The pace of advances in modern biological sciences has been bewildering. Whether it is euthanasia, the morning-after pill, abortion and fertility drugs, or gene therapy and the prospect of cloning organs and organisms, it is natural that humans will look to religion to provide answers to the complex bioethical questions that arise.

Many of the issues and concepts that emerge daily from the cutting edge of science did not exist when religious systems evolved. Yet, if religious and ethical values are to be timeless, followers of a religion will look to their religion to guide them in coping with the complex issues that govern their lives.

Many religions are now attempting to define their teachings in relevance to contemporary problems of bioethics. When does life start, at conception or sometime later? Is abortion murder? Is euthanasia permissible? Would cloning be a sin? Does it matter whether you clone viruses, earthworms, sheep, hearts or people? How about cloning apples and oranges?

Many questions emerge once this Pandora?s box is opened. What does Sikhism say about these and similar issues? These problems cannot be denied just because they did not surface when a given religion arose.

Let us explore a few gray areas where religion and science appear to be at odds.

Certainly birth control devices need not be matters of religion if they are responsibly used in a responsible setting. But sexual promiscuity or irresponsible sexual behaviour is a moral, religious matter, because it has implications for society and individual responsibility. This would perhaps be the position of many, if not most, people in this country. Don?t ignore the fact, however, that in the Roman Catholic as well as the Orthodox Jewish view all birth control devices would be a sin. You might recall that many States in this country - USA - did not allow the sale of birth control devices until less than a decade ago. Maryland and Connecticut come to mind.

Just look at how the contemporary American community is polarized on the issue of abortion. Is abortion murder? When does life begin, at conception - as Roman Catholics contend - or at 120 days, as some Sikhs (the followers of Yogi Bhajan) assert? Where is the evidence for either claim? Should we say that life begins when we detect a heart-beat? At this time we have clear medical criteria for the end of life - cessation of brain activity-but not for the beginning of life. Should the standard for abortion be that it is allowed as long as it is medically safe and economically feasible, on demand?

Should abortion be available on demand to any woman on the grounds that it is her body to do as she wishes? If so, should state facilities be available? Should a prospective father?s opinion count? Does society have any stake in this matter? Is it strictly a private matter, with no regulation by society or government? These are societal and economic issues - but with ethical, moral considerations.

Abortion as a routine method of birth control would not be right because repeated multiple abortions are a testimony to irresponsible sexual behaviour, and because they can result in permanent damage to a woman?s body. Quite obviously, it would not be right to opt for abortion just because raising a child would be inconvenient to one?s life style or uneconomical. But when does an inconvenience become a compelling reason?

Certainly the prospective mother deserves to be the main opinion, but should hers be the only opinion? Certainly a rapist?s opinion is irrelevant, but how about the father?s. Even the Roman Catholic Church that remains strongly opposed to abortion recognizes at least one situation where it is allowed - when the mother?s life is in danger. How about incest or rape? It does occur, and why should a mother be forced to suffer the consequences, which will be long-term?

Is euthanasia permissible? It would be good to get a sense of what is euthanasia. Suicide is against the law every where, so it murder. When is euthanasia assisted suicide, when is it kindness, when is it murder? Are parents a burden when they are non-productive? Certainly the old can no longer contribute to the economic welfare of the society but can become a drain on the young. But no one would seriously argue that his or her life should be ended when retirement benefits are no longer adequate! But how about when a person is in intractable pain, or so medically compromised that our much-vaunted technological, scientific acumen cannot help at that time. How do we rate the quality of life and determine that it has degraded to an extent that continuation of life is undesirable?

Nobody would question the virtues of gene therapy and DNA hybridization technology to cure or prevent diseases or malformations. But how about cloning? Would cloning be a sin? Does it matter whether you clone viruses, earthworms, sheep, hearts or people? How about cloning tomatoes, apples and oranges? I am sure no one minds cloning oranges or apples, etc. We all like to have fruit that is uniformly of a certain quality, appearance and flavor.

The ability to clone a kidney may not be all that bad. We all know there is an organ shortage in the world. There are people on waiting lists for liver, lung or kidney transplants. There is even a trade in such organs, particularly in the poorer parts of the world where people will sell a kidney, lung or even a child. That would be unethical, hence contrary to Sikh tradition. I am sure if your descendants donate your cornea or kidney at your death it will be considered laudable, but what if they decided to sell it ? Is it equally unacceptable when a man sells a kidney to feed his children?

It is good to remember that you can clone cells or organs but not really clone humans. Yes, you can make a human in utero, or in a test tube, much as the sheep, Daisy a few years ago, but the human is a product of his genes interacting with his very complex environment. Even identical twins can differ in essential ways.

Many actions in life are undesirable but may become necessary or even inevitable. That is where an ethical framework provided by religion provides guidance.

Like many people of other religions, Sikhs, too, have attempted to parse gurbani to ferret out answers to the complex issues alluded to here. Before one yields to the temptation and analyzes each issue from the perspective of one?s religion, we need to consider what should the role of a religion be in the life of its followers.

In writing this paper, when I requested similar citations from gurbani from my more erudite Sikh friends, I received pages of them. Some recognized a life only if it could be dedicated to God, all others may as well be dispatched to the nether world, and sooner the better. Others suggested that since God protects all embryos and fetuses in the womb, people have no business terminating a pregnancy under any circumstances. If the conception is the result of a gang rape or even incest, they contended, it was the mother?s lot to suffer. Such was God?s will and no alternative was possible or acceptable.

I would contend that it is just as much in God?s will that humans have been given the knowledge of science, a discerning intellect, and the opportunity to explore both. They must be used to man?s benefit. Otherwise we would be honour bound to reject all medications and surgical procedures as well as all technological advances that make life livable.

It is true that scientists very often are unconcerned about the ethical implications of their research, but the scholars and interpreters of religions are not without fault. They often try to micromanage scientific progress.

People of every religion have always recognized that the ultimate reality lies beyond our senses, and also beyond logic, discussion and the intellectual process. The more we know the more there is to know. For theologians the problem has always been how to make sense of science without man losing the sense of his humanity. On the other hand, scientists seem to feel that the establishment of facts or evidence, which is their business, obviates the need to interpret and understand their implications. In this process, science often becomes the new religion and the scientists its new shamans or priests.

In fact science and religion are complementary - two sides of a coin. Science explores order in existence, religion must find meaning in it. One would be meaningless without the other. Unfortunately, between the scientists? lack of concern with the meaning of their work and the priests? ignorance or fear of science, the shamans destroy what they aim to love and understand - the human heart, mind, body and soul.

Religious leaders often take the easy road and look for rules of guidance that ultimately descend into dogma and superstition. The scientists are often so lost in their own pursuit of hypotheses that they see little that is worthy in a religion?s concerns. I think that very often scientists treat scientific knowledge as some Christians treat the Bible - an open book that needs no further commentary or interpretation on application. People in other religions, like some Sikhs, fall into a similar trap. I think both show human failing, inevitable in humans. More often than not both religious people and scientific people are single-minded zealots.

When religious interpreters fail to explain science and include it in the reality of human existence, science becomes threatening. Science clearly moves and changes with the times. Religious revelations, on the other hand, are made at a point in time and space, yet they are made for all time; or else they would have no value. Scientific findings are hypothesis, tentatively held, not for all time, to be revised or discarded with new observations. The easy road is to look at what is written for all eternity and apply it literally to what science reveals to us at a given point in time. Conflict is inevitable. When we interpret in literal terms what needs to be understood with some sensitivity - like the Genesis - confusion ensues.

Since religious writings are meant to transcend time, interpreters of religion have often tended to look for the literal meaning of verses and apply them literally to every new situation that vexes mankind. This is widely seen in Christianity and Orthodox Judaism, but it is the trap that has snared many Sikhs also.

With time and scientific knowledge, technology and information does - and - will change. Newer issues will arise and will demand precise response. The changing circumstances and the changing information base need to be interpreted in the light of the unchanging principles by our discerning intellect. And that is the uncomfortable challenge for modern religion.

The purpose of Sikhism has been to provide clearly defined guidelines to make man - a creature with moral sense - into an ethical and moral being, consistent with his tradition and teaching. Sikhism, too, when it exhorts man to recognize the divine spark within him, is trying to awaken in man his moral sense.

I am convinced that Sikhism - either in its philosophy (Guru Granth) or its history and its Rehat Maryada (Code of Conduct) - has never tried to spell out in excruciating detail Sikh behaviour in such matters. The Gurus recognized that time - and new technology - will bring us new questions - that was their genius. Each question, then, has to be approached from that bedrock of ethical values and judged apropos to the situation.

Many regard this silence of the Sikh tradition on specific questions as its weakness; I submit, it is our strength. I know that where followers of a religion want dogma and exact certitude, I am offering only tentative hypotheses and a process.

Essentially it is a challenge that before committing himself to an action, a human being must delve into his essential being, the core values and traditions that have shaped him or her, consult others as necessary, and decide - an action for which he/she alone must take responsibility. It is recognition of the principle that all rights come with responsibilities and no actions are free of accountability.

In any moral dilemma, whether it is euthanasia or abortion, the perspective is all- important. Not many actions can be universally condemned in all situations at all times. Exceptions abound to all general rules. For instance, killing of another human is condemned, but in times of war or in self-defense it may be a virtue, not a sin or a crime. Instead of providing fixed solutions to problems, a religion provides a moral framework in which one can devise moral and ethical criteria by which a problem can be approached.

It would be futile to look for a precise answer in Sikhism for this and related moral dilemmas. One needs to understand the societal reality and interpret the action in light of Sikh teaching. It would be useful to keep in mind that as long as there is economic disparity in the world, people will sell what they have, what they are, or even their souls.

The foundations of Sikh ethics are the teachings of Sikhism, the lives of the Gurus and 500 years of Sikh tradition. Sikhism focuses on self-development and self-realization. In this process the sangat becomes important. Recognize the divine spark within you, it says, so that in every action you are guided by the Infinite within. Furthermore, Sikhism continues to emphasize that this divine spark is discovered and nurtured by love, service to mankind and by a recognition of the same spark in all of us. This means that instead of a self-centered view, before an action one should ask: Would the Guru approve of what I am about to do? If everyone did what I am about to do, would that be all right?

The discerning intellect that Sikhism asks of its followers is far from perfect, but it grows only by use, grace and prayer. What the Sikhs way does, in my view, is to add a very necessary burden and challenge to the individual. I call it necessary for it contributes to individual development, and isn?t that the ultimate purpose of religion ? This is what, I believe, Guru Gobind Singh meant when he said that his Khalsa engage in battle every day. The battlefield of the mind is what he had in mind. It means to walk down the road less traveled. This is how I interpret the teachings of Guru Granth that challenge humans to discover the divinity in each of us.

These questions are not unexpected or unusual. Humans to be human must think about what makes them human. But being human is not simply a biological question. It lies at the core of the human existence that transcends human biology.

I see that in what I have written I have provided few answers but raised many more questions. I am quite convinced that a discussion/workshop is the way to explore this area. We need not look for quick answers, nor do we need to be afraid of the questions and where they might lead us.

To me discussion and debate is the Sikh way. But there are two principles that I would like to emphasize. It is in discussion and debate that we define our goals, sharpen our focus and hone our skills, and it?s important to be able to disagree without becoming disagreeable.

I must confess that in exploring Sikhism and Science, I fail to discern any meaningful conflict between the two.