Genetic Engineering (Part 1)
by Jody L. Apple

Introduction : A Current Overview of Genetic Engineering

Dolly

Two years ago the scientific community, and the world at large, was amazed to learn of the successful cloning of a Finn Dorset ewe named Dolly. Dr. Ian Wilmut, an embryologist, and his research team at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, Scotland, successfully used the process of nuclear transfer to genetically clone Molly using adult somatic (mammary) cells, a process that had been thought impossible. Though recent criticisms have suggested that her apparent age (telomere cell structures appear to be older than a sheep of her age should be) is suspect due to the process - and though critics have declared that she isn't really a complete, or exact, clone of the original cell - still the world was aflutter with the allegation, at least, that a substantial life form (other than amoebae, paramecium, and other minute life forms) was genetically manipulated to reproduce some semblance, if not an actual clone, of the original.

American Cell Technology & The Cloning of Human Embryos

In November 1998 American Cell Technology (ACT), a private biotechnology firm in Worcester, Massachusetts, successfully cloned a human embIetur29? Because some scientists believe that an embryo becomes human when a developing nervous system is detected - usually after the fourteenth day - the embryo was destroyed at twelve days, though it could have lived longer. Previous attempts by others failed within six days.

American Cell Technology engaged in this experiment as a means of "therapeutic," not "reproductive" cloning. Reproductive cloning is for the purpose of creating a new being, as in Dolly's case. Therapeutic cloning is done simply for the replication of parts, limited to cells presently, but perhaps organs and limbs someday. These parts can then be used in the treatment of diseases that are now considered incurable.

While therapeutic cloning is considered to be part of the inevitable future of disease retardation and control, scientists have already been engaging in the use of "human parts" for the treatment of diseases. In addition to the frequent organ transplants from one human to another, unborn children are subjected to the morally reprehensible practice of partial birth abortion. Their brain stem cells are summarily "harvested" to be used in the treatment of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases. If therapeutic cloning proves successful, both from a technical and commercial viewpoint, scientists won't have to kill unborn children to get their parts - they will simply grow the parts they need in their laboratories. Though seemingly less repugnant than slaughtering innocent children, therapeutic cloning and the genetic manipulation machine is still fraught with moral consequences.

Such scenarios are, or at least should be, cause for concern. They are not science fiction from the past, or the science fiction of the future - they are present reality.

The Patents of Life

In June of 1999 the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) rejected an application filed by Patrick J. Coyne, an attorney hired by Jeremy Rifkin, noted anti-biotechnology advocate, and Stuart Newman, a developmental biologist at New York Medical College. Though eighty percent of patents are routinely rejected after their initial application, the specifics behind this particular rejection are interesting both with respect to the application itself and the reason for its denial.

Rifkin and Newman applied for patents for a variety of chimeras. In ancient Greek mythology a chimera was a fire-breathing monster usually depicted as a composite of a lion's head, goat's body, and serpent's tail, but the term also applies to any "imaginary monster made up of grotesquely disparate parts." (AHD) What sort of "monsters" did Rifkin and Newman seek to patent? These gentlemen were hoping to patent a series of human-animal hybrids, including any combination of humans with chimpanzees, pigs or other animals typically used in laboratory experiments.

Rifkin and Newman were not, however, interested in actually creating these humanoid chimeras in the laboratory. They were intent on obtaining the first patent for hybrid human-animal life forms so that - by owning and controlling the patent - they would limit anyone else from engaging in such experimentation for the next twenty years, the standard life of patents. Their pursuit of this patent is being taken very seriously and is being aggressively pursued simply because the present realities are that someone, somewhere, with or without approved funding and permission to proceed, will attempt to do what they are hoping will not be done. [Note: It is the opinion of some legal experts that current law does not prohibit genetic experimentation with life forms that are totally funded by private parties.]

Rifkin's and Newman's proposal was considered to be beyond the range of patent law by the Patent Office because patenting any human, or even anything partially human, is considered to be a violation of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That amendment abolished slavery in this nation.

But as Animal Rights News has noted, the Patent Office has "already issued several patents for animals that contain human genes or organs, " and one company, SyStemix, has "obtained a patent for a process of obtaining a modified version of human bone marrow stem cells." New Scientist similarly observed that trans-species experimentation has already been completed with mixtures of cells from goats and sheep.

The history of patents suggests that future grants will allow for the patenting of similar, if not the exact, life forms applied for by Rifkin and Newman. In 1978 the Patent Office rejected the initial application for a patent on a bacterium that was engineered to digest oil spillage. Two years later the Supreme Court overruled the decision, declaring that living beings could be patented if they met standard measures of patentability. Later, in 1987, the PTO granted the first ever patent of an animal, a genetically engineered mouse. Since that time 79 other animal related patents have been granted, as well as more than 1,800 for genetic materials alone. Several of the animal patents have included animals with minor human components, including laboratory mice engineered with human cancer genes or immune system cells.

Rifkin and Newman have contended that their application is not substantially different from these other patents already granted which use human materials. Why don't bacteria, sheep or cows that contain human genes imported into their systems constitute humans? These, and other, animals have been genetically altered to include human genes for the creation of products used in the treatment of cystic fibrosis or to enhance the immune system.

Pointing to a patent application made by Advanced Cell Technology, Rifkin argues that the PTO has been inconsistent. ACT applied for a patent on embryos they created by fusing human cells with cow eggs

were stripped of their chromosomes. Though only the generic material from the cells were used, and though such might not differ widely across species lines, the basis of the experiment still merged parts of two cells from diverse species. That no nuclear, mitochondrial or DNA transfers occurred does not negate the fact that scientists are readily using technology to engage in trans-species experimentation and manipulation.

In light of their first application's rejection, Rifkin and Newman have already reapplied for a patent. If their application is denied again they can take their concern to the Patent Board of Appeals for a ruling. If rejected at that point they intend to petition the federal court system for permission to patent chimeras. Even if their appeals are consistently rejected, they know that no one else will be able to obtain similar patents in the interim.

Biblical Principles

Where do such scenarios leave the Bible-believing Christian? In a quandary of despair and dismay? From one perspective, perhaps that is a legitimate response. But from a Biblical perspective there are several principles that we know hold true that have application and impact on the future of genetic engineering. Consider the following topics: the nature of God, the nature of man, and the nature of the world:

The Nature of God

1. God exists

The Bible succinctly declares that the physical creation demands God's existence (cf. Ps 19:1; Rom 1:18ff). Unlike naturalists who assume that this world is all there is, Christians know and understand that this world depends for its existence upon a really existing God. God, the "unmoved mover," exists necessarily. His very nature is to exist. Unlike everything in the physical universe which owes its existence to God, God owes His existence to nothing above, below or beyond Himself - He is because the essence of His nature is being. God is the eternal "I am" (cf. Ex 3:14).

2. God is infinite

God's necessary existence demands that He be understood as infinite in all of his attributes. God is infinite in knowledge, in power, in love, in mercy, in grace, in truth, in justice and in every other characteristic of His nature. In no aspect of the inherent and essential traits of the person of God is their any deficiency.

Because God is infinite in love, for example, He wants what is ultimately best for all mankind. Commensurate with that infinite love He has told us all we need to know in order to be saved, because that is what is best for us. Because He is infinite in power He has the ability to reveal to us what we need. Because He is infinite in knowledge God knows what we need. In principle, and often in very specific "do's and don'ts," God has addressed everything we need to know and do (cf. 2 Tim 3:14ff; 2 Pet 1:3ff). This is only one aspect of his infinite nature. But even having examined every aspect of his boundless nature we would only know "a portion" of his true character (CF Job 26:14).

3. God is Creator

As we briefly addressed the nature of God's existence we noted that "unlike everything in the physical universe which owes its existence upon God, God owes His existence to nothing above, below or beyond Himself..." God is self-existent and the source of everything outside of Himself that exists. God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1; Is 40:28; 1 Pet 4:19). Only God can bring into existence that which had no prior existence (Heb 11:3ff). Only God can create life. Only God can create matter. Only God can create.

4. The authority and laws of God

The very nature of God entails principles of authority, which in turn are demonstrated by laws, patterns and principles consistent with the perfect nature of Deity. Intrinsic to the very character of an infinite God is the Divine right (a.) to exercise power for the origination and enforcement of laws, (b.) to demand obedience to those laws, and (c.) to execute judgment on the basis of law.

The laws and authority of God are demonstrated throughout the word of God: (a.) in the garden, God gave a prescription for Adam's life, and rules proscribing his behavior (Gen 2-3); (b.) under the Mosaic dispensation God gave detailed requirements for the nation of Israel to follow (Ex 20ff; Deut 5); and (c.) under the law of Christ there are certain "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" that we are expected to submit to (cf. 1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:16-26; Col 3:5).

Further discussion under the heading of "the nature of the world" will present material about God's authority as it applies to creation.

The Nature of Man

1. Man exists

Though seemingly obvious to most, it is nonetheless imperative to affirm that man exists. Skepticism, which encourages a doubting and questioning perspective about anything and everything, might encourage a denial of an absolute claim for man's existence in order to move toward some semblance of relative certainty. Nihilism, an extreme form of skepticism, denies all existence, asserts that all values are without foundation and suggests that nothing is known or subject to communication. Even solipsism, the idea that only the self can be known and demonstrated, might deny the reality and existence of other "selfs."

All three of these viewpoints have elements that are inherently self-defeating. The Cartesian "cogito ergo sum" ("I think therefore I am") axiom demands that we recognize the existence of that which is producing thought and self-recognition, and even skepticism and doubt. We really are here.

2. Man was created

Once we progress to the obvious realization that man really exists, we must face the question: where did he/we come from? In our brief discussion about the nature of God we noted that God exists independently. Man, however, exists dependently. This simply means that man's existence is such that he is not eternal and is not the reason for his own existence.

The only other viable option is that man owes his existence to something outside himself. Though evolutionists would affirm this, they conclude that it is due to mindless, material evolution. Evolution, however, is inadequate to sufficiently explain the existence and nature of man. Man was created.

3. Man was created by God

Because man exists contingently, and because man has not evolved from the matter-to simple life forms-to complex life forms model suggested by evolution, we are forced to conclude that man was created. When nothing material existed, there was still God. Because everything outside of God owes its existence to God, we deduce that God created man (cf. Gen 1:25ff).

4. Man was created in the image of God

The specifics of man's creation are chronicled in the opening chapter of Genesis. Of particular import is the affirmation that man was created in "our image" (Gen 1:26-27). The Godhead determined (note that a plan existed before man was created) to make man in their image (vs. 26), and then, consistent with that determination, man was created in the image of Deity.

Man, though composed of body, spirit and soul (1 Th 5:23) is most "in the image of God" in soul. The body goes back to the ground (Eccl 12:7), the animating spirit goes back to God (Eccl 12:7), but the soul is immortal - it continues to live beyond the grave (Mt 16:26; Jn 5:28-29).

The soul of man is such that it possesses faculties that reflect the nature of God: (a.) in intellect; (b.) in emotion; (c.) in volition; (d.) in morals and (e.) in the ability to act consistently with the will, word and work of God. (See 1997 WVSOP "Grounding the Church in Logic" for further details.)

5. Man is subject to the authority and laws of God

Because man was created in the image of God, according to the likeness (or pattern) of Deity, it necessarily follows that man is subject to God's authority and laws. We do not have to read very far into the book of Genesis to note that God directed man - not vice versa. (a.) In Genesis 1:26 God gave man dominion (cf. v 28); (b.) in 1:28 God told man to be fruitful and multiply, to replenish the earth and subdue it; (c.) in 2:15 God instructed Adam to dress and keep the garden; (d.) in 2:16 God allowed man to eat of every tree in the garden; (e.) in 2:17 God restricted man from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and (f.) in 2:21-25 God gave husbands and wives responsibilities in the marriage relationship. We know, of course, that a study of the remainder of the word of God would yield thousands of instances where God directed man (cf. Jer 10:23; Pr 3:1ff).

It is critically important to note that man's subjection to the authority and laws of God are always for man's best interest. God, who is infinite in love, never has, is not now, and never will direct man to submit to His will in a way out of harmony with that most perfect of all concerns (1 Tim 2:3-4; 2 Pet 3:9; 1 Jn 2:1-2; 1 Cor 10:13)

See also:

Genetic Engineering (Part 1)
Genetic Engineering (Part 2)
Genetic Engineering (Part 3)