Genetic engineering: Where should Christian ethics draw the line?
The mega-ethical question of who and what is a human being is brought to one’s mind with increasing frequency by the accelerating advances in scientific technology.
As human beings increasingly apply extraordinary advances in scientific research to remedy human impairments, the inevitable questions of how such advances could be applied to enhance “normal” human functioning always arise.
Scientists are increasingly pushing back the frontiers of what may be done to ameliorate human maladies from generic disorders in the womb or postpartum.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Who among us would not applaud and support efforts to cure babies from debilitating, heartbreaking, life-debilitating genetic disorders, either in the womb or postpartum?
Unfortunately, human nature being what it has revealed itself to be, such marvelous scientific expertise will inevitably be used to seek to “enhance” certain human traits through genetic engineering. Some humans will assume the “desirability” or the superiority of certain human traits over others and will seek to engineer these more “desirable” traits through genetic engineering and even post-birth alterations when technically possible. The inevitable problem is, and will be, that our human technical skill will always outpace our wisdom. Also, we are not God, and thus we do not have perfect knowledge.
Consequently, we cannot know all the consequences of our actions. Of course, it is easy to support genetic engineering to correct dire dysfunction. The problems arise when we start engineering for “improvements.” As human beings, with limited knowledge and perspective, we cannot know all we are doing because, unlike God, we are not omniscient. Thus, we make mistakes.
For instance, let us assume that through mapping the human genome, we can identify the genetic markers for Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD). Children with ADHD (disproportionately male) are more “twitchy,” complicate classroom instruction, and certainly make teachers’ classroom lives more complicated. However, let us assume for a moment that we could identify and “fix” the genetic markers for ADHD in utero. What would be the possible unforeseen consequences?
More and more evidence has surfaced that indicates there may be a link between ADHD and “right-brained,” artistic traits. If we eliminated genetic markers for ADHD, would we be unwittingly circumscribing the number of artists and musicians among us? At the very least, we should rein in human hubris and seek uncharacteristic human humility.
This should not be interpreted as advocating banning pharmaceutical medications for debilitating ADHD symptoms, which hinder educational functioning. I have a close personal relative who now holds a master’s degree who benefited greatly from such medications in his youth. The crucial difference is that pharmaceutical solutions are not permanent, while genetic and surgical solutions are.
These serious questions of human scientific reach exceeding our human wisdom grasp were activated recently by reading an article in the Wall Street Journal Business Section, of all places. The article, by Christopher Mims, “Coming to a Brain Near You: A Tiny Computer,” summarizes some of the more serious attempts to “enhance” human brain functioning through planting computers in human brains. The article’s subtitle underscores the urgency with which this development will unfold: “In the next 12 months, the number of people with a brain-computer interface is set to double," as a consequence of “dozens of so-called ‘neurotech’ startups.” Each of these start-ups “are betting they’ll eventually become a standard part of care for tens of thousands, perhaps even millions, of us.”
The commercial incentive is real. “Morgan-Stanley projects a $1 billion-a-year brain-computer implant market by 2041.” Any time you implant a machine inside the human body, you are raising serious ethical issues. When the organ that is invaded by human machinery is the brain, it is more problematic ethically and morally than cochlear (hearing), or cornea (eyesight) implants.
To use such computer technologies to allow brain-injured people to function more normally should not be controversial. To employ such technology in an attempt to create “super-human” abilities will require much more societal and civilizational conversation and societal and governmental supervision. Such conversations will be essential and should not be shunned or discouraged. As human beings, we are in this together, and it is far more than a mere business decision.
And as we have these discussions, we must guard ourselves against the peculiar American mythology that change is always progress. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t, and it always comes at a cost. Let us not shy away from discussions of “progress,” and what the “costs” are, and who will pay the price.
Dr. Richard Land, BA (Princeton, magna cum laude); D.Phil. (Oxford); Th.M (New Orleans Seminary). Dr. Land served as President of Southern Evangelical Seminary from July 2013 until July 2021. Upon his retirement, he was honored as President Emeritus and he continues to serve as an Adjunct Professor of Theology & Ethics. Dr. Land previously served as President of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (1988-2013) where he was also honored as President Emeritus upon his retirement. Dr. Land has also served as an Executive Editor and columnist for The Christian Post since 2011.
Dr. Land explores many timely and critical topics in his daily radio feature, “Bringing Every Thought Captive,” and in his weekly column for CP.
