The Authorship Of Life

The desire to be like God, while present since the fall, is becoming a technological possibility. The publisher of U.S. News and World Report introduced a recent cover article on biotechnology by writing:

No longer do [scientists] have to wait for nature to provide the combination of genetic traits they want in microbes, plants, animals - even human beings. They can simply splice new genes into cells to create the organisms they want.

While the church's stand against humanity's nuclear ability to destroy created life becomes more steadfast each day, its response to the technological ability to create new life has been weak, ambiguous, and muted. Yet equally profound dangers are present. Further, central theological judgments about the integrity of life are being made by researchers in universities and corporations, largely unnoticed by the church.

An unprecedented ability to create and manufacture new forms of life has emerged in scientific laboratories. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that new forms of genetically engineered life could be granted patents. Within two years, more than 150 genetic engineering firms were established, many with the enthusiastic backing and capital of Wall Street.

The inexorable evolution of genetic engineering is moving from micro-organisms with industrial uses up toward the potential of genetically engineering a human being to desired specifications. New life forms are being introduced into the environment, and species lines are suddenly being blurred. Noah cared for the species two by two, to ensure life's continuity. Today humanity can create new species to satisfy its whims and generate a return on an investment.

Biotechnology's stock has risen based on its promises to produce hormones, enzymes, and drugs, create organisms that will gobble up oil spills, enable plants to take their nitrogen from the atmosphere, cure genetic defects in humans, and other much-heralded predictions. Over 3,000 biotechnology patents have been granted. But in this process, life itself is being redefined to suit humanity's new mastery over creation.

When the federal courts were considering whether the new forms of life "owned" by Upjohn and General Electric could be patented, those supporting the patents argued that the "life" of these micro-organisms was negligible; no more than physical and chemical elements were involved, which were just as patentable as a ball bearing. Genentech, a trail-blazing genetic engineering firm, filed an amicus curiae brief with the courts that quoted Claude Bernard as saying a century ago:

Today we differentiate three kinds of properties exhibited in the phenomena of living beings: physical properties, chemical properties, and vital properties. But the term "vital properties" is itself only provisional; because we call properties vital which we have not yet been able to reduce to physio-chemical terms; but in that we shall doubtless succeed some day.

The Supreme Court agreed declaring that "life is largely chemistry."

A startling occurrence is happening here. As life itself is commercialized, it is defined only according to its material characteristics. The vital, sacred, and reverential qualities of life evaporate away. We are left simply with a vast new pool of "material" to be technologically manipulated into forms of economic utility.

Dr. Leon Kass, a molecular biologist and author, sees it this way:

We have paid some high prices for the technological conquest of nature, but none perhaps so high as the intellectual and spiritual costs of seeing nature as mere material for our manipulation, exploitation, and transformation. With the powers for biological engineering now gathering, there will be splendid new opportunities for a similar degradation of our view of man [sic].

The future possibilities of the bio-engineering of life are being set neither by moral or theological judgments, nor by governmental guidelines, but simply by economic feasibilities. The biochip seems destined to replace the microchip as the technological icon of a new age. Humanity now has the power to recreate the fabric of life, including the life of the human species. As with nuclear power, the consequences of this capacity are awesome, and without precedent in human history.

Liebe F. Cavalieri, professor of biochemistry at Cornell Medical College, has sensed this parallel and voices the obvious concern:

There is a striking similarity between nuclear science and genetic engineering. Molecular biologists, like nuclear physicists before them, are euphoric over their success at deciphering another of nature's secrets. But genetic engineering is not just another scientific accomplishment. Like nuclear physics, it confers on human beings a power for which they are psychologically and morally unprepared. The physicists have already learned this, to their dismay; the biologists, not yet.

The most alarming features in the biotechnology revolution are not its scientific advances but its theological assumptions. The capabilities of genetic engineering are enshrining in our society humanity's absolute power over the authorship of life, and its total sovereignty as ruler over creation.

This stance, of course, has evolved over the past few centuries with the rise of modern science. The contributions of science to modern life are abundant and obvious. Less noticeable, however, is the dramatic change wrought by the methods of science in the relationship of humanity to nature.

Francis Bacon, credited with beginning the scientific method, argued that nature must be made a "slave" to humanity. Adoration and curiosity toward nature, aroused by St. Francis of Assisi and his followers, was transformed into a quest for power over nature. "Human knowledge and human power meet as one," Bacon argued. Further, he asserted that in the fall, humanity lost its domination of nature. But now through the tools of science, this power could be regained to build a Utopian society, restoring paradise.

As science and technology became linked, the "New World" was "discovered." Endless raw materials fueled the industrial revolution. Theologically, the church sanctified the harsh exploitation of nature. Genesis 1:26 to 28 instructed humanity, after all, to "have dominion" and "subdue the earth."

Now, as biotechnology confers on humanity a previously undreamed-of power to create new life forms, the church largely falters in its response. Its theological justification of humanity's domination of nature has gone unexamined and unamended.

A presidential commission on bio-ethics, requested by three church denominations in the early 1980s to explore the moral issues in genetic engineering, reported, "Human beings have not merely the right but the duty to employ their God given powers to harness nature for human benefit." The recommendations for genetic engineering amounted to little more than a weak "be careful." The New York Times correctly chastised the report for having "tiptoed around the more concrete issues," such as altering the human gene set.

Meanwhile, society's technological euphoria over genetic engineering has smothered the already faint theological and moral qualms. Cover stories in Time and Newsweek, as well as coverage on television newscasts, all stress the amazing prospects for rescuing the U.S. economy, solving the energy crisis, and revolutionizing agriculture that genetic engineering could bring. Such media coverage echoes the hope of stories in 1945 and 1946 describing how the harnessing of nuclear power would revolutionize transportation, make energy limitless, and even control the weather.

Society's hope for a technological fix for its economic, environmental, and resource problems now rests on genetic engineering. The root causes of economic stagnation, ecological deterioration, and resource scarcity can all be avoided by believing that genetic engineering will provide a purely technical solution.

The church's response to all these developments must be other than a shallow and blanket condemnation of modern technology. Rather, we should search for a biblical foundation that can offer a response that illumines the dangers being courted by society and clarifies our concrete choices.

The Image of God
In the Bible the life of the world is understandable only in relationship to the life of God. Creation does not exist unto itself as a separate, autonomous realm. Instead, Scripture explains the life of creation as a gift from the Creator.

Biblical writers marvel at how the Creator preserves the life of all creation, as for example in Psalm 104. The striking feature about this creation psalm is the humble place of humanity in its picture. In Genesis 1, before humanity is created, God surveys creation six times and proclaims that it is good. All that is in creation has a positive value for God in itself, not in reference to humanity. What then, is meant by the declaration in Genesis 1:26 to 28 that humanity is created in the "image of God" and told to have dominion?

It was a common experience of that time for a king to reign over a wide region. Since he could not be physically present in the whole territory, to signify his reign in more distant regions he would erect an image of himself. To the people this meant that he ruled and reigned over the area, and that his purposes would be carried out. As Old Testament scholar Gerhard von Rad explains, "Man [sic] is placed upon the earth in God's image as God's sovereign emblem. He is really only God's representative, summoned to maintain and enforce God's claim to dominion over the earth."

Popular interpretation of these verses begins with modern assumptions of nature as an object for humanity's exploitation, and reads into this passage a justification of that stance. But quite the opposite is intended. The emphasis is on humanity's calling to uphold God's rule over creation, preserving the order of its life.

The Bible calls into sharp question the currently prevailing pattern of humanity's relationship with creation. Rather than nature serving as humanity's slave, humanity is called to safeguard the creation's life, so it may fulfill God's intentions.

In the story of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2, we see the inclination to orient life around self-chosen purposes apart from God. Rather than finding life's meaning and orientation in God, life becomes defined by the power, ambition, and self-seeking of humanity.

The author of Genesis uses the expression "to be like God" in describing this inclination. We can understand its meaning as the desire to claim God's prerogatives over life and creation. Humanity falsely believes that its life, and the life of creation, are at its disposal to do with as selfishly desired. The first act of this rebellion is directed toward a tree in the garden.

Rather than be in the image of God, serving as the representative of God's rule and purpose in the creation, humanity wants to be like God. It wants to decide autonomously the intentions for life and creation, and then attempt to carry out that rule by its own power and for its own ends.

The threats presented by both nuclear weapons and genetic engineering spring from conviction that humanity has the right to manipulate, create, and destroy creation as it sees fit. Life is its own to possess. By contrast, the biblical picture presents the life of creation as God's gift to be preserved, nurtured, and treasured.

What, then, should be the church's response to the dramatic unfolding of genetic engineering? First, the biblical directive to care for creation assumes a relationship of cooperation and involvement with the created world. Arguing against interfering with the "natural order" misses the point. Humanity's life is never separate from the rest of creation, but intrinsically tied to it. The instructions of Genesis 2 to till and keep the garden, and numerous Old Testament admonitions to care for the land, call us to a stance of care taking, rather than exploiting, the creation. Ownership is the central question. The Bible declares that creation is God's, and not ours.

Wearing eyeglasses, growing tomatoes, taking aspirin, and eating three meals a day all involve some attempt to affect the natural order. Genetic engineering begins in its mildest forms as another such attempt. Some of its results, such as inexpensive insulin, improved treatment of burns, and various vaccines may indeed be beneficial in the short run.

Rather than issuing abstract warnings against any tampering with nature, the church should examine how various possibilities of genetic engineering affect the relationship between humanity, creation, and God. Practitioners of genetic engineering, however, have generally been suspicious of moral, ethical, and theological discussion of their activities. They often stand behind a classic defense of scientific inquiry. Society, and especially religion, the practitioners say, should not and must not attempt to limit the scope of scientific investigation.

Thoughts on Genetic Engineering
But the matter is not that simple. In unique ways, genetic engineering welds together science and technology with immediate effects on nature. New variations and forms of life are created and potentially introduced into the ecosystem. This is not free inquiry; it is the creation of new facts and new relationships in the world of nature.

Similarly, proponents of biotechnology often declare that one cannot stand in the way of scientific and technological progress. If something can be done, then it should be done, and will be done anyway, regardless of reservations. But this only admits a slavery to the technological process.

It is foolhardy to do everything that technology allows us to do. The progress of genetic engineering, in fact, should make this self-evident.

Historically the impetus for pushing any technology to the extremes of potential human destructiveness has come from the military. Today, we can assume that in some top-secret laboratories and think tanks in our land, people are researching how the tools and potential creations of genetic engineering could be used against the nation's enemies.

Why not cross human genes with an animal and breed a new organism not quite human, programmed with a biochip to carry out military instructions unto death? And shouldn't there be a small number of genetically engineered humans with super-intelligence, raised under careful military supervision and devoted to spending their lives thinking of strategies to outwit the nation's enemies?

We can assume that bizarre possibilities like these are being contemplated and evaluated as part of military research. Once society uncritically blesses the advance of genetic engineering, its manipulation for military purposes accelerates without restraint. Eventually, as with nuclear power, it will become difficult to separate military applications from civilian uses. The church should sound the warning to these dangers.

Public developments in genetic engineering are being driven by their profit-making potential. Here again as with nuclear power, the hope of economic returns discounts the inherent risks in the technology. The immediate, short-run benefits which seem humane and undeniable are embraced, while the long-term dangers posed to the genetic and ecological balance of life are ignored.

When recombinant DNA technology first emerged, concern persisted that new micro-organisms might accidentally escape a laboratory. Since they can live in a human intestine and even in sewage, the threat of a new biological creation on the loose was enough to impose a temporary moratorium on such research in the late 1970s. It was lifted, however, when the federal government and the scientists whose careers depended on biotechnology created safety standards for such research.

Argument has continued over whether these standards are safe enough. But they are only mandatory when the federal government funds the research. Corporations are not obligated to comply. And with profit as the goal, such safeguards become tempting obstacles to be quietly by-passed.

The fruits of genetic engineering that are designed to leave laboratories also pose risks to the ecosystem. When General Electric's microbes gobble up the oil spilled by a tanker, then what do they do? What if they don't dissolve as planned? What if they permanently enter the ecosystem of the ocean - an ecosystem designed neither to ingest spilled oil nor to accommodate invented predators of oil slicks?

A unique biohazard is created by such pollution, for the source is a living organism which reproduces itself. Cleaning up such biological pollution means trying to blot out a whole new life form.

Biotechnology has no intention of stopping with the creation of a few new commercially useful microbes. Rapidly, it is moving up the scale of life, even developing the ability to create whole new species. Far more than simply breeding hybrids is involved.

In 1981, scientists successfully transferred a rabbit gene into a mouse embryo, and the newborn mouse (with a little bit of rabbit) successfully mated. Reprogramming a whole species became possible, transferring distinct traits of one animal to another. The corporations that produce modified species could claim a patent and ownership on every such modified beast that was ever born. The Supreme Court's 1980 decision opening the way for corporations to patent new life forms reflects how deeply society believes that creation is ours to possess.

The point, of course, is not whether animals should serve humans. Modifying and nurturing animal breeds as well as plant varieties has long been done. But genetic engineering presents wholly novel possibilities. One species can now be altered with traits of another. Species boundaries are no longer inviolate, but can be crossed at will. New species of life can be brought into existence, all to satisfy economic whims.

Instead of seeing a given species as an established and purposeful part of creation's order, the genetic engineer sees simply a genetic program at work. That program can be modified, reworked, and altered in any way deemed useful. The life of a species compels no inherent respect. It is merely a particular programming of information.

What would be the likely consequences if humanity so controlled and dominated the variation of species? The bald eagle, rainbow trout, grizzly bear, and lady bug would have no intrinsic value. Their worth would depend only on their commercial, recreational, or aesthetic value to humans. And the limitations or defects of any one species could be remedied genetically by reprogramming.

Such dominion jeopardizes the life of all creation. Choosing to create new life forms constitutes an unprecedented invasion of the life-sustaining fabric of creation. The likely loss of genetic diversity - which is already occurring from the increased extinction of species because of human causes - would dwindle creation's ability to nurture future life.

Science fiction has long imagined mechanical robots serving humans. But scientific facts are making possible the development of an endless variety of life forms - not machines - to serve as our slaves. The unnoticed dimension of biotechnology is its eventual fusion with computer technology. Biochips created through genetic engineering will replace microchips, and enable programming and computer-like functioning to be built into new forms of life.

Authoring species seems better entrusted to God. When Noah took two of every kind of animal into the ark, he modeled humanity's calling to uphold the created order. And God's covenant after the flood specifically extends to all living creatures. This suggests a biblical integrity in all species of life, and an inherent value stemming from their relationship to the Creator rather than to humanity.

Species, of course, are not eternal. Some become extinct and others arise in the eons of creation's life. But that wisdom belongs to the Creator. Humanity's task is one of preservation. Our energies are more faithfully exercised through nurturing and protecting present species rather than presuming to rearrange their genes. Crossing species lines in the creation of new forms of life amounts to a new form of technological blasphemy.

The final frontier in genetic engineering is the re-creation of humanity's genetic characteristics. Biotechnology is providing the tools for designing human life according to predetermined specifications. Humans are about to acquire the power of authorship over human life itself.

This power is rationalized with promises of curing hereditary diseases and correcting genetic flaws. Presently such efforts are focused on genetic surgery to change such conditions within an embryo or an individual. Whatever their value or risk, such changes die with the person.

The next step, however, is to change such defects through engineering the germline cells, the egg and sperm of individuals. And these changes, of course, are inheritable. They permanently alter the human germline, the storehouse for sustaining the future of the human species.

Correcting "defective" genes in this manner poses grave moral and biological dangers. The strength of any species is tied to its genetic diversity; genes we may judge to be "bad" may, in fact, have an unknown but indispensable redemptive role in humanity's genetic adaptability and preservation. Removing unwanted genetic traits could cause unpredictable injury to humanity's genetic composition and cripple its ability to adapt to dramatic changes in its environment.

Moreover, the whole idea of changing inheritable defective genes and disorders presumes that humanity can be genetically perfected. It rests on a faith in humanity's capacity to re-create itself in its own image. Eliminating an hereditary disease may seem clear-cut and humane. But the genetic engineering of human life swiftly evades such simplistic choices.

No sharp line can be drawn between changing genetic defects and enhancing genetic characteristics. The idea of "defects" depends, after all, on the possibility of being "perfect." If the "flaw" of diabetes or sickle cell anemia can be corrected, then why not change the "imperfections" of bad looks, left-handedness, or skin color? Why not improve brains or temperament? As the New York Times editorialized, "There is no discernible line to be drawn between making inheritable repairs of genetic defects, and improving the species."

The ability of genetic engineering to program mental and psychological functioning unleashes the power for molding a society to fit the norms of its rulers. Why not genetically eliminate social misfits? Why not genetically reinforce passive, conforming personality characteristics? Many regimes would find it tantalizing to reinforce their rule and quiet dissent through inward, genetic controls on its citizens rather than external force.

Such dangers may seem far-fetched, especially in pluralistic societies. But in capitalistic countries like the United States, genetic control first would be established not by the state, but by the marketplace. Every parent wants a perfect baby. If there are gene banks offering a variety of desired traits, people will pay to perfect their offspring.

Since wealth and power would determine who will have access to such choices, economic divisions would be genetically reinforced. Those with wealth would strive to improve their genetic riches. The end result would be a new basis for discrimination, inequality, and oppression, based no longer on race or class, but on genetic composition. A virtual biological caste system could potentially result.

From Auschwitz to Hiroshima to Love Canal, humanity has decisively demonstrated that its technological powers overwhelm its capacities for moral judgment. The genetic engineering of human life, if allowed to proceed, will quickly trespass any well-intentioned boundaries and guidelines. This technology is setting its own rules and tempting humanity with awesome powers. If grasped, such power will become intoxicating, and the pressure to seize all of it will be irresistible.

Humanity neither knows enough about the intricacies of life, nor possesses the moral discernment and spiritual wisdom to design "more perfect" human beings. Such actions claim prerogatives for humanity that rightly belong only to the Creator.

In this area, the church's voice is beginning to be heard. The cross section of church leaders listed on page 27 of this issue who have committed themselves in opposition to genetic engineering of the human germline is a forceful and promising sign. The church is starting to confront the theological pretensions inherent in genetic engineering.

Opposition to the genetic engineering of human beings, however, is only a starting point for the church's response. The technological ability to author new life forms at any level compels humanity to decide whether it is the source, guide, and goal of life, or whether those attributes belong to the Creator. The consistent biblical word calling humanity to preserve and treasure created life given as God's gift restrains humanity from trying to reprogram the genetic make-up of creation.

Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "Do you not know that your body is a shrine of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and the Spirit is God's gift to you? You do not belong to yourselves; you were bought at a price. Then honor God in your body" (1 Corinthians 6:20). This New Testament insight declares that we do not own ourselves. Even our own bodies are not ours to possess. And that includes our genes, as well as creation's genetic composition.

We often hear these verses declaring that our bodies are temples of God in reference to prohibitions on smoking or drinking alcohol. More relevant applications spring to mind today. For if we are to regard our bodies and all creation as the place where God dwells, then we must acknowledge that their genetic design rightly remains in God's hands rather than our own.

Wes Granberg-Michaelson was a Sojourners contributing editor, a member of Community Covenant Church in Missoula, Montana, and executive director of the New Creation Institute when this article appeared.