The Bioethics Observatory of the  Catholic University of Valencia  (UCV) held its annual congress on April 20th under the title  “Synthetic Biology and the Human Future: 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 construct biological systems.

The institutional event was inaugurated by  José Manuel Pagán , rector of the UCV, and  Rafael Sebastián Aguilar , director general of Science and Research of the Valencian Government, together with  Julio Tudela , director of the Bioethics Observatory of the UCV.

 

Regenerative medicine and the limits of gene editing

The first session of the congress, moderated by  Ana de Luis , professor of biotechnology at the UCV, addressed current technical advances.  Núria Montserrat , current Minister of Universities for the Government of Catalonia and principal investigator at the Institute for Bioengineering of Catalonia (IBEC), participated remotely, focusing her presentation on the immense potential of regenerative medicine. She explained how, through cell 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.

For his part,  Lluís Montoliu , a research scientist at the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) and deputy director of the National Center for Biotechnology (CNB), emphasized technical realism versus the promises of science fiction. As an expert on the CRISPR tool, Montoliu warned that, although the editing technology is powerful, the creation of transgenic humans is currently technically and ethically unfeasible. Supporting himself with 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 insurmountable and unacceptable. He denounced 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 , Professor of Genetics at the University of Valencia, analyzed how synthetic biology has transformed our view of living beings 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.

Along these same lines,  Nicolás Jouve , Professor Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Alcalá de Henares, discussed the practical applications of synthetic biology in a roundtable discussion moderated by Ignacio Ventura, a professor at the UCV. 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 and the production of new sustainable resources, but also warned of the ecological risks of disrupting natural balances through the release of genetically modified organisms or gene drives. For Jouve, “humanizing” science is not about halting it, but rather guiding it according to the essential 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 concluded.

The philosophical counterpoint: against reductionism and futurism

 

From the Biomedical Campus in Rome, philosopher  Marta Bertolaso  ​​offered a profound epistemological reflection on the risk of economic or political interests seizing control of scientific development. Bertolaso ​​harshly criticized the “mechanistic” and reductionist view that compares the organism to a complex, assemble-it-yourself machine. She defended a “relational ontology,” reminding us that life has an intrinsic indeterminacy, is historical and dynamic, and cannot be reduced to mere data, genes, or algorithms. Therefore, she called on scientists to rediscover the capacity to “marvel” at the enormous complexity of the living organism.
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 denounced this long-termism as instrumentalizing and degrading the present, turning it into a mere instant from which we must flee. Recalling Saint Augustine and his “three gifts”, he proposed a “technological humanism” oriented towards “anthropotechnics”, where science serves to care for and protect the human dignity already present in each person, and not to replace it with something artificial.

The law in the face of modern “hubris”

Finally,  Vicente Bellver , Professor of Philosophy of Law at the University of Valencia, closed the presentations by analyzing the “hubris” or excess of modern man in the current Anthropocene era, where human beings exercise a

 

drastic influence on nature. Drawing on myths such as those of Prometheus and Cassandra, Bellver defended the need for prudence ( phronesis ) and an attitude of humility on the part of science, acknowledging that not all the consequences of our actions can be foreseen. He criticized the “gnostic” view that treats human beings as defective artifacts 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 championed the role of ethics committees as genuine spaces for training and prudence in the face of pressure from markets and technology companies.

The day’s events were closed by  Julio Tudela , director of the Bioethics Observatory, who delivered a final message of hope and caution:  synthetic biology  is an extraordinary tool for well-being, provided that human beings and their inalienable dignity remain invariably at the center of all research. The recognition of this intrinsic dignity undoubtedly emerged as the central theme and main conclusion of this congress, serving as an essential guide against future interventionist temptations.