Genetic Engineering (Part 3)
by Jody L. Apple5. The limits of science
Though geneticists are engaging in what we might describe as radical experimentation, we must recognize that the laws and patterns evident in all of creation impose a natural limitation on what even the most brilliant of scientists can develop. Recognition of this principle follows from the prior discussion about life begetting life, mind begetting matter and life reproducing according to law.
Alchemists of the middle ages were frequently engaged in attempts to turn lead into gold. On a physical and chemical level, there are numerous similarities that we could enumerate between these two metals: (a.) both are part of the naturally occurring metals; (b). both have similar component parts - nuclei, protons, electrons, etc.; (c.) both have electrical charges measurable within them; (d.) both contain peculiar chemical bonds that make them what they are; and (e.) both might react to other substances/elements in ways similar to the other. Though we might enlarge the list of similarities that exist between lead and gold, we must face the inevitable conclusion: the differences that exist between the two are such that lead simply isn't gold and gold just isn't lead. Though there are numerous substances/elements that react with one another to produce yet other substances/elements, no chemical reaction imposed upon lead turns it into gold.
Chemically speaking, there are patterns and limits delineated within the periodic chart of elements. That table separates known elements into families that share similar characteristics. Dmitri Mendeleyev did not impose these distinctions when he devised the periodic table - he simply recognized and organized what was already there. Recurring patterns are unmistakably seen in the properties of elements when they are coordinated in order of increasing atomic number. Theses patterns include periodic divisions involving electron structure, chemical properties and physical properties.
Though there exists no known counterpart to the periodic chart of elements for living life forms, we must recognize that pre-existing patterns and laws that determined what will and what won't combine in elemental fashion may also be discovered that will determine what will and won't "combine" in a biological and genetic fashion.
Because of the trial and effort experimentation of geneticists, alterations are occurring that cause cells to function outside of their natural realm. But it is obvious, by the fact that they are functioning at all, that some of these experiments are not going beyond what is biologically possible. There are, no doubt, boundaries inherent in genetics that scientists have not yet considered that will curtail some of their work.
Some surmised that cloned animals would not be able to reproduce through normal means. But in the two years since Dolly was cloned Dr. Wilmut and his team have bred Dolly at least twice leading to conception and birth each time, the second time yielding three offspring. Scientists are concerned, however, that telomere (the ends of chromosomes) deterioration in Dolly reflects a shortened life span. Because there was no natural germline reproduction, the telomeres reflected the attained age of the cloning material used in the process. Rather than starting from zero the age of cloned animals seems to reflect the attained age of the materials used to produce the clone, plus their accrued age from that point forward. Cloned animals, in effect, begin with the aging of their components already built it.
Though there is no way of knowing whether or not this limitation can be overcome, it is just the sort of inherent bounda Helhat scientists will ultimately face sooner or later. The road to producing sustained and healthier lives seem to be filled with potholes and detours.
6. Summary of the laws of nature
The point of this brief and general discussion is simple: There are boundaries placed by God within the confines of physical creation. A brief examination of Paul's preaching in Acts 17 reveals this: (a.) God, who is not confined to/by this world, made the world and everything in it subject to law (17:24); (b.) God created all things, both living and non-living (17:25); (c.) He made all of humanity from "one blood" (17:26); (d.) He has placed humanity on His earth to dwell (17:26); (e.) God has determined man's boundaries with reference to time, ability, location, etc.; (f.) God's boundaries are such that they allow man free course to seek Him (17:27); (g.) within those limitations, God can be found (17:27); (h.) ultimately, God is "not far" from us (17:27); (i.) we live "in Him" (17:28); (j.) we are God's "offspring" in that we are descended (via creation not evolution) from God (17:28 - from genos, trans as kind 5, kindred 3, offspring 3, nation 2, stock 2, born 2, etc.); (k.) because we are thus "God like," we should not look for God in what is "made" (either by God or with our own hands) as if the creation is God (cf. Rom 1:18ff; Acts 17:29); (l.) because of the "kind" of creature that we are (made "like" God), we are made to engage in moral behavior (17:30 - implied by the command to "repent"); (m.) all of this is essential within the time of this existing world's existence because one day the world will be judged (i.e., end; 17:31; cf. 2 Pet 3:11ff); and (n.) the standard (law) by which we will be judged is Divinely ordained - it is that of the righteousness of the resurrected Christ (17:31).
Each of the stages presented above entails limits, laws and patterns. There are extreme boundaries beyond which no one can go regardless of their desires or abilities. David knew that his dead child could not come back to him, but he also knew that he could go to be with that child (2 Sam 12:15-23). Though Paul's address on Mars Hills does not detail the divinely imposed limitations of modern scientific pursuits, the pervasiveness of pattern, and limits inherent within pattern, presented here (and elsewhere) should lead us to believe that God has created limits in all areas beyond which no man can go.
The Implications of Genetic Engineering
The issues surrounding genetic engineering are understandably complex and intricately detailed. When you are dealing with the very building blocks - the basic blueprints of life - there is a tremendous amount of information that needs to be digested and processed. Within the confines of our present endeavor, complete discussion is impossible. Consider briefly, however, the following implications of genetic engineering:
1. Making things better
The purpose of genetic engineering seems to be directed toward making things "better." Exactly how the "betterness" is to be determined is one matter of concern (see "the issue of standards") - the other, almost equal in importance, is determining how such is to be accomplished, that is the scientific execution of it all.
Biblically speaking, the world is tainted by sin. After Eve and Adam sinned, all parties involved (Eve, Adam, the serpent - Gen 3:14-19) were punished. But the physical creation was also cursed (cf. Gen 3:17). Romans 8:22 indicates that the entirety of creation was even then (at the time of Paul) affected by sin.
The genetic emphasis on making things better, while laudable in that attempts will be made to save lives, has far greater ramifications as it attempts to change the world in a way out of harmony with God's original purpose for making it as it is.
In an attempt to create better lives and a better society, bioethicists and geneticists may be determining who (individually and in groups) will and will not be acceptable. There is a danger that racial and class prejudice may develop because of this sort of determination. If it can be demonstrated through science that a certain class of people having a particular kind of genetic makeup (as a class) poses a threat to the rest of society because of that "anomaly," then why not genetically engineer the class to "correct" the problem, euthanize those who have it, or eradicate the "problem" in some other way.
Some anti-biotechnology advocates, like Rifkin, worry that classism (the haves versus the have nots) may result. Those who can afford the best plastic surgery now will be able to afford the best cosmetic geneticists in the future. The rest will have to settle with the (inferior) way they look.
Even parental control may be usurped by the genetic engineering machine. It may impose restrictions, saying (a.) you can't bring this child into the world because it has Down's syndrome; (b.) you can't have children because you have hemophilia; (c.) if you want to have children, let us engineer one for you (thus forcing us to deal with the ethical problems of sperm donors, egg donors, pre-screening implantation, surrogate motherhood, etc.); and (d.) if you want to have children, we will create one for you with the genetic behavior patterns we deem acceptable. Though these models may seem far-fetched, note that some oppressive governments are already imposing restrictions on reproductive behavior and that numerous government, social and educational entities are already determining what behavior is and is not acceptable.
2. The issue of standards
Moral standards: Our discussion of genetic engineering may not seem to have anything to do with morals, but a firm relationship can be established between the two very quickly. Peter said that the world would "pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat." (2 Peter 3:10) In the immediately following verses he urged his readers to consider how, based upon the knowledge that this world was temporary, they would continue to live: "what manner of persons ought you to be...?" (2 Peter 3:11ff)
These verses indicate that the temporal nature of the world, specifically its ultimate destruction, should cause us to live in a way that shows consideration of these certainties. We should live in a way that evidences "holy conduct and godliness" in our lives. Decisions relating to right and wrong, morals, conscience, etc., are within the purview of Scripture, not genetic engineering.
The modern genetics machine seems to have a split personality when it comes to morality: On one hand they want to better and improve man's physical lot in life via engineering, but on the other hand they are willing to kill unborn children and destroy human embryos in the pursuit of giving life to others. The issue of who does what for whose benefit seems to place some genetic engineering attempts in a moral conundrum. What is the standard of life and morality that science will follow?
Physical standards: Jeremy Rifkin has warned f('i the norm for physical appearance and beauty will be changed because of genetic engineering. The emphasis on "eugenics"- Rifkin's term meaning, not just genetics, but good and beautiful genetics - will prompt science and pseudo-moralists to say that it is better if all people were tall, or blond, or muscular, etc. Over emphasis on physical traits will encourage de-emphasis, and therefore prejudice, against those not having those traits.
Behavioral standards: Recent experimentation has already seemingly proved that mice can be made "smarter" via genetic engineering, a claim which was quickly disputed. But others are already campaigning to use genetics to alter genes that affect human behavior: crime, introversion, and other anti-social behaviors. Some might argue that we should change everyone's genetic coding to counter these ills. Daniel Koshland, editor of Science, has used the homeless as an example of a "class" of people that might require our attention in this regard. Because many homeless people are afflicted with mental disorders, we might consider addressing these issues at their "genetic roots" and thus prevent future problems from occurring.
3. The issue of purpose
The world around us is often referred to as "Nature" with a capital "N." The thought seems to be that "Nature" has an independent existence all its own, which necessitates that "Nature" has purpose, mind and direction. To the evolutionary scientist functioning under the umbrella of Darwinian evolution "Nature" must be random. The world only appears to have mind, purpose and direction because, out of the sheer number of evolutionary possibilities (i.e., incremental genetic mutations, survival of the fittest adaptations, etc.) that have occurred through the eons of time, a sufficient number of them have "worked," thus creating the illusion that they are all causally related. But no mind or purpose was required.
In much the same way David Hume attacked the principle of cause and effect. Because of the sheer number of occurrences and their apparent contiguous nature, we assumed that certain actions produce specified reactions - but they are nothing more than assumptions. No causal actions ... no reactive effects. As a result, the randomness of events is mindless.
Contrary to each of these scenarios, nature, with a lower case "n," does react as if mind and intelligence is involved, but not an intelligence inherent within nature itself. Nature is reflective of intelligence. Mandelbrot patterns, Fibonacci numbers, physical laws and their associated constants all found in nature, demand that mind and purpose is behind the material creation.
Purpose presupposes that there is "mind" and that there is "direction." If, however, we are dealing with those who advocate the use of genetic engineering from the perspective of evolutionary theory - there is no sense of "mind" and "direction" that is compelling to follow, for without a standard there is no reason, other than I want to do this or that, to engage in one line of progress as opposed to another.
God always acts with purpose, but genetics theory often acts counter to God's will. Indeed, science often functions without any purposeful worldview in mind, preferring to judge what will and will not be done on a case by case basis.
4. The emphasis on life at all costs
The pursuit of all means of life extension technology - cloning, cryogenics, gene therapy, etc. - is consistent with the basic contention of naturalism: this world is all there is. Corollary facets of that alleged (but false) naturalistic truism are: (1) live life to the fullest; (2) live as long as you can; (3) there is no tomorrow (i.e., no life beyond this one); (4) there is no moral order (anything goes); (5) there is nothing beyond the physical (no God, no spirit, no soul, no heaven, no hell); and so forth.
The emphasis on this life only, without a reason to live in such a way as to affect a life beyond the grave, is such that all sorts of moral and ethical corruptions might follow.
Though Paul was hard pressed to choose between living or dying (Phil 1:23), there was never any contention on Paul's part that he wanted to live for ever, or that he did not believe in a future eternal life in the presence of God (2 Tim 4:4ff). His willingness to continue life was not for the sake of life itself, but rather for the preaching that would benefit others while he continued to live (Phil 1:21, 24; 1 Cor 9:16; Rom 1:14).
5. Might makes right
Evolutionary theory's "survival of the fittest" and Nietzsche's "ubermensch" (superman) mentality seems to dominate the thinking of modern science. If we have the ability to do it - if we can do it, then we must do it. The "oughtness" is inextricably tied to ability which necessitates action. Micah warned of those who devise evil in their beds and then awake the next morning to practice it simply "because it is in the power of their hand." (Mic 2:1) Might, the ability to perform, does not make something morally right. If this were the case then murder, rape and stealing could be justified purely on the basis of ability. Add Joseph Fletcher's situation ethics mentality to the mix and almost anything becomes the "right" thing to do.
6. We become "gods"
When Jesus said "I and my Father are one" the Jews were prepared to stone him (Jn 10:30-31). He asked them which of his good works prompted this (vs. 32), and was told that they were not stoning Him because of His good works, but rather because "You, being a man, make yourself God." (vs. 33) Jesus responded "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (Jn 10:34, quoting Ps 82:6). Jesus argued from the lesser to the greater in order to demonstrate that he really was the Son of God (cf. Mt 7:11ff - "if you then being evil...how much more will your Father"). Elsewhere the scriptures clearly equate Jesus with the Godhead (Jn 1:1; 8:58; Col 1:10ff; Heb 1:3, 8).
Some aspects of genetic engineering seem to place man in a position of being his own "god." We have the ability to alter the genetic blueprints of life. We can determine height, weight, sex, hair color and other physical characteristics. We are hoping to be able to alter attitude, intelligence and all forms of behavior. There seems to be the assumption that we can make this world better than it is, not from a moral/spiritual perspective, but from a purely physical one, and having done so, everything will be better. Though there are restraining voices, the ability to pursue these goals will drive science until they are reached.
Sadly, in becoming our own "gods," we shut out the God and Creator of the universe (Is 40:28).
7. All life is the same
Genetic pursuits seem to assume that all life, in some way, is the same; that it is all interconnected in some grand way that will allow them to piece together the essential components to prolong and improve human existence. In our earlier discussion of the limits of nature we cited 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul alluded to four types of flesh: man, animal, fish and bird. Though similarities exist within classes of biological families just as similarities exist within chemical families (see periodic chart discussion), there are notable differences.
From one perspective it would be incredible if all life was the same. If we could use animal tissues and organs in order to mend human beings, we would call that medical progress. But what if, assuming that all life is the same, we begin to use human tissues and organs (necessitating the death of humans) to mend animals. If all life is the same physically, genetically and axiologically, then what difference is there in using humans to mend animals versus using animals to mend humans.
Once some overriding semblance of similarity is established on a physical basis, there will be those who will strive to prove there are no differences ethically. There are already academicians who will argue that (alleged) homosexual tendencies in animals show that homosexuality is normal and acceptable in humans. It is not a big step to argue that we might have to give up some of our (human) rights for the benefit of the animal world at large. Indeed, one radical animal rights and eco-centric activist actually suggests that it would be better for the world at large if there were no humans inhabiting the planet.
8. The color of money
Genetic engineering advances show that there exists a danger of making moral and societal decisions based upon dollars and cents. If we can engineer cattle and sheep to produce more milk and meat, then on the basis of economics alone, we should do it. If we can alter species in such a way to limit or eradicate disease, thus saving money, we should do it.
These economic decisions sound reasonable when we are dealing with livestock (overlooking for the moment the physical pluses and minuses humanity might suffer via genetically engineered food products), but what about when we begin to make biological decisions that affect humanity based upon economic data alone?
Insurers have already denied applications for insurance based upon family genetic history. Even if an individual fails to evidence those disorders himself, insurers say they have the right to exclude coverage based on genetics alone.
Politicians are already contending that how we spend our money - or, more appropriately, how we let them spend our money - will affect our society for generations to come. Based on what we perceive to be the needs of future generations, we are making political and economic decisions today. Scientific progress will be viewed no differently. If we can alter germ line development now, rather than somatic cells in the future, we can correct problems for future generations, thus saving millions and billions of dollars.
The willingness to make these decisions is easy when clear and simple solutions are suggested for the eradication of diabetes, Parkinson%2heigC Alzheimer's, Down's syndrome, hemophilia, and so forth. But what will we do when there is just as much willingness to decide that behavioral and attitudinal changes are necessary in order to obtain future economic prosperity and/or savings?
Ultimately, the fear that the color of money will influence such decisions is real.
9. Free will versus determinism
Ingrained in much of the discussion about the possibilities and prospects of genetic engineering is the naturalistic assumption that this world is all there is (cf. Col 2:8 re "basic principles," "rudiments" of the world). As mentioned in our discussion under the fourth heading in this section ("the emphasis on life at all costs"), naturalism has consequences. In addition to those mentioned under that heading, there is another worthy of consideration: the naturalistic assumption that this world is all there is implicitly entails scientific and behavioral determinism. Though there are numerous aspects of scientific philosophy and evolutionary theory that assert chaos and randomness, there yet remains the underlying assumption that the genetic code contains the key to all human behavior. Alter the genes, they contend, and the entire character of the resultant human is forever changed. The assumption is that genetic makeup irrevocably determines behavior.
There are problems with this assessment. (a.) It is unproved. No evidence exists which conclusively demonstrates that genetic changes guarantee behavioral changes. (b.) There is evidence to the contrary. Identical twins, like my cousin's two boys, may contain identical genetic makeup, but even after being raised together for 19 years, their behavior is not identical. And (c.) it denies the Biblical affirmation of the free will of man (Josh 24:15; Is 55:1; Mt 11:28; Rev 22:17).
Conclusion
Scientists that study the mind have asserted that there is no limit to the ability of the human brain to learn. As long as we live, we are capable of learning. Certainly, due to time constraints and the inability of the mind to be directly connected with every form of immediate sensory perception, we must admit that no one, regardless of how diligent a learner and how long life has been lived, knows everything. Though our ability to learn may be ever ongoing, the amount of data to learn far exceeds our human capacity to learn in this lifetime.
In like manner, the assumption with reference to some scientific pursuits seems to be that given sufficient time, every thing necessary to eradicate illness of every kind will be discovered. There are, no doubt, many major scientific discoveries that mankind will achieve in coming years. Many beneficial discoveries that will enhance and prolong the duration and quality of life will be welcomed. But surely there is a limit to the extent of these successes, a limit beyond which we will be unable to go.
Man's ability to know, while seemingly engaged in worthwhile pursuits to live ever longer and with greater quality is, by these very pursuits, distracted from concerns that are far greater. Minds are directed to the physical at the expense of the spiritual. Concentration is made on the body, and the soul of man is neglected. Even if it were theoretically and practically possible to cure every known physical malady, a world of healthy and aged people continually mired and lost because of slavery to sin is certainly not the perfect world. If the world were rid of every conceivable disease, but lying, cheating, fornication, covetousness, pride and hatefulness continued to prevail - mankind would ultimately be no better off.
Given the current successful scenario of ultimate life extension possibilities, souls will exist for 150 to 200 years disease free - but still sin-stained. Even if man discovered the imaginary "fountain of youth" and lived forever- he would still be living with both sin and guilt.
God, however, has decreed that it is not His desire for man to live forever stained by sin. He cast Adam and Eve out of the garden and prevented them from returning to the garden of Eden and partaking of the tree of life so that they would not live forever having been soiled by sin. God wants man to live forever - but not in this earthly existence. He wants man to live forever in a world without the ravages of sin (Rev 21:4) and in the very presence of the Godhead (Rev 21:3; 22:1ff).
The over emphasis on the pursuit of life at the expense of the search for eternal life will only leave man empty-handed and lost throughout eternity.
Sources
Animal Rights News, July 6, 1999, Vol. 2, No. 10 ("Patent office rejects transgenic patents containing human DNA")
Mother Jones Archive, n.d. ("Consumer-driven science and the new eugenics," Jeremy Rifkin)
New Scientist, June 26, 1999 ("What Makes a Human?" Philip Cohen)
Reuters News Service, June 17, 1999 ("U.S. Rejects Animal-Human Patent Attempt")
The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World, Jeremy Rifkin
The Christian and Medical Ethics, Bert Thompson
The Reporter, May 19, 1998 ("Dolly's dad opposes human cloning, " John Scheibe)
Washington Post, April 2, 1998 ("Rifkin Files Human-Chimp Chimaera Patent," Rick Weiss)
World, July 17, 1999 ("Human farms?")See also:
Genetic Engineering (Part 1)
Genetic Engineering (Part 2)
Genetic Engineering (Part 3)