Scientific American Does the Mischaracterization, Not the Vatican
I wasn't planning on exploring the Vatican's new bioethics pronouncement. But the media's reportage does bear some discussion. Scientific American's story, for example, contains the following subheadline: Mischaracterizations of science lurk in the Vatican's latest instructions on bioethics
That was a surprise. In my experience, whether one agrees or disagrees with Catholic moral views, the science upon which the Church bases its analyses, at least based on pronouncements I have seen, is always sterling. So I wondered: Where did the report go wrong?
Turns out, unsurprisingly, that it is the Scientific American that is conflating science with statements by the Vatican that are not scientific in nature. The magazine bases its false charge on an interview with a reproductive health "expert," who naturally disagrees with many of the Vatican' views. From the story: But it [the Vatican report] also opposes IVF even if it doesn't involve embryo loss, because the Vatican is committed to conception that involves the conjugal act. This I don't really understand. There are multiple descriptions of in vitro fertilization that make it sound as though couples going through IVF and the doctors and technicians involved are doing it in a heartless way. My understanding is that many couples and doctors involved have a huge amount of respect and awe for the embryos they create. They are very attached to the embryos they create. They are highly invested in their survival. They do everything they can to make sure as many embryos develop after fertilization. The idea that they are doing it in this detached, technical, love-free environment is really a mischaracterization.
Okay, but even if true, that isn't a mistake in the science of the report.
What other examples does the story give? They talk about pre-implantation diagnosis, which is where you do tests on embryos before you transfer them to the woman's body. They describe it as being done to ensure that embryos are free from defects or other particular qualities. Sometimes it is done for that reason, but they don't mention the most important reason that people do pre-implantation diagnosis, which is to make sure they only transfer embryos that will survive. A friend of mine had two miscarriages late in third trimester because there were serious genetic defects with the fetus incompatible with its continuing to live. She had IVF, and they did pre-implantation diagnosis and of the six embryos they created all had multiple genetic problems that would have prevented them from surviving for birth. That's probably better than having six more miscarriages. That is not even mentioned in this document and it seems extremely important.
Okay, but even this anecdote does not mean that the science in the report is wrong.
I carefully read the whole story. Each of the alleged mistakes mentioned in the article are not scientific in nature but have to do with ethics or motivations. Thus, from what I can tell from this story, the party that is confused is not the Vatican: It is the Scientific American.
Labels: Bioethics. Media Bias.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:54 AM
9 Comments
9 Comments:
they don't mention the most important reason that people do pre-implantation diagnosis, which is to make sure they only transfer embryos that will survive.
I can guarantee you that the people behind the Vatican document are very well aware of that. They simply don't reach the same conclusion that Scientific American's "expert" does.
Wow. That's amazingly shoddy reporting. Fr them to have a completely misleading header like that is shocking.
Why are we so ill-served by our journalists? It seems that there is _no_ notion of professionalism left in that industry at all.
Lydia: EVERYTHING is ideological now. And it is ruining our most vital institutions, media leading the way.
Sometimes it is done for that reason, but they don't mention the most important reason that people do pre-implantation diagnosis, which is to make sure they only transfer embryos that will survive.
All will die.
Eventually.
I sure don't expect the Vatican to call off their ban on murder 'cus folks are going to die, eventually, anyways.
Hi,
It is somewhat surprising that the only ones having a clear-cut objetive (at least pretty much so), dispassionate way of assessing the dignity of a *conception* of a human being are... those defending that human beings *have the right* to be conceived naturally and freely (by both parents) in a family. Surprising that the so-called anti-scientific Church keeps the same view.
Others are the ones speaking about "love", "care" and "affection", when they simply cannot define them.
Who is being scientific here? Who has a scientific way of defending the right to a dignified origin? Who has a true definition of 'dignified'?
Thanks for the good job,
Pedro.
The "experts" problem--"they create", "they pre-diagnose", they decide who lives, who dies and who is put on ice. They see these human beings as their creation, their property, and theirs to judge. They have confused themselves with God.
The Vaticant has always been clear that it follows God's teachings - both the Bible and the Traditions handed down and insipired by the Holy Spirit - when engaged in scientific endevors.
Now, while I might explain my own beliefs in religious terms, it's because I see science through Catholic eyes. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to science; I believe in evolution, though of the ID sort, not Neo-Darwinism, for example. Based on the *science.*
They're attacking the Catholic Church because we're trying to live like Catholics - no IVF of any color, no pre-implantation tests to discard babies who may be handicapped, no human cloning! We don't doubt the science behind any of those, but we do doubt the morality, and what the heck? Are we supposed to roll over and let other people do what they want just because they don't belive what we do? What kind of Catholic gives up her values on a whim for the sake of others who aren't in agreement? Why don't those "others" give up their values and become Catholic? Or do they think their values are something to fight for? If so, why can't we lay down the law and expect our own to follow it, and offer it to anyone who's willing to listen?
Fak, the rate we're going, the next time someone wants to invade America, we'll have droves of Americans converting to whatever ideology just to be nice and keep people happy, and nevermind the suicide bombers.
I agree with you, TE Fine. I often feel like contemporary Christians are being expected to stop believing in the Bible's teachings because we live in a multi-cultural society, while expecting Christians to refrain from commenting on anything that effects the greater populace. It's frustrating to be a Christian in the bioethics debate right now because the minute our faith becomes known, it is used to undermine our arguments as stemming from theology and not careful consideration of the real consequences that religious mandates address.
Good comments. I was blown away that they had a secular ethicist comment on a theological document. It isn't as if there are no Catholic bioethicists they could have called. At least twice, she explicitly says she doesn't understand the document — how ridiculous does that make SciAm? I wrote more on my blog, if you'll allow me the link: Scientific American on Dignitas Personae.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home