Science and Religion Forum- Seeking Both

Seeking both intelligibility and meaning

Genetic Engineering; Foe or Friend?

Written by Celia Deane-Drummond on

Is genetic engineering a good or bad thing? The new technology certainly allows vast changes in the fabric of life by altering the genes. Genes are the information blueprint that is passed on from one generation to the next. They code for particular proteins specific to the form of life. Genetic manipulation allows us to control how a species develops.

Not only that, it is now possible to move genes from one species to another, for example from a human to a pig, or to bacteria. If we put a human gene into bacteria, they act like a factory for the human protein. This procedure is particularly effective as bacteria multiply fast compared with higher organisms, such as plants and animals. This technique, using bacteria, is used in making human insulin -- of enormous benefit to those who suffer from diabetes.

Other examples of genetic modification for medical purposes include the treatment of those who suffer from genetic disease, such as cystic fibrosis.

Few of us have qualms over the use of genetic engineering for such ends. Indeed, we could celebrate this expression of our human creativity as a gift from God. Through developing ways to prevent human suffering, we become co-creators with God.

But let's consider another example. Suppose we transfer human growth hormone genes to pigs in order to make them grow quicker. If this is done, pigs soon develop arthritis, are blind and suffer in other ways. Why? The reason is that there is no control of the human growth hormone in the pig. Unfortunately we cannot always predict in advance gene control after transfer to other species. Many people are worried about eating genetically modified food. The idea, for example, of eating pork that contains a human gene seems repugnant.

What about the risk to human health in eating unknown proteins in food? While the actual quantity of genetic material that we are likely to take in is small, we still feel uneasy. We might also worry about unknown allergic reactions of all kinds. Are we somehow 'playing God' in moving genes across species? In the Genesis story God declares that the natural order is 'good'. For some religious believers the idea of any interference with the order in the natural world seems like human arrogance.

But in order to assess this we need to think about how far the natural world is 'untouchable'. Human beings have helped to change the natural world since the dawn of human existence. All through history we have cultivated crops, domesticated animals etc. While Christians insist on respect for the natural world, they reject any idea that creation is divine. However, all creatures are gifts from God that deserve respect. So in assessing a particular proposal we need to ask, does this show sufficient respect for the creature? We also need to ask whether we can justify the action. Changing bacteria or plants raises different questions compared with animals or humans. Is the particular change allowable and if so does the potential benefit outweigh the risk?

I suggest that the particular quality we need now is wisdom -- wisdom to discern our motives. We also need to ask if our ingenuity has outstripped our wisdom.

All great religions have given us a source of wisdom through many centuries. Our desire for knowledge has often blinded us to the need to develop wisdom. In fixing on a certain goal we fail to look at the whole picture. By wisdom I mean the ability to have the widest possible perspective on life, to see things as a whole. It includes reason, but recognises that reason is only part of the story.

A theological approach to wisdom becomes the quest for goodness and truth. Our conduct then, is judged by the goodness it promotes for the whole global community. We need this breadth if we are going to allow for different views than our own. Early scientists were well aware of the need to combine their research with their religious insights. Their desire was to work for the common good. Isaac Newton, the founder of modern physics, spent as much time in the study of theology as of physics. The split between science and religion is a relatively modern occurrence over the last few hundred years.

There are those who object to genetic engineering because of the environmental risks. GenetiX snowball is a protest group that has acted directly to 'decontaminate' fields of genetically modified crops. The risk in most cases is actually far less than they suggest. Yet it does stir up fear in the minds of most ordinary people. Such outbursts reinforce the idea that the changes are too rapid for most people to handle psychologically. Some of the fears are genuine and these need to be listened to carefully.

Again, we need to reflect on the wisdom of certain developments. Questions such as 'Will it make a profit?' or 'Will it increase efficiency?' need to be asked alongside 'What are the social consequences?' 'Is this a wise move in view of the unknown risks?'

The above suggests that while there are obviously huge benefits to be gained from genetic engineering, there are always some risks. But I wonder how many of us would object to genetic engineering if it produced a life saving drug for one of our children? These are complex issues that require more thought, more collaboration on everyone's part.

Celia Deane-Drummond is Senior Lecturer in Applied Theology at University College, Chester, UK. She is currently Chairperson of the Forum.