What does it mean to give your children the best chance at success? Would it
include changing their DNA so they would never get sick? Could it include
genetically changing them to make them stronger, smarter, and faster than
others? Is that even moral?
These questions used to be relegated to the realm
of science fiction, but as genetic technologies advance, they have become more
and more real. There are already instances of people using genetic screening
during in vitro fertilization.
1 While this process is
currently used to only identify the correct number of chromosomes in an embryo,
the Guardian article states, "If doctors had a readout of an embryo's whole
genome, they could judge the chances of the child developing certain diseases,
such as cancer, heart disease or Alzheimer's."
2
While
genetic screening itself opens a host of moral questions, even more provocative
is the concept of genetic engineering: changing the gene itself to either rid
the embryo of a trait or to enhance natural traits such as strength or
intelligence. This morning I read two articles from Christians (
J.W.
Wartick and
ElijiahT) who outlined the issue and offered their views. They've done a
good job in laying out most of the arguments, both pro and con, that you find
see in the debate, so I won't rehash them here. Both are worthy of your time.
But there is an aspect that neither touched on which I think is fundamental to
the discussion.
Genetic Therapy and Genetic Enhancement
First, I do wish to distinguish between the two goals of genetic engineering.
There is a distinction between genetic therapy, which is basically correcting a
genetic defect such as Sickle-cell disease that Wartick offers, and genetic
enhancement, which takes a function that would fall within the normal range and
improve it.
3 Yet, even here the standard isn't
so easily discernable. For example, the deaf community even today has
significant disagreement whether deaf children born to deaf parents should
receive cochlear implants.
4 In fact, one lesbian couple
sought out a sperm donor who had five generations of deafness in his family to
ensure their IVF child would be deaf.
5
I have some
problems with the couple's approach, but it does illustrate that defining
disability versus difference isn't always so clear. However, with most cases, I
think a case can be made that genetic therapies fall within a Christian
construct. God has given us the ability to learn about His creation and to try
and alleviate some of the suffering brought on by the Fall. Treatments for
maladies are currently invasive (they require surgery), artificial (stints,
mechanics, etc.) and even happen in utero as with fetal surgeries. Delivering
treatments at the genetic level seems to me to be only a difference in degree,
not in kind.
We are More than Our Genes
I have a different concern with genetic enhancements however. In his article,
ElijiahT quoted Kurt Baier writing, "The best course of action is… the course of
action which is supported by the best reasons. And the best reasons may require
us to abandon the aim we actually have set our heart on."
6
This is a fair standard and one that I think I can use to expand the debate.
The piece missing in both articles above is that every human being is not simply
a product of his or her genetics. Human beings are also living souls and God is
extremely concerned with the development of the soul as well as the ability of
the body. Theologians have understood that while eliminating suffering is
important and Christians should help those who they can, God's providential
ordering of things is also important. That's why the Psalmist writes "For you
formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise
you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made."
7
Part
of our fearful and wonderful makeup is our specific limitations in certain
areas. These shape us into who we are as much as our ability to excel. While I
personally didn't struggle academically, I wasn't a natural athlete growing up.
I was very small as a teenager and didn't have much experience with a ball.
However, I found sports that stressed endurance such as cross country and
wrestling and I was able to do very well in both. Striving there taught me
perseverance and discipline that I may not have otherwise experienced. If my
strength and height were genetically enhanced in utero, I wouldn't have the
soul-shaping experienced I had, which helped form my spiritual makeup and
attitude.
In his post, Wartick opines, "It is unclear, though, whether
genetic enhancement would undermine the good of accomplishment and human
achievement. Indeed, one could argue that genetic enhancement, in fact, bolsters
human achievement by widening the scope of possibility for humans."
8
Physically, that may be true, but I am not sure that it would be true
spiritually. While our culture
overburdens the concept of diversity, there are things one can learn from
those who have varied obstacles they had to overcome. Sometimes, those
experiences inform the rest of us in new way. We can learn from Helen Keller.
No Genetic Lottery
So are we to leave our children to what has been deemed the "genetic
lottery"? And, to extend the argument, is seeking a child's excellence through
genetic enhancement techniques any different from some of the advantages certain
children currently enjoy? Outlining this aspect of the pro-enhancement position,
ElijiahT writes:
Parents make choices regarding the life and welfare of their
children all the time, yet no one claims the autonomy of the child is being
violated. Expectant mothers will regularly take vitamins (to enhance the
prenatal environment), read or play music to the developing child and alter
her diet, all in an attempt to give the child the best environment possible.
After birth, parents deliberately choose the child's nutrition, education,
entertainment and health. In fact, to neglect these things is often seen as
inappropriate parenting.9
I agree. Yet, the
difference is qualitative; it's one of nature versus nurture. One need look no
farther than the recent Lance Armstrong scandal. No one would bat an eye if
Armstrong was reported taking the best vitamins, using the best trainers, and
following the best exercise and diet regimen. It was the artificial input of
what should be a natural (e.g. "God-given") function of his body. If we are
created fearfully and wonderfully by a holy God, it simply may be that our
limitations are there to build our character and our spirit.
Escaping the Playing God Dodge
ElijiahT counters with the argument that "playing God "with another's life
may be a fallback excuse: "The actions associated with ‘playing God' are usually
new technologies that alter something about the human condition. In this case,
genetic engineering is seen as playing God, but couldn't the same argument be
used as a ‘catch-all' for anything that makes us uncomfortable?"
10
Of course he's right. The objection has been used as a conversation-stopper
many times. But that doesn't mean that it is always fallacious. A doctor who
indiscriminately euthanizes his patients is playing God; he's taken upon himself
the mantle of choosing which people are worthy of life—the province of God
alone. Similarly, if God is interested in shaping us into mature souls, he may
limit certain physical attributes that we would otherwise wish for ourselves or
our children. These differences are not defects caused by the fall, but truly
differences that God allows for our good. One shouldn't assume to modify them
because we believe they are not as worthy as other characteristics.
There's
an interesting scene in the 1999 hit move
The Matrix, where Agent Smith tells
Morpheus that human beings don't thrive in paradise. The character explains:
Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world?
Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one
would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the
programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a
species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The
perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up
from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your
civilization.11
That's an oversimplification, but it
does bring up a point. Struggle and hardship may be uncomfortable, but they are
not always to be avoided. They can and often do serve to benefit believers.
Holding to a "genetic lottery" assumes at the very least a deistic worldview.
While we mitigate the defects brought on by sin, including Original sin, we
shouldn't be so bold as to assume we can improve physical characteristics that
are not defective. The Nazis sought to do that with race, but race isn't a
defect. Neither are our lesser or grater physical abilities.
Without a
discussion of the soul-shaping nature of bodily limitations, the questions
raised regarding genetic modification is incomplete.
References
