Church cautious reaction to 'Synthetic cell'

Raymond Sammut

May 23rd 2010, 17:12

@ Dr Francis Saliba

No one is "muzzling" anyone. There are in place formal channels to follow when dealing with ethical issues in scientific research. Roman Catholic Church officials are required, like everyone else, to follow these channels. By-passing these channels, and issuing a "warning" to scientists through the popular media, is clearly unethical and is also detrimental to the church's credibility. The latter, in my view, is already poor as it is.

Raymond Sammut

May 23rd 2010, 16:29

@ Dr Francis Saliba

It is common knowledge that using the popular media to "warn" in regard to ethical issues is simply unethical. Formal procedures have now been in place for the purpose of dealing with potential conflicts between science and society for the past 100 years. Roman Catholic Church officials in Italy should know better than using the popular media to "warn" scientists based in the United States. It is absurd and thoroughly unethical on their part, no matter how tactfully they try to word their "warning". Their sheer hypocrisy also shines in view of the fact that only recently they issued a so-called "apology" for what the Vatican had done to Galilei and to other scientists. Roman Catholic Church officials should, in my view, have reason to feel at least a little shameful rather than come out in public yet once more to "warn" scientists.

Raymond Sammut

May 23rd 2010, 16:08

@ edward bartolo

What "fallacies" are you referring to?

George Vella

May 23rd 2010, 15:30

@ Edward Bartolo
I do not see your argument. As I said neither matter nor energy can be created, they can only be changed from one state to another and vice versa. I do not see why you used the word 'create' when you said "Even if scientists create matter from pure energy". Man can never create energy nor matter.

Raymond Sammut

May 23rd 2010, 10:36

@ Dr Francis Saliba

You mean Malta's Constitution? My comment is directed at Vatican and Italian church officials "warning" scientists based in the United States.

@ Wilfred L Camilleri

The Church (whichever church) is an institution like any other. If it wishes to "comment on any scientific endeavour from an ethical" point of view, that is perfectly fine. But it has to follow the accepted procedure like everyone else. It has to do it through a publication suitable for the purpose and not through the popular media. A public "warning" using the popular media is unethical in itself and unacceptable. And you can go and believe whatever you like, Mr Camilleri. But you have no right to use your beliefs to discriminate one person from another. Try and learn how to keep your beliefs in your bedroom for a change. A little courtesy, please.

@ edward bartolo

Where is the contempt and hatred you are alleging, Mr Bartolo? The church has to follow the accepted procedure --when expressing views on ethical issues-- like everyone else. Issuing public warnings only shows why the church continues to lack credibility; and sometimes it can even evoke disgust.

Raymond Sammut

May 22nd 2010, 17:43

"Roman Catholic Church officials said the recently created first synthetic cell could be a positive development if correctly used, but warned scientists that only God can create life."

Roman Catholic Church officials are in no position to warn anybody about anything in public.
Scientists do their work in accordance with the rules and ethics of the academic institution they belong to, and their academic institution operates in accordance with the law of the land. The Roman Catholic Church should mind its own business like other institutions do. Roman Catholics are free to believe what they like, but their beliefs don't mean that what they believe in is true. Nor their beliefs can be imposed on anybody. The Roman Catholic Church would be aware by now that the time for patronizing is over. Catholic officials can play God if that's what they want to do, but they can do so only with their church members and not with society. If Catholic officials think they have an argument on an ethical issue, then they should write and publish their argument in the appropriate journal like other interested parties do. Their argument can then be considered along with competing arguments.

George Vella

May 22nd 2010, 17:29

Scientifically we all know that ‘Matter can never be created or destroyed’ - Albert Einstein. To make it simple these scientists did not create any new cell, but engineered or manipulated the DNA of other cells to synthesize, not create, another form of cell.
One must remember that God gave intelligence to man to use it, and he has a right to use it. Yet from the scientific point of view I assure you that God shall never endow man with the power of creation, otherwise man would be another god.
Yet here I remind us all of the good use of this intelligence, consider nuclear energy, it can be used for positive or negative uses. As to this synthetic cells may I ask that if in future these can be a detriment to the human life and all living species?
Everything is in great order with science and religion, only man uses either one or the other for his own ends!

Dr Francis Saliba

May 22nd 2010, 16:54

No new life has been "created" from scratch. The process involves the use of parts of two prexisting life forms one acting as donor template and the other as a recipient. This is an experiment in amalgamating life forms to produce other cells with new properties hoping that these would be beneficial rather than harmful. The Church's caution is justified and shared by concerned scientists.

William P Flynn

May 22nd 2010, 14:24

The usual apologists are always harping about the subject of cells and interfering with the so-called sanctity of life from conception to natural death and the ethics of science.

It is worth noting that the Vatican had no issue with Pope Pius XII being injected with hormones derived from the brains of monkeys to extend his life.

To the uninitiated this will sound loopey and before the editor thinks I've gone gaga and disallows this comment, he should check:

http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=8556

This is fact. Google: Pius XII monkey brain injection

Pope Pius XII was regularly injected with Growth Function hormones from the brains of monkeys. In 1952 he was seriously ill more than once and not expected to live. These injections enabled him to recover and lived 4 more years.

Joe Xuereb

May 22nd 2010, 13:46

The Church is wisely cautious, but has not always been so. Science on the other hand, is wisely cautious. When something astounding happens, science is known to shy away from claiming miracles preferring instead to wait when the presumed miracle is proved to be a natural phenomenon after all.
The old chestnut, 'nothing can come out of nothing' prevails in the meantime. As an atheist (or agnostic if you prefer) I can afford to say, 'and who created god' without fear that the earth will swallow me up. The argument is valid and intriguing as ever. If I cannot disprove god's existence, nor can believers prove that he does. The issue here is to accept that there is no proof BUT LIVE with the assumption that there is nothing there. That done, weigh up the cons and pros of belief, or non-belief. Non-belief comes up smelling of roses every time. Belief has nothing going for it. Only a life in abeyance, like an invoice that can wait. As the message in buses nationwide in UK says, 'there probably is no god. So enjoy life'. Makes sense to me. Life simplified beyond recognition (please note that'enjoy' does NOT mean living immorally).

J. Pace

May 22nd 2010, 13:02

This is being inflated and given too much importance. They have NOT created life, BUT they have re-engineered an existing organism with a new dna. For me that does not represent creation of life from scratch.This is my humble opinion and mind you, I represent no church since I believe in no God.

However it is a great achievement and if they can really can produce organisms that produce oil, or reduce CO2 or whatever is good for the environment etc.

Anyway most probably this research will be stopped since if they get far to produce fuel, there is too much at stake and will inflict direct consequences on the powerful guys that control earth's oil and politicians will not allow this since it will effect their own pocket .

Mikiel Sciberras

May 22nd 2010, 12:47

I would have thought that the Church would be adamantly against this, since according to its teachings, only God can create life and man sins when he tries to be like God. For that matter, I often wondered why the Church also kept silent when splicing of human genes with animal genes is being made to create human animal hybrids and when Genetically Modified Foodstuffs have been created and are being fed to people.

Or is life only sacred when it is in the human female’s womb (however, after the child is born, he is game for everyone, including paedophiles). To me it seems that the Church is more interested in controlling women and to make sure they do not achieve any form of equality or rights, rather then being genuinely interested in the welfare of children or humanity.

albert muscat

May 22nd 2010, 12:35

Peoples simply believed science as they are losing faith with what the bible says.

If we try to find god in the bible we at big loss as there are many gods with countless numbers of sons and daughters...etc

Then again, If we are looking for Godly powers and miracles as proof of godliness then what about Joshua who is said to have stopped the sun and moon for one whole day: (Joshua 10:12-13). Can anyone but God Almighty do this?
Elisha is said to have raised the dead, resurrected himself, healed a leper, fed a hundred people with twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn, and healed a blind man: (2 Kings 4:35, 13:21, 5:14, 4:44, and 6:11.)
Elijah is said to have raised the dead, and made a bowl of flour and a jar of oil inexhaustible for many days (1 Kings 17:22 and 14.)
The church and science will always walk in two opposite directions.

Robert Callus

May 22nd 2010, 11:51

Though for different reasons, I agree with the church. However, genetic engineering is much more a political issue than religious or even a scientific one. It is a madness where a few people want complete control over the world. The GMO issue walks on the same line with this madness:

http://robertcallus.wordpress.com/2010/05/15/politics-of-gmos/

Robert Agius

May 22nd 2010, 11:30

Scientists "should never forget that there is only one creator: God". Quote from the (self)righteous.

matthew randon

May 22nd 2010, 11:23

only god can create life....... NOT ANY MORE!!!

Joe Xuereb

May 22nd 2010, 11:20

I think churchy people have learned a lesson - no outright condemnation this time round. Very wise (they are, in fact, hedging because they know that power is slipping from their hands. Relinquishing of power - based on ridiculous 'certainties' must be very painful. One day they'll say, 'we need more science and less god'. Now THAT is what I call intelligence with responsibility. Because, with science out of the equation, the life of humans hasn't been a huge success story, has it now? And I'm not talking only of the Hitlers and Stalins of this earth. I'm thinking mainly of Inquisitions and burnings at the stake. And the obstinate condemnation of condom use. And the sweeping under the carpet of shameful goings-on because by their very nature very threatening to the church's supremacy. I cannot bear to go on.
The Church can't do a Galileo - not with a scandal round its neck.

Steve Farrugia

May 22nd 2010, 11:05

God didn't create life... God created the universe, life was a consequence of evolution from the Abiogenesis ... In the 1600's , the church accepted the concept of evolution, and that the first 7 books of the bible are analogical...and not litteral (thus we learn from analogy, not from the actual story) ... St Thomas Aquinas has claimed that as we cannot talk about god, we can only speak about him through analogies of our personal experiences (example: god is good; but goodness is something we learn from our experiences from others).

Christian Sciberras

May 22nd 2010, 11:04

Eric Gahn, D Grima - I'm usually on the front line bashing the Church for their increased hardheadedness when it comes to science.

However, do give them a break, they are "cautious" and nothing is wrong with that; I'm sure the scientists involved are cautious just as well.

One thing I'd like to point out; scientific achievement is not responsible for the use of technology; ie: the discovery and engineering of the atomic bomb cannot be held responsible for Hiroshima.

As I always say, a knife is not bad, it depends on how you use it (and this does not depend on scientists at all).


As to the achievement, it's remarkable piece of technology. At this stage, I'd like to point out the concept of "cellular automata"; it is a set of studies and algorithms which allow us to "create life" from a pattern.
I'd urge anyone interested to try out Golly:
http://golly.sourceforge.net/

Gerry Cowie

May 22nd 2010, 10:51

One thing the anti-church brigade like to do is in fact to harp back to the past in an attempt to discredit the Church. Here is the Church moving forward and quite rightly warning about the possible downside of such things. Mr Gahn! Human nature has not changed in two thousand years and there is a need to ensure that, with any such developments, life does continue to be full respected form conception to natural death.
The fact that we live in modern times does not mean that everything which happens is right just because it happens now! Equally some things from the past are not irrelevant just because people decide they are. Many laws are based on sound biblical principals for instance. Finally let us remember that the Church is not the only body which is cautious about such things and that to suggest that it is otherwise is an insult to non religious persons who still respect life.
Here's hoping that the developments announced in this are indeed put to good used and that life is not misused in any way!

Raymond Sammut

May 22nd 2010, 10:43

Bishop Domenico Mogavero need not waste his time and energy expressing publicly his concern that "scientists might be tempted to play God". What he should to do, instead, is to ask Monsignor Rino Fisichella, the Vatican's top bioethics official, to write and publish an article on behalf of the Vatican.

An official journal is available, namely, "Bioethics" published by Wiley-Blackwell for the purpose. The Vatican's "top bioethics official" can construct and write up the Vatican's arguments so these can be peer-reviewed along with everyone else arguments.

If anyone is "playing God", it is surely the Vatican. The time of patronizing is over. We are now in 2010. If the Vatican has got something to say, they should publish along with everyone else. Decision makers in general, acting for governments around the world, read peer-reviewed journals rather than listen to hogwash. That's how good decisions are made.

victor rodenas

May 22nd 2010, 10:36

Just to say my piece only on an educational level.Humans are humans and annimals are annimals,all created by God.We are still being educated about life,dna,brain behaviour etc ,every other day new things are discovered.There are certain fish that can change their sex when it is needed, snails are hermafrodites,.........that is when they have (sex) both of the m get (pregnant).Nature is strange.Who knows what goes about on very far away planets ,different kind of life for sure,all created by God.What we say today is corrected tommorrow and maybe an apology is also issued.Been there before.

E Farrugia

May 22nd 2010, 10:32

So an important scientific discovery occurs, and the press immediately frames this information through the glasses of the Catholic Church. How about getting the reaction of the scientific community in the article? How about discussing the ramifications of the discovery from a scientific standpoint?

Or are we the readership not interested in any of that, and just want to turn to the Curia to decide what to think of all this, instead of coming to our own conclusions?

Jo Xerri

May 22nd 2010, 10:27

Oh come on!! Are you trying to be ignorant or merely offensive? The Church started its statement by acknowledging what a great discovery and an important step for manking this is but is obvioulsy reminding us to maintain the dignity human life deserves! Such a great discovery comes great responsibility for its use, whether you believe in Godor not!

M.Brincat

May 22nd 2010, 10:20

I want one single Maltese priest to explain to me how on Earth does God create life! All people who believe that breathing, giving birth or love to be a 'misteeeeruuuu' should hop on wikipedia and start reading. Thanks. For a more intelligent Malta.

Alfred Gatt

May 22nd 2010, 10:15

Here we go again!....The Church is not allowed to give her opinion....Like anything else, a good thing can be abused. It is enough to look at the internet to realise the harm that ensues when used wrongly.

Marton Saliba

May 22nd 2010, 10:11

Look, I'll love to see these synthetic life developing in forms which aid the human body, or perhaps even humanity.

For the best intentions is not good enough, one must evaluate all possible outcomes and their respective probabilities.

Man has just created life. What's awes and worries me in the same time is what this ability will lead to.

Eric Gahn

May 22nd 2010, 09:46

Oh! Let the funny talk begin.

"Roman Catholic Church officials said the recently created first synthetic cell could be a positive development if correctly used, but warned scientists that only God can create life". Is that a contradicition in one sentence?

This particular project has the same ramifications as Galileo's finding that Earth held no special place in the Universe and Darwin's Evolution.

With each such advance in science the Church is becoming more and more redundant. They must be very fustrated at thier inabiltiy to do a Galileo on Venter.

D Grima

May 22nd 2010, 09:25

Here we go......at least they are not threatening life imprisonment or death.