Myths and hope

So the European Parliament has chosen – 284 votes in favour, 249 against – to economically support scientific studies and experiments for application to technological innovations in the fields of telecommunications, environmental defence and the protection of health. The amendment presented by the Itre commission (industry and research) was also passed during the vote in the chamber; it will permit the funding of experiments on embryonal stem cells produced for in vitro fertilization and not implanted; this will be possible only in those States in which such research is permitted by the national laws. The signal being sent out from Strasbourg is not in the least positive and, in short, is this: in the hope, still a very remote one, of being able to develop a cure for some diseases, today it is considered a good thing to destroy human embryos, with a view to having an available stockpile of stem cells for research purposes. Many of us, in various capacities, have warned that there exist other ways to achieve the progress of medicine, and that no human life, however small and insignificant it may seem, can ever be sacrificed. Nonetheless, we now need realistically to come to terms with extraordinarily powerful and often hidden realities. First, the economic factor: pharmaceutical companies will draw advantage from the decision taken in Strasbourg, because, quite apart from the modest support Europe will give to this research in the years ahead, they will be able freely to engage in the search for embryonal patents that will bring mind-boggling profits to the pharmaceutical industry. Unfortunately, the big multinationals of medicine can transform the experimentation into a profitable activity. Second, there’s the myth of progress: faced by innumerable diseases that hyopothetically could be cured, and faced by the promise of better quality of life and longer life, many are seduced, including MEPs.To this we may add the fact that, in spite of the strong and generous commitment of some, the majority of people don’t even know what stem cells are. It should also be pointed out that a good part of MEPs have demonstrated their opposition to the use of stem cells taken from embryos; the question of life is one on which consensus is being reinforced. Nor is this the prerogative just of those inspired by religious principles: it is shared by many who, though they belong to opposite political alignments, feel themselves responsible for man and life in every phase of his development. It’s as if to say that the respect for the human embryo is not a party question. The erosion of a common ethical sense is offset by a greater sensibility of citizens or groups; though States have renounced punishing crimes against life, many people feel that the question of life is central for our future. This ethical sensibility must be preserved and fostered on a wide front. Progress, real progress, occurs thanks to the stubborn commitment of those who don’t let themselves be immobilised by the sirens and are farsighted. Biomedicine, a unique tool in the hands of man, is not enough in itself. It needs to be targeted at determined ends and guided by the world of values. Researchers are called to operate for the well being and health of human beings; each research activity in this field must always have as its final end the integral good of man and, in the means used, must fully respect in each individual his inalienable dignity as a person, right to life and substantial physical integrity. Inspired by these certainties, those who struggle, suffer and work for genuine progress shall not let their hopes be dashed by a temporary setback.