G.

To: Leo Lazauskas · 

«Of course there should be restrictions. I don't need a belief in imaginary higher intelligences, or religious advice, to judge the Tuskegee experiments   as vile» -

What scientific principles are the bases of your conviction and are there any other restrictions that logically follow from them?

“Hindu scientists…. Jain scientists…” -

I know what scientists of different religions think about animal experiments. My question was about your personal point of view and scientific foundation for it!

P.S.

I did not want to say it, but I cannot help it. The superman Nietzsche said - "God is dead" and went crazy ... Nietzsche and Raskolnikov both have rejected moral restrictions and ethical standards. This is a direct road to murder. You have seen it not only in the literature, but in real life .... Your story about a classmate who agreed with the arguments of Raskolnikov, is worthy of being on Wikipedia! I was brought up and educated in the USSR, where the official state ideology was militant atheism. I remember in high school, I have read this work and I was terrified that I could not find a logical flaw in the reasoning of gloomy Raskolnikov that have pushed him to the murder. Aversion to killing came only from a sense of compassion to the innocent victims. After unsuccessful attempts of self-analysis, I then realized that I still had too little knowledge, and put Raskolnikov dilemma for later ...

Alexander

I would not expect to find any scientific basis for ethics of any description.  Ethics is simply the determination of right and wrong and is a cultural phenomenon.  

What may be right and wrong according to Christian ethics may not be the same as those of other faiths or belief systems.  It is extremely difficult to determine what would be meant by Christian ethics in any case.  Do we mean that ethics should be extracted from all Biblical teachings or just those described in the Gospels and the Pauline letters?

The books of the revealed religions do not provide us with a good lead, they are contradictory and contain divine directions that most people today would not consider ethical.

Science is a combined philosophy of epistemology, empiricism and doxasticism, which is the direct antithesis of faith.  While it is possible to be a scientist and religious it is not possible to apply the doctrines of science to religion.  Doxasticism is the philosophy of doubt, the philosophy that causes us to question scientific principles.  

Christianity requires its believers to have faith, not to doubt.  The Apostle Thomas ‘Doubting Thomas’ is described as being in error in questioning the resurrection of Christ.  If Thomas had been a scientist instead of an Apostle we would congratulate him on his search for evidence before he believed.

I am not sure that we should look to Dostoyevsky for an ethical guide either.  Works of fiction may describe ethical or unethical behaviour but they are allegorical rather than instructional.  We must recognise our own ethical views within them rather than use them to formulate new ones.

It is interesting that you refer to the official ideology of the former CCCP.  Soviet communism with its bizarre adoption of scientific socialism and political dogma much more resembled a religion than any other from of political thought.  

No Bioethics should not get out of the way it should remain since it protect human subjects

cannot imagine world with out bioethics

Dear Barry,

I would like to briefly explain these misunderstanding you have mentioned.

"I would not expect to find any scientific basis for ethics of any description"

- According to H. Selye ethics is a set of rules which manages of our behavior. From this point of view we can consider the intra - and inter-species relationships in ecosystems as the “ethics of genes” that leads to the harmonic evolving flourishing diverse range of life and the appearance of a human. Gene ethics is optimal for stabilization of ecological communities and is a result of natural selection over billions of years, so it can use it as a scientific basis, or, at least, as Eco-Ethics.

«Ethics is simply the determination of right and wrong and is a cultural phenomenon" –

 Of course it is, but the culture itself, as convincingly shown by Berdyaev («The Philosophy of Inequality») is a historical derivative of religion. Trying to eliminate the modern religious thought from the discussion of ethical issues is an attempt to preserve it at the level of outdated ideas, embodied in a particular national culture. If our ancestors maintained it as the fundamental principle, we would have remained cannibals J!

As for the sources of evolutionary-Christian ethics, it is based on the interpretation and the Old and New Covenants made by A. Men’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Men), which is consistent with modern science. In various religions, despite some difference in the bioethical rules, you can find confirmation of the fundamental principle of self-worth for the Creator of his creations, including the animals, which implies the need to care about them and preventing abuse. In Christianity, this view is taken by Dr. Linzey A. (Christianity and the Rights of Animals. Crossroad, New York, 1987). There is no doubt that the ancient eastern religions for thousands of years claimed that the animals are brothers and sisters and therefore they are exemplary bioethical. Dr. Ryder R.  (Animal Revolution. Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1989) explains the bioethical imperfection of the New Covenants, even in relation to the Old one, in that it was created as a "crisis document" aimed at overcoming paganism… Evolutionary Christianity accepts the theory of evolution, and thus Christ’s affinity with animals, bringing it closer to this issue to the perfect bioethics of the religions of east.

As for the epistemological issues of science and religion, we are not talking about the problems of their immanent methodological imperfections, for example, Gödel incompleteness and doxastic undecidability - "I will never believe this statement"  or Popper’s  uses of falsification as a criterion of demarcation of scientific knowledge. It is about the consistency of science and religion in the vision of the overall picture of the world as it is done by  Chardin and Men’ within evolutionary-Christian doctrine.

  «I am not sure that we should look to Dostoyevsky for an ethical guide either»

- Dostoevsky merit is in the warning of what would happen if the ethics were absent.  J!

«Soviet communism with its bizarre adoption of scientific socialism and political dogma much more resembled a religion than any other form of political thought»

- Russian communism was an atheistic religion with a belief in communism, as a motivating and mobilizing factor of control of aggressive unenlightened masses. Meme of faith in Russian communism, was in need of suppression of other religious beliefs, so once it became the state religion, it used the repressive apparatus for the physical destruction of dissenters. The Communist state should be identified as a Class Fascism, in which discrimination is carried out along class lines, not on national basis like Hitler’s. Modern Russia Ruscism is antagonistic symbiosis between Red and Brown Fascisms which declared a hybrid war throughout the Euro-Atlantic civilization https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278031455_MAROON_LEVIATHAN_in_Russian

Thank you!

P.S.

Dear colleagues,

I, unfortunately, can no longer take the time to discuss bioethical issues, since my main ideas have been presented in published works, so it is unlikely that I will continue the discussion.

Thank you, to whom it was interesting!

Sincerely

Alexander G.

Article MAROON LEVIATHAN (in Russian)

Александр ,

большое спасибо за ваши интересные комментарии !

Dear Barry, 

the pleasure is all mine!!!

P.S. Some Thoughts on Marxism and Russian Communism (in Russian)

Я увидел, что Вы участвуете в дискуссии  по марксизму и русскому коммунизму. Скажу о главном. Русский коммунизм – это не марксизм, а антагонистический симбиоз марксизма с радикальным  народничеством . https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE.  Настоящими марксистами в России были меньшевики во главе с Плехановым, которые осудили волюнтаризм Ленина и предупредили, что он закончится военной диктатурой  http://illuminats.ru/component/content/article/1964

Суть исторического спора в том, что, согласно теории Маркса, причиной социальной революции должен быть кризис между эволюционным развитием экономического базиса и политической надстройкой (государством) в ситуации, когда  вторая является препятствием дальнейшему экономическому прогрессу  общества. В 17-году Россия находилась в состоянии недоразвитого капитализма, поэтому социалистическая революция была невозможной. Авантюристический план Ленина захватить власть https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8B, и подгонять общество к социализму с помощью «партии нового типа» (большевиков)  - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC, которая, как я думаю, была фашизоидной. Чудовищными жертвами геноцида классового фашизма Ленина-Сталина позже стали Китай и Кампучия, а также другие страны , где эти режимы имели внешнее происхождение. На современном этапе мы имеем дело с возрождением Империи Зла с ее ментальным фашизмом т.н. «русского мира»    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278672019_MAROON_LEVIATHAN_Full_version

Data MAROON LEVIATHAN VS UKRAINE

"No Bioethics should not get out of the way it should remain since it protect human subjects"

I'm not being disingenuous, but is there any hard evidence that bioethics has saved any human lives by restricting research anywhere in the world? If it was instrumental in restricting, for example, GMO research, could it have caused more deaths than it saved?

"It is interesting that you refer to the official ideology of the former CCCP. Soviet communism with its bizarre adoption of scientific socialism and political dogma much more resembled a religion than any other from of political thought."

They were ugly violent times and I hope we never see the like repeated.

But they were no less violent than the many centuries of total religious control in Europe with its crusades, pogroms against jewry, burning of heretics, witch trials, inquisitions, massacres of huguenots, hussites, lollards etc etc.

It doesn't surprise me that Stalin and his thugs would use violent means against those who used violence against atheists, jews and communists when they had control. Hitler may have been disdainful of religion himself during some phases of his life, but he also used the church as temporary allies against communists and others when it suited his political purposes. After losing 20+ million in WW2, I can see how anyone who was seen to be even slightly responsible was a target for blind, irrational revenge by Russians with political power.

Since we are on the subject of bioethics rather than directly concerned with Soviet communism we should perhaps examine the effect that totalitarianism has on science and ethics.

The most hideous distortion of science for political reasons was of course that promulgated by the Nazis in their drive to 'prove' racial superiority.  They were not the only regime to abuse science for murderous ideologies and neither is the abuse of science necessarily confined to totalitarian regimes.  The United States, the United Kingdom and many other countries have used 'bastardised' science to very bad purpose.

The Soviet regime distorted the science of genetics to support the political ideology under the direction of Trofim Lysenko heartily supported by Stalin who shared his views. It was not only the violence directed at individuals and political opponents that made these regimes so appallingly unethical they attacked the very root of human knowledge Lysenkoism (Лысе́нковщина) saw geneticists and evolutionary biologists persecuted because if they did not agree with Lysenko and by default to Stalin they were enemies of the state. 

There may be parallel with the suppression of science by the Inquisition but in a state based on supposed ‘scientific’ principles this is even more startling

It is a fact, indeed. Bioethicists have since long ago - whether consciously or not - picked the side of conservative, orthodox and fundamentalist face of science. They tend to over-rationalize and over.moralize nearly every aspect of scientific research. 

Let's not forget that crucial text: A Letter to the Agents of Health written by the Vatican Academy of Sciences. Please: take a look at it...