In The Tablet, John Cornwell sums up the debate

Other critics such as Professor Michael Banner of King’s College, London, have warned of the scientific hubris which looks only at ends, rather than means: “It is the ethic of the terrorist. Let me do this bad thing so that I can achieve a good thing.” The Pontifical Academy, in its recent guidelines (2003) on human embryonic experimentation, has emphasised that scientists should understand that it is not legitimate to pursue scientific aims “simply because it is possible to do so”.

The most compelling objections, however, remain the lack of an appropriate framework for consultation that would include perspectives in anthropology, moral philosophy, and religious beliefs and values. In these pages last week Alasdair MacIntyre argued for the importance, in the shaping of public morality, of voices that “point us towards a theological ethics, in which the narrative of our lives is understood in relation to the narrative of God’s self-giving”. Professor MacIntyre was reviewing Herbert McCabe’s posthumous collection of essays, The Good Life: ethics and the pursuit of happiness, a book which emphasises the articulation of ethics that appeal to the long-term traditions of particular societies, and the way in which our choices should express our relationship with the entire community and to its flourishing.

Biotechnology, with its almost weekly new ethical challenges, clearly requires a broader forum of discussion and debate than one restricted to the utilitarian views of scientists and clinicians. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has repeatedly called for a national bioethics committee that would take into account the Christian traditions of Britain. The HFEA’s approvals last week lend special urgency to his appeal.

Oh, no, no, no! That would mean allowing religion and other subjective world-views intrude on the clear-eyed objectivity of science!