For God gave me sound knowledge of existing things, that I might know the organization of the universe and the force of the elements; the beginning and end and midpoint of times, the changes of the sun’s course and the variations of the seasons. Cycles of years, positions of the stars, natures of animals, tempers of wild beast, powers of the winds and thoughts of men, uses of plants and the virtues of roots—such as are hidden I learned, and such as are plain; for Wisdom, the artificer of all, taught me. (Wisdom 7:17-22)
Jesus proposed to them another parable: “The kingdom of God may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field. While everyone was asleep, his enemy came and sowed weeds through his wheat, and then made off. When the crop began to mature and yield grain, the weeds made their appearance as well.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
“‘I see an enemy’s hand in this,’ he answered.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
“‘No,’ he replied, ‘because pull up the weeds and you might take the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until harvest; then at harvest time, I will order the harvesters: First collect the weeds and bundle them up to burn; then gather the wheat into my barn.’” (Mt 13: 24-30)
Recently, while sharing breakfast with three former students, one working on her graduate degree asked our small group what we thought of genetically engineering future generations?
“You mean designing kids?” another questioned, “Using CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) I assume?”
While they exchanged comments with one another, the parable of the weeds emerged from my fertile neural network. I’d always been steered to believe the wheat and weeds represented the ‘good’ and the ‘sinister.’ But at that moment, I thought of the field as my mind. (Lots of weeds growing there!) Thoughts of charity and forgiveness oppose those to ignore or withhold them. Theories, education, discoveries nourish wheat and weeds, the drafts of my reasoning. Acquisitions of new knowledge and understanding support growth both benevolent and detrimental. For example, humanity’s understanding of the atom led to applications in medical instrumentation and energy as well as nuclear weapons.
The human genome consists of 23 pairs of chromosomes. These are composed of six billion DNA base pairs, a complex recipe of biological identity. With the development of CRISPR, it is conceivable we could edit, manipulate, down to a specific base pair.
“Let’s design a kid with perfect vision, a body geared to be the fastest human alive, the strongest, bluest of eyes, head full of hair, great voice.” His excitement swelled as his list tapered.
The grad student continued adding, “Free of breast cancer, no Alzheimer’s, good blood pressure, no heart disease, free of ALS!”
Within our conversation, we unraveled the genetic entanglement to three topics targeting the ethical use of CRISPR. The first, defined somatic cell and germline cell editing. Somatic cell gene editing uses any cells in the body other than egg or sperm cells. Germline editing uses the reproductive cells. Any manipulations of the genomes of the somatic cells are not heritable, while those made to eggs and sperm would be passed down to future generations.
Consider cystic fibrosis caused by a mutation where just three of the base pairs responsible for the synthesis of the amino acid phenylalanine are missing. Without those pairs, individuals suffer from fibrosis and cysts in the pancreas and sticky mucous filling the lungs making breathing impossible in advanced stages. There is no known cure. Though presently not possible, researchers may find a way to correct those depletions thus curing CF. However, the patient might still bear children with CF if the children inherit their parents’ mutated genes because it was not the genome of the parents’ germ cells that was edited.
The third spawns the greatest number of disagreements between secular and faith-based ethicists about the essence of human dignity. An MIT educated molecular biologist, priest, and professor of biology and theology, Fr. Nicanor Autstriaco, OP, distinguished the two points of view. “Secular ethicists tend to believe that human dignity is only extrinsic, and can therefore be diminished or lost through pain, suffering, or disability. If human dignity can be lost, it follows that we should be able to modify ourselves in ways that we believe would either advance or preserve our dignity. This conception of dignity is the ethical justification given by those who believe that we should be free to design our children so that our species becomes stronger, smarter, more attractive, and therefore more dignified.
“In contrast, faith-based ethicists believe that human beings have dignity that can never be diminished or lost. The Judeo-Christian tradition holds that humans have intrinsic dignity, based on the belief that we are made in the image and likeness of God. This dignity thus cannot be lost, from conception until death, no matter the apparent indignities a person suffers.”
“How would you feel if you found out you’d been designed by your parents?” I inquired of the others.
“I’d wonder if my parents loved me or the design.” She theorized, “What if my design created a child they had not considered? So many biological functions are polygenetic, individual traits or characteristics depend upon the interplay of many genes for a single function. Perhaps their modifications would interfere with other functions my parents had not considered or were not know to researchers at the time.”
The student sitting across from her added, “I have a hard-enough time living up to my parents’ expectations. If modifications were made, I’d never meet their expectations. Everything would be unreasonable. I’d never feel good about myself. I’d resent it.”
“Maybe I’d rather have been designed a premier athlete rather than a scholar!”
“Perhaps we could design you to where you’d never be aware,” she countered, laughing. “Or we could design both characteristics into you!”
“You’re allowing genetics too much influence,” he offered further, “without considering the influences of our environment triggering many interdependent genetic expressions.”
If Fr. Austriaco had joined our breakfast club, he’d comment the debate is not about CRISPR. “Rather, it is a debate over how we should understand ourselves and our relationships to others. Designing a child makes [the child’s] sense of self subject to the whims and fancies of another, and undermines [his/her] conviction that [he/she] is irreplaceably and individually unique, a gift to be cherished and loved by others.”
What would you like to add to the conversation? Our children, young people wrestle with these and many other complex new technologies. They’re inviting these conversations! How will they sort the wheat from the weeds?
Wisdom reminds us of God’s gifts of wonder, reason, and discovery. God created us to be far, far greater than the sum of our parts. May your harvest be fruitful!
No comments:
Post a Comment