Will everything turn out well? For progress befitting humanity. Berlin Address by Federal President Johannes Rau in the Otto-Braun-Saal of the Berlin State Library, 18 May 2001

18.05.2001
Berlin

I.

Almost everyday we hear new breathtaking reports from the world of science and research. With the so-called life sciences in particular, we are amazed by the spheres of nature into which we can advance. It is a long time since breakthroughs in biology and medicine have effected us as much as they do today.

Diseases which had been considered invincible seem to be becoming curable. Genetic defects can perhaps be corrected. New plant species are to still the hunger of entire regions of the world.

Today, dreams long held by humanity seem to be coming true. We are becoming players in evolution.

At the same time this arouses fears.

What we are experiencing is highly contradictory: on the one hand, we learn that the first hu­man being is soon to be cloned. On the other hand, we are not able to deal with an animal epidemic which has been a threat for centuries.

We learn that we will in future be able to predetermine human characteristics - and yet we cannot prevent the spread of new diseases.

Some are troubled and wonder if we are becoming sorcerer's apprentices who set develop­ments in motion, the consequences of which we can neither assess nor control.

New scientific discoveries and technical possibilities mean we have to face fundamental questions:

• How do we deal with nature?
• How do we deal with the human race?
• What does progress mean today?

But we also face wholly practical questions:

• Are we setting the right focal points in science and research or are we allowing ourselves to be led by the whims of the day?
• Are we dealing with the indulgent problems of a chosen few?
• Are we thereby neglecting fields of research which are a matter of life or death for many?

Science throws up questions here which concern us all. They need to be discussed at every level of society and settled by political decisions - in parliament.

Particularly scientists, researchers and engineers have the right to clear framework conditions. It is to them that we owe much of what we tend to call quality of life. They are working on improving our living conditions in many fields, including those where no stunning break­throughs are on the horizon.

We all live from the curiosity of researchers, from their painstaking work, from their dedica­tion to the cause. Their work deserves our appreciation and broad support. I therefore want to encourage young people especially to work in the field of science and research.

Today I would like to encourage us all to be alert to what I call the human measure in our debates. In so doing, I would like to focus on the very field of new possibilities in which the changes are more dramatic than anywhere else - how we deal with human life.

II.

Anyone speaking of "measure" is speaking of limits. Without limits, without limitation, there can be no measure.

But is it not a contradiction to speak of progress and limits at the same time? "Thinking means venturing beyond" that was the motto of Ernst Bloch, the great German philosopher of hope. Yes: thinking - researching, knowing, discovering - that means venturing beyond.

But we also know that every time limits are crossed we are exposed to new ones: the limit of the discovery, the limit of what people can do, the limit of what we can justify. We need yard­sticks here to help us differentiate between what we may and may not do. We have to ask ourselves the seemingly simple question: what is good for mankind?

But what is appropriate for mankind? What is the "human" element of human measure? Is this "human" category not a very ambiguous one? Almost 2500 years ago, Sophocles cited the great achievements and discoveries of mankind in his play Antigone. And he summarizes his amazement thus: "There are many wonderful things, and nothing is more wonderful than man".

Today we are amazed again, just as Sophocles was, about the wonderful things we can do - and sometimes we pause in horror.

III.

We do not find the answer to the question "what is good for mankind?" in nature itself nor in our technical capabilities. We can only find it if we draw up and respect ethical principles for our personal life and for the co-existence of mankind. No matter what we do or do not do, we are forever making value judgements - intentionally or unintentionally, consciously or uncon­sciously.

Even when we address the new possibilities in the life sciences this is not primarily a matter of scientific or technical issues. It is ultimately about value decisions. We have to know what image we have of mankind and how we want to live.

Drawing up ethical principles means agreeing on yardsticks and limits.

It is always easy to spurn what is out of our reach. It is difficult to set and accept limits where they could be overstepped and yet respect them even if this means making sacrifices. I believe however this is exactly what we have to do.

I believe there are things which we must not do regardless of any real or supposed advantage. Taboos are not relics of a pre-modern society, they are not a sign of irrationality. Indeed, rec­ognizing taboos can be the fruit of enlightened thinking and action.

IV.

Hopes play a leading role in the debate on the possibilities of life sciences.

Cures for serious and life-threatening diseases: that is what many people mainly expect from advances in biotechnology and genetic engineering. Many suffer so much that they and their loved ones yearn for ways to cure and alleviate the diseases they suffer from.

Most of us know people who are ill whom our doctors cannot help enough or at all. Anyone can understand that people will cling to any developments promising to help them.

Thankfully research is being carried out all over the world on medicines and treatments to help those who are ill. Research is also being conducted - with good prospects - on methods of biotechnology or genetic engineering which do not cause any moral dilemma. This re­search deserves our wholehearted encouragement and support.

We face truly Herculean tasks. Let's consider just some of the diseases which are ever present in our part of the world: diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease. But let us not forget that in other parts of the world hundreds of millions of people have to deal with quite different diseases. I am not just thinking of AIDS here which poses a much greater threat in large parts of the African continent than it does to us. I am thinking of malaria, hepa­titis or parasitic diseases from which almost half of the world's population suffer.

Sometimes not much is needed to really help many of those suffering. If we were to step up our efforts in science and research, we could render great service to millions of people all over the world.

I am firmly convinced that we could do an unbelievable amount of good without sci­ence and research having to enter ethically dubious fields. There is much scope this side of the Rubicon.

V.

When I hear some of the vast possibilities and promises of life sciences, it reminds me of the euphoria which seized many in the fifties and sixties. At that stage the debate was on the peaceful use of nuclear energy which I, too, for many years considered to be the way for­ward.

Back then, many people - and not just scientists - dreamt of inexhaustible energy sources not to be beaten on price.

Nuclear energy was to make everything possible - bring flowers to barren ground, cars to the road and even make explosions for road construction easier. Today most people are amazed by such naivety and by such a simplistic belief in progress.

When the German Bundestag concluded the law on the peaceful use of nuclear power on 3 December 1959, just one member of parliament abstained - a physicist. All others voted in favour. Using nu­clear power seemed the most obvious thing in the world. People thought too little about the explosive nature of many problems, for example waste disposal, and other problems hadn't even been envisaged. This ought to make us a little more sceptical when new technologies seem to promise the moon and stars.

Perhaps Ernst Bloch was thinking of such situations when he turned around a sentence by Hölderlin and warned "But where there is a rescuing element, danger grows as well".

VI.

What is happening or is possible in biotechnology and reproductive medicine has in one essential point an entirely new quality. Here it is no longer merely about technological opportunities and risks for mankind and the environment. For the first time, mankind seems able to change human beings, even to re-draft their genetic make-up.

Given the moral dimension of these questions, no-one will be surprised to learn that the Church is particularly active here. But it would be a mistake to think it is merely a morality exclusive to the Church.

It really does not take a believing Christian to know and to feel that certain possibilities and plans of biotechnology and genetic engineering run contrary to fundamental values of human life. They have been developed over several millennia and not just here in Europe. They also form the basis of the simple sentence which precedes all others in our Basic Law: Human dignity shall be inviolable.

No-one is expressly casting doubt on these values. But nor can we afford to sacrifice ethi­cal convictions unconsciously or tacitly or to declare them a matter for the individual.

We have to be clear what the consequences would be if we cast doubt on the canon of values we have developed throughout our history as the basis of all governmental action. Would we not thereby become the prisoners of a concept of progress which takes the perfect person as a yardstick? Would that not make selection and unbridled competition the primordial life prin­ciple?

That would be a completely different world, a new world - and not a brave one.

To my mind such ideas have already spread considerably, as seen in some arguments some­times heard in the debate on genetic engineering. Optimization to the strongest and the best is be­coming an unquestioned principle. Does this not make the human body itself into a com­mod­ity and an object of economic calculation?

There can be no doubt that economic arguments do play a legitimate role in the debate on the use of medical advances. Securing jobs and favourable living conditions are of course also ethically founded obligations. Entrepreneurship is part of this. Striving for economic success is part of this. Political commitment is part of this. The participation of all in progress and prosperity is a dictate of justice.

But prioritizing and weighing up arguments is also crucial. We certainly all agree that some­thing which is ethically unsound does not become admissible simply by promising economic advantages.

Where human dignity is at stake, economic arguments do not count.

It is also part of seriousness and integrity for ethical arguments not to be abused to further other interests.

VII.

One of the difficulties of the debate we need to lead is that scientific and technological prog­ress is happening so fast. We hardly have the chance to reflect carefully on the inherent opportunities and risks. But acceleration and mounting time pressure are a self-inflicted straitjacket which we must not don. Ethical reflection cannot be allowed to deteriorate into a moral cover for deci­sions which have long since been taken.

We can only reflect if there is time between discovery and application, if we can think about the possible consequences before they happen. It is not without good reason that medicine for example is only authorized for general use after a certain period of time and following thorough testing.

Where will we end up if we can only reflect on drastic change long after it has become a real­ity?

VIII.

Here in Germany it is not permitted to use embryos for research purposes. The members of the German Bundestag decided this in 1990 out of a wide variety of convictions. They deter­mined that the fertilized egg cell was the point from which human life should be protected.

Those who do not share the view that human life begins at this point must answer the ques­tion: from what other point should human life enjoy full protection? And why exactly not until this later point in time?

Is not drawing a line at any other point arbitrary and would it not leave us exposed to pressure for a further change? Is there not a danger that other interests would then take precedence over the protection of life? Not everyone seems to realize what this means beyond this spe­cific debate. It would mean constantly adapting what is ethically responsible to advances in technology. Not even important objectives of medical research should determine from what point human life should be protected.

IX.

Some are demanding that preimplantation diagnostics, PID, be permitted in Germany, too. This is about whether an embryo being used for artificial fertilization should be examined for genetic defects before it is implanted in a woman's body. Should it be eliminated or should it be used for other purposes if such defects have been established?

According to its advocates, this procedure should only be used in very few cases, namely for couples where serious genetic defects are to be expected. Even its advocates therefore be­lieve that this method is so problematic that it should only be used very seldom - although it could be applied in thousands of cases.

But should we not ask: could such a restriction be observed once permission has been granted in principle? Does that not contradict all our experience of life? And must we not, for that very reason, understand the fears of those who believe that this new form of diagnostics will or is intended to open the door to very different aims?

It is now being said that PID cannot be prohibited because the thousands of abortions carried out in our country every year are exempt from punishment. This argument overlooks the fact that these are two completely different matters.

Let us recall the difficult debate on paragraph 218: a large majority of the members of the Bundestag were convinced that the life of a child cannot be protected against the will of the mother and that counselling and practical support do more to protect life than the threat of punishment. For this reason, paragraph 218 provides that abortion is exempt from prosecution under certain conditions.

Paragraph 218 cannot be used as an argument in favour of preimplantation diagnostics for it is intended for a unique conflict situation during pregnancy. It does not justify a practice which pushes the door wide open to biological selection or to procreation on probation.

X.

Children are a gift. I know how bitter it is for many when they cannot have children.

If it is possible to conceive children artificially or to test the genetic predispositions of an embryo, then does that not quickly lead to the attitude that everyone who wants to have their own children has the right to do so - indeed, has the right to healthy children? Where wishes that hitherto could not be fulfilled now can be or where it seems that they can be, an apparent right is quick to develop.

However, we know that no such right exists. Wishes and longings, no matter how understand­able, are not rights. There is no right to children. However, children do have a right to caring parents and, above all, to be born and loved for their own sake.

XI.

Since the Enlightenment at the latest, the autonomy, self-determination and responsibility of the individual have been among the great achievements of our civilization.

The individual's freedom to decide is of paramount importance. That must not obscure our view of the fact that even self-determination is tied to conditions and has limits.

We should also bear in mind that not every additional choice automatically leads to more freedom. That also applies to medical advances. What looks like self-determination can turn into an actual constraint.

This becomes particularly clear when we think of what modern diagnostics could mean for how we deal with handicaps. Will not the question as to whether it was necessary to bring a handicapped child into the world be asked more and more in future? It will be claimed that no-one is forced to do so nowadays.

Will a handicap thus become reproachable? Will it be regarded as detrimental to society?

XII.

How apparent self-determination can produce new constraints can be illustrated with a recent example. The legal foundation for active euthanasia was created in the Netherlands recently. Opinion polls indicate that many would favour such a provision here in Germany. In this discussion, too, the self-determination of the individual, his autonomy, is cited as the most important argument in favour.

This argument seems at first to be particularly convincing when it comes to the end of one's own life. However, was not the doctor right who recently stated, "where to go on living is only one of two legal options, anyone who burdens someone else by deciding to carry on liv­ing must justify this decision".

What seems to strengthen the individual's self-determination can in reality leave him open to emotional blackmail.

This can be countered with the argument that one cannot prohibit something just because it might result in undesirable terrible consequences or lead us in the wrong direction. The right regulations could, it is said, prevent erroneous developments.

However, is there not much to indicate that erroneous developments and even abuse cannot be prevented? This is not an academic question. In the Netherlands, opponents of the new law cite a state-funded scientific study. It found that during the so-called trial period before the legislation on active euthanasia was passed, there were 1000 cases annually in which, and I quote, "acts which ended life without the express wish" of the person killed were carried out.

We should keep this in mind when talking about active euthanasia.

XIII.

I believe that so many people are in favour of active euthanasia because they are very afraid of being helplessly subjected to suffering and pain at the end of their lives. They are afraid of being left alone or being a burden on others. They are afraid of not being able to bear the pain anymore and wasting away deprived of their dignity. I can well understand this fear.

However, active euthanasia is not the only answer to this understandable despair.

Yes, we need to deal differently with dying and death. We must learn again that there are many ways of standing by, comforting and helping terminally ill people. Often the important thing is not to leave them alone.

The most effective medical assistance is, in many cases, a good pain therapy. I was deeply impressed by what Professor Eberhard Klaschik, one of the pioneers of German pain therapy, said in an interview recently:

"I have been treating terminally ill patients for almost twenty years. Many who come to us say: I can't live like this any more, I don't want to live like this anymore, the pain is too great [...]. We have been able to help all of these patients."

Many doctors confirm this experience. If that is so, then the controversy about active euthana­sia is the wrong debate. We can and must do much more than hitherto to advance pain therapy. This is a field which has been inexcusably neglected for a long time. I hope that Germany will set an example as quickly as possible in pain research and therapy. That really is profoundly humane and in the interests of every one of us.

A look at the Netherlands or Britain and other countries reveals that how to deal with life and with the possibilities offered by medical advances is currently being discussed intensively and in earnest everywhere. In some cases, prevailing principles have been radi­cally changed. No-one is taking these decisions lightly.

I hope that we will intensify our exchange on these issues in future as Europe grows closer together and we secure our common values.

XIV.

Eugenics, euthanasia and selection: these are terms with terrible connotations in Germany. They therefore - rightly - provoke emotional resistance. Nevertheless, I consider the argu­ment that we Germans should not do certain things because of our history quite wrong and misleading. If we regard something as unethical and immoral then it is because it is always unethical and immoral everywhere. There is no geography of what is permitted and what is not permitted in fundamental ethical issues.

It is right to say that the experience we had with National Socialism, in particular with research and science in the Third Reich, must play a key role in our ethical judgement, and not only in Germany. We do not call attention to this because we want to be more moral than others. No, this is not a special German morality.

No-one should forget what happened in the academic and research fields during that period. Developments which had begun before 1933 and also in other countries could continue with­out any restrictions at that time. An uncontrolled scientific community researched for the sake of its scientific aims without any moral scruples.

I reiterate time and again that history can help us, not only us Germans, to understand what happens when standards shift, when people are transformed from subjects to objects. Anyone who has begun to instrumentalize human life, anyone who has begun to differentiate between what has a right to live and what has no right to live, is on a slippery slope.

This memory is a perpetual appeal: nothing must be given precedence over the dignity of the individual. His right to freedom, self-determination and respect for his dignity must not be sacrificed for any purpose. Naturally, ethics based on these principles are not for free. There is a price to be paid if we act in accordance with ethical principles.

XV.

As these are existential questions in the truest sense of the word, it is particularly important that where we have well-founded doubts as to whether we should do something which is technically possible then it must remain prohibited until all well-founded doubts have been cleared up.

I know the sentence, "Everyone else is doing it". But we even tell our children that they must do what is right regardless of what others do. After all, we do not accept this argument in the case of child labour, slavery or the death penalty.

The same applies to the similar argument "If we don't do it then someone else will." This argument is an expression of moral capitulation. However, it seems particularly valid when used in connection with economic interests: if we do not do this or that then someone else will - they will then be at the cutting edge, gain competitive advantages and drive us out of the market.

If we were to follow this argument, we would for example have to export an unlimited amount of arms. But we do not. Rightly so and, ultimately, not to our detriment.

I repeat: economic interests are legitimate and important. However, they cannot be offset against human dignity and the protection of life. What is more, anyone who gives up protec­tion of life at its very beginning will soon be able to do the same at the end of life. Then perhaps people will ask: can we afford the expensive care at the end of a life? Would it not make more sense in economic terms if the old and sick were to agree to euthanasia in good time?

I know that no-one is suggesting this. But we all know that often the best intentions cannot prevent something which no-one wanted initially from ultimately happening.

And I also know that even today old people feel as if such questions are being pressed upon them.

XVI.

Fortunately, the advances made in life sciences have also given rise to the justified hope that we can improve many things. We all hope that diseases will be researched in ever greater depth and that it will be possible to treat them ever more effectively. Genetic engineering and genome research will play a key role in this.

Yes, I am confident that many things will get better. However, we should not believe the false prophets who tell us that everything will turn out well.

In the face of all the promises of salvation and in the face of the feeling of powerlessness let me say that progress befitting humanity knows its worth and is aware of its values. The opposite of unbridled progress is not standstill or a step backwards. Those who argue against
progress at any price do not oppose progress.

For the sake of our freedom we must ask: which of the many new possibilities are good? What must we definitely try out? What should we not do under any circumstances?

How we deal with these questions must be marked by respect for life from the very beginning. Human dignity cannot be set off against any other value.

Life reminds us time and again that despite all the progress we have made we humans will always be finite beings.

If we pretend that we have boundless possibilities we will overstretch ourselves. Then our actions will no longer befit humanity.

XVII.

The questions about life and death affect us all. We therefore must not leave them to the experts. We cannot delegate our answers: not to science, not to commissions and not to committees. They can certainly help us but we must find the answers ourselves. We must debate these issues and then decide on them together.

These are political decisions. Anyone who wants to leave the decisions on what has to be done to science is confusing the tasks of science and politics in a democratic state based on the rule of law.

We need an informed and thorough public discussion in which nothing remains unsaid: neither the intentions nor the objectives, neither the hopes nor the fears which the new possi­bilities bring with them.

We need education in the best sense of the word. Education is directed in equal measure against irrational fears and apocalyptic ideas, as well as against sheer fantasies about what tech­nology can achieve.

We must agree together time and again on the direction progress is to take.

We must decide time and again which limits we cross and which limits we want to accept.

We must weigh up and decide time and again which possibilities really would make our lives more free and which would merely subject us to new constraints or even interfere in the lives of others.

The future is open.

It is not an inescapable fate.

It will not simply come over us.

We can shape it with what we do and with what we do not do.

We have many and we have great possibilities.

Let us use them for progress and for a life befitting humanity.