Rabbi REUVEN BULKA is head of Congregation Machzikei Hadas in Ottawa.
With applause and caution.
Certainly, there is no fear that by engaging in creation, we are usurping God. Consider that the first obligation conveyed by God in the Bible is to “be fruitful and multiply.” That is surely a creation-like activity, to bring more people into the world, and God asks us to do just that.
But, you say, that is natural, whereas what is happening now in the science laboratory is not natural. That is a valid question. Yet even in the “natural” birth process, we have already introduced somewhat less than natural procedures, such as artificial insemination, capturing the sperm of the husband and then less than naturally effecting fertilization. Granted some have voiced objection to this procedure, yet the general consensus is to accept this a most welcome answer for couples who want to, but cannot under regular conditions have children.
But creating life forms is arguably different. Granted. But if this will help save and enhance life, there should be no objection. The goal is laudable, and even more, it is a sacred and holy goal. That is the applause.
Nowhere in the Bible is there any prohibition expressed that would forbid what is happening now. That some people may have a gut sense that this is wrong is not enough. For a faith group to be against something as a faith group, the objection has to be faith-based. Within Judaism, this usually means that it is rooted in Biblical or Talmudic principles and regulations. Lacking that, no one has a right to concoct prohibitions.
There are clear dangers, dangers of abuse, and of creating monsters that will come back to bite us, even destroy us. That is where the caution comes in. We need to be careful, we need to have adequate, even foolproof safeguards, to prevent possible disasters. But that prospect should not prevent us from moving forward in trying to save life. My sense is that God is proud of these efforts.
Rev. GEOFFREY KERSLAKE is a priest of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Ottawa.
This is such a new development in biotechnology that the world as a whole has not had enough time to think through all the ramifications: Just because we can do something does not mean we ought to without first thoroughly considering all of the implications.
In the rush to be the first to invent or patent a new process, we have been focusing perhaps too much attention on “how can we do this?” instead of asking fundamental questions about what these developments mean for how we regard the basic building blocks of life.
In the related field of human genetic engineering, the Catholic Church has a carefully considered position on that very important matter, which has yet to receive the serious consideration that it deserves. The General Assembly of the Pontifical Council for Life in February 2003 offered this principal: “For science to be really placed at the service of the human being, it is necessary that it goes ‘beyond matter’, intuiting in the corporeal dimension of the individual the expression of a greater spiritual good. Scientists should understand the human body as the tangible dimension of a unitary personal reality, which is at the same time corporeal and spiritual. The spiritual soul of the human being, although not in itself tangible, it is always the root of his existential and tangible reality, of his relationship with the rest of the world, and consequently, of his specific and inalienable value.” The Vatican website has links to the Pontifical Academies of Life, Science and Social Sciences where you can find the results of conferences and studies produced by experts in medicine, science, and social science, among other disciplines, which address many questions in these areas.
KEVIN SMITH is on the board of directors for the Centre for Inquiry, Canada’s premier venue for humanists, skeptics and freethinkers.
God isn’t dead after all; he is working at the Venter Institute in the United States. A team of scientists led by Dr. Craig Venter recently created a synthetic life form — actually a new chromosome from artificial DNA. While this is a very simple bacterium, it is an exciting first step into creating artificial life.
As bioethicist Art Caplan claims, “it would seem to extinguish the argument that life requires a special force or power to exist.”
This could kickstart others to venture forth with experiments that could help future generations with vaccines, new energy sources or the ability to deal with pollution. Imagine a bacterium that would thrive on licking up oil spills.
According to the research team, if this technology had been available last year, we would have had an H1N1 vaccine ready in 24 hours, instead of several weeks.
Throughout human history, any beneficial discovery came with risks. The nervous nellies are already coming out from under their covers to warn of the dangers of “playing god” — fearful of the unknown and preferring to stifle progress. Thankfully, humanists are forward thinking and embrace positive change. Certainly we understand that safeguards must be in place to protect us from misuse. The potential for using this kind of research to make powerful bioweapons is a concern and must be discussed and debated, but you can’t stop progress — and why would you?
Venter says humanity’s goals have always included trying to control nature, citing the development of agriculture and domesticating animals that led to what we eat today. In a nod to those who fear change, he assures them, “there’s a big gap between science fiction and what your imagination can do and the reality in research labs.”
There have always been humans who have been at the leading edge of discovering new ways to help our species survive. These are the kinds of gods I can believe in.
Rev. RAY INNEN PARCHELO is a novice Tendai priest and founder of the Red Maple Sangha, the first lay Buddhist community in Eastern Ontario.
Genetic engineers have manipulated life forms for decades, with no sign of that changing. Rather, the opposite is more likely.
For Buddhists, the responsibilities of any creature over the life and death of any other are of great concern. How we value, care for and lead other beings to the awareness of Truth is our primary challenge.
It is unacceptable to Buddhists to assign an abstract economic value to any life forms, existing or newly created. Existing or newly created beings are not merely instruments of profit or objects of scientific curiosity, they are intimately connected to us. We exist in more than economic relations. The web of life has no top or bottom, no levels of worthiness. We each have our position on that web, are all equally implicated in it and responsible for its care. We have an obligation to treat all life with respect and act in a way that facilitates its growth and fulfilment.
The other question Buddhists would have to ask about any experimental or commercial scientific enterprise would be whether such an enterprise leads to more suffering. For example, the creation of certain new seed stock resulted in seeds that could not produce second-generation plants. This may have seemed an excellent idea for seed producers and their investors. It did, however, deprive growers of the ancient cycle of using seeds in a repeated way, forcing them into dependency on seed developers. This may have the further effect of driving up production and purchase costs, disempowering growers and limiting consumer choices. Disrupting this already fragile chain may result in a net increase of suffering.
Regardless of whether we are creating plant or animal life forms, Buddhists would want to consider the broad implications throughout a system. For too many centuries, commerce-driven science has disavowed any responsibility for the outcome of inventions, passing that on in costs or consequences or simply ignoring them. Too often the capacity to make something happen and its profitability have been the exclusive rationales for such endeavours. Just because we can does not equate to we should.
ABDUL RASHID is a member of the Ottawa Muslim community, the Christian Muslim Dialogue and the Capital Region Interfaith Council.
Let me state a fundamental belief in Islam: the Creator of all life is God Almighty. “And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and all the living creatures that He has scattered through them” (Holy Koran, 42:29)
When we say “life forms”, we have to distinguish between new forms.
Cross-breeding has been going on from time immemorial and is generally accepted. Without inquiry, exploration and experimentation, humanity would not have reached where it is today. Scientific inquiry cannot, and should not, be stopped. But science and technology should not be allowed to become the masters.
The question of creating life forms through genetic engineering is a much complex issue. This is a relatively new development in human affairs. It is evolving and throws out new questions and problems. As a result, religious institutions and scholars are continuously discussing and grappling with the emerging issues.
Several facts come out of past experiences. First, what is scientifically “true” may not necessarily be morally “good.” Second, no matter how successful an experiment in the laboratory, its impact cannot be assumed to be beneficial outside the laboratory. Third, scientific innovation and invention are sources of great power, which can be harnessed for good or evil. Fourth, the financial and lobbying power of the institutions that undertake such research is so extensive and their profit motive so strong that they are often able to manipulate public opinion through their public relations and limit discussion to risk management instead of risk assessment.
These factors suggest, in fact demand, that “creating” or tinkering with life, whether plant, animal or human, must be subject to ethical/moral considerations. Furthermore, these constraints must be applied at the outset rather than as an afterthought. God will surely judge us on the morality of our actions. In any case, if we are not careful, Nature’s judgment may visit us sooner and much more harshly.
Rev. RICK REED is senior pastor at the Metropolitan Bible Church in Ottawa.
Genetic engineering is creating new challenges as it works to create new life forms. Researchers are experimenting with new combinations of living organisms “created” through genetic manipulation. These transgenic life forms can include genetically modified foodstuffs, hybrid animals, and human genes and cell lines.
From a Christian perspective, my response to the push towards genetic engineering would include four reminders.
First, God already holds the patent on creating life. The Bible is quite clear that God’s Son, Jesus, created all living things. John 1:3 says, “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” Colossians 1:16 also refers to Jesus when it says, “For by him all things were created.” So those involved in genetic engineering are not really creating life; they are re-arranging the genetic material of the living things God created.
Second, God gave humans the mandate to wisely rule over His magnificent creation (Genesis 1:28). This mandate allows for scientific exploration and experimentation. Down through history, many of the groundbreaking scientific discoveries have been done by those holding a Christian worldview. Third, we humans have an uncanny knack of getting things all tangled up (Proverbs 16:25). Far too often our attempts at progress have resulted in unintended and unwelcome consequences. We would be naïve to think that genetic engineering has no downside.
Fourth, in light our accountability to God and our tendency to get things wrong, any scientific exploration should be done with humility and a healthy fear of God. We should seek God’s guidance as we explore His world rather than simply assuming we can forge a brighter future on our own (Proverbs 3:5-6). We should take care that we don’t try to play God; instead, we should try to please God in all things — including our scientific endeavours.
BALPREET SINGH is legal counsel and acting executive director for the World Sikh Organization of Canada.
There has recently been some controversy about scientists “playing God” by manipulating genomes and DNA. We needn’t be so sensitive about humans usurping God’s position. It’s just not possible and certainly not worth the worry.
The Sikh faith is clear that the “creator” is God. When there was nothing, it was through God’s will and infinite wisdom that creation took place. Where humans are involved in acts of creation, it is quite different from God’s creation: God can create something from a void; humans cannot. All that humans accomplish is within God’s will. Nothing can be outside it.
The Sikh faith celebrates science and the ability of humans to understand our material world. However, it is clear to Sikhs that nothing we can accomplish matches God’s creation or challenges God’s existence. We simply aren’t capable of it. Science has the ability to manipulate and change the building blocks of life but certainly doesn’t “create” in the same way God does.
Recently there has been news of the creation of “synthetic life” by researchers in the U.S. Scientists have created a synthetic genome based on an existing cell as a template. Chemically constructed blocks of DNA, were placed in living cells which assembled them into a complete chromosome. While this is a truly amazing scientific feat, it is the synthesis of a genome and not the creation of life. Rather than raising fears of “playing God”, such developments raise questions about the potential use (or misuse) of the technology and the ethical issues involved with patenting the building blocks of life.
As a Sikh, I am not at all concerned about scientists making such breakthroughs. Any increase in our collective knowledge that can be used to improve our lives should be welcomed. It’s all in God’s will.
Source: The Ottawa Citizen
