Why science must have consistent ethical oversight

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, I spent a fair amount of time writing articles for The Kansas City Star about moral and ethical concerns related to science.

I explored such questions as this: Who owns your newly mapped human genome? And, for that matter, who owns the genetically modified seeds for growing genetically modified crops? And on and on.

It was clear to me then that these questions could not -- and should not -- be left to scientists without consideration of points of view raised by ethicists and by people representing religions. Failing to consider the moral and ethical issues raised by those fields and disciplines, I was sure, would lead to various scientific nightmares and disasters.

It's one reason, for instance, that organizations such as the Center for Practical Bioethics, based in Kansas City, exist.

All of which leads me today to link you to this article from the "Sightings" column regularly published by the Martin E. Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School. It's by David Barr, a visiting assistant professor of Religion at Berry College in Rome, Ga.

"Reservations about human genetic engineering," he writes, "generally fall into two camps: those who worry it is unnatural and those who worry it will be unfair." In response to the "unnatural" argument, Barr responds this way: "Genetic engineering is unnatural, but so is nasal spray."

And in response to the "unfair" concern, he says, "The second concern, rather than condemning too much technology, is often not about technology at all." When his students raise that concern, he says, they "tend to be afraid that new technologies will reinforce existing inequalities and systems of oppression."

Well, you can read the rest of the piece and see if you think Barr makes sense. My purpose in bringing the article to your attention is to argue that the fields of religion and ethics need to be wrestling with these difficult scientific issues (including artificial intelligence) and that we not only should encourage that but also have a clue about what answers and approaches they're offering.

If we cut those fields out of almost any human field of endeavor, we impoverish those who are tasked with making decisions about the roads forward.

This is not to suggest that we leave health care or high-tech (or any) issues to barely educated religious leaders who distrust science because it sometimes conflicts with religious dogma or scripture. Rather, it's to suggest that people of faith and their leaders need to understand more deeply than they usually do how science and technology are changing how we live and whether those changes challenge such long-held and widely held beliefs about the inestimable value of every human being.

If science and technology are challenging that core value, they should, in turn, be challenged -- and quickly -- so that the idea of the high worth of every single human life doesn't get diminished.

If the people you consider religious or ethical leaders are scientifically or technologically illiterate, you might want to look for some who are, in fact, literate in those areas. Neither the flat-Earthers nor the merely unread among religious leaders can be of much help to us in a time when failing to notice the changing approaches to these fields can lead to disaster. And, yes, as I noted above, I'm including the field of artificial intelligence in all this.

As Barr says in the piece to which I've linked you: "Religions can help us articulate visions of the human good that have positive content, rather than just negative condemnations of injustice. They can help us learn the lesson that there are realities -– sacred, natural or both -– before which we ought to hold back, that there are mysteries to be respected, not removed."

* * *

P.S.: There's no usual second item here this weekend because I'm taking a brief medical time off. All is good. Back soon. In the meantime, you can catch up with faith news through the Religion News Service.