Human genetic engineering has always been the stuff of science-fiction novels and blockbuster Hollywood films. Except that it is no longer confined to books and movies.
Scientists and doctors are already attempting to genetically alter human beings and our cells. And whether you realize it or not, you and your children are being bombarded in popular media with mixed messages on the ethics surrounding human genetic engineering.
So what does the Church say about the genetic engineering of humans?
The majority of Catholics would likely say that the Church opposes any genetic modification in humans. But that is not what our Church teaches. Actually, the Church does support human genetic engineering; it just has to be the right kind.
Surprised? Most Catholics probably are.
To understand Catholic Church teaching on genetic engineering, it is critical to understand an important distinction under the umbrella of genetic engineering: the difference between therapy and enhancement. It is a distinction that every Catholic should learn to identify, both in the real world and in fiction. Gene therapy and genetic enhancement are technically both genetic engineering, but there are important moral differences.
For decades, researchers have worked toward using genetic modification called gene therapy to cure devastating genetic diseases. Gene therapy delivers a copy of a normal gene into the cells of a patient in an attempt to correct a defective gene. This genetic alteration would then cure or slow the progress of that disease. In many cases, the added gene would produce a protein that is missing or not functioning in a patient because of a genetic mutation.
One of the best examples where researchers hope gene therapy will be able to treat genetic disease is Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy or DMD. DMD is an inherited disorder where a patient cannot make dystrophin, a protein that supports muscle tissue. DMD strikes in early childhood and slowly degrades all muscle tissue, including heart muscle. The average life expectancy of someone with DMD is only 30 years.
Over the last few years, researchers have been studying mice with DMD. They have been successful in inserting the normal dystrophin gene into the DNA of the mice. These genetically engineered mice were then able to produce eight times more dystrophin than mice with DMD. More dystrophin means more muscle, which, in the case of a devastating muscle-wasting disease like DMD, would be a lifesaver.
Almost immediately after the announcement of this breakthrough, the researchers were inundated with calls from bodybuilders and athletes who wanted to be genetically modified to make more muscle.
The callers essentially wanted to take the genetic engineering designed to treat a fatal disease and apply it to their already healthy bodies.
Genetically engineering a normal man who wants more muscle to improve his athletic ability is no longer gene therapy. Instead, it is genetic enhancement.
Genetic enhancement would take an otherwise healthy person and genetically modify him to be more than human, not just in strength, but also in intelligence, beauty or any other desirable trait.
So why is the distinction between gene therapy and genetic enhancement important? The Catholic Church is clear that gene therapy is good, while genetic enhancement is morally wrong.
Why? Because gene therapy seeks to return a patient to normal human functioning. Genetic enhancement, on the other hand, assumes that man’s normal state is flawed and lacking, that man’s natural biology needs “enhancing.” Genetic enhancement would intentionally and fundamentally alter a human being in ways not possible by nature, which means in ways God never intended.
The goal of medical intervention must always be the natural development of a human being, respecting the patient’s inherent dignity and worth. Enhancement destroys that inherent dignity by completely rejecting mankind’s natural biology. From the “Charter for Health Care Workers” by the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance:
“In moral evaluation, a distinction must be made between strictly ‘therapeutic’ manipulation, which aims to cure illnesses caused by genetic or chromosome anomalies (genetic therapy), and manipulation, ‘altering’ the human genetic patrimony. A curative intervention, which is also called ‘genetic surgery,’ will be considered desirable in principle, provided its purpose is the real promotion of the personal well-being of the individual, without damaging his integrity or worsening his condition of life.
“On the other hand, interventions which are not directly curative, the purpose of which is ‘the production of human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities,’ which change the genotype of the individual and of the human species, ‘are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being, to his integrity and to his identity. Therefore, they can be in no way justified on the pretext that they will produce some beneficial results for humanity in the future.’ ‘No social or scientific usefulness and no ideological purpose could ever justify an intervention on the human genome unless it be therapeutic; that is, its finality must be the natural development of the human being.’”
So genetic engineering to cure or treat disease or disability is good.
Genetic engineering to change the fundamental nature of mankind, to take an otherwise healthy person and engineer him to be more than human is bad.
There is much misinformation surrounding the Catholic Church’s teaching on human genetic engineering. One example is in a piece in The New York Times by David Frum. Frum states that John Paul II supported genetic enhancement and, therefore, the Church does as well. Frum performs a sleight of hand, whether intentional or not. See if you can spot it:
“The anti-abortion instincts of many conservatives naturally incline them to look at such [genetic engineering] techniques with suspicion — and, indeed, it is certainly easy to imagine how they might be abused. Yet in an important address delivered as long ago as 1983, Pope John Paul II argued that genetic enhancement was permissible — indeed, laudable — even from a Catholic point of view, as long as it met certain basic moral rules. Among those rules: that these therapies be available to all.”
Frum discusses enhancement and therapy as if they are the same. He equates them using the words “therapies” and “enhancement” interchangeably. Because John Paul II praised gene therapy, the assumption was that he must laud genetic enhancement as well. This confusion is common because, many argue, there is not a technical difference between therapy and enhancement, so lumping them together is acceptable.
Catholics must not fall into this trap. Philosophically, gene therapy and genetic enhancement are different. One seeks to return normal functioning; the other seeks to take normal functioning and alter it to be abnormal.
There are practical differences between therapy and enhancement as well. Genetic engineering has already had unintended consequences and unforeseen side effects. Gene-therapy trials to cure disease in humans have been going on for decades. All has not gone as planned. Some patients have developed cancer as a result of these attempts at genetically altering their cells.
In 1999, a boy named Jesse Gelsinger was injected with a virus designed to deliver a gene to treat a genetic liver disease. Jesse could have continued with his current treatment regime of medication, but he wanted to help others with the same disorder, so he enrolled in the trial. Tragically, Jesse died four days later from the gene therapy he received.
In 2007, 36-year-old mother Jolee Mohr died while participating in a gene-therapy trial. She had rheumatoid arthritis, and just after the gene therapy (also using a virus for delivery) was injected into her knee, she developed a sudden infection that caused organ failure. An investigation concluded that her death was likely not a direct result of the gene therapy, but some experts think that with something as treatable as rheumatoid arthritis she should never have been entered into such a trial. They argued that, because of the risks, gene therapy should only be used for treating life-threatening illness.
In other words, genetic engineering should only be tried in cases where the benefits will outweigh the risks, as in the treatment of life-threatening conditions. Currently, gene therapy is being undertaken because the risk of the genetic engineering is outweighed by the devastation of the disease it is attempting to cure. With the risks inherent in genetic modification, it should never be attempted on an otherwise healthy person.
You may be thinking that such risky enhancement experiments would never happen. Scientists and doctors would never attempt genetic modifications in healthy humans; human enhancements only exist in science fiction and will stay there. Except science and academia are already looking into it.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded Maxwell Mehlman, director of the Law-Medicine Center at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, $773,000 to develop standards for tests on human subjects in genetic-enhancement research. Research that would take otherwise normal humans and make them smarter, stronger or better-looking. If the existing human-trial standards cannot meet the ethical conditions needed for genetic-enhancement research, Mehlman has been asked to recommend changes.
In a recent paper in the journal Ethics, Policy & Environment, S. Matthew Liao, a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University, explored ways humanity can change its nature to combat “climate change.” One of the suggestions Liao discusses is to genetically engineer human eyes to be like cat eyes so we can all see in the dark. This would reduce the need for lighting and reduce energy usage. Liao also discusses genetically modifying our offspring to be smaller so they eat less and use fewer resources.
Of course, Liao insists these are just discussions of possibilities, but what begins as discussions among academics often becomes common among the masses.
Once gene therapy has been perfected and becomes a mainstream treatment for genetic disease, the cries for genetic enhancement will be deafening. The masses will scream that they can do to their bodies as they wish — and they wish to no longer be simply human. They wish to be “super” human.
And with conscience clauses for medical professionals under attack, doctors and nurses may be unable to morally object to genetically altering their perfectly healthy patient or a parent’s perfectly healthy child.
It is important for Catholics to not turn their backs on technical advancements in biotechnology simply because the advancements are complex.
We can still influence the public consciousness when it comes to human genetic engineering. We are obliged to loudly draw the line between therapy and enhancement — otherwise, society, like Frum, will confuse the two.
It is not too late to make sure medically relevant genetic engineering does not turn into engineering that forever changes the nature of man.
Rebecca Taylor is a clinical
laboratory specialist in
molecular biology.
She writes about bioethics on her
blog Mary Meets Dolly.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you for writing about this Rebecca. It is so important to recover a sense of what nature is and how it reveals God’s law to us so that we can readily distinguish between medicine and experimentation - the former seeks to assist nature to do its job whereas the latter seeks to supplant nature. The nature that has been given us by God reveals to us his wisdom and love, and sets limits on what we can do with it. But it also reveals to us that we are the center of visible universe and that all creatures other than man are at our disposal. Hence genetically altering brute animals is allowed, insofar as it truly serves human purposes, but altering humans is not. Keep up the good fight!
Great article on a topic often ignored. A recent episode of Fringe gave me some hope that the common utopian presentation of trans-humanism is getting some public scrutiny, but more attention is needed.
We have fought monsters trying to “improve” humanity before by selecting qualities they considered superior, and now doctors are attempting to remold humanities as they see fit. Fixing genetic damage is a very good thing, but genetic enhancement quickly descends into the nightmarish.
The one thing I don’t understand is this: How do we define normal?
For the purposes of an example, suppose that a normal person creates 70-75 units of dystrophin, and that only producing 40 units or less is equivalent to having DMD. If Person A only creates 68 units of dystrophin, then is that person eligible for gene therapy in order to become “normal”? 68 units is still far outside of having DMD, so where is the line between therapy and enhancement?
And what about someone who naturally makes more dystrophin than “normal?” If Person B naturally makes 83 units of dystrophin, then what is our stance regarding that person? Do we just call that person a statistical outlier and disregard their high dystrophin production? If it’s naturally possible for someone to produce 83 units of dystrophin then why shouldn’t everyone be able to produce an equivalent amount?
It seems that to define “normal” that we will have to set parameters on every possible human achievement.
Are we really going to say that the average person can lift X amount, run X miles per hour, read X words per minute, have an IQ of X points, be able to see for X miles, etc. etc, and define all of human capacity with an absolute measuring stick?
I will agree with the Church 100% of the time, but I can’t for the life of me figure out how the Church will define “normal.”
Any law may be broken to save a life. Thus we have the practice of medicine and the reason for gene therapy. The law that is broken is the law of informed consent by the human person, the exercise of free will that separates the human person from the brute animal. One does not ask permission to pull a man from a burning building, or stop a man from committing murder. Love demands such action. The common good demands such sacrifice. Civilization demands the acknowledgement of the human beings’ freedom to exercise his free will with reason.
The gene therapy will then be passed on in heredity to all generations, curing and preventing the disease from continuing.
In genetic enhancement, the gene manipulations will, too, be passed on to all future generations and will become part of our gene pool as it were, but without informed consent of the heirs, without grave reason, without purpose, except the whim of the originator, unjustifiable, without guaranteed benefits, and without protection from possible harm. Scientists have produced dwarf, deformed and stillborn cattle, which was not their intent, but cows are not the human person. Two errors are obvious in the writing of David Frum. David Frum conflates gene therapy with gene enhancement, but later identifies both therapy and enhancement as “therapy”, going on to say: “Among those rules: that these therapies be available to all.” “…these therapies, (enhancement as therapy) be available to all.” Carte blanche, blank check for the man who cannot discern therapy from enhancement.
David: You are assuming an immediate miraculous cure. As anybody knows to lose weight, the human body needs time to adjust to the weight loss, bones shrink, skin shrinks, organs adjust, but it takes time. The whole human body must adjust. One never hears about the body builders who did not survive their ingestion of body building supplements. Here, we are talking about gene manipulations. The DMD patient may never be “normal” but he may survive longer and have a better quality of life, or he may die.
I mentioned this over on the Mary Meets Dolly blog, but the whole idea that we need to change our bodies isn’t just immoral, it’s regressive. One of the defining characteristics of anatomically modern humans is that we make specialized tools—that is, rather than adapting our bodies, we adapt our technology.
The Transhumanists have this idea called the Kurzweil Singularity, where biological evolution will be replaced by technological innovation. Only…it already happened. In the Upper Paleolithic.
Why bother changing your body when you can just use gear? In the comparatively near future your iPhone isn’t just going to have a phone, a camera, and a GPS; you’ll also be able to use it as infrared goggles, “augmented reality” display (readouts that show information on things in the field of view), and probably binoculars. Are we really going to genetically modify our eyeballs or install mechanical ones, when we can just get the functionality from consumer electronics?
Of course not. The Transhumanists are going to look as silly to future generations as 19th century speculations about our era look to us.
Mary I don’t think I am assuming anything at all. I just want to know how we are going to define normal.
If ten people naturally have 20/40 vision and an eleventh person naturally has 20/15 vision, then what is normal? How do we come up with an objective standard for deciding when something has crossed the line from being therapy to enhancement?
The Catholic Church may find it possible to make a clear distinction between “gene therapy” and “genetic enhancement” but to anyone without a solid background in moral theology and Christian ethics—meaning 99% of the population, this distinction is likely to be blurred. It is a useful distinction to make of course, but I don’t see a way to effectively adjudicate these issues in a way that doesn’t open up the door wide for abuse. In most cases the Catholic Church’s official position on ethical teachings, such as its stand on abortion and contraceptive (not permissible even in cases of hardship), is at least easy to understand, even if it is difficult to enforce. There is no “slippery slope” or ambiguity in understanding of the Church’s position. Individuals can reject the Church’s teaching, but they don’t have to wonder whether a particular circumstance is or is not within the bounds of official Church teaching. The topic of gene therapy is much more difficult for the layman to understand. Thanks for a helpful article that at least makes a good attempt at clarifying the Church’s position.
@David I don’t think it is so much about defining what is normal, but identifying a genetic pathology and trying to treat it if that is what is in the best interest of the patient. Drawing a line between therapy for those who are sick and enhancement for those who aren’t, would prevent all manner of crazy engineering like engineering human eyes to be like cat eyes or engineering children to glow-in-the-dark (don’t laugh, it has been suggested) which certainly falls outside the realm of “normal”
@Tom you are absolutely right: making better technology like phones, glasses and computers that we can use and stop using without seeing a doctor is the way to go. But there is this dream, augmented by movies, TV and video games, of integrating technology into our bodies or replacing perfectly good limbs or eyes with mechanical ones. I do not discount the push to go the transhumanist route. Many people I encounter are very enamored with transhumanism because they do not understand what you obviously do.
re: therapy vs. enhancement
A parallel might be made between this and cosmetic surgery to repair damaged tissue vs. cosmetic surgery to eradicate signs of aging. Does the Catholic Church “clearly” teach that facelifts, breast implants, liposuction, etc. are always immoral? If not, why is genetic “enhancement” all that different from cosmetic surgery?
Jennifer: The Catholic Church teaches that all surgery must be necessary, so cosmetic surgery is not acceptable. Sixteen percent of the human brain is damaged with every general anesthesia, so that doctora are now limiting general anesthesia to once a year. It has been found that it takes a patient a year to recover. Some people have adverse reactions to anesthesia.
David: Please know that the practice of medicine carries no guarantees. And “normal” must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Again only to cure. Which makes for a very good argument against genetic enhancement.
There was a Twilight Zone by Rod Serling. The man made a pact with the devil played by no less than Julie Newmar(of Catwoman fame. The man wanted to be young again. So the devil played by Julie Newmar, who would not trust that face? agreed. As the man began to run, he dropped dead. As he lay dying he asked the devil what happened. She said you did not say anything about your heart, your liver, your spleen. Consumer beware. God promised Margaret anything she wanted: a million dollars and to live to be one hundred years of age. Margaret had her face lifted, her hair dyed and was struck and killed by lightening. “God what happened?” said Margaret. “Margaret, is that you? I did not recognize you.”
Rebecca,
Over the years I have seen society moving further away from church teachings and I can’t say that we have become stronger or better as a society for it. I have also seen where many Catholics pick and choose what teachings they wish to follow and ones they do not. In most cases, we look at the impact of these issues based on the impact on the individual and not on the impact on society. We hear how the government and the church need to become more “progressive” and change with the times. It is my belief that we need to get back to the teachings of the church. I have seen over the last several years an erosion of the sanctity of life and the commitment of marriage. The end result has been less accountability for ones actions, more single parent families, increased poverty and a society that has lost it’s moral compass.
The means of getting from point “a” gene therapy to point “b” gene manipulation is to equate the two as being the same. This is exactly what is occurring in regards to cloning. The dirty little secret is that while they talk about all the possibilities and benefits, they never discuss the failures or the ramifications. It is my belief that when they discuss gene therapy/manipulation or cloning, they purposefully blur the lines and do not report the facts. There is an agenda.
What I envision is that we would have a situation not to different from what Hitler was tring to achieve- a superior race. To achieve that, who would be able to survive? how many children could one family have? who makes that decision.
Now is the time for the people of the Catholic church and other christians to stand together against this. Thanks for your passiona and the information that you provide.
Frankly, I tend to be even more cautious than the Church on this topic. This raises the question for me of the morality of changing the essential nature of who we are at conception and as we develop in the womb. Where do you draw the line? Is an embryo with Trisonomy abnormal or is that embryo going to develop into the person God meant them to be?
What about homosexuality? Is that an abnormality to potentially be changed with “therapy”? Or is it simply a characteristic like skin color or body type that is part of the human continuum and changing it amounts to “enhancement” to make their way easier in society? Who decides what is abnormal and what is simply a normal human varient, like albinism or red hair or left handedness for instance? If some abnormalities can be altered, what does that mean for children whose parents chose not to alter them? Will the parents be charged with child abuse or the child discriminated against by the state in say, educational assistance?
Regarding tranhumanistic enhancements - how many organs can be transplanted or body parts replaced with bioengineered devices before we say it’s messing with what is God’s province and attempting to deny death? Does the Church have a number or even think a guideline is possible? Or will the Church by default end up supporting the quest to live forever? How long can the Church justify their refusal to accept technologies like IVF while allowing genetic intervention/manipulation in utero that changes the very nature of the original zygote?
Frankly I see the potential for the Church’s support of genetic therapies to become a monster that is unstoppable once it starts - in fact perhaps it even started with organ transplants which is hardly ‘Natural’ in any sense of the word. I see the Church constantly fighting and losing an ever evolving, ever more complex moral argument. And lastly, all this money spent on researching these therapies when we can’t even provide basic health care for every citizen. Is that even moral?
A new and excellent, very necessary book to read about Biotechnologies is also the book: “Promises of New Biotechnologies”
Preface by William E. May
http://www.amazon.com/Promises-of-New-Biotechnologies-ebook/dp/B004TM9CZO
http://www.amazon.com/Promises-New-Biotechnologies-Edith-Breburda/dp/0615548288
I found that customer review:
Dr. Breruda has taken a very difficult subject, make it easier to understand and provided a well-document analysis. This is a must-read selection for those who may be beneficiaries or victims of the new biotechnologies.
That is all of us.
A new and excellent, very necessary book to read about Biotechnologies is also the book: “Promises of New Biotechnologies”
Preface by William E. May
http://www.amazon.com/Promises-of-New-Biotechnologies-ebook/dp/B004TM9CZO
http://www.amazon.com/Promises-New-Biotechnologies-Edith-Breburda/dp/0615548288
I found that customer review:
Dr. Breruda has taken a very difficult subject, make it easier to understand and provided a well-document analysis. This is a must-read selection for those who may be beneficiaries or victims of the new biotechnologies.
That is all of us.
hi how r u?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.