Non-commercial values” “

Europe’s main strategic objectives in the field of science and technologies include that of leading member states to develop the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world (cf. previous page). What is striking here is the fact that scientific knowledge is understood in terms of profit. Science is, on the contrary, a human activity, which should commit the scientist or a team of scientists to advance the cause of science. Nor is it an absolute value to be pursued at all costs. There may be fields in which it is wise not to proceed any further in research, because otherwise the dignity of man might be threatened: one such field is that of human cloning. Perhaps, now as never before, knowledge needs to be defended: by those who would like to turn it into humanity’s most important activity, from those who would like to reduce it to merchandise according to a neoliberal viewpoint. From the point of view of contents, the freedom claimed by science means independence in its criteria of judgement, to the point that it has rapidly become a dogma in Western culture that science is, and must be, independent from all values. It also means independence in action, which means that the scientist or the technician is licensed to act according to the sole criteria of his profession. A further aspect of this freedom is the rejection of controls or limitations by outside agents. These points of view, or these dogmas, need to be re-examined due to the unacceptable consequences of this process of liberation. Albeit legitimately distinguishing between pure science and applied science, not even in the name of pure science can everything be allowed. Although the right to aspire to know as much as possible is utterly beyond question, no scientist can do so with no matter what means or at no matter what cost. In experimental science, moreover, it is often the case that knowledge is acquired by manipulating the object subjected to investigation: in this case, obviously, the question is posed whether this operation respects the dignity of the object manipulated. And what if this object be a human being? Often in this sector we find ourselves faced by a dilemma: on the one hand, it is essential that embryos be respected, but on the other hand science has the right to know and it is unacceptable that constraints be placed on the freedom of research. But it needs to be pointed out that this is a false dilemma, because the freedom of research extends no further than the respect for man. If man is exploited, this freedom becomes arbitrary and false, and the scientist ends up by contradicting himself. The end of scientific research is not knowledge, as is commonly thought and said; the end is the advancement of man through knowledge, a knowledge therefore that cannot be turned against man himself. In its Instruction on Respect for Human Life, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith urged that science and technology be placed at the service of man’s authentic good: “Science and technology are valuable resources for man when placed at his service and when they promote his integral development for the benefit of all: but they cannot of themselves show the meaning of existence and of human progress. Being ordered to man, who initiates and develops them, they draw from the person and his moral values the indication of their purpose and the awareness of their limits. On the one hand, it would be illusory to claim that scientific research and its applications are morally neutral; on the other hand, one cannot derive criteria for guidance from mere technical efficiency, from research’s possible usefulness to some at the expense of others, or, worse still, from prevailing ideologies. Thus science and technology require, for their own intrinsic meaning, an unconditional respect for the fundamental criteria of the moral law: that is to say, they must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights and his true and integral good according to the sign and will of God”.