Despite the popular secular myth, the Catholic Church isn't anti-science. To the contrary, the argument can be made that the modern scientific method would not exist without the Catholic world view, which believes the universe to be orderly and rational (Wisdom 11:21), and acknowledges secondary causes. Additionally, the modern university owes its existence to the Church, as it grew out of the old cathedral schools.
Certainly, our two most recent popes have spoken favorably of the relationship between faith and science.
Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. -John Paul II
...there is friendship between science and faith, and...scientists can, through their vocation to study nature, follow an authentic and absorbing path of sanctity. -Benedict XVIJust as science cannot comment on God -- at least, it cannot comment on the God that Christians believe in, the God Who is not another being but Being Itself, Who created the laws of nature that science attempts to define and therefore exists outside of them -- the Church does not claim jurisdiction over scientific truth. However, the Church does have a lot to say about the ethics of how science is done and how technology is used.
In no field is this more obvious than the life issues. A while ago the author of the Mary Meets Dolly blog wrote about an interview with someone named Scott Rae who coined the term "Pro-life 3.0," which was explained as follows:
Pro-life 3.0 isn't something we need to worry about in the future; it's happening now. Sometimes, the ethical problems are obvious, like in the case of human-animal hybrids and three-parent children. But other times, it's only after examining the details of an experiment that unethical practices are unearthed. These practices might not be related to the goal of the experiment, but rather (sadly) routine choices, like using tissues from aborted babies.
- Pro-life 1.0 deals with "the taking of life." Abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia
- Pro-life 2.0 deals with "the making of life." Artificial insemination, IVF, surrogacy, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, egg and sperm "donation"
- Pro-life 3.0 deals with "the remaking of life." Genetic engineering, human enhancements, nanotechnology, human cloning, transhumanism
It's important that pro-lifers be able to both uncover these ethical problems and to be able to distinguish what role they play in the research (i.e. whether the unethical action is intrinsic to the research or simply a bad decision by a particular researcher). A good example is the production of vaccines. Vaccines are not immoral in and of themselves, and their goal is laudable, but many are made in cell lines that are descended from the cells of aborted babies, not because the cell type is necessary to their production (for many, there are alternatives made in ethical cell types), but because the researchers made a decision based on economics, ease of use, etc.
To be frank, pro-lifers also need to understand the science in order to not look stupid, which keeps us from being taken seriously. When it was reported that Pepsi was employing a company that uses human embryonic kidney (HEK) cells to test flavor enhancers (thankfully, they've stopped this, though HEK cells are still widely used in many applications), you could find many raising the alarm that there were fetal cells in the soda we drink. Unfortunately, these people, who were rightly outraged about Pepsi's cooperation with evil, did not take the time to understand the science, making it easier for those who disagree to mock and dismiss them and all pro-lifers.
When Catholics don't take the time to understand the science, but jump to a rejection of a certain technology based on ignorance or a misunderstanding of the facts, it does make us seem anti-science. Instead, we need to make the effort to at least understand the basic science underlying these issues so that when we raise the alarm, we can do so in an informed and nuanced manner, and be taken seriously in our criticisms.
In my next post, I will explain what exactly stem cells are, where researchers get them from, and which ones are ethical. (Hint: not all "adult" stem cells are!)
When it comes to stem cells, why is such confusing terminology used? Why not "mature" stem cells, as opposed to "adult"? Is there a good reason for this?
ReplyDeleteI don't want to sound like I believe that the Masons control the weather, but I do wonder if there was more than a mere useful jargon choice involved.
Well, "mature" would be confusing because stem cells by definition are not mature. "Mature cells" are differentiated cells, so it has the potential to get confusing, too.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure when the term was coined, but biologists have known about adult stem cells since at least the '50s. They probably used the term as shorthand, since they were originally studied in tissues from adults, and the name stuck.
In my studies, I was never once confused about what "adult stem cell" meant, probably because I learned about them at the same time I heard the name. Problems have only arisen because the name has gotten bandied about in the media with little explanation in a very political environment.
I'm sure that some, like whoever wrote the Telegraph article that was mentioned on Catholic Laboratory, purposely leave out information on the source of certain cell lines (the same article on cnn.com, which was obviously written from the same press release, did mention the fetal source), but I doubt the original name "adult stem cell" was coined to be misleading, as the use of adult stem cells in medicine predated human embryonic stem cells by decades.
It's quite common that stuff in biology ends up with not the best name because things are usually named by the first discoverer, and that name gets picked up and used throughout the literature, and by the time people reach the conclusion that the name is bad, the name is everywhere and it would take a huge effort to get people to switch. I see this a lot with gene names. There are now detailed rules on how to name new genes, and all genes have names on this system, but scientists persist on using the traditional names instead because that's what they're used to, and if you try to look up old research using the new name, it's hard.
So, the reason for the "misleading" name is probably that research is a lot less organized than people think it is, not that there's a 60-year-old conspiracy that foresaw the hESC controversy of the early 21st century.