This is not the first time that the world is witnessing a pandemic; previous incidents were regional in scope and did not affect the affluent segment of society. However, COVID-19 is first of its kind in modern times whose impact was felt wide across many nations precisely because of the fact that its carrier happens to be the modern upwardly mobile segment of the globalized world. Apart from this class dimension, COVID-19 has also ignited the old debate of religion vs science as its faster spread has been traced to congregation of religious faith groups across many communities amidst a worldwide call for social distancing in order to contain the spread of the virus.

Thus, the congregation of South Korea’s Shincheonji Church of Jesus in Wuhan has been widely held responsible for half of South Korea’s COVID-19 contractions and in other parts of other South East countries. A major source of COVID-19 in India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia, and further in parts of West Asia was traced to the congregation of an Indian transnational Islamist movement known as Tablighi Jamaat. The Shia religious congregation in Qom, the major center of Shia Islamic knowledge production, was identified as the major source for the spread of COVID-19 in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Bahrain. A good number of Hindu devotees defied Indian lockdown and gathered in various temples on the occasion of the Hindu festival RamNavemi. A few Sikh devotees were arrested for illegal gathering at Gurudawara, a place of worship for the Sikh community. There are several reports from the USA that many denominational Churches and orthodox Jewish religious groups continue to hold congregation for religious practices and have been found to be instrumental in the spread of COVID-19 within the country. Worst of all, in view of the conservative nature of American society, many states in USA have officially exempted places of worship from ban on gathering and stay-at-home order [1].

Given the global demonization of Islam, Islamic movements, and the widespread prevalence of Islamophobia, Islamic congregations received wide attention from the public for its blind faith and conservative, messianic, and eschatological approach towards life and religion. However, a careful observation reveals that similar approach to religion, life, and normal congregational practices during the COVID-19 pandemic has been found among segments of many religions and their communities including Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, and many others as mentioned above. While religious gatherings have been blamed for the spread of this virus, “secular gatherings” have also been potential carriers. For instance, one can trace the roots of this virus’ spread across Europe to an Austrian Ski resort, a famous tourist destination in the village of Ischgl in Tyrol, despite warnings beforehand from public health officials as early as March 5.

It is in the above context, particularly the raging issue of religion vs science or religious vs secular, that I am trying to figure out a “Hizmet” approach towards dealing with this global pandemic. How does Hizmet, a civic-social Islamic movement with a good presence in many parts of the world, approach the problem of COVID-19, a highly contagious virus that has brought the world to standstill and is threatening millions of lives? One way of approaching this subject matter is to find out the official statement of Fethullah Gülen, whose pacific exposition of Islam’s universal values (based upon the examples of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and his Companions) through speeches, writings, and concerted actions has inspired this movement and continue to provide spiritual, moral, and ethical leadership to the movement while it is facing the existential dilemma in the backdrop of the brutal crackdown of the Erdogan regime in Turkey, its birthplace. However, listening to the sermon of Gülen is one thing; developing a Hizmet approach to COVID-19 is another. The latter needs to be excavated from the life trajectory of Gülen, and everyday Hizmet praxis as they have been unfolding while dealing with different contingencies of life situations from time to time.

It seems to me that Hizmet’s approaches towards the phenomenon of COVID-19 is shaped through two broad principles: (A) relationship between religion and science in general and (B) revival of ethical dimension of Islam as exemplified by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Hizmet sees the relationship between the religion and science as one of complementarity or one of organic whole, as opposed to modern discourse which presumes a perennial inherent conflict between the two, mostly shaped through Church-State struggle and development of positivism in the European Continent which eventually led to the secular’s high distrust towards religion and regulation, control, marginalization and finally banishment of religion to the other world. The more religion, science, and secular became modern, ideological, and identity discourse, the more they became bereft of their inner ethical dimension, lost their internal connectivity to each other, and finally found themselves in an antagonistic relationship, often resulting into violent responses. For Hizmet, religion and science are two mega methods and approaches to address the various aspects of the ever-changing complexities of life processes with a view to create a harmony between their physical-material, metaphysical, and spiritual aspects.

It is this ethic driven human discourse upon which Gülen constructed a philosophy of life based upon the unity of religion and science, heart and mind, universal and particular, and reason and faith which on the one hand prevents the “process of othering” – whether emanating from an exclusive understanding of religion or secular – and on the other helps in dispelling the fear of relatively conservative religio-socio segments of humanity towards scientific-technological solution to human problem such as COVID-19. We learn from history how religious bigotry and fear of treatment of medical science resulted in many deaths during the period of epidemics in the past. The resistance of Ulama (clergy) to state’s prescribed medical measures including quarantine during plague epidemic (1835) and Cholera epidemic (1848) in the Ottoman Empire, particularly in Egypt, has been well documented [2]. Today, a similar situation has come to exist in India wherein a vast segment of the Indian Muslim population is currently exhibiting a strong resistance and non-cooperative attitude towards undergoing any kind of medical testing. It must be recalled here that the quarantine system, or what is referred as “social distancing,” was first invented by the sixth Umayyad caliph Al-Walid in early eighth-century AD, in Damascus, to combat the spread of the virus.

A second aspect of Hizmet’s approach towards COVID-19 comes from its ethical understanding of Islam and its universal principles and values which arise from a human-centered Islamic theology and take form in Gülen’s vast sermons and published works as well as everyday praxis of Hizmet movement. Thus, like any Islamic movement, or for that matter like any believer, absolute belief in hereafter (life after death) is the cardinal principle of the Hizmet movement. However, unlike many other religious groups the Hizmet movement does not disassociate the “earthly life” from the Hereafter. In other words, whereas many religious movements, whether with a political or social focus, tended to pay a very less premium on building human resources with an idea that real life begins in Hereafter, the Hizmet movement, under the spiritual leadership of Gülen, invested heavily in human resources and in developing human capabilities through the combination of Islamic universal ethics, morality, and scientific knowledge. This system has an understanding that the most important call of Islam, as exemplified in the model of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is the preservation and balanced growth of lives on Earth which demands ceaseless positive actions that will be accounted for in the Hereafter. All other principles and rituals of Islamic practices must be subjected to this fundamental principle of Islamic universalism.

It is this cardinal principle which led the Hizmet movement to develop a “praxis of service, trust, and cooperation” with an eventual goal of shaping human potential towards becoming an insan-i kamil (the perfected human). Guided by the Islamic principle of preservation of life in view of challenges posed by COVID-19, Gülen promptly issued a formal statement on March 13, 2020 offering his profound condolences to all those who lost their loved ones, asked people (and he was surely not alone in doing so) to trust public health officials and to take precautions based upon medical and scientific data, to show empathy with victims, and offer help to the needy in dealing with COVID-19. When I inquired from one senior volunteer of Hizmet in India about Hizmet’s position on COVID-19 he immediately responded without any pause that “protection of life is the most important duty of Muslims in accordance with Islamic faith” and then further stated, “whom to preach to if there will be no human beings?” Unfortunately, many Islamic movement leaders and government officials in Muslim communities fumbled and did not prevent Muslim gatherings either on Friday or on other social occasions partly due to ideological understanding of iman (faith) and Hereafter with a consequence that they became the major source of COVID-19 in their respective countries.

In view of mandatory daily prayers in Islam including Friday congregation a question has emerged whether a mosque, as well as Islamic congregation on Friday, is an essential part of Islamic faith, and whether or not it is permissible to abandon or forbid these prayers. I do not have training in Islamic theology and hence I lack requisite competence to reflect on such questions. However, what is minimally clear to me in light of my understanding of Islamic history in general, and discourse of the Hizmet movement in particular, is that Islam enjoins the preservation of creation and a healthy life on this Earth which is evident from the expression of mankind as “inheritors of the Earth” in the words of Gülen. All other principles, rituals, practices and value systems connected with interpretive field of Islam must be subjected to the central maxim of Islamic faith: the duty to preserve life on Earth as God’s vicegerent/trustee.

The life trajectory of Gülen and Hizmet movement, which spans over more than 50 years, demonstrates this divine mandate: building all round human capital to manage the affairs and challenges of earthly life through rigorous ethical, moral, and spiritual training, creation of quality educational institutions and construction of cultural-dialogue centers all over the world with a view to develop a mutual understanding of each other to address the common challenges of humanity. For this reason, the Gülen (Hizmet) movement avoided giving an Islamic nomenclature to their education and dialogue institutions so as to meet the principle of Islamic universalism. Education and dialogue initiatives are for all and bring them together in the common goal of serving humanity. One is therefore not surprised when one does not find a mosque-like structure where Gülen lives in Pennsylvania.

On the other hand, the government in Muslim countries and various Islamic movements have prided in constructing mosques and Islamic madrassas in modern times and have transformed them as the most important institutions of Islamic identity at the cost of moral, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of Islamic faith. The Erdoğan regime in Turkey is spearheading the construction of mosques and madrassas within and outside Turkey with a view to wear the mantle of Caliph in coming years. As Islam has been transformed into a matter of “market identity,” one is not shocked to see how many Muslims in many countries in violation of appeal of their governments, World Health Organization guidelines, and in violation of Islamic ethics of life preservation gathered together to perform the Friday prayer! The Pakistani government had to obtain a fatwa from Al Azhar, the famous Sunni Islamic seminary, to enforce its ban on Friday congregations!

COVID-19 is a grim reminder to the globalized humanity of the spiritual call of Gülen and principles of Hizmet movement: (a) that the world is truly inter-connected and inter-dependent; (b) that the transparency in dealings, dialogue, mutual trust and cooperation and collaborative research is needed to overcome the common challenges of humanity such as COVID-19; (C) that humanity is in dire need of philosophy that restores the dialogue between mankind and nature (ecology and environment) and develops a harmonious relationship between the two and connects different cultures, traditions and economies based on the universal value of dialogue, tolerance, trust and respect; (d) that modernity must realize its limitations of establishing supremacy over nature; and (E) that mankind must undergo ethical, moral and spiritual training to overcome his/her greed and ego, to develop self-restraint and build the moral capacity to live together and cooperate.

Last, if not least, Hizmet has developed a “culture of self-disciplining” and “solution providing perspective,” which has proved to be its biggest asset in successfully confronting many challenges thrown before it from time to time, of which the most recent one is brutal crackdown of the Erdoğan regime since 2013. These two aspects of Hizmet movement is badly needed to fight the challenges of COVID-19 till the time a medical breakthrough in terms of vaccination/medicine develops.

Notes

1. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2020/03/27/482359/religious-exemptions-coronavirus-pandemic-will-worsen-crisis/
2. Birsen Bulmus, Plague, Quarantines and Geopolitics in the Ottoman Empire, Edinburgh University Press, 2012, especially Chapter 2, pp 15-38. See also Khaled Fahmy, ‘Law, medicine and society in nineteenth-century Egypt’, Égypte/Monde arabe, vol. 34, 1998, PP, 14-15 available at: https://journals.openedition.org/ema/1488, accessed on April 18, 2029.

What I would like to say in this paper is from a glocal perspective even though the case study I will offer at the end is local. That does not mean that I believe that Ireland is the centre of the universe, though for three decades at the end of the twentieth century we had that tragic privilege. An introverted narrative is negative, be it Irish, British, American, Canadian or wherever. My Irish case study is informed and underpinned by global perspective and is therefore, I hope, a glocal story. I would also like to explore two key components of peacebuilding which education can address, indeed I believe, must address, if humanity is to live at peace on the planet as well as with the planet.

PEACEBUILDING THROUGH EDUCATION

In June of this year Aung San Sui Kyi visited Europe. She is a woman who has suffered greatly, remains committed to non-violence, and is a champion for democracy in her own Burma. She reminds us that peacebuilding is about building democracy, which is essential to sustainable peace.

Just over two decades ago many of us sat glued to the television screen. The image is indelible, that of Nelson Mandela finally emerging from his Robben Island prison compound. He walked to freedom to lead, with others, the transformation of apartheid South Africa into a Rainbow Nation. It’s still a work in progress. Mandela has reminded us that peace building is the creation of a pluralist, participative democracy. Peace building is pro-democracy and it is about actively creating rainbow nations and societies, pluralist, participative democracies – at least! Education has a crucial role to play in all of this.

Education for pluralist democracy

Democracy is developing. There is no finished product and there is no one model to be imposed universally irrespective of contexts and cultures. It is not a flawless system either. Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst of political systems, except for all the others.” Democracy is about freedom. What the promise of freedom and potential for democracy does induce is an almost universal abhorrence of tyranny. Dictatorships, totalitarian regimes and fascist states do not last and do not satisfy the deepest longings and needs for freedom and participative belonging. Whatever past history, newly liberated nations usually move towards democracy. In 1918 when Czechoslovakia was born, its President said, “Our whole history inclines us towards the democratic Powers.” That was repeated in 1989-91 by leaders of all the countries of the ex-Soviet bloc (Norman 1997, 131).

Education for pluralist democracy as part of peace building needs to engage history. Democracy has a lineage, a family tree and young people and adults should be aware of it.

The Greeks invented politics and it began with our city states. The polis needed governance and there was a recognition of a public good, a shared public interest and common concerns, and over these issues there could be argument, debate, discussion, decision and policy making. The assembly of citizens was known as the ecclesia, though it was far from being fully participative. It was only for wealthy males, people of power, excluded women and certainly had no place for slaves and lower classes. Athenian democracy lasted for 185 years. It had limited participation and Plato even thought that democracy meant the rule of the incompetent. Democracy was forgotten for a millennium.

European democracy owes more perhaps to the democratic practices of the Viking world. Popular assemblies enter European history in the 9th century in Sweden and Denmark. Iceland’s national assembly came into being in 930 CE. Long before England had such a democratic assembly, it existed in the Manx assembly, the Isle of Man, a small island between Britain and Ireland with a Viking history. The Manx Tynwald or assembly is also 9th century. Wherever the Vikings went, Nordic democracy went with them.

In the modern era the two great shapers of democracy were the French Revolution and the American Revolution. Any education in pluralist democracy needs to be aware of these seismic events. The history of the 18th-19th century Europe was a history of wars and conflict, and absolutist monarchies and imperial powers. The first political revolution of a new time in European history happened outside of Europe and it led to the dissolution of the first British Empire. It began in 1773 with the Boston Tea Party and a decade later at the Paris Peace Conference American Independence was recognised. Now the people of North America “could work out their problems virtually untroubled by foreign intervention, a blessing to much that was to follow” (Roberts 1997, 347). Popular sovereignty was embodied in the opening words of the Constitution, “We the People.” All governments derive their just powers from the assent of the governed. The American Revolution was a landmark in world history.

Then followed the French Revolution and by 1789, notwithstanding the Terror, great reforms were achieved.

The formal abolition of feudalism, legal privilege and theocratic absolutism, and the organisation of society on individualist and secular foundations were the heart of the principles of ’89 distilled in a Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen… legal equality and legal protection of individual rights, the separation of Church and State and religious toleration were their institutional expression. The derivation of authority from popular sovereignty acting through a unified National Assembly, before whose legislation no privilege of locality or group could stand… (Roberts 1997, 353-354).

Modern democracy is born and by 1900 the principle of democracy was an idea, albeit still resented in some parts of Europe, whose time had come. An education process needs to engage with the historical development of democracy. We may have little consensus about its essence and it remains flawed in practice. “We the People” may even be impossible, strictly speaking, in practice. But democracy as a theory of governance and the ordering of the public good has promoted “all the virtues, from freedom, justice and equality to the rule of law, the respect for human rights, and the promotion of political pluralism and of civil society” (Davies 1997, 131).

Democracy is not amoral. It implies a need to be underpinned by a value system. Values and ethics are the foundation of democracy at work. Peace building is an ethical task, it needs democracy and the values and ethics that underpin democracy. Democracy involves pluralism and freedom, it also requires tolerance or respect. The education process needs to draw the distinction between passive tolerance and active tolerance. The former is the tolerance of indifference. The latter is “The attitude of one who positively co-lives with the other because one respects the other and accepts the multi-faceted richness of reality” (Boff 2011, 8-9). At the heart of any education for democracy is justice, especially justice as distributive and restorative. Democracy is for human, social flourishing. And distributive and restorative justice are core to peace building.

Education for global citizenship

Yale historian, Jay Winter, believes that a new kind of vision emerged at the end of the dark 20th century after the momentous events of the late 1980s and early ’90s. It is a vision set in the framework of globalisation which aims to create a new kind of politics called the “politics of global citizenship.” It has also been described as “globalisation – from – below.”

Global citizens are emerging out of an array of transnational social forces animated by environmental concerns, human rights, hostility to patriarchy, and the vision of humane community based on the unity of diverse cultures seeking an end to poverty, oppression, humiliation, and collective violence. (Winter 2006, 169-170)

A new kind of political consciousness is developing which is transnational and is flowing across national borders. It is a glocal movement holding together the local and global. “Global citizenship is a political project helping people to imagine a different kind of world.” Citizenship is not tied to the state, it is “participation in a transnational set of struggles for dignity and justice” (Winter 2006, 170). The nation state is no longer primary. We are no longer just Irish, American, Turkish or Indian citizens but global citizens, in a different and larger solidarity on environmental rights, women’s rights and human rights. Transnational citizenship is about all of these glocal justice issues none of which is limited by national boundaries. Community now is in the local and the global.

Perhaps this began for many of us as children when we put our name and address on the inside page of a school text book. Name, street, town/city, Ireland, Europe, The World, The Universe! It is now the reality in a globalised world. Transnationalism and global citizenship may still have an unmapped future, but like modern democracy at the beginning of the 20th century this new local – global reality is and will shape who we are in the 21st century. It will be a peace building project stretching us well beyond any introverted narrative. Citizenship education now needs to be global for all ages, and it is not only an alternative to introverted narratives, but also to economic globalisation as the sole determinative factor for human and environmental life on the planet.

A GLOCAL CASE STUDY

I currently work on an initiative called Ethical and Shared Remembering. It is an initiative which will respond to the centenaries of events that occurred in Ireland between 1912-1922 and shaped the rest of the 20th century for the people in Ireland. It was a decade of enormous political change ending with the partition of Ireland, and it was also a decade of brutal violence.

How the centenaries will be handled between 1912-1922 will shape the decades ahead for better or worse. Ethical remembering is an approach that is critical in relation to the militarisation of politics and the violence that was so deeply embedded in culture and practice. Shared remembering is an approach that encourages the protagonists in all their complexity to engage with each other as human beings and to understand better each other’s perspectives on this crucial Irish decade and its legacy. The legacy has left many issues unresolved which have been re-played in the more recen phase of violence and conflict in Ireland. Some of these issues are; nationalism, nation-state, faith and politics, faith and violence, class and labour relations, feminism and equality issues, trauma and peace building. These constitute for any educational programme a generational peace building agenda which needs to be set in a global or glocal context.

There are multiple Irish narratives from this decade. Not only will this initiative try to recover them, especially the alternative, repressed or forgotten narratives, but the events of 100 years ago will be carefully set in the larger global, at least European context of that time. The memory of the Irish narrative(s) has often been introverted, but this community education initiative will seek to provide a larger and more critical perspective on a century ago by placing the events in a more global context. Early 20th century imperialism and the catastrophe of the Great War, provide a larger and rather different perspective.

The framework for an educational exploration will not only include global contextualisation but also narrative hospitality. This is about generosity of spirit and openness to engage with multiple narratives, especially those of one’s sectarian tradition or narrative perspective. Narrative hospitality will also include narrative pluralism and narrative flexibility. These latter two approaches will encourage an openness to recognise that there are multiple histories and diversities of interpretation of historical events and never a fixed or final norm. It is openness to realise that history is a plethora of interpretations, little of which may be about what actually happened even if ever that can be fully known.

Another educational framework will be integrative complexity. This is also getting beyond mono-narrative or mono-truth, simplism or fundamentalist politics or religion. Integrative complexity (IC) is a way of seeing history, culture, politics, faith, the world in all their diversity and complexity and integrating or weaving together the complexities of personal, communal and historical existence, and to see this complexity in the other.

Key to this project will be the development of critical thinking skills in a community where there has been, through the dynamics of violence and conflict, a culture which is unquestioning. The latter has often been understood as being disloyal or unpatriotic. Few people have thought for themselves and this educational methodology will engage with critical reflection on matters of history, politics, religion and cultural identity without reducing their complexity.

Essential to the educational exploration of the past will be future visioning. This is not just about a 2030 vision for Ireland. It is about transcending local nationalist politics of whatever shade and visioning a common good. It will also be about global citizenship, a transnational vision that will require the imaginative creation of a larger identity myth, beyond introversion, and glocal in perspective and complexity. Not only will the initiative encourage the development of an ethical vision for future society but will also unpack the need for ethical leadership in a society where the moral authority of the major institutions has collapsed. The initiative is being delivered through community education programmes, dialogue events, training resources and materials and a series of in-depth publications, and also the use of the arts. The community of ethical and shared remembering will include people from the community development and community relations sector, education, youth, the faith sector, politicians, ex-prisoners, commemorative groups and institutions. This is an initiative which we hope will make a positive contribution through education to peace building as a glocal task.

References

1. Davies, Norman. 1997. Europe: A History, London: Pimlico.
2. Roberts, J.M. 1997. The Penguin History of Europe, London: Penguin Books.
3. Boff, Leonardo. 2011. Virtues: For Another Possible World, Oregon: Cascade Books.
4. Winter, Jay 2006. Dreams of Peace and Freedom: Utopian Moments in the 20th Century, New Haven and London: Yale University Press. The extended quotation is from Richard Falk.

Every day, millions of people log on to online environments, seeking a second life in virtual worlds. It is noticeable that the average user is 26 years old, and spends 22 hours per week in his/her alternative lives [1]. After such dedicated players spend this much time in these worlds, not much is left for their offline activities. They literally live “in” these virtual worlds. What leads them to prefer a virtual life over a real one? Is something missing from the daily life? Why are people not happy or satisfied with what they have? Are they asking for more or looking for something they don’t have?

In Second Life, users can create a new character for themselves, a lifestyle, an environment or anything else they might imagine. Second Life, with about 17 million users, has its own economy and currency (Linden). Residents are able to buy and sell amongst themselves directly using Linden, which is also exchangeable for US dollars. Second Life’s GDP (2007) is estimated between $500 million and $600 million [2], which is larger than the GDP of 19 countries in the world. In October, 2008 users spent approximately $30 million. Although Second Life does not have a government, many countries have embassies in Second Life. The online world even has an in-world newspaper.

Many forms of sports activities have also appeared in Second Life. Residents can watch or participate in football, soccer, boxing, wrestling, and auto racing. Virtual art centers and museums allow artists to create and exhibit their works in a way which might not be possible in real life because of physical constraints or high costs. Streaming vocal and instrumental music or inworld instruments allow performances of live music. Live theater is also available in Second Life. The British act Redzone toured for their new album on Second Life (2007).

There are several studies [3] discussing how these online worlds could be used for educational purposes. There are regions in the virtual world of Second Life for educational purposes, and a variety of topics are covered. Virtual worlds are favored because they are thought to provide more engaging experiences than traditional online learning. Virtual worlds can provide an interactive imitation of real life classroom environments. 80 percent of British universities have teaching and learning activities in Second Life. More than 300 universities around the world are taking advantage of the platform to provide educational services at lower costs.

Good and evil exist in Second Life, so religion is also finding its way into this world. Many religious organizations have opened churches, cathedrals and meeting places in Second Life. People are more willing to explore and discuss spiritual things in a virtual world [4]. Second Life also has a place to perform the Hajj ritual, providing a virtual experience before making the actual pilgrimage in person. However, some residents find the idea of virtual worship odd. They prefer spending their time flying, shopping, or engaging in other activities.

Are all these activities making users happier or just helping them to forget their real life? The more users spend time in these worlds, the more they became addicted to their new lifestyle, becoming alienated from the events and responsibilities of real life.

Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish scholar, addresses this question in one of his latest articles [5] as follows: “In spite of the dizzying developments brought by science, the new opportunities offered by technology, and so many means promising us welfare and happiness, the people of our time do not seem very happy. On the contrary, they are overcome by unease and depression more than ever. Although it should not be expected to be any other way, mere worldly opportunities, which are not supported by personal relationships to faith or knowledge of God, are not deepened or given meaning, and obviously do not mean much.”

Despite the large number of educational and social features available in virtual worlds, the main motivation that leads players to games like Second Life seems to be a lack of satisfaction with their real lives. People are either not happy with their work, lifestyle or social environment, or they are seeking a second chance in life, a fresh start. These worlds approximate real life ever more closely with each new technological development. It remains to be seen how virtual worlds will affect real human relationships. One day people may not realize the difference between real and virtual worlds. Is Second Life simply taking over real life?

Gulen makes a similar connection between technological developments and the afterlife: “Even though it would not be correct to speculate today on the days to come, people who predict the future claim that the world will become so attractive for the people of physicality and carnal pleasures that it will make them forget Paradise. With a feeling and passion that gives priority to immediate pleasures and delights, they will say like Omar Khayyam, ‘The past and future are all but tales; enjoy yourself now, do not spoil your life.’ Thus, they will see life as only eating, drinking, and resting, constantly making their choices in favor of worldly ease and comfort.” The belief that on a particular day all humans will be held accountable before God for their actions in this life helps to support and protect the social dynamics of society. Success in the afterlife depends on remembering that one day we will be held responsible for every single deed of our earthly life.

Social dynamics and problems related to online gaming have been discussed widely in academic arenas. The large amount of time, money and resources spent on these games, as well as the associated social and behavioral problems, and loss of productivity are only some of the issues that come to mind. Scholarly articles on ethical issues of life in virtual worlds [6] have increased lately, and many topics are broached, including matters of privacy, monitoring and eavesdropping, the fear of exploitation, identity theft, the ethical impact of aesthetic decisions, values and ethics that are manifested in the social processes and their relevance to activities, professional ethics, standards of integrity, given identity issues and practices, malevolence and altruism, legal and ethical doctrines of confidential and privileged information, ethics for students and instructors, ethical development stages and issues, vandalism, harassment and crime.

Are we living our lives to the fullest? Everyone has the opportunity to choose how they live in this world. If this time is not well spent, that is, acting as if there is no responsibility or judgment for every action, what would be the difference between people living in this world as if it is a game, and those playing their lives away in these online worlds? The Holy Qur’an says: “This life of the world is but a pastime and a game, but the home of the Hereafter, that is Life if they but knew” [7]. Some people prefer their online lives to real life, and unfortunately many others are not aware that their actions evince their preference for the real life over the afterlife.

The movie Matrix has a similar story. The Matrix is a virtual world for people whose bodies are connected to the Machines, which use the bioelectricity and thermal energy of humans as their energy supply. Humans live out their lives in this virtual reality that resembles the 21st century without knowing that they are in a simulation. In the movie, a group of free humans attempts to rescue (unplug) others from the Matrix. The main challenge here is to make others believe that there is another life which is more real or important than the one they are living. In fact, as human beings we are all confronted with the same challenge. Either we gain an understanding of the meaning of our existence in the world and live accordingly, or we are enslaved by worldly ease and comfort, immediate pleasures and delights.

I would like to end with a point the Gulen made on happiness: “It seems that until human beings come to realize their essence, it will not be possible for them to put their affairs in order or to attain the happiness they long for. And this is particularly so if they are trying to suppress their spiritual appetite through luxury, comfort, and seeking to satisfy their physical pleasures because they are unable to realize their real problems.”

Acknowledgment: This article has been produced at MERGEOUS [8], an online article and project development service for authors and publishers dedicated to the advancement of technologies in the merging realm of science and religion.

Halil I. Demir is postdoctoral scholar in the area of Informatics, and lives in Iowa.

References

[1] Yee, N. “The demographics, motivations, and derived experiences of users of massively-multiuser online graphical environments.” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 15:309–329.

[2] Wikipedia, Linden Dolar, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linden_dollar

[3] Delwiche, A. (2006). “Massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) in the new media classroom.” Educational Technology & Society, 9 (3), 160-172.

[4] Anselmo, D., 08/01/2007, “A ‘Second’ Way to Save Souls” (churchsolutionsmag.com).

[5] Gulen, M. Fethullah, “Days of Depression and Our Atlas of Hope,” The Fountain Magazine, Issue 67, 2009.

[6] Emerging Ethical Issues of Life in Virtual Worlds, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, June 15, 2009.

[7] The Holy Quran (29:64).

[8] Mergeous, http://www.mergeous.com

The nineteenth century, particularly towards the end, was a period that was intensively preoccupied with human-centered theories and movements that would be implemented later in the twentieth century. When focusing on the theory of crime developed by Raskolnikov, the protagonist in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment, it is possible to see the traces of a variety of philosophical or criminal theory approaches that were developed in this era.

The most well-known of such views was that of Karl Marx (1818-1883), which advocated a completely new and revolutionary world order based on economic equality. Because he held the view that all human behavior was determined by social conditions, Marx maintained that it was social circumstances which were responsible for the crime, not the individual. In fact, Marx did not recognize crime as such. Crime to Marx is a responsibility which a society that has been established on unjust grounds has burdened the victimized individual with. It is Mark’s primary assertion that the only possible way to break free from such chaos is a revolution aimed at establishing a Communist order, which would in turn lead to the construction of a society based on social and economic equality.

It is possible to see significant traces of what Marx describes as a society of injustice in Raskolnikov’s crime theory. In the novel, Raskolnikov is a poor student who murders an old woman pawnbroker. The principle factor pushing Raskolnikov to commit the crime is anger at the social circumstances that surrounded him, such as his own poor economic conditions and that of his family, the huge economic imbalance within society and the atrocious tyranny over others of those who have economic power – like his landlord. As such, similar to Marx, Raskolnikov does not consider the crime he is about to commit a crime. For Raskolnikov, the theory is much more than revenge taken on an unjust society, it is a reform carried out on behalf of society. Raskolnikov envisions hundreds of people being saved with the money he will get from the old woman after he has killed her.

Marx was not the only one whose ideas had an influence on those represented by Raskolnikov. For Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) the theory of crime is relevant to psychological influences; childhood, social pressure and values all have an influence on the individual. It is possible to recapitulate Freud’s approach to crime as, man commits the crime, but he is not the criminal. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) developed Freud’s human analyses within his own nihilist philosophy and had the greatest impact on Raskolnikov’s theory of crime.

Before moving on, let us clarify exactly what Nihilism is. It is, in Nietzsche’s own words, “the self devaluation of the highest of values.”¹ In other words, the old Christian ethical worldview is no longer welcome. Nietzsche describes this situation through the famous statement “God is dead.” It is important to point out here that this statement was not made against religion or God per se, but against their corrupted forms. Along these lines, Nietzsche states in The Anti-Christ:

“What sets us apart is not our rejection to recognize God behind history or nature; but our inability to see he who is revered as God to be like God.”

Collapse of the belief in an Absolute Being, which Dostoyevsky considers to be the worst disaster in the history of mankind, consequently eliminates the belief in a real world. This leaves the human being with two alternatives. One is the hopeless and depressive state that is caused by the thought life has no meaning, all is in vain; the other, in the words of a hero in another of Dostoyevsky’s works, is “if there is no God, then God is I”²; or, in other words, Nietzsche’s notion of “Now, I’ve got the power.”

Regarding power as being essential to life, Nietzsche defines power to be “holding a view independent of all other judgments and limitations.”³ His solution to the chaos that is brought forth by the idea of an absence of God can be realized only through the new superior man, who Nietzsche states has the ability to exist beyond the norms of good and evil.

It can be said that it was this desire to become a superior man that resulted in Raskolnikov’s theory of crime. It is possible to see this will in Raskolnikov’s article in which he divides people into two groups; those who join the herd and the heroes. Instead of the first group, whom Raskolnikov designates as victims, he prefers to be affiliated with the second group, whom he groups under the name of Napoleon. A theme even in the poems of Pushkin and Lermantov, Napoleon, the personification of the man for whom nothing is impossible, symbolizes the will to do anything for the sake of one’s ideals for Raskolnikov. This will necessitate the overthrowing of the old value system that states “thou shalt not kill” and the establishment of a system of new values. In this new order, “there is no such thing as ethical phenomenon. There exist only ethical interpretations of phenomena.”⁴ And beyond this is the idea that, “the worst of vices is necessary for the best of virtues,”⁵ amounting to the fact that crime is henceforth licit. This is why we can say that it was the determination to become a Napoleon or a super man that formed Raskolnikov’s crime theory, for he justifies the crime on the grounds of an ideal – the eradication of vice.

Up until this point, the theories of Marx, Freud, or Nietzsche would not consider Raskolnikov’s murder to be a crime. It is the author himself who regards the murder as a crime, because for Dostoyevski, crime is a sin, it is a departure from God. In the novel, Dostoyevsky reveals Raskolnikov to be someone mentally tormented by his crime, so much so, that he finally confesses to it. As a solution, Dostoyevsky prescribes the repair of the human soul, which in a society where all the boundaries between vice and virtue have been eliminated Dostoevsky considers to be possible only through a return to the Absolute Being. For him, to believe that there is an immortality of the soul and that there is a God who takes care of human beings is necessary if one is to attain happiness and to create a moral life.

Notes

1. Nietzsche, Friedrich, The Will To Power, translation by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random House, 1967.
2. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, translation by Richard Pevear, Larissa Volokhonsky. North Point Press.1990.
3. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti Christ, translation by H.L. Mencken, 1920.
4. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good And Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, translation by Walter Kauffman. New York: Random House, 1966.
5. Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, translation by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random House, 1995

With the full extent of its use not being understood at the time of its establishment, the project emerged mainly with the pharmaceutical mission to predict, detect, treat, and cure diseases that were caused by genetic anomalies by identifying the genetic information in the human organism.

The desire for such a project was something akin to, or even beyond, the desire to climb Mount Everest, for it aimed to find out something that was unknown at the time. In such fields of biology as cell biology, immunology, and neurology the specialists need genetic information from human organism. The genetic information that an individual organism inherits from its parents can open a door to answer the questions of how an individual develops, how long an individual will live, or how the various species on Earth have lived over many generations.

New developments followed one upon another with the emergence of the Human Genome Project. When the famous Scottish sheep, Dolly, was cloned in 1997, it still seemed to be theoretically impossible to clone a human being. American scientists cloned an ape named Tetra which shared 98 per cent of the same genetic information as human beings. Soon after this, the scientists began to suggest that that all that remained to be cloned was humans.

Dr. Richard Nicholson, the editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, noted that there is no danger in cloning humans, as long as the techniques of doing so are kept under control. If a dictator, however, were to get hold of this information, they would be able to produce an army of genotypically identical soldiers.

The most exciting scientific study of recent years of the Genome Project is that it is trying to develop a complete gene map of an individual organism. According to scientists, a human body has between thirty thousand and fifty thousand genes. All genetic features identifying an individual are found in the gene sequences of the DNA molecules. Eye color, character traits, IQ, and all the illnesses a person may possibly develop are all hidden in the genes. The genome carries all the hereditary features that determine all of life’s diversity, determining whether an organism is human or another species, or ape; all living things have their own genomes. The human genome, which is the full complement of genetic material, and which resembles large tablets recording the history of ancient civilizations, is distributed among 23 sets of chromosomes. It is comprised of approximately three billion letters and is the biological record of our destiny.

Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues

In H. G. Wells’ classic novel The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896), Dr. Moreau conducts hybrid experiments on animals that result in twisted masses of flesh, half-man, half-animal. When the European Patent Office allowed the Australian company Amrad to obtain new embryos by combining human and animal cells, this led to a revival of genetic fears, more than a hundred years after the story of Dr Moreau was published. Not surprisingly, this event alarmed several civilian organizations, including Greenpeace. In a press statement made in Hamburg, Greenpeace drew attention to the fact that we might face “dangerous creatures” in the future that would be created from such techniques. Probably one of the most disturbing facts was that the patent did not disclose how these creatures were to be used. Greenpeace voiced opposition to this for the following reason: “A patent grants its owner the exclusive control over his/her invention. Therefore, patents on life fundamentally change our perception and understanding of living nature and our relationship towards it. Living organisms, which have been ‘created’ by industry and which can be patented cannot have a value of their own, since they are only considered an invention of human beings. Thus they can be exploited without any ethical concerns.”

According to the patent, the embryonic stem cells derived from humans, mice, birds, sheep, pigs, cattle, goats, or fish could be used. The patent covers a “method of producing a non-human chimeric animal” by mixing human and animal embryonic cells: human stem cells are integrated into animal embryos. As a result, the created chimeras are non-human, but they may contain human organs, body parts, nerve cells, and even human genetic codes.

Experts state that the system of producing chimeras is completely different from that of cloning and they drew attention to the risks involved. For example, a virus like the one that caused mad-cow disease could easily pass from one species to another.

The Media Joins the Issue

Thanks to the great interest people have shown in the future of genetic studies, we frequently come across news reports that deal with the topic. However, we would like to note that titles like “the homosexuality gene has been found” or “genetic solution to talkativeness discovered” infuriate genetic scientists. Dr Arnold Munnich says that media aims to raise interest by misinforming the public with subjects like “obesity gene” or “laziness gene”; they merely oversimplify the issue. Dr Munnich emphasizes that a gene means nothing by itself.

The Danger of Abuse

The researches who have worked toward improving gene technology have performed some good for humanity; this is without a doubt. However, there is the risk of abuse. The discoveries in this field may be worth a great deal financially; when we add the rivalry between companies and countries, it seems highly likely that legal bans and ethical rules will be ignored. Some people even object to all kinds of genetic research, not only their abuse. They say that the abuse of seemingly useful genetic technology practices in the future is possible, as has happened in other fields of technology; nuclear researches and laser technology also used to be innocent studies at the very beginning. But we cannot object to the use of electricity just because it is also used for executing people with electric chairs.

Governments and international organizations are quite sensitive to ensure that gene technology will only be used for the good of humanity. There are several international organizations interested in the ethical dimension of the issue. There are certain rules and regulations that establish the fundamental principles that will prevent the abuse of genetic studies, and protect the biodiversity and ecological balance. It is forbidden to carry out research on human cloning and altering human embryos. In the past, dictators like Adolf Hitler attempted to abuse gene technology in this respect. The ruthless Dr Joseph Mengele tried to clone his Fuhrer from the epitel cells he took from him.

Will Confidentiality be Respected?

Another concern brought about by new diagnosis methods and tests is that the principle of patient confidentiality, which has existed for centuries like a secret agreement between doctors and their patients, has begun to be debated, even violated. We usually talk about such “confidentiality” when the information is likely to be harmful for the patient if publicized. From this perspective, the results obtained by genetic tests can be evaluated as such. It is one of the duties of doctors to maintain patient confidentiality. On the other hand, if the relevant data is also likely to harm society, the hospital staff, and those around the patient, then the doctor can face a dilemma.

Some of the possible problems that may be faced due to the mapping of human genome will be that employers could be provided with forehand knowledge about the potential genetic diseases of applicants; they may know whether the person to be employed will be a future financial burden to the company if they carry such genetic risks as cancer or Parkinson’s. In this way new standards of employment will be developed. Even though systematical public surveys do not indicate any significant dangers at hand, it would be nearly impossible to stop rumors. Several people may be denied insurance if they have the genes for a fatal disease. Another may be dismissed from their job for the same reason. In the USA, it is illegal in 39 states to issue insurance policies according to genetic test results, and it is also illegal in 15 states to expel employees according to these. However, employers and insurance agents take advantage of the gaps in relevant laws and they secretly make use of genetic tests. According to research carried out in 1999, 30% of medium-sized or small businesses use such tests to promote and dismiss their employees.

Psychologically, it does not seem likely that people would consent to their status being determined by genetic tests. Would you really like to face your genetic disadvantages? A survey made with cooperation of Time magazine and CNN revealed that half of the participants did not want to know.

The Fate of an Unborn Baby

Deciphering the book of life unfortunately brings along ethical problems. The discovery of our genetic codes can also lead to other humans controlling the future of the human race. The critical question is “Can scientists produce human beings with the desired physical and mental qualities?” If so, genomic science may enable biologists to prepare a list of spare parts, parents may “order” a baby, and as altering our children or ourselves gets easier, we may be less tolerant against those who have not been altered. Lori Andrews of Kent University wonders if we were to be informed of mental defects, obesity, shortness or other undesired characteristics beforehand, whether the parents of those babies would still allow them to be born into a society that scorns such qualities. Even now, it is not uncommon to see some doctors and nurses criticize the parents of babies who are born with pre-detectable defects. If we assume that all parents have “ordered” babies, God knows what kind of a world we will have.

What Should the Aim of Such Practices Be?

Genetic studies should aim to prevent or treat illnesses, not to “enhance” genes. The opportunities offered by genetics should not be a mass elimination medium used by employers or a mechanism of spotting potential criminals in the hands of oppressive regimes. The Almighty One Who has been running the order of our universe so perfectly has granted us some keys to its mysteries. Why should we not do our best and use them for the good of humanity?

References

• Sasson, A., Biotechnologies in Developing Countries: Present end Future, UNESCO Publishing, Paris: 1993.
• McKusick, V.A., “First South-North Human Genome Conference”, Genomics 14, 1121-1123 (1992).
• Barnhart, B. J., “The department of energy (DOE) human genome initiative,” Genomics 5: 657-60,(1989).
• Ferguson-Smith, M. A., “European Approach to the Gene Project,” The Taseb J. 5:61-5 (1991).
• Malakoff, D., Service, R.F., Science, 16 Feb. 2001.
• Dulbecco, R., “The Italian genome project,” Genomics 9:404-5, (1991).
• McKusick, V. A., “Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome,” J. Med. 320:910-15, New England: 1989.
• Murray, R.K. et al, Harper’s Biochemistry, Appleton & Lange, 1993.
• Neyzi, O., Ertugrul, T., Pediatri, Nobel T›p Kitabevi, Vol. II, Istanbul: 1993.
• Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, International Edition.
• Nature Medicine, Vol. 7, No.4, Apr. 2001.
• Science, No.290, 1 Dec. 2000.
• Nature Reviews, Genetics, Jan. 2001.

Honesty, defined as honor gained by action or conduct, is an inevitable part of our private and public life. But its implications for public life in a democracy are far more important. We can do a better job of passing on a sense of the value of honesty, integrity, and personal responsibility to the next generation in a democratic society. Teddy Roosevelt, while governor of New York, said: Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest we have no right to keep him in public life. No man who is corrupt, no man who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty by the community.(1)

It is not an easy task to resolve the problem of honesty in democratic governance. To the extent that knowledge gives power, to that extent do lies affect the distribution of power; they add to that of the liar, and diminish that of the deceived, altering his choices at different levels.(2) Bok, a writer and philosopher currently serving as a distinguished fellow at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, explains the importance of honesty in public life by emphasizing how lying harms social trust:

The importance of honesty in public life is as follows. Lying and deception clearly do not affect only isolated individuals. As lies spread “ by imitation, or in retaliation, or forestall suspected deception “ social trust is damaged. Yet trust is a social good to be protected just as much as the air we breathe or the water we drink. Social goods are non-excludable, individuals cannot be prevented from sharing them, and they are available for the public to enjoy. Examples include the lighthouse, peace and security, and law and order. When social trust is damaged, the community as a whole suffers; and when it is destroyed, societies falter and collapse.(3)

In the public sphere, lying or the suspicion of lying has an added consequence: the proliferation of bureaucracy and regulation.

Gutmann and Thompson see deception, the action of deceiving or cheating, as closely related to secrecy and confidentiality. They consider the following factors in which citizens can permit public officials to engage in deception: the importance of the deception’s goal; the availability of alternative goal-achieving means; who will be deceived (other officials, other governments, all citizens); accountability (the possibility of approving deception in advance or discovering it later); and containing the deception (its effects on other actions by officials).(4)

Requirements of honesty

The principle of honesty, when applied to public policy and administration, has several requirements. The first one is the obligation to avoid lying. The Iran-Contra affair and other cases raised the perennial question of whether official lies should be permitted for the public good. When John M. Poindexter, President Reagan’s national security advisor, was accused by Congress of an unapologetic embrace of truth, he replied that he had acted in what he thought were the country’s long-term interests. Even those who disagree with Poindexter’s judgment acknowledge that certain situations warrant deception. But was this particular situation exceptional enough to warrant it?

The second requirement is being truthful when presenting information to superiors and the public. For example, a public official cannot make exaggerated claims (or vice versa) about what a proposed program will do in order to generate enthusiasm for it.

The third requirement is respecting other people’s ability to gather and present accurate information relevant to public policy. In other words, honesty requires that an official does not try to prevent or suppress studies that challenge his or her view. Deception involves intentionally (or negligently) causing someone to believe something that the deceiver knows (or should know) to be false. Political deception is not always easy to recognize, because it seldom comes in the form of an outright lie.(5)

The fourth requirement is to keep the public well-informed. This cannot be overemphasized, for an informed public is an essential ingredient of democracy. Yet in practice, some officials (e.g., the president, mayor, policy makers, or military people) have found an easy justification for both secrecy and deception. They believe that ordinary citizens, even sometimes other government officials, cannot understand such complex problems as military operations, international security and national defense issues, and other such matters. The people’s apparent inability to do so gives public officials a kind of right to deception. Since average citizens cannot possibly know the whole truth about specialized subjects, lying to them is permissible “ provided that there are some good reasons. Sometimes, government officials use the same ethic when they decide not to inform citizens of government involvement in various complex issues.

Conclusion

In a democratic society, these reasons cannot be used to justify giving anybody permission to deceive whenever they consider it necessary. The social good and public interest should not be used as excuses for deception; rather, they must be a reason for honesty. The ethical education of public officials, public awareness, open and transparent public administration, clear rules, policies, and regulations might ease the job of public officials in terms of ethical dilemmas. Such practices also might help them by providing consistency in decision-making, understanding the values reflected by that decision, and reaching more reflective judgments. Findings reported in several analytical studies indicate that ethics education is making a difference. We cannot afford, intentionally or unintentionally, to be a partner in producing a new generation of leaders who are ethically illiterate and morally misguided.

Footnotes

1. Theodore Roosevelt, The Eighth and Ninth Commandments in Politics, Outlook (12 May 1900). Online at: www.bartleby.com/58/7.html
2. Sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Pantheon, 1978), 20.
3. Ibid.
4. A. Gutmann and D. F. Thompson, Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1998), 48.
5. Ibid.

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.

It is important to state from the outset that despite the plurality of reasoning and judicial formulations based on independent research and interpretation of normative legal sources in Islamic tradition, there is a consensus of juridical-ethical opinions among Muslim religious experts on human cloning. The majority of Muslims in North America are Sunnis. Sunni Muslims follow one of the four officially recognized Sunni legal rites.3 The Shi’ites form a minority in North America.4 And even though scholars differ in their method of reasoning, they are in agreement with their Sunni colleagues in flashing the red light on human cloning.

In the wake of the latest success in animal cloning, prominent scholars representing Sunni centers of religious learning in the Middle East, have expressed a collective opinion on cloning. The official Sunni position in this country5 states that the Arabic term used for this technology in the legal as well as journalistic literature is istinsakh, ‘copying’. This interpretation is not very different from the fictional cloning portrayed In His Image: The Cloning of Man by David Rorvik in the late 1970s, when cloning by nuclear transplantation was the topic of the day in North America. The popular perception that human copies can be produced at will led the leading Mufti of Egypt, Dr Nasr Farid Wasil in Cairo, to emphatically declare his position on the subject. Dr. Wasil declared that possible human or ‘copying’ is both an act of disbelief and immoral. Hence, cloning should be regulated by the government.6 However, this position is disputed by another leading Egyptian legist Yusuf al-Qaradawi who, when asked if cloning was interference in the creation of God, or a challenge to God’s will, replied in no uncertain terms:

Oh no, no one can challenge or oppose God’s will. Hence, if the matter is achieved then it is certainly under the will of God. Nothing can be created without God’s will creating it. As long as people continue to do so, it is the will of God. Actually, we do not search for the question whether it is in accord with the will of God. Our search is whether the matter is licit or not.7

Although the issue of cloning technology has not been given much serious consideration in Muslim discussions of cellular nuclear transplantation, there is much concern with the anticipated biological and social effects of cloning on the underlying Islamic ethical framework and social fabric. For instance, al-Qaradawi raises a fundamental question about the impact of this technology on human life:

Would such a process create disorder in human life when human beings with their subjective opinions and caprices interfere in God’s created nature on which He has created people and has founded their life on it? It is only then that we can assess the human being, that is, to copy numerous faces of a person as if they were carbon copies of each other.8

The fundamental ethical question, as al-Qaradawi indicates, is whether this procedure interferes with growing up in a family that is founded upon the institutions of fatherhood and motherhood. It is in a family that the child is nurtured to become a person. In addition, al- Qaradawi says, since God has placed in each man and woman an instinct to produce this individual in the family, would there be a need for marriage if an individual could be created by cloning? Such a procedure may even lead to a male in no need of a female. Although al- Qaradawi does not state this, biologically speaking, the male may become superfluous (but not the female, since both her egg and womb will be needed).

The other point raised by al-Qaradawi against cloning is based on the Qur’anic notion that variations among peoples are a sign from God who created human beings in different forms and colors, just as He created them distinct from other animals. This variety reflects the richness of life. Resemblance’s resulting from “copying” might lead to a situation where spouses were unable to recognize their partners. This “misunderstanding” would clearly have serious social and ethical consequences. From the point of view of health, one could also presume that people would then be affected by the same virus. However, al-Qaradawi maintains that the technology can be used to overcome certain hereditary diseases, such as infertility, as long as it does not lead to abuse in other areas.9

The Shi’I scholarly position, on the other hand, appears to treat the term ‘clone’ more in its broad scientific sense of making identical copies of molecules, cells, tissues, and even animals involving somatic cell nuclear transplant. In fact, besides the therapeutic use in the hospitals, the technology has been in use in the area of husbandry and agriculture throughout the Islamic world. Hence, Islamic tradition takes the position of endorsing the applications of the technology as long as it provides practical benefit in terms of improved human life. When it comes to cloning human beings, however, the Shari’a-Islamic Jurisprudence-requires that the best interest of prospective parents and their future children be taken into consideration.10

ISLAM AND TECHNOLOGICALLY ASSISTED REPRODUCTION Although since the 1970s, ethical issues associated with assisted reproductive technologies (such as in vitro fertilization) have been dealt with extensively by Muslim jurists, human cloning remains to be discussed in detail. The facts about it are still emerging. With the prospect of understanding cloning better while, understanding impact it could have on how Muslims conceive of human life and subsequently their destiny, it is reasonable to expect revision in the ethnical and legal assessment of these experiments among the scholars of Shari’a, the Scared Law of Islam. Given the success rate of embryo duplication in a number of animal species, reproductive specialists seem to be confident that the technique will improve the success rates of assisted reproductive technology in humans. Accordingly, the legality of human embryo duplication by splitting has been accepted by Muslim jurists as a replication of natural twinning through legitimate scientific means.

Let me proceed to summarize the theological-ethical-legal dimensions of the issues associated with cloning in Islam have been explored with due attention to the possible differences in the interpretation of the scriptural sources for these rulings among the Sunni and the Shi’I legists.

THE THEOLOGICAL DIMENSION OF THE ISSUE

I want to begin with the teachings of the Qur’an, and see if there is any room for human intervention in the workings of nature associated with reproduction. In Chapter 23, verse 12-14, we read:

We created (khalaqna) man of an extraction of clay, then we set him, a drop in a safe lodging, then We created of the drop a clot, then We created of the clot a tissue, then We created the tissue bones, then we covered the bones in flesh; thereafter We produced it as another creature. So blessed be God, the Best of creators (khaliqin)!

Muslim thinkers have gleaned some important conclusions from this and other passages that describe the development of an embryo to a full human person:

First, creation of a human being is an act of divine will. It is this absolute will that determines the embryonic journey to full human status.

Second, perceivable human life is possible only at the later stage in biological development of the embryo when God says: “Thereafter We produced him as another creature.”12

Third, as the last reference implies, the fetus should be accorded the status of a legal person only at the later stage of its development and not in the earlier stage when it lodges itself in the uterus.

Fourth, because of the silence of the Qur’an over exactly when implantation occurs in the fetus it is possible to make a distinction between a biological and moral person,13 placing the latter stage after, at least, the first trimester of pregnancy.

On the basis of some traditions ascribed to the Prophet Muhammad which describes the stages of embryonic development,14 the majority of Sunni and some Shi’I scholars draw a distinction between the two stages in pregnancy divided by the end of the fourth month (120 days). However, these traditions, admitted as documentation for such a distinction, are not universally adapted even by Sunni scholars. The majority of the Shi’I and some Sunni legists have exercised caution in making such a distinction because, as they argue, these traditions do not speak about the enrollment of the fetus at all. They simply mention the stage when an angel is sent to the fetus. Hence, they regard the embryo at all stages as alive, and its eradication as a sin.

The Qur’an and the traditions provide no universally accepted definition of the term ‘embryo’ with which we are concerned in our deliberations about cloning.15 Nor do these two foundational sources of the Shari’a lend themselves to distinctions among the detailed modern biological data about the beginning of life from the moment of impregnation. A tenable conclusion, derived by rationally inclined interpreters of the verse of the Qur’an cited above, suggest that as participants in the act of creating with God (God being the only one who can truly create). Human beings can actively engage in furthering the overall well being of humanity by intervening in the works of nature, including the early stages of embryonic development, to improve human health.16

Nevertheless, the Qur’an takes into account the problem of human arrogance which takes the form of rejecting God’s frequent reminders to humanity. The reminders state that God’s immutable laws are dominant in nature, and human beings cannot willfully create “unless God, the Lord of all Being, wills (8:29).” The will of God in the Qur’an has often been interpreted as the processes of nature uninterfered with by human action. Hence, in Islam human management of genes made possible by biotechnical intervention in the early stages of life is regarded as an act of faith in the ultimate will of God as the Giver of all life, as long as such an intervention is undertaken with the purpose of improving the health of the fetus or increasing the chances of fertility for a married couple.

THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF THE ISSUE

At the center of the Islamic ethical debate about cloning, as pointed out by al-Qaradawi and other Muslim scholars, is the question of the ways in which cloning might affect familial relationships and responsibilities. In a plethora of concerns voiced by Paul Ramsey about the social role of parenting and nurturing interpersonal relations’17 Islam regards interpersonal relationships as fundamental to human religious life. The Prophet is reported to have said that religion is made up often parts, of which nine-tenths constitute interhuman relationships, whereas only one-tenth concerns man’s relationship to God. Since the fundamental institution to further these relationships is the family, and since human cloning interferes with the workings of male female relations, Muslim scholars have advised their governments to exercise extreme caution regarding this technology.

Since researchers at the George Washington University Medical Center succeeded in duplicating genetically defective human embryos by blastomere separation in 1993,18 some Muslim thinkers have raised questions about manipulating human embryos in IVF implantation in terms of its impact upon the fundamental relationship between man and woman, and the life giving aspects of spousal relations that culminate in parental love and concern for their offspring. Islam regards the spousal relationship in marriage to be the cornerstone of the prime social institution of the family for the creation of a divinely ordained order. Consequently, Muslim focus on the debate regarding where genetic replication is concerned with moral issues related to the possibility of technologically created incidental relationships that do not require spiritual and moral connection between a man and a woman. Can human intervention through biotechnology jeopardize the very foundation of human community, namely, a religiously and morally regulated spousal and parent child relationships under the laws of God? It is because of this reason that among Muslim scholars the more intricate issues associated with embryo preservation and experimentation have received less attention in these ethical deliberations. Certainly, since the therapeutic uses of cloning in IVF appear as an aid to fertility strictly within the bounds of marriage, both monogamous and polygamous as recognized in the Shari’a, Muslims have little problem with endorsing the technology. The opinions from Sunni and Shi’I scholars studied for this article indicate that there is a unanimity in Islamic rulings on therapeutic uses of cloning, as long as the lineage of the child remains religiously unblemished. In other words, to preserve the integrity of the lineage of a child reproduction must take place within the religiously specified boundaries of a spousal relation.19

Besides the significance attached to the spousal relationship for bearing and nurturing children, another issue in Muslim bioethics is the problem of determining the moral status of the technology itself. In a world dominated by multinational corporations, Muslims, like other people around the globe, do not treat technology as nonmoral. No human action is possible without intention and will. In light of the manipulation of genetic engineering for eugenics in recent history, it is reasonable for the Muslims, like Christians and Jews, to fear political abuse of the reproduction technology through cloning. With its emphasis on spiritual equality; Islam has refused to accord validity to any claims of superiority of one people over the other. The only valid claim to nobility in the Qur’an stems from being god-fearing. From an Islamic standpoint, it is morally and religiously wrong to employ cloning technology for purposes other than therapeutic.

THE LEGAL DIMENSION OF THE ISSUE IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES OF ‘EQUITY’ AND ‘PUBLIC INTEREST

In Islam, although religious, ethical and legal dimensions are interrelated, it is important to underline the legal doctrines that bear upon the decisions made by Muslim legal scholars in endorsing or prohibiting cloning. Without adequate legal reasoning based upon careful interpretation of the Qur’an and the traditions, in addition to certain rationally derived principles and rules, no Muslin legist can issue judicial decisions on the subject. In connection with embryo cloning the legists invoked the two fundamental principles of ‘equity'(istihsan) and ‘public interest’ (maslaha) to furnish a religious basis for their legal decisions. These two principles function as complementary procedures to derive rules that can be applied to formulate new decisions outside the strict letter of law. Since the subject of technologically assisted reproduction has no precedent in the classical juridical tradition, Muslim legists depend heavily on the scientific information supplied by researchers to deduce their judicial decisions. In addition, there are three major subsidiary principles or rules applied to resolve ethical dilemmas and derive judgments related to all bioethical issues, including cloning: (1) ‘protection against distress and constriction’ (‘usrwa haraj); (2) ‘the necessity to refrain from causing harm to oneself and others’ (la darar wa la dirar), (3) ‘the rule that averting causes of corruption has precedence over bringing about benefit’ (dar’u al-mafasid muqaddam al jalb al-masalih). It is obvious that in light of the limited knowledge that we have about who would be harmed by cloning or whose rights would be violated, Muslim legal rulings are bound to reflect a cautious and even prohibitive attitude beyond treatment of infertility or assessment of genetic or other abnormalities in the embryo prior to implantation. Although the recent breakthrough in mammal cloning provides a unique opportunity to the scientists to fathom the secrets of God’s creation, it also carries with it grave and unprecedented risks. Nevertheless, since we do not will unless God wills, can this breakthrough in cloning be regarded as part of the divine will to afford human kind yet another opportunity for moral training and maturity? The Qur’an seems to suggest that embryo splitting is just that opportunity for our overall maturity as members of the global community under God.

CONCLUSION

The recent opinions expressed by the Grand Mufti of Egypt and other Muslim legists around the world confirm my assessment of the ethical issues associated with cloning. Unanimity has now emerged among Muslim scholars of different legal rites that whereas in Islamic tradition therapeutic uses of cloning and any research to further that goal will receive the endorsement of the major legal schools, the idea of human cloning has been viewed negatively and almost, to use the language of the Mufti of Egypt, “Satanic.” A further consensus among Muslims seems to discourage even research directed towards improvement of human health thorough genetic manipulation because of the rule of prioritization based on the principle of distributive justice. In view of limited resources in the Islamic world and the expensive technology that is needed for research related to cloning, Muslim legists have asked their governments to ban research on cloning at this time. Since technologically assisted reproduction in Islamic tradition is legitimized only within the lawful male female relationship to help alleviate infertility, somatic cell nuclear transplant cloning from adult cells for therapeutic purposes will have to abide by the general criterion set for this technology. In the case of cloning specifically for the purposes of relieving human disease, there is no ethical impediment to stop such research, whose probable benefit outweighs possible harm. I believe that research into human cloning from adult cells in the course of reproductive treatment should be allowed, with necessary regulatory clauses to restrict abuse under penalty. My opinion is based on the principle that ‘averting (and not interdicting) causes of corruption has precedence over bringing about that which has benefit. In our religiously and ethically pluralistic society where there is a search for a universal ethical language that can speak to the adherents of different religious and cultural traditions, Islamic tradition, with its experience in dealing with matters central to human interpersonal relations in diverse cultural settings, can be become an important source for our ethical deliberations dealing with the ideals and realities of human existence. I am deeply concerned, for instance, about the way we shy away from considering the subjective dimensions pertaining to human spiritual and moral awareness in setting our goals for research with human embryos. Our policies on the matter of cloning should be seriously informed from the perspective of corrective as well as distributive justice. From the standpoint of our moral commitment to the principle of distributive justice, it will be hard to justify a heavy investment in embryonic research related to human cloning without addressing some immediate and serious problems of poverty in our own backyard. Moreover, as the leader of the world community, the U.S. has a responsibility to share its material as well as scientific resources with underprivileged nations whose immediate needs do not go beyond treating common diseases like malaria and tuberculosis.

ENDNOTES

1 This chapter is an extended version of the testimony presented before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission in March 1997. At the global level Sunni Muslims from the majority of the Muslim community, almost 80%; whereas Shi’I Muslims form the minority (20%). The two communities are divided on the question of religious authority to which obedience in matters of religious and moral law is required. The Sunni Muslims recognize the learned jurists at the Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt and Shi’I Muslims depend upon their scholars in Iran and Iraq for moral and spiritual guidance. The fundamental difference between the two communities in matters of ethical-legal decisions is marked by the use of intuitive human reason in deriving ethical-legal judgement pertaining to modern biomedical technology. Whereas the Sunni legists tend to assign a significant role to the Tradition informed by concern for ‘public interest’ (maslaha) and ‘equity’ (istihsan), the Shi’I jurist-consults (mujahid) assign intuitive reason a substantial role in finding solutions to the problems raised by technological advancements today. In the North American context also the Sunnis form a majority, whereas the Shi’ites form a minority. However, the actual figures are open to dispute because the number of Iranian Shi’ites who are assimilated in the North American culture remains unaccounted in the census among Muslim communities. The four Sunni legal rites (madhabib) are: Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi’I and Hanbali. Most of the Sunnis belong to the Hanafi madhhab in their religious practice. The Shi’ites form their own madhhab known as the Ja’fari legal rite.

SEE ABOVE, NOTE 2. For various Muslim opinions collected from around the world see: “Religious Perspectives on Human Cloning” by Courtney Campbell Ph.D., Oregon State University, paper commissioned by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. In addition, for specifically Sunni opinions expressed by their leading religious authorities, see: Al-Majalla: The International News Magazine of the Arabs (No.894, 30 March-5 April 1997) and Sayyidati (No 843, 3- 9 May, 1997, pp.62-64). See Al-Ma jalla, No.894, 30 March-5 April, 1997, p.

6 Sayyidat, No.843, p.64 Ibid. p.63 Ibid, p.62-63 The opinions regarding cloning coming out of Lebanon and iron indicate more openness in accepting the technology even adult somatic cell transplant. See Ayatollah Khamenehi, Pizishki dar a’ineh ijtihad (medicine through the Process of Independent Reasoning) (Qumm, 1375/1996); pp.111-112 deal with technologically assisted reproduction. For the Qur’anic exegesis dealing with legal implications, see al-Qurtubi, al-Jami li-ahkam al-Qur’an (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turoth al-Arobi, 1966), vol.12, pp. 6-7. Qurtubi, Jumi, ol. XII, p.6; al-Razi, Fakhr al-Din al-Tafsir al-kabir, al-Muhammed Muhyi al-Din, 32 vols. (Cairo, 1352/1933) vol. XXIII, p.85; al-Tabarsi, Abu Ali al-Fadl b. Hasan (d. 548/1154), Majma al-bayan fi tafsir al-qur’an, 10 vols. (Tehran, 1379-82), vol. VII p.101); al-Tabataba’I, Muhammad Husayn, al-Mizan fi tafsir al-qur’an, 20 vols. (Beirut, 1393- 4/1973-74), vol. XV pp. 20-24. Ayatollah Muhammad H. Bihishti, ‘Rules of Abortion and Sterilization in Islamic Law,” in Islam and Family Planning. The international Planned Parenthood Federation Middle East and North Africa Region (Beirut, 1974), vol. II pp. 416-17, indicates the possibility of such a distinction in the context of considering when abortion can be regarded as murder.

14 These traditions ore recorded in the Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih al-Muslim among the Sunni compilations; and Wasa’il al-shi’a, the Shi’ite compendium of traditions. For valuable insights into these traditions I have depended on the commentaries: Fath al-Bari bi sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Cairo: Al-Matba’a al-Bahiyya al-Misriyya, 1347/1928), vol 11, pp.404-5; Sahih Muslim bi sharh al-Nawawi (Cairo: Al-Matba’a al-Misriyya bil-Azhar, 1349/1930), vol. 16, pp. 190-215.

15 Muammad Na’im Yasin, Abhath fiqhiyya fi qadaya tibbiva mu’asira (Amman: Dar al-Nafa’is, 1416/1996), pp. 9-25, has done extensive research in the Sunni juridical sources to demonstrate the plurality of opinions in determining the beginning of life, and has concluded with mush evidence that the majority of the Muslim scholars do not support the view that moral-legal life begins with conception. For Shi’I views on the subject see: Pasukh bi-su’alha-yi shuma dar barah-I ahkum dar marakiz bihdasht wa darmani (Tehran: Chapkhanah-I Danishgah-I Danishgo-I Ulum-I Pizishki, n.d.); and, Fiqh al-tabib. Compiled by Drs. Mustafa Najafi, Mas’ud Salihi and Mas’ud Firdasi (Tehran: Ministry of Health, n.d.)

16 in particular views expressed by al-Qaradawi and Ayatollah Muhammad Husayn Fadl Allah of Lebanon in support of improving human health regard the advancements in biotechnology as an expression of Divine Will. See the report prepared by Courtney S. Campbell, “Examination of Views of Religious Traditions on Issues of the Cloning of Humans,” where he cites the Lebanese Shi’ite leader’s views.

17 Paul Ramsey, Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control (New Haven, 1970).

18 For details of the experiment and related ethical issues in genetic manipulation, see Andrea L. Bonnicksen, “Ethical and Policy Issues in Human Embryo Twinning,” in Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 4 (1995), pp.268-84.

19 Among the Shi’ite jurists, Ayatollah Khamenehi, Pizishki dar a’ineh ijtihad, p. 117-122 seems to have sanctioned both surrogacy, and sperm and egg donation, without requiring the donor of the sperm and egg donation, without requiring the donor of the sperm to be the husband as required by senior jurists like the late Ayatollah Khomeini and others. This seems to be on error of judgement on Khamenehi’s part. See: Pasukhi bi-su’alha, pp.74-81.

Darwin himself agreed on better adaptation, and increasing complexification, but wholly rejected the idea that the evolutionary progress of organisms had any kind of moral implication. He understood the ‘improvement’ implied in ‘progress through evolution’ in a functional rather than an ethical, moral, or social sense.

Darwinism – Spencerism

By some analogy to its biological counterpart, Social Darwinism argues that the struggle for existence among humans may be expected to yield social progress, just as struggle among human communities does produce evolutionary adaptive results. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), English sociologist and philosopher, was the pioneer of this approach, so much so that Social Darwinism might, in many respects, be better called ‘Social Spencerism’. Spencer was raised in the competitive atmosphere of the Industrial Revolution and remained one of the great champions of laissez-faire economics. It was he who coined the term ‘survival of the fittest’ to describe natural selection, although he was never a convinced Darwinist. He had already accepted a progressive view of human society, and the idea of biological evolution, during the 1850s, before Darwin’s theory became public. For Spencer, Malthus’s ‘law’ of demographic change was the dynamic agent of social development, constantly forcing societies to progress economically in order to escape the pressure of limited resources. At the same time, he was convinced by Lamarck’s arguments for evolution and began to see the possibility of constructing a synthesis that would unite all aspects of natural and human evolution under the same laws.

Social Darwinism and the American Way

Social Darwinism received some of its widest support in the U.S where the laissez-faire economics developed in England and France in the late 18th century was vigorously espoused, and where, after the successful War of Independence, rights of the individual (especially in the form of freedom from government interference) were enthusiastically promoted. The leading Social Darwinist in American academic circles was William Graham Sumner (1840-1910), Professor of political economy and social science at Yale which, under his influence, became a kind of pulpit for Social Darwinism. His ideas were derived chiefly from Spencer. He viewed the capitalist system with great favour because it allowed the free play of the ‘competition of life’. Unlike Spencer, he was very pessimistic and didn’t look forward to a future state of equilibrium. The well-known industrialist and philanthropist, Andrew Carnegie (1 835-191 4), held the view that individualism, private property, the law of accumulation of wealth and the law of competition promoted the highest and best in human achievements. Other businessman liked to see (and present) themselves as successful survivors in the struggle for existence. For example Rockefeller said: ‘The growth of a large business is merely survival of the fittest…’. Interestingly, many rich American industrialists and businessmen found no difficulty in accommodating Christianity to the Darwinian idea of a competitive struggle which ‘necessarily’ eliminated the weaker parties in the struggle.

War of nations and races

It is not surprising that Social Darwinist arguments were readily extended to the conclusion that evolutionary progress of mankind is furthered by inter-racial or inter-national struggles. The theory of evolution could be and was used in justifications of wars for national or racial supremacy. The best known writer in this vein was the German historian Heinrich von Treitschke (1834-1896). In his ‘Politics’, he argued that the weak must perish, and that they perish ‘justly’: ‘The grandeur of history lies in the perpetual conflict of nations, and it is simply foolish to desire the suppression of their rivalry.’

Though Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) never stated explicitly that he was drawing on Darwin’s theory of evolution, we can easily see the Hitlerian doctrine of racial superiority a kind of Darwinism carried to logical extreme of madness. (Darwin himself might have had some racist tendencies. For example, he wrote: ‘The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.’)

Influence on political ideology

Spencerian Social Darwinism reached its peak of influence in 1882, when Spencer visited U.S. for an extensive lecture tour. But that tour also coincided with the beginning of questioning and reaction. Leading the reaction was Lester Frank Ward (1841-1913), a geologist and a professor of sociology. Ward took his stand on the side of nurture in the growing controversy of nature vs. nurture. His thoughts can be described as reformed or liberal Social Darwinism, repudiating the struggle doctrines of the laissez-faire school in favour of emphasis on social improvement through attention to the conditions of the social environment.

Australia, in the period from 1860 to 1885, saw the most frequent advocacy of Spencerian evolutionary ideas. Many Spencerian, Darwinian and Malthusian ideas and slogans were repeated by politicians, businessmen, academics, and journalists, just as in the U.S. But the succeeding period of economic depression dampened the enthusiasm, again as in the U.S., and criticisms began to develop and made themselves felt in the 1880s.

Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, various political and intellectual ideologies were clearly inspired to some degree by Social Darwinism-militarism, colonialism, racism, Nazism. Even socialism and anarchism were influenced by this doctrine. Marx and Engels were much interested in Darwin’s work, and used his theory to underpin their notion of the historical evolution of class struggle.

Essentialism and relativism

The influence of Darwinism on philosophical ideas was considerable and many-sided, but the precise way this influence worked is by no means easy to state in simple terms. Generally, Darwinian theory promoted or assisted the decline of Essentialism and the concomitant rise of relativism in many branches of philosophy. The doctrine of essences, all allegedly ‘ultimate explanations’, was driven out of philosophy. The American school of philosophy called ‘Pragmatism’, developed in the 1870s, was self-consciously influenced by Darwinism, some of its proponents being firm believers. Notably, Chauncy Wright (1830-1875), who, to Darwin’s considerable pleasure, defended the Darwinian theory against the perceptive attacks of some Catholic scholars. Charles Pierce (1839-1914), after his careful study of Darwin’s work, envisaged a kind natural selection process acting on ideas.

Ethics

Darwin himself was one of the first to consider the relationship between ethical theory and evolutionary doctrines, as when he argued that altruism might have had an evolutionary origin. He tried to show how ethical behaviour would have survival value, and thus might become established in human societies. But Darwin didn’t take the further step and say that one might distinguish between right and wrong by considering what had happened during the course of evolution, or where it was going in future. Evolution in itself did not provide an ethical code. Herbert Spencer, however, went beyond Darwin and hinted that this would be a possibility, as he wrote, ‘The conduct to which we apply the name good, is the relatively more evolved conduct, and … bad is the name we apply to conduct which is relatively less evolved.’

Such opinions were countered by T. H. Huxley in his 1893 essay, ‘Evolution and ethics’, saying that one cannot possibly draw any moral or ethical conclusions from a consideration of the course of evolution, evolution and ethics are quite distinct. Although his arguments were quite persuasive, others went on attempting to derive ethical norms from the evolutionary process.

Exclusion of the supernatural

Darwinian theory was purely naturalistic; it made no appeal to entities such as God, divine spirits, hypothetical intellects, final causes, souls or Platonic ideas. By providing an alternative naturalistic explanation of design, Darwin made it seem less necessary to construct a view of the world that invoked some kind of supernatural being. Darwin’s theories therefore gave considerable support to materialist interpretations of the world. The old mind/body dualism of Descartes and his followers would be replaced by a monistic materialism. This attitude proved particularly attractive in Germany, in the writings of the members of so-called ‘Monist League’, the work of the philosopher/biologist, Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) being particularly prominent. Haeckel, once regarded as a progressive liberal opposed to the excesses of arbitrary state power, has (in the light of more recent studies) come to be considered as one of formative influences on German Nazism. The three main strands in his thought were German Romantic Idealism, scientific positivism and materialism, and Darwinism. But Haeckel’s materialism was interestingly different; for him, atoms were endowed with souls.

Also drawing on biological evolution, although less directly, was the philologist and nihilist professor, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), particularly in his poetic-philosophic discourse work Thus Spoke Zarathustra. He believed that by a proper exercise of will, certain men might evolve into a world-elite of ‘Ubermenschen’ or Supermen. Superman would be his own master and might succeed to the rank and authority traditionally associated with God.

Metaphysics

Henri Bergson, a French philosopher, (1859-1941), accorded primacy to spirit and intuition, rather than matter and analysis. Metaphysics was concerned with spirit and intuition, and he sided with the metaphysicians. Bergson’s evolutionism, though all-pervasive in his system, was very different from Darwin’s naturalistic, mechanistic or materialistic doctrine of evolution by natural selection. It is clear that Bergson far transcended the hard ground of Darwinian science and moved on to the lusher fields of speculative metaphysics. In its time, his work Creative Evolution aroused considerable excitement and enthusiasm.

On the subject of metaphysics Darwin himself was somewhat sceptical: ‘To study metaphysics as it has always been studied appears to me to be like puzzling at astronomy without mechanics.’ He felt that one who had explained the (biological) origin of man, who knew what a baboon was, had done more to explain man than Locke.

Religion

Darwinism’s impact on religion can be summarized by saying that it undermined religious beliefs, and was one of the major influences in encouraging agnosticism. Its naturalistic structure opposed the teleological basis of Christianity and other religions. Between 1830 and 1875, we observe an evolution in British society and particularly British scientific society. In 1830s, science as a profession was just beginning, and because of the peculiarities of British higher education there were strong links between science and organized religion. The next forty to fifty years saw those links weaken and break; and evolutionism, particularly Darwinian evolutionism gained the opportunity to be used. Darwin succeeded where Chambers (who proposed a designed evolution) failed, because Darwin had earned respect as a scientist. So for this change in Victorian Britain, the Darwinian Revolution was part cause and part effect.

Conclusion

Evolution, one of the fundamental discoveries and concepts in modern thought, is central to modem biology and to the use of biology in modern society. Without it, genetics, physiology, ecology, and every other aspect of biology would lack coherence. Evolution has also added new perspectives to the discussions on scientific methodology. More dramatic (and famous) has been the theory’s extra-scientific impacts. Evolution has been and probably will remain a doctrine that has consequences for our understanding of the nature of man, and the purpose (or lack of purpose) in his existence. Also, because of its social implications, as in human genetics, evolution is a subject highly charged with emotion, and much of the literature on it suffers from unspoken and often untested assumptions. It is very difficult to discuss the theory with objectivity. Discussion of it tends to spill over to virtually every area of discourse in the humanities and social sciences: Sociology, Economics, Politics, Theology, Philosophy, Psychology, Anthropology, Literature, and Music.

There are many reasons why a developing baby may have congenital problems (Moore, 1989, p.lO8). Exposure to infections and certain drugs (most commonly, alcohol), chromosomal abnormalities and inherited congenital conditions have all been shown to disrupt normal fetal development. In this article we will concentrate on the diagnosis of chromosomal and genetic disorders during pregnancy.

PNT procedures and their interpretation can be extremely intimidating for parents. It is therefore important that tests are done only after a full explanation of the procedures involved and their possible consequences. The aim of PNT is to inform and prepare parents for the birth of an affected infant, so that they can choose between the possible courses of action (Aksoy, 1996). The possibilities will include: (1) in utero treatment; (2) delivery at a special centre for immediate postnatal treatment; and 3) termination of an affected fetus, i.e. abortion.

Over the years, professional standards and laws have evolved which influence the clinical application of PNT and help to tackle many of the complex ethical issues involved. There is little doubt that relatively non-invasive techniques whose primary purpose is to diagnose treatable disorders and then treat them, before or after birth, would be warmly welcomed by all, especially the parents. The fact is, however, that in practice PNT is generally being used to diagnose abnormality and then terminate the life of the unborn babies. The reality is that prenatal diagnosis rarely leads to fetal therapy

In what follows, we will try to explain the range of prenatal tests available and indications for their appropriate use. We will consider some of the technological advances on the horizon in this field of medicine, as well as some of the ethical dilemmas that arise.

Prenatal Diagnostic Tests

Prenatal diagnostic tests can be divided into two types, invasive and non-invasive. Non-invasive tests simply involve a blood sample taken from the pregnant woman or an ultrasound scan. Invasive tests on the other hand are more complicated and involve obtaining a sample of cells or tissue from the developing foetus, either by amniocentesis or chorionic villus biopsy. The samples obtained by invasive tests can be used, specifically to assess the fetal chromosome pattern, to determine if the fetus has a particular genetic mutation, or for a whole range of biochemical assays.

Maternal Blood Sampling. Between 15 and 19 weeks of pregnancy, the pregnant woman attending ante-natal clinic will be offered a blood test. The blood sample will be analysed to assess the level of three proteins, b human chorionic gonadotropin (b HCG), oestriol and a -fetoprotein (a FR). The three levels in combination with the mother’s age can be used to estimate the risk of the baby being affected by a chromosomal problem, especially Down’s syndrome (Wald and Cuckle, 1992, pS63). If the test result indicates a high level of risk, the mother will be offered further tests to assess the status of her baby.

Ultrasound Scan. Ultrasound uses high frequency waves to form a picture as the waves are reflected back by tissues of different density. The developing fetus grows in a liquid filled sac (amnion). As fluid shows black on the scan, this provides a good contrast with the fetal parts allowing high resolution images. Early in the first trimester an ultrasound scan can be used assess the viability of a fetus and to estimate its stage of development. Most women will be offered a formal high resolution scan at between 16 and 19 weeks (Sutton, 1990, pp.20- 1). The images from the scan will be the first time the expectant mothers see the baby. For many, this is a happy event; for the others it could be a very sad event if the scan indicates an abnormality.

Amniocentesis. In this test, done between 15 and 20 weeks of pregnancy (Cohen, 1990, pp.19- 20), a very fine needle is passed through the abdomen under ultrasound guidance, avoiding the fetus, and a sample of amniotic fluid containing fetal cells is withdrawn. The sample is cultured to grow more cells so that the chromosome pattern of the cells can be examined or DNA extracted for genetic analysis. This process can take three weeks, a period of considerable anxiety for the parents. There is also a small risk of miscarriage occurring after an amniocentesis.

Chorionic Villus Sampling. In this test, done in the same way as than amniocentesis but five weeks earlier, a sample of tissue is taken from the developing placental tissue. Both chromosomal and genetic analysis can be performed on this tissue, and the results are available quicker and at an earlier stage of the pregnancy than with amniocentesis. However, there is a higher miscarriage rate following chorionic villus sampling than amniocentesis (Boss, 1994).

Fetal Blood Sampling. Occasionally, when there is concern that a pregnant woman has been exposed to an infection early in her pregnancy, a sample of blood will be taken from the umbilical cord with a very fine needle under ultrasound guidance. This sample is used to assess if the fetus has become infected and at high risk of development problems following the maternal exposure.

New Advances

Advances in prenatal diagnosis have followed rapidly from technological improvements in ultrasound equipment, refinement and experience of current techniques, and the development of new tests. The aim of research in this area is to provide the earliest possible accurate information about the health of the developing baby, and to do so in the way safest for the expectant mothers and their babies. If the information is reassuring, the couple can enjoy the remainder of the pregnancy in the knowledge that everything will progress normally. However, if the result are unfavourable and an abnormality is diagnosed, earlier decisions about potential treatment or termination are possible and so may be less traumatic for those involved.

Fluorescent in situ Hybridisation (FISH). FISH is a technique which uses a specific DNA sequence as a probe to recognise its complementary sequence on a chromosome. The probe has a fluorescent tag attached which lights up when it is attached to the recognised chromosome segment. Recently FISH has been applied to analysis of amniocentesis samples to assess if an extra chromosome 21 is present or not in the cells. Because the amniocentesis cells do not require culturing for this technique the test results can potentially be available sooner than following standard amniocentesis.

Fetal Blood Cells in the Maternal Circulation. At about 6 weeks fetal blood cells can be found in a blood sample taken from a pregnant woman. These cells exists in very small numbers. Recent work has extracted and purified these cells to allow assessment of the fetal chromosome pattern and to determine if the fetus has a specific genetic mutation. Although this technique is very new it has the potential to make the currently used invasive techniques obsolete and will allow very early diagnosis.

Preimplantation Diagnosis. This procedure involves the use of technology developed with in vitro fertilisation (IVF). An oocyte is removed from the woman and brought into contact with spermatozoa from her partner under controlled conditions. One of the spermatozoa effects fertilisation to form a zygote. Following three stages of cell division (this eight-cell stage is termed, the blastocyst), one cell can be removed and used for analysis (Aksoy, 1997a). The DNA sequence of this cell can be determined to identify the presence or absence of a gene mutation that has caused illness in one of the parents. If the cell does not contain the mutation, the blastocyst can be implanted in the womans uterus (womb) to develop into a fetus which is unaffected by the condition that has affected other family members.

Human Genome Project. The aim of the Human Genome Project is to have identified the entire human DNA sequence (genome) by 2005. The extra information generated about specific genes and their association with specific disorders has the potential to expand dramatically the number of genetic tests available to couples with a family history of a genetic condition.

Ethical Issues

It is important to understand the purpose of prenatal diagnosis. It is done to provide parents with information about the health and development of their baby, not to provide them with a reason to have a termination of pregnancy. There are 180,000 terminations performed each year in the United Kingdom, of these 5000 are because of fetal abnormalities diagnosed by prenatal tests. Abortion is a serious problem itself in all regions of the world, developed and developing, and we discussed it in an earlier issue of this magazine (Aksoy 1997b). When prenatal tests reveal that a baby has health problems, parents face a number of difficult questions. Is any treatment available? What are the baby’s chances of survival? What would be the baby’s quality of life if he or she did survive? Some illnesses can be treated during pregnancy and after delivery. One of the main aims of fetal medicine is to develop therapies to treat fetuses and improve the survival. However, some conditions are fatal despite all treatment. In these circumstances couples sometimes take the extremely difficult decision to have a termination of pregnancy

For religious, moral or other reasons many couples opt not to have any tests performed during pregnancy. They feel that even if the results of any test indicated that their baby was affected by a serious condition they should and would continue with the pregnancy. It is important in each situation that the parents’ decisions are respected and supported. The parents need to be given appropriate guidance and counselling rather than be met with disapproval.

In some countries prenatal testing has been extensively used to determine the sex of the baby at an early stage, with the intention of ensuring that only male babies are born (Kusum, 1993). In the United Kingdom, as in many other places, prenatal diagnosis to determine fetal sex is deemed morally unacceptable. It is important that new advances in medicine are paralleled by an informed ethical debate. Prenatal tests should reflect what is appropriate within a society rather than just allowing what is technically feasible. A number of regulatory groups have been formed, including the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), to monitor and regulate new advances in this area.

In sum: prenatal diagnosis is a rapidly expanding area of medicine. New techniques are constantly being developed which are aimed at allowing earlier diagnosis, less invasive methods and, ultimately, treatment. It is important that developments are monitored and regulated to ensure that the techniques available are applied within an ethical framework.

REFERENCES

Aksoy, S. (1996) ‘Prenatal Testing: An Ethical Perspective’, The New Journal of Medicine, 13:2, pp.12-14.

Aksoy, S. (1997) ‘Moral Controversies on Preimplantation Genetic Testing’, paper presented at UNESCO Asian Bioetlncs Conference, Kobc-Japan, November 1997.

Aksoy, S. (1997), ‘Abortion: Mercy or Murder?’, The Fountain, 2:17 pp.32-5.

Atkins, A.F.J. and Hey, EN. (1991) ‘The Northern Regional Fetal Abnormality Survey’, in Drife, jO. and Donnai, D.(cds) Antenatal Diagnosis of Fetal Abnormalities, Springer-Verlag Ltd., London.

Boss, J.A. (1994) ‘First Trimester Prenatal Diagnosis: Earlier is not Necessarily Better’, JME, 20 pp.l46-5l. )

Cohen, L.G. (1990 Before Theýr Týme at Risk, American Association on Mental Retardation, Washington DC.

Kusum (1993) ‘The Use of Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques for Sex Selection: The Indian Scene’, Bioethics, 7: 2/3 pp,149-65.

Moore, K.L. (1989) Before We Are Born: Basic Embryology and Birth Defects, WB. Saunders Comp., Philadelphia.

Sutton, A. (1990) Prenatal Diagnosis: Confronting the Ethical Issues, The Linacre Centre, London.

Wald, NJ. and Cuckle, H.S. (1992) ‘Biochemical Screening’, in Brock, D.J.H., Rodeck, C.H. and Ferguson-Smith, MA.(eds) Prenatal Diagnosis and Screening, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh.