Van Huyssteen J.W. (editor) Encyclopedia of Science and Religion

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

GALILEO GALILEI

— 351—

phenomena caused by refraction in the atmos-

phere and he wrote a Discourse on the Comets to

criticise the account of Father Orazio Grassi

(1583–1654), a professor of mathematics at the Col-

legio Romano, who claimed the comets were real

bodies beyond the moon. Grassi published a re-

joinder, to which Galileo replied. The result was

bitter enmity between himself and the Jesuits.

What changed Galileo’s Copernican fortune

was the election of Cardinal Maffeo Barberini to

the Roman Pontificate in 1623. The following

spring Galileo journeyed to Rome, and the new

Pope, Urban VIII (1623–1644), granted him no less

than six audiences. Galileo returned to Florence

feeling that he could now write about the motion

of the earth. In January 1630 his long awaited Di-

alogue on the Two Chief World Systems was ready

for publication and the manuscript was sent to

Rome where a friend, Giovanni Ciampoli, played a

vital role in securing permission to print the book.

Ciampoli exceeded his powers and was largely re-

sponsible for Galileo’s subsequent trouble.

The Dialogue had gone to press in Florence in

June 1631. The publisher had decided to print a

thousand copies, a large edition for the time, and

the work was not completed until February 1632.

Copies did not reach Rome until the end of March

or early April. Pope Urban VIII created a commis-

sion to investigate the licensing of the Dialogue. In

the file on Galileo at the Holy Office the commis-

sion found an unsigned memorandum of 1616 stat-

ing that he had been enjoined not to teach that the

earth moves. The commission concluded that

Galileo had disobeyed a formal order of the Holy

Office, and Galileo was summoned to Rome, arriv-

ing, after much delay, on February 13, 1633. De-

spite his vigorous denial, Galileo was judged to

have contravened the orders of the Church. On the

morning of June 22, 1633, he was taken to a hall in

the convent of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva in Rome

and was made to kneel while the sentence con-

demning him to imprisonment was read out aloud.

Still kneeling, Galileo formally adjured his error.

He was allowed to leave for Siena and later, in

1634, to return to Florence, where he was con-

fined to his house in Arcetri.

Later years and modern assessment

Galileo sought comfort in work, and within two

years he completed the Discourse on Two New

Sciences, the book on which his lasting fame as a

scientist rests. In this work Galileo studied the

structure of matter and the strength of materials,

and explained motion in the light of the times-

squared law of falling bodies and the independent

composition of velocities. Together these laws en-

abled him to give an accurate description of the

parabolic path of projectiles. When he cast about

for a publisher, he came up against a new problem:

the Church had issued a general prohibition against

printing or reprinting any of his books. Galileo’s

manuscript was sent to the Protestant Louis Elzevier

in Holland, where it appeared in 1638. Galileo be-

came blind in that year, and he remained under

house arrest until his death on January 8, 1642, five

weeks before his seventy-eighth birthday.

In contemporary times, the Roman Catholic

Church has recognized that the trial of Galileo

rested on a misunderstanding of the moral author-

ity of the Church. This was clearly expressed by

Pope John Paul II in 1983 at a commemoration of

the 350th anniversary of the publication of the Di-

alogue on the Two Chief World Systems. The Pope

declared that divine revelation does not involve

any particular scientific theory of the universe, and

that the Holy Spirit does not guarantee our human

explanations of the physical constitution of reality.

Galileo had made exactly that point in his letter to

Christina of Lorraine.

See also ASTRONOMY; CHRISTIANITY, ROMAN CATHOLIC,

SSUES IN SCIENCE AND RELIGION; COSMOLOGY;

RAVITATION; MATHEMATICS; SCIENCE AND

ELIGION, MODELS AND RELATIONS

Bibliography

Blackwell, Richard J. Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible.

Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1991.

Fantoli, Annibale. Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the

Church, 2nd edition. Rome: Vatican Observatory Pub-

lications, 1996.

Finocchiaro, Maurice A. The Galileo Affair: A Documentary

History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.

Galileo Galilei. Le Opere di Galileo Galilie, ed. Antonio

Favaro. Florence: G. Barbèrea, 1890-1909.

Koyré, Alexandre. Galileo Studies. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.:

Humanities Press, 1978.

Machamer, Peter. The Cambridge Companion to Galileo.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Redondi, Pietro. Galileo Heretic. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton

University Press, 1987.

LetterG.qxd 3/18/03 1:05 PM Page 351

GAY GENE

— 352—

Sharratt, Michael. Galileo: Decisive Innovator. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Shea, William R. Galileo’s Intellectual Revolution. New

York: Science History Publications, 1972.

Shea, William R. “Galileo and the Church.” In God and

Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between

Christianity and Science, eds. David C. Lindberg and

Ron L. Numbers. Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1986.

WILLIAM R. SHEA

AY GENE

See HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

GENE-CULTURE

COEVOLUTION

See BEHAVIORAL GENETICS; CREATION; DESIGN;

VOLUTION, BIOCULTURAL; EVOLUTION, HUMAN;

ENETIC DETERMINISM; GENETICS; NATURE VERSUS

NURTURE; SOCIOBIOLOGY

GENE PATENTING

Patents give the patent-holder the right to exclude

others from making, using, or selling an invention

for a limited period of time (generally fifteen to

twenty years). They do not confer on patent hold-

ers the right to do anything they wish with the in-

vention. Countries regulate patents differently:

Many grant patents to the first to file, while the

United States grants patents to the first to invent.

Patent rights are extended internationally through

trade negotiations and political treaties. In the

biotechnology arena, patents protect large financial

interests.

Patent law in the United States

U.S. patent law requires that the invention (process

or product) be: (1) novel—not already in the pub-

lic domain; (2) non-obvious—not an obvious

extension of prior art; (3) useful; and (4) fully

disclosed. Interpretations of each criterion are con-

tested.

Prior to 1930, products of nature could not be

patented in the United States. The Plant Patent Act

of 1930 permitted plant breeders to patent new

plants. Until 1980, however, nonplant living matter

was not patentable. Two legal cases changed the

picture. By determining that a strain of bacteria

constituted a patentable invention (Diamond v.

Chakrabarty), the U.S. Supreme Court set the stage

for patenting organisms as human inventions.

(However, at least one critic, Mark Sagoff, argues

that Chakrabarty’s work did not involve a unique

process and should not have been considered a

human invention.) Within a few years, the Patent

and Trademark Office was granting patents on bio-

engineered mice and other living organisms.

The second crucial case was Moore v. Regents

in 1990. Tissue excised from John Moore during

medical treatment was used to develop a commer-

cially valuable line of cells on which a patent was

granted to the researcher. Moore sued. The Cali-

fornia Supreme Court determined that Moore did

not have a proprietary right to his excised tissue or

to the cell line developed from it. This decision

opened the door for additional efforts to derive

patentable tissues from “excess” body parts.

Once patents were granted for living organ-

isms and tissues derived from body parts, it was

not long before the Patent and Trademark Office

began to permit patents on genes and DNA frag-

ments. Efforts to map and sequence the human

genome then sparked a “gold rush” on patents for

human genes. By the end of 2000, Human

Genome Sciences, Inc., a pharmaceutical com-

pany, was reported to hold over one hundred

patents on human genes, with applications pend-

ing for more than 7,500 additional patents.

Objections to gene patenting

The patenting of genes, organisms, and tissues de-

rived from the human body has not gone undis-

puted. In 1995, representatives of some eighty re-

ligious organizations signed a Joint Appeal Against

Human and Animal Patenting. For many religious

representatives, permitting patents on life forms is

arrogating to humans what rightly belongs only to

God: “We believe that humans and animals are cre-

ations of God, not [of] humans, and as such should

not be patented as human inventions.”

LetterG.qxd 3/18/03 1:05 PM Page 352

GENE PATENTING

— 353—

Indeed, for some, the very framing of the issue

as a question of patenting is problematic, since the

language of patent rights already determines what

questions can be raised. Those who believe that

God alone is the author and inventor of living be-

ings would prefer to speak in terms of God’s do-

minion and human duties of stewardship rather

than in the language of human rights and patents

to human “inventions.” Thus, public discourse may

already privilege some perspectives and disadvan-

tage others; the very framing of the issues elimi-

nates some ways of seeing the question.

Another argument against gene patenting rests

on the notion that the human genome is part of

our common human heritage. As such, the genome

should be seen as public property and no single

person, organization, or group should have the

right to exclude others from access to public prop-

erty. Native Americans, in spite of their diversity of

religious and ethical views, generally oppose gene

patenting, seeing it as a new form of biopiracy in

which colonizers steal from natives anything of

value. Serious issues of international justice are

raised by such concerns.

In the popular mind, gene patenting is linked

with practices such as buying and selling of human

body parts. Hence, gene patenting evokes prohibi-

tions against ownership of human beings. If parts

of a body can be owned, then there is no reason

that all the parts could not be owned, resulting in

the ownership of persons. Prohibitions against

buying and selling body parts or owning persons

exist worldwide. In the West in particular, early

Christian belief in a literal resurrection of the body

continues today, as Paul Rabinow states, in an “en-

during cultural understanding that the ‘person’ is

inextricably tied to the sheer materiality of the

body or its parts . . . .” (p. 185). To patent human

genes is thus perceived as patenting persons,

which is repugnant to many. One critic argues that

current patent law in the United States would per-

mit patenting processes for germline genetic inter-

vention, thus leading to rights over a genetically al-

tered human being. The shared presumption that

people cannot be owned thus generates some re-

sistance to patenting of human genes.

Even those who do not utilize explicitly reli-

gious arguments often wish to set bodies and body

parts aside as something that cannot be owned or

patented. The European Union Directive of 1998

states that the human body “and the simple dis-

covery of one of its elements, including the se-

quence of a gene, cannot constitute patentable in-

ventions.” Similarly, lawyer and bioethicist George

Annas has argued strongly against any “ownership”

of human body parts.

Arguments for gene patenting

Proponents of gene patenting counter that patents

are not granted on humans or their bodies, but

only on genes or gene fragments. More impor-

tantly, what is patented is in the laboratory, not in

the living person; holding a patent on a gene does

not grant ownership of the gene inside someone’s

body. For example, Article 5(2) of the European

Union Directive does permit patenting of gene se-

quences that are “isolated from” the body or pro-

duced by a technical process, provided their in-

dustrial application is disclosed. Here, the Directive

balances the conviction that life forms per se

should not be patentable with the reality that in the

contemporary international market access to

patents may be crucial for scientists and investors.

Two major arguments are proffered for gene

patenting. First, such patents are part of the intel-

lectual property rights tradition in which people

have rights over things they have invented. Article

27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

specifically provides that every person has a right

to “protection of the moral and material interests

resulting from any scientific . . . production of

which he is the author.” The notion that there is a

right of ownership deriving from authorship has

deep roots. Seventeenth-century philosopher John

Locke held that each person had a “property” in

his own person and therefore in the work of his

hands; by “mixing his labor” with objects (within

certain constraints), a person gained a property

right in those objects. This labor theory of property

forms the basis for a deeply held conviction that

patents are justified because they embody a right

to the work of one’s hands or one’s mind.

However, under contemporary conditions, the

one who discovered a gene may not hold the

patent. More often, the patent holder is an em-

ploying institution or corporation that sponsors the

research. Hence, the notion that there is a right to

the work of one’s hands or mind applies only am-

biguously to the modern circumstances of gene

patenting.

LetterG.qxd 3/18/03 1:05 PM Page 353

GENE PATENTING

— 354—

The second and more prominent argument for

patenting genes and DNA fragments is a utilitarian

one: patents, as William Haseltine writes, “ensure

the rapid and open dissemination of new knowl-

edge, encourage innovation, and promote com-

merce” (p. 59). Since patents are granted only

where there is full disclosure of the invention,

patents promote open dissemination of knowl-

edge. Since they exclude others from using the in-

vention, they provide time for commercial devel-

opments and thus encourage innovation. These

are typical arguments made in the biotechnology

industry.

Whether the patenting system has these good

effects is difficult to ascertain. Both the Council for

Responsible Genetics and the Human Genome Or-

ganization (HUGO), representing the coordinated

mapping and sequencing efforts of many scientists

worldwide, assert that patents work against the tra-

dition of shared knowledge among researchers.

The current climate of collaboration between uni-

versities and private industry raises particular con-

cerns that patenting may not encourage open shar-

ing of information but rather discourage it in the

interests of developing commercial applications.

Patent holders often permit free access to informa-

tion for those doing basic research but restrict ac-

cess for those doing applied research with com-

mercial potential. In light of these and other

considerations, some urge a moratorium on any

further gene patenting. Others argue that even if

patenting does contribute to the free flow of infor-

mation, stimulate innovation, and promote com-

merce, these good effects must be balanced by

principles of international justice and the common

good, which might require some limitations on

gene patenting.

See also BIOTECHNOLOGY; CREATION; DNA; GENETICS;

UMAN GENOME PROJECT

Bibliography

Andrews, Lori B., and Nelkin, Dorothy. Body Bazaar: The

Market for Human Tissue in the Biotechnology Age.

New York: Crown, 2001.

Annas, George J. “Outrageous Fortune: Selling Other Peo-

ple’s Cells.” Hastings Center Report 20, no. 6 (1990):

36–39.

Chapman, Audrey R. “A Human Rights Perspective on In-

tellectual Property, Scientific Progress, and Access to

the Benefits of Science.” In Intellectual Property and

Human Rights, World Intellectual Property Organiza-

tion, Publication # 762 (E). Geneva, Switzerland:

WIPO, 1999a.

Chapman, Audrey R., ed. Perspectives on Genetic Patent-

ing: Religion, Science, and Industry in Dialogue.

Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Ad-

vancement of Science, 1999b.

Chapman, Audrey R. Unprecedented Choices: Religious

Ethics at the Frontiers of Genetic Science. Minneapo-

lis, Minn.: Fortress, 1999c.

Gold, E. Richard. Body Parts: Property Rights and the

Ownership of Human Biological Materials. Washing-

ton, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1996.

Haseltine, Willliam. “The Case for Gene Patents.” Technol-

ogy Review 5 (2000): 59.

Hensley, Scott. “Celera’s Human Genetic Code Will be

Available on Web Site,” Wall Street Journal. 8 Febru-

ary 2001.

Howard, Ken. “The Bioinformatics Gold Rush.” Scientific

American 283, no. 1 (2000): 58–63.

Kondo, LeRoy L. “Major Considerations in Meeting Re-

quirements for Patents in Biotechnology.” Biotech-

nology Law Report 17, no. 6 (1998): 794.

Locke, John. “Second Treatise on Civil Government”

(1690). In Social Contract: Essays by Locke, Hume,

and Rousseau, ed. Ernest Barker. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1962.

Mattei, Ugo. Basic Principles of Property Law: A Compara-

tive Legal and Economic Introduction. Westport,

Conn.: Greenwood, 2000.

Rabinow, Paul. “Severing the Ties: Fragmentation and

Dignity in Late Modernity.” Knowledge and Society:

The Anthropology of Science and Technology 9

(1992): 169–187.

Regalado, Antonio. “The Great Gene Grab.” Technology

Review 5 (2000): 50.

Sherry, Stephen F. “The Incentive of Patents.” In Genetic

Ethics: Do the Ends Justify the Genes? eds. John F. Kil-

ner, Rebecca D. Pentz, and Frank E. Young. Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997.

Shulman, Seth. “Toward Sharing the Genome.” Technol-

ogy Review 5 (2000): 60.

Wright, Karen. “The Body Bazaar: The Market in Human

Organs is Growing.” In Bioethics, Justice and Health

Care, eds. Wanda Teays and Laura Purdy. Belmont,

Calif.: Wadsworth, 2001. First published in Discover

19 (1998): 115–120.

LetterG.qxd 3/18/03 1:05 PM Page 354

GENESIS

— 355—

Court Cases

Diamond v. Chakrabarty (447 U.S. 303, 1980).

Moore v. Regents (793P.2d 479. Cal 1990 cert.den.111

S.Ct.1388, 1991).

Internet Resources

Sagoff, Mark. “Patented Genes: An Ethical Appraisal.”

Issues in Science and Technology Online. National

Academy of Sciences, Spring 1998. Available from

http://stills.nap.edu/issues.

Who Owns Life? The American Journal of Bioethics On-

line. Produced by the University of Pennsylvania

Center for Bioethics and the MIT Press. Available

from http://ajobonline.com.

KAREN LEBACQZ

GENERAL THEORY OF

RELATIVITY

See RELATIVITY, GENERAL THEORY OF

GENESIS

The importance of the Old Testament book of

Genesis in the history of science stems largely from

the fact that the narrative begins with an account of

creation. A wide variety of theological cosmolo-

gies were based on differing interpretations of

these few verses. Most of these views hinged on

two major issues of interpretation: the nature of the

“beginning” and the primordial materials described

in Genesis 1:1–2; and the six “days” described in

Genesis 1:4–2:3.

Interpretations of Genesis 1: 1–2 varied with

the version of the Bible that was used. The He-

brew version begins with a relative clause: “In the

beginning when God created the heavens and the

earth, the earth was a formless void . . . .” (New

Revised Standard Version), much like the parallel

Hebrew construction in Genesis 2:4. So the He-

brew version of Genesis began with the primordial

materials of formless earth, water, and darkness

(Genesis 1:2). Various interpretations of this “be-

ginning” were possible. Some rabbis accepted the

inference that God began with a pre-existent chaos

and then created an ordered cosmos (Genesis Rab-

bah 1:5). Others brought in texts like Proverbs

8:22–24 to demonstrate that God had created the

water and the darkness and that the “beginning” of

Genesis 1:1 was God’s own wisdom as encoded in

the Torah ( Jubilees 2:2–3; Genesis Rabbah 1:1, 9).

Still others argued that God must have created

worlds before this one (Genesis Rabbah 3:7; 9:2).

Most Diaspora Jews and early Christians, how-

ever, used the Greek translation of the Old Testa-

ment, known as the Septuagint. This text begins

with the absolute statement: “In the beginning God

created the heavens and the earth,” which implied

an absolute beginning for this universe. It also im-

plied that the unformed earth and water were in-

cluded in the initial act of creation. This reading

was followed by pioneering theologians like Basil

of Caesarea (c. 329–379) and Augustine of Hippo

(354–430) and became the standard interpretation

for Christians.

The meaning of the six days of Genesis 1 was

also debated. Some exegetes thought there was a

temporal sequence of days without specifying their

exact length ( Jubilees 2:2; Genesis Rabbah 1:3). For

those who accepted the idea of an absolute begin-

ning, this implied that God created the cosmos in

two stages: God made the building materials (un-

formed earth, water, etc.) at the beginning of the

first day; then God illuminated and formed those

materials as described in the narrative (Wisdom of

Solomon 11:17; 4 Ezra 6:38–40; Justin Martyr).

Others exegetes saw inconsistencies in the

idea of a temporal sequence of days. For example,

the first “day” that is described is assigned a cardi-

nal number (“one day” rather than “first day,” Gen-

esis 1:5) in both the Hebrew and Greek versions

(Genesis Rabbah 2:3; 3:9; Basil); the sun, moon,

and stars appear in the narrative three days after

the first evening and morning. Some Rabbis saw a

nontemporal parallelism between the first three

and the second three days (Genesis Rabbah 12:5).

Others suggested that the ten utterances (“God

said”) of the narrative were patterned after the Ten

Commandments or the construction of the Taber-

nacle (Pirqei Avot 5:1; Midrash Tanhuma). Other

scholars argued that divine creation required no

effort (Genesis Rabbah 12:10) and that it all might

have taken place in a single instant (Philo; Midrash

Tanhuma). This idea of a simultaneous creation of

LetterG.qxd 3/18/03 1:05 PM Page 355

GENE THERAPY

— 356—

all things was followed by early Christian theolo-

gians like Origen (c. 185–254), Athanasius (c.

293–373), Basil, and Augustine.

See also COSMOLOGY, RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL

ASPECTS; CREATIO EX NIHILO; LIFE, ORIGINS OF

Bibliography

Fretheim, Terence E. “Genesis.” In The New Interpreter’s

Bible, Vol. 1. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1994.

Greene-McCreight, Kathryn E. Ad Litteram: How Augus-

tine, Calvin, and Barth Read the “Plain Sense” of

Genesis 1–3. New York: Peter Lang, 1999.

Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil. San

Francisco: Harper, 1988.

Neusner, Jacob, trans. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Com-

mentary to the Book of Genesis, Vol. 1. Atlanta, Ga.:

Scholars Press, 1985.

CHRISTOPHER B. KAISER

GENE THERAPY

Gene therapy refers to the repairing or replacing of

malfunctioning genes that cause a deleterious ill-

ness or condition. There are two forms of gene

therapy: somatic and germline.

Somatic and germline therapies

Somatic therapies are used to replace or repair

malfunctioning genes that are expressed in such

conditions as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease.

Since these therapies attempt to remedy the

causes rather than alleviate the effects of disease,

they presumably will provide more effective and

beneficial medical treatments. Although initial at-

tempts to develop somatic gene therapies proved

largely unsuccessful, experimental treatments

since the mid 1990s of severe combined immun-

odeficiency disease (SCID) and sickle cell disease

have renewed public optimism regarding its po-

tential efficacy.

Like somatic therapies, germline therapies at-

tempt to repair or replace malfunctioning genes.

The principal difference is that the corrected gene,

rather than the deleterious one, is passed-on to

subsequent generations. Consequently, the poten-

tial benefits or effects of germline therapies could

be much more widespread than those of somatic

therapies. As of 2002, no experimental procedures

employing human germline techniques had been

undertaken.

Ethical and moral objections

In principle, somatic gene therapy has raised few

ethical objections. Because these therapies treat

the underlying causes of disease at the molecular

level rather than concentrating on affected organs

or compromised biological processes, somatic

therapies have been largely perceived as more so-

phisticated and potentially more effective exten-

sions of established medical procedures. So long as

these therapies are safe, there is nothing inherently

wrong in deploying them. The issue of safety,

however, came to the forefront with the death in

1999 of a patient undergoing an experimental ge-

netic treatment for ornithine transcarbamylase

(OTC) deficiency, an incident that prompted calls

for greater public oversight or regulation.

The prospect of germline therapy has proven

much more controversial. The primary objection is

that humans should not attempt to construct the

genetic inheritance of future generations. This ob-

jection usually takes one of two forms. First, since

so little is known about the complex relationship

between genes and larger environmental factors, it

would be imprudent to introduce genetic alter-

ations that would be inherited by future genera-

tions. Although the goal would be to eliminate a

severely debilitating disease or condition, there

might be unintended or unforeseen consequences

that would adversely affect subsequent genera-

tions. Individuals carrying a recessive deleterious

gene, for example, might in the future incur certain

survival advantages in response to changing envi-

ronmental factors. Since the effects of germline

therapy are so much more widespread than those

of somatic therapies, large populations could be

potentially devastated. The seemingly harmless or

even beneficial intervention into the human

germline could wreak havoc down the road.

The second form of this objection invokes a

more sweeping moral imperative. Humans do not

have a right to shape the genetic endowment of

their descendants, and correspondingly, individu-

als have the right to be born with unaltered

genomes. People must simply resist the temptation

to play God in shaping the destiny of humans,

both as individuals and as a species.

LetterG.qxd 3/18/03 1:05 PM Page 356

GENE THERAPY

— 357—

The principal defense against this objection, in

both its forms, is that it does not sufficiently take

into account the nature of evolutionary change,

thereby imposing unwarranted responsibilities re-

garding the possible fate of future generations.

Other than identical twins, there are no unique

genomes that parents do not have a right to alter or

that offspring have a right to inherit in an unaltered

form. Human reproduction entails the creation of a

unique genome, derived from the genes of parents

but also including mutations. It is difficult to imag-

ine what an unaltered genome might be in the fu-

ture in evolutionary terms. If individuals have a

right to inherit an unaltered genome, then presum-

ably cloning should become the preferred method

of human reproduction. In addition, many argue

that the prudential claim that current ignorance

should prohibit germline interventions is unwar-

ranted. Every action entails unforeseen conse-

quences, and it is not known whether failing to in-

tervene will prove better or worse than

intervening. It cannot be known in advance

whether the consequences of germline therapies

will be any more or less devastating than those of

natural selection upon future generations.

Some religious and moral concerns have also

been raised, not so much with the prospect of ge-

netic therapy per se, but with the fear that their in-

troduction might exacerbate some already trou-

bling trends. For instance, it is argued that the

growing knowledge of human genetics is not

being used, at least initially, to develop more ef-

fective therapies, but to prevent the birth of off-

spring with debilitating or undesirable genetic

traits. Some fear that parents will turn increasingly

to embryonic testing and screening techniques,

such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, to pre-

vent the implantation of embryos carrying certain

genetic abnormalities, leading in turn to the de-

struction of embryos deemed to be undesirable.

The issue is further compounded because the

same techniques being developed as therapies

may also be applied to select, and perhaps some-

day enhance, certain genetic characteristics of off-

spring. The bar of parental expectation would then

be raised dramatically regarding what constitutes a

desirable or even healthy child. The prospect of

so-called designer babies will exert social pressure

on parents not only to prevent the birth of off-

spring with severely debilitating conditions, but to

select or enhance their genetic endowment in the

hope of giving their children the best possible start

in life. Although the development of genetic ther-

apy is motivated by a humane impulse, its advent

could fuel parental anxieties and prejudicial atti-

tudes toward individuals with physical and mental

disabilities, thereby unwittingly supporting a new,

implicit, and insidious form of eugenics.

Proponents of genetic therapy counter that

these worries are both unfounded and inflamma-

tory. Legal protections against discrimination can

be enacted as needed. Moreover, the best way pre-

vent the destruction of so-called undesirable em-

bryos is to develop effective genetic therapies as

quickly as possible. More importantly, the distinc-

tion between genetic therapy and genetic selec-

tion and enhancement is spurious. Any therapy is

also an enhancement, because the restoration of

health is presumably an improvement over illness.

In addition, many non-genetic medical procedures

are enhancing, rather than therapeutic, in charac-

ter, and genetic therapies will make them more ef-

fective. Genetically enhancing an individual’s im-

mune system, for example, is merely a more

effective form of inoculation. Despite the moral

and religious objections, the development of effec-

tive gene therapies may alleviate the suffering of

many people.

See also BIOTECHNOLOGY; DNA; ETHNICITY; EUGENICS;

VOLUTION; GENE THERAPY; GENETIC

ENGINEERING; GENETIC TESTING; GENETICALLY

MODIFIED ORGANISMS; GENETICS; HUMAN

GENOME PROJECT; MUTATION; NATURE VERSUS

NURTURE; PLAYING GOD; REPRODUCTIVE

TECHNOLOGY

Bibliography

Chapman, Audrey R. Unprecedented Choices: Religious

Ethics at the Frontiers of Genetic Science. Minneapo-

lis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1999.

Engelhardt, H. Tristram, Jr. The Foundations of Bioethics.

New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Fletcher, Joseph. The Ethics of Genetic Control: Ending Re-

productive Roulette. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor

Books, 1974.

Parens, Eric, ed. Enhancing Human Traits: Ethical and

Social Implications. Washington D.C.: Georgetown

University Press, 1998.

LetterG.qxd 3/18/03 1:05 PM Page 357

GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS

— 358—

Peterson, James C. Genetic Turning Points: The Ethics of

Human Genetic Intervention. Grand Rapids, Mich.:

Eerdmans, 2000.

Ramsey, Paul. Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Con-

trol. London and New Haven, Conn.: Yale University

Press. 1970.

Walters, LeRoy, and Palmer, Julie Page. The Ethics of

Human Gene Therapy. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1997.

BRENT WATERS

GENETICALLY MODIFIED

ORGANISMS

Humans have tried to influence the development

of organisms for centuries by selectively breeding

plants and animals. Advances in genetics make it

possible to engineer organisms at the cellular level

to improve everything from the productivity of

crops to the viability of animal organs and tissues

for transplantation to humans. There are basically

two ways to genetically alter an organism: A trans-

genic animal has been modified by the introduc-

tion of a new gene, whereas a knock out is an an-

imal in which a given gene is no longer expressed.

Religious and ethical concerns include respect for

the well being of future generations of the organ-

isms and possible effects on the environment.

See also BIOTECHNOLOGY; DNA; GENE THERAPY;

ENETIC DETERMINISM; GENETIC ENGINEERING;

ENETICS; XENOTRANSPLANTATION

Bibliography

Applegate, John S. “The Prometheus Principle: Using the

Precautionary Principle to Harmonize the Regulation

of Genetically Modified Organisms” Indiana Journal

of Global Legal Studies 9, no. 1 (2001): 207–264.

Available from http://ijgls.indiana.edu/

Pontifical Academy for Life. “Prospects for Xenotransplan-

tation: Scientific Aspects and Ethical Consideration.”

September 26, 2001. Available from http://www.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/

Wolfenbarger, L. L., and Phifer, P. R. “The Ecological Risks

and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants.” Sci-

ence 2088 (2000): 290.

DONNA M. MCKENZIE

GENETIC DEFECT

A genetic defect occurs when a gene fails to ex-

press a certain function or produce a particular

protein. Such a defect may cause or be a con-

tributing factor to a debilitating disease or illness.

The defect occurs when DNA is miscopied, result-

ing in what geneticists call a mutation. It should be

noted that virtually every human being carries a

small number of mutations, but they usually are

not expressed in a deleterious manner.

Mutations can be passed from parents to off-

spring. If only one parent carries a mutated gene it

will usually be overridden by a second copy of the

gene. If both parents carry the mutated genes, off-

spring are at risk of being affected. For example, if

one parent carries the recessive gene for cystic fi-

brosis but the other parent does not, there is no

risk that offspring will be afflicted with the disease.

If both parents carry the recessive gene, however,

there is a one-in-four chance that they will give

birth to a child with cystic fibrosis. In addition, mu-

tations can occur through exposure to certain lev-

els of radiation or chemicals.

The term genetic defect is falling into disfavor

because of its pejorative connotation. To identify a

gene as “defective” implies that this determination

is made in comparison to a natural, normative stan-

dard. Consequently, it suggests that individuals af-

fected by defective genes are themselves defective

or inferior human beings. A genetic “defect,” how-

ever, denotes a statistical abnormality within a

given population. The degree to which such an

abnormality is judged to be defective is as much a

social as it is a medical determination. Short

stature, for example, is a “defect” only in a culture

that places a high value on being tall.

A principal religious concern is to insure that

individuals expressing certain genetic traits that are

perceived to be undesirable are not stigmatized or

subjected to unwarranted discrimination. A similar

concern holds for parents of children with geneti-

cally related illnesses (particularly illnesses that

could be prevented through embryonic or fetal

testing), or communities in which there are high

incidents of certain conditions such as sickle-cell

anemia or Tay Sach’s disease. Moreover, there is

also some apprehension that recent advances in

embryonic and fetal testing will promote a new

LetterG.qxd 3/18/03 1:05 PM Page 358

GENETIC ENGINEERING

— 359—

and more subtle round of eugenics in which par-

ents will select against offspring with genetic traits

judged to be defective or undesirable. These reli-

gious concerns are derived from a conviction that

the value or worth of an individual is not derived

from the presence or absence of genetic character-

istics, thereby implying a natural hierarchy among

human beings.

The idea of a genetic defect also raises vexing

theological questions. For instance, since muta-

tions can be passed from parents to offspring, does

this imply that nature is flawed and is itself in need

of redemption? But if this is the case, what would

a redeemed or perfected nature be like? Or, to the

contrary, is the possibility of deleterious mutations

the necessary price that must be paid in order to

spur evolutionary development within the human

species? But if this is true, what is one to make of

a God who seemingly requires the suffering of in-

dividuals in order to promote the flourishing of

the species?

See also GENETIC TESTING; GENETICS; MUTATION

Bibliography

Cole-Turner, Ronald, and Waters, Brent. Pastoral Genetics:

Theology and Care at the Beginning of Life. Cleve-

land, Ohio: Pilgrim Press, 1996.

Kilner, John F.; Pentz, Rebecca D.; and Young, Frank E.,

eds. Genetic Ethics: Do the Ends Justify the Genes?

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997.

Song, Robert. Human Genetics: Fabricating the Future.

Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim Press, 2002.

Peacocke, Arthur. God and the New Biology. San Fran-

cisco: Harper, 1986.

BRENT WATERS

GENETIC DETERMINISM

With rising public attention given to the Human

Genome Project in the early 1990s, there grew an

increased belief in genetic determinism. Scholars

referred to this widespread belief variously as ge-

neticism, the strong genetic principle, genetic es-

sentialism, genetic fatalism, and the gene myth.

Generic determinism was fed minimally by molec-

ular biology but maximally by behavioral genetics

and sociobiology. In the classic war between nature

and nurture, genetic determinists sided with nature.

The gene myth can be dissected into three sub-

tenets: puppet determinism, promethean determin-

ism, and the commandment against playing God.

The first is seemingly fatalistic; DNA defines human

beings, and the genes, like a puppeteer, pull the

strings that make people dance. The second,

promethean determinism, assigns to scientists the

task of understanding just how the genes work

plus that of developing appropriate technologies

based upon this understanding, giving humans

control over what nature bequeaths. The third sub-

tenet voices an ethical maxim: Thou shalt not play

God. This sub-tenet derives from the Frankenstein

fear of the mad scientist who, in trying to take con-

trol of the mysterious forces of life, oversteps the

invisible boundary intended by nature to contain

human pride and lets loose uncontrollable destruc-

tive forces.

See also BEHAVIORAL GENETICS; DETERMINISM; DNA;

REEDOM; GENETICS; HUMAN GENOME PROJECT;

ATURE VERSUS NURTURE; SOCIOBIOLOGY

Bibliography

Hubbard, Ruth, and Wald, Elijah. Exploding the Gene

Myth. Boston: Beacon, 1993.

Peters, Ted. Playing God? Genetic Determinism and

Human Freedom. London and New York: Routledge,

1997.

TED PETERS

GENETIC ENGINEERING

The term genetic engineering refers to technolo-

gies that modify genes. Unlike selective breeding,

which merely chooses traits that are already found

in nature, genetic engineering acts directly on the

genetic material itself in order to alter an organ-

ism’s traits. Genetic engineering is the cornerstone

of modern biotechnology, and through it human

beings have the power to modify the molecular

basis of all forms of life.

A brief history

The concept of genetic engineering emerged in the

1960s and was first realized in the 1970s. Its devel-

opment depended upon a century of advances in

science, beginning in the 1860s with Gregor

LetterG.qxd 3/18/03 1:05 PM Page 359

GENETIC ENGINEERING

— 360—

Mendel’s discovery of the existence of factors that

govern inheritance. In the 1940s, it was learned

that these factors, now called genes, are composed

of a complex molecule, deoxyribonucleic acid or

DNA. In 1953, Francis Crick and James Watson de-

scribed the structure of DNA as the famous double

helix along which are found pairs of chemicals.

Soon it was learned that the sequence of these

chemicals, known as bases, carries information

that instructs the cell how to make proteins that are

essential to the structure and function of the cell.

By the 1960s, it was becoming clear that scien-

tists would soon learn how to manipulate this

chemical information and thereby engineer genes.

In the ensuing decades, various techniques for ma-

nipulating DNA have been developed, beginning

in the early 1970s with the discovery of the use of

restriction enzymes, which exist in nature and

which cut and join strands of DNA at precise loca-

tions. This allows scientists to cut and splice DNA.

A later discovery called polymerase chain reaction

(PCR) made it possible for researchers to produce

huge quantities of specific DNA sequences. Further

advances in the use of computers to decode, store,

and manipulate DNA means that researchers can

discover and modify DNA on a broad scale and

with considerable precision.

Methods

Genetic engineering uses various methods in pur-

suit of many goals. One method is to transfer a

gene from one organism to another. For instance a

human gene may be transferred to a microorgan-

ism in order to develop a new strain of microor-

ganism that will produce a human protein, such as

insulin, for pharmaceutical purposes. Much of the

insulin used by diabetics comes from this process.

It is possible in fact to transfer many genes into an

organism by packaging them together as a kind of

artificial chromosome, sometimes called a gene

cassette. Plants, too, are genetically engineered to

produce pharmaceutical products, to enhance their

protein value as foods, to allow them to grow with

less reliance on pesticides or fertilizers, to resist

freezing or spoiling, to enhance flavor, or perhaps

to grow in seawater. Another method is to inca-

pacitate a particular gene by deliberately causing it

to mutate and shut itself down. For instance if sci-

entists know that an impaired human gene is

linked to a disease such as cancer, they will find

the corresponding gene in laboratory rats, shut it

down, and create a strain of rats with this gene

knocked out, and therefore with a high likelihood

for cancer, in order to have animals on which to

test possible therapies.

In human beings, scientists have attempted to

modify or replace genes in some of the cells of pa-

tients’ bodies in order to treat diseases with genetic

basis. This strategy, called gene therapy, began in

1990 with mixed success. In time it will likely be-

come widely used to treat a variety of diseases.

Still another method is to modify a tiny portion of

the gene—one or two bases of DNA—by con-

structing a special small molecule that can trigger

what is called a mismatch repair. Ordinarily the

body corrects for the mutations that occur naturally

inside the body all the time, and scientists are

learning how to exploit the body’s own repair

mechanisms to correct mutations that may have

been inherited. These strategies used so far on

human beings differ sharply from what scientists

are attempting to do with other animals. In human

beings, researchers are attempting to change the

genes only in selected cells that are affected by the

disease. In animals, however, the modifications af-

fect every cell and are passed on to future genera-

tions. That strategy, often called germline modifi-

cation, has been proposed for use on human

beings but remains controversial from the stand-

point of safety.

Religious concerns

From the time genetic engineering was first con-

sidered in the 1960s, religious scholars and institu-

tions have commented on its value and limits.

Often scientists themselves, not to mention science

journalists, report on developments in genetics in

religious terms, speaking of DNA as the mystery of

life or the human genome as the holy grail of biol-

ogy. Not surprisingly, the general public some-

times responded to these developments with reli-

gious fervor, sometimes in favor of them, but often

opposed to developments that people saw as, for

instance, playing God.

One concern of special importance to many

religious scholars and leaders has been the use of

the system of patenting, by which governments

give exclusive rights for a time to inventors, to pro-

tect developments in genetics. Particularly trou-

bling has been the granting of patents to gene se-

quence information. Many have argued that

LetterG.qxd 3/18/03 1:05 PM Page 360