Dialogue in diversity: Cross-cultural challenge of fostering convergence and cooperation in global bioethics

By Alberto García

From 11 to 12 December 2019 Our Director Prof. Alberto Garcia and Chair Fellow Fr. Alberto Carrara, LC, will participate in the international conference: the new anthropological challenges between memory and vision of the future at the Notre Dame Pontifical Institute in Jerusalem organized by Università Europea di Roma.

Prof. Alberto García will discuss Dialogue in diversity: Cross-cultural challenge of fostering convergence and cooperation in global bioethics

Abstract

When we come into contact and communication with people very different from us, we naturally experience a certain feeling of fear. We are afraid of linguistic, political, social, religious, racial or economic diversity. The root of that fear is not the person in front of us, but our ignorance of the other, of his or her world, of his or her cultural and social environment. The knowledge of people helps to overcome fears, prejudices. The encounter with people is the best antidote against intolerance and hate. But I mean a knowledge not of the ideas or ideologies that are learned in the books, but the knowledge and wisdom that flourish from the encounter and dialogue with the diverse.

In my experience of the last 10 years working in the university and in international organizations to promote convergence and cooperation between bioethics experts that come from different cultural traditions, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Islam,  Judaism and Hinduism, I have been able to make and enjoyable experience that I want to share and I have come to the conviction that this multicultural and intereligious dialogue is not only possible, but that it is a moral imperative that is imposed on me not so much by the force of the rules or laws necessary in political life, but by force of friendship and love I’ve found meeting people. This has convinced me that the experience and the fruit of the dialogue is not only possible and something due, but that it is something particularly beautiful. It helps us to become aware of that universal fraternity that allows us to recognize us as one, that is, part of a common humanity, precisely by appreciating our diversity. It takes us out of our “comfort area” in which I sometimes shield myself to face “face to face” with the treasure of those who do not resemble me, who do not think or believe what I do, who belong to another race or is a citizen of other worlds.

When together we seek to live an existence in peace and harmony, trying to build the common good and social cohesion, we offer to the society a testimony and a credible voice that people who have a religious conviction are not an obstacle to scientific and technological development, nor are we the cause of conflicts and wars – as it is sometimes said. We can and should offer our contribution to the international Community for the sake of an ever more globalized and diverse humanity. Let us not forget that about 83% of the world population has a defined cultural and religious identity (even with varying levels of conviction and observance). Only 17% are atheists and agnostics. So I believe that it is legitimate and fair (it is deeply democratic) that our convergent voices be heard, that is, that of a choir characterized by its religious and philosophical diversity, but that in many respects they have visions not opposed but similar and in great harmony .

7th International Bioethics, Multiculturalism and Religion Workshop

By Camila Salcedo

On November 11-13, the 7th International Bioethics, Multiculturalism and Religion Workshop was held in Casablanca, Morocco. It was organized by the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights, in partnership with Foundation Cultures du Monde and the Fondation de la Mosquée Hassan II.

This year, the conference was centered on Article 16 of the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, “The impact of life sciences on future generations, including on their genetic constitution should be given due regard.” Under this framework, it focused on the ethics of human reproduction, more specifically on pre-natal Testing, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, and maternal surrogacy. The conference was divided into ten sessions, out of which seven were panels focusing on specific religious or secular traditions. Each of these panels included one main talk by an expert, commentary from an expert from the same tradition, and commentary from an expert from another tradition. These interventions were then followed by hour-long discussions open to all attendees.

The first two sessions set the framework for the workshop. The first session included welcoming remarks by the directors of the three organizing institutions; the director of the Médiathèque de la Fondation de la Mosquée Hassan II, Driss Alaui of the Foundation Cultures du Monde and Come to My Home, and Alberto García and Fr. Joseph Tham, LC, of the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights. The second session held the keynote talks, including an introduction on the latest radical innovations on assisted reproductive technologies (ART) by Prof. John Appleby, an introduction to the use of ART in Israel and Jewish views on these technologies by Dr. Jonathan Halevy, and gynecologist Dr. Paul Lee’s introduction to NaProTechnology, a possible treatment that addresses the underlying causes of infertility.

The third session–and first religious panel–was on Islamic views on ART. The main talk was given by Dr. Aasim Padela, who explained a Sunni Islam position, which rejects most forms of ART. Prof. Padela described several theological arguments and shared polls on the views of American Muslim women on these technologies. Katherine Klima, DNP, co-author of the paper presented by Padela, also joined the panel and later–in the discussion–called for a greater emphasis on the perspectives of ordinary Muslims and on the concept of human flourishing. This paper was commented upon by Prof. Mohammed Ghaly who explained the most prevalent Muslim views of ART by focusing on their understanding of parenthood. Finally, Prof. Mirko Garasic, in his comments, shared a few reflections on ectogenesis (artificial womb) from a secular Jewish perspective. The subsequent discussion centered on the topics of sterility, ectogenesis, parenthood, and the concept of the family.

The fourth session was on Christian views on ART. The main talk was given by Prof. Laura Palazzani, who explained the Catholic views on ART by explaining its emphasis on human dignity and the sanctity of human life, and the Catholic understanding of sex and procreation. Her talk was commented upon by Prof. Chris Durante, who, after an introduction to virtue ethics framework, explained the central role of individual discernment in Orthodoxy for these issues, and shared that the Greek Orthodox Church strongly discourages these practices but does not officially prohibit them. The second commenter was Prof. Paul MacNeill, who spoke from a secular position, calling the audience to try to approach common conclusions and called for the taking of a less legalistic-normative approach to ethics. The discussion that followed included several interventions from the audience who said that dogmatic and legalistic views were misunderstandings of the Catholic approach to ethics as a whole. Another key idea discussed among the experts was the possibility of a religion to reject any given action in its entirety versus only in certain instances.

The fifth session discussed Jewish positions on the current generation’s responsibilities to future generations. The main talk was given by Prof. David Heyd, who explored a section of the Babylonian Talmud that discussed whether it is better to be born or not. While he argued that this debate is meaningless because of the questions that matter are those related to what to do when existence is assumed. He then argued that unconceived people have no moral standing. This was commented upon by Prof. Jonathan Crane, who explored the Scriptural story of Leah and Rachel, on which there was divine intervention to change the children’s sex–or the children were swapped before birth–to prevent a family problem. From this, Prof. Crane deduced the permissibility of embryonic or fetal selection for gender and therapeutic purposes. The second comment was made by Fr. Joseph Tham, LC, who explored the Catholic understanding of existence and the soul, and then analyzed the story of Abraham impregnating Hagar. Fr. Tham interpreted this action as the result of Sarah and Abraham becoming impatient because God had not yet given him descendants and then trying to take destiny into their own hands. Fr. Tham spoke on the question of control in the use of ART and maternal surrogacy. The discussion that followed covered points raised by all three speakers, and it had a special focus on Heyd’s argument for non-responsibility.

The sixth session explored secular perspectives on ART. The first talk was given by Prof. Peter Mills, who discussed the intentions of couples, socio-technical contexts, and current international conventions. Prof. Mills then delved on questions of prenatal testing and human dignity, its possible impact on interpersonal relationships and the freedom of the future person, as well as some discussion on the ethics of the development of new ART techniques. The next intervention was made by Prof. Vardit Ravitsky, who called for a greater focus on the justice principle in bioethics, raising questions about inequity issues with couples who cannot afford ART, the morality of investing in ART given the number of existing children, the complexity of the concept of “healthy” children, and the subject of children who look for their genetic parents. These two interventions were commented upon by Fr. Gonzalo Miranda, LC, who talked from a Christian point of view, focusing on the concepts of human dignity and exploring the importance of metaphysical foundations in bioethics. The discussion covered topics on transhumanism, the concept of ethical boundaries, Catholic views on IVF and assistance versus substitution, interpretations of human rights and dignity, and the concept of the family.

The seventh session explored Buddhist perspectives on ART. The main talk was given by Prof. Ellen Zhang, who explained how hard it is to analyze this topic from Buddhism for lack of applicable content on ancient Buddhist texts. Zhang discussed the use of ARTs and sex selection, which is often condemned by Buddhists, but the gender preference is possibly supported by an ancient text. Prof. Zhang also talked about considerations on the qi energy of wasted sperm and a possible distinction between surrogate motherhood out of compassion and due to commodification. The first commentary was made by Prof. Soraj Hongladarom, who also insisted on the lack of sources and argued on the possible permissibility of surrogacy–even paid surrogacy–out of compassion for both the gestating mother and the couple. These points were responded to by Prof. Nouzha Gessous, who spoke from a Muslim women’s rights perspective, and expressed concerns for how ART could impact women by increasing pressures on child-rearing and through objectification and exploitation in surrogacy. Prof. Gessous also invited the panel to focus more on the children themselves and expressed concern for the idea of the right to have a child, especially a child that fits a set of desired characteristics. The subsequent discussion focused on topics related to the meaning of karma, self-cultivation and ART, international regulations on ART, and how ART impacts cultural expectations for women.

The eighth session–and last panel–was on Hinduism and ART . The first talk was given by Dr. RR Kishore, who explained some basic concepts of Hindu thought, and, using deduction from stories of Indian gods, expressed support for ART due to the interests of the couple, concerns for the possible exploitation of underprivileged women, and concerns for commodification of the embryo–for whom Kishore recognizes a sanctity of life. The first commentary was made by Prof. John Lunstroth, who questioned Kishore’s conclusions by examining his method; especially his deduction from mythical stories and his use of texts not meant for those who are not in the householder stage of life. The second comment was made by Fr. Saamer Advani, LC, who offered a Christian Catholic perspective, and raised questions about Kishore’s definition of the sanctity of life and of how Kishore argued, from ancient stories of self-sacrifice, that embryos (third parties) can be sacrificed for the interests of the couple. The discussion of this panel focused on Kishore and Lunstroth’s understandings of Indian philosophies, especially on moksha, the four stages of life, the soul, the role of women according to the ancient Vedas, and commodification in ART.

The ninth session–and last panel–was on Confucianism and ART. The main talk was given by Prof. Wenquin Zhao, who started by explaining the importance of reproduction in Confucianism and then reflected on the ethical considerations of ART as a possible way of reproduction. Prof. Zhao insisted that these methods must be taken seriously, offering surrogacy as an option (suggesting rituals like to those of adoption to mitigate alienation from the parents), and reflecting on the ambiguities related to PNT and PGD for therapeutic purposes. The first commentator was Prof. Ruiping Fan, who explained further the concept of the Qi’s–which, in Confucianism, is passed on from ancestors–and talked about Confucian hexagrams as a primary source of guidance. The second commentator was Prof. Martha Tarasco, who offered a Catholic perspective, expressing concerns for exploitation in surrogacy and the prioritization of the parental desire to have a biological child over the embryo’s right to life. The session’s discussion centered on the moral status of the unborn–with Fan disagreeing with Zhao–on the value of hexagrams in Confucianism, the value of sperm in Confucianism and Chinese society and discussion on whether loyalty to parents or children should come first.

The last session included final remarks by the organizers and speakers, as well as space for all participants to share thoughts, recommendations, and comments. Several experts said that the event surpassed their expectations–even those who said they were really looking forward to it. An expert also expressed gratitude to the partners for the venue and the cultural events. Many discussed the possible inclusion of speakers from Africa and more speakers from Latin America and suggested a greater diversity in the religious perspectives of discussants. Several also insisted on greater engagement with the local community and with younger scholars and students. Finally, the topics and locations for the next conference were discussed, but no definite topic or location was settled.

Follow this link to see more pictures of the event. 

European Union: common past, present, and future for you. (EUcom4U)

The project “European Union: common past, present, and future for you” (EUcom4U) aims to increase knowledge and raise awareness of the EU history and the differing perceptions and understandings of past and present significant events among citizens of 6 European communities in 6 member-states, involving 630 direct participants and touching 5500 indirectly. The core aims are, by getting to know more on the different commemorations in EU history of the 20thcentury, local communities to understand the development of EU, to re-read and re-evaluate our common values, to value and apply them in their everyday actions and behaviors and to act respectively. Researching, debating, sharing facts and data findings, story -telling and eye-witness interviewing on the series of significant events in recent history, will allow participants to draw themselves important conclusions for the future of Europe. The main theme of the planned project activities is PEACE and UNITY. The project involves a good balanced partnership of 6 EU member states with different history (old and new, northern-southern, with long and shorter democratic experience, with different speed of European integration) that will allow the participants to get a broad picture and perceptions on the significant years that has traced the European integration, based on the process of building the value of UNITY – Hague congress, Shuman Declaration and idea of Unity, 1957 beginning of the European Economic Union, the first 1979 EP direct vote, 1990 German reunification, 2004 biggest enlargement of CEE and 2000 Proclamation of EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Using different non-formal instruments as open public debate, workshop, discussion, exhibition, educational visit, story-telling and eye-witness session, street event, FB, the project will allow citizens of the project countries to understand diverse national experiences on the road to UNITY, but also the common history of Europe and its consequences for the future.

UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights is responsible of:

  • Code of Ethics
  • One day workshop on the values of the beginning of the European Economic Union (Treaties of Rome – 1957)

Read more about the project on the official website www.eucom4u.eu and follow us on facebook facebook.com/Eucom4u

 

READ THE FINAL REPORT IN ENGLISH AND ITALIAN

 

Events

1957 – Rome – The Beginning of the European Economic Community

1979 – First European Parliament Elections

1989 – Reunification of Germany

2000 – European Charter on Fundamental Rights

2004 – 15 years of EU enlargement of CEE

Cineforum UER – REPLICAS: Are you your body?

By Claudia Fini

On November 20th, we presented the Cineforum on Replicas, the new film directed by Jeffrey Nachmanoff and starring Keanu Reeves. Replicas tackles the modern concept of artificial intelligence as the translation of human cognitive faculties in an artificial medium. Keanu Reeves plays the role of Will Foster, an employee of the futuristic company Bionyne, whose purpose is, in fact, to transplant the neural network of human consciousness into artificial humanoids. After a car accident that causes the death of his wife and his three children, Foster manages to clone their bodies and transplant their entire consciousness so that none of them has memory of the accident and can continue to live as a replica of the original person. In Replicas, the body thus becomes a chrysalis, a mere item of clothing to change at the time of death, while the mind turns into a set of files to be backed up each time the body medium has to be replaced.

There are many recent film and television productions that deal with the theme of artificial intelligence and mind-body dualism. From The Matrix to the Netflix series Altered Carbon, it’s no wonder how, in the age of technology and information, such parables are at the centre of our most ambitious narrative constructions. And what is more ambitious than immortality? From the practice of mummification of the ancient Egyptians, humanity has always been fascinated by the concept of eternal life. But if once the imagination of men pictured fountains of eternal youth and a body that would never age, now this takes a back seat and leaves room for the myth of the eternal mind and consciousness.

In recent years, the technological revolution and medical and scientific innovations have become deeply intertwined with the ancient human fascination with immortality and have thus given rise to a new cultural movement based on this very premise: trans-humanism. In 1957, biologist Julian Huxley defined transhumanism as “the man who remains human, but who transcends himself, realizing the new potentialities of his human nature, for his human nature”. The romantic theme of Nature and the artificial creation that disturbs the perfect natural balance echoes Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and the myth of the dangerous knowledge that drives men to cross the boundaries of his existence and dare to “play God”. In modern society, where technology is advancing at a surprisingly fast pace, it is not difficult to imagine how, in the near future, we will be able to exploit novel scientific discoveries to increase human physical and cognitive abilities.

Martin Monti, associate professor at University of California Los Angeles’s Department of Psychology and Director of the MontiLab, has done revolutionary work on the human brain and post-trauma consciousness. According to Dr. Monti, the transcription of the human neural network into a new silicon-based medium is not impossible and that one day it will be possible to obtain results similar to those portrayed in Replicas. According to the integrated information theory, in fact, if we re-create the exact function and the same connections of each neuron in a chip, we could obtain an electrical circuit that is an artificial copy of the original biological system.

Figure 1 Il Professore Martin Monti nel suo ufficio a UCLA, California