Jim Al-Khalili who is a professor of physics at the University of Surrey, j.al-khalili@surrey.ac.uk, wrote this opinion piece for The Guardian. He kindly consented to it being republished in Webdiary.
While our scientists struggle with ethics, the Islamic world forges ahead
by Jim Al-Khalili
In recent days I have been asked on three separate occasions whether I think physicists are going to destroy the world the moment they switch on the Large Hadron Collider - the huge underground particle accelerator in Geneva - later this year. They ask if, as has been reported, the energies it will produce when beams of near light-speed subatomic particles are smashed together will create mini black holes that will swallow up the whole planet.
Add to this the more rational worries many people have about the global catastrophe of climate change if we don't act fast enough to curb our reliance on fossil fuels, or about GM crops producing Frankenstein food, hybrid embryo research producing Frankenstein babies, and nuclear power leaving future generations a legacy of toxic radioactive waste, and one is left with the impression that the average person is pretty scared about the rate of current scientific advances.
Of the above doom-laden list, the only issue I am unable to provide any sort of reassurance on is climate change, where I am just as worried as everyone else. The rest, I would argue, are based on unfounded fears arising from a misunderstanding of the science involved.
It is of course quite right that the implications - ethical or otherwise - of all manner of scientific research are high on the agenda of government decision-making and research funding. Science ethics is even being taught as part of new science curriculums in UK schools. While the issue of ethics in medical research has always been around, it can only be healthy that we are beginning to apply the same standards to other areas of science, not just so that scientists themselves think more responsibly, but to encourage them to explain what they do to the rest of society, particularly if they work in academia and are funded by public money.
For many, concerns with some scientific research are linked with the unease about living in a nanny state that they feel often passes through legislation and enacts policies without real consensual debate. So I would like to share with you what was, for me, a quite surprising example of the ultimate nanny state making some remarkably sensible decisions.
On a recent visit to Iran, I was allowed unrestricted access to the Royan Institute in Tehran where, by all accounts, world-class work in genetics, infertility treatment, stem cell research and animal cloning is carried out in an atmosphere of openness quite dramatically at odds with my expectations. Much of the work at the Royan is therapeutic and centred on infertility treatment. But their basic research in genetics was remarkably advanced, despite the restrictions on many of the researchers' travel to international meetings and the difficulties in publishing their work in the leading international journals.
What struck me most was the way the authorities overseeing the research seem to have dealt with the ethical minefields of parts of the work, in stark contrast with the howls of protest from some quarters in the UK in the run-up to the human embryo research bill that went through parliament recently.
At the Royan I spoke to one of the imams who sits on their ethics committee. He explained that every research project proposed must be justified to his committee to ensure that it does not conflict with Islamic teaching. Thus, while issues such as abortion are still restricted (it is allowed only when the mother's life is in danger), research on human embryos is allowed.
In this country the Catholic church has branded research on human embryonic stem cells immoral and says tinkering with life in this way is tantamount to playing God. So I was taken aback by the Iranian imam who pointed out, quite rightly, that all that is produced in this research is just a clump of cells and not a foetus, and so what was all the fuss about?
It is these stem cells that then differentiate into the specialist cells that are used to grow healthy tissue to replace that either damaged by trauma, or compromised by disease. Among the conditions that scientists believe may eventually be treated by stem cell therapy are Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, strokes, arthritis, diabetes, burns and spinal cord damage.
The fundamental question is whether the original single zygote (the fertilised egg) is defined as a human being. If so, then it can be argued that it is morally wrong to destroy the embryo, as is done of course once the stem cells are harvested. Many in the Catholic church do indeed believe that the moment of fertilisation is also the beginning of human life - a notion not shared in Islam.
The embryo-is-a-human argument is based on the idea that the fertilised egg contains everything that is needed to replicate and that this is sufficient. But is this "potential" of becoming a human being really enough? I mean why stop there? Surely the unfertilised egg also has the potential of becoming a human, as indeed does each and every sperm cell (a notion immortalised in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life).
But I would argue that this is more than just a metaphysical issue. An embryo just a few days old is no more than a bundle of homogeneous cells in the same membrane, which do not form a human organism because they do not function in a coordinated way to regulate and preserve a single life. So while each individual cell is "alive", it only becomes part of a human organism when there is substantial cell differentiation and coordination, which occurs around two weeks after fertilisation. Until that time, for instance, there is still the chance that the embryo can split into two, to form identical twins. If each embryo develops into an individual person, how can the undivided embryo be said to have a separate existence?
A sensible definition of the beginning of human life is that it takes place sometime during the foetus's development. For many, both religious and non-religious, this is defined as when consciousness switches on. This crucial stage lies long after that of the embryonic stem cells with their "potential", rather it is when that potential is fulfilled. But too strong a link with consciousness can lead to the absurd situation of questioning the rights to life of a newborn baby if one subscribes to the view, held by some neuroscientists, that it is not really conscious.
According to Islamic teaching, I discovered, the foetus becomes a full human being only when it is "ensouled" at 120 days from the moment of conception, and so the research at Royan on human embryonic stem cells is not seen as playing God, as it takes place at a much earlier stage. Thus, while there is much that the west finds unpalatable about life under Islamic rule, when it comes to genetics they are not held back by their religious doctrine.
Like a number of other developing Islamic countries, such as Malaysia, Iran's scientific research is moving forward in leaps and bounds. I had hoped to visit one of its nuclear research facilities, but given the current political climate and Israel's threats of military action, it was no big surprise that my film crew and I were denied access at the last minute. Nevertheless, whatever criticisms we may have of the regime in Iran, I was left in no doubt that its researchers can hold their heads high. And we in the UK might learn a lesson or two from them before we complain too quickly about our own nanny state.
Is she being dug out or buried?
Jenny Hume: "We owe it to those women to at least add our voice in support of those in Pakistan battling to have those men who committed this terrible deed prosecuted."
I still cannot get over them taking photographs of the deed.
In fact, could this be real? Is this the same incident being reported today?
One of the protesters today is seen holding up that picture (right of shot). Or was that an earlier, but similar event?
The woman is plainly still alive, but is she being dug out of or buried in the grave? It looks to me the woman at right of shot is pulling soil away from the buried woman. But the man behind is picking soil up with his spade.
Hard to say, Eliot
Eliot, it is hard to say what is actually happening in the photo. But it seems that the five women died. I know ordinary Pakistanis will be just as horrified as we are at this incident. But this is not uncommon in the region, and even in the UK honour killings have been committed.
I remember one educated Pakistani expressing his disgust to me over the treatment of women in some of those tribal areas when I was living over there. Most of the Pakistanis I knew would never have countenanced this for one minute. But the conservative elements there have gained a lot of ground in recent years and attempts at reform of the law have been hard to achieve. I suspect it is going to get even harder in the future.
Write letters - the least one can do
It has come up on another thread as well, but the bashing and burying while still alive of those women in Pakistan is something that those who really care about such atrocities might like to put pen to paper over in protest.
Silence changes nothing but a million voices raised, if only in a whisper can combine to become a loud shout.
We owe it to those women to at least add our voice in support of those in Pakistan battling to have those men who committed this terrible deed prosecuted.
I will write to the Pakistan Government today. It is the least one can do. It may not do much good, but at least one can try, and if no one ever tries, well then, how can any of us expect anything to ever change. Silence and apathy in the face of atrocities is an admission of defeat. It is also a way for some of saying: I couldn't care less. Not my country, not my concern.
Well, easy to say if you are not the one being bashed and buried alive.
The first task
The first task surely is to "get on" with nuclear family, then friends, relations, neighbours, the wider community (for which you seem to have such deep contempt, as "greedy" buyers of "mountains of junk") - and then, when we've got all that sorted, when we can talk to people with different views without contempt and nit-picking, and look around and see that we are living in mutual love, concern and harmony, that will be the time that we just may have a moral right to criticise other societies. Yes? No?
You could try that
" ...when we can talk to people with different views without contempt and nit-picking.."
Yes, you could try that yourself. A little less preaching and a little more practice would not go astray, F Kendall.
And to your question the answer is No. I for one am not afraid to criticize societies which condone the stoning to death of women, or societies that force millions into desert camps to starve, or who use machetes to kill a few hundred thousand of their fellow human beings. If one has to remain silent until everyone is living in mutual love and harmony in this country before speaking out, then nothing will ever be said about anything that is wrong in the rest of the world. Apply that philosophy over the world at large and you really have got a problem.
Silence. Oh yes, the dictators and the persecutors of every kind around the world would really love/d that. The Chinese over Tibet, the Serbs over Bosnia, the Indonesians over East Timor, the Sudanese over Darfur - one could go on forever.
And I am sure the US would like all those here who oppose what they are doing in Guantanamo Bay to just shut up.
Silence is for the lambs. I will never be a lamb.
Ethical minefields or no ethics at all?
"What struck me most was the way the authorities overseeing the research seem to have dealt with the ethical minefields of parts of the work, in stark contrast with the howls of protest from some quarters in the UK in the run-up to the human embryo research bill that went through parliament recently."
So if ethics is such a simple issue to the Iranians then why is it so hard for them to see the ethical issues raised by such practices as: the stoning of women to death; the public hanging on the hook of a crane of a 16 year old mentally unwell teenager who was raped; sending rape victims to gaol; forcing women at a very young age into marriage with older men, often their own relatives; killing women who dare to tread on the so-called family honour. A society that condones this sort of stuff is hardly going to have any problems with a few clumps of cells. Check out the link in Ian MacDougall's last comment on this thread. It says it all really.
If the treatment of women can be taken as a measure of the level of consideration given to the ethics of an issue, then the Islamic world is not forging ahead of the West. It is millennia behind.
What price women pay for the dismissal of ethical considerations.
And you won't find Ethics Committees sitting in universities over there to assess the ethical treatment of animals in experiments, I'll bet.
Remember what Gandhi said about the moral progress of a nation and how it treats its animals. Cruelty to people invariably accompanies cruelty to animals and vice versa. That is a fact, and it is not just true of the Islamic world. Check out a few far Eastern and eastern European countries on the same measure.
I recall my Islamic girlfriends in Pakistan protesting to me that they wanted to marry the man of their choice. Well dangerous thinking girls, very dangerous thinking. That is likely to get you raped and gaoled in some parts of your country. Probably in more and more parts these days. I see the Taliban has virtually overrun the beautiful tourist valley of Swat north of Islamabad, well inside the Pakistan border. I remember that place for its stunning roses, its crystal streams and the mountains that reached into the sky, and its friendly villagers - a truly peaceful place. Not any more. Very sad for the women of that valley.
Pots calling kettles
Eliot Ramsey challenged me recently to substantiate my assertion that much of what Jenny Hume contributes here demonstrates anti-Islamic sentiment. Will the following do, Eliot?
And the link, if anyone cares to follow it, leads to a similar polemical diatribe against Islam attributed to some guy called "OB". The sardonic Eliot, of all people, should see the irony inherent in resort to the authority of an "OB". And everyone should see the fallacy inherent in Jenny's oft repeated says it all really. Everything she says brooks no argument, according to her way of thinking, because what she says says it all really.
But in fact nothing says it all, really, no matter what truth may lie at the heart of it. Unbalanced truth is not truth at all. Those of us in our own glass house who are eager to throw stones should look closer to home. Ask Marilyn Shepherd about our own home-grown atrocities — she knows more about those things than I do. I have images in my head of lips sown together to try to attract our attention; of people abandoned at sea to drown; of children abandoned in concentration camps to be prey to pedophiles. I have heard of people driven to insanity by harassment and neglect. And then there is the plight of our own indigenous population, kept out of sight and out of mind and driven mad by harassment and neglect, until it suits someone's political agenda to draw attention to their dysfunctionality for which we are to blame, and blame them for it. How easily would some "OB" in an Islamic land condemn our culture? He or she would have no shortage of ammunition.
It may be worth bearing in mind when we pick up our stones to throw at Islam that not long ago the so-called Christian nations were burning women at the stake. Women were widely held by the church to have no souls, or if they had souls, to have about as much soul as a goose. How did the Islamic world react to news of that line of thinking, when it reached them? By writing our ancestors off as barbarians, is how. And how did we progress to our current level of enlightenment? Not by the teachings of church hierarchies; and certainly not by being harangued and harassed by civilisations outside of our own.
Richard: So is criticising an aspect of a culture a damnation of all of it, Bill? What you write could be called painting with a broad brush, not to mention throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
A point of clarification
Bill Avent, for starters and IMHO, Butterflies and Wheels is one of the most interesting and stimulating sites on the entire Web.
"And the link, if anyone cares to follow it, leads to a similar polemical diatribe against Islam attributed to some guy called 'OB'. The sardonic Eliot, of all people, should see the irony inherent in resort to the authority of an 'OB'."
Eliot in fact could do a hell of a lot worse than read 'OB', though he could well have been doing so for yonks. 'OB' is Ophelia Benson, a prominent contemporary philosopher. She is to Butterflies and Wheels what Margo Kingston is to Webdiary. B&W specialises in tearing into woolly thinking, and 'fighting fashionable nonsense'. Her critiques are textbook examples of the genre, and I recommend them to all.
Apart from the Main Site, there is the Notes and Comments section - blogging B&W style.
Go there and put on a few comments, if you're so inclined.
See how you go.
Been there
Ian MacDougall, I have already seen Butterflies and Wheels. I was sent there recently by Jenny Hume, as I recall, to look at the fuzzy thinkers' guide. I found that guide mildly amusing, but essentially lightweight. There is plenty of serious in-depth analysis of logical fallacies on the web, much more nourishing than butterflies.
Whether or not Benson may be accurately described as a "notable" philosopher is moot. In any case, the article in question is not philosophy. It is pure pop-polemic, designed to persuade the non-analytic reader to endorse a particular point of view. Which is perhaps why it is attributed to a mere "OB".
I was surprised to find myself sent by Jenny to a site apparently dedicated to demolition of the faith-based view of the world. Perhaps she fails to perceive its intention. And it occurs to me that the shonky modes of argument satirised by the skeptics are ones to which they themselves resort all the time. Yet another instance of pots calling kettles black. Those locked into the modern scientific perspective on reality and blind to everything else need to learn that their paradigm, too, is viewed by some of us with skepticism. The notion that a mysterious "nothing" brought into being the observable everything they are intent on examining is no less open to ridicule than is the alternative presumption that a mysterious entity called, for want of a better word, "God" must be responsible.
A guy called OB?
As I am sure Eliot will agree Bill Avent, my comment you refer to proves nothing at all about me.
OB by the way is not a guy. She is a woman. If you took the trouble to check before lashing out on your keyboard you might get your facts right.
And if we accept your viewpoint, then no one would ever speak out about any evil deed in any part of the world other than those occurring in our own backyard, for fear of being anti this or anti that.
Well I doubt the suffering people in the world would want the rest of us to subscribe to that philosophy, and I for one do not intend to.
But next time I sign a petition to be presented to an overseas government protesting against the stoning to death of a woman, I would clearly be wasting my time passing it on to you for your signature.
So be it. I'll leave Bill to you, Eliot. Have fun. I really cannot be bothered engaging with such nonsense.
Richard, I think your footnote sums the problem up. Makes me wonder about all that anti US stuff that thrives here. We really must look to our own backyard. How dare we judge the Yanks.
Babies, OBs and bathwater
Richard, obsession with criticism of a culture looks pretty close to damnation of it to me. The popular buzzword perspective comes to mind. Your mention of throwing the baby out with the bathwater seems to me to reinforce my point, rather than challenge it. Is there nothing in Islamic culture to teach us anything?
Jenny, your petition to other countries is a waste of time with or without my signature on it. All it can do is get their backs up, supposing anyone reads it at all. Short of stoning to death, I know, but how many petitions did you sign to protest the deportation of Vivian Alvarez or the treatment of Cornelia Row? I do seem to remember your saying somewhere that the present government, which is as yet responsible for no such abuse of power, is no better than the previous. I take that as an indication of your priorities.
I don't care whether OB is a man or a woman. A blogger is a blogger is a blogger. And the diatribes of a holier than thou OB of whatever gender do not constitute an an authoritative reference.
As to all that anti US stuff that thrives here, that is in our backyard. Are we not part of their coalition of the willing to kill people from other cultures in order to try to make them live the way we want them to? While I agree that horrendous domestic atrocities take place in the Islamic world, they pale into relative insignificance compared with the atrocities we are responsible for. Take the plank out of thine own eye…
Cornelia Rau was her name, Bill
I think you will find her name was Cornelia Rau, Bill Avent, not Row. See, I do take enough interest to at least get her name right.
So we in Australia should just sit in our comfortable homes and not give a stuff what atrocities happen in any other part of the world. We must remain silent. What utter rubbish. What an uncaring world that would create if every country and everyone was to subscribe to that policy for fear of being labelled by people of your ilk as anti this and anti that. Never mind, it is not happening to us. So we will just shut up about it. How selfish can one get?
As for petitions, well in fact one woman was in fact recently spared stoning as a result of petitions and letters and represenations from men and women around the world, in an African country. I added my small voice to that petition. Had everyone followed your advice, Bill, she would be dead by now. Thankfully people in the world do care about what happens to others in other countries and are prepared to speak out, not remain silent as you propose.
I hope you will practise what you preach, Bill. Let me not see any condemnation of the US over Guatanamo Bay come from you, We can't have any of that anti-Americanism around here.
I suggest it is your eyes that have the planks stuck well and truly in. I put it to you that you could learn quite a lot from Ophelia Benson. But you won't, your mind is clearly closed. Oh well, so be it.
Rau, Row — so?
It makes no difference what her name is, Jenny Hume, any more than it matters whether OB is a he or a she.
No, I don't think we should "just sit in our comfortable homes and not give a stuff what atrocities happen in any other part of the world". My point is that we should attend first to the atrocities we are responsible for. Then we can attend to the mote in our brother's eye. Hasn't that message got through to you yet?
On your small voice to a petition saving a woman's life, are you serious? You don't suppose efforts made by activists on the ground in that country deserve any credit for the outcome you are so eager to take credit for? If there had been no petition she would be dead now, and since there was a petition that is why she is alive? Get real.
Predictably, this thread which follows an article pointing out Iran's view of ethics in scientific endeavours, which accords with Islamic principles but is in some respects at odds with ours, has degenerated into a place where diatribes against all things Islamic may be aired. When I read the article, I wondered how long it would take. It didn't take long.
Silence achieves nothing
Well yes Bill Avent, you have got through to me. You clearly advocate silence. Don't put one's name to anything because it is pointless, it does no good. Leave it to those battling on the ground. No need to sign anything that might give support to them. All a waste of time.
No Bill, I take no credit for saving a woman from stoning, eagerly or otherwise. I am just happy that she was saved and hope that the voices of all those around the world who spoke out in some small way helped those closest to the fight. How sad if everyone adopted your position, and said not my concern, nothing I can do will help in any way. Apply your philosophy and no one will say anything, or do anything, because anything one does won't do any good, won't help save a single person. Sounds like a good excuse to do nothing to me. Well you might not care, but I do so will continue to do what I can to help, in spite of you. I might not achieve anything, but at least I will have tried.
As for your point, deal with the atrocities in our own backyard first - in other words earn the right to speak out about others in other countries a la F Kendall. How bloody ridiculous can you get. I am sure the people huddling in Darfur would not be very impressed if we sent a message over there to tell them, sorry, we have to deal with the issue of the treatment of our Government of our indigenous folk before we worry about you. We need to put our energies into that first, not the problems you face with your Government. All rather selfish, but again a good excuse to do nothing I suppose.
It did not take long for you to come in here and throw in your usual negatives. Just call up the the old anti this anti that argument.
Well, I repeat my viewpoint on the issue of this thread, that it is easy to make advances in science if one does not have to bother with ethical issues. And a country that finds no ethical difficulties with the stoning to death of women is hardly going to see any problems with using a clump of human cells.
It is you who needs to get real, Bill, instead of just sitting there being negative for the sake of it. If you don't like my views, then that is your problem, not mine. But since you always seem to like to have the last word, my reply to your expected next blast is this: Noted.
Noise doesn't achieve much either
Jenny Hume, earlier, you said: "…well in fact one woman was in fact recently spared stoning as a result of petitions and letters and represenations from men and women around the world, in an African country."
Now you say: "…I take no credit for saving a woman from stoning, eagerly or otherwise."
Well, I guess we can write the first off as a bit of excusable hyperbole, but you would have a better claim to credibility if you admitted to it, instead of implicitly denying you said it.
Let's have a quick look at your: "How bloody ridiculous can you get. I am sure the people huddling in Darfur would not be very impressed if we sent a message over there to tell them, sorry, we have to deal with the issue of the treatment of our Government of our indigenous folk before we worry about you."
So we should, in your view, send a message to our indigenous population that we are sorry (those empty words have of course already been said) but we cannot deal with their issues, for which we are directly responsible, because we have to deal with the issue of people huddling in Darfur, for whose plight we are in no way responsible.
And you ask how ridiculous I can get? Duly noted.
Higher levels of sensual joy
Walking through the streets of Cairns it is not unusual to see topless females, in extremely revealing bikinis. Boobs are busting out all over, I notice cracks that were once only shown by builders labourers in shorts. I think Naomi Wolf is on to something here. All the mystery has gone. Why do females in the West feel this need to flaunt their bodies? I think the female body is the most beautiful sight on the planet, but it is becoming so everyday. I feel like a worker in a chocolate factory who can no longer enjoy chocolate. And while I'm at it, why do many women these days feel the need to graffiti this wonderful gift they have with tattoos?
And yet all that chocolate is still out of reach
John: "I feel like a worker in a chocolate factory who can no longer enjoy chocolate."
Ah well, try resisting temptation for a while. It'll all come back to you, I'm sure.
There's no law preventing the bikini-clad women of Cairns covering all but face and hands, as both sexes in Iran are by law obliged to do, with the women having to wear an overcoat as well in case their figures are revealed. The ladies of Cairns could also don a chador each, Afghanistan style, if they were so inclined. No law says they can't.
Australian women do have the muslim dress option. Note, however, that the converse is not equally true.
Among the places of the world that have been noted for their atmosphere of profound chastity are, paradoxically, nudist camps. Australia prior to 1788 was probably the vastest ever. Not a continent of perpetual bachannalia, awash with unbridled lust and depravity; quite the reverse.
When you think about it, the overwhelming bulk of our ancestors over the last 6 million years or so got around stark naked too.
Women in Moslem countries who are inclined to go walking the streets alone are not only taking a hell of a risk, they are also in danger of breaking the law. Go here and read all about it. (Great site, BTW.) That is understandable, with so many sex-starved or reluctantly virginal young lusty men about, some of whom would go as far as blowing themselves up in the hope of scoring an eternity in Paradise with 72 virgins.
If you are so keen, you can always take time out from the chocolate factory to set up a political party and campaign for the introduction of sharia law in Queensland.
See how you go.
Eye candy
Ian, I certainly was not advocating sharia law. I was just suggesting that a little more mystery in our lives might add a little spice.
I certainly don't understand the females who flaunt their bodies and then ridicule "dirty old men" for looking.
I might go for another stroll along the Esplanade this afternoon. I just can't resist eye candy.
Cheers John
The USA supplied Iran's nuclear programme - New York Times
Well, here's an insight into how Iran's and Libya's nuclear programmes have been 'forging ahead':
Dolly and the Ayatollahs
Oh, okay. So that must explain why there's not much genetic research going on in the west and why we're so far behind Iran in that respect.
Johann: spot on yet again
The Islamic world will forge ahead even faster if Johann (he's right again) has anything to do with it:
My mate Johann
I reckon it was my private email exchange with Johann last year that got him back to the planet of reason and right.
Mind you, I would say that, wouldn't I?