It was front-page news recently: "Scientists Clone Three Mice." After years of authoritative pooh-poohing, science fiction had been made fact. Mammals for the first time had been produced by technicians in a laboratory assembly line; each cloned mouse was an exact copy of a regular mouse. That achievement represented a huge step toward cloning human beings, one that had stumped scientists for more than 25 years.
The news faded as suddenly as it appeared.
Ironically, last fall a more far-reaching genetic engineering development occurred that stirred even less interest. Yale scientists reported that they had inserted foreign genes into mice that were permanently accepted by the mice's original genetic framework. The new genes fundamentally changed the genes with which the mice had been conceived. This experiment proved that specific genes could be transferred into mammals, including humans, that would alter their characteristics.
For all the fear that the notion of cloning and genetic manipulation had raised in the 1970s, the reality of it in the 1980s has been relatively undramatic. Chicken Little's sky has not fallen; or at least the effects are not yet tangible. People shrug and jokingly remark that someone had better build a better mousetrap now that we have a better mouse.
For the ordinary Christian, genetic engineering is an issue so new and so complex that we tend to try to forget or ignore it. Yet genetic engineering is not just another wonderful invention of the modern age; it is not like electricity or computers. It alters the animate, living world, not the inanimate one, in the most fundamental of ways.
In one sense, the general apathy about the onrushing developments in genetic engineering has not been surprising in light of the steady barrage of gung-ho news items on the subject during the past two years. Scarcely a day has passed without word of some breakthrough, investor's gamble, quick fix, or miracle cure in genetic engineering. In retrospect, the news itself looks engineered, like a Madison Avenue advertising campaign. It may be just that.
The media, which earlier sensationalized fears about genetic engineering, now sensationalizes about its miracle possibilities, unashamedly regurgitating the gene industry's press releases. For example, splashed across the front pages last summer were grand praises for genetically engineered interferon, heralded to be a miracle anti-cancer drug. Half a year later, after the gene industry's stocks had soared in value and the public had concluded that the benefits of genetic engineering may outweigh the risks after all, word leaked out that interferon is no more effective than existing anti-cancer methods.
The pattern of publicity on genetic engineering is further cause for uneasiness. The mice cloning, first announced in January of 1981, actually happened in the summer of 1979. The experiments to generate the first test-tube human baby were announced well after they had begun. The first known gene transfer work on adult human beings occurred in mid-1980; the news broke months later.
In light of this emerging pattern, worry about what is going on behind closed laboratory doors is justified. The publicity delays, while not unusual in scientific research, are worrisome because of the type of research involved.
Much of the secrecy surrounding the genetic labs stems from the rush to be numbered among the famous first discoverers, which gathered momentum with last year's Supreme Court ruling that the methods of producing life, as well as new life itself, are ownable and patentable. Researchers are racing to own life, eyeing large profits for their firms, their universities, and themselves.
Most troubling about the covert style of the gene technicians is the admitted target of some of their research: the manipulation and creation of human life. Very calm and collected scientists talk matter-of-factly about objectives based on a "eugenics" philosophy, which would replace or repair so-called defective genes in "inferior" people. Their plans include replacement limbs for amputees, perfected personalities, bio-chemical warrior organisms, recreation of a "human race" after nuclear holocaust, and cloning a replica of a human and keeping the copy in a storage bin for spare parts.
Though this sounds wild, the relatively innocuous-appearing research of the past two years with mice has conquered many of the hurdles remaining before what is now wild is made possible. A machine has just gone on sale that would recombine genes at a rapid pace, compressing into hours research that previously took months. Trial and error, hit or miss experimentation is already beginning with human subjects. Immediately after he performed the first known gene "therapy" on mice in early 1980, UCLA's Dr. Cline said it would be "three to five" years before the techniques could be applied to humans. It was only a few months later that he secretly flew to Italy and Israel to use these techniques in a clandestine operation on humans.
There are uncanny similarities between the genetic and nuclear complexes. Both are cloaked in secrecy and intrigue, are highly technical in nature, and are heavily subsidized by government funding. Their advocates tout them as peaceful, vital to survival, and a bargain.
Genetic engineering opens a Pandora's Box of problems for Christians. The most recent breakthroughs have been described as cures for "incurable" problems like cancer, energy resource depletion, hunger, and sickle cell anemia.
Key to our faith in Christ is compassion. We believe in helping people, particularly the powerless and victimized. We want to see restoration of health in the sick. The hungry need food desperately. The poor majority of the world suffer most from the shortage of energy. The genetic industry promises easy solutions to these problems.
While we believe that there exist other, non-genetic solutions which offer more enduring and humane answers--preventative measures, alternative technologies, sharing of resources--all of them have a catch. Massive changes in values would have to take place before they would be widely implemented. So we have a dilemma. Does not compassion bid us welcome genetic engineering? Some people will benefit from it.
It is not unlike the dilemma faced by nonviolent Christians in the midst of a violent, unjust world. We believe that human life is so sacred that there is nothing worth the killing of another human being. At the same time, we believe that there are things worth dying for. We are called to lay down our lives for our neighbors, as did Jesus.
We do not, however, force this ethic onto others. Instead we invite them to join us in it, constantly witnessing to the new kingdom and new order of a creation redeemed by God. In this sense, our opposition to genetic engineering, like our opposition to war, is based on the common belief that God wants love for neighbor, reverence for life, and stewardship for creation to be the marks of God's kingdom on earth; that God would have all people live out these values and build practical solutions governed by this ethic. Nonviolence ought to be the norm. In nurturing human existence, the means as well as the ends ought to revere the sanctity of life. Genetic engineering ought to be out of the question. In part, our Christian vocation lies in showing that to act violently or wastefully, or to manipulate genes, is to commit idolatry, to shunt aside God the creator, asserting human lordship and enslaving creation.
Genetic engineering contradicts the character and style of Christ's redemption, which releases the captives to a restored wholeness, not a manufactured one. The lowly are to be respected and raised up, not repaired or wiped out.
Being remade in Christ is especially meaningful because of our continuing freedom to accept or reject his Lordship. In contrast, being remade to fit the genetic age's notion of perfection is the epitome of a meaningless determinism in which eugenics defines and shapes life.
One can forget about compassion, longsuffering, discipleship, sacrifice, commitment, and a host of other biblical virtues in the genetic age. If something is wrong, it will be fixed by tinkering with the genes of life. Life is reduced to a series of physiochemical reactions. Sanctity of life is lost, and with it our notion of that which is holy about being human, and about God being God.
If our Christian faith and life are to have meaning, we will have to oppose genetic engineering. But if our faith and life are to have integrity, we will with equal passion have to build alternative solutions conformed to the gospel.
Phil M. Shenk was News Editor of Sojourners when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!