Bioethics Conference of the Council of European Churches (CEC)

On 25-27 April 2012, a scientific conference on the topic: “Enhancing Human Nature: Religious and Ethical Approaches through a European Orientation” took place at the European Parliament and the Notre-Dame du Chant d' Oiseau monastery in Brussels. The conference was organized by the Bioethics Group of the Church and Society Commission of the Council of European Churches (CEC) with co-organizers from the European Commission's Office of European Policy Advisers (BEPA), the European Parliament's Science and Technology Assessment Group (STOA) and the Committee of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community (COMECE). Participants included MEPs, executives of the European Institutions, European Churches, Church representatives, as well as specialized scientists from distinguished educational and research institutions of the European Union.

From the perspective of Orthodox theology, the participants were Metropolitan Emmanuel of France, who as President of the Council of European Churches opened the conference, the professor of medicine at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Mr. Stavros Balogiannis, a permanent member of the Council's bioethics committee, and the scribe, as a representative of the Church of Greece. The Office of the Representation of the Church of Greece to the European Union was represented by Dr. Konstantinos Zorbas. The presentation of the professor of the Theological School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Mr. Anestis Keselopoulos, who had been invited as a speaker, was also read out.

Before the presentation of the specialized contributions, Metropolitan Emmanuel of France, during his opening speech, pointed out the need to seek the basis for the ethical approach to the enhancement-improvement of human nature, through technical means, in biblical anthropology and especially in the narrative of the Book of Genesis, regarding man's attitude towards the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. His Eminence Metropolitan concluded his presentation with the following suggestions-encouragements:

1. In such a delicate and complex issue, respect for the mysteries of life must be combined with the deepest possible understanding of the mechanisms of its functioning.

2. To accept that human nature is not only composed of physical characteristics, but also of soul, mind, emotions and spirit.

3. That man should recognize that there is always the risk of being deceived and going astray in his quest to maximize his knowledge.

4. To accept the truth that it is impossible to know everything, however, he can expand his cognitive potential by studying ancient and modern knowledge in a holistic and experiential way.

5. The power of prayer and vigilance can help over time in finding proposals for the benefit of humanity.

6. Sobriety and humility are essential elements when approaching such issues.

7. Seeking forgiveness for the mistakes made by humanity, when it fails in its original goal, constitutes a refuge of hope and consolation.

Then, the presentation of Professor Anestis Keselopoulos took place, which was read by Professor Balogiannis. Mr. Keselopoulos separated plastic surgery from cosmetic surgery with genetic engineering in cells for improvement and tried to connect each of the applications with separate ethical problems. He also spoke about reconstructive surgery, evaluating it positively due to its therapeutic nature. He separated it from cosmetic surgery, which he said has a different kind of ethical problem and gravity, highlighting the commercialization of improvement. He also referred to the improvement intervention of psychological and intellectual characteristics, which he considered to be particularly problematic because it involves the interference of technology with the freedom of human will.

The fact that the conference began with theological positions from the Orthodox sphere gave a special stamp and direction to the subsequent discussions, which could not be separated from the theological dimension of the issue. The questions and positions of many of the conference participants that followed were indicative of the fruitful reflection that the Orthodox positions had provoked from the outset.

This was followed by presentations by specialized scientists from the fields of biophysics, biotechnology, neurology and psychology.

At the beginning, Professor Dekker, of the Dutch University of Delft, presented the technique of enhancing human capabilities through the collaboration between nanotechnology and biology, from which the new branch of nanobiology arises. The danger of the mechanization of human life was highlighted. It was mentioned that man, as a physical entity, also has a mechanical dimension, but as an existence he is not limited to it. The principle of human dignity, as proclaimed, and which must be inviolable, was considered a basic ethical principle. However, the inability of conventional ethics to provide answers was recognized and the need to revisit the ontology of man was highlighted.

The second presentation, by Dr. Kipke of the University of Tübingen, addressed the issue of improving and strengthening psychological characteristics through targeted pharmacological stimulation of the nervous system (neuro-enhancement). The possibilities for increasing memory, concentration, self-control management and self-esteem are being investigated. The main goals of technical-pharmacological intervention in the human psyche are the improvement of self-perception, the ability for self-realization and self-fulfillment, as well as finding meaning in every aspect of life. Until now, these have been goals of the method of the science of psychology, which is called self-formation. The speaker compared, and partially equated, the psychological method with pharmacological intervention. He clarified, however, that the first is mild while the second is clearly intrusive, without at present being able to assess possible side effects. The main question raised during the discussion was whether and to what extent such an intervention promotes or undermines human freedom.

The presentations continued the next day at the European Union buildings under the chairmanship of Italian MEP Vittorio Prodi. Two projects entitled “Augmenting Human Nature” and “Creating Perfect Life” were presented, first by members of the European Parliament’s Science and Technology Assessment Group (STOA).

During the presentation of the first program, by Mr. Coenen of the University of Karlsruhe, the definition of “human augmentation” was given as “any modification aimed at improving individual human performance, which is achieved by scientific and technological interventions in the human body”. A distinction was made between interventions of a non-enhancing nature (e.g. prevention and rehabilitation of diseases), of an augmenting nature for therapeutic purposes and of an augmenting nature for non-therapeutic purposes. STOA, during its study, was deeply concerned with the techniques of gene therapy, gene enhancement (gene doping), embryonic life planning, pharmacological neuroenhancing and the case of deep brain stimulation (DBS). Particular emphasis was placed on the observation that these issues should not be addressed only among specialists, but in a broader social context. The problem arising from the commercialization of medicine and the medicalization of social problems was highlighted. The speaker praised the contribution of religions, and especially Christian theologians and ecclesiastical figures, in highlighting and addressing these issues.

The next speaker, Dr. van Est of the Rathenau Institute in the Netherlands, set as the starting point of his presentation the four revolutions in the field of science and technology that took place in the 20th – 21st century: the revolution of biotechnology, the analysis and use of materials, information technology and cognitive science. The developments in these four scientific fields lead them to convergence and cooperation. This convergence manifests itself in two ways. On the one hand, biology evolves into technology and on the other hand, the reverse course is followed where technology changes into biology. Thus, two major guiding axes emerge in the field of biotechnology.

The first concerns the invasion of technology into living organisms, in breadth and depth, through genetic intervention and modification, the creation of organisms with a synthetic genome, the creation of synthetic organs and tissues through genetic engineering, technical intervention in the functions of the brain and more generally in the functions of the nervous system. The second guiding axis, on which the modern techno-scientific revolution is moving, concerns the creation of technological products, the operation, reactions and characteristics of which will resemble, in a replicative manner, the forms of living organisms.

It is recognized that some of the aforementioned developments are already familiar to societies, but others are completely unknown. In both cases, societies place their hopes, but also express reservations, anxieties and ethical questions. As a project, the preservation and protection of human dignity at all costs was put forward. Ethical and regulatory issues such as those of security, privacy, physical integrity and informed consent were also raised. Finally, it was said that questions of a fundamental nature and ontology also arise, such as what constitutes life, the dividing line between health and illness, the relationship between brain and machine, and the interaction between man and machine. Bioethics is called upon to shift its interest from the purely biological sciences to this new convergence of fields, which gives rise to many more and more complex issues.

The following discussions concerned positions from the perspective of bioethics and religions.

Ms. Nuňez, professor at the Ramon Lull University of Barcelona, ​​attempted a general bioethical and critical review of all aspects of the issue of augmentation of human nature. She highlighted the need to clarify and delimit the terms treatment, improvement and augmentation. She pointed out that knowledge, in itself, does not constitute and does not produce morality, which is why there is always a need to set limits on its use. She emphasized, in particular, the social nature of bioethical issues and the need for solidarity with socially and economically weak social groups. She pointed out that it is foolish to invest huge amounts of money in research, with the aim of augmenting human characteristics and bypassing basic health needs in large parts of the population of humanity.

The Chief Rabbi of Belgium, Albert Guigui, presented the positions of the Jewish religion on human augmentation. His speech was based on biblical anthropology and the Genesis narrative in the light of the Talmudic tradition. He argued that God created a not-so-perfect world so that man could be perfected in it and the world could be perfected through man. Thus, every act of man and, in this case, every moral choice in matters of bioethics, must be made with the criterion of whether it allows man to live the best possible life close to God. The basic demand for scientific progress is not to contribute to the destruction of creation, but to allow, through its use, to help those in need.

Dr. Omar van den Broek, Secretary General of the Belgian Muslim Community, presented the Islamic approach to the issue based on the principles of the Quran and Sufism. He developed his positions in the light of the historical interaction between the West and the Muslim world in the transmission of medical knowledge and thought.

From the Orthodox side, the position on bioethics issues was taken up by Professor of Neurology and Dr. of Theology Mr. Stavros Balogiannis. Prof. K. Balogiannis made a comprehensive presentation on the way in which Orthodox theology considers the meaning of life. The basic concepts on which he developed his presentation were life as a gift from God, the deification of man, man's participation in the life of God and man's ability to live as a person who depicts God. Particular importance was given to the concept of man's participation in the Cross of Christ as the only appropriate way of spiritually dealing with pain and illness. Then the speaker proceeded to describe the concept of illness under the holistic perspective of the psychosomatic unity of man. As bases for searching for answers to bioethical issues, he promoted the virtue of discernment, man's self-surrender into the hands of God, and continuous communion with the Church.

Dr. Brendan McCarthy developed the positions of Protestant Theology. From the outset, he clarified that, due to the multitude of Protestant churches, it is impossible to present a single Protestant view of the technical enhancement of human nature. However, there can be talk of commonly accepted positions within Protestantism, positions which are also generally accepted by other Christian confessions. For the full moral assessment of the enhancement of human nature, it is necessary to take into account the motivations that lead to it, the means used, the safety and effectiveness and the possible consequences at a social and individual level. The speaker raised the question: during man’s intervention in creation, what is the dividing line that changes him from a co-creator to its rapist? He pointed out that in modern European thought, which includes Protestantism, two views of man as a species are distinguished. The static view, which clearly separates him from the entire creation, and the more dynamic – evolutionary view, which considers him as part of the whole and as a continuation. Those who belong to the first, reject or accept with difficulty incremental interventions. The followers of the second are more open to them. Protestantism, in its moral view, moves on the basis of the Scriptures, which have always had a prominent place, as well as rational thought, as a result of its relationship with the Enlightenment. Revelation – human reason, the evil resulting from the fall and the goodness, which is reflected in the image of creation, constitute the dipoles within which Protestant moral thought moves.

The following sessions dealt with individual issues regarding human augmentation, both on the philosophical and theological level, as well as on the technical, medical, individual and social levels.

Dr. Körtner, distinguished professor of Ethics at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Vienna, laid the foundation of bioethical problematics with the view that ethics, and especially bioethics, is nothing more than an applied anthropology. The question of what should I do, in the end, always ends up asking myself who I am. The development and promises of science and technology put us before questions, unknown in the past, and before a new form of anthropology, anthropotechnology. Many thinkers speak of the gradual passing of the era of humans and of the advent and prevalence of transhumans, whose capabilities will have increased and their characteristics will have changed to such an extent that they will resemble the people of the past in very few characteristics. Christian anthropology opposes the “New Man” to the new posthuman. Furthermore, the risk of attributing eschatological characteristics to medicine and biomedical technology is highlighted, which contributes to their absolutization and idolization. This absolutization has in the past led to heinous crimes against humanity.

The Finnish Dr. Nikkinen, Lecturer in Protestant Theology at the University of Helsinki, linked the view of human augmentation to the way in which theology views human progress. Auguste Comte was the first, as well as the subsequent thought of the Enlightenment, to dissociate the concept of human progress and destiny from anything metaphysical. Referring to the well-known Byzantine scholar JB Bury, he said that overly optimistic secular progressivism is the illegitimate offspring of a theologically overly optimistic anthropology. The ultimate question is whether human augmentation is indeed progress. To answer this question, however, the terms “augmentation,” “scientific progress,” and “medical progress” must first be defined. This task cannot be assigned only to medical, political, or legal circles. It must include the concerns, metaphysical perceptions, and religious beliefs of the societies to which it is addressed.

Dr. Schardien, Professor of the Protestant School of the German University of Hildesheim, based her presentation on the observation that Christianity has a lot to say about improving life. In many places in the Old and New Testaments, it is stated that believers will experience a life superior to many levels, with the message of Resurrection and Eternity at the top. Some theologians in the West have even considered biotechnology as a necessary step for humanity towards salvation, so that man can regain the beauty lost by the fall. Many have reacted to these ideas by arguing that this is a misinterpretation of the passages that speak in metaphors or about a spiritual life. Others, again, expressed the view that the Bible cannot speak constantly about some kind of distant life, ignoring man's desire to experience a life of health, harmony and beauty on earth. All these views demonstrate how difficult it is to judge bioethical issues based on biblical discourse. He also pointed out the need to deepen and analyze the English term enhancement, which does not have an absolute semantic equivalent in other European languages, as a result of which it is translated at will and some misunderstandings are created in the bioethical dialogue.

A different tone was given to the presentations by Dr. Kremser, Professor of Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy at the University of Vienna. She referred to the human body, and especially the female body, as the recipient of continuous cultural changes and perceptions. The demand of the times, and especially of today, for a specific type of appearance of the human and especially the female body, has a catalytic effect on people's perception and psyche regarding their external appearance and the way they deal with it. This often becomes a cause of depression to a pathological degree, to which women are statistically more prone. The improvement and enhancement of the properties of the female body, whether for health reasons or for cosmetic reasons, become a cause of exploitation by companies for profit. Dr. Kremser concludes by saying that, ultimately, the eugenic perspective of augmentation outweighs the discussions regarding its therapeutic perspectives, which are controversial in terms of potential benefits, and this must be taken into account in the final ethical assessment, based on different value systems.

Dr. Krug, a neurologist at the Charité hospital in Berlin and a theologian, presented examples of the enhancement and improvement of intellectual and mental properties of patients who underwent the method of deep brain stimulation (DBS). This method is used for the treatment of serious neurological diseases such as Parkinson's disease and epilepsy. During its application, collateral benefits were found, such as strengthening memory, treating depression, etc. This led researchers to examine its use for enhancing human capabilities. However, it is often accompanied by known side effects and it is assumed that there are others that still remain unexplained.

Dr. Bruce, Director of the Edin-ethics Institute in Edinburgh, began by asking whether the augmentation of human nature is an attempt to redesign God's creation. Although no one denies that there can be a distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic applications, it is obvious that the perspectives and the discussion lead far beyond its purely medical use. Since man seeks his salvation through technological means and away from God, that is, to become a post-human, this leads to anthropological and ethical deviations of a religious nature. Therefore, for the safe moral assessment of human augmentation it is necessary to resort to holistic criteria and not simply to examine the act fragmentarily. God, he notes, is not interested in creating a superman, but in saving every man. Under this light, the Christian attitude towards pain and illness can also be understood. Although the Christian does not seek them, history shows that patience and faith have led many to discover in pain the love and care of God for man.

To the question of whether there are improvements in human nature that could be accepted through the effort for augmentation, he answers as follows: The question is complex. However, what we can say is that augmentation and the improvements it will bring about are not certain to always lead to good. Increasing the ability to see at night, for example, may help me drive safer, but it may also push me to drive faster and more irresponsibly. So, again, there is the parameter of moral responsibility and the education that presupposes it. This means that in no case can the augmentation of human nature be considered the “messiah” that will solve social or everyday problems. The motives that drive the search for and resort to the augmentation of human nature vary and can be: practical, competitive, selfish, aesthetic or even altruistic. However, it is a big mistake if someone believes that through technology they will be able to achieve moral or spiritual growth.

On the third day of the conference, the members were divided into four working groups with the aim of evaluating the proposals and submitting opinions or observations, which were recorded and submitted to the minutes with a view to publication. The writer participated in the same working group together with Professor Mr. Stavros Balogiannis. This resulted in the observations and positions from the Orthodox side being reflected in the same document and expressed in a unified manner, by Ms. Wardman, representative of the Church of Wales, who was also responsible for drafting the text of the working group.

Mr. Balogiannis expressed the view that the enhancement of human nature could be accepted only on the condition that it does not hinder man's relationship with God, does not promote human vanity, and is done for the glory of God and for the good of humanity.

The writer, as a representative of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, took the following three positions:

         A. He referred to the importance of the concept of dignity in bioethics, as it appeared at the conference, however, he pointed out the fluidity in terms of the meaning and use of the term. He emphasized that human dignity, for Orthodox theology, has particular value from the moment it is linked to the Church's teaching on man as a Person - Hypostasis. The Orthodox view of man as a Person-Hypostasis in the image of the Triune Godhead gives the concept of dignity an ontological and profound content. It does not see man only as a member of a specific society, which recognizes his value, rights and obligations, but places him in the perspective of eternity through which his spatio-temporal presence in the world is also recognized.

         B. On the much-discussed issue of the search for boundaries between therapeutic and eugenic applications of augmentation, the author pointed out that first we must define what disease is. To this end, he suggested revisiting the 55th question and answer of the Orations of St. Basil the Great, where the holy father, through the principles of biblical anthropology and ascetic tradition, defines what disease is and how man should position himself towards the use of medicine, which he considers a gift from God to the extent that it is not absolutized and idolized by man.

         C. As a third point, which was not given due attention during the conference, the author raised the contribution and role of parents in the decision for an incremental - improving intervention in the genome of the child who is about to be born. In other words, to what extent do parents have the right to decide on the interventional heterodetermination of the genetic constitution of their child. This decision is going to irreversibly affect the development of the child and his descendants, without the child himself ever being able to be questioned about it. In other words, there is an issue of conflict between the freedom of the parents in their reproductive decisions and the future freedom of the child regarding the formation of his personality.

         It is worth noting that all observations from the Orthodox side were met with favorable comments, served as a basis for fruitful dialogue, and were reflected without cuts in the final text of the working group in which we participated.

         Afterwards, all the working groups were convened and their results and judgments were announced. Finally, the presidium of the Bioethics Group of the Council of European Churches remained to draft and issue a short joint statement, which was also posted on the official website of the Council.

         The author's general assessment is that the conference was a success in terms of its goals. The presentations were of a high standard, the information on new discoveries was important, the dialogue was particularly fruitful, the problematic was multi-layered and the respect for diversity of opinions was intact. The opinion of all the participants, which was also reflected in the official communiqué, is that the enhancement of human nature through technology is an issue that raises ethical, social and spiritual challenges, on which the churches must seriously reflect and take a position.

Nikolaos Koios

Assistant Professor

of the Supreme Ecclesiastical Academy of Thessaloniki