The author makes a review of the different meaning of the word “clone”. He refers on the new perspectives in fertilizing human eggs with somatic nucleus in order to obtain a zygote after having removed the original nucleus. The author moreover discusses the ethical implications.

Observing the practical situation of the techniques of assisted procreation in European societies, one is allowed to affirm that these techniques are largely in use in our societies, it did not find resistance among the secular groups of the society. It is not the case of the representatives of the Catholic church, hostile to each intervention on the reproductive mechanisms as being a violation against natural law, the most virulent opposition is linked to intervention on embryos or to each way (...) of reproduction outside of the canonic marriage, considering therefore artificial insemination as immoral and anti-juridical.The opposition between secular and the catholic groups is of unequal intensity in the different European countries, it did not stop the application and the use of these reproductive techniques although it made the adoption difficult of measures in some states, and even in the European Parliament. However, they could not oppose the scientific and medical corporation and their arguments of treatment of diseases and of sterility of men or women. This way to present these reproductive techniques in terms of lowering of suffering of couples not able to reproduce naturally received a full social acceptance and legitimation, acceptation because the origin of these techniques is incontestably scientific and legitimation because the goal is essentially medical. (shrink)

The societal roots of the environmental discussion are discussed. Attention focusses on the roles played by the nature conservation, environmental, consumer and anti-nuclear movements, popular and popularized science, the media and the development of environmental policy and regulation.The scientific approach and the societal background enable us to understand the concept of the “environmental crisis”, which itself provides the most important contextual background to environmental ethics. To illustrate contemporary thinking, an analysis of Agenda 21 shows how environmental problems are currently seen (...) as the result of poverty, consumption and production patterns and demographic and decision making issues.Using this environmental knowledge background as a reference, the main lines of thinking in environmental ethics are overviewed. The overview begins by looking at approaches which value the environment because it is or might be of value to man. It continues by considering approaches which are intermediate between the anthropocentric and deep ecological viewpoints. In particular, Leopold's”Land Ethic” and Singer's”Animal Liberation” ideas are discussed.Deep ecology is based on the idea that nature as a whole has moral value. Reference is made to the work of the Norwegian philosopher Naess and to the more scientifically-rooted “deep green theory” of Sylvan and Plumwood.In addition to these different lines of theorising within environmental ethics, the ethical aspects of such anchorpoints in the environmental discussion as sustainable development and the Gaia theory, are also discussed. (shrink)

To refuse new knowledge and new technologies is at long term a lost battle: this general constatation may, without doubt, be extrapolated to genetic engineering.The influence fundamental science-applied science is always mutual. Such as is also the influence science-society. If the genetics influences the society, the society influences the genetics and the sciences of the reproduction. The goal is indeed nowadays to have a limited number of children, and to offer a life of quality with minimal sufferings. Without doubt these (...) social “norms” have indeed also an eugenetic effect. The interaction science-society appears at each important discovery by necessary adaptations.Before to decide what is moral and immoral, correct and false in the consequences of genetical techniques, one has to better understand the proposed applications and the signification of their results. It would be necessary that the society would develop a better information or even a biological culture.To fear that human beings would destroy the natural mechanisms, to phantasm on the fact that humans would go too far, corresponds in fact to make a scandal of his intelligence, to separate human beings from the nature, it is at the limit to want to limit humans to their animal origin. In this field, such as in others, humans do not need repressive morals: the ethically responsible choice is the choice of the publicity of knowledge. This education must help him to remain honest and free, to remove false sciences and prejudices. (shrink)

“I know only one thing, that I know nothing” SocratesMost of the religions put human life above all other kind of animal life, enclose the complexity of human life in a dogma and give a finality to life and death. When biologists are not more following the security of the road of systematic analysis of animal or plant kingdom or of ecological studies of biotopes, but when they are giving a chemical and mechanical explanation of life, they become disturbing for (...) whom prefer not to explore the ordinary of human life but is preferring to believe in the extraordinary.A pluralist ethics does not consist to build up new dogmas, to contra balance in a sense some fundamentalist positions. Interpellated by the medicine and the new technologies, we have to discuss the way it is influencing our new ways of life. We must look for more autonomy of individuals, and for more individual and collective responsibilities.Continuing education is the only guarantee of our freedoms, it is the pedagogy of pluralist discussions which can preserve our societies from dehumanisation. Education must help humans to keep freedom and probity, and to move away from pseudosciences and prejudices. (shrink)

Eugenics is bringing misunderstandings linked to eugenism as socio-political movement.Eugenism is the political movement, which estimated that eugenics could ameliorate the qualities of “race”. This idea, that the gene pool of the human species could be ameliorated, is not new and is even a part of the history of our nations. It is on the United States that, between 1900 and 1930, eugenism found its first socio-political successes.Eugenism has roots in the conservative movements of the 19th century and will condemn (...) itself by the Nazi exactions. Indeed, it is abnormal that a political movement, or even nations, would impose laws with genetical implications: this eugenism must be totally rejected. However, we must continue to favour individual and free kinds of eugenics, based on precise studies and objective information.It seems normal to human beings, in his struggle against natural forces, to use his reproductive capacities on a non-animal way: a plannified and intentional reproduction must be natural to rational human beings. Not to allow this rule consists to start from theological opinions, such as the idea that the sexual act not desiring to be procreative consists in a refusal of a divine principle. (shrink)

Lots of Websites offer the possibility to donate human beings. Another problem of ethics of communications.

There are many possibilities to approaching the new concept of human ecology such as a way to: — define a new science and a new form of research— define action oriented methods— approach long term effects— define some rationality— a philosophic approach— approach human rights.

Biologists are faced two questions which are new in their fields. How far to go in genetical research? How should new findings be applied?Theoretically, the answers are not so difficult to find. Research should not be halted or even slowed down. On which basis should we limit knowledge, it would even be on topics such as cancer, AIDS, ageing,…, a crime against humanity not to develop research. Also theoretically, findings would be applied for the good of humanity and for a (...) better health. But, negative consequences can, however, be expected if applications of research, and research itself, serves interests of private companies or of individuals. We cannot deny the advantages of the HGP which are considerable indeed in discovering, isolating, describing, sequencing genes, using in genie therapy,…, developing a better predictive medicine.But rules, and probably laws, will have to be developed to protect the confidentiality of genetical information, the risk being present that insurance companies or employers would use it to discriminate the individuals. People can not be defined only by their genomes. Individuals or populations cannot be stigmatised or ostracised by their genes. (shrink)

In a typological and racial classification, the hypothesis is to suppose that races have existed at a “pure” level, before migrations would result in a large mixing. In this way of thinking, one forgets that migrations have always existed and thus gene flow too. When groups meet, they may or may not bleed, but they always breed.

“I know only one thing, that I know nothing” SocratesMost of the religions put human life above all other kind of animal life, enclose the complexity of human life in a dogma and give a finality to life and death. When biologists are not more following the security of the road of systematic analysis of animal or plant kingdom or of ecological studies of biotopes, but when they are giving a chemical and mechanical explanation of life, they become disturbing for (...) whom prefer not to explore the ordinary of human life but is preferring to believe in the extraordinary.A pluralist ethics does not consist to build up new dogmas, to contra balance in a sense some fundamentalist positions. Interpellated by the medicine and the new technologies, we have to discuss the way it is influencing our new ways of life. We must look for more autonomy of individuals, and for more individual and collective responsibilities.Continuing education is the only guarantee of our freedoms, it is the pedagogy of pluralist discussions which can preserve our societies from dehumanisation. Education must help humans to keep freedom and probity, and to move away from pseudosciences and prejudices. (shrink)

The new methods of modern sciences can contribute to understand the genesis of mental illness, the disturbances in brain chemistry, physiology, anatomy or genetical information underlying different diseases of the nervous system. Understanding mental illness is not only challenging to science, but is also of great social importance. Moreover, the new developments of neurosciences put new lights on discussions such as brain-mind concepts, unity of mind, definition of consciousness and even definition of the person.For the majority of the scientists, it (...) is clear today that the mind can not be conceived any more as unique and indivisible. For philosophers, it is clear also that neuroscience influenced their vision of life and death: neurosciences are not strange to the debate whole-body death versus whole-brain death for instance. Modern scientific achievements have expanded our vision, allowing us to percieve previously unanticipated interrelationships between biological and psychological phenomena. The boundary between some behavioural and higher neural function studies and biology is arbitrary and changing. It has been imposed not by the natural contours of the disciplines, but by lack of knowledge. (shrink)

In the last decade, biodiversity became a central concept of ecology, as important as the concepts of sustainable development, right for future generations, global changes for instance. Biodiversity received a recognition through, the Brundtland report (1987) and the Earth Summit of Rio de Janeiro (1992). Protection of biodiversity represents nowadays a ethical and political obligation.If the concept is rather clear and is applied at three levels, genes (intraspecific and interspecific), species and ecosystems, if we know that the diversity is unequally (...) distributed, concentrated in tropical areas, if it is clear that ecologists have still the immense task to describe this diversity, the ethical foundations of protection of biodiversity are unclear by the high variability of concepts in use.Environmental ethics and protection of biodiversity are often placed in aKind of antagonism, between technocratism or neo-liberralism and fundamentalism of Nature or even eco-fascism. But, in fact, there is no need for an “either-or” attitude, for an “all-or- nothing” thought for an opposition between “natural” and “artificial” or between anthropocentrism and biocentrism: we have here perhaps not incompatible opposites but poles on an spectrum allowing for many degrees.We must manage that the needs of the present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainability is:* socially desirable, fulfilling people's cultural, material and spiritual needs in equitable ways, *economically viable, paying for itself with costs not exceeding income, ecologically viable, maintaining the long-term viability of supporting ecosystems.The “business-as-usual” activity resulted in low rigorous protection of biodiversity, we need an increasing part of ethical considerations in the environmental discussion. (shrink)