Human Dignity as a Criterion for Science Policy

I ncreasingly, the question of whether some forms of research, such as human cloning, infringe notions of human dignity has been proposed as a primary justifi cation for the development of science policy. This is understandable. A commitment to human dignity is a widely shared value and the foundation for our understanding of human rights. The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, states that " recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world " [1]. However, in the context of emerging scientifi c advances, such as cloning technology and stem cell research, exactly how to judge whether human dignity is infringed upon or degraded is rarely explained. As an example, a 2002 report by the President's Council on Bioethics is titled " Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry, " but it fails to conceptualize human dignity or address the specifi c ways in which human cloning may impinge on human dignity [2]. This lack of clarity has the potential to hurt policymaking and, in the long run, degrade the possible substantive value of the principle of human dignity. The dilemma is that human dignity is a poorly conceptualized and vague concept. Further complicating matters, in a pluralistic society various groups and communities bring a diversity of worldviews, religious values, and cultural understandings that inform and shape their use of the concept of human dignity. There are numerous examples of policies that cite human dignity as a standard for dealing with controversial science issues. The UN Educational, Scientifi c, and Cultural Organization's " Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights " recommends a ban on " practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning " [3]. A 2003 World Health Organization report suggests that genetic databases create the need to balance " human dignity and human rights as against public health, scientifi c progress and commercial interests in a free market " [4]. Both Japan's 2001 stem cell research guidelines and Canada's recent legislation covering research involving human reproductive material claim the protection of human dignity as a primary objective of the regulatory regimes [5,6]. And, of course, the concept of human dignity permeates research ethics policy (e.g., the Helsinki Declaration). …