Andrew Vogel
Dr. Adam Johns
1/27/09
ENGCMP 0200
The question of whether religion or science contains the truth is a much debated issue. In the case of human embryos, religious belief is that the embryos are in fact human, while Lee Silver argues in his book Challenging Nature that science shows they aren’t. The answer to this question is crucial to development of biotechnology. If religion is right, destroying embryos for research would be just as unethical as murdering human beings. If science is right, however, large strides will be made in biotechnology that will benefit human health and quality of life.
Religion offers a spiritual rationale for the idea that embryos are human. It is based on the assumption that human beings are defined as bodies containing a human soul. In fact, the Roman Catholic catechism says that, “The human body…is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul” (Silver 106). Although the Vatican officially does not know when this soul is put into humans, there is an almost universal belief among Catholic priests and theologians that God ensouls an embryo at fertilization. This means that the embryo is a human being from this moment on. Furthermore, the Catholic view of this soul is that it is rational, and thus, has the ability to make decisions (Silver 104-105). This idea is completely spiritual because, as Silver says, an idea has to be falsifiable to become a scientific theory. This idea can never be disproven because a soul cannot be proven to not exist in an embryo, since souls may elude any attempt to find it through physical analysis (Silver 106). Nevertheless, Silver attacks this belief by showing the ridiculous implications of an embryonic soul. A very early embryo has one or a few cells, but by religious belief it has a rational soul capable of making decisions. A teratoma is a parasitic tumor that would have become a twin were it not for an error in development. According to religious belief, it is endowed with a soul and thus deserves to be treated like a human. Human tissues used for research have the same potential as embryos for developing into babies, making them morally identical. Therefore, researchers who throw away some of these research materials would be committing murder (Silver 99). The absurd consequences of accepting this religious idea make a convincing case that embryos do not have human souls.
The “scientific” basis of the religious argument is a chain of logic that uses a common belief that there should be no arbitrary line drawn between human and nonhuman organisms. There is no abrupt change in the development from the embryo to the baby, so if somewhere along the line of development there is a human, the organism just before this human is also human. Because a baby is undisputedly human, this makes everything from the embryo to the baby human (Silver 109-110). Silver attacks the assumption present in this argument with examples of how there really is no clear distinction between humans and nonhumans. Part human, part animal creatures have already been created with lambs containing 40% human livers. Even mice containing part of arguably the most human part of humans, the brain, have been created (Silver 181). Not only have animals with a small human element been created, but humans with a small animal element will be living in the near future when xenotransplantation is successfully implemented. These examples show that the religious assumption of no partial humans is wrong. Thus, an embryo could gradually develop into a human, with part-human stages occurring during the process.
Treating embryos as human tissue rather than human beings will lead to an explosion in biotechnology and a resulting increase in quality of life for humans. At the moment, the only fully supported embryo research is done in East Asia. In Singapore, a $3.5 billion facility was built for conducting research with hundreds of millions of dollars invested for other facilities. Already, progress has been made towards controlling Hepatitis B and diagnosing avian flu and malaria (Ling). In the rest of the world, this research is either banned or done with little financial support (Silver). With full legalization of embryo research, government and private investment can contribute billions of dollars towards increased well-being for humans. The benefits of discarding this religious idea in favor of science would be enormous.
Works Cited
Ling, Chan. "Singapore's biotechnology push". January 26th, 2009
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/19/bloomberg/sxsing.php?page=1.
Silver, Lee. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality.
New York: HarperCollins, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi,
I have a few key points that I'd like to make regarding your paper. First and foremost, you're missing a clear thesis statement that presents your argument. In your introduction, you present an argument that is already established and understood: religion considers stem cell research as murder, and science sees it as a means for advances in biotechnology - but you don't present your own, clear argument. You say, "the ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION is crucial to the development of biotechnology," which is kind of ambiguous... so take a side you believe in. For example, say "Science is right, as Lee proves through throughout his book and is important because it will lead to a proliferation of biotechnological advances..." and then go from there.
In your second paragraph, you end with, "the absurd consequences of accepting this religious idea make a convincing case that embryos do not have human souls." This is a provocative statement, but I'm confused as to what you consider these absurd consequences to be...? I would understand if you said that "The absurd argument made by the church, and disputed by lee makes a convincing case that embryos do not have human souls," but you kind of leave the reader hanging and curious.
In your third paragraph, you do a really good job arguing that there are no partial stages in human development. However, I think it'd be stronger if you define what you think a human actually is. I'm curious to see you think outside of Lee's narration and present your own ideas. For example, does DNA define our genus and species? If so, I could argue that there are no arbitrary stages in development, and that pseudo-human animals are still animals because they only share that tiny percentage of DNA that was implanted in them. This paragraph would be soo strong if you define exactly what a part human stage is, what a human is, and why there is no arbitrary stage of human development from your perspective.
Your last paragraph I really like. Your first sentence is provocative, and is supported by the examples you provide. Although, stem cell research is funded by the European Union and there is currently a huge stem cell case study being performed in the United States for spinal cord injury patients – so your statement that “in the rest of the world…” is refutable since several westernized nations now support/fund it.
Andy Vogel
Dr. Adam Johns
1/27/09
ENGCMP 0200
The question of whether religion or science contains the truth is a much debated issue. In the case of human embryos, religious belief is that the embryos are in fact human, while Lee Silver argues in his book Challenging Nature that science shows they aren’t. The answer to this question is crucial to the development of biotechnology. If religion is right, destroying embryos for research would be just as unethical as murdering human beings. If science is right, however, large strides will be made in biotechnology that will benefit human health and quality of life. Eventually, the traditional religious belief on this issue will be thrown out in order to reap these benefits. Science’s triumph over religion on this issue will weaken religion as a whole.
Religion offers a spiritual rationale for the idea that embryos are human. It is based on the assumption that human beings are defined as bodies containing a human soul. In fact, the Roman Catholic catechism says that, “The human body…is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul” (Silver 106). Although the Vatican officially does not know when this soul is put into humans, there is an almost universal belief among Catholic priests and theologians that God ensouls an embryo at fertilization. This means that the embryo is a human being from this moment on. Furthermore, the Catholic view of this soul is that it is rational, and thus, has the ability to make decisions (Silver 104-105). This idea is completely spiritual because, as Silver says, an idea has to be falsifiable to become a scientific theory. This idea can never be disproven because a soul cannot be proven to not exist in an embryo, since souls may elude any attempt to find it through physical analysis (Silver 106). Nevertheless, Silver attacks this belief by showing the ridiculous implications of an embryonic soul. A very early embryo has one or a few cells, but by religious belief it has a rational soul capable of making decisions. A teratoma is a parasitic tumor that would have become a twin were it not for an error in development. According to religious belief, it is endowed with a soul and thus deserves to be treated like a human. Human tissues used for research have the same potential as embryos for developing into babies, making them morally identical. Therefore, researchers who throw away some of these research materials would be committing murder (Silver 99). These absurd consequences resulting from the religious stance make a convincing case that embryos do not have human souls.
The “scientific” basis of the religious argument is a chain of logic that uses a common belief that there should be no arbitrary line drawn between human and nonhuman organisms. There is no abrupt change in the development from the embryo to the baby, so if somewhere along the line of development there is a human, the organism just before this human is also human. Because a baby is undisputedly human, this makes everything from the embryo to the baby human (Silver 109-110). Silver attacks the assumption present in this argument with examples of how there really is no clear distinction between humans and nonhumans. Part human, part animal creatures have already been created with lambs containing 40% human livers. Even mice containing part of arguably the most human part of humans, the brain, have been created (Silver 181). Not only have animals with a small human element been created, but humans with a small animal element will be living in the near future when xenotransplantation is successfully implemented. These examples show the religious assumption that there can be no partial humans is wrong. Thus, an embryo could gradually develop into a human, with part-human stages occurring during the process.
Treating embryos as human tissue rather than human beings will lead to an explosion in biotechnology and a resulting increase in quality of life for humans. At the moment, the only fully supported embryo research is done in East Asia. In Singapore, a $3.5 billion facility was built for conducting research with hundreds of millions of dollars invested for other facilities. Already, progress has been made towards controlling Hepatitis B and diagnosing avian flu and malaria (Ling). In the rest of the world, research is severely limited by only using embryos that are going to be destroyed anyways (“EU to fund embryo cell research”). Also, embryonic research is limited further from fear of future laws passed against it (Silver). With full legalization of embryonic research, government and private investment can contribute billions of dollars towards increased well-being for humans. When enough progress in embryonic research has occurred in East Asia, the rest of the world will realize just how much potential this research has. The weak religious argument that embryos are humans will be discarded because the alternative is too good to pass up. This will weaken religion’s power over science and therefore lessen its importance in society.
Works Cited
"EU to fund embryo cell research". BBC News. February 2nd, 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5209106.stm.
Ling, Chan. "Singapore's biotechnology push". January 26th, 2009
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/19/bloomberg/sxsing.php?page=1.
Silver, Lee. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality.
New York: HarperCollins, 2007.
Albert - excellent, detailed feedback.
Andrew - Your introduction seems to be clarified. One complaint, though - although Silver doesn't raise this point consistently, he makes it very clear (and you should recognize) that Christianity (and perhaps Islam) have a very different relationship with human embryos than do most other religions: where you're writing "religion," "Christianity" would probably be more appropriate.
As for the rest of the paper, I would characterize *most* of it is being a nuanced and intelligent rehashing of Silver. Given your topic and your interests, that's an understandable approach; moreover, in your defense, you handle Silver *very* well, showing a nuanced understanding (setting aside my initial objection) of his complicated text.
That being said, you do very little to actually make your alleged central argument. The material simply isn't there; you don't demonstrate in detail why you believe that religion will weaken rather than that, (for instance) religion will triumph and usher in a new dark age or whatever.
Your understanding of Silver is smart and detailed, and your argument is interesting, but you're not making a compelling case.
Post a Comment