RE: GENETICS

From: Collins, Francis (NHGRI) (francisc@exchange.nih.gov)
Date: Tue Mar 26 2002 - 06:59:19 EST

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "The Mediterranean Flood"

    Hello Shuan et al.
        Wow, any one of these questions could occupy many paragraphs. Please
    forgive the brief responses below, which is all that time will currently
    allow.
        Francis

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Shuan Rose [mailto:shuanr@boo.net]
    Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 12:45 PM
    To: asa@calvin.edu
    Subject: GENETICS

    Dear Dr. Collins,
    Greetings and welcome to the ASA listserv! A few questions, if you please:
     
     
    1. How has your study of the human genome added to your understanding of
    relationship between man and the rest of creation
    THE DETAILED ANALYSIS OF DNA, HUMAN AND NON-HUMAN, ADDS FURTHER CONFIDENCE
    TO THE RELATEDNESS OF ALL LIVING ORGANISMS. I AM BOTH AMAZED AT THE
    INTRICACY OF THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS, AND AWED BY GOD'S PLAN IN CREATING
    THROUGH THIS MECHANISM.
     
    2. A famous scientist (Richard Dawkins) once wrote:
     
    DNA doesn't care. DNA just is -and we dance to its music ( River Out of
    Eden, in the Chapter, "God's Utility Function".)
    Would you agree that our genes determine not only our physiology, but our
    conduct. NOT AT ALL! DAWKINS OVERPLAYS THE GENETIC DETERMINISM CARD TO A
    RIDICULOUS EXTREME. CERTAINLY THERE ARE INHERITED CONTRIBUTIONS TO
    PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOR, BUT ANYONE WHO HAS GOTTEN TO KNOW IDENTICAL TWINS
    VERY WELL CAN TELL YOU THERE IS A LOT MORE TO CONDUCT THAN THAT. THE
    KNOWLEDGE OF THE GENOME WILL NOT TELL US VERY MUCH ABOUT LOVE. IT WILL NOT
    ABOLISH FREE WILL. AND IT WILL ONLY INCREASE OUR NEED FOR GOD.
     
    3.What in your view should be the Christian position on stem cell research
    and why? REASONABLE PEOPLE OF SINCERE FAITH WILL DISAGREE ON THIS, SO
    PERHAPS IT IS NOT REALISTIC TO PROPOSE A "CHRISTIAN POSITION". IT IS A
    MATTER OF TRYING TO ASSESS THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE NEGATIVES (KILLING A
    HUMAN EMBRYO, BUT RECOGNIZING THAT MOST LIKELY THIS AN EMBRYO ALREADY
    TARGETED FOR DESTRUCTION AFTER IVF) AND THE POSITIVES (THE POSSIBILITY OF
    HEALING TERRIBLE DISEASES, WITHOUT KNOWING IN ADVANCE IF THIS WILL REALLY
    WORK).
     
    4. What in your view should be the Christian position on cloning research
    and why? AGAIN THERE IS UNLIKELY TO BE A "CHRISTIAN POSITION". I AGREE
    WITH THE VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE THAT REPRODUCTIVE HUMAN
    CLONING SHOULD BE BANNED. BUT I THINK THE DISCUSSION OF SOMATIC CELL
    NUCLEAR TRANSFER (SCNT) TO GENERATE SELF-TOLERATED CELLS FOR TRANSPLANTATION
    PURPOSES HAS BEEN MOSTLY RATHER NAIVE. SHOULD WE HAVE LEAPT SO QUICKLY TO
    THE TERM "EMBRYO" TO REFER TO THE PRODUCT OF THE FUSION OF A NUCLEUS FROM AN
    ADULT DIFFERENTIATED CELL AND THE CYTOPLASM OF AN OOCYTE? OUR TERMINOLOGY
    HAS DUG HOLES FOR US, AND WE HAVE FALLEN IN. I DON'T SEE WHY THE PRODUCT
    OF SCNT SHOULD BE ASSUMED TO HAVE A SOUL, JUST BECAUSE IT HAS THE POTENTIAL
    (IF IMPLANTED INTO A UTERUS AND SURVIVING A PROCESS WHICH MOSTLY ENDS BADLY)
    OF BECOMING A PERSON. SUPPOSE WE LEARN WHAT THE PROTEIN AND NON-PROTEIN
    SIGNALS ARE IN OOCYTE CYTOPLASM THAT ALLOW THIS KIND OF DE-DIFFERENTIATION
    OF ANY ADULT CELL NUCLEUS? THEN WOULD NOT ALL OF MY CELLS AND ALL OF YOUR
    CELLS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BECOME NEW HUMAN BEINGS? WOULD WE CONSIDER THEM
    ENSOULED? THIS REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM ARGUMENT HASN'T BEEN MUCH CONSIDERED.
     
     
    5. Will we be able to bioengineer certain traits, like blond hair and
    intelligence, in our children any time soon? Should we. WE HAVE VERY
    LITTLE INFORMATION ABOUT THE GENES THAT CONTROL SUCH TRAITS AT PRESENT.
    PERHAPS IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS WE WILL LEARN MORE. BUT THE ABILITY TO
    MANIPULATE TRAITS SUCH AS INTELLIGENCE WILL BE VERY POOR, GIVEN THE
    PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT. IN MY VIEW, THE USE OF
    GENETIC TECHNOLOGY FOR THESE PURPOSES CROSSES A LINE INTO ENHANCEMENT THAT
    WE SHOULD PONDER LONG AND HARD BEFORE LEAPING.
     
     
    6. I have heard talk that there are "aging" genes that we may one day be
    able to switch off. Is there any truth to that? CERTAINLY IN EXPERIMENTAL
    ANIMALS THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE FOR GENES THAT AFFECT THE AGING PROCESS. IT
    WOULD BE SURPRISING IF THE SAME IS NOT TRUE OF HUMANS. IN FACT, RECENT
    STUDIES ON CENTENARIANS POINTS TO A REGION ON CHROMOSOME 4 AS HARBORING SUCH
    A GENE. WHETHER SUCH AGING GENES WILL BE SUBJECT TO MANIPULATION IS
    ENTIRELY UNKNOWN.
     
    7. Scientists have speculated about humans changing the course of " human
    evolution", i.e. by adapting us to be able to live on non earth planets. Is
    this possible? What should be the Christian response to such ideas?
    STEPHEN HAWKING AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN PUSHING THIS IDEA. BUT CHANGING OUR
    FUNDAMENTAL NATURE WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A PROFOUND EFFECT ON OUR
    RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. WOULD WE GO FROM IMAGO DEI TO SOMETHING ELSE?
     
    I apologize to the doctor and the list serv for asking amateurish,
    speculative questions. Frankly , I don't have the expertise to ask the
    technical stuff. I hope the others will do that. Thanks in advance for any
    answers,
    Regards,
     
    Shuan Rose
    2632 N Charles Street,Baltimore MD 21218
    [410]467-2655
     



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 26 2002 - 06:59:48 EST