Before thinking about biology’s future, we should classify the most important developments made during the 1990s. The first one is cloning, most notably the sheep Dolly, a development that is still quite controversial. The problem here is twofold: religious, for some people say that scientists want to play God by “creating”; and ethical, for it could involve cloning human beings to harvest their organs. Technically, this latter issue is not a big deal.

Cloning

To deal with the first issue, we must understand the cloning process. Cloning is defined as the transfer of an ordinary cell nucleus to an egg with a depleted nucleus. Scientists have done this with frogs for years. But when they began to use mammals, people began to pay more attention.

Cloning is not creation, for it uses an existing genome encoded in an existing nucleus with a natural (but slightly modified) egg. So, the resulting organism is no more than a copy of the organism already created by the Creator.

In other words, cloning is like a copier: if you photocopy a book, you cannot claim that the copier wrote that book, even if there are some changes (e.g., lighter ink or different colors). Even if scientists one day change a portion of the genome prior to cloning so that the clone will have a different physical property, they still will be doing no more than making some small changes on a great piece of art already designed and created in a wonderful way.

The second issue, that of cloning people, is also important. The American government has already outlawed it. Why would someone want to clone himself or herself or someone else? There could be several reasons. First, to live forever, which is impossible. Even if everything were to work perfectly, the clone would be an entirely “new” person with a unique personality, for its environment would be an important factor in its development.

Second, to use the clone as an organ donor or for some other reason. A clone’s organs would not be rejected by the recipient’s immune system. However, cloning a human being just to harvest its organs is the same as killing someone for his or her organs. Although cloning now is a technically very painful and long process, advancements in biomedical technology probably will make it much easier in a few years, and available to those who can afford it.

Clearly, this process does not involve creating a new person. However, it does raise ethical complications, such as the ones mentioned above. To allay some of the public’s concerns, scientists should explain that “cloning” does not mean “creation.”

Genetic Manipulation

The second area that still needs a great deal of work is the manipulation, mainly in embryos, of an organism’s genetic code. This is already being done in many species, such as bacteria, viruses, yeast, frogs, chickens, pigs, monkeys, and mice. Researchers and scientists can change these organisms’ genes at the embryonic stage with great ease, so that the resulting organisms will have specific features. Through such manipulation, scientists strive to achieve a better understanding of various underlying biological and metabolism-related principals. This is not done extensively in human embryos, nor is it totally banned. For example, in vitro fertilization involves separating human eggs that are defective in their mitochondrial DNA from their mitochondria and replacing them with normal ones. Although the resulting embryo’s genomic DNA is unchanged, its mitochondrial DNA is replaced. This can be considered genetic manipulation to some extent. This leaves two questions: Will we allow the genetic manipulation of human embryos? Does this mean creation to some extent? Let’s assume that a couple cannot have a healthy child because of a serious illness. You can try to convince this family that they should forego having a baby, since the genetic manipulation of human embryos is banned. In the case of genetically inherited severe illnesses or some pre-birth vaccinations against AIDS, genetic manipulation of the eggs or the embryo can be a powerful method in the future. But there are consequences.

Consequences

First, right now we do not have the necessary technology to guarantee completely safe genetic manipulation. But since technology develops incredibly fast, we might be able to do so within the next decade. We should use this time to prepare answers to the ethical questions and developments that are sure to arise. Second, although this technology will be developed primarily for disease control and prevention, some will use it to manipulate an embryo’s physical or mental properties, such as increasing its mental power or changing its eye color. Of course, this technology will be available only to rich people first, which means that their children will be more skillful. This can be considered unethical, but is it really all that different from rich people using already existing specific drugs or surgical techniques that they can afford? Third, does this mean “creation” to some extent? It does not, for the scientist is only manipulating the existing genetic code so that it will assume another form in the other already-existing recipient. Even if these are new codes, they still coded by the same general principal that was created by the ultimate Creator.

Conclusion

As technology develops, it brings new ethical questions to the fore of the public consciousness, as well as new ways to increase our knowledge of how the universe works. Molecular biology and genetics are important branches of science that develop quicker than many others. All such developments, regardless of field, should be explained to the public clearly to avoid misunderstanding. We do not need to see a repeat of what happened after Dolly’s clone was introduced to the world.

References

• http://www.sciam.com/explorations/030397clone/030397/beardsbox.html.
• Lodish, Harvey et al. Molecular Cell Biology. New York: Scientific American Books, 1986.
• Lewin, Benjamin. Genes VI. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Since natural sciences have chosen for themselves as their field of study only the visible world and adopted a sensory and experimental approach in their studies, and since they tend to accept as scientific only the conclusions they have drawn through these methods, the modern scientific world-view does not, in practice differ much from materialism. That is, although there may be scientists who believe in God and the existence of immaterial entities like spirit, the modem scientific approach is by nature materialistic. For that reason, scientific materialism is not less harmful than materialistic philosophy, rather, it may be said that scientific materialism is more dangerous that the other. For philosophical ideas can be set to one side as no more than theories which hardly affect one’s everyday decisions or direct one’s life. By contrast, people have in effect no choice but to think and believe and act in line with scientific conclusions. Also, scientific materialism has a considerable effect on the way one shapes one’s life. A person who does not find it worthwhile to give any consideration to belief in a Day of Reckoning, in a Supreme Being Who sees whatever he does, hears whatever he speaks and is aware of whatever he thinks, and Who will call him to account for all his deeds in the world, will not heed any rule other than secular laws and will design his life only according to the requirements of a short, transient life. Further, if being scientific is taken to mean denying or at least doubting the existence of anything metaphysical, and if people unquestioningly accept that the only objective knowledge is what sciences discover, whereas whatever people may know of the spiritual dimension of existence is sheer superstition, then people will be left with no alternative other than to live as materialists. So, scientific materialism and the practical materialism it produces are responsible, besides the birth of philosophical materialism and communism, for the world-wide crisis observable in the erosion of morals and spiritual values, the increase in crimes and drug-addiction and in injustices committed against weak peoples of the world and ruhtless colonialism continuing in disguised forms, and other modem social and political diseases.

Scientific materialism, though it does not theoretically deny the existence of truths outside the visible world, holds that anything immaterial cannot be known, not that it is not known to us. You can discuss with a materialist in philosophy about the existence of God or anything outside the material dimension of existence. But since scientific materialism argues that anything except material things cannot be known, it causes one not to think about immaterial truths. So, it is scientific materialism which gave rise to agnosticism-the belief that nothing can be known about God or of anything except material things. It is also scientific materialism which, because it tends to explain immaterial truths in material terms and therefore reduces quality to quantity and the spiritual to the physical-as is most clearly observed in psychology, psychiatry and psychoanalysis-is responsible for the rise of most modern false beliefs and ‘mystical’ practices.

The practical materialism, to which scientific materialism gave birth, prevails in the lives of all the world’s people, whether they be Muslims, Christians, Jews or atheists. For most people mean economic development, the betterment of worldly life, when development is talked about, and give precedence to worldly life in their considerations. And since material wealth and resources cause rivalry and competition in the relations among peoples and countries, not a single day passes without clashes on the face of the earth, on a large or small scale.

Even if we leave out the human values, lofty truths and ideals, and spiritual happiness, which have all been sacrificed for the sake of material development, modern civilization based on scientific materialism has caused mankind much harm. The products of science are usually exploited in favour of the great world powers to consolidate their dominion over the world. Besides, the developments in genetics, biology, physics and chemistry are threatening the very life of humanity on the earth. Modern civilization is founded upon five negative principles:

1. It is founded and rests upon power: power tends to oppression.
2. It aims at the realization of individual self-interest: pursuit of their self-interests causes people to rush madly upon things in order to possess them and gives rise to pitiless rivalry and competition.
3. Its understanding or philosophy of the nature of life is struggle: struggle causes internal and external conflicts.
4. It unifies the mass of its people on the basis of racial separatism, fed by swallowing up the resources and territories of ‘others’: and racism leads to terrible collisions between peoples.
5. The service it offers to people is satisfaction of the novel caprices or desires it arouses in them; (whether the satisfaction is real or not) this service brutalizes people.

Modern materialistic civilization stimulates consumption and therefore gives rise to new, artificial needs and increases them day by day. Through the power of propaganda and advertisements to exploit some disapprovable human tendencies such as ‘keeping up with the Jones’, it can impose its demands upon people. As a result of the way of life it necessarily leads to-producing to consume and consuming to produce-it destroys the nervous balance of man and causes extraordinary increases in mental and spiritual illnesses. In such a way of life there is left room for neither spiritual profoundity nor true intellectual activity. For intellect is put under the command of pragmatism and earning more and more.

It is highly questionable whether scientific and economic developments have brought happiness to man, whether the developments in tele-communication and transportation have provided for man what he needs. It is highly questionable whether modern man has been able to find true satisfaction and solve all his problems. Do his needs not increase day by day’? While people in the past needed a few things to lead a happy life, does not modern make man feel the need of some new things every passing day’? To satisfy each new need requires more effort and production which, in turn, stimulates more consumption. This leads people to regard life as a course or process of struggle and gives rise to a cruel rivalry and competition. So it follows that because might is right in such a world only the powerful have the ‘right’ to survive. You may understand from this what lies behind such Western philosophical attitudes or so-called scientific theories as Darwinian evolution and natural selection, historicism and the like.

Another disaster materialistic science has brought upon man is the destruction of nature and environmental pollution. What a pity it is that nature, this magnificent book, this charming exhibition, which God, the Infinitely Merciful One, has created and presented to us to observe and study and to be exhilarated by is no longer given any more care than is given to a heap of junk or rubbish. Worse than that, it is more and more becoming a wasteland and like a dunghill. Today, air, that magnificent conductor of Divine commands, is a suffocating smoke and a perilous whirlpool’. Water that source of life and other Divine bounties, is either a hazardous flood or forms desolate expanses of pitch. And earth, that treasure of Divine grace and munificence, is a wilderness no longer safely productive and whose ecological balance has been ruined.

We do not belittle, nor condemn, scientific studies and accomplishments. On the contrary, we welcome them enthusiastically as the signs and confirmation of man’s being made superior to angels. As is related in the Qur’an, God created man as one who would rule on the earth in conscious, deliberate conformity with God’s commands. Since he has been honoured with free will and is not compelled to do anything, in order to fulfil his function in creation, God has distinguished him with the knowledge of things and thereby made him superior even to angels. So we welcome scientific developments and discoveries as the result of this superiority. However, in order for scientific studies to be directed for the true benefit of man, they must be pursued within the guidance of immaterial, metaphysical, God-given rules. They must aim at founding a civilization which should have the following five essentials:

1. It should rest upon right, not upon power; right requires justice and balance.
2. It should aim to encourage people to virtue, which is a spur to mutual affection and love.
3. It’s understanding or philosophy of the nature of life should be not struggle but mutual help, which leads to unity and solidarity.
4. It should unify people on the basis of a common belief, shared values and norms, which can lead to internal peace and brotherhood.
5. It should guide people to truth. Therefore, besides encouraging them to scientific progress, it should elevate them, through moral perfection, to higher ranks of humanity.

This civilization is that which the Qur’an proposes to mankind and urges them to found.