There is nothing new about genetic engineering. Plant and animal breeders were skilfully, if unwittingly, shaping genetic material thousands of years before genes themselves were discovered. One only has to compare a poodle to a great Dane to see what can be achieved by patient and selective breeding. What is new is our ability to speed up and control such processes by direct manipulation of genes in the laboratory. We can take genes from one species and insert them into another, unrelated species. It is even possible to insert genes from a plant into an animal, or vice versa, a process unseen in nature.
Possible benefits
The media tend to publicise the more sensational results of genetic engineering - mice with human ears growing from their sides, or cloning, for instance. Yet on the whole, scientists involved in developing gene technology are not motivated by a desire to create bizarre new species, or even by greed. Most believe that what they are doing will ultimately benefit other human beings. Some of the benefits can already be seen. Genetically modified bacteria can produce human hormones which are safer to use than those collected from animals because of the low risk of antibody reactions.
Many illnesses caused by missing or faulty genetic material can be diagnosed before they develop, through genetic testing. In the not too distant future it may also be possible to cure many of them by replacing the faulty genes, perhaps even before birth.
The techniques used to clone adult cells could be used to grow human tissue or perhaps whole organs to be used in transplants, overcoming the need to use donor organs. There are many other examples of gene technology already in use in medicine, farming and industry.
Likely costs
On the other hand, there are costs to many genetic innovations. Until science actually delivers the promised cures for inheritable diseases, genetic testing is no great blessing.
The only "therapy" for many diseases diagnosed during pregnancy is abortion. Post-natal diagnosis also has its drawbacks. Living with the knowledge that you will probably develop bowel cancer or heart disease in the future is of dubious benefit. Insurance companies and employers may use such information to exclude people who would otherwise be considered healthy and well qualified.
At present, genetic testing is expensive, other gene technologies such as cloning even more so. Each new technique is likely to demand its own share of the health care budget. Other less glamorous areas such as aged care could suffer.
Agribusinesses often promote genetically modified crops as a panacea to world hunger. But most people starve because of the way the world's wealth and food are distributed, not just because crops are poor.
In India there is huge resentment of the way in which agribusinesses promote their products at the expense of local farmers and the local culture.
Other people are angry at the way that genetic material is often "pirated" from the third world for use in western technology.
In Europe people fear that genetically modified foods are being rushed onto the market without proper testing. While there is a lot of hype surrounding the topic, it is true that no-one really knows what effect even a single gene change will have on the over-all genetic code of a plant or animal. Some very unexpected results have been noted from time to time. Given the complexity of the way in which genes interact with each other, and our past record of introducing technology before we fully understood it (remember "clean" nuclear fuel?) much research and testing is needed before products are put on the market.
Ethical questions
This new-found ability to directly alter genes raises many questions. Should human benefit be the sole criterion for what is good? Can we regard other species as little more than machines which can be redesigned to suit our needs? Should companies be able to claim ownership of genetic material? Should parents be able to choose the characteristics of their child? How are we to decide what is acceptable and what isn't, what is ethical, even if it is novel, and what will never be ethical.
One answer would be "If it's possible, do it." However, no new technology in human history has been allowed to develop completely unchecked. Sooner or later, limits have been set to protect society and individuals. The industrial revolution, for instance, led to the introduction of laws governing working hours and conditions.
Another answer is based on emotional response. "This sounds okay, but that sounds outrageous". In practice, this is frequently how our society does decide on ethical issues. When people speak of "values", they often mean little more than gut feelings, which may or may not be God-given. The problem with this approach, (though many would not see it as a problem), is that since "values" are not based on any absolute standard of right and wrong, they change with time. What seems shocking today may be quite acceptable in five years time.
"Let's turn back the clock and stop playing God" is a third possible response. It is the response of those who find the issues too difficult and complicated to understand, or too overwhelming to think about. It is also the response of those for whom "God" is a just a term used to describe everything they don't understand. "If science can explain and tinker about with the very basis of life, what is left for "God" to do?" they ask.
However, knowledge and technical skills cannot be unlearned or locked away. They must be directed. Fortunately, the glory of God is not diminished one jot by our increasing knowledge. Do we think that the psalmist would be any less likely to exclaim "How many are your works, Oh Lord! In wisdom you made them all" (Psalm 104) if he had understood cell biology? The universe we live in is far more wonderful than he could ever have imagined.
Ethicist Paul Ramsey has suggested that "playing God" is not a bad thing if we do it in the same sense in which children play "Mothers and Fathers", that is, by emulating their parents. It is only when we try to take the place of God that we stumble.
This brings us to a fourth possible response to the question of what is or is not acceptable in genetic engineering. Since God himself devised the genetic code and then gave us minds to discover and understand it, how can we "play God" in a positive way, honouring him by imitating him?
Playing God
The Bible reveals a creative God who longs to heal what is sick or deformed. His response to sinful, imperfect people is to work with them and redeem them, not to destroy them and replace them with some better creature.
Using our knowledge of genetics to heal and repair genetic abnormalities could therefore be considered a godly activity. On the other hand, trying to improve the human race by producing genetically perfect children seems to have more in common with Nazi eugenics than with godly wisdom.
The Bible reveals that God is concerned with justice, and condemns the exploitation of the poor by the rich. Taking genetic material from crops owned by the poor and using it to improve the crops of the rich surely cannot be condoned.
Jesus compared himself to the good shepherd who took care of his sheep. In contrast, the false shepherd was unconcerned for their welfare. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that it is wrong to breed animals for human food and other products. But there are several verses suggesting that God expects animals to be treated well.
Those who "play God" need to have God's emphasis on right motive as well as right result. Greed and lust for power can never be justified on the basis of some 'good' being produced.
Rather than dismissing all genetic engineering as "unnatural", Christians ought to be able to assess each new development in the light of their knowledge of God's character and will. The issues are complex and the technical details often difficult to understand, but knowing that there is a God of truth puts us well ahead of those who must rely only on their gut-feelings.
The world needs to hear from those who have thought through the issues carefully and come to conclusions based on consistent truths.
For further reading:
"Genetic Ethics" Edited by J F Kilner, R D Pentz & F E Young, Paternoster Press, 1997
"Genetics & Ethics" at http://www.counterbalance.org/genetics/index-frame.html (produced by Dr Ted Peters, professor of systematic theology at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary and the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California.)
By Dr Stella Budrikis
© Copyright 1999