On 26 February, the Uehiro Oxford Institute hosted
“An Interfaith Discussion: The Ethics of Preimplantation Genetic Testing.” Convened by Dr Andrew Moeller (History / Project Leader, Biotechnology and the Humanities, Medical Humanities Research Hub), the event brought together two panellists representing different faith and academic perspectives: Dr Mansur Ali (Cardiff University) and Dr Jonny Torrance (Jesus College, University of Oxford). Dr Heloise Robinson (Faculty of Law, University of Oxford) joined the event as a co-chair with Andrew.
The panel began with a discussion of current laws surrounding Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT), as well as how different faith traditions approached this technology. Both Dr Torrance—speaking about Christianity—and Dr Ali—speaking of Islam—noted that there were no strict scriptural injunctions against PGT itself; rather, ethical concerns within the respective traditions often centred on the motivations underlying parental decisions to undergo such testing. Both speakers also noted that the question of motivation was significant to them at a personal level. They noted, for instance, that while using PGT to identify developmental disorders or serious medical conditions was in itself not a negative thing—PGT was, after all, just a test— its use to identify supposedly “desirable” traits, or discard embryos harbouring the risk of “undesirable” illnesses, raised more difficult ethical questions, often with eugenic undertones.
As an important caveat, both speakers also discussed the moral and legal status of the embryo within their respective faith traditions—Christianity and Islam—while acknowledging ongoing internal debates on the matter. Dr Ali noted, for instance, that there were differences in opinion within Islam as to when ensoulment happens, and one’s view on whether a certain act counted as suffering for the embryo depended on the stage of the embryo’s development relative to the view of ensoulment one espoused. This framing was especially useful because it situated ethical decision-making within broader theological worldviews. The panel also explored the role of religious authority and expertise within each tradition. It discussed questions such as what counted as religious expertise, what kinds of guidance faith leaders were expected to provide, and how authority itself was understood.
Ultimately, my assessment is that the discussion was, at its core, about how faith traditions negotiate the presence of risk in one of the most emotionally significant moments of social and personal life: childbirth and parenthood. The panel brought to the fore real stories from individuals dealing with faith in action, rather than viewing faith as abstract doctrine evidenced purely from texts. It demonstrated that faith perspectives on emergent biotechnologies cannot be understood through scriptural engagement alone. Such an approach risks flattening adherents of a particular religion into neutral carriers of ideology, overlooking the richness, adaptability, and lived reality of faith in practice.
In negotiating this complexity, the discussion raised profoundly difficult, yet largely quotidian questions that thousands of parents face: How should we alleviate the suffering of our children? Is there meaning in suffering? Where do we draw the line between care and control? And how do we negotiate risk, uncertainty, and responsibility in parental life?
