THE ROVER recently interviewed Phillip Sloan, professor emeritus in the Program of Liberal Studies, about issues relating to the intersection of science and religion in biology and biomedical research. We talked about the Conference on Adult and Non-Embryonic Stem Cells that was held this July at Notre Dame as well as the November 2011 Vatican conference on a similar issues. Our discussion touched on many topics, from the relationships between different disciplines within the university to the role and status of human beings in the cosmos.
What is Notre Dame’s Adult and Non-Embryonic Stem Cell Initiative?
The initiative is a cooperative effort involving scholars from several different disciplines, specifically those studied in the Colleges of Arts and Letters, Science, and Engineering. This initiative has the financial and “moral” support of the deans of all three colleges.
Why the emphasize uniting the interests of scientists and humanists?
The difficulty at Notre Dame is that we are isolated by the college structure into different cultures. The new deans have all been interested in promoting interaction between the various colleges. Right now, the students not only have different majors; they also live in different subcultures. By fostering substantial interaction on the intellectual level between students in different disciplines, we want to create something other than the social connections that they already have.
What importance does the division of research by fields have for undergraduates?
The increasing specialization of people within their respective disciplines is working against the development of universally relevant and accessible knowledge. Right now, we push undergraduates into very specialized niches by encouraging them to produce their own original research almost as soon as they get here. Instead, we should resist the march toward specialization with strong undergraduate humanistic programs. One of the things which has been discussed is a common first year of studies for everyone.
Why did Notre Dame decide to hold a conference on adult non-embryonic stem cell research?
Some people think we do such research because the Church says we can’t do anything else. That’s not an interesting or accurate answer. We have a concept of human beings and human dignity that allows us to ground our research within a broader theological and philosophical anthropology not considered by researchers at secular universities. This helps us expand the depth and relevance of our work.
How did this conference work?
We invited theologians, philosophers, working scientists, and bioethicists. We accepted as a basic premise that embryo has a moral status. The conference began with seminars in which we discussed primary texts and articles we had read beforehand. Later we attended technical presentations by people in science and arts and letters on current research they had done in their fields. Scientists presented successful work on the medical uses of non-embryonic stem cells. People got a view of what stem cell research was about. We also attended broad lectures on the conception of an “organism,” biological reductionism, as well as ethics and law relating to biology and biotechnology.
Can you tell us a little about the Vatican conference on stem cell research that took place this November?
This conference is the outcome of a collaborative effort between the Vatican and a firm called NeoStem that is doing adult and non-embryonic research. It was primarily a presentation of how we’re using adult and non-embryonic stem cell research to treat diseases. Adult stem cell methods seem to be paying off and producing some remarkable results. Some biotech companies have started to pursue this road because it seems more promising than embryonic research.
You have been quoted as saying that “biological reductionism” is one of the greatest threats to the theistic worldview that has come out of the scientific community in recent times. What is biological reductionism?
Anybody who studies biology today absorbs a highly analytic, mechanistic view of life from classes on biochemistry, microbiology, cell physiology, immunology, and even embryology. Understanding the organism in these terms by taking it apart and seeing the whole as a synthesis of parts is a view we can trace back to Descartes that has been pressed down to a deeper and deeper level. For the most part, it works. It has been key in the development of our drugs and of the modern medical world’s other wonders. Unfortunately, however, this analytical method can easily and even unconsciously transform into a whole philosophy of life and of the human person.
How does biological reductionism relate to the stem cell debate?
If one’s conception of life is that of a state of matter understood through biochemistry and biophysics, the statement, “Life begins at conception” has little ethical meaning because there is nothing seen by many as particularly interesting present at conception. What’s so important about a ball of cells? To think of something with moral significance as present requires that we step outside the framework of analytic and mechanistic biology. This requires attention to issues of organismic biology, teleological purposiveness, and other considerations that Catholic perspectives would raise in dealing with the nature of human life.
How does this view of biology shape how we think of human consciousness and human action?
We can’t be anti-scientific. You can stick electrodes in someone’s brain and find out what happens when they hear a c-sharp and describe mental perceptions with some biochemical phenomena. There is still a place for the primacy of the human being in the sciences, though. To do science, we must see ourselves as free human agents doing research. What are we doing if everything we do is determined by biochemistry? We forget a fundamental beginning point in the phenomenon of what it is to be human. Recovering human centrality does not make science subjective. It acknowledges that there is a human beginning to all of the science that we do.
What does the molecular view mean for human body?
The idea that human beings are nothing but chemical and physical processes has profound implications for all human questions. Consider the difference between primary and secondary forms of awareness. When I learn a piece of music, my primary attention is on the notes and rhythms of that music. The piece of music itself is secondary. When I want to play the piece of music, the segmented information becomes secondary, and the entire piece becomes the center of attention. I can look at my body as a product of processes and believe that the person itself is secondary. When I want to interact with other people, the physiology becomes secondary and the focus transitions to a human level, on which I share ideas, experiences, et cetera. If all we are is biochemistry, can biochemistry reflect on itself in the way we can? Our everyday experiences of being human give us an understanding of human transcendence without denying all of the things we can learn from the sciences.
What does the integrative perspective have to say about our place within nature as a whole?
Some people today want to emphasize respect for the environment, ecological importance, and respect for other forms of life. Often, they do this by denying human transcendence as “speciesism.” Those who want to emphasize strong creationist distinction sometimes turn the rest of the world into an instrument for our own purposes. This leads to environmental destruction and all sorts of bad effects. There is a way of seeing human beings as part of nature while also being able to assert human transcendence and the reasons for giving human beings a special place in that natural order. We don’t have to feel guilty about the fact of human primacy. We can be self-conscious, reflective beings and understand that actions in our world can damage our world.
What is Elliott Pearce going to do today? The same thing he does every day: try to take over the world. Contact him at epearce1@nd.edu.
