International experts analyzed at the Catholic University of Valencia the possibilities, limits and bioethical challenges posed by gene editing and the creation of organoids.
On April 20, the Bioethics Observatory at the Catholic University of Valencia (UCV) held its annual conference titled “Synthetic Biology and the Future of Humanity: Possibilities, Limits, and Bioethical Challenges”.
This forum brought together leading scientists, jurists, and philosophers to reflect on one of the most ambitious frontiers of modern science: the ability to redesign and build biological systems.
The institutional event was inaugurated by José Manuel Pagán, rector of the UCV, and Rafael Sebastián, general director of Science and Research of the Valencian Government, along with Julio Tudela, director of the Bioethics Observatory of the UCV.
Rafael Sebastián, José Manuel Pagán and Julio Tudela
Regenerative medicine and the limits of gene editing
The first session of the conference, moderated by Ana de Luis, a professor of biotechnology at the UCV, addressed current technical advances.
Núria Montserrat, Minister of Universities of the Government of Catalonia and principal investigator of the Institute for Bioengineering of Catalonia (IBEC), participated remotely to focus her presentation on the immense potential of regenerative medicine.
She explained how, through cellular reprogramming, her laboratory has succeeded in creating organoids, or “mini-organs”—such as miniature kidneys or hearts—from stem cells. These structures open the door to testing drugs with unprecedented precision and studying human diseases without the need for animal models.
Lluís Montoliu
On the other hand, Lluís Montoliu, a scientific researcher at the CSIC and deputy director of the National Center for Biotechnology (CNB), focused on technical realism versus the promises of science fiction.
As an expert on the CRISPR tool, Montoliu warned that, although the gene editing technology is powerful, the creation of transgenic humans is currently technically and ethically unfeasible. Citing scientific data, he noted that the technical efficiency in primates is a mere 0.4%, which in humans would require hundreds of embryos and dozens of surrogate mothers to achieve a single birth — something unfeasible and unacceptable.
He also condemned attempts at genetic enhancement and eugenics, citing the Oviedo Convention which prohibits the modification of the genome of offspring, and argued that scientific efforts should focus exclusively on curing diseases and not on creating “superhumans”.
Biology as engineering and the need to “humanize” it
Andrés Moya
Andrés Moya, Professor of Genetics at the University of Valencia, analyzed how synthetic biology has transformed the vision of the living being into a kind of biological engineering.
He also reflected on the process of “Darwinization” and warned that, although current science can break down life into its fundamental parts, reconstructing it does not necessarily mean understanding its essence or ultimate meaning.
Moya emphasized the tension between synthesis and analysis, noting that there is a wide range of interpretations regarding the real possibilities of these advances.
In the same vein, Nicolás Jouve, Professor Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Alcalá de Henares, outlined the practical applications of synthetic biology in his round table discussion.
Nicolás Jouve
Jouve differentiated between “top-down” approaches (modifying existing systems) and “bottom-up” approaches (designing new systems from scratch).
He highlighted the positive benefits of this discipline, such as environmental conservation or the production of new sustainable resources, but also warned of the ecological risks of disrupting natural balances through the release of modified organisms or gene drives.
For Jouve, “humanizing” science is not about holding it back, but rather guiding it under the inescapable principles of safety, precaution, and justice, ensuring respect for genetic heritage and avoiding intervention in the human germline. “Redesigning life is a moral decision that commits our relationship with nature and with future generations,” he stated.
The philosophical counterpoint: against reductionism and futurism
Marta Bertolaso
The philosopher Marta Bertolaso, from the Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, offered a profound epistemological reflection on the risk of economic or political interests taking control of scientific development.
Bertolaso strongly criticized the “mechanistic” and reductionist view that compares the organism to a complex machine that can be assembled. She defended a “relational ontology,” reminding us that life is inherently indeterminate, historical and dynamic, and cannot be reduced to mere data, genes or algorithms.
Therefore, she called on scientists to rediscover their sense of wonder at the enormous complexity of the living organism.
Alfredo Marcos
Alfredo Marcos, professor of Philosophy of Science at the University of Valladolid, criticized the “futurism” that seeks to justify any current technical action in pursuit of a distant utopia.
Marcos argued that this long-termism as instrumentalizing and degrading the present, turning it into a mere instant from which one must flee.
Recalling Saint Augustine and his “three presents,” he proposed a “technological humanism” oriented toward “anthropotechnics,” where science serves to care for and protect the human dignity already present in every person, and not to replace it with something artificial.
Law in the face of modern excess
Finally, Vicente Bellver, Professor of Philosophy of Law at the University of Valencia, closed the presentations by analyzing the excesses of modern man in the current Anthropocene era, in which human beings exert a drastic influence on nature.
Vicente Bellver
Drawing on the myths of Prometheus and Cassandra, Bellver defended the need for prudence and an attitude of humility on the part of science, recognizing that not all the consequences of our actions can be foreseen.
He criticized the Gnostic view that treats human beings as defective devices that need to be redesigned, and reminded everyone that vulnerability is not a defect, but a constitutive and essential part of our nature.
Furthermore, he highlighted the role of ethics committees as genuine forums for education and called for prudence in the face of pressure from markets and technology companies.
The conference was closed by Julio Tudela, director of the Bioethics Observatory, who sent a final message of hope and caution: synthetic biology is an extraordinary tool for well-being, provided that the human being and his inalienable dignity remain invariably at the center of all research.
The recognition of this intrinsic dignity emerged as the central theme and main conclusion of this congress, acting as an unnegotiable guide against future interventionist temptations.
