Journal of the
International Society of Bioethics SIBI
Scientific concepts of human
nature and their implications
to bioethics in a Scientific and
Technologically-Altered World
James E. Trosko
Scientific Opinion
Ph.D. in Genetics
Professor, Dept. of Pediatrics/Human Development
Division of Human Genetics, Genetic Toxicology, and Oncology
College of Human Medicine. Michigan State University
United States of America
To try to address the plethora
of ecological, psychosocial and individual moral crises caused by the
proliferation and misuse of scientific
knowledge and technological advances in our culture by examining
each one in isolation of the larger
“global” issues, fails to recognize the
underlying philosophical basis for the
plethora of moral dilemmas we are
witnessing. In essence, it has to be
said that the ecological, cultural and
individual psycho-social problems of
today cannot be ameliorated by recycling pop bottles, training more psychiatrists, imposing traditional philosophical and religious indoctrination
on everyone or arranging “pre-emptive strikes” on tyrants perceived as
abusing human rights. We must attack the cause not the symptoms. The
cause, I propose, resides in our head
in the form of a bankrupt philosophy
of human nature. Moreover, I make
the assumption, as others have,1,2,3
that each individual holds a view of
human nature, which shapes policies
and practices of human intervention,
which, in turn, influence biological
and psycho-social development.
January-June
68
How does one begin to deal with
the challenge of finding a “moral compass” in a world in which individuals
must: “make sense of the senseless”;
do the right thing on a daily basis to
deal with short-term needs while not
understanding the long-term consequences; find a psychological rationale for surviving in one’s cultural
environment which suppresses fundamental human needs; deal with
frightening unknowns created by
new technological advances which
challenge outmoded world views;
not use knowledge and powerful
technologies to deny basic human
needs and rights of individuals ; and
search for some “universal” truths to
assist moral judgments in a pluralistic
world of conflicting religious ethical
values? Try to imagine, if one is a
member of one of the few remaining
primitive tribes, how you could cope
with the changes demanded of you
when you are confronted with new
experiences, choices and challenges
to eons of unchanging traditional
values? How can any one of us, in
a growing population of over 6 billion people, deal with the stresses
Year 2003
Journal of the
International Society of Bioethics SIBI
Scientific concepts of human nature and their implications to bioethics…
“While many within a religious or philosophical
group believe there are moral absolutes, the fact is
that no person can ever know the Absolute Truth”
Scientific Opinion
due to diminishing basic resources
(water, food, fuel/energy, clean air,
clean water, meaningful job opportunities, job security, etc.) with traditional world-views based on views
of human nature that are being challenged by advances in the scientific
understanding of human biology and
of astrophysics which is giving us a
very humble image our place in time
and space.
group, but between all religious
groups, is the fundamental assumption that the “Truth” lies only within
one’s religious world view. To any
religious group that believes that all
religious views share the same human values ignores the fact that those
shared values are more often than
not ignored when dealing with differences in mythological interpretations
of the details of the differences [e.g.,
the interpretation of the Bible during
the Reformation]. In brief, in a pluralistic world of multiple religions, of
a few atheists and even fewer critical
agnostics, the realistic expectations
that, if we could all be educated,
enticed, indoctrinated or forced to
believe in the same religious world
view, there would be a way to solve
these global and individual moral crises. However, both from a theoretical
point of view, as well as a practical
one, this will never come to pass.
As an individual within a certain
ethnic, racial, gender and religious
group, how can we make sense of
that “moral compass”, imposed on
us by being a member of a particular group, when, in fact, there is not
even unanimity within that group, let
alone between groups in our contemporary world? Beset with all kinds
of threatening stresses, whether one
is a member of a few primitive tribes
seeing the age-old traditions being
destroyed by invading technology,
or as a member of the technological global society seeing how the
non-use and misuse of technology is
threatening the global temperature,
water pollution, the nature of the
food we eat, etc., the idea of finding
a moral “solution” to these problems
seems hopeless.
While many within a religious or
philosophical group believe there are
moral absolutes, the fact is that no
person can ever know the “Absolute
Truth”. In addition, whether one
believes in absolute moral truths or
in some kind of relativistic ethical
framework, it is also a fact that human beings are moral agents, acting
in a forever changing world, who
must live with the moral, as well
as physical, biological and psychological, consequences of their moral
acts.
To each member of any religious
group, believing that religious belief
is the well-spring for ones moral values, a factual problem exists, namely
that not only within each religious
January-June
69
Year 2002
Journal of the
International Society of Bioethics SIBI
Scientific concepts of human nature and their implications to bioethics…
“Every ethic is founded in a philosophy of human
nature and every philosophy of human nature
points towards ethical behavior”(James Drane)
F.S.C. Northrop’s analysis of contemporary moral problems comes to
grips with the fundamental issue. In
essence, he states that our problems
are rooted in a view of the humannature relationship which is dualistic
in holding that the means of technological advance can be derived from
nature, but the ends which direct
them, cannot.4
Moreover, James Drane, a contemporary philosopher has stated, “Every
ethic is founded in a philosophy of
human nature and every philosophy
of human nature points towards ethical behavior.”7 If this is true, then the
apparent inability to resolve many of
our contemporary and future medical-moral dilemmas stems from the
fact that our culture lacks a meaningful view of human nature that would
naturally breed humane moral values
to govern our science and technology.
In a pluralistic world, and even within
most countries, pluralistic worldviews
exist. When these different value –generating world views generate political
choices for the goals of their society
and roles that each individual must
play in that society, the stage is set for
the suppression of the human potential of a subpopulation of the society.
Scientific Opinion
This uncoupling of a scientific
view of the way the world “is” (exclusive of science telling us something
of our fundamental nature”), from a
philosophical/theological view of the
way the world “ought to be”, leads to
what might be termed, “the Pontius
Pilate Syndrome”.5 This is exemplified by W. Vogt when he stated:
“The modern medical profession…
continues to believe it has a duty to
keep alive as many people as possible.
In many parts of the world doctors
apply their intelligence to our aspect
of man’s welfare –survival and deny
their moral right to apply it to the
problem as a whole. Through medical care and improved sanitation
they are responsible for millions living more years in increasing misery.
Their refusal to consider their responsibility in these matters does not seem
to them to comprise their intellectual
integrity… They set the stage for disaster; then, like Pilate, they wash their
hands of the consequences.”6
January-June
Leon Eisenberg, a Harvard psychiatrist, emphasizes the important
role culture has in shaping our moral
behavior when he stated:
“The planets will move as they
always have whether we adopt a geocentric or a heliocentric view of the
heavens. It is only the equations we
generate to account for those motions
that will be more or less complex; the
motions of the planets are sublimely
indifferent to our earth-bound astronomy. But the behavior of man is
not independent of the theories of human behavior that men adopt.”8
70
Year 2003
Journal of the
International Society of Bioethics SIBI
Scientific concepts of human nature and their implications to bioethics…
Scientific Opinion
“When we examine the ethical options we have
for moral behavior, we note easily two extreme
positions exemplified by Maoist-China,
on one hand, and by a laissez-faire,
free market capitalistic society,
such as the United States, on the other”
When we examine the ethical
options we have for moral behavior,
we note easily two extreme positions
exemplified by Maoist-China, on one
hand, and by a laissez-faire, “free
market” capitalistic society, such as
the United States, on the other. From
a biological standpoint, a priori-absolute ethics (cultural monism) and
laissez-faire-relativistic ethics (“do
your own thing”) are culturally nonadaptive. Neither one takes into account the realities of human nature.
In one case, society “knows” best
how to meet the basic human needs
of its citizens. This suppresses the individual’s ability to actuate individual
creativity and abilities. On the other
hand, by allowing each individual
to chart his or her own life’s plan
at the total disregard to the social
responsibilities we owe our society,
by seeking our individual needs and
wants, we, in essence, deny them
for all. [After all, human beings are
social animals and cannot develop
or survive as human beings without
other human beings].
down in the way DNA molecules,
biochemical reactions, cell-cell, and
organ to organ communicate can
lead to diseases.9 By analogy, when
parents communicate (transfer positive and negative information, via
language, body language, role modeling, and touch) to their children,
or spouses to their spouses, teachers to students, governments to
their constituents, and nations to
nations, one can achieve “healthy”
human relationships. When that
communication process at the human level is interrupted by deception, secrecy, lies, ignorance and
blind world views (Individuals seeing and hearing what they want to
see or hear), an unhealthy human
relationship is created either at the
human-ecological level, individual
human to human level, or nation to
nation level.
While it might be argued that
to draw any comparison with this
philosophical/political conclusion
and with some well documented,
scientific biological process is folly,
if not dangerous, the fact is, within
the human being, exists a homeostatic, cybernetic feedback system
of positive and negative signals that
helps to maintain health. The break-
“For their moral bases the ‘liberal’
societies of the West still teach—or pay
lip-service to—a disgusting farrago of
Judeo-Christian religiosity, scientific
progressism, belief in the ‘natural’
rights of man, and utilitarian pragmatism.”10
January-June
Jacques Monod, in his Chance
and Necessity, clearly describes what
is wrong in our technological West
when he stated,
From the preceding, I believe it
is clear that our task, although im71
Year 2002
Journal of the
International Society of Bioethics SIBI
Scientific concepts of human nature and their implications to bioethics…
“To build a fresh ethic for the life sciences
is to build a culture” (Daniel Callahan)
mense, if not impossible, is to impart
culturally, scientific-grounded views
of human nature into religious, economic and political institutions, such
that moral values will not be in ignorance of or in defiance of the biological realities of human nature (Bioethics). In essence, this is what Daniel
Callahan of the Hastings Center was
calling for when he stated:
or ignore the nature laws, it will be
the human societies, not the physical universe, which suffer the consequences of such defiance.13
Moreover, John Tonsor was quoted as stating that:
“If we are to act ecumenically let
us begin not with theology but with
ethics. Let us put ethics at the center
of our undergraduate curricula and
stress the ethical implications of all
post-secondary education whether it
is broadly humanistic or narrowly
vocational. If we cannot agree on
how to act there is little hope that
we shall agree on what we are to
believe.”14
“To build a fresh ethic for the life
sciences is to build a culture.”11
Anything short of that will fail.
We should not ignore what John
Dewey once said:
“A culture which permits science
to destroy traditional values but
which distrusts its power to create
new ones is destroying itself.”12
The following models of human
nature are an attempt to provide
such an understanding of ourselves
that specific moral problems will
be resolved in such ways as to
minimize human suffering and to
maximize the generation of human
values which will enhance survival
of the human species, quality of life
of the whole society and the enhancement of the human potential
for each individual13.
Scientific Opinion
At this point, let me stress that I
am not saying that science can determine which values are right or wrong
(so-called “Naturalistic Fallacy”—that
the “ought” can be derived from the
“is”), but that no human values can
be maintained in ignorance or in defiance of the “is”.
Max Otto, a philosopher, pointed
this out nicely when he stated that
the universe is run by natural forces
and laws, not by moral laws. However, human societies that live in
the natural world must live by moral
laws. If those moral laws contradict
January-June
Scientific Views of Human Nature
1.Nature and Nurture Model
Ashley Montagu’s statement accurately describes this model: “He72
Year 2003
Journal of the
International Society of Bioethics SIBI
Scientific concepts of human nature and their implications to bioethics…
Scientific Opinion
“Our biological sciences have clearly and
unequivocally shown that our biological
phenotype is the result of nature and nurture,
not nature versus nurture”
There are those who, while agreeing, with the “scientific” interpretations of these situations, could also
claim that there are “supernatural”
elements that must be integrated with
the scientific facts. In other words,
what has this analysis gained anyone?
In other words, even the scientific
interpretations of the “real world”
are limited and constantly changing.
The only difference of a scientific
interpretation is that it is potentially
self-correcting, whereas, religious interpretations are usually more stable
and more resistant to quick self-correction.
redity, then, is the expression, not of
what is given in one’s genes at conception, but of the reciprocal interaction between the inherited genes and
the environment to which they’ve
been exposed.”15 As a blueprint of
a house is not a real house, nor is
the DNA “blueprint” of a fertilized
human egg a real “human” being. It
is a single living cell that has the potential to be born looking like a human being and then later acting as a
moral agent. The “nature” of human
beings (the unique gene information
of the DNA inherited from the mother and father) must interact with the
“nurture” factors [physical, chemical, dietary, biological, psycho-social
and cultural) to unlock that genetic
potential. Just “looking like a human
baby” is insufficient to be a moral
valuing and functional human being. After all, that which defines us
a “human” is our conscious ability
to recognize self; to be aware of our
pending death or mortality; to be
able to abstract symbols; to be able
to communicate with these symbols;
to manipulate our environment by
converting abstract ideas into things,
and to value the choices of our potential to change the environment
we find ourselves. Is a living ball of
cells, all containing normal human
DNA, formed after conception, a human being? Is a baby born with the
physical appearance of all human
babies, but with only a primitive
brain stem, a human being?
January-June
The concept of “human nature”
has for centuries evoked sterile arguments, primarily in the context
of whether that “nature” is a “blank
slate” to be molded by the physical
and cultural environment or one in
which one’s “nature” is constitutive
as determined by “fate”, or genes.
Our biological sciences have clearly
and unequivocally shown that our
biological phenotype is the result of
nature and nurture, not nature versus
nurture. The current argument exists on the human behavior level. To
what extent does our behavior have
“nature” or genetic components? The
underlying problem appears to touch
on age-old philosophical issue of
“free-will” or of “determinism”.
In the context of our evolutionary-derived brain that leads to human
73
Year 2002
Journal of the
International Society of Bioethics SIBI
Scientific concepts of human nature and their implications to bioethics…
Scientific Opinion
“Genes, alone, do not determine “human
nature”, let alone human choices
and human behavior”
consciousness, the brain is clearly
determined by a nature and nurture interaction. Once consciousness
emerged from that interaction due
the differentiation of various kinds,
number and architectural arrangement of those brain cells, we perceive
we have “free will”. However, when
we make choices, based on that perceived “free will”, our experience,
both consciousness, gained from our
ability to learn and store information,
and unconscious molecular information, based on our biologically-based
brain functions [“That warm feeling
that we are right or that feeling of
fear or hatred that surround our
conscious knowledge”], contribute to
our making our own “ nature”. This
might be, in part, conceptualized by
what Jose Ortega y Gasset said: “Man
has no nature. What he has is… a history.”16 Our life choices, which shape
our “nature”, are a complex interaction of genetic and environmental
interactions. Most of those that shape
our biological phenotype come from
this interaction with the physical and
chemical factors at the DNA, biochemical, cellular, and physiological
levels. Those that shape the behavioral “phenotype” are not as easily
traced because of the complex link
between the genetic contributions to
consciousness and the unknown, to
date, involvement of culture factors
on the conscious and unconscious
influences on our biology. Is there
any doubt that psychosocial/cultural
January-June
stress can influence our physiology (health) or conscious choices?
As Potter has noted, there seems to
be an interplay between two sets
of genes that influences the human
psych, those for the fatal flaw and
those for global bioethics.17, 18
In essence, it appears we have
neither “free will” or are we “ determined” to do what we do, but rather,
we have “self-will.”19
In this day and age of having
sequenced the human genome, the
philosophical claim that human nature is “constitutive” in our genes is
just dead wrong. Genes, alone, do not
determine “human nature”, let alone
human choices and human behavior. The gene or DNA must not only
interact with various environmental
triggers to form a protein product,
but in many, if not most, cases the
individual gene product must interact
with other genes and gene products.
In turn, the individual cell in which
the gene(s) is (are) expressed must
interact with other cells within the
same tissue and other organs. On the
other hand, with our current understanding of human genetics, the environmental factors (physical, chemical, dietary, social/ cultural) do not
act on a “blank slate”. The biology
of a human being, from the single
fertilized egg, developing embryo/
fetus, neonate, adolescent, sexual
mature adult and aging individual,
74
Year 2003
Journal of the
International Society of Bioethics SIBI
Scientific concepts of human nature and their implications to bioethics…
“While most of the individuals of the ethnic,
regional or religious group “look alike
or behave” in a similar fashion, not all do”
als fifth.”21 Any religious view of human nature that isolates the human
being from the forces of the physical,
chemical, biological, psychological
and cultural world has already created a view of human nature that is
bound to generate ethical values that
will either suppress human nature
or jeopardize human survival. Up
until now, the consequences of these
views of human nature, while being
tragic to millions of human beings,
has not eliminated the human species. With the power of modern technologies to make survival-threatening
changes to human existence because
these changes can occur globally,
crossing political boundaries and human generations. Human beings simply cannot escape the consequences
of their individual or collective actions. While the effluence of human
action in the past made local and
transient changes in environment,
only rarely did they lead to the extinction of the following generations.
Today, we, as a world that is using
knowledge and technology, guided
by short-term and non-scientificallyderived values, which have powerful
global and cross-generational, consequences, can jeopardize human
existence. In other words, today, we
can, indeed, suffer the “effluence of
our affluence”. By that, it is meant
that the selfish and short-term individual benefits one might get out of
using technology could come back
and effect our long-term health and
is a unique genetic “sensor” for all
those environmental signals which
“turn-on” or “turn-off” the expression
of the genes of that individual. Given
that no human being (except identical twins) starts with the exact set of
genes and no individual, including
identical twins, ever gets exposed to
the exact set of environmental triggers, is it any wonder that no two
humans will be identical with regard
to either their physical phenotype
or behavioral phenotypes? On the
other hand, the influence of each of
the genetic and environmental facts
can be seen when one stereotypes
the looks of a given ethnic group
or the political values of a certain
regional or religious group. All this
demonstrates is that, while most of
the individuals of the ethnic, regional
or religious group “look alike or behave” in a similar fashion, not all do.
Those “odd” individuals have somehow broken-free from any genetic or
environmental “determinism”. This
suggests these individuals have either
or both different genes and environmental histories.
Scientific Opinion
2. Hierarchical View
of Human Nature20
Here, E. Laszlo, a systems philosopher, describes this model: “First, we
are a collection of natural systems,
living things second, thirdly human
beings, members of a society and
culture fourth, and unique individuJanuary-June
75
Year 2002
Journal of the
International Society of Bioethics SIBI
Scientific concepts of human nature and their implications to bioethics…
“We have modified our environment (physical
and abstract) so radically that we must
now modify ourselves in order to exist
in this new environment” (Norbert Wiener)
survival. One needs only to look at
what the abundance of inexpensive
food and the misuse of the types
of food have done to the current
generation of adults and children of
America.
effects on the human environment.
Today, our human ideological and
technological detritus is long lasting
and not as socially or biologicallydegradable [e.g., religious dogma; the
pesticide DDT; radioactive fallout].
We cannot escape the consequences
of our actions. This is illustrated by
Jose Delgado when he stated:
3. Cybernetic View
of Human Nature22
Scientific Opinion
Norbert Wiener provides us with
the insight for this model: “We have
modified our environment (physical
and abstract) so radically that we
must now modify ourselves in order
to exist in this new environment.”23
Any world view that holds the human beings are resistant to the forces
of nature that cause other living creatures to become extinct and we can
somehow escape the consequences
of our actions, not only biologically,
but socially or culturally, is a world
view that has helped to create the
crises we find ourselves today. Humans have adapted to the changes in
their environment in the past, in part
because those changes are inevitable
and more recently, but more recently
because of human intervention.
“Similarly, it may be humiliating
to find that our personality is formed
by a constellation of elements borrowed from our ancestors and from
our environment, related to stereotyped ideological, behavioral, and
cultural systems, and dependent on a
continuous stream of sensory inputs.
This is also a scientific fact, however,
which we must accept and adapt to.
The concept of individuals as self-sufficient and independent entities is
based on false premises and may be
the origin of our misunderstandings,
frustrations, and failures.”24
To use “absolute” ethical values
from a non-scientific view of human
nature, even though it is well known
to have consequences on the survival
or quality of life of those human beings, and to absolve that moral stance
on the immoral consequences of that
act, creates a crisis in moral hypocrisy. To use scientific knowledge to
control deaths in newborns [Sterile
handling of newborn; use of antibodies, drugs; nutrition; etc], but not to
use knowledge/technology to con-
It has been said, in one form or
another by many, “Men build walls,
but walls build men”. Previous prehuman and early human actions
and their detritus had ecologicallyrepairable and “biologically-degradable” consequences and, with minor
exceptions, did not have long lasting
January-June
76
Year 2003
Journal of the
International Society of Bioethics SIBI
Scientific concepts of human nature and their implications to bioethics…
“Humans, today, do create an image
of the nature of our human nature”
trol births is “immoral”, creates an
imbalance leading to the growth in
population (due to controlling deaths
during child birth). Use of this kind
of scientific knowledge to control
death but not to control birth is the
classic example of the problem that
is being examined.
ria, lower organisms and non-human
primates [which is a scientific fact],
should make it clear that we must
establish a more realistic view in our
symbolic view of human nature that
could help generate more ethical
values for both human survival and a
more equitable quality of life for all.
5. Biocultural-Evolutionary View
of Human Nature27
Scientific Opinion
4. Bio-Symbolic View
of Human Nature25
E. Cassirer’s statement accurately
portrays another aspect of human
nature: “Man is… no longer a physical universe, man lives in a symbolic
(abstract or ideological) universe.”26
Pre-humans, those whose daily “consciousness” was little different that
those of animals [Like a deer caught
in the headlights of a car], were
“trapped” by the immediacy of the
present and not conscious of the
past or not able to create a symbolic
future. Humans, today, do create an
image of the nature of our human
nature. If the symbolic view places
humans above the forces of the
physical, chemical, biological, psycho-social and culture worlds, our
view of human nature will, of course,
help to generate ethical values very
different from those symbolic views
of human nature based in scientific
examination and scientific rigor of
experimental testing. To show that
human DNA can be damaged by
environmental agents, that can cause
mutations known to occur in bacteJanuary-June
H. Horowitz, a molecular biologist, conceptualizes this view in this
way: “For not only is man himself a
part of nature, a naked ape in the
current idiom, but he is a naked ape
in a universe that is decaying to a
homogenized nothingness. Any philosophy of man or any theology that
is not adjusted to this particular loss
of innocence is simply ignoring the
intellectual scientific milieu in which
modern man must function.”28 This
is the bottom line. Can we, as human individuals or as global human
society, conti-nue to ignore the fact
that the disconnect between the use
of powerful scientific knowledge
and technologies and the non-scientific views of human nature will
only continue to exacerbate our current problems and create new moral
dilemmas? Our best hope under this
situation is, at best, “miserable survival”29 for most human beings. Or
as Rene Dubos stated: “Man makes
himself through enlightened choices
that enhance his humanness.”30
77
Year 2002
Journal of the
International Society of Bioethics SIBI
Scientific concepts of human nature and their implications to bioethics…
“We can now, I believe, understand that there is
a philosophical option to ethical monism
and ethical laissez-faire relativism.
And that would be Bioethical pluralism”
ing?” etc., but for the larger, “ deep,
global bioethical “issues31, it is necessary to understand both the nature of
the ethicist and the ethical process.
Classical moral philosophy and moral
theology have basically ignored both
of these critical elements in making
ethical decisions. Within the classical
framework, it was only necessary to
develop an internal consistent logical
framework of ethic principles that
“stand alone” or are independent of
the human being’s process of making
those ethical decisions and the short
and long term consequences of those
decisions. In other words, ethical
principles are seen as absolute and
logical derivatives of first principles.
Pejorative labels are normally given
to those ethical systems that try to
take into account the consequences
of “relativistic” or “consequential“
ethical systems.
Bioethics
Scientific Opinion
With these models of human nature at the focus of our consciousness,
we can now, I believe, understand
that there is a philosophical option
to ethical monism and ethical laissez-faire relativism. And that would
be Bioethical pluralism5. In essence,
it states that science and technology
can contribute to moral resolutions in
these levels: (1) options it provides
human beings for survival beyond
just “miserable survival”; (2) predictions of the consequences of these
options on human survival, the quality of life during that survival; (3)
the understanding of our biological
nature and of the consequences of
the different value choices on the
quality of that survival. It forces us to
explicate our values and it helps us
understand which values maximize
or minimize, in any particular case,
human survival and the quality of
life.
Dr. Van R. Potter, as a cancer
biologist, recognized that human beings are, as are all living creatures,
inextricably linked to their environments and subject to all those same
forces of the natural world that has
led to the evolution or extinction
of biological species.32 He, as others, knew that there were two major
components of making any ethical
decision, namely, the “ factual” component and the “value or ethical “
component. What we determine as
“facts” was, in the West, the purview
of science. Science’s job is to deter-
Before one can try to resolve individual ethical issues, not only those
associated with the narrow view of
“bioethics”, such as: “Ought we clone
human beings from embryonic stem
cells?” “Ought we use human embryonic or adult stem cells for regenerative medicine?”, “Ought genetic engineering be permitted to remedy genetic disorders?”; “Ought the information gained from the human genome
project be used for insurance screenJanuary-June
78
Year 2003
Journal of the
International Society of Bioethics SIBI
Scientific concepts of human nature and their implications to bioethics…
“On the other hand, values are not
determined as “right” or “wrong”, nor can
there be any objective calculus to determine
which ethical value choice
is correct or incorrect”
Scientific Opinion
mine the “is’s” of the natural world,
while philosophers and theologians
were to determine the way the world
“ought” to be. Facts, therefore, are
thought to be “objectively” determined, while the moral “values” must
be intuitively obvious, to be given by
holy writs, or by religious or “spiritual” insight. Facts, as they are determined by the scientific enterprise,
will always be, at best, incomplete
and at worse, dead wrong. Naïve
views of scientific facts were thought
to be “value-free”.
moral values are not independent of
the human making the value choice
or of human experience or “facts”.
Therefore, if there is not a real
mutual-exclusive distinction between
“facts” and “values”, it is philosophically untenable to claim that neither
scientific or philosophical/theological
ways of knowing can claim exclusive
domain of one or the other component of ethical decision-making.
The consequence of this modern way of viewing ethical decision- making is what Dr. Potter was
thinking when he coined the term,
“Bioethics”.33-35 The idea that individuals with knowledge should not
use that knowledge as “shamans” but
to use knowledge to assist in a manner to reduce human suffering and to
maximize a sustainable environment
for all to survive in a manner better
than a “miserable survival mode”.29
His first step outside the realm of his
expertise as a cancer scientist and on
his way to flesh out his “bioethical”
philosophy was when he coined the
phrase, “humility with responsibility”.36 How then can one start to
understand “bioethics” if one can no
longer adhere to the mutual exclusive domains of facts and values, between the “is” and the “ought” or to
a scientism that claims the “oughts”
can be derived from the “is’s”? Dr.
Potter’s view was that if philosophers
and theologians continue to ignore,
if not arrogantly defy, what modern
On the other hand, values are not
determined as “right” or “wrong”, nor
can there be any objective calculus to
determine which ethical value choice
is “correct” or “incorrect”. Do these
ethic values stand-alone from either
the ethicist or from the feedback of
the short or long-term consequences
of the ethical choice? Dr. Potter’s
answer is definitely not. If the “Naturalistic Fallacy” is bankrupt, as is any
“scientism” view of moral values,
namely, that ethic values can be derived from facts, then are we saddled
with the current Western legacy of
the mutual exclusive domains of science and of philosophical/theological thought? Cannot there be some
integration of our ideas of “facts”
and “values”, since philosophers of
science and scientists themselves are
in agreement that all facts are “valueladened”? In addition, at least some
ethical philosophers agree that our
January-June
79
Year 2002
Journal of the
International Society of Bioethics SIBI
Scientific concepts of human nature and their implications to bioethics…
“Dr. Van R. Potter’s thought evolved in time
from a simple, almost naïve concept of
Bioethics, to a more scientifically-grounded
Global Bioethics and then to a more sensitive
way of knowing, Deep Global Bioethics”
Scientific Opinion
science is saying about the oneness
of all human beings [We are at first
all biological creatures; second, we
are all earthlings; third, we are all
social animals with individual genetic
abilities and potentials; fourth, we
are subject to the forces of nature;
and fifth, we are culturally and experientially pluralistic in the way we
live, think and feel], we are, therefore, setting ourselves up for continued human conflicts, human misery
and suffering.
the old adages of: “Them that gots,
gets!” or the classic definition of
the “Golden Rule”: “Them that gots
gold, get to rule!” One of Dr. Potter’s
dreams was to educate Pope John to
the biological nature of the human
species. His view of Pope John’s
enormous platform of influence, of
his charisma, and of his symbolic influence of moral persuasion, was that
the Pope could reduce the misery
and suffering of hundreds of millions
of people by the transformation of
the religious symbols that generated
his moral authority. He felt that this
was the most efficacious manner by
which political, religious, sports and
entertainment idols, to whom millions of individuals used as moral
role models, could help put the
world on a more “global bioethical”
course.
Only by either the total education
of all human beings of these facts of
our universal common biological and
social needs or the re-symbolic transformation of the religious symbols
and philosophical tenets that help
shape the moral behavior of the different pluralist/cultural world views,
can there be hope to bring about a
radical change from the destructive
consequences of traditional philosophical/theological ideologies that
have used powerful scientific facts
and technologies in unethical ways.
With the use of the education option
being almost hopeless to overcome
the unethical use of knowledge and
technology by those who use it for
short-term personal benefit at the
expense of the short and long term
detriment of the other human beings
and of ecological sustainability, can
there be a way to avert this current
state of our “politics”? This current
state of affairs is best described by
January-June
Dr. Van R. Potter’s thought evolved in time from a simple, almost
naïve concept of “Bioethics”, to a
more scientifically-grounded Global
Bioethics37 and then to a more sensitive way of knowing, “Deep Global Bioethics.”31 He understood that,
from a very pragmatic point of view
in a pluralistic world, with people
having different world views born
of different experiences, no manner
of human effort could “convert” a
person from the deep beliefs that
generate their moral values. A true
deep and global bioethical philosophy must take into account the lat80
Year 2003
Journal of the
International Society of Bioethics SIBI
Scientific concepts of human nature and their implications to bioethics…
“Bioethics is not just the ethics of medical
interventions. It is not just the ethics of human
decisions on the environment. It must strive for a
sustainable and stable biosphere, one in which each
individual could find dignity in their station in life”
Scientific Opinion
est scientific view of human nature.
Therefore, if one cannot educate or
coerce a scientific view of human
nature on everyone, how can all the
different religious and philosophical
world- views be made to generate
the same or universal ethical values?
existed or are new because of the
ignorant and unethical misuse of
knowledge and technology, we must
find ethical means to deal with the
world-wide overpopulation issue, the
suffering of billions of people due to
polluted air and water, lack of food,
education and of self-dignity, the
eroding ecosystems needed to sustain both biota and humans, the continued generation of national conflicts, wars, and of terrorism. These
issues dwarf any bioethical issues
due to modern medical science, including “cloning human beings from
stem cells.”38
His solution was to have each
religious mythology integrate into
the ethical-generating symbols scientifically –sound principles of human nature and our relationship to
an ever- changing ecological and
cultural world. It was not a matter
that Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, or
any other religious- value generating
role model, be replaced, but that this
value- generating myth symbol must
be able to evoke “scientific role modeling behavior”, to have the religious
leaders of each religion interpret the
ancient myth stories to provide the
easy to understand concepts that
would allow the believers to share
a universal view of human nature
would be a more pragmatic solution
to our current problems. This is not
to suggest that this is, in itself, an
easy solution to all the crises on the
whole human-biological eco-system.
After all, can one imagine educating the current world religious leaders, current global politicians, current
global economic/cultural "movers
and shakers”?
Bioethics is not just the ethics of
medical interventions. It is not just
the ethics of human decisions on
the environment. It must strive for a
sustainable and stable biosphere29, 39
one in which each individual could
find dignity in their station in life. At
the bedrock bottom, human nature
has both an interacting genetic and
cultural component. Human genetics
makes human consciousness possible. Human consciousness makes
possible an almost infinite number of
cultural environments. These cultural
environments, in turn, shape human
consciousness. However, because the
genetic component of human nature
is rather limited in comparison to the
conscious component, it is imperative
that the cultural manifestations of our
consciousness (which includes our
ethical and moral concepts) take into
Whether the crises we are experiencing are those that have always
January-June
81
Year 2002
Journal of the
International Society of Bioethics SIBI
Scientific concepts of human nature and their implications to bioethics…
“At the bedrock bottom, human nature
has both an interacting genetic
and cultural component”
Scientific Opinion
account the aforementioned realities
of our human nature. Both self-interests and societal interests, rather than
being seen as competitive and mutually exclusive, should be seen as the
reality of our human nature. As it has
been correctly extrapolated from Potter’s view of Bio-ethics, Grinnell et al.
have stated:
equally important moral positions;
neither, however, is comprehensive by
itself.”40
That is because not all of the
cultural manifestations or cultural
environments that we create will
allow humans to adapt and survive
in a manner that will ensure human
dignity and the survival of the human species. Until and unless these
fundamental ideas are integrated into
religious, philosophical and political
ideologies, there will not be a hopeful solution to the current and pending human/ecological crises.
“The opposition between generic
and contextual methodologies resembles Bohr’s distinction between the
spectator and actor. As actor, the
person is at the center of his or her
own story; everyone plays a supporting role. What counts for meaning
evolves from the person’s unique historical context and existential situation. As spectator, on the other hand,
the person is part of other stories, not
just his or her own, and what counts
for meaning evolves from interpersonal relationships. The more generic
the interpersonal context, the more
anonymous each individual person/
story becomes. Actor and spectator
perspectives comprise the yin and
yang of complementarity in bio-ethics… Rather than seeing the opposing
views as points of divergence to be
resolved, policy makers should adopt
these two views of the human situation as data and admit that limited
resources put self-interest and societal
interest into legitimate conflict. From
the perspective of complementarity,
both self-interest and societal interest
are correct, and each accounts for
January-June
–––––––
References
1. P. Rhinelander, Is Man Incomprehensible to
Man?, W. H. Freeman Co., San Francisco,
1974.
2. E. D. Pellegrino, “Medicine, history and the
idea of man”, The Annals Amer. Acad. Political
and Social Science, 346:9-20 (1963).
3. J.E. Trosko, “On making humane human
beings in a ‘garbage in—garbage out’ system”,
Interdisciplina, 1:1-25 (1975).
4. F. S. C. Northrop, The Logic of the Sciences
and the Humanities, The World Publishing Co.,
Cleveland, 1967.
5. J.E. Trosko, “Scientific views of human nature:
Implications for the ethics of technological
intervention”, In: The Culture of Biomedicine,
Associated University Press, Cranbury, New
Jersey. Pp. 70-97, 1984.
6. W. Vogt, Road to Suvival, William Sloane Publishers, New York. Pp. 48, 1948
7. J. Drane, “A philosophy of man and higher
education”, Main Currents in Modern Thought,
29:98-103 (1972).
82
Year 2003
Journal of the
International Society of Bioethics SIBI
25. C. Geertz, “The impact of the concept of
culture on the concept of man”, in New Views
of the Nature of Man, ed. By J. Platt, University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965.
8. L. Eisenberg, “On the humanizing of human
nature”, Impact of Science on Society, 23:213223 (1973).
9. J.E. Trosko, “Hierarchical and cybernetic nature of biological systems and their relevance
to homeostatic adaptation to level level exposures to oxidative stress-inducing agents”.
Environ. Health Perspect., 106: 331-339, 1998.
26.E. Cassirer, An Essay on Man, Doubleday and
Co., New York, 1956.
27. R. Alexander, “The search for an evolutionary
philosophy of man”, Proc. Royal Soc. Vict.,
84:99-120 (1971).
10. J. Monod, Chance and Necessity, Alfred A.
Knopf, Inc., New York, 1971.
28. H. Horowitz,“Biology as a cosmological
science”, Main Currents in Modern Thought,
28:151-157 (1972).
11. D. Callahan, “Living with the new biology”,
The Center Magazine, 5:4-12 (1972).
29. V.R. Potter and L. Potter, “Global bioethics:
Converting sustainable development to global
survival”. Medicine Global Survival 2: 185-191,
1995.
12. J. Dewey, quoted in “The scientific study of
values and contemporary civilization”, by C.
Kluckhohn, Zygon, 1:233, (1966).
13. M. Otto, The Human Enterprise, F.S. Crofts
and Co., New York, 1947.
30. R. Dubos, So Human an Animal. Charles Scribner’s Sons: New York. Pg. xii., 1968.
14. J. Tonsor, Why John Henry Newman was
wrong: The connection between moral and
intellectual virtue in higher education.” Lecture
delivered at the Symposium on the Role of
Ethics in American Life at Bellarmine College,
January 23, 1974.
31. V.R. Potter and P.J. Whitehouse, “Deep and
global bioethics for a livable third millennium”, The Scientist, 12: 9, 1998.
32. V.R.Potter, “Bioethics and the human prospect”. In: D.H. Brock, ed., The Culture of Biomedicine: Studies in Science and Culture, Vol.
1. University of Delaware Press, pp. 124-137,
1984
15. A. Montagu, “Chromosome and crime”, Psychology Today, Oct. 1968, p. 46.
16. J. Ortega y Gasset, History as a System. Norton. New York. Pg. 217, 1941.
33. V. R. Potter, Bioethics, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1970.
17.V. R. Potter, “ Global bioethics: Linking genes
to ethical behavior”. Perspectives in Biology
and Medicine, 39: 118-131, 1995.
34. W. T. Reich, “The word «Bioethics»: The
struggle over its earliest meanings”. Kennedy
Institute of Ethics Journal 5: 19-34, 1995.
18. V.R. Potter, “Getting to the year 3000: Can
global bioethics overcome evolutions fatal
flaw?” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine,
34: 89-98, 1990.
35. W. T. Reich, “The word «Bioethics»: Its birth
and the legacies of those Who Shaped It”.
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 4: 319-335,
1994.
19. J. Platt, «A revolutionary manifesto». Centers
Magazine 5: 34-52,1972.
36. V.R. Potter, “Humility with responsibility-A
Bioethic for oncologist: Presidential address.
Cancer Res., 35: 2297-2306, 1975.
20. H. Brody, “A systems view of man: Implications for medicine, science and ethics”,
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 17:7192 (1973).
37. V. R. Potter, Global Bioethics, Michigan
State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan,
1988.
21. E. Laszlo, The systems View of the World,
George Braziller, New York, 1972.
38. J.E. Trosko, “Cloning of human stem cells:
Some broad scientific and philosophical issues”. J. Lab Clin Med., 135: 432-436, 2000
22. V. R. Potter, “The probabilistic aspects of the
human cybernetic medicine”, Perspectives in
Biology and Medicine, 17:164-183 (1974).
39. V.R. Potter, “Global Bioethics as a secular
source of moral authority for long-term human
survival”. Global Bioethics 5: 5-11, 1992.
23.N. Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings,
Doubleday and Co., Garden City, New York,
1954.
40. F. Grinnelll, J. P. Bishop and L. B. McCullough, “Bioethical pluralism and complementarity”. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine,
45: 338-349, 2002.
Scientific Opinion
24. J. Delgado, “Brain technology and pyschocivilization”, in Human Values and Advancing
Technology, C. Hall, Ed., The Friendship
Press; New York, pg. 90, 1967.
Paper proposed for publication by the Selection
Board of "Junta General del Principado-International
Society of Bioethics (SIBI)" Prize 2002

January-June
83
Year 2002