Select Page

06.- Interactions biologie psychisme / Interactions biology psyche — CHURCH OF FRANCE / États généraux de la bioéthique — Which world do we want for tomorrow? The brave new world…

06.- Interactions biologie psychisme / Interactions biology psyche — CHURCH OF FRANCE /  États généraux de la bioéthique — Which world do we want for tomorrow? The brave new world…

Scientific and legal data

In the sci­en­tif­ic world, we are used to think­ing psy­chic states from their bio­log­i­cal roots, some­times even to reduce them to biol­o­gy. But biol­o­gists have also been study­ing, for about twen­ty years, the influ­ence of the psy­che on bio­log­i­cal reactions.

Sci­en­tif­ic dis­cov­er­ies in the field of epigenetics[1] show that some genes are inhib­it­ed while oth­ers express them­selves strong­ly, depend­ing on the bio­log­i­cal envi­ron­ment (in par­tic­u­lar the dis­tri­b­u­tion of genes in the genome) and the envi­ron­ment of the psy­che, i.e. the behav­iour of liv­ing beings them­selves. For human beings, it is empha­sized that nutri­tion, phys­i­cal exer­cise, stress man­age­ment, plea­sure and social net­work can inter­vene on the mech­a­nisms of epi­ge­n­e­sis. This attests that the two fields of the bio­log­i­cal and the psy­chic are in per­ma­nent rec­i­p­ro­cal rela­tion (it is impor­tant for the GPA!). Sim­i­lar­ly, psy­cho-neu­roim­munol­o­gy stud­ies the impact of psy­cho­log­i­cal events on the immune sys­tem. Hence the words of sci­en­tist Joël de Ros­nay: “Who would have thought, bare­ly ten years ago, that the func­tion­ing of the body depend­ed not only on the “DNA pro­gram”, but on the way we con­duct our dai­ly lives?

Epi­ge­net­ics also opens new hori­zons: what humans will genet­i­cal­ly trans­mit to their descen­dants could be the fruit, in part, of their own behaviour!

Cur­rent stud­ies on brain plas­tic­i­ty also point to a close link between the func­tions of the liv­ing and the lived. The orga­ni­za­tion of neur­al net­works plays on the expe­ri­ence but, in return, it changes accord­ing to the indi­vid­u­al’s expe­ri­ences. An abil­i­ty of the brain to reshape con­nec­tions between neu­rons by the for­ma­tion or dis­ap­pear­ance of synaps­es. Thus, exer­cis­ing or re-edu­cat­ing one’s brain capac­i­ties (train­ing-learn­ing, there­fore psy­che) plays on the biol­o­gy of the brain itself. The same goes for the reg­u­lar prac­tice of med­i­ta­tion which involves the spir­i­tu­al part of the human being.

If the bio­log­i­cal influ­ences the lived, as we have been say­ing for a long time, the lived influ­ences the bio­log­i­cal! So, what the psy­chol­o­gist usu­al­ly says, the biol­o­gist has only recent­ly shown!

The problems this poses

A significant paradox between biotechnologists and biologists

Biotech­nol­o­gists mod­i­fy liv­ing organ­isms by striv­ing to sim­pli­fy them in order to bet­ter recon­struct, con­trol and use them for cer­tain pur­pos­es. They are look­ing to improve its basic func­tion­al­i­ties or add oth­ers (see the Biotech­nol­o­gy fact sheet). This reduc­tion from liv­ing to select­ed func­tion­al­i­ties aims to get the max­i­mum pro­duc­tiv­i­ty from the “liv­ing machine”. Besides the eth­i­cal ques­tions that this rais­es, in par­tic­u­lar that of “util­i­tar­i­an­ism”, can this sim­pli­fied liv­ing cor­re­spond to a real improve­ment of the nat­ur­al liv­ing? Indeed, para­dox­i­cal­ly, the biol­o­gist dis­cov­ers more and more that the liv­ing is com­plex: its evo­lu­tion is influ­enced by the envi­ron­ment which affects even the expres­sion of its genes; it belongs to ecosys­tems which mod­i­fy it; it is plas­tic and can thus adapt, evolve, in short “liv­ing being”!

Thus, at a time when biol­o­gy seems to be emerg­ing from too strict a func­tion­al­ism, it is now the turn of biotech­nolo­gies to risk lock­ing itself in. This is essen­tial in order to respond with objec­tiv­i­ty and rel­e­vance to the tech­ni­cal and eth­i­cal chal­lenges of the use of human techno­sciences! Tak­ing care of the liv­ing” can­not be lim­it­ed to increas­ing its func­tion­al­i­ties to “per­fect the machine”. Will the tran­shu­man thus reduced to increased func­tion­al­i­ties not in fact be impov­er­ished in rela­tion to humans? Respect for humans, includ­ing by try­ing to increase their capac­i­ties, is only pos­si­ble in view of their com­plex­i­ty and the inter­pen­e­tra­tion of their bio­log­i­cal, psy­cho­log­i­cal and spir­i­tu­al dimensions.

The “plas­tic­i­ty of life” refers to a dynam­ic ten­sion between “robust­ness and vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty”, rigid­i­ty and mal­leabil­i­ty, invari­ance and trans­for­ma­tion, and, more broad­ly, between invari­ance and his­toric­i­ty. It is a nec­es­sary and cru­cial con­di­tion for liv­ing organ­isms to evolve, with their meta­bol­ic, repro­duc­tive, orga­ni­za­tion­al and infor­ma­tion­al char­ac­ter­is­tics. On the one hand, the robust­ness of a liv­ing organ­ism defines its abil­i­ty to main­tain itself in the face of dis­tur­bances linked to its envi­ron­ment. On the oth­er hand, it is influ­enced by this envi­ron­ment, hence its “vul­ner­a­ble” aspect, regard­less of the fragili­ty linked to a dis­ease or a dis­abil­i­ty. Thus the “invul­ner­a­ble cyborg[2]”, called of their wish­es by cer­tain tran­shu­man­ists, los­es its capac­i­ty of adap­ta­tion by los­ing the “vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty” nec­es­sary to all liv­ing to evolve. For human beings, this vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty is linked to the biol­o­gy-psy­chism-spir­i­tu­al inter­ac­tions in their ecosys­tems. Respect­ing it and tak­ing care of it there­fore con­sist in pro­mot­ing robust­ness-vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty bal­ance by allow­ing body-psy­chism-mind har­mo­ny in their envi­ron­ments. It is there­fore appro­pri­ate to con­sid­er an eth­ic in which the vul­ner­a­ble human being is the cornerstone.

Anthropological and ethical visions

This look of the mod­ern biol­o­gist joins cer­tain tra­di­tions of Chris­t­ian anthro­pol­o­gy, from Saints Paul, Ire­naeus, Ephrem, Max­imus the Con­fes­sor, and both Rhen­ish and Ori­en­tal mys­tics, who explain the uni­ty of man “body-soul-mind”. Saint Paul writes: “May the God of peace him­self sanc­ti­fy you whole; may your spir­it, your soul and your body be kept whole with­out reproach for the com­ing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 5:23). Saint Ire­naeus, in the 2nd cen­tu­ry, com­ments: “The flesh mod­elled (shaped by God, the Cre­ator) alone is not the per­fect man, it is only the body of man, there­fore a part of man. The soul alone is no more the man, it is only the soul of man, there­fore a part of man. Nor is the spir­it the man, it is called the spir­it, not the man. It is the mix­ture and union of all these things that con­sti­tute the per­fect man” (Adver­sus haere­ses, V, 6, 1). It is a mat­ter of dis­tin­guish­ing body-soul-mind but in a inter­pen­e­tra­tion of these three dimen­sions. So the body does not reduce itself to bio­log­i­cal, it thinks and feels. Sim­i­lar­ly, the soul which cov­ers a prin­ci­ple of orga­ni­za­tion, ani­ma­tion and uni­ty uni­fies the metab­o­lisms, emo­tions and thoughts of the body. And the spir­it appears as the “fine point of the soul”, where the Spir­it of God speaks to man in his body and soul, as “being global”[3].

This com­par­i­son of today’s biol­o­gy with this anthro­po­log­i­cal tra­di­tion indi­cates that one of the impor­tant eth­i­cal cri­te­ria for tak­ing into account the impact of the use of biotech­nolo­gies on human beings will be that of respect­ing and pro­mot­ing the uni­ty of the cor­po­re­al, the psy­chic and the spir­i­tu­al in their ecosys­tems. One could thus ask one­self the ques­tion of the impact of such or such tech­no­log­i­cal inter­ven­tion in terms of har­mo­ny or dishar­mo­ny between these three dimen­sions, in order to favour the pow­er of being oneself.


Tost, Epi­ge­net­ics, Cast­er Aca­d­e­m­ic Press, 2008.
Mor­ange, “L’épigéné­tique”, Études, n° 4210, Novem­ber 2014, p. 45.
de Mon­tera, “Epi­ge­net­ic hered­i­ty: a par­a­digm shift? “Berg­son or Sci­ence, Philo­soph­i­cal Impli­ca­tions, 2014, pp. 27–49.
Lam­bertet R. Rezsö­hazy, Com­ment les pattes vien­nent au ser­pent : essai sur l’é­ton­nante plas­tic­ité du vivant, Flam­mar­i­on, 2004.
Magnin, Penser l’hu­main au temps de l’homme aug­men­té, Albin Michel, 2017, ch. 4.
by Ros­nay and Fab­rice Papil­lon, Et l’homme créa la vie, LLL, 2010.
J.-M. Besnier, L’homme sim­pli­fié. Star Touch Syn­drome, Fayard, 2012.

Feb­ru­ary 2, 2018


[1]  Par la géné­tique, on étudie le génome et son envi­ron­nement biologique. Cet envi­ron­nement a une telle influ­ence sur l’expression des gènes (et non sur leur struc­ture interne) qu’il mérite d’être étudié pour lui-même : c’est l’épigénétique.

[2] Fusion homme-machine, ce qui est encore plus que l’hybridation homme-machine.

[3] Voir Con­gré­ga­tion pour la doc­trine de la foi, Instruc­tion Don­um Vitae, 22 févri­er 1987, intro­duc­tion, 3, qui par­le de « total­ité unifiée » pour évo­quer la per­son­ne humaine.


You access our webi­na­rs videos on:


Religious Helping Trafficking Victims along the Road of Recovery (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Religious Working In International Advocacy Against Human Trafficking (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Impact Of Human Trafficking On Health: Trauma (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Impact Of Human Trafficking On Health: Healing (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — Where Are We Now? (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — What can be done? (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — Best Practices (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Demand As Root Cause For Human Trafficking – Sex Trafficking & Prostitution




Human Trafficking — Interview with Prof. Michel Veuthey, Order of Malta — 44th UN Human Right Council 2020

POPE’S PAYER INTENTION FOR FEBRUARY 2020: Hear the cries of migrants victims of human trafficking


Church on the frontlines in fight against human trafficking



Catholic social teaching

Doctrine sociale de l’Église catholique

Register to our series of webinars adlaudatosi on Human Trafficking


You have successfully registered !