You may or may not have realized it, but last Monday’s (6/26/00) news carried the story that is a very likely candidate for the story of the decade. The New York Times headline proclaimed:
“Scientists Complete Rough Draft of Human Genome”
The entire human genome has been sequenced; the order of the human DNA molecules is now known.
The sequence of human DNA is, as Newsweek has put it, the “blueprint of human life, the code of codes, the holy grail, . . . what it means to be human” (citation: “Cracking the code,” Les Sillars, World, 4/29/00). As President Clinton recently said, the completion of this task is “the scientific breakthrough of the century, perhaps of all time” (ibid).
To put it very simply, DNA provides the basic building blocks of information for who we are. We all know that our genes determine how tall we will be, what color our eyes will be, the color of our hair, and other inherited traits. Our genes affect much more - for example, disposing some toward shyness or anger or even depression (see “Untangling the ball,” Les Sillars, World, 4/29/00 and “The Human Genome Abounds in Complex Contradictions,” Natalie Angier, New
York Times, 6/26/00).
Now, by this point, some of you in the congregation may be wondering:
“Why is Jim talking in a sermon about something
that is a scientific matter?”
It’s a fair question to ask. The answer? It’s because this issue has moral and ethical implications
that affect the very essence of who we are and what it means to be human. As we stand on the verge of this Brave New World, it is not the time for Christians to stick their heads in the sand and sigh, “I hope it all turns out all right.” An issue of this magnitude and a debate with such tremendous implications demands that we as Christians apply biblical wisdom to the
situation.
First, let’s consider some of the positive possibilities of this new genetic information.
The genome information has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine (“Now, the
Hard Part: Putting the Genome to Work,” Nicholas Wade, New York Times, 6/27/00). C. Ben Mitchell of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity writes, “The announcement that the first draft of the human genetic blueprint is complete is very good news indeed. . . . we may be entering a genetic renaissance. We can have real hope that many of the nearly 5,000 genetically-
linked disorders may be treatable in the foreseeable future. Some of those disorders may even be
curable” (“Genetic Renaissance in a Moral Dark Age,” A Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity Paper).
Mitchell raises one of the most frequently mentioned positive possibilities: more effective disease treatment. Les Sillars’ article “Cracking the code” notes, “Enthusiasts predict that in a few more decades genetic research stimulated by the Human Genome Project will lead to cures and more effective treatments for diseases ranging from cancer to schizophrenia.”
A second much-heralded positive possibility lies in genetic profiling to identify diseases an individual might be at risk for. Early detection and treatment would be the obvious benefits there. Dr. Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, predicts that within 10 years tests will be available for genetic predispositions for 25 major causes of illness and death (“Genomic Chief Has High Hopes, and Great Fears, for Genetic Testing,” Lawrence K.
Altman, M.D., New York Times, 7/27/00).
Not as frequently mentioned, but perhaps more important, are the negative possibilities.
Celeste Condit, of the University of Georgia, offers a few scenarios:
- routine prenatal genetic screening which leads to more abortions for “imperfect” babies
(even, for instance, unborn babies merely having the possibility of developing a particular disease);
- genetic discrimination in job hiring and health insurance being denied to those at risk of serious disease;
- the sorting of children into “career tracks and social classes based on their ‘genetic potential’” (“Cracking the code,” Les Sillars).
Even scenarios that initially sound somewhat positive (such as being able to choose some of the genes for your baby) have frightening ramifications just beneath the surface (what are the moral and parental implications of having “designer babies”?). The ultimate outcome of such situations cannot yet be known. The bottom line is this:
What does it mean to manipulate the very genes that make up a human?
What implications are there in attempting to humanly create a “better” person?
At what point have we stopped practicing medicine and started playing God?
Dr. Daniel Heimbach, an ethicist at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes, “You are
dealing with the image of God when dealing with the genetic code of human life. . . . the biggest
problem is that it beckons men, in their pride, to change the design of life itself, and in that way
to become gods” (“Double double helix,” B. Jones, World, 3/8/97).
Perhaps this example will illustrate the potential consequences. Imagine a steel beam,
several hundred feet long, suspended two feet off the ground. As you walk across it, the consequences of losing your balance and falling off are fairly minimal (you’ll only fall two feet).
However, if we take that same steel beam and put it between two of the cooling towers at the Amos Power Plant (several hundred feet in the air), suddenly the consequences of losing your balance are vastly heightened. So it is with this issue: the implications of the improper or unethical use of the genome are enormous. This is an issue where a misstep could be fatal.
Consider what is likely in our near future. In 1997, one biotech researcher made some
off-the-record predictions for Wired magazine:
2003 Human-genome sequencing completed.
2000+ Artificially engineered DNA used routinely to treat defect in human cells.
2000+ Desktop genetic testing available in hospitals and clinics.
2000+ Genetic therapy for cancer and other genetic diseases becomes widespread.
2000+ Inherited traits in mammals successfully altered in the laboratory.
2010+ Alteration of inherited traits in mammals is routine.
2010+ Complex (polygenic) human traits, including intelligence, are fully understood.
2010+ Alteration of inherited traits becomes a major political issue.
2015+ Genetic engineering widely used to eliminate disease-causing defects, paid for by public-health programs and private health insurance.
2020+ Inherited human traits are routinely altered for nonmedical reasons.
2030+ First generation of children altered for intelligence, longevity, and appearance approach maturity; genetic engineering begins to have profound impact on the human experience (quoted in SoulTsunami, Leonard Sweet, pp. 276-7).
We’re already three years ahead of his projected schedule on the first item.
The importance of this issue cannot be overestimated. We as Christians must bring
biblical wisdom and a Christian worldview to this debate. The implications of remaining silent are too great.
As I stand before you today, we do not have the time to flesh out all that that entails.
What I do want to give to you are four key spiritual truths to keep in mind as this debate rages in the years to come. Keep these in mind as you hear scientific experts and members of the media putting their spin on the issue.
First, we are a fallen people [see Romans 5:12; Genesis 3:6-7]. The reality of sin and
of our sinfulness must be dealt with. To start with the biblical view of fallen humanity is eons
away from starting with the humanistic view that people are basically good.
Some are implying that if we can work out the problems in our genes, we will have a better humanity. From the biblical perspective, we know the problem isn’t in our genes, it’s in our hearts. Our dilemma is not bad DNA, but sin.
Jonathan Imbody’s article “No cure for the Fall” (World, 7/31/99) hammers home the point this way:
“The sounds from the fetal heart monitor assure the surgeon that all is well with his
patient - an infant still in the womb. At Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Joseph Bruner makes an incision in the fetus’ skull and places a shunt, or small tube, in the fluid space of the brain. The surgery is designed to treat a potentially fatal condition known as congenital hydrocephalus, or water on the brain. Dr. Bruner saves the baby by performing a first-ever medical miracle: in utero fetal brain surgery.
“Whoosh-whir.
“A frightened teenager listens to the systematic labor of a suction machine as she lies on
the chrome table. Another doctor makes an incision in the fetus’ skull without anesthesia. This time the intent is not to heal. The doctor is draining the life out of her womb through a partial-birth abortion.
“As we prepare to exit a millennium of medicine, we witness a preposterous paradox.
One doctor works heroically to save an imperfectly formed baby while another literally dissects a
healthy, living baby.”
How can one explain the behavior of those doctors? Only by understanding that we are made in the image of God, but that we are also members of a Fallen race.
Secondly, along a similar line, we cannot presume that scientists will do what’s right [see Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8; Isaiah 64:6].
This is reflected in C. Ben Mitchell’s essay “Genetic Renaissance in a Moral Dark Age”:
“The bad news is that the [genetic research] is being done in the context of what amounts
to a moral dark age. . . . our moral sensitivities are at a very low ebb.
“The fact that today’s (6/26/00) announcement [of the successful sequencing] comes in the thick of a battle between the U.S. government’s National Institute for Human Genome Research, international partners in genome science, and the privately-owned Celera Genomics doesn’t inspire confidence that we know how to handle the thorny ethical issues that are attached to the future of biotechnology.
“. . . Those who make policy about the use of genetic information cannot agree that unborn babies are human persons who at least deserve not to be unnecessarily harmed. They cannot agree that human beings and their body parts should not be owned through the patent process. They cannot agree that the disabled, infirm, and aged should be cared for in a dignified and humane manner, rather than being snuffed out by euthanasia. Technological progress like
the Human Genome Project requires an equally stout set of moral and ethical guidelines to govern it. Unfortunately, we are a culture dominated by technological giants and ethical pygmies.”
As a primary example, consider Ian Wilmut, the scientist responsible for the cloned sheep “Dolly.” He initially stated that it would be “unthinkable” to apply cloning technology to humans. Days later, after having received $800,000 in stock to work on human cloning with the Geron Corporation, Wilmut was asked if he now felt comfortable about human cloning. He
replied, “Yes, I do” (“No cure for the Fall,” Jonathan Imbody).
Thirdly, we will not create a utopia [1 Corinthians 3:11; Ephesians 2:8-9; Genesis 11:1-9]. One would be inclined to believe by the glowing reports in much of the media that with these developments we are set to usher in a golden age.
We have heard such predictions before, although our very brief collective memories have
likely forgotten. At the beginning of the twentieth century, many people (even many Christians) were touting a golden age where crime and poverty would be a thing of the past. Industrialization would bring new levels of prosperity. Looking back on the twentieth century, one would hope we would have learned our lesson when it comes to predicting utopian
outcomes. However, judging by much of the flowery rhetoric in the media and among scientists, it’s clear many have not learned that lesson.
C. Ben Mitchell writes, “Unless public scrutiny is radically enhanced and unless ethical
vigilance is rigorously applied, this glorious moment will be remembered in history as a very inglorious day of infamy.”
To consider just one possibility, ponder the utopian idea of ridding ourselves of people with Down Syndrome. With genetic testing, we could identify such fetuses and abort them. Wouldn’t this make our society a better place? The words of Newsweek columnist George Will about his son with Down Syndrome answer the question:
“Jon Will, the oldest of my four children, turns 21 this week and on this birthday, as on every other workday, he will commute by subway to his job delivering mail and being useful in other ways at the National Institutes of Health.
“. . .Jon lost, at the instant he was conceived, one of life’s lotteries, but he also was lucky: his physical abnormalities do not impede his vitality and his retardation is not so severe that it
interferes with life’s essential joys - receiving love, returning it, and reading baseball box scores.
“. . .Jon was born the year before Roe v. Wade and just as prenatal genetic tests were becoming routine. Because of advancing science and declining morals, there are fewer people like Jon than there should be.
“. . .Down syndrome is determined at conception and leaves its imprint in every cell of
the person’s body. . .. It seems mistaken to say that Jon is less than he would be without Down syndrome. When a child suffers a mentally limiting injury after birth we wonder sadly about what might have been. But a Down person’s life never had any other trajectory. Jon was Jon from conception on.
“. . .It is an interesting commentary on the human condition that one aspect of Jon’s abnormality - a facet of his disability - is the fact that he is gentleness straight through. But must we ascribe a sweet soul to a defective chromosome? Let us just say that Jon is an adornment to a world increasingly stained by anger acted out.
“. . .He was born on his father’s birthday, a gift that keeps on giving” (“Jon Will’s Aptitudes,” Newsweek, 5/3/93).
At what point do we become a better society because we eliminate those who are not economically useful to us? At what point do we become more enlightened by ridding ourselves of those who are an inconvenience to us? Could it be that in our quest for a genetically enhanced utopia, we will discover that all it has cost us is our compassion and our dignity? Could it be that we will arrive in our humanly-achieved heaven, only to discover we are in hell?
Finally, our hope is not in our own intelligence; our hope is in Jesus [1 Timothy
1:15; John 6:67-8; Acts 4:12].
Ben Patterson, in his book The Grand Essentials, tells this story:
“Years ago an S-4 submarine was rammed by a ship off the coast of Massachusetts. It sank immediately. The entire crew was trapped in a prison house of death. Every effort was made to rescue the crew, but all ultimately failed. Near the end of the ordeal, a deep-sea diver, who was doing everything in his power to find a way for the crew’s release, thought he heard tapping on the steel wall of the sunken sub. He placed his helmet up against the side of the vessel and he realized it was the Morse Code. He attached himself to the side and he spelled out
in his mind the message being tapped from within. It was repeating the same question. The question was, from within: ‘Is . . . there . . . any . . . hope?’”
Today I can confidently assert to you that there is hope. It is not in humanity’s intellect or
in science’s advances. It is in the Lord Jesus Christ.
