Wolfgang van den Daele is director of the department for civil society and transnational networks at the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (Berlin Center for Social Research). He is presently a member of Germany's national ethics council.

DW-WORLD: The German constitution says "Human dignity is inviolable." Who defines what constitutes dignity and what exactly does "inviolable" mean in this context?

Wolfgang van den Daele: Human dignity as referred to in our constitution first and foremost means the protection of the individual and her right to self-determination from the arbitrariness of state power. But can human dignity itself become a limit to self-determination? Is the concept of dignity a limit or the very source of freedom? Faced with the fact that biotechnology can change our lives and human nature, there is a tendency to say that dignity must be somehow defined in an objective way.

And what does "objective" mean in this context?

There have always been attempts to define human dignity by reference to cultural values. But in the course of history values are subject to change. Now then this is the problem: Do we want to accept an "objective" dignity that is opposed to the free choice of individuals. This concerns drug use, featuring in a peep-show, cosmetic surgery, for instance, that is to say all cases in which the people concerned have agreed to be doing this and others are doing this to them.

You mention cosmetic surgery: Does a person have a basic right to correcting the imperfect?

Every person has a right to correction. No one doubts that. But the question is: Are you allowed to correct others -- for example your kids?

… and, is it allowed?

Yes -- if one is convinced that this is happening in the interest of the child's wellbeing. If someone has an inherited genetic disorder then it is okay to try to modify germ cells, for instance. I don't see how someone could say this contravenes human dignity. It is not against my dignity or that of the child to deprive it of the "chance" to be born with a severe hereditary disease.

What do you make of embryonic research or therapeutic cloning?

It depends on whether we consider an embryo a human being -- or if we see it as something that may be "sacrificed" for a higher purpose of human life, for example to develop stem cells that can be used to cure other people.

What is the general stance on this issue in Germany?

There is a battle being fought. One group says: An embryo is a human being and has full claim to the protection of his human dignity. The others say: An embryo is a preliminary stage to a human person. Typically they refer to Judaism, which says that up to 40 days after conception there is nothing yet that counts. Also according to old Catholic teachings -- that were being followed for centuries -- an embryo from a moral point of view did not count for anything until it acquired its soul from God.

My point of view is also that an embryo is not a human being in the full sense, but a stage in the development of human life. The embryo can -- and should -- yield to the right to freedom of others if this is required by the circumstances. I think it is right that a large part of society sees it this way. However, this does not mean, that we consider the embryo as morally irrelevant!

As far as research is concerned: There is no way of stepping back from what one already knows -- but does one really have to know everything?

No, you don't have to. But if we decide not to know something, others will do it. Knowledge cannot be controlled. Then again one does not have to do everything, but who is "one" anyway? Is it German society? The individual? Sure, the individual does not have to. An entirely different question is, if society as a whole is allowed to force the individual not to do something.

There have to be important reasons for society to be allowed to pull the plug -- for instance when the rights of other people are violated. You cannot conduct research to attain knowledge if it involves torturing people. Another reason would be: The consequences for society are devastating. But there is a duty to explain and a heavy burden of proof. It is not enough to simply claim devastating consequences.

We cannot cut ourselves off from knowledge. As soon as science has produced a way to cure an affliction, people are asking for it. This is human. But I doubt that as regards bioethics we have moral norms that are shared the world over. Yes, we do have human rights, but there is no global moral view on how to deal with embryos.

Is there a legal claim to compliance with particular norms? Or that society follows certain values?

No, there is only the constitution, and legal claims that derive from international treaties or national laws. Moral demands are based on universal moral principles and there are no moral claims based on values of a local community -- a "local ethics," so to say. This means that individual societies have different standards. But also within these societies there are individual groups with different standards. They are all subject to the same laws, but there is no common ethics.

But there are "research islands" in other regions and cultures, in which other norms apply than in Europe. And they push the limits of what can or may be done further and further...

Absolutely. In Germany we can't tell them: You are immoral, you are violating human dignity. The only thing we can say is: We are not doing it. That is what's so interesting about stem cell research. In Germany it basically does not happen. But elsewhere they do it, this means the results of stem cell research are available. Now -- shall we use these results? Of course we will! If useful drugs are made as a result, we will import them, if there are transplantation techniques, we will use them.

But surely the people have to be told how and under what circumstances these were created?

I am not sure about that. Do they have to know? You mean people would reject it if they knew that embryos were used to produce it?

For example...

I don't actually think so. But of course this could be the case. Up to now there's is only compulsory labeling for anything that has been produced using genetic modification. But whether it has been tested in clinical trials or experiments on humans does not have to be declared. There is an international consensus that this information is irrelevant. National parliaments could introduce legislation requiring that this information be made available, but I am not aware of any such initiative. It's possible that there are people who would prefer this, but their chances are slim. I don't see a majority for their position or a parliament that would introduce such a measure.

Ingun Arnold interviewed Wolfgang van den Daele (rri)