Team:HebrewU/draft
The Ethos of Science:
How contemporary scientific discoveries are viewed by the Faithful and the Non-Faithful in the Holy Land.
Religion is as central a feature of Israel today as it has been for thousands of years. The vast number of holy sites found splattered across Israel actually date back to the times of Jesus, King David, and Muhammad, inspiring the pilgrimage of millions of followers from all kinds of religions to this day. Some of the premier religious figures in the world today reside in Israel, building vibrant communities and establishing religious governance for the rest of the world. And yet, modernity, science and even atheism seem to thrive here as well, alongside the ancient religions of the world.
Because of this unique character of our country - that we are a concoction of both religious and scientific leaders in the world - we felt it would be interesting to illustrate the coalescence between them. We interviewed religious leaders from several of the major denominations, including a leader of the Atheist community in Israel, about some of the grey areas surrounding religion and science, such as genetic manipulations, experimentation on living creatures and hyper-advancements in technology. Click below to view the transcripts from these remarkable exchanges.
Judaism
Genetically Engineering, Plants and Halacha [1] - Rabbi Goldschmidt
Professor Rabbi Eliezer Goldschmidt is a researcher at the Faculty of Agriculture. His main research is on the genetics of citrus fruit; additionally, he serves as a community rabbi in the city of Modi'in. One of Rabbi Goldschmidt’s principal goals is to deepen our understanding on the subject of genetic engineering in agriculture within the context of Jewish law.
How does Judaism view genetic engineering in general?
We understand that the world is evolving towards genetic engineering, we already have plant species of this nature being used in Israel. Despite rapid progress in the use of genetic engineering in recent years, a final ruling has not yet been issued on behalf of the Chief Rabbinate[2] . I believe there is a need to discuss it, due to the sensitive nature [of the topic] and our desire to connect the intention of Halachah [from thousands of years ago] with modern issues.
What halachic issues could arise in relation to genetic engineering?
Each subject in itself is very complex and requires extensive study, so we will deal only with the main issues we currently face:
Firstly, is genetic engineering an improper intervention of man in God's act of creation? On a more practical level, The Torah prohibits a practice called "Kala'im" which includes grafting plants, sowing a mixture of different species without separation, and the mating “hybrid” species of animals [i.e. mules]. Additionally, questions about Kashrut arise such as if we insert genetic material from an animal into a plant, does the transgenic plant contain animal material?[3]
How can we start to resolve each of these issues?
The ban includes the creation of a mixture of different species, such as sowing in a field without separation and grafting of different plant species. In genetic engineering, if we take DNA of the same species with the desired property, there is no problem with the prohibition of hybrids. On the other hand, if we insert DNA from separate species, we may enter a problematic area in terms of Halacha. It should be noted that in the vast majority of transformations, the segment that is inserted is not the original segment but rather replicated within bacteria or synthesized and only then transferred to the target [as such this could bypass the law as it understood today].
Regarding the intervention in the act of creation, the Ramban[4], in his commentary on the Torah, wrote that the prohibition of "Kala'im" stems from the fact that God does not want man to interfere in creation and act contrary to nature. The reasoning is that in this act man claims that the world is not good enough. The necessity to create new species is contrary to the belief that God created a perfect world. Despite this, today we know [outside of genetic engineering] there naturally exists an exchange of genetic material in nature, such as viruses, bacteria, transposons, and many more.
Do you support implementing genetic engineering to solve environmental issues?
Judaism holds a strong interest in preserving nature and not destroying the environment in Kohelet Rabba 7:28 “God said to Adam: See my deeds, how beautiful and wonderful they are, and all that I created for you I created, give your mind that you will not spoil and destroy my world." In my opinion, there will be a permission from rabbis to employ genetic engineering; though, scientists should exercise great caution in order not to harm our ecosystem.
Do you support genetic engineering technology for medical needs?
Generally, in the field of biomedical technology, there is a clear tendency in the halachic ruling to facilitate the use of new techniques, genetic engineering included. This view is based on the understanding that it is necessary to help both ill patients with and those with other medical conditions, such as the realm of fertility. Through these rulings in the medical world, it is possible to pave the way and permit genetic engineering and synthetic biology in plants.
It is important to say that this discussion is meant as food for thought, and in no way is my intention is to determine actual practice.
[1] Jewish Law.
[2] Israel’s authority on religious issues.
[3] It is not kosher to eat meat and dairy together, would this plant be considered meat?
[4] Medieval Jewish scholar and philosopher, known also by Nachmanides.
We understand that the world is evolving towards genetic engineering, we already have plant species of this nature being used in Israel. Despite rapid progress in the use of genetic engineering in recent years, a final ruling has not yet been issued on behalf of the Chief Rabbinate[2] . I believe there is a need to discuss it, due to the sensitive nature [of the topic] and our desire to connect the intention of Halachah [from thousands of years ago] with modern issues.
What halachic issues could arise in relation to genetic engineering?
Each subject in itself is very complex and requires extensive study, so we will deal only with the main issues we currently face:
Firstly, is genetic engineering an improper intervention of man in God's act of creation? On a more practical level, The Torah prohibits a practice called "Kala'im" which includes grafting plants, sowing a mixture of different species without separation, and the mating “hybrid” species of animals [i.e. mules]. Additionally, questions about Kashrut arise such as if we insert genetic material from an animal into a plant, does the transgenic plant contain animal material?[3]
How can we start to resolve each of these issues?
The ban includes the creation of a mixture of different species, such as sowing in a field without separation and grafting of different plant species. In genetic engineering, if we take DNA of the same species with the desired property, there is no problem with the prohibition of hybrids. On the other hand, if we insert DNA from separate species, we may enter a problematic area in terms of Halacha. It should be noted that in the vast majority of transformations, the segment that is inserted is not the original segment but rather replicated within bacteria or synthesized and only then transferred to the target [as such this could bypass the law as it understood today].
Regarding the intervention in the act of creation, the Ramban[4], in his commentary on the Torah, wrote that the prohibition of "Kala'im" stems from the fact that God does not want man to interfere in creation and act contrary to nature. The reasoning is that in this act man claims that the world is not good enough. The necessity to create new species is contrary to the belief that God created a perfect world. Despite this, today we know [outside of genetic engineering] there naturally exists an exchange of genetic material in nature, such as viruses, bacteria, transposons, and many more.
Do you support implementing genetic engineering to solve environmental issues?
Judaism holds a strong interest in preserving nature and not destroying the environment in Kohelet Rabba 7:28 “God said to Adam: See my deeds, how beautiful and wonderful they are, and all that I created for you I created, give your mind that you will not spoil and destroy my world." In my opinion, there will be a permission from rabbis to employ genetic engineering; though, scientists should exercise great caution in order not to harm our ecosystem.
Do you support genetic engineering technology for medical needs?
Generally, in the field of biomedical technology, there is a clear tendency in the halachic ruling to facilitate the use of new techniques, genetic engineering included. This view is based on the understanding that it is necessary to help both ill patients with and those with other medical conditions, such as the realm of fertility. Through these rulings in the medical world, it is possible to pave the way and permit genetic engineering and synthetic biology in plants.
It is important to say that this discussion is meant as food for thought, and in no way is my intention is to determine actual practice.
[1] Jewish Law.
[2] Israel’s authority on religious issues.
[3] It is not kosher to eat meat and dairy together, would this plant be considered meat?
[4] Medieval Jewish scholar and philosopher, known also by Nachmanides.
Christianity
About the guy we interviewd.
Islam
About the guy we interviewd.
Buddhism and Genetic Engineering - An interview with Dr. ___________
About _____:
Dr. ___________ is...............
Can we begin with a short introduction to Buddhist morality, to give a framework for the dilemmas we will speak about?
The thing about the dharma is that it is very situational. We can have rules of thumb, but we always look at the particular circumstance and conditions. This is not unique to the dharma, but what is unique is that don’t really have a code of ethic rule for social justice. We have ethical rule for the monks, but not for the social system in the early scriptures.
So how can we look through this lens at the realm of biological research and genetic engineering?
I think ethical question is a utilitarian one, what is the benefit and what are the risks? There is a system of values that we take into account[…] so one of the leading principals is human dignity. In western society, we are much more careful about interfering with human beings than we are with other creatures, for example there is the issue of experimentation on animals.
How do you see the issue animal experimentation with in the utilitarian view? Obviously as a Buddhist I feel empathy for living creatures, including for instance a mouse in a lab, so how does this fit into developing medicine, which can reduce overall suffering?
So one issue is that when we weigh the benefits, we are looking at the goals, what we hope to find- to discover. Here already, there are legitimate goals and illegitimate goals; in dharma language I would say proper or improper, skillful or unskillful. For example, the purpose of the research should not be destruction, it should not be to personal power or personal gain. I think there is also a huge distinction to be made between commercial goals and social goals… Its not only about what you do, but what are your intentions.
So in your eyes, or Buddhist eyes what do these moral questions boil down to?
The first question is what is the motivation? Why are you doing this? Secondly, what do you expect the product to be- that is the potential benefit. Then we must restrain yourself and consider how this is going to affect others? What are the risks? Among other things you ask how you can reduce the risks, not only the long term risks but how do you get there, so the design is to minimize harm. A question of equal importance is who is at risk vs who might benefit?
So if we look at for instance, the possible reality of being able to grow human organs in other mammals, how should we proceed with that venture from an ethical stand point?
That was what stem cell research was about. Stem cell research was about the fantasy (beyond) that we could develop lines of cell, but the idea was that we could actually grow a kidney, so we would not need a donation[…] I think that kidney donation is a beautiful act of altruism, really extraordinary. I also personally feel that my life is not that important. There is the option to say I’ve lived my life. I have taken advantage the modern medicine has to offer, we cannot solve everything- we are mortal. We die for different reasons and circumstances. I personally think I would prefer to die I think I would say no. I don’t know… I think that the principle of “do no harm” from a Buddhist world view the same way that I wouldn’t likely kill a mosquito or other animals, I think I would personally not do it. I don’t know what harm it does to the animal.
If we look at it through the lens of the ethical questions you were proposing before we can begin to make deductions of what should be ok and not.
It does raise the issue of our attitude to other forms of life on the planet and our superiority complex. I think there is an attitude of dominion over animals and I think that that is a misguided attitude, I think we should be much more respectful of the other forms of life and the same way that we don’t exploit other human beings, I don’t think we need to (grow organs in other animals). I think are other ways, there must be better ways of answering our needs then enslaving animals.
So I agree and for instance don’t take part in factory farming, but is the benefit of saving a life as opposed to eating a steak is greater, so is it worth it?
I’m not saying that saving lives is not important. But saving lives has become this sacred goal that justifies everything, I am one in 7 billion, yes, my life is important and unique but its one of 7 billion. No there are no absolute values what is the price for saving this life what are the alternatives? We have alternatives it all this dependence on technology and we think the medicalization is so great that were no ever given the opportunity to actively die at the end of our lives. To actually experience the dying process we are constantly being told try this and try that, and we don’t get to experience the process of dying. We think that death is a moment- a split second- but dying is an active process we are part of an unfolding process. The medicalization of death wants to conquer death and it denies death a denial and silencing of death but its actually a natural process that we can experience if we allow ourselves to- which is more of a spiritual decision than an ethical one.
How should we a society regulate the use of the emerging technologies?
There is always an element of uncertainty. I think the hubris of the scientific community which, is reflective of the postmodern mind, is that we can control our lives. I think it is a hubris of science, though not everyone is drunken with this hubris, but I think it is important to understand that whatever we do, we think we can control all things we really don’t know what is going to happen, so you always have to take into account that element of not knowing which is a very Buddhist outlook.
The thing about the dharma is that it is very situational. We can have rules of thumb, but we always look at the particular circumstance and conditions. This is not unique to the dharma, but what is unique is that don’t really have a code of ethic rule for social justice. We have ethical rule for the monks, but not for the social system in the early scriptures.
So how can we look through this lens at the realm of biological research and genetic engineering?
I think ethical question is a utilitarian one, what is the benefit and what are the risks? There is a system of values that we take into account[…] so one of the leading principals is human dignity. In western society, we are much more careful about interfering with human beings than we are with other creatures, for example there is the issue of experimentation on animals.
How do you see the issue animal experimentation with in the utilitarian view? Obviously as a Buddhist I feel empathy for living creatures, including for instance a mouse in a lab, so how does this fit into developing medicine, which can reduce overall suffering?
So one issue is that when we weigh the benefits, we are looking at the goals, what we hope to find- to discover. Here already, there are legitimate goals and illegitimate goals; in dharma language I would say proper or improper, skillful or unskillful. For example, the purpose of the research should not be destruction, it should not be to personal power or personal gain. I think there is also a huge distinction to be made between commercial goals and social goals… Its not only about what you do, but what are your intentions.
So in your eyes, or Buddhist eyes what do these moral questions boil down to?
The first question is what is the motivation? Why are you doing this? Secondly, what do you expect the product to be- that is the potential benefit. Then we must restrain yourself and consider how this is going to affect others? What are the risks? Among other things you ask how you can reduce the risks, not only the long term risks but how do you get there, so the design is to minimize harm. A question of equal importance is who is at risk vs who might benefit?
So if we look at for instance, the possible reality of being able to grow human organs in other mammals, how should we proceed with that venture from an ethical stand point?
That was what stem cell research was about. Stem cell research was about the fantasy (beyond) that we could develop lines of cell, but the idea was that we could actually grow a kidney, so we would not need a donation[…] I think that kidney donation is a beautiful act of altruism, really extraordinary. I also personally feel that my life is not that important. There is the option to say I’ve lived my life. I have taken advantage the modern medicine has to offer, we cannot solve everything- we are mortal. We die for different reasons and circumstances. I personally think I would prefer to die I think I would say no. I don’t know… I think that the principle of “do no harm” from a Buddhist world view the same way that I wouldn’t likely kill a mosquito or other animals, I think I would personally not do it. I don’t know what harm it does to the animal.
If we look at it through the lens of the ethical questions you were proposing before we can begin to make deductions of what should be ok and not.
It does raise the issue of our attitude to other forms of life on the planet and our superiority complex. I think there is an attitude of dominion over animals and I think that that is a misguided attitude, I think we should be much more respectful of the other forms of life and the same way that we don’t exploit other human beings, I don’t think we need to (grow organs in other animals). I think are other ways, there must be better ways of answering our needs then enslaving animals.
So I agree and for instance don’t take part in factory farming, but is the benefit of saving a life as opposed to eating a steak is greater, so is it worth it?
I’m not saying that saving lives is not important. But saving lives has become this sacred goal that justifies everything, I am one in 7 billion, yes, my life is important and unique but its one of 7 billion. No there are no absolute values what is the price for saving this life what are the alternatives? We have alternatives it all this dependence on technology and we think the medicalization is so great that were no ever given the opportunity to actively die at the end of our lives. To actually experience the dying process we are constantly being told try this and try that, and we don’t get to experience the process of dying. We think that death is a moment- a split second- but dying is an active process we are part of an unfolding process. The medicalization of death wants to conquer death and it denies death a denial and silencing of death but its actually a natural process that we can experience if we allow ourselves to- which is more of a spiritual decision than an ethical one.
How should we a society regulate the use of the emerging technologies?
There is always an element of uncertainty. I think the hubris of the scientific community which, is reflective of the postmodern mind, is that we can control our lives. I think it is a hubris of science, though not everyone is drunken with this hubris, but I think it is important to understand that whatever we do, we think we can control all things we really don’t know what is going to happen, so you always have to take into account that element of not knowing which is a very Buddhist outlook.
Atheism
Regulation and technological progress - Dr. Yair Rezek
Dr. Yair Rezek holds a Ph.D. in Physics and is an active member in the Israeli atheist association called "Hofesh". He is also a representative of an Israeli political party named "Or" which advocates for principles of humanism, freedom, and equality.
How does the Atheist movement view genetic engineering, or GMO's, in general?
The majority of Atheists see themselves as part of a type of enlightenment movement and the scientific revolution, perhaps. These movements are in favor of any type of technological development (and genetic engineering in particular) that will benefit humanity. That said, like many other technologies, genetic engineering has the potential to give rise to harmful results and should be developed carefully.
Don't you think that many types of technological advancements can potentially lead humanity to catastrophe in the long run?
It's tempting to see scientific development in that way, but I think it is too pessimistic. For example, regarding the creation and use of atomic bombs… The developed world on whole has stopped developing bombs with that capacity. I'd say, today, humanity actually represses technology because of our past mistakes, like in the context of nuclear energy. I think genetically engineered organisms may potentially cause damage, both inherently and due to its high costs (which promote the formation of monopolies, for example). But still, I think that the benefits we can attain with this type of technology are plentiful. I further believe that if we, the responsible scientists of the world, decide to stop developing these technologies, someone else will do it in a way that might be less careful, or less well-intentioned. That's why our society should still engage with this type of development in a careful, and well-regulated manner.
What potential downsides do you see as a byproduct of the development of genetic engineering?
The use of a singular crop, regardless if it is GMO or not, can be devastating when it is found to be sensitive to a certain disease or specific pests; therefore, the development and use of lone strains of GMOs could hurt biodiversity in food crops and create such problems. Also, since it is very expensive to properly develop, it can foster the rise of [more] giant monopolies in the food industry, which I am opposed to.
Do you support the use of genetic engineering for the production of food and medicine and for solving environmental issues?
Yes. However, in each of the fields that you mentioned, there are different safety guidelines that should govern us through the development of new applications for each technology. For example, in agriculture, we should pay attention to the fact that any one solution could cause certain ecological issues, such as the [unintended and] uncontrolled invasion of genetically engineered plants in their new environment. We should test these kinds of solutions with great scrutiny and take into account the unwanted consequences of these proposed solutions before making widespread use of them. As for medicine, there are well-documented regulations concerning the approval of treatments, including gene therapy. It becomes more complex when considering the idea of trans-humanism. Beyond medicine, genetic improvements of human capabilities could lead to significant social stratification and general ethical complications.
How do you think our society should regulate the development of these technologies?
I believe it is imperative to thoroughly teach those who are engaged in subjects such as synthetic biology courses in ethics, ecology, etc. in order to equip them as experts to handle both the technological and societal aspects of their fields. These experts can then more responsibly consider the outcomes of their research and offer more well-adapted responses when addressing the public. To further proper regulation, we must also have experts that can (and will) shed light on public misconceptions in terms that the public can understand. When creating regulations, we should seek a balance between the effectiveness [of the regulation] and the development [of the technology] so we don't entirely hinder progress in the field. A regulation that is too strict would cause the development to be done elsewhere, while regulation that is too lax will be ineffective as far as preventing harm.
The majority of Atheists see themselves as part of a type of enlightenment movement and the scientific revolution, perhaps. These movements are in favor of any type of technological development (and genetic engineering in particular) that will benefit humanity. That said, like many other technologies, genetic engineering has the potential to give rise to harmful results and should be developed carefully.
Don't you think that many types of technological advancements can potentially lead humanity to catastrophe in the long run?
It's tempting to see scientific development in that way, but I think it is too pessimistic. For example, regarding the creation and use of atomic bombs… The developed world on whole has stopped developing bombs with that capacity. I'd say, today, humanity actually represses technology because of our past mistakes, like in the context of nuclear energy. I think genetically engineered organisms may potentially cause damage, both inherently and due to its high costs (which promote the formation of monopolies, for example). But still, I think that the benefits we can attain with this type of technology are plentiful. I further believe that if we, the responsible scientists of the world, decide to stop developing these technologies, someone else will do it in a way that might be less careful, or less well-intentioned. That's why our society should still engage with this type of development in a careful, and well-regulated manner.
What potential downsides do you see as a byproduct of the development of genetic engineering?
The use of a singular crop, regardless if it is GMO or not, can be devastating when it is found to be sensitive to a certain disease or specific pests; therefore, the development and use of lone strains of GMOs could hurt biodiversity in food crops and create such problems. Also, since it is very expensive to properly develop, it can foster the rise of [more] giant monopolies in the food industry, which I am opposed to.
Do you support the use of genetic engineering for the production of food and medicine and for solving environmental issues?
Yes. However, in each of the fields that you mentioned, there are different safety guidelines that should govern us through the development of new applications for each technology. For example, in agriculture, we should pay attention to the fact that any one solution could cause certain ecological issues, such as the [unintended and] uncontrolled invasion of genetically engineered plants in their new environment. We should test these kinds of solutions with great scrutiny and take into account the unwanted consequences of these proposed solutions before making widespread use of them. As for medicine, there are well-documented regulations concerning the approval of treatments, including gene therapy. It becomes more complex when considering the idea of trans-humanism. Beyond medicine, genetic improvements of human capabilities could lead to significant social stratification and general ethical complications.
How do you think our society should regulate the development of these technologies?
I believe it is imperative to thoroughly teach those who are engaged in subjects such as synthetic biology courses in ethics, ecology, etc. in order to equip them as experts to handle both the technological and societal aspects of their fields. These experts can then more responsibly consider the outcomes of their research and offer more well-adapted responses when addressing the public. To further proper regulation, we must also have experts that can (and will) shed light on public misconceptions in terms that the public can understand. When creating regulations, we should seek a balance between the effectiveness [of the regulation] and the development [of the technology] so we don't entirely hinder progress in the field. A regulation that is too strict would cause the development to be done elsewhere, while regulation that is too lax will be ineffective as far as preventing harm.