Interview with Bishop Sgreccia, Vice President of the Academy for Life

  VATICAN CITY, NOV. 13, 2000 (ZENIT.org).- Biogenetics' new frontiers pose

  new hopes and fears, a debate that materializes in endless discussions on

  issues like genetically modified corn or tomatoes.

  In order to clarify the moral implications of biotechnology, ZENIT

  interviewed Bishop Elio Sgreccia, director of the Bioethics Institute of

  Rome's University of the Sacred Heart, vice president of the Pontifical

  Academy for Life, and co-author of the book "Animal and Vegetable

  Biotechnology" New Frontiers and New Responsibilities" ("Biotecnologie

  animali e vegetali: nuove frontiere e nuove responsabilità"), published by

  the Vatican Press.

  --Q: There are those who speak of biotechnology as the millennium's

  monster. What is the Pontifical Academy for Life's view on biotechnology?

  --Bishop Sgreccia: Biotechnology must be seen in its ability to improve,

  develop, and complement nature. For example, it is possible to make

  biological agents, constructed biotechnologically, which act in

  decontaminating the sea from oil stains and transforming biomasses and refuse.

  Biotechnology must also be seen in its capacity to improve vegetable

  products and increase certain animal resources to foster progress in

  developing countries.

  --Q: Some believe the multinationals want to use biotechnological resources

  to maintain positions of power over the market and guarantee themselves

  greater profits in relation to underdeveloped countries.

  --Bishop Sgreccia: These are risks and dangers that are part of human

  egotism, which must be controlled and uprooted ethically and legally.

  However, is it possible and wise to try to improve cultivation so that it

  can sink roots even in difficult terrain; to improve the quality of the

  production of fruits and vegetables; to increase the production of meat to

  feed whole populations; to eliminate harmful agents, in plots of land,

  through biotechnology. Our objective should be to eliminate risks and

  damages and, at the same time, increase advantages.

  We certainly are not dreamers who blindly approve any biotechnological use.

  There are very specific limits, which must be respected. It is true that

  man can use animals and vegetables for his food and for his safety. But it

  is also true that he cannot do what he feels like indiscriminately. This is

  why limits have been established, for example, in regard to the creation of

  new species.

  --Q: Another controversial point is conservation of biodiversity. It has

  been said that genetically modified products will eliminate all previous

  varieties.

  --Bishop Sgreccia: In fact, biotechnology is useful in the field of

  biodiversity, because we can conserve seeds and animal gametes and, through

  artificial reproduction, intervene wherever there is danger of extinction.

  Technology that selects and reinforces a species is also able to conserve

  and protect species from extinction that should be protected.

  --Q: Some believe that all technological discoveries are contaminating by

  their very nature.

  --Bishop Sgreccia: Technology is a means and, as such, we must know how to

  use it. Technology results from exploration of the human body and the

  universe. Through [the use of] computers and electronics we do no more than

  boost our neurons.

  If this is the creative, anthropological origin of technology, ethics,

  which stems from it, is no more than placing it at the service of human

  life, integrity, the health of man, [and] the balanced conservation of

  forces and elements of the world, ranging from air and water, to animals

  and vegetables. It is our responsibility to regulate the faucets; we have

  the tools to do so, we are lacking responsibility and, perhaps, the

  necessary harmony to do it.

  --Q: The authors of the Earth's Charter  say

  that traditional religions, especially Christianity, are too

  anthropocentric. This would be the reason for the lack of attention to the

  natural world in the history of humanity.

  --Bishop Sgreccia: The Christian religion offers fundamental principles for

  respect of the environment, not only insofar as it relates to animals or

  vegetables, but also to inanimate creation, insofar as everything is

  conceived as a gift of God, placed in man's hands with the command to take

  care of it and govern it.

  St. Francis is often quoted in this area; but I insist on saying that

  attention must also be paid to the Benedictine tradition, which has kept

  our European regions from ecological disaster, by teaching and practicing

  an agriculture that still gives fruits, by controlling rivers, looking

  after forests, refining agricultural techniques. The Benedictine tradition

  of "ora et labora," which sees in work a form of praying, in respect for

  the Creator, is an example of care for the environment.

  Another fundamental point of Christianity is the incarnation of Jesus, Son

  of God, who, by becoming man creates fraternity among men. We Catholics

  make every effort to create ties of fraternity with less fortunate peoples,

  with the poor, the weak, with the victims of underdevelopment. What

  stronger foundation is there to impede the exploitation of man against man,

  and of man against creation?

  ZE00111304