H U M A N G E N E T H E R A P Y 1:43-48 (1990) Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., Publishers
T h e R o l e o f Religions in the Analysis o f the Ethical Issues o f H u m a n G e n e T h e r a p y
J. ROBERT NELSON
ABSTRACT Beginning with critical writings of certain theological ethicists in 1965, religious bodies increasingly have been fostering studies of emerging issues implied by genetic technology. While perceiving this n e w science as consistent with belief in G o d as Creator, they define a number of dangers to h u m a n well-being and natural environment that might result from abuse of knowledge. T h e w a y in which religious concerns and their spokesmen have n o w entered into discussions within the scientific community is of notable importance.
OVERVIEW S U M M A R Y The organized religions have been active participants in the discussions that have taken place, particularly over the past decade, on the moral implications of h u m a n genetic engineering. Nelson examines the role that religious leaders have played and summarizes some of the positions taken by religious bodies. H e suggests that churches and religious organizations can m a k e an important contribution by maintaining active communication with scientists and by helping to educate the general public. Contrary to much popular thought, religion is not concerned essentially, or exclusively, with the "spiritual" dimensions of reality and human life. Both Judaism and Christianity, as derived from the Bible, are "materialistic" in the sense of believing both matter and spirit to be the good, purposeful creation of God. In particular, the human body is regarded as integral to the soul and spirit. The fundamental concept has always made health and healing a prominent concern of Jews and Christians. Therefore, the sudden appearance in the medical field of genetic science as a biochemical and therapeutic, rather than merely statistical, science has caused the more alert religious thinkers to begin examining its implications. Protestant theologian Paul Ramsey in 1965(1) and R o m a n Catholic Karl Rahner, S. J., in 1967(2) werefirstalarmed over proposed efforts to manipulate human bodies for such socially eugenic
The Institute of Religion, Texas Medical Center; Baylor College of Medicine; and University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas 77225. 43
NELSON reasons as those advanced by H.J Muller(3) and J. Lederberg.(4) Only after 1973, when recombinant D N A technique, or gene-splicing, was announced as a practical procedure, did discussion turn to possible interventions for therapy of human somatic and germ-line cells. Catholic moralist Bernard Haring in 1975(5) was one of the first to evaluate these techniques in theological terms, admonishing scientists to be cautious. A study conference convened by the World Council of Churches in Zurich, 1973, m a y have been thefirstsuch organized program of churches. Its report, Genetics and the Quality ofLife(6) dealt mainly with genetic counseling, prenatal diagnosis, and as yet untested in vitro fertilization. This led to the world conference of 900 scientists and theologians, convened by Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, 1979. There, the determinative premise was stated. A s Christians, w e believe that w e are both creatures of G o d and co-creators with H i m in fulfilling the image H e has given us.(7) Persons of no particular religion often place a very high value on human life as it has evolved to the present time. But the religious appraisal adds the transcendent dimension of the divinely caused value of life. Therefore, it demands a highly sensitive wariness toward any genetic modification other than whatever is plainly health-giving. A follow-up report by the World Council of Churches asks: In what ways do w e , by manipulating our genes in other than simple ways, change ourselves to something less than human?(8) The question does not presuppose its answer. Nor does it necessarily imply resistance against genetic engineering. The National Council of Churches in the United States (likewise Eastern Orthodox and Protestant) published the first of its relevant reports in 1980, H u m a n Life and the N e w Genetics,(9) as a study document. It dealt with certain genetic diseases, the use of human subjects in clinical trials, and the socio-economic aspects ofthe new science. It also called the churches to assume responsibility for understanding the new genetics and for pondering all of its potential and probable effects, both good and bad. A highly important action in 1980 brought the interest and anxiety of many Jews and Christians to public attention for the first time. This was the sending of a letter to President Jimmy Carter by the general secretaries ofthe most inclusive Christian and Jewish bodies: the National Council of Churches, the United States Catholic Conference, and the Synagogue Council of America. The letter expressed strong concern about patenting "new forms of life," the medical and commercial uses of gene splicing, and the government's responsibility properly to regulate such developments. This appeal was remanded to the newly constituted President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Because the letter was not limited to "religious" interests only, but was broad in scope, this was a singular instance ofthe federal government's practical response to an initiative of churches and synagogues. The three councils designated theologians to represent their interests to the President's Commission, which in turn accepted them as consultants and took serious account of the memoranda they submitted/10) The papers were sent by Dr. Alexander Capron, the executive director, to a number of well-respected theologians and ethicists for comment. The commissioners noted that none ofthe consultants advocated cessation of application of genetic engineering to humans, although one advised against germ-line cell modification in the absence of reasonable modes of testing its long-range results. The commissioners also found that the warnings against abuses of the technique are not solely of religious origin, but are sounded as well by secular commentators/1 ]} While acknowledging that the "image of G o d " doctrine is determinative for the 44
R E L I G I O N ' S R O L E IN E T H I C A L I S S U E S apprehensions of religious spokesmen, the Commission's report, Splicing Life, failed to concur with the statement of the three religious leaders' letter that genetic science is leading rapidly to "a n e w era of fundamental danger" to humanity/12) However, it went on to agree with the appeal for some structure of governmental oversight, such as a Genetic Engineering Commission/13) The purpose of the religious leaders' letter was never conceived to be the imposition of particular religious convictions upon the government or the public. It was intended only to stimulate discussion. B y gaining responsible consideration by the Commission, with extensive publicity, it achieved its purpose. A very useful consequence of this initiative was the hearing held on November 16-18, 1982, by the House of Representatives' Committee on Science and Technology, its subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight, chaired by Representative (now Senator) Albert Gore, Jr., of Tennessee. Its subject was the h u m a n applications of genetic engineering. Professor Roger L. Shinn, an experienced leader in the ethical studies by the World and National Council of Churches, gave an exposition of the positions prevailing in these councils. 1. Though risks in experimentation are inevitable, a strong bias toward the sacredness of human life requires highest regard for the patient or subject. 2. Programs of positive eugenics are dubious and dangerous, even though elimination of genetic diseases is a laudable effort. 3. The allocation of human, economic, and scientific resources is a matter of continuous ethical concern to those with a religious commitment to equity and justice. 4. While "reverence for life" in the context of Christian faith m a y be exaggerated and raise mistaken fears about modifying humans, "some sense of human inviolability" remains "rooted deeply in our national and religious traditions."(14) The testimony of Father Richard A. McCormick, S. J., a Roman Catholic moral theologian of wide repute, was scarcely different from that of Shinn. However, he hinted at the existence of some divisive issues, without specifying them, when he emphasized the factors of sexuality and family life. Christians are not at all of one mind on questions related to prenatal diagnosis of genetic diseases, respect for the unborn child or fetus, or abortion. Rabbi Seymour Siegel, w h o had been a m e m b e r ofthe President's Commission, also testified. H e echoed the basic assertions of Shinn and McCormick, emphasizing their c o m m o n biblical basis. H e expressed the hope that gene therapy would lead to such improved fetal treatment for congenital diseases that the incidence of abortion would be reduced.(15) Congressman Gore was struck by the clear impression that all three witnesses "endorse the idea of full speed ahead so long as w e are cautious, and if w e enhance rather than diminish humanness."(16) H e also found support for some kind of governmental body of overseers beyond those bureaus already charged to regulate certain scientific research and clinical trials. Congressman George B r o w n alluded to statements m a d e by Pope John Paul II as expressions of the authoritative Catholic position. The pope, w h o is conversant with recent scientific advances in biology and medicine, has often emphasized the primacy ofthe h u m a n person at all stages of life. Scientific knowledge is a high value but always subordinate to the individual person'srightto physical and spiritual life and functional integrity. Subject to compliance with this principle, the pope has encouraged and praised microbiologists and geneticists for their investigations. Yet, he has been most explicit in asserting the Church's teaching against experimentation with the unborn 45
NELSON and procedures that might lead to abortion. This teaching of the Roman Catholic Church thus excludes the employment of prenatal genetic diagnosis if the intent is other than the well-being of the embryo or fetus/17) Concurrent with all these developments since 1980, the National Council of Churches continued its study of genetic engineering. Its Panel on Bioethical Concerns published a report to the churches and the public in 1984/18) In November, 1985, it presented to the Council's Governing Board a policy statement on the subject. The Board adopted the statement on M a y 22, 1986. With it goes a clear recommendation of more on-going interreligious study. Five American Protestant denominations are maintaining and developing their interests in many implications of genetics. Following appropriate study, three have adopted policy statements in recent years: The Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the United Church of Christ. The Reformed Church in America and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are seriously committed to clarifying their positions; and the United Methodist Church began official inquiry in 1989. All of these are member churches of the World Council of Churches, which includes Orthodox and Protestant churches world-wide. In August, 1989, the Central Committee of the Council adopted 11 resolutions on biotechnology. A m o n g these are the recommended banning of genetic sex selection, experimenting on human germ-line cells, the use of genetic engineering for the purpose of biological warfare, and the patenting of modified animals. More than documents previously cited, these reports endeavor to show h o w certain Christian doctrines are related to ethical and theological questions about genetics and the nature of human life. Not only is creation "in the image of God" discussed, but also humanity's stewardship for the rest of creation, human freedom, the enigma of evil, and the idea of sin, as well as the moral mandates of fairness, justice, and love. These beliefs are correlated with several practical issues: medical genetics, preconceptive counseling and prenatal diagnosis, assisted reproduction, pharmaceuticals, and commercial and military biotechnology. Simple, pious statements of opinion are avoided as consistently as are too simple analyses of problems. The critical ambivalence of attitude is well expressed:
The sudden burst of genetic research and application may well be considered an activity of the divinely endowed mind and spirit of intelligent inquiry and will to serve. But appreciation for scientific achievement is not unconditional, for it is tempered always by humane and ethical considerations, and by awareness that all human endeavor is flawed /19)
Finally, h o w can the role of these religious bodies and their interpreters be assessed in so short a time as they have been active? Three observations may be made: 1. Consensus has emerged on a basic premise: namely, that the use of genetic engineering on human beings is not a challenge to the veracity of religious beliefs but rather a strong stimulus to intelligent correlating of religious doctrine with genetic data as scientifically discerned. 2. The distinctive message of religious thinkers to geneticists is not just "Proceed with caution." Persons of all persuasions say this. Neither is concern for the value of human life a uniquely religious disposition, although religion attributes the highest value to it. What biblically based faith contributes is called "the hermeneutics of suspicion" about human fallibility, self-confidence, and arrogance. The President's Commission "could find no ground for conclud46
R E L I G I O N ' S R O L E IN E T H I C A L I S S U E S ing that any current or planned forms of genetic engineering, whether using human or non-human material, are intrinsically wrong or irreligious per se."(20) This statement strikes a theologian as being too rationalistic, too sure, too optimistic about h u m a n uses of intellectual and technical skills/20 3. The initiatives of churches, synagogues, and individual persons have definitely served the purpose of keeping scientists, legislators, and the public respectfully aware of both the critical concerns and positive contributions of religious ethicists, theologians, and religious communities. A remarkably free communication has developed between exponents of religious thought and genetic scientists (many ofthe latter, of course, being members of churches and synagogues.) Theologians are n o w almost conventionally included in national conferences on genetics. They even participate in, or chair, committees of the N I H , advise the Office of Technology Assessment, and publish essays in leading scientific and medical journals/22) This unprecedented phenomenon represents a stark contrast to the separation of religion and science which m a n y people have either taken for granted or have desired. It is a n e w era. The H u m a n G e n o m e Mapping Research Project is going to reveal an enormous abundance of knowledge about the genetic structure of h u m a n beings in particular and of other forms of organic life. Theologians and religious ethicists are prepared to study m a n y of the implications of this bold enterprise; and the channels of churches and religious organizations will be used to interpret the findings to the broad public, allaying both unfounded fears and extravagant hopes.
NOTES 1. Ramsey, P. (1965). Morals and religious implications of genetic control. In Genetics and the Future of Man, J.D. Roslansky, ed. (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.) Republished in Ramsey, P. (1970). Fabricated Man. (New Haven: Yale University Press) pp. 1-59. 2. Rahner, K. (1967) Z u m Problem der genetischen Manipulation. In Schriften zur Theologie. (Zurich: Benziger Verlag). In (1972) English: The problem of genetic manipulation. In Theological Investigations, Vol. IX. (New York: Herder and Herder). 3. Muller, H.J. (1959). The guidance of human evolution. In Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) p. 3. 4. Lederberg, J. (1963). Biological future of man. In M a n and His Future. (London: J. and A. Churchill). 5. Haring, B. (1975). Ethics of Manipulation. (New York: Seabury Press). 6. Abrecht, P., and Birch, C ed. (1975). Genetics and the Quality of Life. (Elmsford, N Y : Pergamon Press). 7. Abrecht, P., ed. (1980). Faith and Science in an Unjust World, vol. 2. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press) p. 49. 8. (1982). Manipulating Life, vol. 8. (Geneva: World Council of Churches). 9. (1980). H u m a n Life and the N e w Genetics. (New York: National Council of Churches, 1980). Earlier, the United Church of Canada published a similar Report ofthe Commission on Ethics and Genetics. (Toronto) in 1978. 10. (1982). Splicing Life: The Social and Ethical Issues of Genetic Engineering with H u m a n Beings. (Washington, D C : Government Printing Office) November, pp. 53, 110. The three consultants were Father John R. Connery, S.J., Rabbi Seymour Siegel, and Professor J. Robert Nelson. 11. Ibid.,p. 54. 12. Ibid., p. 11. 13. Ibid., p. SI.
47
NELSON 14. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight ofthe Committee on Science and Technology, second session, U.S. House of Representatives, 97th Congress, November 16-18, 1982. (Washington, D C : Government Printing Office, 1983) p. 305. 15. Ibid., p. 313. 16. Ibid., p. 332. 17. (1983). The ethics of genetic manipulation. Origins, 13, 385-389 (November 17). See also Splicing Life, p. 56, note 8, for the pope's statement; and (1987). Instruction on Respect for H u m a n Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation. (Vatican City). 18. Harron, F., ed. (1984). Genetic Engineering, for the National Council of Churches. (New York: Pilgrim Press.) See Ames, D.A., and Gracey, C.B., eds. (1984). Good Genes. (Cincinnati: Forward Movement Press). 19. "Genetic Science for H u m a n Benefit," a policy statement ofthe National Council of Churches, 1986, p. 6. Brochure available from the General Secretariat, 475 Riverside Drive, N e w York, N Y 10115. 20. Splicing Life, p. 11. 21. Lebaqcz, K. (1984). The ghosts are on the wall. In The Manipulation ofLife, Robert Esbjornson, R., ed. Nobel Conference X I X (San Francisco: Harper & R o w ) pp. 35-36. 22. Five of the papers published in the scientific symposium ,(1985). Genetics and the Law, III, Milunsky, A., Annas, G., eds. (New York: Plenum Publishers) are by theologians and religious ethicists, namely: James F. Childress, Albert R. Jonsen, J. Robert Nelson, Roger L. Shinn, and Leroy Walters. See also Fletcher, J.C. (1982). Coping with Genetic Disorders. (San Francisco: Harper & R o w ) and Wertz, D. (1989). Ethics and H u m a n Genetics. (Heidelberg: Springer Verlag). Address reprint requests to: Dr. J. Robert Nelson Director, The Institute of Religion Texas Medical Center P.O. B o x 20569 Houston, T X 77225 Received for publication July 3, 1989; accepted November 11, 1989.
48
T h e R o l e o f Religions in the Analysis o f the Ethical Issues o f H u m a n G e n e T h e r a p y
J. ROBERT NELSON
ABSTRACT Beginning with critical writings of certain theological ethicists in 1965, religious bodies increasingly have been fostering studies of emerging issues implied by genetic technology. While perceiving this n e w science as consistent with belief in G o d as Creator, they define a number of dangers to h u m a n well-being and natural environment that might result from abuse of knowledge. T h e w a y in which religious concerns and their spokesmen have n o w entered into discussions within the scientific community is of notable importance.
OVERVIEW S U M M A R Y The organized religions have been active participants in the discussions that have taken place, particularly over the past decade, on the moral implications of h u m a n genetic engineering. Nelson examines the role that religious leaders have played and summarizes some of the positions taken by religious bodies. H e suggests that churches and religious organizations can m a k e an important contribution by maintaining active communication with scientists and by helping to educate the general public. Contrary to much popular thought, religion is not concerned essentially, or exclusively, with the "spiritual" dimensions of reality and human life. Both Judaism and Christianity, as derived from the Bible, are "materialistic" in the sense of believing both matter and spirit to be the good, purposeful creation of God. In particular, the human body is regarded as integral to the soul and spirit. The fundamental concept has always made health and healing a prominent concern of Jews and Christians. Therefore, the sudden appearance in the medical field of genetic science as a biochemical and therapeutic, rather than merely statistical, science has caused the more alert religious thinkers to begin examining its implications. Protestant theologian Paul Ramsey in 1965(1) and R o m a n Catholic Karl Rahner, S. J., in 1967(2) werefirstalarmed over proposed efforts to manipulate human bodies for such socially eugenic
The Institute of Religion, Texas Medical Center; Baylor College of Medicine; and University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas 77225. 43
NELSON reasons as those advanced by H.J Muller(3) and J. Lederberg.(4) Only after 1973, when recombinant D N A technique, or gene-splicing, was announced as a practical procedure, did discussion turn to possible interventions for therapy of human somatic and germ-line cells. Catholic moralist Bernard Haring in 1975(5) was one of the first to evaluate these techniques in theological terms, admonishing scientists to be cautious. A study conference convened by the World Council of Churches in Zurich, 1973, m a y have been thefirstsuch organized program of churches. Its report, Genetics and the Quality ofLife(6) dealt mainly with genetic counseling, prenatal diagnosis, and as yet untested in vitro fertilization. This led to the world conference of 900 scientists and theologians, convened by Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, 1979. There, the determinative premise was stated. A s Christians, w e believe that w e are both creatures of G o d and co-creators with H i m in fulfilling the image H e has given us.(7) Persons of no particular religion often place a very high value on human life as it has evolved to the present time. But the religious appraisal adds the transcendent dimension of the divinely caused value of life. Therefore, it demands a highly sensitive wariness toward any genetic modification other than whatever is plainly health-giving. A follow-up report by the World Council of Churches asks: In what ways do w e , by manipulating our genes in other than simple ways, change ourselves to something less than human?(8) The question does not presuppose its answer. Nor does it necessarily imply resistance against genetic engineering. The National Council of Churches in the United States (likewise Eastern Orthodox and Protestant) published the first of its relevant reports in 1980, H u m a n Life and the N e w Genetics,(9) as a study document. It dealt with certain genetic diseases, the use of human subjects in clinical trials, and the socio-economic aspects ofthe new science. It also called the churches to assume responsibility for understanding the new genetics and for pondering all of its potential and probable effects, both good and bad. A highly important action in 1980 brought the interest and anxiety of many Jews and Christians to public attention for the first time. This was the sending of a letter to President Jimmy Carter by the general secretaries ofthe most inclusive Christian and Jewish bodies: the National Council of Churches, the United States Catholic Conference, and the Synagogue Council of America. The letter expressed strong concern about patenting "new forms of life," the medical and commercial uses of gene splicing, and the government's responsibility properly to regulate such developments. This appeal was remanded to the newly constituted President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Because the letter was not limited to "religious" interests only, but was broad in scope, this was a singular instance ofthe federal government's practical response to an initiative of churches and synagogues. The three councils designated theologians to represent their interests to the President's Commission, which in turn accepted them as consultants and took serious account of the memoranda they submitted/10) The papers were sent by Dr. Alexander Capron, the executive director, to a number of well-respected theologians and ethicists for comment. The commissioners noted that none ofthe consultants advocated cessation of application of genetic engineering to humans, although one advised against germ-line cell modification in the absence of reasonable modes of testing its long-range results. The commissioners also found that the warnings against abuses of the technique are not solely of religious origin, but are sounded as well by secular commentators/1 ]} While acknowledging that the "image of G o d " doctrine is determinative for the 44
R E L I G I O N ' S R O L E IN E T H I C A L I S S U E S apprehensions of religious spokesmen, the Commission's report, Splicing Life, failed to concur with the statement of the three religious leaders' letter that genetic science is leading rapidly to "a n e w era of fundamental danger" to humanity/12) However, it went on to agree with the appeal for some structure of governmental oversight, such as a Genetic Engineering Commission/13) The purpose of the religious leaders' letter was never conceived to be the imposition of particular religious convictions upon the government or the public. It was intended only to stimulate discussion. B y gaining responsible consideration by the Commission, with extensive publicity, it achieved its purpose. A very useful consequence of this initiative was the hearing held on November 16-18, 1982, by the House of Representatives' Committee on Science and Technology, its subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight, chaired by Representative (now Senator) Albert Gore, Jr., of Tennessee. Its subject was the h u m a n applications of genetic engineering. Professor Roger L. Shinn, an experienced leader in the ethical studies by the World and National Council of Churches, gave an exposition of the positions prevailing in these councils. 1. Though risks in experimentation are inevitable, a strong bias toward the sacredness of human life requires highest regard for the patient or subject. 2. Programs of positive eugenics are dubious and dangerous, even though elimination of genetic diseases is a laudable effort. 3. The allocation of human, economic, and scientific resources is a matter of continuous ethical concern to those with a religious commitment to equity and justice. 4. While "reverence for life" in the context of Christian faith m a y be exaggerated and raise mistaken fears about modifying humans, "some sense of human inviolability" remains "rooted deeply in our national and religious traditions."(14) The testimony of Father Richard A. McCormick, S. J., a Roman Catholic moral theologian of wide repute, was scarcely different from that of Shinn. However, he hinted at the existence of some divisive issues, without specifying them, when he emphasized the factors of sexuality and family life. Christians are not at all of one mind on questions related to prenatal diagnosis of genetic diseases, respect for the unborn child or fetus, or abortion. Rabbi Seymour Siegel, w h o had been a m e m b e r ofthe President's Commission, also testified. H e echoed the basic assertions of Shinn and McCormick, emphasizing their c o m m o n biblical basis. H e expressed the hope that gene therapy would lead to such improved fetal treatment for congenital diseases that the incidence of abortion would be reduced.(15) Congressman Gore was struck by the clear impression that all three witnesses "endorse the idea of full speed ahead so long as w e are cautious, and if w e enhance rather than diminish humanness."(16) H e also found support for some kind of governmental body of overseers beyond those bureaus already charged to regulate certain scientific research and clinical trials. Congressman George B r o w n alluded to statements m a d e by Pope John Paul II as expressions of the authoritative Catholic position. The pope, w h o is conversant with recent scientific advances in biology and medicine, has often emphasized the primacy ofthe h u m a n person at all stages of life. Scientific knowledge is a high value but always subordinate to the individual person'srightto physical and spiritual life and functional integrity. Subject to compliance with this principle, the pope has encouraged and praised microbiologists and geneticists for their investigations. Yet, he has been most explicit in asserting the Church's teaching against experimentation with the unborn 45
NELSON and procedures that might lead to abortion. This teaching of the Roman Catholic Church thus excludes the employment of prenatal genetic diagnosis if the intent is other than the well-being of the embryo or fetus/17) Concurrent with all these developments since 1980, the National Council of Churches continued its study of genetic engineering. Its Panel on Bioethical Concerns published a report to the churches and the public in 1984/18) In November, 1985, it presented to the Council's Governing Board a policy statement on the subject. The Board adopted the statement on M a y 22, 1986. With it goes a clear recommendation of more on-going interreligious study. Five American Protestant denominations are maintaining and developing their interests in many implications of genetics. Following appropriate study, three have adopted policy statements in recent years: The Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the United Church of Christ. The Reformed Church in America and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are seriously committed to clarifying their positions; and the United Methodist Church began official inquiry in 1989. All of these are member churches of the World Council of Churches, which includes Orthodox and Protestant churches world-wide. In August, 1989, the Central Committee of the Council adopted 11 resolutions on biotechnology. A m o n g these are the recommended banning of genetic sex selection, experimenting on human germ-line cells, the use of genetic engineering for the purpose of biological warfare, and the patenting of modified animals. More than documents previously cited, these reports endeavor to show h o w certain Christian doctrines are related to ethical and theological questions about genetics and the nature of human life. Not only is creation "in the image of God" discussed, but also humanity's stewardship for the rest of creation, human freedom, the enigma of evil, and the idea of sin, as well as the moral mandates of fairness, justice, and love. These beliefs are correlated with several practical issues: medical genetics, preconceptive counseling and prenatal diagnosis, assisted reproduction, pharmaceuticals, and commercial and military biotechnology. Simple, pious statements of opinion are avoided as consistently as are too simple analyses of problems. The critical ambivalence of attitude is well expressed:
The sudden burst of genetic research and application may well be considered an activity of the divinely endowed mind and spirit of intelligent inquiry and will to serve. But appreciation for scientific achievement is not unconditional, for it is tempered always by humane and ethical considerations, and by awareness that all human endeavor is flawed /19)
Finally, h o w can the role of these religious bodies and their interpreters be assessed in so short a time as they have been active? Three observations may be made: 1. Consensus has emerged on a basic premise: namely, that the use of genetic engineering on human beings is not a challenge to the veracity of religious beliefs but rather a strong stimulus to intelligent correlating of religious doctrine with genetic data as scientifically discerned. 2. The distinctive message of religious thinkers to geneticists is not just "Proceed with caution." Persons of all persuasions say this. Neither is concern for the value of human life a uniquely religious disposition, although religion attributes the highest value to it. What biblically based faith contributes is called "the hermeneutics of suspicion" about human fallibility, self-confidence, and arrogance. The President's Commission "could find no ground for conclud46
R E L I G I O N ' S R O L E IN E T H I C A L I S S U E S ing that any current or planned forms of genetic engineering, whether using human or non-human material, are intrinsically wrong or irreligious per se."(20) This statement strikes a theologian as being too rationalistic, too sure, too optimistic about h u m a n uses of intellectual and technical skills/20 3. The initiatives of churches, synagogues, and individual persons have definitely served the purpose of keeping scientists, legislators, and the public respectfully aware of both the critical concerns and positive contributions of religious ethicists, theologians, and religious communities. A remarkably free communication has developed between exponents of religious thought and genetic scientists (many ofthe latter, of course, being members of churches and synagogues.) Theologians are n o w almost conventionally included in national conferences on genetics. They even participate in, or chair, committees of the N I H , advise the Office of Technology Assessment, and publish essays in leading scientific and medical journals/22) This unprecedented phenomenon represents a stark contrast to the separation of religion and science which m a n y people have either taken for granted or have desired. It is a n e w era. The H u m a n G e n o m e Mapping Research Project is going to reveal an enormous abundance of knowledge about the genetic structure of h u m a n beings in particular and of other forms of organic life. Theologians and religious ethicists are prepared to study m a n y of the implications of this bold enterprise; and the channels of churches and religious organizations will be used to interpret the findings to the broad public, allaying both unfounded fears and extravagant hopes.
NOTES 1. Ramsey, P. (1965). Morals and religious implications of genetic control. In Genetics and the Future of Man, J.D. Roslansky, ed. (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.) Republished in Ramsey, P. (1970). Fabricated Man. (New Haven: Yale University Press) pp. 1-59. 2. Rahner, K. (1967) Z u m Problem der genetischen Manipulation. In Schriften zur Theologie. (Zurich: Benziger Verlag). In (1972) English: The problem of genetic manipulation. In Theological Investigations, Vol. IX. (New York: Herder and Herder). 3. Muller, H.J. (1959). The guidance of human evolution. In Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) p. 3. 4. Lederberg, J. (1963). Biological future of man. In M a n and His Future. (London: J. and A. Churchill). 5. Haring, B. (1975). Ethics of Manipulation. (New York: Seabury Press). 6. Abrecht, P., and Birch, C ed. (1975). Genetics and the Quality of Life. (Elmsford, N Y : Pergamon Press). 7. Abrecht, P., ed. (1980). Faith and Science in an Unjust World, vol. 2. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press) p. 49. 8. (1982). Manipulating Life, vol. 8. (Geneva: World Council of Churches). 9. (1980). H u m a n Life and the N e w Genetics. (New York: National Council of Churches, 1980). Earlier, the United Church of Canada published a similar Report ofthe Commission on Ethics and Genetics. (Toronto) in 1978. 10. (1982). Splicing Life: The Social and Ethical Issues of Genetic Engineering with H u m a n Beings. (Washington, D C : Government Printing Office) November, pp. 53, 110. The three consultants were Father John R. Connery, S.J., Rabbi Seymour Siegel, and Professor J. Robert Nelson. 11. Ibid.,p. 54. 12. Ibid., p. 11. 13. Ibid., p. SI.
47
NELSON 14. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight ofthe Committee on Science and Technology, second session, U.S. House of Representatives, 97th Congress, November 16-18, 1982. (Washington, D C : Government Printing Office, 1983) p. 305. 15. Ibid., p. 313. 16. Ibid., p. 332. 17. (1983). The ethics of genetic manipulation. Origins, 13, 385-389 (November 17). See also Splicing Life, p. 56, note 8, for the pope's statement; and (1987). Instruction on Respect for H u m a n Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation. (Vatican City). 18. Harron, F., ed. (1984). Genetic Engineering, for the National Council of Churches. (New York: Pilgrim Press.) See Ames, D.A., and Gracey, C.B., eds. (1984). Good Genes. (Cincinnati: Forward Movement Press). 19. "Genetic Science for H u m a n Benefit," a policy statement ofthe National Council of Churches, 1986, p. 6. Brochure available from the General Secretariat, 475 Riverside Drive, N e w York, N Y 10115. 20. Splicing Life, p. 11. 21. Lebaqcz, K. (1984). The ghosts are on the wall. In The Manipulation ofLife, Robert Esbjornson, R., ed. Nobel Conference X I X (San Francisco: Harper & R o w ) pp. 35-36. 22. Five of the papers published in the scientific symposium ,(1985). Genetics and the Law, III, Milunsky, A., Annas, G., eds. (New York: Plenum Publishers) are by theologians and religious ethicists, namely: James F. Childress, Albert R. Jonsen, J. Robert Nelson, Roger L. Shinn, and Leroy Walters. See also Fletcher, J.C. (1982). Coping with Genetic Disorders. (San Francisco: Harper & R o w ) and Wertz, D. (1989). Ethics and H u m a n Genetics. (Heidelberg: Springer Verlag). Address reprint requests to: Dr. J. Robert Nelson Director, The Institute of Religion Texas Medical Center P.O. B o x 20569 Houston, T X 77225 Received for publication July 3, 1989; accepted November 11, 1989.
48
