The FDA is beginning two days of hearings soon regarding a process in which scientists desire to genetically manipulate mitochondria in order to avoid certain birth defects some children receive as a result of faulty genetic material from their mothers. While one might initially, and legitimately, ask, why not, the answer isn't as obvious as appears on its first pass.
Almost no one of any decency is against helping children who suffer from disease, particularly the apparently often devastating effects that result from these mitochondrial defects. Mitochondria serve to convert material into energy which the body's cells use to perform their various functions. When the mitochondria fail to perform this function, the problems are obvious - cells don't work like they are supposed to work and the body, therefore, doesn't function properly. As one might expect, the consequences can be anywhere from mild to devastating, depending on the seriousness of an individual's problem.
The problem isn't that somebody wants to help other people by trying to solve this problem in advance. For Christians, we certainly (I think) understand we are to engage in exercising dominion over creation, however imperfectly we do so because of sin's corrupting effects. Part of exercising this dominion involves attempting to ameliorate suffering when possible, reasonable, and within appropriate moral boundaries. The difficulty with the kind of genetic engineering being proposed here is we enter into an inevitable slippery slope. At what point do we concern ourselves with finding appropriate moral boundaries? And how do we do so at an appropriate point before it's too late? There are moral dimensions to all decisions we make, whether we accept this or not.
For the naturalistic materialist, genetic engineering of this type ought not be a source of concern. If we are all simply by-products of a mindless, non-directive, unthinking, amoral universe, then there really aren't any moral or ethical constraints here. I find it fascinating and amusing when I see that such folks want to engage in such conversations. Why not just be intellectually honest and say that there are no morals or ethics except those we impose upon ourselves and be done with them? In the naturalistic/materialist world, all such barriers are artificial and imaginary anyway.
For Christians, however, the difficulties with this kind of meddling with a child's genetics in order to try to create a suffering free being are immense and troubling. First, let's be blunt: Hitler was engaged in a similar venture, just without the subtlety and sophistication. Hitler wanted a master race and he initiated both deselection and breeding programs designed, in his mind, to reinforce "good" genes and delete "bad" genes. Wiping out the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other "undesirables" was simply blunt force applied to the problem that is now being worked on with pipettes, microscopes, and sophisticated instruments. Hitler's Germany engaged in selective breeding, particularly with teenage girls deemed to have come from acceptable stock. Ultimately, the objective is similar - creating human beings who are "free" from defect. Do the means really matter?
Yes, I have made the comparison to Hitler in an effort to shock the conscience and many will say I'm being unfair. Maybe. Nonetheless, Christians too often find themselves well behind these issues because we spend so much time cloistered in our comfort, hiding behind our church walls, fearful of the disdain that will come our way for speaking out. We fail to engage. This is a serious issue not because some scientist wants to find a way to help people who suffer from a potentially devastating disease. It is serious because good motives don't always equal good results.
The far-reaching consequences of this kind of manipulation are unknown. Moreover, in a sin fallen world, alleviating suffering is one thing, pre-empting suffering is different. Since we cannot know how this kind of genetic manipulation will affect future generations, we must be incredibly careful in assuming that a few good results in a handful of one generation of monkeys (which is what has thus far been achieved) means that humans will fare well. Plus, the incremental steps from manipulating mitochondria, to the next, less severe issue almost inevitably lead to less obviously "necessary" matters like what we euphemistically call "designer babies."
I cannot trust this kind of determination to the likes of naturalistic materialists like Peter Singer, a so-called ethicist at Princeton University. He already accepts wholesale abortion, and even infanticide as ethically acceptable. Forgive the pun, but it is only a baby step to wholesale genetic manipulation. We must not be so arrogant as to think we can anticipate the results of such endeavors with any acceptable degree of certainty.
The most fundamental problem here is that this kind of manipulation ultimately treats human beings as commodities - things to be manipulated as we see fit to suit our own purposes. Christians cannot accept this view of humanity, as it runs completely counter to the biblical view that we are created in God's image and are here at God's pleasure and for His glory. We are not here to create utopia on earth. We are certainly not here to somehow manage and manipulate humanity into some kind of perfected organism. Even the most secular humanist can certainly understand that our imperfections are obvious and distressing. As Christians, how much more do we understand the depraved nature that infects all of us? We cannot and must not trust ourselves to think we can sufficiently manage our sin in such a way that our use of genetic manipulation will never get out of hand. It will.
Hitler, I suspect, would love where we're headed. That speaks volumes.
No comments:
Post a Comment