Monday, September 28, 2015

Taking a Week Off. Maybe Two

I haven't changed much since that I took that 'selfie,' back in January of 2010.

My beard's longer, and more sincerely grey. But my hairline's still relentlessly marching down the back of my head, and I'm still fascinated by what exists within this universe, what exists beyond, and what might exist.

I also keep getting reminded that I'm not a 40-year-old kid any more. Or a 50-year-old one, for that matter.

I'll be 64 in a few days, and am quite likely to last longer than my computer's hard drive.

That piece of equipment, my son tells me, is at the point where it works: loudly. I thought it was rattling more than it had when this gadget was new: and agreed with him, that replacing it before it crashes would be prudent.

We discussed what I'd need, and want; he did a little checking around, and purchased a replacement part. When he arrived, he told me that setting aside an entire day to get the thing plugged in and working would be a good idea.

He figures that the job will take a lot less time: but we both know that stuff happens.

I could have squeezed my research, writing, and art (that's for another blog) into three days, instead of the usual four leading up to Friday: but decided that this would be a really good time to take a week off. Maybe two. Or three.

Actively Goofing Off

Not writing for me is like holding my breath: I can do it, but eventually I have to breathe; or write.

I do need a break, though: particularly since I want to reconsider the schedule I've been on, and want time to doodle, read something other than blog-post-research-related stuff, and goof off.

That 'goofing off' will involve being more physically active. I spend more time at my desk than I should.

If I knew when I'll have the next post done, I'd tell you. Like I said, I'm taking a week off. Maybe two. Maybe more.

But not much more than that. For one thing, there are a few things I want to say about the Pope's trip to America. And I'm quite sure that there'll be something in 'science' news that catches my eye.

Actually, that's already happened. I haven't decided whether I'll follow up on it, though.

I've said most of this before:

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Pope Francis and Nietzsche

I'll be quoting Pope Francis quite a bit today, starting with this bit from the news:
"...Speaking on Sunday (Sept. 13) to the Argentine radio station, FM Milenium, Francis lamented those who posed as his friends to exploit him, and decried religious fundamentalism.

"And speaking to Portugal's Radio Renascenca in an interview that aired on Monday, Francis put his own popularity into perspective: 'Jesus also, for a certain time, was very popular, and look at how that turned out.'..."
("Pope Francis: 'Jesus was popular and look how that turned out'," David Gibson, Religion News Service (September 14, 2015))
David Gibson apparently paid attention to what Pope Francis said.

Some other headlines, from derivative stories, are — imaginative. Others perhaps show a better understanding of the Pope than remarks made by the occasional outraged Catholic:
I'm mildly surprised that another Francis quote hasn't morphed into 'Francis is a fundamentalist/worships Baal' yet. Maybe it has, and I missed it.
"...On religious fundamentalism: 'In any confession there will be a small group of fundamentalists whose work is to destroy in the interests of an idea, not of a reality. Reality is superior to an idea. ... Fundamentalists push God away from the companionship of his people; they dis-incarnate him, they transform him into an ideology. ... Practically, they transform this God into a Baal, into an idol.'..."
("Pope Francis: 'Jesus was popular and look how that turned out'," David Gibson, Religion News Service (September 14, 2015))
I put more of that excerpt near the end of this post.1

About the Pope and news coverage: I figure the Vatican knows more about what the Pope said, and what it means, than the editor of my favorite newspaper or magazine. (October 19, 2014; July 19, 2015)

Plus, the Catholic Church has an increasingly-broad selection of Papal statements and other documents from the last two millennia online, in several languages, including: العربية; 中文; Deutsche; Español; français; italiano; and my native language, English.

Good, Evil, and Being Human

I can see why Pope Francis has shocked so many folks.
"...But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners...."1
("Visit to the Congress of the United States of America," Pope Francis (September 24, 2015))
I suspect that many Catholics in America have 'gone native,' adopting this nation's traditional version of Christianity.

Hearing the Pope say that humanity isn't divided into 'the righteous and the sinners' might deeply offend and dismay folks who ardently believe that they are 'the righteous' — unlike the spawn of Satan who aren't.

I've discussed predestination, Holy Willie, going native, and getting a grip, before. (August 30, 2015; March 15, 2015; July 27, 2014)

Original Sin: Not a Design Flaw

I'm against sin, and think I'm a sinner: which may not mean what you think it does.

I'm not convinced that God hates me, and will gleefully throw me into Hell if I like the 'wrong' music or drink beer. (September 6, 2015; July 20, 2014)

I think sin is what happens when I decide that I'll do something I know is bad for myself, or others; and do it anyway: or decide to not do something I should. It's an offense against reason and truth: and God. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1849-1864)

Thinking I'm a sinner doesn't mean believing God made a horrible mistake when creating this world and us. The universe is basically good, and so are we — basically. (Genesis 1:31; Catechism, 31, 299, 355)

Something went wrong, obviously: but it wasn't a design flaw.

We are rational creatures who can decide what we do, like angles. Unlike angels, we are also material creatures: spiritual beings with a body made from the stuff of this world. (Catechism, 311, 325-348, 1704, 1730-1731)

Having a body isn't the problem, by the way. Satan, like all angels, has no body. That didn't stop Satan and other angels from saying "no" to God. (Catechism, 385-395)

Since I'm a Catholic, I see original sin as the lasting consequences of a really bad decision.2

Genesis 1:26-27 says that we're made "in the image of God." That hasn't changed. As Psalms 8:6 says, we're still "little less than a god." But "little less than a god" isn't God. We're pretty hot stuff, but we're not omnipotent. (March 29, 2015; February 20, 2015)

Getting back to Eden and all that: in Genesis 3:5, the serpent tells Eve3 that after eating the fruit " will be like gods..." — and we forgot that we already were made "in the image of God."

You know the rest. Eve listened to Satan. Adam, like a dummkopf, did the same — and then tried blaming his wife and God. That did not end well. (February 1, 2015; August 31, 2014)

We've been living with the disastrous consequences of that bad decision ever since. (Catechism, 396-412)

Now, a brief digression on reductionism and a mechanical duck.

Reductionism is the "attempt or tendency to explain a complex set of facts, entities, phenomena, or structures by another, simpler set." (TheFreeDictionary)

I don't think there's a problem with that — as long as we remember that we've replaced a complex reality with a simpler model.
"...Science requires some degree of reductionism, some picking apart and focusing on one or two variables at a time...."
("The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science," p. 178, Natalie Angier (2007); via Houghton Mifflin Harcourt/Google Books)
The cutaway picture shows how Vaucanson's digesting duck worked: or, more accurately, how someone thought it worked. Oddly enough, it didn't actually digest anything: and that's another topic. (August 22, 2014)

"...To Imitate the Hatred of Tyrants and Murderers..."

Another quote from the Pope's speech:
"...We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within. To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place...."
("Visit to the Congress of the United States of America," Pope Francis (September 24, 2015))
This isn't exactly a new idea:
"...He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...."
("Beyond Good and Evil," Friedrich Nietzsche, via Wikiquotes)
No, I do not think Pope Francis is a nihilist.

I do suspect Nietzsche reacted to 'decent, upright,' folks who emulated the scribes and Pharisees our Lord discussed in Matthew 23:25-28.

I'm too self-aware to think that the Pope's warning about cherishing hate doesn't apply to me.

I must love God, my neighbor, and myself: more accurately, I must try. It is not easy. My 'neighborhood' includes everybody — friends, folks I'll never meet, and enemies. Everybody. (Matthew 5:21-22, 44; Luke 10:25-27, 29-37; Catechism, 1789, 2302-2306)

That sounds simple, and it is: in a way. But books have been written about what those simple principles mean, how they work in everyday life: and how we don't apply them consistently.

Hope and Healing, Peace and Justice

Theft was a capital crime in the Code of Hammurabi. Some nations have 'gone soft' these days, and no longer execute thieves.

The United States still kills some prisoners, though: mostly those who were convicted of particularly unpleasant crimes, like murder.

I think murder isn't nice, and we shouldn't do it. I'll get back to that, after another 'Pope Francis' quote:
"...Our response must instead be one of hope and healing, of peace and justice. ... We must move forward together, as one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good...."

("Visit to the Congress of the United States of America," Pope Francis (September 24, 2015))
A bit later, after talking about "a refugee crisis of a magnitude not seen since the Second World War," and reminding Congress of the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12), Pope Francis said:
"... This Rule points us in a clear direction. Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated. Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves. ... In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities. The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us. The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.

"This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty. I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes. Recently my brother bishops here in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty. Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation...."
("Visit to the Congress of the United States of America," Pope Francis (September 24, 2015))
What I think about life, death, and people, makes no sense without some background. If you remember what I've said about humans being people and murder being wrong before, feel free to skip the next few paragraphs. Or take a walk, get some coffee, read the funnies, whatever.

All humans are people, with equal dignity: no matter where we are, who we are, or how we act. (Catechism, 360, 1700-1706, 1932-1933, 1935)

Murder, deliberately killing an innocent person, is wrong because human life is sacred. No matter how young, or how sick, someone is; that person's life is precious. (Catechism, 2258, 2268-2283)

Like I said last week, killing innocent people is legal in my country: provided the victim is young and/or sick enough. That's a bad idea, and we should stop doing it. (August 30, 2015)

But what about killing not-innocent people?

Killing an innocent person is wrong. Knee-jerk gut reaction — mine, anyway — says that killing the killer would feel good.

Killing the person who killed a member of my family would, I gather, be my duty in some societies — or my son's duty, since I'm between middle aged and elderly. That's how we got the Hatfield-McCoy feud. The last I heard, the June 14, 2003 truce is still holding. That's good news.

In many societies, including mine, state and national governments have assumed responsibility for that sort of personal retribution. It's less messy, on the whole, and arguably less likely to result in mass casualties.

As a Catholic, I must recognize the right — and responsibility — of defending the innocent. Although I respect pacifists, I think they will flourish only as long as there are non-pacifists to protect them. It would be nice if folks didn't need military force, and I'll get back to that.

This is not the most tightly-organized of my posts: and that's saying something.

Interestingly, the conditions for a just war are very similar to conditions which allow capital punishment.4

In each case, the need for self-defense is recognized. If someone attacked me, for example, I'm allowed to avoid or resist the attack; using the least force necessary. The same principle applies to groups of people. (2263-2267, -2317)
"Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66"
(Catechism, 2264)
Like I said, the basics are simple: I must love God, my neighbor, and myself. Applying those simple principles: that's where it gets complicated.

Maybe, If We Keep Working - - -

This is not going to happen in my lifetime:
"...Till the war-drum throbbed no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world....

"...And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law...."
("Locksley Hall," Tennyson (1842, rev. 1865) via
I don't trust the United Nations any more than I trust the American Congress. But at the moment, it's the closest we've come to a "competent and sufficiently powerful authority at the international level"4 which can resolve conflicts without war.

Maybe, if we continue working with all people of good will, keeping what is good and just in our societies, changing what is not, and learning from our mistakes, we'll solve some of today's social ills.

And maybe, if we keep working, when the Code of Ur-Nammu, United Nations Charter, and whatever we try next, seem roughly contemporary, war will be something familiar only to historians.

I think we can do it, and know we must try.

Posts that are vaguely related to this one:

1 More from that speech:
"...On religious fundamentalism: 'In any confession there will be a small group of fundamentalists whose work is to destroy in the interests of an idea, not of a reality. Reality is superior to an idea. God, whether in Judaism, in Christianity, or in Islam, in the faith of those three peoples, accompanies God's people with his presence. In the Bible we see it, Muslims in the Quran. Our God is a God of nearness, which accompanies. Fundamentalists push God away from the companionship of his people; they dis-incarnate him, they transform him into an ideology. Therefore, in the name of this ideological God, they kill, attack, destroy, and calumniate. Practically, they transform this God into a Baal, into an idol.'..."
("Pope Francis: 'Jesus was popular and look how that turned out'," David Gibson, Religion News Service (September 14, 2015))

"...Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind. A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms. But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners...."
("Visit to the Congress of the United States of America," Pope Francis (September 24, 2015))
I recommend reading the entire address:
2 Definitions:
"CONCUPISCENCE: Human appetites or desires which remain disordered due to the temporal consequences of original sin, which remain even after Baptism, and which produce an inclination to sin (1264, 1426, 2515).

"ORIGINAL SIN: The sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandment of God, choosing to follow their own will rather than God’s will. As a consequence they lost the grace of original holiness, and became subject to the law of death; sin became universally present in the world. Besides the personal sin of Adam and Eve, original sin describes the fallen state of human nature which affects every person born into the world, and from which Christ, the 'new Adam,' came to redeem us (396-412).

"SIN: An offense against God as well as a fault against reason, truth, and right conscience. Sin is a deliberate thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to the eternal law of God. In judging the gravity of sin, it is customary to distinguish between mortal and venial sins (1849, 1853, 1854)."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary, C, O, S)
3 Adam and Eve? I take Sacred Scripture, the Bible, very seriously. That does not mean I assume it was written by an American with no poetic sense. (Catechism, 101-133, 375)

As I keep saying: I think the universe is billions, not thousands, of years old; Earth isn't flat; Adam and Eve weren't German; poetry isn't science; and thinking is not a sin:
4 Criteria for:
  • Just war
    • Damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be
      • Lasting
      • Grave
      • Certain
    • All other means of putting an end to it must be obviously impractical or ineffective
    • There must be serious prospects of success
    • Using arms must not produce evils and disorders greater than the evil to be eliminated
      (Catechism, 2309)
  • Capital punishment
    • The accused
      • Demonstrably guilty
      • A clear threat to others
    • Killing the accused is the only way to protect others
      (Catechism, 2267)
My take on legitimate defense, in part:
4 I think the implied hope of a "competent and sufficiently powerful authority at the international level" makes sense. My guess is that some don't see it that way. It's from one of the Vatican II documents:
"...Certainly, war has not been rooted out of human affairs. As long as the danger of war remains and there is no competent and sufficiently powerful authority at the international level, governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate defense once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted. State authorities and others who share public responsibility have the duty to conduct such grave matters soberly and to protect the welfare of the people entrusted to their care. But it is one thing to undertake military action for the just defense of the people, and something else again to seek the subjugation of other nations...."
("Gaudium et spes," Second Vatican Council December 7, 1965) (From (September 26, 2015))
I think something like Tennyson's 'Federation of the world' makes sense:

Friday, September 25, 2015

Kidneys, Experiments, and Ethics

Kidney failure isn't always fatal these days. Hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis can keep someone alive until a transplant donor shows up. Even so, kidney problems kill about a million folks each year.

It's not the leading cause of death for my 7,250,000,000-plus neighbors, but that's still a lot of deaths.

Scientists in Japan grew working kidneys in rats and pigs. We're years away from grow-your-own kidneys for patients: but I think that's coming.

Meanwhile, a scientist in England wants permission to collect people for genetic experiments. The Francis Crick Institute, Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, and BBC News describe the proposal more discretely.
  1. Kidneys and Stem Cells
  2. Human Experimental Subjects: Disposable People

Doing the Right Thing: Eventually

America has changed since this was written:
"...'...We blowed out a cylinder-head.'

" 'Good gracious! anybody hurt?'

" 'No'm. Killed a [redacted].'

" 'Well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt....'..."
("The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," Part 2 (1885), Chapter XXXII, Mark Twain; via
"Huckleberry Finn" is fiction, but I'm pretty sure that Mark Twain knew folks who shared Aunt Sally's belief that some folks weren't "people."

Aunt Sally was a nice enough person, with no more than the usual human failings. But she lived in a society which treated some people as if they were property.

Several decades later, Harper's Weekly explained differences between the presumably-superior "Anglo-Teutonic" race and many of my ancestors.

Many Americans eventually accepted the Irish and other folks "of low type." We've even had an Irish president.

These days some 'regular Americans' see folks from the Middle East threats to our country. I'm pretty sure we'll get over that, too. (September 18, 2015; July 6, 2014)
"Americans will always do the right thing — after exhausting all the alternatives."
Winston Churchill, 1980 or earlier

"Men and nations behave wisely when they have exhausted all other resources."
Abba Eban, March 1967

"You can depend on Americans to do the right thing when they have exhausted every other possibility."
Some Irishman

Remembering Tuskegee

The Hippocratic Oath has been rewritten — and ignored — quite a few times.

But the basic idea, that doctors should behave ethically, won't go away.

The World Medical Association put the Declaration of Geneva together in 1948, after embarrassments like Josef Mengele and Sigmund Rascher.

A few decades later, Irwin Schatz, Peter Buxtun, and other troublemakers finally ended the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.

Hepatitis studies at Willowbrook State School were also shut down around that time. Too many folks got squeamish over using mentally disabled children as lab animals.

Acknowledgement of Unit 731's alternatively-ethical human experiments is starting to trickle through official channels: after more than a half-century. I suppose 'better late than never' applies here.

There's still lively debate over whether anyone should use data from those experiments. Some of the arguments 'against' are ethical. Others point out that sloppy methodology makes the data useless. It's a thorny issue that I'll leave for another post.

Today I'll focus on why I think curiosity isn't a good reason for subjecting folks to occasionally-lethal experiments.

Love, Science, and Being Human

I've been over this before. Human beings are people; all of us, no matter who our ancestors are, where we live, what we look like, or how old we are. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 357, 361, 369-370, 1700, 1730, 1929, 2273-2274, 2276-2279)

We're not all alike, and we're not supposed to be. But we have equal dignity. (Catechism, 33, 366, 1934-1938, 2232, 2393)

People are not property. (Catechism, 2373-2379, 2414)

I must respect local, regional, and national, authorities; and be a responsible, active, citizen. (Catechism, 1897-1904, 1913-1917)

That does not mean blindly following orders. (Catechism, 1905-1912, 2242)

Loving God, loving my neighbors, seeing everyone as my neighbor, and treating others as I'd like to be treated, is a high priority. (Matthew 5:43-44, 7:12, 22:36-40, Mark 12:28-31; Luke 6:31 10:25-27, 29-37; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1789)

Learning how the universe works and using that knowledge to make new tools, is part of being human. It's what we're supposed to do. Science and technology are fine. Ignoring ethics isn't. (Catechism, 159, 2292-2296, 2375-2377, 2414)

I'm expected to love all neighbors, no exceptions: and follow the 'friends don't let friends drive drunk' principle. (September 6, 2015; March 15, 2015)

1. Kidneys and Stem Cells

(From Science Photo Library, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
"Lab-grown kidneys work in animals"
Michelle Roberts, BBC News (September 22, 2015)

"Scientists say they are a step closer to growing fully functioning replacement kidneys, after promising results in animals.

"When transplanted into pigs and rats, the kidneys worked, passing urine just like natural ones.

"Getting the urine out has been a problem for earlier prototypes, causing them to balloon under the pressure.

"The Japanese team got round this by growing extra plumbing for the kidney to stop the backlog, PNAS reports.

"Although still years off human trials, the research helps guide the way towards the end goal of making organs for people, say experts...."
The Jikei University School of Medicine's Dr. Takashi Yokoo and others tested their technique on rats, then pigs — successfully. Rats and pigs aren't human, so as Michelle Roberts said: we're years from growing human kidneys.

But we already have folks "walking around with body parts which have been designed and built by doctors out of a patient's own cells." (BBC News (2012))

Kidneys are much more complex than the bladders mentioned in that 2012 article. But I'm pretty sure we'll add 'artificial' kidneys to the growing list of available replacement parts. I'm also pretty sure that we'll have ethical questions about the new tech. (February 13, 2015; August 29, 2014)

Stem Cells, Organ Transplants, and Ethics

I don't see problems with the Jikei University School research, but my guess is that some folks might.

They used stem cells and cloned pig fetuses in their research. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells. They'll become muscle tissue, nerves, or whatever, depending on which bit of genetic code gets used.

My bone marrow, adipose tissue, and blood, contains stem cells. Umbilical cord blood is another source for stem cells. Extracting stem cells from my tissues would probably hurt a bit, but wouldn't disable or kill me.

Using my stem cells for stem cell transplantation would be okay, just as organ transplants are ethically justified — usually. Killing someone and breaking the body down for parts wouldn't be. Not even if I didn't know the victim, and someone I liked needed the spare parts. (Catechism, 2296)

If this research leads to 'grow your own' kidneys for humans, someone will be the first patient: a human test subject.

Experimentation on humans is okay unless it involves "disproportionate or avoidable risks," or experiments are done without informed consent. (Catechism, 2295)

The rules aren't as strict for animals — but we can't 'do anything we like' to critters. We shouldn't anyway. (Catechism, 2416-2418)


2. Human Experimental Subjects: Disposable People

Medical research is a good idea. But ethics still apply. (March 6, 2015; February 13, 2015)
"UK scientists seek permission to edit the genes of human embryos"
Kate Kelland, Reuters (September 18, 2015)

"British scientists have applied for permission to edit the genes of human embryos in a series of experiments aimed at finding out more about the earliest stages of human development.

"Just months after Chinese scientists caused an international furor by saying they had genetically modified human embryos, Kathy Niakan, a stem cell scientist from London's Francis Crick Institute, has asked the British government's fertility regulator for a license to carry out similar experiments.

"In a statement about her application, which was made to the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), Niakan said she had no intention of genetically altering embryos for use in human reproduction, but aimed to deepen scientific understanding of how a healthy human embryo develops.

" 'This knowledge may improve embryo development after in vitro fertilization (IVF) and might provide better clinical treatments for infertility,' she said in a statement, adding that any donated embryos would be used for research purposes only...."
Wanting to "deepen scientific understanding of how a healthy human embryo develops" is, I think, a good idea.

Growing or collecting people to be used "for research purposes only," on the other hand, is not a good idea. At all.

As I said earlier, I think human beings are people: all human beings. Even those who don't have my legal or social status.1

I'll admit to a bias, since a doctor used me for a scientific study without my parents' knowledge. The experiment was non-lethal, obviously, but probably contributed to several decades of somewhat-avoidable pain. (February 3, 2009)

The Crick Institute is following British law and customs, getting official permission to experiment on people. But 'legal' isn't necessarily 'right.'

Cultural Values, Rules, and Principles

There is no one 'correct' culture. We're not all alike. That's how it's supposed to be.

But cultural values which do not honor human dignity, freedom, and justice, are wrong — no matter how cherished those values are. (Catechism, 814, 1740, 1882-1883, 1901, 1915, 1928-1948, 1950-1960, 1957, 2524)

I've talked about positive law, rules we make up and change as our circumstances change; and natural law, unchanging principles, before. (August 31, 2014; August 29, 2014)

"For Research Purposes Only"

(From SPL/Science Photo Library, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
"Scientists seek permission to genetically modify embryos"
BBC News (September 18, 2015)

"UK scientists are seeking permission to genetically modify human embryos for the first time.

"Researchers at The Francis Crick Institute in London want to use a controversial genetic technique to carry out research into infertility.

"The embryos would be destroyed after the research and not implanted into the womb....

"...Research leader, Dr Kathy Niakan, said the aim was to understand the genes that human embryos need to develop successfully.

" 'Importantly, in line with HFEA regulations, any donated embryos would be used for research purposes only,' she said.

" 'These embryos would be donated by informed consent and surplus to IVF treatment.'...

"...'UK scientists are poised to make a world-leading contribution to this exciting field,' she said.

" 'At the same time, we should be reassured to know that this work is being carried out under a robust regulatory scheme that ensures high scientific and ethical standards."
I suppose it's nice that folks at the Francis Crick Institute are going through proper channels, getting government approval before asking parents to donate their kids for these experiments.

But I do not think that a parent, informed or not, should hand a child over to killed. Not even if scientists might discover something useful — and boost England's international reputation a leader in human experimentation.

I understand that some residents of the UK don't like the Crick proposal. I think the British government will probably approve, anyway.

Genetics is an exciting study today, national pride is at stake, and we're not supposed to think of embryos as people. Not 'real' people.

Delaying recognition of a person's humanity until a fixed age is convenient, of course. But convenience does not justify classifying some folks as non-persons. (February 13, 2015)

Faith, Reason, and Ethics

It's not faith or reason: it's faith and reason. ("Fides et Ratio," John Paul II (September 14, 1998); Catechism, 35)

Thinking is not a sin. Neither is curiosity. (Catechism, 159, 283, 1778)

Learning how our genes work is okay. Killing people in the process is not: even if the victims are not, legally, people.

As a Catholic, I must believe that human life is sacred: all human life, including folks who are very young. (Catechism, 2258, 2270, 2273, 2276-2279)

Life and health are "precious gifts." Healing the sick is a good idea. But killing one person to get parts for another is wrong. So are experiments that cause someone's death. (Catechism, 2258, 2288-2296)

More, mostly about science, tech, and thinking:

1 Slavery finally became illegal in America and quite a few other nations, but human trafficking is still a problem. (January 18, 2015; August 31, 2014)

No matter what you call it, slavery is a bad idea, and we shouldn't do it. (Catechism, 2414)


Like it? Pin it, Plus it, - - -

Pinterest: My Stuff, and More


Unique, innovative candles

Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store

Label Cloud

1277 abortion ADD ADHD-Inattentive Adoration Chapel Advent Afghanistan Africa America angels animals annulment Annunciation anti-catholicism Antichrist apocalyptic ideas apparitions archaeology architecture Arianism art Asperger syndrome assumptions asteroid astronomy Australia authority balance and moderation baptism being Catholic beliefs bias Bible Bible and Catechism bioethics biology blogs brain Brazil business Canada capital punishment Caritas in Veritate Catechism Catholic Church Catholic counter-culture Catholicism change happens charisms charity Chile China Christianity Christmas citizenship climate change climatology cloning comets common good common sense Communion community compassion confirmation conscience conversion Corpus Christi cosmology creation credibility crime crucifix Crucifixion Cuba culture dance dark night of the soul death depression designer babies despair detachment devotion discipline disease diversity divination Divine Mercy divorce Docetism domestic church dualism duty Easter economics education elections emotions England entertainment environmental issues Epiphany Establishment Clause ethics ethnicity Eucharist eugenics Europe evangelizing evolution exobiology exoplanets exorcism extremophiles faith faith and works family Father's Day Faust Faustus fear of the Lord fiction Final Judgment First Amendment forgiveness Fortnight For Freedom free will freedom fun genetics genocide geoengineering geology getting a grip global Gnosticism God God's will good judgment government gratitude great commission guest post guilt Haiti Halloween hate health Heaven Hell HHS hierarchy history holidays Holy Family Holy See Holy Spirit holy water home schooling hope humility humor hypocrisy idolatry image of God images Immaculate Conception immigrants in the news Incarnation Independence Day India information technology Internet Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Japan Jesus John Paul II joy just war justice Kansas Kenya Knights of Columbus knowledge Korea language Last Judgment last things law learning Lent Lenten Chaplet life issues love magi magic Magisterium Manichaeism marriage martyrs Mary Mass materialism media medicine meditation Memorial Day mercy meteor meteorology Mexico Minnesota miracles Missouri moderation modesty Monophysitism Mother Teresa of Calcutta Mother's Day movies music Muslims myth natural law neighbor Nestorianism New Year's Eve New Zealand news Nietzsche obedience Oceania organization original sin paleontology parish Parousia penance Pentecost Philippines physical disability physics pilgrimage politics Pope Pope in Germany 2011 population growth positive law poverty prayer predestination presumption pride priests prophets prostitution Providence Purgatory purpose quantum entanglement quotes reason redemption reflections relics religion religious freedom repentance Resurrection robots Roman Missal Third Edition rosaries rules sacramentals Sacraments Saints salvation schools science secondary causes sex shrines sin slavery social justice solar planets soul South Sudan space aliens space exploration Spain spirituality stem cell research stereotypes stewardship stories storm Sudan suicide Sunday obligation superstition symbols technology temptation terraforming the establishment the human condition tolerance Tradition traffic Transfiguration Transubstantiation travel Trinity trust truth uncertainty United Kingdom universal destination of goods vacation Vatican Vatican II veneration vengeance Veterans Day videos virtue vlog vocations voting war warp drive theory wealth weather wisdom within reason work worship writing

Popular Posts

Marian Apparition: Champion, Wisconsin

Background:Posts in this blog: In the news:

What's That Doing in a Nice Catholic Blog?

From time to time, a service that I use will display links to - odd - services and retailers.

I block a few of the more obvious dubious advertisers.

For example: psychic anything, numerology, mediums, and related practices are on the no-no list for Catholics. It has to do with the Church's stand on divination. I try to block those ads.

Sometime regrettable advertisements get through, anyway.

Bottom line? What that service displays reflects the local culture's norms, - not Catholic teaching.