Unnatural Selection IV: Objections to Genetic Biohacking , Part 1

Objections to Genetic Engineering
 

The implications of these the previous posts theological reflections can be illustrated by considering some common objections to genetic engineering and/or biohacks.

Genetic Engineering Is Dangerous

I have zero doubt…as with any other technology that genetic manipulation and biohacks have great potential for misuse. Humanistic science has not been immune from arrogance in its Utopian ambitions. We need only revisit Nazi Germany. The history of Margaret Sanger and eugenics movement provides many unfortunate examples of such human folly also. In the first half of the twentieth century, for example, 30 states in the United States enacted eugenic laws that included directives for compulsory sterilization of the mentally handicapped AND minorities. It is therefore vital that the debate about biohacking remains firmly in the public domain, and that Christians in particular remain active and well informed in their contributions just as with other hot-button cultural issues. So genetic engineering of itself is not dangerous, it is the one that wields the technology. A hammer can be a tool, but it can also be a weapon.

Genetic Engineering Is Unnatural

Ironically, in marked contrast to other recent technologies, the ‘toolkit’ of the genetic engineer is entirely derived from products found naturally within the created order. What people mean by ‘natural’ often turns out to mean ‘what I am personally used to’. Flying, watching TV and car-driving all appeared unnatural at first. Furthermore, ‘naturalness’ does not necessitate desirability. Pathogenic viruses, bacteria and mosquitoes are all natural but people generally approve of destroying them whenever possible. ‘Naturalness’ is therefore irrelevant to the ethical debate about genetic engineering because in truth, we already do things to alter our genome every day. The way we eat, expose ourselves to the sun and even the production of offspring.

The more substantial theological argument suggests that we should not change the sacrosanct οὐσία ousia (essence) or τέλος telos (goal) of any living organism. Both concepts come directly from Aristotelian philosophy and find mention in the Scriptures. The biohacking of female turkeys to make them less broody (so they lay more eggs), has been attacked as ‘a serious violation of the intrinsic value of the creature’. The precise definition of this ‘essence’ or ‘goal’ of a species is, however, problematic. The boundaries are drawn between species (kinds) in Scripture but what of alteration to improve health within species? In truth the domestication of animals and the breeding of new crop strains for food has been going on for many millennia. In essence, this is a primitive form or biohack at a systemic level, not at the base genetic level. Changes within the gene were produced by manipulation of the system via hereditary experiments and or domestication start at a time immemorial.

This then begs further questions like, is the ‘essence’ of a species supposed to refer to its original state or its present state? Is the ‘essence’ of ‘dogness’ better represented by a German Shepherd or by a Rottweiler? Both belong to the same species. If ‘essence’ is taken to refer to the genome of a plant or animal as if a static entity, then this is simply false. DNA is always changing, albeit slowly. In practice the applications of a biohack are not to change the identity of species but to introduce minor genetic modifications into humans, plants and animals to make them more productive or to prevent and cure human disease.