An interview by Italian newspaper L’Osservatore
Romano with Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti has set the
blogosphere ablaze. Sounding off on an assortment of “new sins”,
the high-ranking Girotti voiced his opinions about the course he
think the Vatican should be taking. 
“Priests must take account of new sins which have appeared on
the horizon of humanity as a corollary of the unstoppable process
of globalization,” insisted the Girotti, coming off as a bit of a
Catholic futurist.
“You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting
your neighbour’s wife, but also by ruining the environment,
carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing
genetic manipulations which alter DNA or
compromise embryos,” the Archbishop continued.
Of all these “new sins”, it was unsurprisingly biotech and
stem-cell research that seemed to worry Girotti the most.
“Within bioethics, there are areas where we absolutely must
denounce some violations of the fundamental rights of human nature
through experiments and genetic manipulation whose outcome is
difficult to predict and control,” he said.
So, will Pope Benedict and the broader Vatican soon mimic
Girotti’s rigid stance on biotech? Or will they more carefully pick
battles and language? As disruptive new technologies continue to
add complexity to the moral horizon, the church will be under great
pressure to take a hard stance. Either way, we should expect hear a
great deal more from foresighted clergy, such as Girotti, with
growing concerns about the future of, well, everything.
By Dick Pelletier
What will life be like in 2030? Those who ponder such things,
futurists and other visionaries, suggest exciting and sometimes
fantastic possibilities. As we begin our trek into the world of
tomorrow, predictions of things to come rush towards us at
breathtaking speeds. 
Experts predict that between now and 2020, we will see more
science and technology advances than we experienced during the
entire 20th century and from 2020 to 2100, developments will
outpace the last 20,000 years of human progress.
Nobody knows for sure what will happen in the future, but by
projecting present-day knowledge, we can make plausible guesses.
Hollywood creates fantastic futures, but they always talk about
worlds gone mad, or make it sound so negative that none of us would
ever want to live there.
But from research that’s underway today, and scientific
projections of things to come, we can piece together a probable
future world, and what life might be like living in that world.
Readers are invited to track me down in 22 years and tell me
whether I was right or wrong.
People: World population has climbed to 9.3 billion, and
most people look forward to a life expectancy of 200 years or more.
Advanced nanotech has eliminated world hunger in 2030 and could,
experts say, provide a comfortable life on Earth for up to 100
billion people in the future. (cont.)
Continue Reading
By Dick Pelletier
We often think nostalgically of our past as the “good old days,”
but projected scientific and technological breakthroughs suggest
the greatest and most exciting times are yet to come. Today,
breakthroughs in healthcare rush at us with amazing speeds, but the
golden ages of biotech, 2010-2020, and molecular nanotech,
2020-2030, promise even greater advances in human health. 
Legendary biologist Leroy Hood predicts that in the next decade,
we will understand genetic predispositions for most sicknesses and
develop tools for preventing them. “We’ll move from a mode that’s
largely reactive to one that’s predictive and preventive,” he
says.
Between 2010 and 2020, research labs will place strong focus on
regenerative medicine with its amazing prospect for re-growing
organs and tissues from inside the body. According to a recent
government report, this new technology promises to radically
improve health, restore a more youthful appearance to aging seniors
and ‘boomers, and eliminate most deaths from cancer, heart disease,
obesity, and many other illnesses.
(cont.)
Continue Reading
A follow-up to last week’s Demise of Death
My post last week on the Demise of Death received so many thought provoking comments that I feel compelled to further the discussion in another post. The new information and perspectives contained in the the comments have transformed the way I intend to approach parts of the debate. With such a fertile discussion ground, I felt I would be remiss if I did not give attention and thanks to several of the eloquently expressed ideas.
Here’s the point-by-point update:
Nanotech & Biotech Will Not Necessarily End Death: That death may remain even if aging is cured was a point raised by a few of the commentors. If our bodies did not deteriorate into death, fatal accidents, acts of violence etc. could still bring about mortality. I realize that my rationale for thinking we may be able to conquer death altogether was somewhat obscure in my first post. One theory proposed by futurists and transhumanists, is 
that to truly conquer aging, we will not be able to rely merely on stem cells, genetic therapies and drugs.
These treatments can, the theory argues, only go so far to combat cellular deterioration. If we are to truly end, and not merely delay aging, we would eventually have to develop nanobots capable of precisely repairing cells. My own logic followed that if we are able to create effective cellular-repair nanobots, we will have mastered nanotechnology and it will serve a number of other functions beyond cellular repair.
Prolific poster Dick Pelletier has pointed out a few times that if nanobot technology were mastered, we could, in theory, surround ourselves in a sort of thin nanobot shield that could, in theory, protect us from violence and accident. Perhaps I have taken this rationale too far. It does not logically follow that by ending aging we will necessarily end death by accident or violence, but I think it is at least a reasonable possibility.
Taking Control of Your Fate Opens Pandora’s Box: Let us consider my original conjecture is incorrect and that we will be able to bring an end to aging, but not death by accident or violence. If this becomes true, we will, in effect be gaining a greatly extended life at the expense of knowing that death will certainly come either by violence, violent accident or suicide. I cannot help but think these are all troubling ends.
Admittedly, most deaths now are troubling. Death by disease and aging is most often the end of a long, painful, degrading, messy battle. But, at present, we can at least hope to be one of the lucky few to die comfortably, unknowingly in their sleep. This hope will be eliminated if aging is defeated.
Even to me the benefits outweigh the downsides, but it is deeply disturbing to know you will one day kill yourself if you aren’t hit by a bus or murdered first. This is in part what I meant when I wrote that I considered myself a part of nature and do not wish to be removed from the natural process. Taking your fate out of the hands of nature results in some very difficult decisions.
Accepting Suicide? This idea of death occurring either by chance or choice is tied to another point raised in the comments. Johnfrink said, “I’m pretty sure if we conquer death eternal life will not be forced on anybody.” And I am inclined to agree. It is unlikely that in a future without aging, omniscient police will parole the streets taking into custody all those thinking of ending it all. But that doesn’t mean suicide will be any more desirable than it is today.
Continue Reading
There's no actual change in policy from the Obama administration on the stem cell front yet but some exciting things are happening and you can feel the pace picking up. In the past week Geron Technologies announced that they have received FDA clearance to put their GRNOPC1 into clinical human trials and researchers in Spain also announced that they had had success in 
treating lab rats with significant spinal injuries. While both studies have achieved impressive results in lab animals, a primary difference is that Geron uses embryonic stem cells to derive their hESC oligodendrocyte progenitor cells while the Spanish team used adult stem cells from tissue in the injured rats themselves to get their progenitor cells. Miodrag Stojkovic, who headed up the study done in Spain, said that "we need both adult and embryonic stem cells to understand our body and apply this knowledge in regenerative medicine."
It's worth noting that the success has come with injuries where the spinal cord has been traumatically compromised but not entirely severed. Also, the success in the rat recovery process has been demonstrated in injuries treated within 7-14 days of occurrence. Though there is hope that treatments will be derived for those whose injuries are older, rapid application seems to be key and has also been found effective in treating a variety of neural injuries including stroke and brain trauma.
