Scientists Must Not Play God

By Richard N. Ostling

Clergymen warn about the implications of genetic engineering

Seldom, if ever, in the U.S. has there been so ecumenical a chorus of concern. The signers of the seven-point declaration included the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, the Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ. The political spectrum ranged from right-whig TV Evangelist Jerry Falwell to Bishop James Armstrong, the liberal Methodist who heads the National Council of Churches. Twenty-three Roman Catholic bishops added their names, as did Jewish Leaders Albert Vorspan and Rabbi Wolfe Kelman. The prestige of the clergymen, as well as the wide variety of their views on religious and social issues, gave special impact to their plea to Congress: ban genetic experiments by scientists that might change human characteristics passed along from one generation to its successor.

Although genetic engineering is still in its early stage of development, the clergymen were worried about its implications for the future of mankind. Explained J. Robert Nelson, a professor of theology at Boston University and a signer of the document: "It may be possible to modify human life so much as to produce some theologically unacceptable notion of what human life is. We are in danger of treating human beings as animal stock rather than respecting their dignity."

In 1980, when some religious leaders expressed their concern about trends in genetic experimentation, President Carter asked a special commission on biomedical ethics to study human engineering. The now disbanded body last November recommended that scientists be allowed to continue, research on eliminating genetic disorders, but only under the "close scrutiny" of federal monitors.

Dissatisfaction with this response led the clergymen last week to press Congress to stop human engineering. Democratic Congressman Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee has introduced a bill, thought likely to win House approval, that would create a presidential commission to monitor, but not regulate, developments in the field. Gore last week called the clergymen's request for a moratorium on research "a hasty judgment."

Interestingly, the man who organized last week's appeal is neither a theologian nor a scientist. He is Jeremy Rifkin, 38, a Reform Jew and a writer on economic and social issues, who warns that the world's economic systems must be transformed in anticipation of a drastic shortage of resources. Rifkin's most recent book, titled Algeny (Viking; $14.75), not only protests against human engineering but virtually all genetic tinkering with plant and animal species. Genetic engineering, says Rifkin, is "ecological roulette: any mistake will be irretrievable."

Most signers have no moral qualms about some forms of genetic engineering. For example, they do not object to scrambling the DNA of bacteria to make possible the mass production of insulin for diabetics. Nor do all of them oppose a possible future treatment that would change the genes of an individual to cure a disease such as hemophilia.

The clergy's main concern is the ethical justification for making changes in the germline, or sex cells, which regulates the transmission of inheritable traits. Scientists are now working to change the genes in these cells that create such inherited maladies as Tay-Sachs disease and sickle-cell anemia. The healthy traits would be passed on indefinitely to succeeding generations. However ideal that goal might seem, signers of the petition to Congress fear that the engineering changes could later cause unforeseen problems. One example: eradication of sickle-cell anemia genes might make an individual more susceptible to malaria. Other clergymen are deeply concerned that scientists, despite their disclaimers, will eventually seek to make more changes -- in short, to usurp the creative function of God by building a kind of superman.

Says the Rev. Avery Post, president of the United Church of Christ: "We're not good enough or responsible enough. There is no question about it. We will abuse this power." Bishop Finis Crutchfield, outgoing president of the United Methodist Church's Council of Bishops, thinks that efforts to modify the work of the Creator constitute "pride, the deadliest of all sins."

Other religious thinkers see no problem with a geneticist's manipulating DNA to eradicate dread diseases. Rabbi Seymour Siegel, professor of ethics at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City and the only clergyman on the President's bioethics commission, did not sign last week's statement.

"The biblical writers see man's role not merely to conform to nature but to improve it, if possible," Siegel argues. For that reason, "genetic research should be encouraged, not met with cries of alarm."

Pope John Paul II has approved of genetic manipulation to eliminate disorders. He told a meeting of scientists last October that "the research of modern biology gives hope that the transfer and mutation of genes can ameliorate the condition of those who are affected by chromosomic diseases."

With the arguments unresolved, the Rev. Richard McCormick, a Jesuit moral theologian at Georgetown University who endorsed last week's petition, can didly admits that he is not yet sure which approach to genetic engineering is right. He signed not to prohibit research forever but to try to encourage public debate. McCormick believes the line between removing a genetic defect and manipulating the race eugenically "is all but blurred."

Not only are theologians perplexed by the issue, but scientists themselves are divided. Last week the clergymen opposing human engineering were joined by seven scientists, including Nobel Laureates Polycarp Kusch and George Wald. A bio chemist, Wald echoes the fears of many clergymen about altering human genes when he asks, "Who is going to set those specifications?"

-- By Richard N. Ostling. Reported by Michael P. Harris/New York

With reporting by Michael P. Harris This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.