Our world would be a safer place if the role of ethics, indispensable to science and technology, were given due respect, Christopher Caruana OP, tells Francesca Vella in an interview. A young Dominican friar and lecturer of philosophy, Fr Caruana explains for instance, that science shows us what constitutes embryos from a biological perspective, and technology provides means of manipulating them. However, these disciplines lack the resources to show us how we ought to treat human life at its earliest stages



Fr Caruana has been a priest for seven years and is a member of the Archdiocesan Theological Commission.

When I met him at the historic Dominican priory in Rabat, he told me that philosophers need to assume solid ethical leadership on issues such as embryo technology, animal human hybrids, saviour siblings and, of course, the “morality” of abortion.

Scientists, in turn, need to turn a humbler ear to experts in moral debates; while politicians and lawmakers need to be less easily seduced by pressure from scientists whose keenness for funds to support their research could blur the nobility of the cause science was meant to serve.

The argument immediately centres on the controversial topic of human embryos, and Fr Caruana does not hesitate to say that biological evidence clearly shows that human life begins at the moment of conception: the result of the fusion of gametes is an organism marked by unity of purpose and identity possessing an internal dynamism and self-sustainability that cannot be found in gametes.

But does this constitute a human being? And what about the rights of the mother on whom the zygote, embryo or foetus dependends?

“If the human embryo was merely an aggregate of cells as some people would have it, then the cells would grow individually, each developing into something else. But the cells in a human embryo constitute the development of an organism, marked by unity and coordination. To speak of the zygote, embryo or foetus is to speak of different stages of our human existence comparable to childhood, adolescence and adulthood.

“In the case of an unwanted pregnancy resulting from sexual assault, nothing I can say would diminish the terrible and long-lasting effects of such a trauma. However, much as we do fall short of appreciating the state that the victim of rape has to endure in all aspects of her existence, I can find no justification that warrants the destruction of an unborn life.”

A right is an entitlement and someone must offer justification to have a claim to such an entitlement, he said, adding that even in the most tragic circumstances surrounding a pregnancy, no honest human being can justify an abortion.

A completely innocent and defenceless human being such as the unborn child should not be forced to pay for the evil actions of another by being killed. The mother is herself a victim, but by opting to have an abortion, another victim of a more serious crime is created, said Fr Caruana.

People here are preoccupied about the enthusiasm of groups to entrench anti-abortion laws in our Constitution, but Fr Caruana points out that there is an analogous kind of extremism from very powerful pressure groups lobbying at the UN General Assembly to make abortion a universal human right.

The irony couldn’t be greater given that it is the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted following the atrocities perpetuated during the Second World War, said the Dominican friar.

On embryo technology, Fr Caruana tells me that there can be great dishonesty in the way facts are presented in order to make them sound more palatable.

If you take a close look at the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that the House of Commons in the UK voted upon earlier this year, he tells me, you will see that it delves into the technology of animal human hybrids, among other things, used for research in the quest to develop new drugs for chronic and debilitating diseases such as Parkinson’s.

The House of Commons referred to animal human hybrids as “human admixed embryos” in an attempt to de-stigmatise what is actually being created.

This proposal is hugely irresponsible because it does not respect the boundaries between species and there are alternative methods such as umbilical cord blood banking, which have been ignored in that political debate, says Fr Caruana.

In fact, new research has shown that adult skin cells can be reprogrammed to act like embryonic stem cells, removing the need to experiment on embryos, including animal human hybrid embryos.

Another issue discussed in the House of Commons was a law regarding so-called “saviour siblings”.

Fr Caruana said this involves destroying healthy embryos that are not a tissue-match for the sick sibling, and creating children who are a match so they can be used as a source of treatment for their sibling.

What excited scientists so much was the combined availability of two highly innovative techniques, namely stem cell research and cloning.

“Once again the alternative of investing more heavily in umbilical cord blood banking was ignored. Umbilical cord blood stem cells have been successfully used to treat diseases, including helping to obtain bone marrow matches for children suffering from leukaemia.

“The mentality underlying these arguments is entirely utilitarian and materialistic as life is devalued and the intrinsic preciousness of every human individual is ignored.”

Fr Caruana then goes on to criticise authors who recently wrote about the possibilities of manipulating human DNA to create so-called “designer babies”.

Dartmouth professor of ethics Ronald Green, in his book Babies by Design writes, “Just as when I choose a designer shirt or dress I am indulging my taste in some directions at least, so it is with gender choice”.

Fr Caruana comments: “Using straw-man arguments, this author equates children with designer attire, ignoring the question of whether human beings possess an intrinsic dignity. Should they be treated as personal subjects or manufactured objects, and should they be brought into the world by means of the union of parents, or technical fabrication?”

Russell Korobkin, in Stem Cell Century, makes this categorical claim: “The human embryo lacks every trait that could plausibly be considered a characteristic of human moral value, except one: it has human DNA”.

But Fr Caruana argues: “This is plainly false! It is consistent with rudimentary biological knowledge to affirm that the embryo is a human individual in its earlier stages of life. Because it is a member of the species homo sapiens it is a person, only that it is unborn, and at an early phase of development.”

Moreover, stem cell therapy is not analogous to penicillin as a cure for infectious disease, because it involves the destruction of human beings at the embryonic stage of development, says Fr Caruana, adding that in any case there are alternatives, which render the killing of innocent human life unnecessary.

Fr Caruana concluded our discussion on a note of caution: Libertarians don’t trust planned economies, should we create genomes?

Environmentalists don’t want to alter ecosystems, should we alter the human organism?