This from Wired, via Philosophy News, via the Society of Christian
Philosophers mailing list. (Some good links at Wired, too.)
John
-----Original Message-----
From: scp-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu [mailto:scp-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]
On Behalf Of Philosophy News Service * richard jones
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 2:24 PM
To: Society of Christian Philosophers Listserv
Subject: Embarrassing God
"God gave us ... a curiosity to understand his creation," Collins said.
"I donāt think we need to worry that we will move into an exploration
that will embarrass him."
====================================================
Where's God in the Machine?
by Jordan Lite
3:00 a.m. Jul. 24, 2000 PDT
DEERFIELD, Illinois ö The scientist climbed the twisted ladder of
proteins that make humans the species they are and realized he'd
glimpsed secrets that once only God knew. Now he stands atop that pile
of chemicals and asks the heavens when the right time would be to get
down.
Such is the life of Francis Collins, geneticist extraordinaire. Still
smiling ear-to-ear over the recently completed sequencing of the human
genome, Collins the scientist is nonetheless engaged in an internal
battle with Collins the believer over just how far is far enough in the
quest to learn how humans work.
Frequently enthusiastic and often conflicted, the director of the Human
Genome Project said in a far-ranging and revealing speech Friday night
that the promise of genome research "is so great that the unethical
thing we could do would be to slow it down." Still, he said, "the
dignity of the human being should not be compromised by what about human
beings would be interesting to explore."
Speaking to a Christian-oriented bioethics conference outside Chicago,
Collins said that goal means no germline therapy ö- tampering with DNA
in ways that could permanently alter future generations ö- at least for
now. He fears that information derived from the genome won't just be
used to treat genetically inherited diseases, but to discriminate
against the disadvantaged and to enhance traits considered more trivial.
The use of embryos for research on human stem cells is another source of
torment, as National Institutes of Health scientists fight Congress over
a ban on federal funds for such endeavors they say could successfully
treat cancer and degenerative neurological diseases.
"There are scientists who are interested in human development and donāt
come at this issue from a faith perspective and don't attach particular
significance to these cells. A lot of people would love to unravel those
details. You have to be sympathetic with their interest," Collins said.
"My own position is to be intensely conflicted, to be honest."
Though decisions about germline therapy and stem-cell research are not
among Collins' responsibilities, the debates come at a time when the
speed of technological innovation seems to be nurturing among the
general public a sense of genetic determinism that worries him. More
effort must be made to educate the public about what the genome project
is about, he said.
"We are being thought of as machines, that we are DNA and that is all,"
he said. "That is not the conclusion I draw. Science is not going to
render free will obsolete. It will not shed light on what it means to
love someone."
It will, however, allow doctors to more precisely identify individual
risk of disease and offer much more promising treatments -ö prospects
that leave Collins optimistic that the mapping effort and other research
will lead to more good than harm.
"God gave us ... a curiosity to understand his creation," Collins said.
"I donāt think we need to worry that we will move into an exploration
that will embarrass him."
An openly religious man, Collins is aware that his faith could be
construed as prohibitive of scientific exploration. A February 1998
profile in Scientific American described Collins as being generally
admired among other researchers and bioethicists for keeping his
religious beliefs separate from his work, but noted that he has been
criticized for not urging a reversal of the ban on federally funded
embryo research.
Collins's faith is part of his work, acknowledged Arthur Caplan,
director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania,
"But I've never seen it interfere. He can crack the genetic code without
causing cracks in his spiritual integrity.
"Usually the way people square off their strong faith beliefs is they
stay out of those most contentious areas," added Caplan, who advised
both the government and privately held Celera on the ethical issues
involved with their mapping of the human genome. "At the end of the day
though, science and religion view each other sort of like North and
South Korea."
During an informal Q&A with the media following his speech Friday night,
Collins said that "if faith has meaning it can't be off in one part of
you. It has to be integrated. I think my faith adds to the experience of
being a scientist in the way that discovering something has more
meaning; sort of glimpsing the mind of God."
His spirituality evolved from teenage agnosticism to atheism in college
and eventually, as a medical resident, he discovered he believed in God.
"I began to get uneasy about the decision I'd made because I was
surrounded by patients whose faith was clearly important to them. The
more I became uneasy about that, the more I realized I didn't know
enough," he said.
"I stayed in a 'plausible mode' for a year, and finally ... while on a
hike in the Cascade Mountains, I thought this was irresistible and what
an enormous relief. I was 27. I've certainly never been tempted to go
back."
SOURCE: http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,37692,00.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 25 2000 - 16:09:40 EDT