Science in Christian Perspective
A Journal Symposium
The Recombinant DNA Controversy
Could Anything But Good Come Out?
Robert L.
Herrmann,
J. W. Haas, Jr.
Russell Mixter
Edwin J. Geels Gareth Jones
Fred Jappe
Richard H. Bube
Gordon Mills Charlotte Jones
Jerry D. Albert
From: JASA 30
(June 1978): 73-81.
This Symposium was conceived and organized by Dr. Jerry Albert,
Consulting Editor.
Could Anything But Good Come Out?
Robert L. Herrmann Department of Biochemistry Schools of Medicine and Dentistry
Oral Roberts University Tulsa, Oklahoma
Having worked in the molecular biology field for most of my academic life, I've
found it difficult to deal briefly with my first academic love. Experimentation
with bacterial and bacteriophage genetic systems has the unique
quality of incisiveness-relatively
simple interpretation-which make many experiments things of beauty
and high expectation.
It is easy to feel with Jacques Monod that molecular biology and the science it
represents is the gateway to all the essential knowledge and even the ethical
systems to guide the future of man.1 And, too, the land is peopled by
giants -Nobel
laureates like Monod, Luria, Watson, Crick, Dulbecco, Kornberg, to
name a few-and
I recall with considerable pleasure the many scintillating seminars I received
at their hands during my two decades in Boston. To hear Francis Crick
talk about
the triplet code or Arthur Kornberg about the details of bacterial
DNA replication,
was surely to be at near-center stage in the most exciting drama of
this century.
Could anything but good come out of such a setting?
But early in this decade, a few molecular biologists began to ask that question
of some of the work about to be carried out in the field of molecular
recombination.
The major concern was expressed for gene transfer between animal and bacterial
cells, a process made possible by new chemical and enzymatic methods
for generating
gene segments which were then capable of reconstitution in almost
limitless combinations.
The immediate concern was for the production of dangerous pathogenic bacteria
by introduction of tumor-virus genes into bacterial cells capable of growing in
the human body.
The wider recognition of the dangers has come slowly. A 1973 Cordon Conference
chaired by Maxine Singer belatedly and briefly examined the issue and voted to
request the National Academy of Sciences to make a study. That body appointed
a study committee chaired by Paul Berg which took the extraordinary
step of publishing
a letter in Science and in Nature in July of 1974 calling for a
temporary moratorium
on certain molecular recombination experiments.2 As a sequel to the announced
moratorium, a conference was convened in Asilomar, California, in February of
1975, to
plan a future course. Some 140 scientists doing molecular
recombination research
and a few lawyers and reporters met for several days. Most of the
time was devoted
to scientific presentation, but on the final day, the lawyers had occasion to
present something of the legal liabilities of molecular recombination
research.
That revelation, together with the reaction of several influential members of
Congress and the Senate, placed the discussion of recombinant DNA
research squarely
in the public arena. Senator Edward Kennedy's critique of Asilomar was that its
deliberations were "commendable but inadequate ... because
scientists alone
decided to impose the moratorium, and scientists alone decided to lift it. Yet
the factors under consideration extend far beyond their technical
competence."3
Atlantic writers, Bennett and Curio, wrote of yet another scientific
limitation.
In their view, "The scientists came to Asilomar like the barons
to Runnymede
... running their laboratories as personal fiefs . . . to forge an
agreement they
feared might affect them for decades to come. The clash of armored
egos was noisy."4
All of this must begin to sound familiar to the Christian. Science is
no special
repository of moral sensitivity or self-sacrifice. In fact, that realization on
the part of educators may be the most important consequence of these debates.
Indeed, it is this writer's conviction that the present situation provides the
Christian with the best ammunition with which to storm the twin
edifices of scientific
reductionism and educational specialization. A hundred years ago the
Ph.D. program
often carried with it generous exposure to theology and the
humanities. A student
in the natural sciences was expected to know something of the history
and culture
in which his science had flowered. The "philosophy" part of
his degree
had significance! Today, every aspect of professional qualification
in the sciences,
and in the healing arts as well, is designed to force the scholar
into ever-narrowing
areas of specialization. It is no wonder that the protagonists on the side of
complete freedom of scientific inquiry are unable to understand the
fears of ethicists
and theologians. Their language, their sources, their goals are totally foreign
to him! In the face of this moral vacuum at the scientific workbench, may the
teacher in the Christian college be challenged to realize his
potential to prepare
young men and women who are broadly and expertly trained to enter
this and other
arenas-nuclear engineering, mind-control, world food production, whole-person
medicine in which the very way we perceive and evaluate our
selves is at stake. May the boards of trustees of these same
institutions be led
by God to mobilize support for these efforts, and may we Christians
of the scientific
community who are so small of voice discover the prophetic power of a Jeremiah
and the courage of a John the Baptist in our crucial position in a
culture which
surely has lost its way.
1Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, Vintage Books, N.Y., 1972.
2P. Berg, et al. Science, 185, 303, 1974.
3B. J. Culleton, News & Comments, Science, 188, 1187-1189, 1976.
4W. Bennett and J. Curio, "Science That Frightens Scientists-
The Great Debate over DNA" Atlantic, pp. 43-62, Feb
ruary 1977.
Dangers Less Serious Than Earlier Believed
J. W. Haas, Jr. Department of Chemistry Gordon College Wenham,
Massachusetts 01984
Since World War lithe general public has been increasingly concerned with the
pervasive influence of science and technology on everyday life. The spectre of
nuclear holocaust has haunted the world and influenced international politics
for a generation. The message of a few lone environmentalists
effectively addressed
by Rachel Carson has become a multitude of voices, and the word
ecology has entered
our vocabulary. Questions formerly resolved (or ignored) by scientists, plant
managers or the military are handled in the halls of Congress, at the
ballot box
or in the courts. Laetrile and saccharin now vie for attention along with taxes
and law enforcement.
The effects of science "going public" have been mixed and
there is some
feeling that "the people" are unable to make rational
decisions on complex
issues. The high emotions and street corner debate that characterized some of
the discussion of recombinant DNA research in 1976 and early 1977
tend to support
this view. The initial outcry has subsided and procedures to regulate
the research
are being developed on the national level. It is interesting to note
that research
interests and government officials in most of the European nations
have been able
to develop standards for recombinant studies in a much cooler climate.
My comments on genetic research refer only to the work with
recombinant DNA. There
are two basic types of questions that should be asked. First, is the research
worth doing? Is there potential for a fuller understanding of nature or are the
products of the research of benefit to mankind? Secondly, does the
research meet
commonly held standards of morality and safety?
In answer to the first question, academic, govern
mental and industrial researchers alike are convinced that these
experiments will
enhance our understanding of genetic mechanisms and offer the possibility for
developing new or cheaper antibiotics, nitrogen-fixing plants, microorganisms
to clean up oil spills, etc.
The second type of question has raised the bulk of the discussion.
There are those
who feel that the proposed experiments are precursors to genetic manipulation
in humans and eventual loss of freedom and individuality. I fail to
see the inevitability
of this chain of events. Surely, when and if genetic studies reach the level of
sophistication where genetic manipulation becomes possible, decisions
can be made
on a value basis at a point where the issue is clear. To forbid a
particular line
of research because of a possible value judgment which could appear
far down the
line, reduces one in the widest view to suggest that we should have
stopped with
the work of John Dalton or Gregor Mendel. It may be that some short
term project
should be avoided because it degrades the human condition (research on poison
gas) yet one generally cannot assess the potential effects of a particular kind
of knowledge until it has come to development. In general (and
especially in this
case), we should go slowly so that our ability to evaluate moral and
ethical implications
of an action will come to maturity at the time an action becomes possible.
The safety issue appears to be less important at this writing than was earlier
believed. The June 1977 Gordon Research Conference on Nucleic Acids,
in a letter
to Science indicated that "the experience of the last four years has not
given any indication of actual hazard." Until all evidence of
hazard is removed,
I would support a regulatory system at the national level which can monitor the
safety provisions for the work being done yet impede this work as
little as possible-wishful
thinking in this age of bureaucracy. For the Christian in science the challenge
to use his gifts in a responsible way will continue to expand as
science and technology
push further to the heart of human existence.
Published Pros and Cons
Russell Mixter Department of Zoology Wheaton College Wheaton, Illinois
Science and Time have adequately stated the pros and cons of research
in combining
DNA's of differing organisms, so a review of their contributions will let the
reader make up his mind as to whether or not to approve this research.
The stated advantages of trying to add a few genes from various
sources into the
colon bacillus are: preparation of research and diagnostic agents in studying
disease, development of vaccines against influenza and hepatitis, production of
interferon, the agent counteracting viruses;1 a 500-fold increase in the enzyme
that permits the fractionation of DNA, the possibility of examining the genes
of organisms with formed nuclei;2 obtaining cheaper insulin, a clotting factor
for hemophiliacs, vitamins, antibiotics, nitrogen-fixing capacity in bacteria,
enzymes to degrade oil spills, a vaccine against diarrhea, location
of many human
genes, the unlocking of genes causing cancer, a safe microbe not
causing any infection
even if possessing introduced genes;3 and, I suppose as usual, a few
accomplishments
not yet imagined.
But opponents of DNA research in making hybrid strains state the following: the
risks are terrifying, a slight increase in disease could result which
our present
techniques cannot detect ;4 a tumor and a cold virus combined could
have disastrous
results, a gene yielding an enzyme for cellulose added to the colon bacterium
may spread diarrhea, a tumor virus may be inserted into the colon bacterium;5
the military or industry might misuse research results or scientists
would engage
in genetic manipulation of humans;1 some of the pus-forming bacteria
are now resistant
to antibiotics;6 and science is not justified in tinkering.4
Here are a few reactions to the worries of the opponents of
laboratory manipulations
of hereditary substances: the whole mass of criticisms are overblown .4 knowledge
would be suppressed, citizenry should be willing to accept the risks
as research
is continued;7 the opponents of recombinant DNA research have been criticized
unjustly by colleagues and have feared for their tenure if not already having
it;8 biological warfare is already forbidden by agreement between the
Soviet Union
and the United States, National Institutes of Health Guidelines already forbid
inserting new toxins or antibiotic resistance into pathogens, public
health measures
would certainly control any epidemics started by the intestinal germ,
recombinant
DNA research and genetic engineering should not be confused, Congress
will probably
make research guidelines apply to all scientists;1 the added amount
of new genetic
material is a mere fragment of the receiving organism (for example,
only 1 millionth
of a mouse's genes are inserted into a bacterium), so that the
bacterium is still
itself, no lab worker has ever had an illness as a result of his research;2 science
itself is at stake if research is hindered;9 the hazards are in the
imagination;10
137 scientists at the Gordon Conference on Nucleic Acids
recommend nothing beyond the NIH guidelines;" 11 E.
coli K12 which is used in bacterial genetics cannot be made epidemic;12 the long
career of nature has brought
The prospective benefits must be taken seriously by the Christian, and should push him towards this work as long as it is continually balanced by responsible guidelines governing the protection of researchers, the public and future generations.
on epidemics such as bubonic plague, smallpox, yellow fever, typhoid
and cancer,
and surely the wisdom of scientists will not yield such results.6
A full discussion of both sides should be welcomed.13 The citizens'
review board
in Cambridge did an admirable job of holding such a conference and
the Archdiocese
of Boston agreed that the confrontation should be settled by
scientists themselves.14
It can be assumed that future scientists will be as willing to
control their research
then as now. Any attempt by the national government to control
research is temporarily
in abeyance.12 We must ". . . distinguish carefully between the
acquisition
of knowledge and its application" writes Maxine Singer.9
What does Scripture say? "What your hand finds to do, do it with all your
might." "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set
you free."
"Fill the earth and subdue it . . . till it and keep it." It is like
the knowledge and use of atomic energy: we need the information; we need to use
the scientific findings wisely.
1Nicholas Wade. Science, 1 Apr. 1977.
2John Abelson. Science, 8 Apr.
1977.
3Time,
Apr. 18, 1977.
4Nicholas Wade. Science, 12 Nov. 1976.
5
Nicholas Wade. Science, 28 Jan. 1977.
6Time, Apr. 8, 1977.
7Nicholas Wade. Science, 21 Jan. 1977,
8Nicholas Wade. Science, 4
Feb. 1977.
9Maxine
Singer. Science, 8 Apr. 1977.
10Pbilip Handler. Chemical and Engineering News,
May 9, 1977.
11Walter Gilbert. Science, 15 July 1977.
12Philip Abelson. Science, 19 Aug. 1977.
13Clifford Grobstein. Science, 10 Dec. 1976.
14Nicbolas Wade. Science, 21 Jan.
1977.
Examine the Dangers and Benefits Carefully
Edwin J. Geels Department of Chemistry Dordt College Sioux Center, Iowa
During the twelve years I have taught a one semester course in Biochemistry I
have seen a great outpouring of information particularly in the area
of molecular
biology involving nucleic acids and proteins. During
this time the text in this course has increased in size from 393 pages in the
first edition to 628 pages in the 4th edition. In spite of this
increase in knowledge
about the living cell the surface has barely been scratched and much remains to
be done. One of the most controversial areas of research is the area
of recombinant
DNA. This basically involves splitting open a small usually circular
DNA molecule
from a host cell, splicing in foreign DNA from an entirely unrelated
cell, recombining
the open ends into circular DNA, and introducing this DNA back into
the host cell.
These new cells carrying recombinant pieces of DNA or plasmids may in
some cases
express the newly acquired genes in some way. It is this possibility upon which
many of the benefits of this research are postulated but upon which the fears
of others are based.
One of the most often voiced fears is that the recombinant technique may lead
to the emergence of a new strain of virulent pathogen which will decimate the
ranks of man. The fact that a large percentage of this research centers on the
use of strains of E.scherichia coil as host cell increases these
fears since the
parent E. coil exists in symbiotic relationship with the human intestine. Other
concerns deal with the possible extension of this technique to the cells of man
in genetic manipulation, with the possibility that the calls for regulation of
this research may lead to overregulation and stifling of free
scientific inquiry
of all types, and with the possibility that a great deal of time,
money, facilities,
and scientific personnel will be wasted by a rush into this new and
possibly faddish
research area. Also, voices are heard asking if man even has the
right to tamper
with God's creation especially by crossing species barriers between procaryotes
and eucaryotes.
The list of possible benefits of recombinant DNA is understandably a bit thin,
since it is usually somewhat difficult to visualize how one will benefit from
a discovery before it is made. However, I feel it is safe to conclude that no
matter what new discoveries are made, some men will find good uses for them and
other men will find evil uses for them. I have only to menlion a few examples,
such as the printing press, dynamite, drugs, and nuclear energy. At present the
suggested but unproven benefits include the use of recombinant DNA to
yield bacteria
which could produce human hormones such as insulin, could synthesize antibiotics
and vitamins, and be able to convert nitrogen into a form usable by plants. A
more certain benefit would seem to be a better understanding of the
genetic equipment
of the cell.
How should a Christian scientist, cultural mandate in hand, approach
the question
of whether or not recombinant DNA is a permissable research area for
man? I feel
that as a Christian and a scientist I should have an open-minded
attitude toward
the question and examine carefully both the dangers and the benefits
of this type
of research.
Having examined as many of both as I could as summarized above, I
have concluded
that we will through the use of recombinant DNA research undoubtedly be able to
uncover more and more of the pattern of creation, especially as it
reveals itself
in the DNA of the cell and genetic expression. By so doing, we can praise and
glorify God all the more for His
created order. This type of research will undoubtedly also provide benefits to
mankind not even yet imagined.
On the obverse side must also be the balancing realization that the influence
of sin will also lead some to exploit this new research into new ways to make
a profit. Not that profit is bad in itself, but quite often a new market must
be created for a potentially profitable but often unnecessary product
whose mutagenie
and carcinogenic effects have not been investigated, such as Red Dye
No. 2, PBB,
PCB, and more recently, the soil fumigant DBCP. Since the development
of biological
weapons has been actively pursued in the past, it would seem that the
use of recombinant
DNA would be a natural area for attempting to find a superpathogen or poison.
Even though the use of DNA from venom-producing snakes and insects
and bactteria
producing botulinum toxins is presently banned from
government-supported research,
this may not deter foreign governments from carrying out this type of research
using methods carefully developed and widely published by American
scientists.
Recombinant DNA research is being carried out and I feel that it will
be continued
in the future. However, because of the possible risks involved and
possible misuse
of results, I feel careful regulation of this research may he necessary. This
does not necessarily have to stifle research, as some claim. But
regulatory groups
must watch over it and should have the power to stop research proceeding in a
direction dangerous to man and the world about him. Such a regulatory
group should
involve representatives from private industry, federal government,
and education,
including a number who have no vested interest in this type of research. I also
think a similar organization at the United Nations level is
necessary, since this
problem is not only a national one, but one which will eventually be global in
nature.
Dangerous Territory, Not Forbidden Knowledge
D. Gareth Jones
Department of Anatomy and Human Biology University of Western
Australia Nedlands,
Australia
The debate about the advisability of proceeding with recombinant DNA research
cannot be viewed as an isolated issue. One day it may well be seen to
have played
an important, and perhaps even decisive, role in the shaping of
attitudes to scientific
endeavour in the 1970s. This is because the opponents and proponents
of this type
of research are not divided simply on its postulated hazards and on
their reactions
to these, but on their far more fundamental response to scientific research and
its applications.
I am not suggesting that there is no room for debate over the risks of various
genetic procedures. There is, and there should be ample debate. Nevertheless,
those who demand that these procedures be absolutely safe
with no possibility of any type of risk-or a standard approaching this absolute one-are demanding an
unattainable goal.
Those who press this point demonstrate,
DNA research is like any other research. The potential for good and evil is always present.
not only their scepticism towards recombinant DNA research, but also their scepticism towards the processes of scientific investigation.
Much of the risk
around which
debate has raged over recombinant DNA experiments has been over
hypothetical and
speculative possibilities rather than over expected consequences.
Even the N.I.H.
guidelines are framed to counteract postulated as opposed to
anticipated hazards.
They are demanding, to quote Stanley N. Cohen1 "not only that there be no
evidence of hazard, but that there be positive evidence that there is
no hazard."
Perhaps this is right; undoubtedly, there have been past occasions when far too
little regard of
potential and even actual hazards was taken. This current approach
should, therefore,
be recognized as an unprecedented one, although once it is pressed too far it
takes on anti-scientific overtones.
The recombinant DNA debate has engendered such heat, because too
little recognition
of the nature of the projected hazards has been taken. This, in turn, appears
to have acquired some of its basis from a fear of the unknown-the possibilities
of epidemics, eugenics, the manipulation of the genetic equipment of
man, upsetting
evolutionary processes, and so on. While these scenarios cannot be completely
dismissed they acquire special significance for those who lack faith
in the scientific
enterprise and who emphasize the misuse to which scientific knowledge has been
put in the past. And so we find Chargaff putting together splitting of the atom
and manipulation of the genetic apparatus as the two greatest deeds
and probably
misdeeds of science in recent times. In other words, it is fear of
future misapplication
of genetic knowledge that is uppermost in his thinking.
This introduces the distinction between fundamental and applied research. Advocates of recombinant DNA research stress both aspects of the research, whereas its opponents tend to emphasize the misuse to which it may well be put. For instance, Chargaff argues that there are forbidden uses of knowledge, while others go a step further and stigmatize this type of genetic research as forbidden knowledge. From here it is but a short step to the position that this research should be opposed because it is evil. Hence all claims to freedom of inquiry are abrogated.
What is being called in question therefore, is the nature of basic research. Two facets stand out in this regard: (1) that there is knowledge which is inherently dangerous and should not therefore be indulged in, and (2) that non-scientists should have a stake in what limits, if any, are placed on research and its applications. This latter proposal is essentially a practical one and should be debated at that level, although it needs to be borne in mind that non-scientists have to be advised by scientists on genetic issues. Great care is required, therefore, to ensure that the advice they are given is as impartial and representative of responsible opinion as it is possible to give.
The alleged danger of genetic knowledge takes a number of forms.
Besides the hazards
associated with experimentation and fear of its misapplication in the
future, other aspects that are stressed touch on interference with evolutionary
mechanisms, the unjustified expense of the research and the unlikelihood of any
great benefits accruing from it. Underlying these objections is a
profound scepticism
that mankind will be helped by this, or even related forms, of research. What
is demanded too is that we work within the limits of our grasp of the
consequences
of our immediate actions.
On the opposite side, what are stressed are the potential medical and
social benefits
of recombinant DNA techniques, such as the production of antibiotics, vitamins,
and medically and industrially useful chemicals. More generally, the course of
action advocated is that we advance knowledge and increase our
vigilance in assessing
the hazards and costs of possible applications.
From a Christian perspective, a number of principles emerge as significant. Scientific
enterprise must not become a sacred cow, so that all
research-regardless of nature,
danger or costs-is legitimate. There are priorities and these need to
be assessed
from the human perspective. What will, as far as we can judge, benefit mankind?
Into what beneficial channels should effort and money be directed? These are,
of course, somewhat subjective questions, but they need to be faced
and criteria
enunciated to make value judgments.
Although science must not be granted a semi-divine status, neither must it be
denigrated. At base, it is a God-given way of investigating the natural world,
exerting control over it and living out this exercise of authority in
a responsible
manner. In these terms, it is difficult to concede that there is
forbidden knowledge,
in the sense in which that term is being used with respect to gen
A Christian Perspective Favoring Recombinant DNA Research
Fred Jappe Department of Chemistry Mesa College San Diego, California
If Christianity is to be a viable religion, it must do more than
provide an escape
route for sinners. It must speak to the moral and intellectual issues of today
with vigor, clarity and intelligence. Christians must be effective in rebutting
the claim that Hebraic religion in general and Christianity in
particular is chained
to ancient books and consequently lacks relevance for modern man.
As a Christian, I naturally see my faith speaking to all the great
issues of mankind.
It can do this because the thrust of Christianity is that man-Christian man has
a dynamic relation with the living God mediated by His Son and is
indwelt by the
Holy Spirit. The Christian man is thus not left to his own resources in solving
moral issues, but has help. One "help" is the biblical insight that
man is a sinner and that sin affects our judgment. As a Christian I'm acutely
aware of my shortcomings. Another insight is that God is ultimately
"calling
the shots" of history. He is sovereign and hence mankind and history are
not left to man's devices, nor is history just the output or
consequence of mankind's
actions. The thought of Thomas Aquinas, that God is the continuing ruler of the
universe-the prime cause of every event although secondary causes may
arise-assuages
my fears.
With that as a brief backdrop, let me state my position as one who
favors recombinant
DNA Research, All scientific research involves risks, since in no case can the
results of a new experiment or theory be known with absolute certainty before
hand. The scientific method at its unavoidable core means taking risks. And the
application of science-technology-continues the risks, normally even
over a wider
area.
Who could have foreseen that Newton's Laws and the understandings
related to them
would be used 350 years later to develop killer satellites or other
perverse devices?
Since all knowledge augments man's power, science continually enables man to do
more and more. And this inevitably means to make bigger and more
costly mistakes.
DNA research is like any other research. It is not and should not be
philosophically
isolated. The potential for both good and evil is always present.
Here as in other
areas of research, mankind's suffering may be alleviated and other good things
may happen. But since
when must science justify itself on the grounds of practical utility? It need
not do so in this case either. Perhaps, if one needs it, a
justification for the
Christian exists in the biblical concept of subduing the earth. Our
understanding
of the DNA code can be seen as a part of that process.
Science grew in the Graeco-Hebraic soil of western culture. It could flourish
partly because Western man was, as he increased his understanding of
nature, also
understanding his creation better. Dillenberg in Protestant Thought and Natural
Science (p. 88) quotes Galileo as saying "for the Holy Bible and
the phenomena
of nature proceed alike from the divine word, the former as the dictate of the
Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God's
commands."
While my insights suggest that the key biblical element is the
personal and human
participatory aspects of God, this does not mean that I cannot argue
for and come
to an increased understanding of God through impersonal scientific
research. After
the science is done, it can be reviewed in the light of biblical insights and
glory given to the Creator rather than the creature.
As a citizen I naturally want that reseach to be done with minimum risks to the
community. My biblical insights into the nature of mankind suggests that it is
not wise to have the researchers "watch themselves." Hence,
an outside
agency, perhaps non-governmental but supported by government funds should see
that NIH or other Guidelines are revised and followed.
Avoid Simplistic Thinking
Richard H. Bube, Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Stanford University
Stanford, California
One of the greatest pitfalls that Christians must avoid upon entering
into advocacy
on social issues is the temptation to simplistic thinking. This temptation is
great, for simplistic thinking avoids agonizing appraisal, can be carried out
without full understanding of the situation, and is well suited to
receive public
support. I realize that there is not the space to respond in depth on
recombinant
DNA-nor do I personally have the full technical competence that
should be demanded but
I would like to enter a warning against certain types of prevalent simplistic
thinking.
1. That it is possible to plan scientific research so that only good
for the human
race will result. Scientific research provides knowledge; all
knowledge is dangerous.
If God is not sovereign and we are totally on our own, then every
endeavor aimed
at increasing human knowledge requires a permanent moratorium. Every advance of
knowledge in every field can be used or abused by human beings. The fact that
it is contrary to the nature of the human being to proclaim a moratorium on new
knowledge, however, cannot be escaped. Simple solutions that prescribe public
con
demoation of whole branches of scientific research cannot be sustained.
2. That recombinant DNA research represents a totally new and unique biological
interference into nature. Genetic change is a process going on at all
times. For
centuries human beings have deliberately exercised the principles of selective
breeding to change the properties of plants and animals. That we may
with excellent
reason believe that controlled selective breeding is not appropriate for
application
to human beings has not led us to reject the study and use of
selective breeding
per se.
3. That recombinant DNA research is primarily a means for altering
the human population.
A major application of this type of research is in the area of
agriculture where
developments may lead to a food supply to meet the burgeoning population in a
world that finds it difficult to take population limiting seriously.
Researchers
in the area would welcome heartily increased research support from
the Department
of Agriculture, but find instead that they must seek support from the National
Institute of Health, which in turn demands that they describe their research in
terms of its applications to human genetics. Concern with human genetics is of
course heightened by the realization that cancer research cannot
proceed without
recombinant DNA techniques. Still it appears that the emphasis on
human genetics
is as much a consequence of the distribution of government funding as it is of
the actual intentions of the researchers involved.
4. That issues involving technical evaluations can be resolved by appeal to the
public. I certainly favor every action that can lead to an informed public and
therefore an informed public opinion of essential issues. Experience
in the world
indicates, however, that public opinion is a very volatile ingredient, quite at
the mercy of those skilled in manipulating popular thought. I am pessimistic,
therefore, of the ability to resolve questions of truth, or even of wisdom, by
appeal to what is inevitably a political process. I realize the
dangerous ground
that this opinion may appear to involve, but not to recognize the weaknesses of
the democratic process may simply be a way to hasten its demise.
Precautions in matters of safety are certainly demanded as long as they do not
amount to nothing less than a complete restriction on all activities. Let's not
minimize the problem. We are in a mess. The whole creation is
groaning in travail,
awaiting the day of redemption. But if there is danger in going forward, it is
not ethically possible to go backwards. Only our trust in the sovereign Cod and
Father of our Lord Jesus enables us to walk out into the darkness
with him, seeking
to be his responsible and obedient servants.
Reprinted from Sojourners, August 1977, p. 38
Research with the
Required Protective Safeguards
Gordon Mills Department of Human Biological Chemistry and Genetics
The University
of Texas Medical Branch Galveston, Texas
In regard to recombinant DNA research, I personally
thought Dr. Phil Handler's editorial in the chemical
and Engineering News (May 9, 1977) was good. I definitely favor
continued research,
but do share the view that careful guidelines need to be established. I believe
proper guidelines have now been set up, and think that research should proceed
in laboratories that have the required protective safeguards. I tend to think
that the possibility of producing a terribly virulent organism has been greatly
overemphasized. Whether this view comes from my particular Christian philosophy
or from my scientific training and experience is difficult for me to
ascertain.
No Line Between Safe and Dangerous Knowledge
Charlotte Jones Department of Biogenetics University of California San Diego,
California
To reach a Christian position on the issue of recombinant DNA, let us not lose
our perspective on technology as a whole. Recombinant DNA is a technique being
used by molecular biologists to study the organization, regulation,
and expression
of genetic material on a biochemical basis. It is a method of manipulating the
DNA of organisms ranging from man to virus, and the controversy over
its use centers
in two areas. The first is that the risk of unexpected side effects
from performing
these manipulations may not be worth the benefit accrued through its use, and
the second is whether society would misuse the capability of genetic
engineering
enough to warrant shutting off such research as attempting to attain dangerous
knowledge.
The first area requires a technical assessment.1 The benefits are
more clear-cut
than the risks, which are entirely hypothetical at this point.2
Medical spin-offs
are already feasible, such as the production of human insulin and
human interferon
(a naturally occurring antiviral protein) in large enough quantities to be used
therapeutically. Examples of the feared risks are that an
unknown cancer gene could begin functioning if removed from its normal genetic
environment or that a regulatory gene out of place could start regulating the
wrong functions at the wrong times. Is it possible that a new
combination of DNA
molecules could function as described above or could provide an
entirely new function
to a bacterium? To date there is no evidence that this is possible, and indeed
with our present knowledge it appears unlikely, but we cannot rule it
out. However,
we do have some information on whether such a bacterium could escape from the
lab and cause havoc. If
researchers follow the containment procedures outlined in the NIH guidelines,
we know that the chances of such a bug escaping are very low, the chances of it
surviving outside the lab are very low, and the chances of it
spreading are very
low. The probability of all three occurring is so low that it is
considered only
due to the consequences in the event that an unsuspectedly dangerous
gene combination
is formed.
However, we cannot pretend that this technology does not exist. It is easy and
does not require more than common lab equipment (in contrast to nuclear
physics), so we do not have the option of an effective way of
preventing all research.
The question is whether we compound the problem by openly continuing the work.
I believe that by using the aforementioned safeguards, which is generally done
now, the risks involved are simply those which are unavoidable in any
field given
our incomplete knowledge, and we have to live with this baseline of risk in all
areas of life. Life does not give us the option of avoiding risk entirely. We
cannot do nothing; if we chose not to do something new, we have
chosen to continue
as we are now, and that choice has its own risks.
Let us now look at the future impact of this research on society. We
must realize
that using the techniques of recombinant DNA does not make genetic engineering
inevitable (or even imminent) nor does refraining from their use
avoid the possibility
of it. However, recombinant DNA certainly will increase our
understanding of (and
thus our ability to manipulate) genetics.
Is this really an example of dangerous knowledge? We have already admitted that
scientific knowledge is valid and that in at least some areas it is
worth pursuing
by practicing science and subscribing to the statement of faith of the ASA. I
do not believe one can draw a line between safe and dangerous
knowledge. The Navy
can use information from research on porpoises to develop weapons and doctors
use techniques spawned by nuclear physics to save lives. When God created us He
gave us the responsibility of making choices, and we cannot avoid those choices
by attempting to set aside our knowledge.
I do believe, however, that Christians have an important role, especially those
of us who do know enough molecular biology and genetics to be able to
anticipate
what will be technically possible in the future. We as scientists must attempt
to clarify for society exactly what its choices are by setting out the results
and implications of those choices. And we, as Christians, must remind people of
their responsibility for those choices as moral beings accountable to God.
1Further details can be found in: B.D. Davis in 'Recombinant DNA Research: A debate on the
benefits and risks"
Chemical and Engineering News, May 30, 1977, p. 27-31.
J. Abelson, "Recombinant DNA: Examples of Present-Day
Research," Science
196: 159-160, (1977).
21 do not include here the willful avoidance of using the proper
safeguards. This
is not a new problem and it is just as possible with those working with Rabies
virus as with those doing recombinant DNA work.
Worthy Goals and Genesis Mandate Outweigh Dangers
Jerry D. Albert Research Biochemist Mercy Hospital Medical Research
Facility San
Diego, California
Recombinant DNA research has worthy goals in keeping with the service
of science
to human welfare, and thus, it should be vigorously pursued with
reasonable safeguards
to protect the scientists and the public they serve. Some of the goals of this
research include: (1) extension of basic knowledge of molecular genetics; (2)
medical applications in elucidation of the nature and control of
cancers, therapy
of genetic diseases (e.g., diabetes may be treated by enabling a
patient to make
his own insulin, instead of being dependent on injections of preparations from
animal sources), treatment of other molecular lesions, vital organ
repair (kidney,
heart, liver, lung), cheaper and more efficient syntheses of
biomolecules (hormones,
enzymes, antibiotics); (3) agricultural applications in feeding a hungry world
full of humans by developing faster growing, disease resistant, more nutritious
plants and animals, especially plants with more efficient
photosynthetic systems
and with nitrogen-fixation nodules grafted on their roots; (4) energy
and environmental
applications in production of faster growing forests, pastures and biomass for
fuel and raw materials, and in development of microorganisms to
dispose of pollutants
and make methane and other fuels.
Christian and biblical perspectives: All of the above goals are
directly in line
with the Genesis mandate to bring the earth and all life under our control as
God's representatives, for we are to be faithful managers of God's good world.
Gen. 1:26-28 (TEV):
Then God said, "And now we will make human beings; they will be
like us and
resemble us. They will have power over the fish, the birds, and all
animals, domestic
and wild, large and small," So God created human beings, making them to be
like himself. He created them male and female, blessed them, and
said, "Have
many children, so that your descendants will live all over the earth and bring
it under their control. I am putting you in charge of the fish, the birds, and
all the wild animals."
This mandate was not lost as a result of our sin, but continues even after our
Fall. Ps. 8:4-6 (TEV):
What is man that you think of him; mere man, that you care for him?
Yet you made
him inferior only to
yourself; you crowned him with glory and honor. You appointed him
ruler over everything
you made; you placed him over all creation: sheep and cattle, and the
wild animals
too; the birds and the fish and the creatures in the seas.
We have the responsibility to manage the earth and its resources for our good
and to God's glory.
Of course, there are risks and dangers (both known and unknown) in every human
endeavor because we are sinful, make mistakes, have limited knowledge
and wisdom,
and fail to trust continually in our Creator for guidance. Therefore, we need
nation-wide (worldwide, if possible) application of the NIH
guidelines to provide
safety margins and containment of potential hazards, which should minimize the
risks and circumvent real dangers. Imaginary dangers have been exaggerated, but
enforcement of safety factors will be welcome as long as the research
is not stifled
and discouraged by local citizen groups. We need to recognize that
the potential
benefits outweigh dangers and to ensure that the safety and
containment guidelines
be flexible enough to meet any changing assessment of the hazards.
We should not allow fears of imaginary or exagger
ated dangers to drive us to over-react against the possibilities to accomplish
good for mankind. We who trust in and worship the Creator of all
should take seriously
our responsibilities as God's managers of the earth and be prepared to make use
of this research for our good and His glory. All knowledge is from the Creator.
If we refuse or otherwise fail to encourage recombinant DNA research,
others who
do not accept or acknowledge our Creator may boldly move ahead, for
whatever motives,
in another country if not in our own. As scientists who are
Christians, we especially
should lead in the encouragement and application of this gift from God.
Before making up your own minds on this issue, I strongly recommend
that you also
read the News Forum Debate on Recombinant DNA Research, Chemical
& Engineering News, pp. 26-42, May 30, 1977, for detailed arguments by prominent scientists
for and against this research.