In the science fiction short story Halo, a panel of Muslim scholars discuss a strip of bacon made by a "molecular assembler", a device capable of producing the meat directly from individual atoms, instead of slicing the meat from an animal. All meat from a pig is forbidden according to Islam's halal laws. Synthetic bacon is identical to the real one, but it has never been part of a living pig. Is it still forbidden?
"The story may look like a joke, but it shows how the capacity of nanotechnology to manipulate atoms may change the material world in such a way to raise religious questions," says Chris Toumey, a cultural anthropologist at the University of South Carolina, who has studied in depth the relation between nanotechnology and faith.
It is mostly secular voices who have expressed their thoughts and concerns on nanotechnology until now, but there is a lot of evidence that public views on it will be shaped by religious beliefs. For example, a 2009 survey found that strength of religious beliefs in the US is negatively related to support for funding of nanotechnology. A study of the same year found that the more religious a country is, the less it tends to find nanotechnology morally acceptable.
Until now, religions have been remarkably silent on nanotechnology, Toumey points out. Nothing compared to the harsh bioethical controversies about in vitro fertilisation in the Catholic world, for example. "Nanotechnology is a heterogeneous body of sciences and technologies: few faith communities have enough universities or journals to examine such a complicated issue," says Toumey. "Their attention may be attracted if some dramatic event happens: either positive, something like a cure for a cancer, or negative, like an environmental disaster." The scarcity of official documents makes it difficult to guess religious views, but it is an opportunity for scientists to get prepared in advance.
"I think there has not been much concern about nanotechnology in religious thinking, because if you look into it in detail, the concerns that arise don't come from nanotechnology in itself, but rather from specific applications, like those to food and environment," says Donald Bruce, founder of the Edinethics consultancy based in Edinburgh, which has worked for the Church of Scotland.
Toumey's analysis of the few studies done on believers' opinions has found a worry shared by several religions: that nanotechnology will reshape human nature. "Faith communities are reacting to the representation of nanotechnology made by a popular group of writers, called transhumanists," Toumey points out.
Transhumanism is a cultural current that thinks that technology (including nano) will steer human evolution artificially, eliminating diseases, extending life indefinitely, and using information technology to achieve cyberimmortality, something like storing a person's "soul" on a hard-disk. One of its most famous proponents is the futurist Ray Kurzweil. Transhumanists' ideas about immortality and the soul clash directly with postulates shared by most religions. "However, identifying nanotechnology with the kind of human enhancement that transhumanists talk about is a mistake," says Bruce.
A second shared concern is the fear that nanotechnology may take away individual control of one's life, by creating environmental impacts without people's consent, or by providing tools for a better life only to the rich. "These worries echo the general concerns of believers with respect to technology in general," says Toumey. "Some of them may be even shared by non-religious people, but studies show that believers are more articulate in discussing them." The vocabulary of God, soul, spirit, and eternal life provides a whole set of metaphors, symbols, narratives, and figures of speech which are useful to navigate ethical issues raised by technology, according to those studies.
Beyond shared worries, different religious denominations display a variety of approaches, in the few official documents available. Catholics relate the issue with classical bioethics problems: will new embryo diagnostics coming from nanotchnology lead to abortion? Will nanomedicine respect human dignity, even when health conditions deteriorate up to a point where euthanasia could be considered?
Non-Catholic Christians express their concerns about human hubris: for example, one author compares nanotechnology to alchemy, warning about the dangers of "total control over nature in the ability to transmute any substance into any other". Muslims take a very different path: rather than debating whether nanotechnology is right or wrong, they discuss who has the authority to make a decision: the question is casted in terms of ijtihad, the Islamic procedures for issuing legal rulings. Jewish writers frame the debate in the narrative of the Golem, This is a human-shaped creature assembled by men with religious or magic powers, whose behaviour can be beneficial or dangerous, in different stories: the baseline is that technology can improve creation, but this comes with a burden of responsibility for humans.
"I think that neither the scientific nor the faith communities are prepared for a debate on nanotechnology," says Toumey. "Believers are reacting to the extravagant ideas of transhumanism, which in fact have little to do with real nanotechnology. They would be wise to dedicate some attention to nanotechnology before making a decision. On the other hand, scientists should recognise that religion can bring thoughtful and constructive opinion. It would be wonderful if everybody knew a lot about nanotechnology, and if decisions could be taken based on this information, but unfortunately this is extremely unlikely."
According to Toumey, non-experts will form their opinion based on their values – well established and polarised positions on technology, which bring in concepts such as privacy, autonomy, justice – rather than on objective information.
"It would be good to steer a two-way dialogue between scientists and non-experts, where they could exchange information and concerns," says Toumey. He thinks that this dialogue is urgent. It will not be necessary to wait for transhumanists' promises to become true: something as prosaic as a slice of synthetic bacon may trigger the controversy.