Playing God?

Genetic Determinism and Human Freedon

Ted Peters

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781136724282
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

Since the original publication of Playing God? in 1996, three developments in genetic technology have moved to the center of the public conversation about the ethics of human bioengineering. Cloning, the completion of the human genome project, and, most recently, the controversy over stem cell research have all sparked lively debates among religious thinkers and the makers of public policy. In this updated edition, Ted Peters illuminates the key issues in these debates and continues to make deft connections between our questions about God and our efforts to manage technological innovations with wisdom.

< ONE >

Playing God with DNA

I once for Freedom madly did aspire,

And stormed His bars in many a burst of rage:

But see, my Keeper with his brands of fire

Has cowed me quiet … and bade me love my cage!

–Arthur Stringer (Canadian), 1874–1948

Is DNA sacred? Is the human genome hallowed by nature? Is the genetic code at work in each of our cells a product of divine creation? Are our genes put there by God? If so, do we have the permission of nature or the permission of God to engineer our genetic code? If we broke into our own DNA with wrenches and screwdrivers in order to redesign ourselves, would we be violating something sacred? Would we the creatures become our own creators? Would we be playing God? Is it a sin to play God when we in fact are not God?

These are profound ethical questions. These ethical questions are prompted by a set of ontological questions regarding the nature of human being, questions asked of us by the new genetics.

The most threatening question is this: Are we about to lose our freedom? Or, to put it a bit more precisely: Will new discoveries in genetic science so completely explain human behavior that the freedom we previously thought we had will turn out to be a delusion? Do genes determine everything about us? Can we still think of ourselves as unique individuals? Can I rightly say, “It’s all in my genes”? And, if we say that it’s all in our genes, then should we surrender to fatalism, or should we seek some strength of will to use genetic knowledge to make the human lot a better one?

These ethical and ontological questions are also theological questions. Just the frequently used phrase “playing God” is sufficient reason to draw theologians into the contemporary discussion over genetics. This phrase, “playing God,” is not found in standard theological dictionaries. It belongs to common parlance and is heard frequently around hospitals. It is heard still more frequently these days in discussions regarding genetic determinism. In this chapter we will tease out its meanings, both in common parlance and in theology.

We will begin by identifying the context, namely, the explosion of excitement over the Human Genome Project combined with the emerging discussion over genetic determinism. The public discussion of genetic determinism is not necessarily the same as the discussion among scientists, especially molecular biologists. The more popular level of discourse takes the form of what we will be calling the gene myth. We will identify two almost contradictory planks in the gene myth platform: puppet determinism and promethean determinism. We will also look at the gene myth’s campaign slogan: Thou shalt not play God.

The gene myth both threatens and enhances human freedom. Here we will look at various understandings of freedom—political liberty, free will, moral freedom, and future freedom—and ask how each might be affected by the notion of genetic determinism. Within this framework we will look theologically at the concept of Christian freedom—a form of liberation that is given us by God’s grace—along with its accompanying ethic of neighbor love described in terms of beneficence. Guided by the principle of neighbor love, we will ask the question of playing God in light of our responsibility to employ genetic science and its resulting technology in terms of loving our neighbor—that is, by reducing human suffering and enhancing the flourishing of the human race.

It will be my position that the phrase “playing God?” has very little cognitive value when looked at from the perspective of a theologian. Its primary role is that of a warning, such as the word “stop.” In common parlance it has come to mean just that: stop. Within the gene myth it means we should stop trying to engineer DNA. Theologically, however, there is at best only minimum warrant for using this phrase in such a conservative and categorical way. Caution is always good advice, to be sure. Yet the task before us is to be good stewards of the advance of genetic science and technology so that it contributes to human welfare without creating new injustices.

What Is the Human Genome Project?

The worldwide excitement in genetics today is due to the leap-frogging advances in molecular biology. Workers at the laboratory bench and the computer terminal are producing knowledge about the biochemistry of human life at an unprecedented rate. This is due in large part to the dramatic impact of the Human Genome Project (HGP).

Begun in 1987 in the United States with a fifteen-year plan and soon followed by many other countries, the three-billion-dollar Human Genome Project set out to study DNA with three goals in mind: sequencing, mapping, and diagnosing.¹ The first goal was to learn the sequence of the three billion base pairs of nucleotides that comprise the DNA chains in our forty-six chromosomes. The second was to locate the genes on a DNA map—that is, to locate the estimated 100,000 smaller sequences on the DNA chains that code for proteins and determine what kinds of bodies we have. The third goal was the one that drew public support in the form of government funding for research: the identification of those genes that predispose us to disease. At the beginning of HGP it was estimated that 5,000 or more human diseases are genetically based.² Finding those genes and developing therapies to counteract their effects holds immense promise for improving human health and well-being. A hoped-for result of HGP is the transformation of medicine. “Medicine will move from a reactive mode (curing patients already sick) to a preventive mode (keeping people well),” writes genetic researcher Leroy Hood. “Preventive medicine should enable most individuals to live a normal, healthy, and intellectually alert life without disease.”³

Perhaps some words about DNA are in order here. DNA, short for deoxyribonucleic acid, is a long molecule stretched out in a chain of nucleotides. The chain links can be likened to letters in a sentence, and DNA to a text or code that tells our bodies what to do. The alphabet consists of four letters—A, T, C, and G—each standing for a nucleotide or base: Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine, and Guanine. They come in predictable pairs facing each other: A plus T or C plus G, no other combinations. Starting with this known alphabet, the task of the Human Genome Project is to learn the sequence of the letters and to read the text. The size of the text is enormous. The card catalogue for the DNA library requires enormous computer capacity.

Some sequence segments along the larger chain “speak” by producing proteins, and we refer to these segments as the genes. Genes account for only a fraction of the DNA. The long segments between genes seem silent, and the suspicion is that these sequences may have no function. So, the apparently nonfunctioning parts have been affectionately named “junk DNA.”

Genes “express themselves,” and this expression results in distinctive bodily traits. All the genes in a particular individual constitute his or her genotype, and all the physical traits constitute his or her phenotype. The phenotype is the result of gene products brought to expression in a given environment. Gene products include proteins that transport chemicals within the cell or throughout the body as well as proteins that play structural roles such as muscle building. Enzymes constitute the largest category of gene products. Enzymes convert food to energy and to structural materials. The design for the structure and function of every molecular part of our body is fixed by the genes.

Although DNA is a rather stable molecule, on rare occasions when it replicates itself a spontaneous change occurs. These changes, known as mutations, alter the alphabetical code in the genes. These mutant forms of genes are called allelomorphs or alleles. Such mutant alleles may be benign; yet sometimes the altered genetic code results in a defective protein or even the complete cessation of protein synthesis. This has a physical impact upon our bodies, changing our traits. For example, the healthy people among us have a gene that specifies the normal protein structure for hemoglobin, the red-blood-cell pigment. People suffering from some types of chronic anemia carry an allele form of the gene, which causes a defective hemoglobin protein that is unable to carry the normal amount of oxygen to the body cells.

For all practical purposes, the Human Genome Project crossed the finish line in 2001. What was not anticipated at the starting gate was the horse race that developed between the private sector and the public sector. J. Craig Venter jockeyed the private sector horse. While on a grant from the National Institute of Health (NIH), Venter applied for nearly three thousand patents on Expressed Sequence Tags (for further discussion of ESTs, see Chapter 5). The ESTs located genes but stopped short of identifying gene function. A furor developed over applying for a patent on government money that merely reports knowledge of what already exists in nature—knowledge of existing DNA sequences—and this led to the 1992 resignation of James Watson from the directorship of NIH’s National Center for Human Genome Research (NCHGR, now called National Human Genome Research Institute or NHGRI). Venter then established The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) and began employing Applied Biosystems automatic sequencers twenty-four hours per day to speed up nucleotide sequencing and locating ESTs. By 1998, Venter had established Celera Genomics with sequencing capacity fifty times greater than TIGR, and by June 17, 2000 he concluded his 90 percent complete account of the human genome. It was published in the February 16, 2001, issue of Science.⁴

Francis Collins took over NCHGR’s leadership from Watson and found himself in the saddle of the public sector horse, racing with Venter toward the mapping finish line. Collins drew twenty laboratories worldwide with hundreds of researchers into the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, which he directed from his Washington office. Collins repudiated patenting of raw genomic data, and sought to place DNA data into the public domain as rapidly as possible so as to prevent private patenting. His philosophy was that the human genome is the common property of the whole human race. The public project finished almost simultaneously with the private, and the Collins map 90 percent complete appeared one day prior to Venter’s, February 15, 2001, in Nature.⁵

Human DNA, as it turns out, is largely junk—that is, 98.6 percent does not code for proteins. Half of the junk DNA consists of is repeated sequences of various types, most of which are parasitic elements inherited from our distant evolutionary past. Only 1.1 percent to 1.4 percent constitute sequences that code for proteins and that function as genes.

Of dramatic interest is the number of genes in the human genome. Francis Collins estimates there are thirty-one thousand protein-encoding genes; and at the time of the announcement in 2001, he could actually list twenty-two thousand. Venter could provide a list of twenty-six thousand, to which he added an estimate of ten thousand additional possibilities. For round numbers, the estimate in 2001 stood at thirty thousand human genes.

This became philosophically significant because in 1987, the anticipated number was one hundred thousand. It was further assumed that human complexity lodged in the number of genes: the greater the number of genes, the greater the complexity. So, when HGP scientists could find only a third of the anticipated number, this created confusion. Confusion was enhanced when the human genome was compared to a yeast cell with six thousand genes, a fly with thirteen thousand genes, a worm with twenty-six thousand genes, and a rice cell with fifty thousand genes. On the basis of the previous assumption, a grain of rice should be more complex than Albert Einstein.

With the near completion of HGP, no longer could human uniqueness or complexity or even distinctiveness be lodged in the number of genes. Francis Collins began to speculate that perhaps what is distincitvely human could be found not in the genes themselves but in the multiple proteins and the complexity of protein production. Culturally, DNA began to lose some of its magic, some of its association with human essence.

In the meantime, gene hunters have been hot on the trail of alleles linked to human diseases. Some have already apprehended their prey. Genetic predispositions for many diseases have already been identified. the gene for Huntington’s disease has been found on the top of chromosome 4. A cystic fibrosis allele has been found on chromosome 7, colon cancer on chromosome 2, and diabetes on chromosome 11. The first discovery of a mutant gene for inherited breast cancer, named BRCA1, was located on chromosome 17 in 1994, and BRCA2 on chromosome 13 in 1995. Alzheimer’s disease is likely due to a combination of defective genes on more than one chromosome. Lou Gehrig’s disease, childhood leukemia, fragile X mental retardation, and Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy have locatable genetic origins.

In some cases, such as cystic fibrosis and others, the mutation consists of tandem repeats of certain nucleotide triplets. It’s as if someone held down three keys on a word processor, causing a repeatable sequence to print again and again. The number of repeats varies, and in the case of cystic fibrosis, the more repeats, the more severe the disease.

The medical objective is to use this knowledge of defective genes to develop diagnostic procedures and appropriate therapies. One form of gene therapy is supplementing or replacing faulty genes with good ones. Differentiated cells from the target area of the body can be cultured in vitro, and a new properly functioning gene transduced into them. To date it is impossible to enter into a cell and snip out the faulty gene. So, such therapy typically consists of adding an additional gene that works. Once the cells have received their new gene, they are reintroduced into the body.

The somatic gene therapy described here has some limitations.⁶ For example, already differentiated cells do not reproduce themselves. When they wear out, they die. They are replaced by cells with the mutant gene. Therefore, the effect of somatic therapy is transient, short-lived.

This has led some researchers to raise the prospect of germline therapy. The objective here would be to alter the defective genetic code of the germ cells—that is, the gametes, the father’s sperm and mother’s ova—prior to fertilization. This would insure that future children would be conceived with the functioning gene. The limitation here is obvious: germline intervention would benefit future generations, but it would not offer help for those suffering today. In addition, many ethicists raise doubts about using genetic engineering to influence the genotypes of the unborn who have no voice in such decision making. We will take up the knotty problem of germline intervention later. Right now we will follow the path from the scientist’s lab bench to the cultural interpretation of what the scientist has learned. Namely, to the gene myth.

What Is the Gene Myth?

The cover of the January 17, 1994 issue of Time pictured a naked man with outstretched arms. The artist had positioned a giant double helix within his chest. The cover’s large print read: “Genetics: The Future is Now.” The medium-sized print read: “New breakthroughs can cure diseases and save lives, but how much should nature be engineered?”

To engineer something implies that what is to be engineered is mechanical, predictable. Are genes mechanical and predictable? Can we actually get control over genes as we can control the burning of fossil fuel in automobile engines? Can we govern the direction genes take the way we try to govern the course of flooding rivers when asking the Army Corps of Engineers to build levies? On the one hand, no. On the other hand, yes. These two apparently contradictory answers are components in the gene myth.

What we are talking about goes by a number of different names. John Maddox, writing for Nature, calls it the “Strong Genetic Principle.”⁷ Joseph Alper and Jonathan Beckwith refer to it as “genetic fatalism.”⁸ Dorothy Nelkin and Susan Lindee have named it “genetic essentialism.”⁹ I have elected to use the term gene myth as employed in the work of Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, Exploding the Gene Myth.¹⁰ No matter the term, we are talking about a thought form or conceptual set, a cultural frame through which we interpret the accelerating growth in scientific knowledge about DNA.

There is something special—something almost sacred—about the genes. In the early days of the Human Genome Project, rightfully hopeful spokespersons left the impression that genetic knowledge would be all-explanatory. Geneticist Walter Gilbert said that “to identify a relevant region of DNA, a gene, and then to clone and sequence it is now the underpinning of all biological science.”¹¹ Nobel Prize winner James Watson told Time, “We used to think our fate was in our stars. Now we know, in large measure, our fate is in our genes.”¹² The DNA sequence has been called the Rosetta Stone and the Holy Grail and even “the ultimate explanation of human being.” This is the scientific seed that has grown into the gene myth.

The key belief in the gene ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Foreword
• Preface
• 1. Playing God with DNA
• 2. Puppet Determinism and Promethean Determinism
• 3. The Crime Gene, Stigma, and Original Sin
• 4. The So-called “Gay Gene” and Scientized Morality
• 5. Should We Patent God’s Creation?
• 6. The Question of Germline Intervention
• 7. The Cloning Controversy
• 8. The Stem Cell Controversy
• 9. A Theology of Freedom
• Appendix A CTNS Statement on the Gay Gene Discovery
• Appendix B Playing God with David Heyd
• Notes
• Index