|
How to make a human'To what extent does DNA shape our future?' asked the commentator in a recent BBC series on human biotechnology. Each cell in our body has 46 chromosomes that carry digital information embedded in a molecular structure known as DNA. A scientist assured us with enthusiasm that the DNA 'contains all the genes needed to make a human.' We were informed that 'everything about us is determined by DNA'. What are Christians to make of this? Many will know that there has been a nature/nurture debate running for decades, but is it correct to say that the 'nature' argument has been vindicated by genetics? Furthermore, if our behaviour is controlled by genetics (and consequently by complex molecules within us), where does that leave Christian teaching on human responsibility for our thoughts and actions? It took the programme quite a while to get to the link between genes and behaviour. Leading up to it were examples of genetic deformities. For example, a case of deformed fingers was linked to a single letter change in the coding of chromosome 9. The commentator declared: 'Now that we understand the magical process of growth, we are able to manipulate it.' This conclusion goes far be-yond the boundary of appropriateness. It is much more realistic to say 'we understand a tiny bit more about growth and we have hopes that one day it will be possible to intervene in a controlled way'. Eventually, we reached the point in the programme where genes and behaviour were linked. There was the 'Ace' gene, affecting endurance and strength (athletic behaviour). There was the 'thrill-seeking' gene, possessed by adventurers. There was a gene for aggressive, impulsive behaviour. Unfortunately, the science in these presentations was a bit thin - researchers were looking for links, saying positive things about their findings, but viewers were none the wiser about the data and the robustness of the conclusions. A characteristic of the programme is that no dissent on genetic determinism was aired. There was a brief acknowledgement that the search for personality genes is a contentious area of science. The result was very one-sided. It is tempting to suggest that there was another agenda operating here. Introducing scientific debate about the conclusions would reduce the programme's entertainment value. However, viewers should be aware that there is a vigorous debate over many of the assertions that were aired. 1. Claim: that everything about us is determined by DNA. The simple response to this is that it has never been demonstrated. It is a logical deduction, based on a particular model of cell biology. The claim needs to be tested, but unfortunately people are not doing this in their scientific work. 2. Claim: each gene affects one trait. At no time was there an acknowledgement that an individual gene can affect many traits, and that manipulating one gene (where the outcome is predictable) may result in additional outcomes (which are not predicted and which may not be desirable). 3. Claim: knowing one's genetic makeup allows prediction of future behaviour. So strongly do some people hold this view that it is entering legal argument. A lawyer representing a murderer in Death Row in the US was interviewed. He wanted to investigate the possibility of a genetic link between the murderer and his behaviour, and possibly enter a plea of diminished responsibility. Effectively, the lawyer was saying 'This man was destined to kill because of his genes'. The science in this is almost nil! The genetic model presumes that everything about us is determined by DNA (physical traits and behaviour), but it must be pointed out that this model is not validated. 4. Claim: we understand what genes are doing, so we can manipulate processes of growth and development. The programme invited us to 'imagine a world where you could know your child's destiny'. Parents could influence their offspring by selecting their genetic makeup at conception. This is OK as long as people do not confuse imagination with reality. The fact is that we have only the slightest inkling of what our genes are actually doing, and we know so little about the link between genes and development that the claim amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking. Can Christians inject any positive contributions to these issues? It might look obvious that we can contribute to discussions of ethical issues. However, Christians may be agreed on the principles (of acting always in love for God and our neighbour, and seeking to act as God's stewards in this world), but differ totally on the application! Some are alarmed at the prospects of biotechnology, whereas others say that biotechnology is a wonderful way of fulfilling God's mandate to sustain, restore and improve Creation. The other contribution that Christians can bring is a challenge to the genetic model that lies at the root of much bio-technology. Those of us who are scientists can address the scientific issues noted above. But all Christians can challenge the model by pointing out that humans are more than genes controlling bodies. Humans are spiritual beings with bodies. We agree that genes can influence our behaviour - we have recognised for years that people have personalities (sanguine, choleric, etc.) that are physiological in nature. Nevertheless, while our personalities affect the way we experience temptation and the way we handle situations, they do not determine our behaviour. That can only be understood by relating our behaviour to God - and that is the reason why the genetic model is seriously deficient. Unless our science of humanity incorporates knowledge about our relationship with God, it will be seriously wide of the mark. This, ultimately, is the challenge for Christians seeking to engage with contemporary culture. We must not live and think as though God is irrelevant to our scholarly lives, and we cannot help the community of scientists and intellectuals if we do not challenge the 'tacit atheism' of our culture. David J. Tyler, © Evangelicals Now - March 2002 |