PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “RELIGION AND SCIENCE”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 793 records · Page 44Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

Giles of Rome.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Embryology↗
PubMedDate not supplied

An Islamic view.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Cloning, Organism↗
PubMed2002

[Some features of the relationship between Lullism and pseudo-Lullism in the early modern times].

In this work, the author presents, following a chronologic sequence, some aspects of Llull's image that became controversial during the 16th century, especially the discussion about the idea of Llull as alchemist, which developed around the 16th century. To this end, the author analyses the origin and development of the polemic since the 14th century, including the "official" positions. At the same time, the two positions (Llull the achemist and Llull the philosopher) are related to similar occurrences outside the Iberian Peninsular, especially in France and Italy.

Alchemy↗
PubMed1999

Religious voices in biotechnology: the case of gene patenting.

On 18 May 1995, nearly 200 religious leaders joined with leading biotechnology critic Jeremy Rifkin in a press conference named the "Joint Appeal against Human and Animal Patenting," a move that many within the biotechnology industry could only interpret as seeking to inhibit biotechnological advance. What moral and religious concerns motivated this challenge to patenting? How could the biotechnology industry understand and respectfully attend to these concerns? What values were at play in the debates that followed the joint appeal? What lessons for future dialogue can be learned from attempts at conversation between the opposing positions? This essay is a report from a Hastings Center research project that accepted the task of addressing these questions. Specifically, the project focused on the patenting of human genetic material, a subset of the issues raised by the joint appeal.

Base Sequence↗
PubMed2003

[Xenotransplantation from a Christian-ethical perspective].

Xenotransplantation is a question of "ethics between man and animal". Because those affected in different ways by xenotransplantation (patients, relatives, medical doctors, laypeople) have different perceptions, "foreign" perspectives must be consciously considered next to one's own perspective in the ethical judgement. As xenotransplantation is still at the stage of preclinical research, this special opportunity for an early public ethical discussion should be taken. According to biblical teaching, man is responsible for his fellows before God, therefore every decision of a patient (or a doctor) in favour of a xenotransplantation made without consideration of the social environment or the society as a whole cannot be ethically justified. From the Jewish-Christian point of view, the "innate value of man's fellow creatures" should be considered. What happens to the animals used for research into transplantation may not simply "vanish" before the vision of a successful xenotransplantation. What man's responsibility to creatures should prevent commonly happens: animals are exploited as instruments or treated as objects to reach human goals, they are perceived only as their utility value. We humans, with God's biblical mandate for our fellow creatures, must remember that the unavoidable weighing up between the (proposed) welfare of man and the welfare of animals should not be decided to the detriment of the animals too easily. The effects of medical technological possibilities on the conception of man and on our value system show themselves in a special way in xenotransplantation. Are the hopes set in xenotransplantation an expression of a mechanistic understanding of the human body and a conception of man that blends out the mortality and imperfection of human life? Focussing on human-ethical aspects leads to the neglect of the animal-ethical aspects by some Protestant ethicists. However, it is necessary to forego at least extremely severe animal experiments and so also to do without the possible gain of knowledge, i.e. to consciously limit research interests for ethical reasons. The tendency towards the reduction of animal experiments should not be reverted by research into xenotransplantation. The ethical evaluation of xenotransplantation should also consider whether economic interests are placed above the welfare of humans and animals, thus supporting questionable research processes. Justice and partisanship for the disadvantaged is a central aspect of biblical tradition. The problem in deciding what is fair in xenotransplantation is multifaceted: How can fair allocation of organs be ensured when both animal and human organs are available at the same time? What effects will this medical technology have on the distribution of the (limited) resources on the national health system? And finally: can such a cost-intensive technology helping only a few be justified in the light of the lack of basic medical care in the poor regions of the earth? A technology which many experts warn will result in the opposite of the original goal, i.e. reduction of the lack of organs.

Animal Experimentation↗