Galileo and the Embryos: Religion and Science in Parliamentary Debate over Research on Human Embryos

Abstract

Confrontation between science and religion was a significant feature of the lengthy public appraisal of research on human embryos in Britain during the 1980s. The series of formal debates over embryo research in the House of Lords is chosen as a particularly appropriate setting to study this confrontation. It is shown that religious opposition to embryo research was repeatedly attacked in these debates by means of a stereotyped contrast between religious and scientific styles of thought. Leading figures in the movement for embryo research attempted to discredit their opponents by claiming that, whereas their own case was built upon reasoned assessment of the facts, the other side relied on religious dogma, clerical authority and faith. It is shown that, although there were genuine differences between those critical of embryo research on religious grounds and those supporting such research on grounds furnished by scientists, this account of the differences is inaccurate: dogma, reliance on authority and faith were as characteristic of the discourse associated with science as they were of that associated with religion. It is argued that these features were not generated by the presence of religious or scientific beliefs as such, but by the struggle between advocates of science and religion for intellectual and moral dominance.