Culture of Life - (ZENIT.org) - As debate rages over the British and U.S. decisions to approve the cloning of cells derived from human embryos for therapeutic research, the Italian newspaper Avvenire interviewed Daniel Callahan, founder of the first Bioethics Center in New York in the 1960s.

Avvenire - The European Union and the United States remain divided over transgenic foods in general and human cloning in particular. The United States would prefer a more open attitude, even offering medical guarantees. What are the ethical problems?

Callahan - Every genetic technique entails ethical problems. The cloning of cells obtained from the embryo seems like an atomic bomb. Today we have no idea where it could lead us. This is really slippery ground. Moreover, biotechnology in medicine affects a minority of people with health problems, whereas nourishment is a primary good that--like air and water--affects the human species. We wonder if it is really safe, if there are health risks, what happens in countries where it is produced. Then, if the production is controlled only by some multinationals, what will poor or developing countries do, if they must depend completely on these giants? These are the ethical problems.

Avvenire - The British and U.S. governments are united in the face of the problem of embryonic cloning. What does this mean?

Callahan  Whoever likes new technology tries to go ahead no matter what the cost, and the greater part of North Americans take this position. Then there are the apocalyptic, who, as far as possible, try to put the brakes on progress in new technology, adducing catastrophic risks. A third way is upheld by bioengineering, applied to medicine and foods. It can be very useful, but it must be applied gradually, evaluating the risks carefully.

Moreover, as the debate has more than one emotional hue, there are valid health and environmental arguments against such practices. When researchers introduce a new gene in an organism, there are effects that could cause unforeseen mutations, unleashing unexpected reactions.

The best and most honest way to defend embryo research is not, as the panel does, to show that research must prevail over the respect owed to the embryo, but which simply denies any value to pre-implant embryos.

Avvenire - Scientists insist that embryonic cloning would make possible the cure of incurable and debilitating sicknesses, especially in the elderly.

Callahan - They could direct themselves to other research without having to trespass the limits of the ethical. From many quarters there is also criticism of experimentation on animals. It will be a colossal business, and we already see a divided and litigious political class.

Avvenire - What do you say to scientists who, contrary to the limits imposed by governments, justify their own research, claiming plurality of options?

Callahan - Although pluralism must be respected, it is necessary that general solutions and norms be elaborated that are not just based on consensus or procedure, but that commit groups. If personal morality is lowered to the mere exercise of free choice, without any available principle for a moral judgment on the quality of these choices, then the law will be inevitably used to fill the resulting moral void. This is a situation in which science, technology and, almost inexorably, medicine itself are debating.

Avvenire - The Human Embryo Research Panel requested government funds for research on human embryos that are left over, regarding them as a developing form of human life which, although worthy of respect, does not have the moral state of a newborn or a child. What do you think of this?

Callahan - The panel has not told us why it is a duty to carry out research that requires such techniques, and has not explained persuasively to us in what way such research is compatible with respect for the moral state of the fetus.

I maintain that the best and most honest way to defend embryo research is not, as the panel does, to show that research must prevail over the respect owed to the embryo, but which simply denies any value to pre-implant embryos. If you look at it under the rhetoric of respect, this is the real meaning of what the panel has done.

Research that is within moral limits is worthy of respect. Research that relentlessly tries to find a way to avoid them, proposing any alleged greater good, is not. All research on the human being, whether in the fetal, newborn or adult state, obliges one to consider him and treat him as a human subject, respecting his dignity and rights.

Culture of Life, a Christianity.com network partner, exists to engender, within all cultures, a sincere and deep appreciation of the dignity of human life, commitment to the integrity of the family and respect for the value of each human person from the moment of conception until natural death.