Some Questions

This article was originally written as a ‘discussion starter’ for the Social Responsibilities Commission. It is intended to take the reader through a series of steps to deeper thinking about the issues raised.

The aspect of gene technology which was first presented to the Social Responsibilities Commission with request for comment, was that of gene technology in the food industry, following guidelines which have been developed for Australia and New Zealand. Is it right to alter the genes of the plant and animal world? It should be stressed that genetic alteration of food has been happening in a controlled, deliberate method for decades.

To some extent, this has been happening for generations in an ad-hoc manner. Farmers have been cross-pollinating crops for centuries, and breeding animals for particular traits is also a common practice. Perhaps the difference is that where animal husbandry or agriculture permitted this on a small-scale basis (one farmer’s crops, one farmyard’s animals), the current gene technology debate appears to be more global in its effects. This is considered to be a separate issue from that of gene technology in humans, and one which is apparently more acceptable for most people. Altering a wheat gene to resist a particular bacterium could be seen to be a good thing, in that it might permit more successful harvests and reduce reliance on fertilizers. This gene transformation could be carried into future wheat grains and affect future crops, helping to feed populations and control pests and use of pesticides.

QUESTION 1: How is altering a wheat gene different from altering a human gene?

Gene technology when applied to humans also appears to have several levels, each with its own ethical implications. The first would be at the individual level. A man is told that he suffers from Huntington’s disease. He is offered a controversial new therapy that would alter his genetic structure, removing the Huntington’s gene from his DNA. He would, in time, no longer have the disease, thus living his life to its full span without the suffering of neurological deterioration.

QUESTION 2: How is altering an individual’s gene structure different from altering a genetic line?

For instance, if a pregnant woman is told that she is a carrier of the cystic fibrosis gene, she might be offered the opportunity to undergo tests to determine whether the baby she is carrying would suffer from the disease. If the baby does carry the dominant gene, it may be technically possible to alter the baby’s gene structure, in utero, to prevent the development of the disease. A human being could then be given the chance to live without the stigma and suffering of this particular disease. More importantly, the baby would no longer be a carrier of the disease. As an adult she could bear children knowing that she would not pass on to her offspring the inherited traits of her family. Over the course of several generations, the disease itself would cease to exist.

QUESTION 3: How is altering the gene of a genetic line different from altering the genes of a particular group of people?

It has been suggested that homosexuality is a genetic propensity, rather than a biological or an environmental/cultural factor or an individual decision. It might be technically possible to alter the genetic structure of homosexuals, or people with blue eyes, or people with black skin, or people with violent natures, so that these traits themselves would disappear. These decisions may be made with the best intentions for the good of society.

QUESTION 4: On what basis are these questions to be answered?

As scientists learn more about our genetic structure, the concept of genetic disease has expanded. Some scientists now use the term to encompass aspects of human behaviour which have less than 100% inheritability, such as heart disease and diabetes. Conversely, it has been argued that even with some genetic diseases, environmental, social and psychological factors play an important part in the development of the disease throughout a person’s life (for example, not all women with risk factors for breast cancer, a disease for which scientists are now speaking of a genetic predisposition, will develop the disease). Potentially, using gene therapy as the sole line of therapeutic inquiry may ignore other equally important factors which create suffering within human life. This biological reductionism also has consequences for the types of decisions we make regarding our limited resources (financial, physical, structural) and the values that we espouse. This line of reasoning presumes a medical/scientific cause and solution for most of the problems we face, which can discourage research into non-medical and other medical solutions, as well as the development of a humanistic response to those who suffer and indeed, the place of suffering in our lives.

QUESTION 5: What is the role of the Church in exploring the Christian response to the questions presented by the development of gene technology?