Chapter 17

Breakthroughs in Biosciences
and the Question of Morality: Interactions
Between Ethics and Bioscience Practices

Abdurezak Abdulahi Hashi

Abstract In the last four decades, scientific discoveries in the field of biosciences
exhibited a progress that is remarkably ascending and covers issues which were
traditionally not in the domains of ordinary medical science, including stem cell
research, tissue engineering, surrogate motherhood, artificial insemination and test-
tube babies as well as the mass scale production of genetically modified food.
Nevertheless, as recent scientific breakthroughs involve critical issues related to
human biology and health sciences, as well as to the sustainability of the natural
environment, the place of moral values in modern breakthroughs and practices of
biosciences emerge as matters of concern among scientists and scholars of ethics.
One of the primary questions of this concern is related to whether or not scientific
progress ought to be guided by what man ought to do, rather than what man can do.
Similar issues are raised about the relationship between the applications of scientific
discoveries and moral values. This research uses an analytical method and aims to
present a comparative account of the bioethical discussions on the interactions
between moral values and scientific discoveries in the field of bioscience.

17.1 Introduction

Bioscience is the field of medicine based on the application of the principles of the
natural sciences, especially biology and biochemistry. Bioscience has made remark-
able breakthroughs in the last four decades or so and has enabled scientists in the
field to expand the scope of the natural and health sciences. Discoveries in environ-
mental sciences, DNA sequencing techniques, regenerative and wound healing
technologies, artificial insemination and test-tube babies, tissue engineering and

A.A. Hashi (*)

Faculty of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM),
Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
e-mail: hashi@iium.edu.my

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016 259

M.H. Kamali et al. (eds.), Islamic Perspectives on Science and Technology,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-287-778-9_17
260 A.A. Hashi

stem cell research and cloning are among the modern frontiers of bioscience.
However, as these techniques and practices involve human subjects, various moral
and legal concerns have been raised.1 Among basic questions in this regard are:
How does one produce new medicine without violating the sanctity of the human
body? What are the ethical limits of advancing scientific experimentations that
involve human subjects? Can scientific achievements in this field justify the moral-
ity of certain practices in bioscience such as organ transplant, artificial insemina-
tion, technology of regenerative medicine and tissue engineering, as well as cosmetic
surgery and cloning? Likewise, given the fact that bioscientists are breaking new
ground in their scientific understanding, is it moral to limit these breakthroughs with
the reason that their discoveries may pose a future threat to human life? Similarly,
given the fact that advances in both bioscience and morality are important, the ques-
tion is how to increase these advances and thereby improve our knowledge in biol-
ogy with due ethical considerations. This article aims to illustrate a comparative
account on the debates about the interactions between breakthroughs in bioscience
and ethical values.

17.2 Definition and History of Bioethics

Bioethics is an academic discipline that covers moral and legal concerns about the
scientific and technological progress in the field of biotechnology and biomedicine.
The term ‘bioethics’ consists of two words, ‘bio’ and ‘ethics’; the former is derived
from the Greek root ‘bios’, or life (living organism or biology), while the latter is
from the Greek ‘ethos’, i.e. behaviour. The combination of the two words means the
‘moral behaviour towards life’ (Online Etymology Dictionary 2013).2 It is the sub-
ject that addresses legal and ethical implications of biomedical practices like tissue
engineering, regenerative medicine, artificial insemination, cosmetic surgery, test-
tube babies, organ transplantation and genetically modified food. Encyclopaedia
Britannica (2015) states that bioethics is a ‘branch of applied ethics that studies the
philosophical, social, and legal issues in medicine and the life sciences’.3 At the
heart of bioethical discussions is the concern about protecting human dignity, the
natural environment, the safety of life as well as lifestyle enhancement and in the
meantime increasing scientific advances in the field of biosciences. Bioethics is dif-
ferent from traditional medical ethics since the latter focuses ‘exclusively on the
professional ethics of the physician and the doctor-patient relationship’ (Boyd et al.
1997, p. 23). However, bioethics refers ‘to the broader terrain of the life sciences,
encompassing medicine, biology, and some aspects of the environmental,
population, and social sciences’ (Boyd et al. 1997, p. 23). Likewise, the scope of

1
Further readings on these issues are available in Hashi (2015), Connor and Fuenzalida-Puelma
(1990), Lolas (2008), Potter (1970, 1971), and Ramsey (1970).
2
Entry ‘Bioethics’, Online Etymology Dictionary (2013).
3
Entry ‘Bioethics’, Encyclopaedia Britannica (2015).
17 Breakthroughs in Biosciences and the Question of Morality: Interactions… 261

medical ethics, in the traditional sense, covers moral discussions on doctor-patient

relationship, whereby ‘medical ethics was almost exclusively the domain of physi-
cians … bioethics encompasses the work of many disciplines’ (Boyd et al. 1997,
p. 23).
Although topics of bioethics were traditionally addressed under medical ethics,
since the early twentieth century, bioethics became an independent discipline that
functions as a link between biology, ecology, medicine, law and moral values.
Indeed, from the late 1920s and the subsequent decades of the last century,4 bioeth-
ics appeared as an independent discipline, and later in the early 1970s, this disci-
pline ‘came into existence in a rudimentary way’ (Jecker et al. 2007). The term
‘bioethics’ was coined in 1927 by Fritz Jahr, who anticipated many of the arguments
and discussions now current in biological research involving animals – in an article
about the ‘bioethical imperative’ (Lolas 2008), as he called it – regarding the scien-
tific use of animals and plants. It was highlighted further in the writings of American
biologist Van Rensselaer Potter who specialised in cancer and related diseases. In
the early 1970s, Potter wrote a number of works on bioethics including his article
‘Bioethics: The Science of Survival’ (Potter 1970) and his book Bioethics: Bridge
to the Future (Potter 1971). His writings contributed to the establishment of bioeth-
ics, which subsequently emerged as an independent academic discipline. Bioethical
institutions were later established, while ethical declarations addressing ethical and
legal frameworks of the practices of biomedicine became standard (Hashi 2015;
Jecker et al. 2007).

17.3 Bioethical Discussions on the Interactions

between Science and Ethics

Since the early twentieth century, bioethics has been the subject of study of both
scientists and ethicists. These studies cover imperative questions on the scope and
limitations of scientific knowledge related to the modification of human genetics,
particularly biomedical practices like tissue engineering, artificial insemination,
cosmetic surgery, etc. Basic questions in this field include, among others: should the
breakthroughs in biomedical sciences be left to the scientists in such a way that
these scientists could conduct every possible scientific experiment in the field of
biomedicine and thus expand their knowledge regardless of any social or moral
implications of such experiments? If yes, to what extent? If no, based on whose
authority? Some bioethicists are optimistic about modern scientific breakthroughs
and discoveries in biomedicine, while there are those who exhibit pessimism
towards the breakthroughs in biomedicine and argue that optimism towards bio-
medical advances in the biology field is premature and does not reflect the reality of
modern breakthroughs in this field. There are also those bioethicists who disagree

4
Further details about the history of bioethics are available in Jecker et al. (2007).
262 A.A. Hashi

with both outright optimism and outright pessimism towards the scientific advances
in biomedicine and suggest a more realistic approach in which ethical and legal
issues of biomedicine and biotechnology are solved on a case-by-case basis. Hence,
the discussion on the interactions between scientific breakthroughs and moral val-
ues is actually a discussion on the relationship between what can be done and what
ought to be done, as well as which of these two dimensions should govern the other.
Thus, bioethical discussions on the interactions between modern breakthroughs in
biomedical technology and ethics could be divided into three approaches.5
Among the scholars of bioethics are those scholars and scientists who exhibit
pro-scientific tendencies, in which priority is given to the expansion of scientific
knowledge, with less emphasis on the ethical dimensions of the progress in science.
With the spirit of conquering nature, this bioethical approach aims to expand man’s
understanding of natural phenomena through scientific methods. Hence, it calls for
the unlimited expansion of discoveries in all areas of sciences. This is so because
this approach believes that expanding or widening man’s understanding of nature is
a worthwhile activity. Therefore, scientific experiments that are designed to increase
our knowledge should be allowed to take their normal course, and the available
technology of biomedicine and other scientific fields should be applied without
obstacles. In modern history, the roots of this tendency can be traced back to The
New Atlantis by Francis Bacon (d. 1626 CE), who said: ‘the end of our foundation
is the knowledge of causes, and secret motions of things; and the enlarging of the
bounds of human empire, to the effecting of all things possible’ (Bacon 1627).
Proponents of the pro-scientific approach like Bacon exhibited the tendency towards
unlimited scientific progress, ‘an anticipation that recognised only one value that is,
to maximise man’s ability to achieve infinite scientific discoveries, including in the
field of biology and biomedicine’ (Hashi 2015, p. 53).
In this approach, given that man’s understanding grows day by day, whereby the
‘progress in science is remarkably ascending, and covers issues which were tradi-
tionally outside the domains of ordinary science … to expand man’s knowledge of
science into new territory, scientists are ethically bounded to enhance their discover-
ies, so that man can master and control the laws of natural phenomena, including
bioscience’ (Hashi 2015, p. 52). Belgian philosopher and bioethicist Gilbert Hottois
is among those who have exhibited pro-scientific tendencies that accept pursuing
unlimited scientific experimentation and the expansion of experimental or labora-
tory research, in such a way that ‘we shall not hesitate to conduct any experiment
that can lead us to explore all potentials of living and non-living things’ (Taguieff
n.d., p. 3).
Given the nature of natural phenomena, this approach is primarily concerned
about whether certain potential scientific discoveries can be made. Then, if such
discoveries are possible and thus our scientific knowledge is expanded, potential
scientific experiments and discoveries are morally justified by the possibility of
achieving more in science. Hence, in the eyes of this approach, ‘we ought to let the

5
Further details about the perspectives and approaches of bioethics are available in Bryant et al.
(2005), Taguieff (n.d.), Connor and Fuenzalida-Puelma (1990) and Steinbock (2007).
17 Breakthroughs in Biosciences and the Question of Morality: Interactions… 263

scientists, including those of biomedicine, do their jobs freely without constraints.

In the progress of biomedical practices and the application of such practices to
human biology, this approach argues that, what can be achieved and what ought to
be achieved in the field of science are eventually the same’ (Hashi 2015, p. 52).
According to this perspective, we ought to do what we can do in upgrading our
scientific knowledge in biology, medicine, chemistry, physics and other fields of
science. With regard to scientific advances in biomedicine, this approach urges that
if it is possible to improve the quality of human biology and health care through
biomedical advances, then that is what we ought to do. As this approach calls for
unlimited growth of scientific knowledge, critics argue that such approach might
eventually lead to unethical growth of what man can do in the field of science.
Within the bioethical debates, another approach presents a pro-ethical argument
towards modern breakthroughs in the biosciences. Contrary to the position held by
the pro-scientific approach towards bioscience development, proponents of the pro-
ethical approach argue that in the process of creating synergies between progress in
bioscience and ethics, priority should be given to the latter over the former. In prin-
ciple, this approach acknowledges the positive outcome of the scientific progress to
date in various fields of science such as medicine, physics, chemistry and informa-
tion technology, and it commands also the importance of making further scientific
discoveries in the future. The pro-ethical approach states, however, that scientific
discoveries have to be conducted within the norms of morality. This is so because,
like other forms of human conduct, scientific discoveries have to be led by the stan-
dards of what ought to be. For instance, like other human activities such as business,
administration, law, leadership, engineering and other forms of human conduct that
are accomplished within the parameters of moral values, scientific progress also
ought to be conducted according to moral norms. Furthermore, given that biosci-
ences deal with living things and the natural environment, the mishandling of which
poses a real and imminent threat to life; breakthroughs in biosciences should be
guided by the attitude of discovering what ought to be, not what can be done. In
instances in which there is contradiction between what ought to be and what can be
achieved in the field of biomedicine, then the former overrides the latter, whereby
men of science ought to do scientific researches that are morally worthy.
With a clear contrast to the optimism exhibited by the pro-scientific approach
towards progress in the biosciences, the pro-ethical approach holds more pessimis-
tic views about the breakthroughs, particularly biomedical advances and its applica-
tions in human biology, unless and until the progress in biosciences is regulated by
principles of what ought to be. For instance, biomedical practices such as genetic
manipulation, cell and tissue engineering, artificial insemination, surrogate mother-
hood technology, genetically modified food and other forms of biomedicine make
the human body as an entirely experimental entity that can be changed and rede-
signed according to the whims of scientists, a process in which the sanctity of the
human body is lost. Hence, unless such biomedical practices are guided by moral
norms, progress and technological breakthroughs in the field of biosciences will
lead humanity to an evil end and represent an imminent threat to the essence of
human life. According to the proponents of this approach, like the German
264 A.A. Hashi

philosopher and bioethicist Hans Jonas,6 modern biomedical practices pose a real
threat to mankind and to the living environment, unless these practices are carried
out with a due moral sense. Hence priority should be given to the safety of life and
the sanctity of the human body, in such a way that in this field scientists are tasked
to achieve only what ought to be achieved. In his important work on the importance
of moral responsibility, namely, The Imperative of Responsibility, Jonas contended
that moral sense is needed in the progress of science, so that the threats posed by
modern technology and scientific progress in science are prevented. This is so
because, although modern advances in the field of biotechnology and biomedicine
were initially designed to serve humanity, today this technology threatens not only
human life, but the very essence of man. Hence in Jonas’ view, success in biomedi-
cine becomes a great challenge facing modern man. He insisted: ‘act so that the
effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of genuine human life’
(Jonas 1984, p. 11). Furthermore, in warning us about the threats of unregulated
scientific progress, he added that modern technological breakthroughs are:
…invested with unprecedented strength by science, which also pushes the economy into
uncontrolled expansion, requires a system of ethics involving freely accepted constraints to
prevent the power of human beings from becoming a curse for them (Council of Europe
2001, p. 47).

It is true that biomedical technology was always in process. Health professionals

have often used new techniques and practices, to offer healing and therapeutic treat-
ments to patients. However, pro-ethical bioethicists, like Jonas, argue that new dis-
coveries of biomedicine, such as test-tube babies and artificial insemination,
cosmetic surgery and gender reassignment practices, have shown the vulnerability
of human dignity and existence, the consequences of which cannot be predicted
(Council of Europe 2001, p. 47). In line with the old wisdoms that state ‘prevention
is better than cure’ and ‘it is better to be safe than sorry’, pro-ethical bioethicists like
Jonas argue for ethical progress in biomedicine, in such a way that issues of safety
and prevention of looming risks of genetic manipulation technology on the human
body are given priority. Hence, the pro-ethical approach calls for
ethical regulation of what man can actually do. A responsible approach must be forged that
takes the dignity of mankind and the continuity of human life into account. It is not too late
to think about how to keep mankind safe from looming threats, which not only risk present
human life, but may also affect future generations. Likewise, if it is true that the best defence
is a good offence, then it is time to take responsible pre-emptive measures that protect man
from the far reaching consequences of genetic modification technology. (Hashi 2015, p. 55)

Taking this approach, we must ‘track down the danger before it’s too late’ (Bazin
2004).
Therefore, unlike the pro-scientific progress approach, the position of which is
driven by the motive of conquering the natural world, as well as by egotistic tenden-
cies that are present in widespread wasteful consumption; the pro-ethical approach

6
Hans Jonas was one of the first philosophers to write at length about the emerging questions of
ethics in advanced biomedical practice.
17 Breakthroughs in Biosciences and the Question of Morality: Interactions… 265

of bioethics invites us to develop sciences, according to and within the ranges of the
safety of man and human dignity, not only for the interest of humanity today but
also for generations to come. Hence, unless and until we are able to control and limit
new biomedical practices and technologies to beneficial developments, biomedical
technology will certainly lead to a ‘catastrophic end’ and thus threatens not only
present populations but also future generations.
Besides the pro-ethical and pro-scientific approaches, there is a third bioethical
approach, the proponents of which disagree with the previously discussed
approaches of bioethics. It argues that both pro-ethical and pro-scientific approaches
reflect unnecessary idealisations of bioethics and that pro-scientific versus pro-
ethics positions in bioethics lead us to unrealistic conclusions in this field. Hence
this approach argues for adopting a pragmatic response to the challenges of scien-
tific progress in the field of biomedicine. This is because there are cases in which
men of science ought to achieve more in the discovery of scientific knowledge,
while there are instances in which scientific progress needs to be ruled by moral
norms. Therefore, a pragmatic and evidence-based approach in which given issues
and problems in the field of bioethics are solved on a case-by-case basis is the way
forward.
Hence, this approach contends for finding the middle way, in which scientists are
not prevented from expanding the stock of scientific knowledge in bioscience, while
the well-being of man and the environment is not risked, now or in the future. With
this complexity in mind, the proponents of pragmatic responses in biomedical prac-
tices argue that bioethics is an enquiry of building an acceptable ‘consensus’ or an
agreeable opinion of the ‘mainstream’ on given biomedical issues (Taguieff n.d.,
p. 8). Scholars who wrote on the moral debates of bioethical practices like Ololade
Olakanmi (2006, p. 39) called this approach ‘a rational choice’ in given circum-
stances and cases. This ‘rational choice’ might not necessarily be driven from tradi-
tional or metaphysical perspectives, but it is rather a purely secular and humanistic
choice which takes peoples’ consensus into account Olakanmi (2006, p. 39). In this
understanding, the right thing to do does not necessarily relate to all that ‘can be
achieved’ or all that ‘ought to be achieved’ at all times, neither the former drives the
latter nor otherwise. Rather it is about what is the rational choice in any given cir-
cumstance (Hashi 2015, p. 57). This is tantamount to the statement: ‘the right action
is the best action, that is, the one that maximises the good or expected good’
(Olakanmi 2006, p. 39) In his article, Bioethics: Towards Intellectual Issue, Pierre-
André Taguieff seemed to agree with Olakanmi’s contention for rational choice in
principle, but suggested that rational choice needs to be accompanied with what
ought to be done, in a way that what is ‘rational’ now also becomes what man
‘ought to do’. However, to achieve such a combination, one needs to apply universal
values which are guided by the norms of human equality and human dignity
(Taguieff n.d., p. 8). In support of the idea of ‘rational choice’, bioethicists such as
Duran equate biomedical ethics to the ‘search for what requires respecting human
life and dignity in the field of biomedicine’ (Taguieff n.d., p. 8). This approach
argues for a rational choice and the attitude of building a realistic position on given
issues of biomedical practices, an approach that seem to be convincing. However,
266 A.A. Hashi

regardless of how well the bioethical contention of this approach is presented, one
challenging question directed to this approach is: what are the mechanisms of build-
ing consensus on given ethical problems in biomedical breakthroughs? Similarly, in
the instances of having real moral challenges on the prioritisation of given ethical
choices including the moral dilemmas of pro-choices (abortion) versus pro-life,
decision-making on quantity versus quality (distribution of medicine to given
patients), freedom versus control (contraception and birth control), truth telling ver-
sus deception (diagnosing patients with serious diseases), as well as research-based
knowledge versus personal beliefs, then in these examples and perhaps in many
others, whose right is the rationale choice?

17.4 Concluding Remarks

Ethics addresses what ought to be done, while science presents a descriptive account
of the rules of the natural or observable world. Further, science reflects the human
initiative to understand how the visible world functions, while ethics guides human
conduct so that man lives in a dignified and decent manner. Therefore, the idea of
combining ethical values and scientific progress is indeed an important and timely
necessity. However, given the fact that science is a dynamic subject that is in con-
stant transition and thus includes new fields and practices, which seem to be in
contradiction with established ethical norms, the combination of these two fields is
not free of challenges, particularly in the issues of prioritising between ethical duties
and scientific practices. In general, scholars of the field, as illustrated in the above
discussions, are in agreement on the importance of ethics and science, but do not
necessarily agree on the formula of combining ethics and science. Pro-scientific
progress bioethicists argue that scientific progress and technological advances
should be left to the scientists, in the sense that what ‘can’ be done scientifically
should not be limited by what ‘ought’ to be done. In contrast, the pro-ethical posi-
tion holds that man’s scientific practices should be governed by what ought to be
done, not what can be done. Thus, according to this group of bioethicists, scientific
progress in the field of biology should not only be placed under strict moral observa-
tion, but certain techniques in biomedical practices should also be prevented. A
third group of bioethicists seem to suggest a middle path of rational choice in which
issues are judged on a case-by-case basis. These intellectual debates on the interac-
tion between science and morality are indeed fruitful, and such dialogues have
enriched our understanding of issues and practices on this important subject. Thus,
the continuation of these kinds of intellectual debates on modern biomedical prac-
tices is indeed a commendable task.
17 Breakthroughs in Biosciences and the Question of Morality: Interactions… 267

References

Bacon, F. (1627). The new Atlantis [by Sir Frances Bacon], The project Gutenberg e-book http://
www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/4/3/2434/2434.txt. Accessed 28 Apr 2015.
Bazin, D. (2004). A reading of the conception of man in Hans Jonas’ works: Between nature and
responsibility. An environmental ethics approach. Ethique et Economique /Ethics and
Economics, 2(2). https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1866/3316/
2004v2n2_BAZIN.pdf;jsessionid=9E493D340E43FAF5AA004FB9D9078A67?sequence=1
Accessed 28 Apr 2015.
Boyd, K., Higgs, R., & Pinching, A. (1997). The new dictionary of medical ethics. London: BMJ
Publishing Group.
Bryant, J., Baggott la Velle, L., & Searle J. (2005). Introduction to bioethics. Chichester: Wiley.
Connor, S. S., & Fuenzalida-Puelma, H. L. (1990). Bioethics: Issues and perspectives. Washington,
DC: Pan American Health Organization.
Council of Europe. (2001). Studies and reports: Responsibility from principles to practice.
Germany: Council of Europe Publication.
Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2015). http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/65851/bioethics
Accessed 9 June 2015.
Hashi, A. (2015). Bioethics: A comparative study of its concepts, issues and approaches. Kuala
Lumpur: IIUM Press.
Jecker, N., Jonsen, A., & Pearlman, R. (2007). Bioethics: An introduction to the history, methods,
and practice. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Lolas, F. (2008). Bioethics and animal research: A personal perspective and a note on the contribu-
tion of Fritz Jahr. Biological Research, 41(1), 119–123.
Olakanmi, O. (2006). Xenotransplantation: A rational choice. Penn Bioethics Journal, 2(2), 38–41.
Online Etymology Dictionary. (2013). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bioethics. Accessed
18 June 2015.
Potter, V. (1970). Bioethics: The science of survival. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 14,
127–153.
Potter, V. (1971). Bioethics: Bridge to the future. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Ramsey, P. (1970). The patient as person. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Steinbock, B. (2007). The Oxford book of bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taguieff, P. A. (n.d.) Akhlāqiyāt al-Biologia: Nahwa Qadhiyāt Fikriyah (trans: Abdul Hadi al-
Idrisiyi). http://dogma.free.fr/txt/pat-bioethique.htm