Re: mitochondrial engineering?

From: Jonathan Clarke (jdac@alphalink.com.au)
Date: Sun May 06 2001 - 19:15:59 EDT

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Distal vs. proximate: Timing of design events and Pax-6"

    Hi George

    Of course Tito's flight is a very symbolic event (lucky so and so, wish I had a spare $20
    million). Even here (and on the BBC) it rates highly - but as a science-tech story. the
    genetically modifed babies was front page headline news, more important that politics or
    sport.

    I agree, we need to emphasise theologically that GM humans, clones, etc, are fully human,
    fully in the image of God, and communicate this message to Christians, as well as non
    Christians. Otherwise we soon be accepting the existance of various classes of people,
    based on their genetic makeup, and treating them accordingly. But we need to then explain
    very clearly what we mean by the image of God, what we mean by the God given authority to
    humanity as stewards of creation, and how the issues of ethics and justice can be
    addressed to such complex issues (like, do a small number of women in the wealthiest
    country on earth really need to have their wishes for children gratified by application of
    highly expensive technology when millions die through preventable diseases?).

    Jon

    george murphy wrote:

    > I shouldn't suggest that there has been no mention of this in the US - it is
    > e.g. in CNN's US sci-tech news, though ranking below Dennis Tito there.
    > The concern about treating genetically modified children as not fully human is
    > a very realistic. It will become even more so with things like deliberate alteration
    > of the nuclear germline (as distinguished from scatter-gun additions to mDNA) and
    > cloning. & like it or not, somebody is going to do those things eventually.
    > I think that the decision has to be made now, before that happens, that
    > individuals from genetically modified germlines and clones are to be treated as fully
    > human. (I refer to their legal and theological status - two different things of
    > course. OTOH we can't simply "decide" what the attitude of the general populace will
    > be.) If this isn't done we are setting ourselves up for some serious problems. That
    > doesn't in itself mean that doing such things is to be approved or encouraged - though
    > it would tend to remove an obstacle from such work.
    >
    > Shalom,
    >
    > George
    >
    > George L. Murphy
    > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    > "The Science-Theology Interface"



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 06 2001 - 19:08:49 EDT