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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

— 421—

Religious responses to the advancing frontier

of genetic knowledge emerge mainly from peo-

ple’s concern to relieve human suffering and em-

ploy science to improve human health and well-

being. A statement prepared by the National

Council of Churches under the leadership of Union

Seminary ethicist Roger L. Shinn affirms that

churches in the United States must be involved

with genetic research and therapy. “The Christian

churches understand themselves as communities

dedicated to obeying the will of God through serv-

ice to others. The churches have a particular con-

cern for those who are hurt or whose faith has

been shaken, as demonstrated by the long history

of the churches in providing medical care .…

Moreover, the churches have a mission to prevent

suffering as well as to alleviate it.”

In 1990 the Center for Theology and the Nat-

ural Sciences (CTNS) at the Graduate Theological

Union (GTU) in Berkeley, California, obtained one

of the first grants offered by the Ethical, Legal, and

Social Issues (ELSI) division of NCHGR. A team of

molecular biologists, behavioral geneticists, the-

ologians, and bioethicists monitored the first years

of HGP research to articulate theological and ethi-

cal implications of the new knowledge. Many reli-

gious and ethical issues eventually became public

policy concerns. These are adumbrated below.

Genetic discrimination. When Watson recom-

mended the establishment of ELSI, the first public

policy concern was what he called privacy, here

called genetic discrimination. An anticipated and

feared scenario took the following steps. As re-

searchers identify and locate most if not all genes

in the human genome that either condition or, in

some cases, cause disease, the foreknowledge of

an individual’s genetic predisposition to expensive

diseases could lead to loss of medical insurance

and perhaps loss of employment opportunities. As

HGP progressed, the gene for cystic fibrosis was

found on chromosome seven, and Huntington’s

chorea on chromosome four. Alzheimer’s disease

was sought on chromosome twenty-one, and

colon cancer on chromosome two. Disposition to

muscular dystrophy, sickle-cell anemia, Tay Sachs

disease, certain cancers, and numerous other dis-

eases turned out to have locatable genetic origins.

More knowledge is yet to come. When it comes, it

may be accompanied by an inexpensive method

for testing the genome of each individual to see if

he or she has any genes for any diseases. Screen-

ing for all genetic diseases may become routine for

newborns just as testing for phenylketonuria (PKU)

has been since the 1960s. A person’s individual

genome might become part of a data bank to

which each person, as well as health care

providers, would have future access. The advan-

tage is clear: Medical care from birth to grave could

be carefully planned to delay onset, appropriately

treat, and perhaps even prevent or cure geneti-

cally-based diseases.

Despite the promise for advances in preventa-

tive health care, fear arises due to practices of com-

mercial insurance. Insurance works by sharing risk.

When risk is uncertain to all, then all can be asked

to contribute equally to the insurance pool. Premi-

ums can be equalized. Once the genetic disorders

of individuals become known, however, this could

justify higher premiums for those demonstrating

greater risk. The greater the risk, the higher the

premium. Insurance may even be denied those

whose genes predict extended or expensive med-

ical treatment.

Some ethicists are seeking protection from dis-

crimination by invoking the principles of confi-

dentiality and privacy. They argue that genetic test-

ing should be voluntary and that the information

contained in one’s genome be controlled by the

patient. This argument presumes that if information

can be controlled, then the rights of the individual

for employment, insurance, and medical care can

be protected. There are grounds for thinking this

approach will succeed. Title VII of the 1964 Civil

Rights Act restricts pre-employment questioning

about work-related health conditions. Paragraph

102.b.4 of the Act potentially protects coverage for

the employee’s spouse and children. Legislative

proposals during the 1990s and early 2000s seem

to favor privacy.

Other ethicists argue that privacy is a mis-

guided cure for this problem. Privacy will fail, say

its critics, because insurance carriers will press for

legislation fairer to them, and eventually protection

by privacy may slip. In addition, computer linkage

makes it difficult to prevent the movement of data

from hospital to insurance carrier and to anyone

else bent on finding out. Most importantly, the pri-

vacy argument overlooks the principle that

genome information should not finally be re-

stricted. The more society knows, the better the

LetterH.qxd 3/18/03 1:06 PM Page 421

HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

— 422—

health care planning can be. In the long run, what

society needs is information without discrimina-

tion. The only way to obtain this is to restructure

the employment-insurance-health care relation-

ship. The current structure makes it profitable for

employers and insurance carriers to discriminate

against individuals with certain genetic configura-

tions—that is, it is in their best financial interest to

limit or even deny health care. A restructuring is

called for so that it becomes profitable to deliver,

not withhold, health care. To accomplish this the

whole nation will have to become more egalitar-

ian—that is, to think of the nation itself as a single

community willing to care for its own constituents.

The Abortion controversy. Given the divisive-

ness of the abortion controversy in the United

States and certain other countries, fears arise over

possible genetic discrimination in the womb or

even prior to the womb in the petri dish. Tech-

niques have been developed to examine in vitro

fertilized (IVF) eggs as early as the fourth cell divi-

sion in order to identify so-called defective genes,

such as the chromosomal structure of Down

syndrome. Prospective parents may soon rou-

tinely fertilize a dozen or so eggs in the laboratory,

screen for the preferred genetic make up, im-

plant the desired zygote or zygotes, and discard

the rest. What will be the status of the discarded

embryos? Might they be considered abortions? By

what criteria does one define “defective” when

considering the future of a human being? Should

prospective parents limit themselves to eliminating

“defective” children, or should they go on to

screen for enhancing genetic traits such as blue

eyes or higher intelligence? If so, might this lead to

a new form of eugenics, to selective breeding

based upon personal preference and prevailing so-

cial values? What will become of human dignity

in all this?

Relevant here is that the legal precedent set by

Roe v. Wade (1973) would not serve to legitimate

discarding preimplanted embryos. This Supreme

Court case legalized the use of abortion to elimi-

nate a fetus from a woman’s body as an extension

of a woman’s right to determine what happens to

her body. This would not apply to preimplanted

embryos, however, because they are life forms out-

side the woman’s body.

The Roman Catholic tradition has set strong

precedents regarding the practice of abortion. The

Second Vatican Council document Gaudium et spes

(1965) states the position still held today: “… from

the moment of its conception life must be guarded

with the greatest care, while abortion and infanti-

cide are unspeakable crimes.” The challenge to ethi-

cists in the Roman Catholic tradition in the near fu-

ture will be to examine what transpires at the

preimplantation stage of the embryo to determine if

the word abortion applies. If it does, this may lead

to recommending that genetic screening be pushed

back one step further, to the gamete stage prior to

fertilization. The genetic make up of sperm and

ovum separately could be screened, using accept-

able gametes and discarding the unacceptable. The

Catholic Health Association of the United States

pushes back still further by recommending the de-

velopment of techniques of gonadal cell therapy to

make genetic corrections in the reproductive tissues

of prospective parents long before conception takes

place—that is, gametocyte therapy.

Genetic determinism, human freedom, and

the gene myth. Religious thinkers must deal not

only with laboratory science but with the cultural

interpretations of science, as well as public policy

influenced by both. A cultural myth has grown up

with media coverage of the Human Genome Pro-

ject that assumes “it’s all in the genes.” DNA has

emerged as a cultural icon, holding the “blueprint”

for humanity or being thought of as the “essence”

of what makes a person a person. Even though

molecular biologists withdraw from such extreme

forms of genetic determinism, a cultural myth has

arisen. Some commentators refer to it as the strong

genetic principle; others call it the gene myth.

Genes, sin, crime, and racial discrimination.

The belief in determinism promulgated by the

gene myth raises the question of moral and legal

culpability. Does a genetic disposition to antisocial

behavior make a person guilty or innocent before

the law? Over the next decade legal systems will

have to face a rethinking of the philosophical

planks on which concepts such as free will, guilt,

innocence, and mitigating factors have been con-

structed. There is no question that research into

the connection between genetic determinism and

human behavior will continue and new discoveries

will become immediately relevant to the prosecu-

tion and defense of those accused of crimes. The

focus will be on the concept of free will, because

the assumption of the Western philosophy coming

down from Augustine that underlies understanding

LetterH.qxd 3/18/03 1:06 PM Page 422

HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

— 423—

of law is that guilt can only be assigned to a

human agent acting freely. The specter on the ge-

netic horizon is that confirmable genetic disposi-

tions to certain forms of behavior will constitute

compulsion, and this will place a fork in the legal

road: Either the courts declare the person with a

genetic disposition to crime to be innocent and set

him or her free, or the courts declare him or her so

constitutionally impaired as to justify incarceration

and isolation from the rest of society. The first fork

would jeopardize the welfare of society; the sec-

ond fork would violate individual rights.

That society needs to be protected from crimi-

nal behavior, and that such protection could be

had by isolating individuals with certain genetic

dispositions, leads to further questions regarding

insanity and race. The issue of insanity arises be-

cause the genetic defense may rely upon prece-

dents set by the insanity defense. The courts treat

insanity with a focus on the insane person’s inabil-

ity to distinguish right from wrong when commit-

ting a crime. When a defendant is judged innocent

on these grounds, he or she is incarcerated in a

mental hospital until the medical evaluators judge

that the individual is cured. Once cured, the per-

son may be released. In principle, such a person

might never be judged “cured” and may spend

more time in isolation than the prison penalty pre-

scribed for the crime, maybe even the rest of his or

her life. Should the genetic defense tie itself to the

insanity defense, and if one’s DNA is thought to

last a lifetime, then the trip to the hospital may be-

come the equivalent of a life sentence. In this way

the genetic defense may backfire.

With this prospect, we have returned to the

specter of genetic discrimination. The current dis-

cussion of possible genetic influence on antisocial

behavior is riddled with fears of discrimination, es-

pecially its racial overtones. Because the percent-

age of black men among the population of incar-

cerated prisoners is growing, society could invoke

the gene myth to associate genes with criminal

predispositions and with race. A stigma against

black people could arise, a presumption that they

are genetically predisposed to crime. University of

California sociologist Troy Duster fears that if we

identify crime with genes and then genes with

race, we may inadvertently provide a biological

support for prejudice and discrimination.

The gay gene. Theological and ethical debate

has arisen over the 1993 discovery of a possible

genetic disposition to male homosexuality. Dean

H. Hamer and his research team at the U.S. Na-

tional Cancer Institute announced that they discov-

ered evidence that male homosexuality—at least

some male homosexuality—is genetic. Construct-

ing family trees in instances where two or more

brothers are gay combined with actual laboratory

testing of homosexual DNA, Hamer located a re-

gion near the end of the long arm of the X chro-

mosome that likely contains a gene influencing

sexual orientation. Because men receive an X chro-

mosome from their mother and a Y from their fa-

ther (women receive two X’s, one from each par-

ent), this means that the possible gay gene is

inherited maternally. Mothers can pass on the gay

gene without themselves or their daughters being

homosexual. A parallel study of lesbian genetics is

as yet incomplete; and the present study of gay

men will certainly require replication and confir-

mation. Scientists do not yet have indisputable

proof.

The ethical implications, should a biological

basis for homosexuality be confirmed, could point

in more than one direction. The scientific fact does

not itself determine the direction of the ethical in-

terpretation of that fact. The central ethical ques-

tion is this: Does the genetic disposition toward

homosexuality make the bearer of that gene inno-

cent or guilty? Two answers are logically possible.

On the one hand, a homosexual man could

claim that because he inherited the gay gene and

did not choose a gay orientation by his own free

will, he is innocent. The biological innocence po-

sition could be buttressed by an additional argu-

ment that homosexual activity is not itself sinful; it

is simply one natural form of sexual expression

among others. One could go still further to say that

because it is biologically inherited that it is God’s

will; that a person’s homosexual predisposition is

God’s gift.

On the other hand, one could follow the op-

posite road and identify the gay gene with a carnal

disposition to sin. Society could claim that the

body inherited by each person belongs to who

they are—people are determined at least in part by

what their parents bequeathed them—and that an

inherited disposition to homosexual behavior is

just like other innate dispositions such as lust or

greed, which are shared with the human race gen-

erally; all this constitutes the state of original sin

LetterH.qxd 3/18/03 1:06 PM Page 423

HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

— 424—

into which we are born. Signposts point in both

ethical directions.

Beyond the question of guilt or innocence

ethicists anticipate another issue, namely, the risk

of stigma. Might the presence of the gay gene in

an unborn fetus be considered a genetic defect

and become grounds for abortion? Would routine

genetic testing lead to a wholesale reduction of

gay men in a manner parallel to that of children

with Down Syndrome? Would this count as class

discrimination?

Somatic therapy versus germline enhance-

ment. The debate over two distinctions—so-

matic versus germline intervention and therapy

versus enhancement intervention—involves both

secular and religious discussions. The term so-

matic therapy refers to the treatment of a disease

in the body cells of a living individual by trying to

repair an existing defect. The term germline ther-

apy refers to intervention into the gametes, per-

haps for the purpose of eliminating a gene such as

that for cystic fibrosis so that it would not be

passed along to future generations. Both somatic

and germline therapies are conservative when

compared to genetic enhancement. Enhancement

goes beyond mere therapy for existing genes that

may be a threat to health by selecting or adding

genes to make an individual “superior” in some

fashion. Enhancement might involve genetic engi-

neering to increase bodily strength or intelligence

or other socially desirable characteristics.

Ethical commentators almost universally agree

that somatic therapy is morally desirable, and they

look forward to the advances HGP will bring for

expanding this important work. Yet they stop short

of endorsing genetic selection and manipulation

for the purposes of enhancing the quality of bio-

logical life for otherwise normal individuals or for

the human race as a whole. New knowledge

gained from HGP might locate genes that affect

the brain’s organization and structure so that care-

ful engineering might lead to enhanced ability for

abstract thinking or to other forms of physiological

and mental improvement.

Religious ethicists argue that somatic therapy

should be pursued, but enhancement through

germline engineering raises cautions about

protecting human dignity. In a 1982 study, the

World Council of Churches stated: “Somatic cell

therapy may provide a good; however, other issues

are raised if it also brings about a change in germ-

line cells. The introduction of genes into the

germline is a permanent alteration .… Nonethe-

less, changes in genes that avoid the occurrence of

disease are not necessarily made illicit merely be-

cause those changes also alter the genetic inheri-

tance of future generations .… There is no ab-

solute distinction between eliminating defects and

improving heredity” (quoted in Peters, ed., 1998,

pp. 6–8). The primary caution raised by the WCC

here has to do with the lack of knowledge regard-

ing the possible consequences of altering the

human germline. The present generation lacks suf-

ficient information regarding the long term conse-

quences of a decision today that might turn out to

be irreversible tomorrow. Thus, the WCC does not

forbid forever germline therapy or even enhance-

ment; rather, it cautions people to wait and see.

The Catholic Health Association is more posi-

tive: “Germline intervention is potentially the only

means of treating genetic diseases that do their

damage early in embryonic development, for

which somatic cell therapy would be ineffective.

Although still a long way off, developments in mo-

lecular genetics suggest that this is a goal toward

which biomedicine could reasonably devote its ef-

forts” (p. 19)

Another reason for caution regarding germline

enhancement, especially among the Protestants, is

the specter of eugenics. The word eugenics con-

notes the ghastly racial policies of Nazism, and this

accounts for much of today’s mistrust of genetic

science in Germany and elsewhere. No one ex-

pects a resurrection of the Nazi nightmare; yet

some critics fear a subtle form of eugenics slipping

in the cultural back door. The growing power to

control the design of living tissue will foster the

emergence of the image of the “perfect child,” and

a new social value of perfection will begin to op-

press all those who fall short.

Gene patenting. A controversy exploded in

1991 over gene patenting prompted by the filing

for intellectual property rights by J. Craig Venter on

nearly three thousand ESTs, expressed sequence

tags. Each of these ESTs consisted of three hun-

dred to five hundred base pairs made from cDNAs,

copies of DNA sequences produced by polymerase

chain reaction. ESTs are gene fragments, not whole

genes; hence they mark the location of a gene but

cannot identify gene function. Two issues became

LetterH.qxd 3/18/03 1:06 PM Page 424

HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

— 425—

the focus of controversy. First, should the U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office grant patents on ge-

nomic data? Even though the patents applied for

were on copies of DNA sequences, their only

value was to report raw genomic information. It

appeared to critics that these applications failed to

meet the three patenting criteria: novelty, utility,

and nonobviousness. Second, should the U.S. gov-

ernment apply for and receive such patents in

competition with the private sector? Venter’s first

patent applications were filed while he was work-

ing on a government grant; later he moved to the

private sector and continued filing for intellectual

property rights on his discoveries. James Watson

followed by Francis Collins at the NIH both op-

posed patenting raw genomic data.

Cloning. Technically known as “somatic cell nu-

clear transfer,” cloning techniques were developed

in 1996 by Ian Wilmut at the Roslin Institute near

Edinburgh, Scotland. Wilmut announced the

cloning of Dolly the sheep in February 1997. The

scientific breakthrough consisted of returning an

already differentiated DNA nucleus to its pre-dif-

ferentiated state and then transferring it to an en-

nucleated oocyte to make an embryo. The new

embryo thus contains the genome of the donor nu-

cleus. In the worldwide controversy that broke out

in 1997 and continues in bioethical discussion, the

debate seems to bypass the science of nuclear

transfer; rather, the focus is on producing multiple

human beings with duplicate genomes. Critics of

reproductive cloning argue that children produced

by cloning would suffer from loss of individuality,

identity, and dignity. Roman Catholic critics along

with Wilmut himself oppose human reproductive

cloning on the grounds of safety—that is, the im-

perfect technology would lead to the destruction

of many early embryos. Defenders of nuclear

transfer research distinguish sharply between re-

productive cloning, which they oppose, and thera-

peutic cloning, which is necessary for stem cell

research.

Stem cells. The isolation of human embryonic

stem cells (hES cells) was accomplished in August

1997 by James Thomson at the University of Wis-

consin on funds from the Geron Corporation. The

hES cells are removed from the inner mass of the

blastocyst, an embryo at four to six days old. When

isolated and placed on a feeder tray, hES cells

become immortal—that is, they divide indefinitely.

In addition, they are pluripotent and able to

differentiate into any and every tissue. The re-

search goal is to control gene expression so as to

make designated tissue for rejuvenating human or-

gans. Some progress in gene control has been

achieved. The next hurdle to jump is histocompat-

ibility, namely, to avoid organ rejection by match-

ing donor and recipient genetic codes. It is likely

that experiments with somatic cell nuclear transfer

will be required to attain histocompatibility. Ethical

objections to stem cell research from Roman

Catholics center on destruction of blastocysts

for research purposes. Ethical support for stem cell

research stresses beneficence; it emphasizes

the marvelous advances in human health and well-

being that this medical science might offer the

human race.

Conclusion: theological commitments to

human dignity

Virtually all Roman Catholics and Protestants who

take up the challenge of the new genetic knowl-

edge seem to agree on a handful of theological ax-

ioms. First, they affirm that God is the creator of

the world and, further, that God’s creative work is

ongoing. God continues to create in and through

natural genetic selection and even through human

intervention in the natural processes. Second, the

human race is created in God’s image. In this con-

text, the divine image in humanity is tied to cre-

ativity. God creates; so do human beings. With in-

creasing frequency, humans are described by

theologians as co-creators with God, making their

human contribution to the evolutionary process. In

order to avoid the arrogance of thinking that hu-

mans are equal to the God who created them in

the first place, people must add the term created to

make the phrase created co-creators. This empha-

sizes human dependency on God while pointing

to human opportunity and responsibility. Third,

these religious documents place a high value on

human dignity.

By dignity they mean what eighteenth-century

German philosopher Immanuel Kant meant,

namely, that each human being is treated as an

end, not merely as a means to some further end.

As church leaders respond responsibly to new

developments in HGP, one thing can be confi-

dently forecast: This affirmation of dignity will be-

come decisive for thinking through the ethical im-

plications of genetic engineering. Promoting

dignity is a way of drawing an ethical implication

LetterH.qxd 3/18/03 1:06 PM Page 425

HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

— 426—

from what the theologian can safely say, namely,

that God loves each human being regardless of his

or her genetic makeup and, therefore, people

should love one another according to this model.

See also BEHAVIORAL GENETICS; BIOTECHNOLOGY;

LONING; DNA; EUGENICS; FREEDOM; GENE

PATENTING; GENE THERAPY; GENETIC

DETERMINISM; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETICS;

ENETIC TESTING; NATURE VERSUS NURTURE;

LAYING GOD; SIN; SOCIOBIOLOGY; STEM CELL

RESEARCH

Bibliography

Catholic Health Association of the United States. Human

Genetics: Ethical Issues in Genetic Testing, Counsel-

ing, and Therapy. St. Louis, Mo.: CHA, 1990.

Chapman, Audrey R. Unprecedented Choices: Religious

Ethics at the Frontiers of Genetic Science. Minneapo-

lis, Minn.: Fortress, 1999.

Coffey, Maureen P. “The Genetic Defense: Explanation or

Excuse?” William and Mary Law Review 35, no.353

(1993): 352-396.

Cole, David. “Genetic Predestination?” Dialog 33, no. 1

(1994): 20-21.

Cole-Turner, Ronald. The New Genesis: Theology and the

Genetic Revolution. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John

Knox Press, 1993.

Cole-Turner, Ronald, ed. Human Cloning: Religious Re-

sponses. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press,

1997.

Cooke-Deegan, Robert. The Gene Wars: Science, Politics,

and the Human Genome. New York: Norton,

1996.

Davies, Kevin. Cracking the Genome: Inside the Race to

Unlock Human DNA. New York: Free Press, 2001.

Duster, Troy. Backdoor to Eugenics. New York: Rout-

ledge, 1990.

Eisenberg, Rebecca S. “Genes, Patents, and Product De-

velopment.” Science 257 (992): 903-908.

Genome Sequencing Consortium. “Initial Sequencing and

Analysis of the Human Genome.” Nature 409 (2001):

860–921.

Halley, Janet E. “Sexual Orientation and the Politics of Bi-

ology: A Critique of the Argument from Immutabil-

ity.” Stanford Law Review 46, no. 3 (1994): 503-568.

Hamer, Dean H.; Hu, Stella; Magnuson, Victoria L.; et al.

“A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromo-

some and Male Sexual Orientation.” Science 261

(1993): 321–327.

Holland, Suzanne; Lebacqz, Karen; and Zoloth, Laurie.

The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate. Cambridge,

Mass.: MIT Press, 2001.

Kevles, Daniel J., and Hood, Leroy, eds. Code of Codes: Sci-

entific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Pro-

ject. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992.

Lewontin, Richard C.; Rose, Steven; and Kamin, Leon J.

Not In Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Na-

ture. New York: Pantheon, 1984.

National Council of Churches. Human Life and the New

Genetics. New York: Author, 1980.

Nelkin, Dorothy, and Lindee, M. Susan. The DNA Mys-

tique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon. New York: W.H.

Freeman and Company, 1995.

Paul VI. Gaudium et Spes. Pastoral Constitution on the

Church in the Modern World (December 7, 1965). In

Vatican Council II: Constitutions, Decrees, Declara-

tions, ed. Flannery Austin. Northport, N.Y.: Costello:

1996.

Peters, Ted. Playing God? Genetic Determinism and

Human Freedom. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Peters, Ted. For the Love of Children: Genetic Technology

and the Future of the Family. Louisville, Ky.: West-

minster John Knox, 1998.

Peters, Ted, ed. Genetics: Issues of Social Justice. Cleve-

land, Ohio: Pilgrim, 1998.

Reichenbach, Bruce R., and Anderson, V. Elving. On Be-

half of God: A Christian Ethic for Biology. Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998.

Rifkin, Jeremy. Algeny. New York: Viking, 1983.

Shinn, Roger L. The New Genetics: Challenges for Science,

Faith, and Politics. Wakefield, R.I. and London:

Moyer Bell, 1996.

Venter, J. Craig, et al. “The Sequence of the Human

Genome,” Science 291 (2001):1304–1351.

World Council of Churches. Manipulating Life: Ethical Is-

sues in Genetic Engineering. Geneva, Switzerland:

Author, 1982

TED PETERS

HUMANISM

The term humanism over the past several cen-

turies of Western thought has been used to express

two different concepts. It is not too much to say

LetterH.qxd 3/18/03 1:06 PM Page 426

HUMANISM

— 427—

that humanism in its original form created the in-

tellectual foundation of the Renaissance. In mod-

ern times, humanism has most often come to mean

an approach that characterizes all things in a

human, rather than theistic, framework and em-

phasizes human rationality and experience in con-

trast to classic authority. It is arguable, however,

that the adversarial relationship between theism

and the human, including scientific knowledge

and rationality, that is often imputed to modern

humanism is unnecessarily simplistic, ignoring, for

example, today’s Christian humanists. Moreover, it

is possible to detect the evolution of a new, more

integrative, humanism as a response to a world

whose natural cycles and processes are increas-

ingly dominated by the human.

Humanism in its original sense meant simply

the rediscovery and study of classic Greek and

Latin language and texts, and the use of them to

assess the work of doctrinal Scholastics and sec-

ondary commentaries of late Medieval Europe. Hu-

manism during this time was more a cultural atti-

tude and an academic program than a formal

conceptual framework or a particular philosophy.

Indeed, the first self-conscious humanist, the Ital-

ian poet Francis Petrarch (1304–1374), is notable

for urging a new curricula based on original classi-

cal sources—the studia humanitatis, consisting of

grammar, rhetoric, poetry, history, and moral phi-

losophy. During this period, the term humanist

had no ideological content and simply referred to

anyone, layperson or Church official, who had a

competence in classical Greek, Latin, and to a

lesser extent Hebrew, and some familiarity with

classical texts.

Early humanism led to the recovery of the di-

rect study of the Bible. Many early medieval

Church figures such as Thomas More (1478–1535)

and Desiderius Erasmus (1469–1536), and a num-

ber of reformers, strongly supported the humanist

approach. In general, however, early humanism

was stronger in Italy than in the more medieval

north of Europe. Thus, Pope Nicholas V

(1447–1455) is referred to by Bertrand Russell in A

History of Western Philosophy (1945) as “the first

humanist Pope” (p. 498). Nicholas’s apostolic sec-

retary was the epicurean humanist Lorenzo Valla

(1407–1457). Reflecting their culture, the vast ma-

jority of humanists were practicing Christians, al-

though they tended to react against the medieval

Scholastic veneration of authority. Valla, for exam-

ple, wrote a long treatise somewhat inelegantly ti-

tled Restructuring of All Dialectic with the Foun-

dations of the Whole of Philosophy, in which he

purported to demonstrate the invalidity of Aris-

totelian logic, a foundation of Scholasticism.

As Western culture evolved, however, human-

ism inevitably began to challenge medieval world-

views in fundamental ways. Rather than the au-

thority of Aristotle (384–322

B.C.E.), Augustine of

Hippo (354–430), and Thomas Aquinas (c.

1225–1274), humanists rediscovered and began to

teach classical texts of all types. These not only

greatly broadened the knowledge base available to

scholars and the educated, but stimulated both in-

creased curiosity about the world in general and a

different concept of validity. During the early me-

dieval period, reference to accepted authority was

the highest demonstration of truth; humanism over

time led to increased reference to the physical

world as the ultimate source of validity in argu-

ment. The authority of Galen (c. 130–201

C.E.) in

medicine or Aristotle in physics was increasingly

challenged by data and argument derived not from

accepted texts but from observation of the world

itself. In doing so, humanism created the founda-

tions for the profound ontological shift from the

otherworldliness of medieval faith to scientific

knowledge that characterized the Enlightenment

and, subsequently, modernity.

The Enlightenment is often characterized as a

conflict between faith and reason, but that is mis-

leading. Major Enlightenment figures, including on

the nascent rationalist side Francis Bacon

(1561–1626) and, later, Isaac Newton (1642–1727),

clearly viewed their scientific work as aligned with

the Christian faith, even mandated by it. On the lit-

erary side, the Romantic project was seen by many

of its leading figures as an effort to modernize and

humanize Christian theology in light of Enlighten-

ment science, which had come to represent an in-

dependent and in some ways equally powerful on-

tology. Thus, the poet John Keats (1795–1821) saw

his goal as creating “a system of Salvation which

does not affront our reason and humanity” (quoted

in Abrams, p. 33), a goal that can be broadly at-

tributed to the Romantic movement in general.

Attitudes toward modern humanism mirror the

distortions of the Enlightenment characterization.

LetterH.qxd 3/18/03 1:06 PM Page 427

HUMAN NATURE,PHYSICAL ASPECTS

— 428—

In particular, the attacks by Christian fundamental-

ists on “secular humanism” in the United States, es-

pecially regarding the teaching of evolution, have

created an impression that humanism is necessar-

ily opposed to religion. Secular humanism, a tradi-

tion flowing from eighteenth-century Enlighten-

ment rationalism and subsequent freethinking

movements, is indeed characterized by a

Promethean suspicion of theism and religious au-

thority, and a belief that humans are the measure

of all things; it is, however, but one branch of the

humanist project. Modern humanists fall into many

categories, including literary humanism, charac-

terized by a devotion to the humanities; cultural

humanism, the rational, empirical tradition derived

from ancient Greece and Rome that forms the basis

of modern Western societies; and philosophic hu-

manism, systems of thought focused on human

needs and realities.

Of particular interest, however, are the schools

of humanism that explicitly integrate religious and

scientific worldviews. Thus, Christian humanism,

the philosophy that posits the self-fulfillment of hu-

mans within the framework of Christian principles

and beliefs, has evolved from More and Erasmus

through elements of the Anglican and German

pietist traditions and philosophers such as Im-

manuel Kant (1724–1804). It is represented by

modern theologians such as Jacques Maritain,

Hans Küng, Paul Tillich, and James Luther Adams.

More explicitly, the Unitarian Universalist tradition

includes among its seven Principles three that are

obviously humanist; they affirm (1) the “inherent

worth and dignity of every person,” (2) justice, “eq-

uity and compassion in human relations,” and (3)

a “free and responsible search for truth and mean-

ing.” The Unitarian Universalists also identify as

among the sources of their tradition humanist

“teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance

of reason and the results of science, and warn us

against idolatries of the mind and spirit.”

This integration of faith and rationality will be-

come increasingly important in light of the recog-

nition that, as a result of the Industrial Revolution,

population and economic growth, and globaliza-

tion, the dynamics of most major natural systems

are increasingly influenced by human activity.

Since this results in a world where teleologies and

belief systems are increasingly reified in natural

systems through intentional human activity, a ra-

tional humanistic understanding, combined with

the religious faith that is central to the human ex-

perience—perhaps an “Earth systems” human-

ism—may well be a future evolutionary path of

humanism.

See also ARISTOTLE; AUGUSTINE; CHRISTIANITY;

REATIONISM; EVOLUTION; NEWTON, ISAAC;

ELEOLOGY; THOMAS AQUINAS

Bibliography

Abrams, M. H. Natural Supernaturalism: Tradition and

Revolution in Romantic Literature. New York: Nor-

ton, 1971.

Adams, James Luther. On Being Human Religiously: Se-

lected Essays in Religion and Society. Boston: Bea-

con, 1976.

Allen, Michael J. B. “Humanism.” In The Columbia History

of Western Philosophy, ed. Richard H. Popkin. New

York: Columbia University Press, 1999.

Allenby, Braden Richard. “Observations on the Philo-

sophic Implications of Earth Systems Engineering and

Management.” Batten Institute Working Paper. Char-

lottesville, Va.: Batten Institute at the University of

Virginia Darden School of Business, 2002.

Derr, Thomas Sieger. Environmental Ethics and Christian

Humanism. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1996.

Küng, Hans, and, Schmidt, Helmut, eds. A Global Ethic

and Global Responsibilities: Two Declarations. Lon-

don: SCM, 1998.

Noble, David F. The Religion of Technology. New York:

Knopf, 1998.

Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy (1945).

New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972.

Unitarian Universalist Association. “Principles and Pur-

poses.” Available from http://www.uua.org/

aboutuua/principles.html.

BRAD ALLEBY

HUMAN NATURE,PHYSICAL

ASPECTS

A consideration of the physical aspects of human

nature leads to viewing human nature as embod-

ied. Embodiment as a concept is fluid, taking its

LetterH.qxd 3/18/03 1:06 PM Page 428

HUMAN NATURE,PHYSICAL ASPECTS

— 429—

forms from pathways of inquiry that inevitably re-

make it, however provisionally, according to the

task at hand. But surely this is not true of the body.

The body as a physical object, a thing, is solid.

One points to it, sees its movement, hears the

sounds it makes, feels its heart beating, smells its

fragrance, and tastes its sharp salinity. Having a

body is an undeniable fact of life, a solid place of

unity between one human and another, even be-

tween human beings and the more than human

world. But having a body may do no more to unify

than would having a car, wearing clothes, having a

mother, speaking English, and dying. Establishing

links between the concepts of body and concepts

such as human unity requires much more than the

simple facts associated with being bodied. Apart

from pathways of inquiry, then, the fact of body—

its sensory undeniability—seems indeed solid, un-

movable, a mountain of inertia.

So the challenge is to give a technical review

that transforms some of this inertia into movements

along paths of inquiry linking science and religion.

Sadly, this requires that much that is wonderful

about the body will be left out. Further, some sci-

entific results summarized below (e.g., in relation

to physical beauty, human emotion, etc.) may be

susceptible to cultural context; most of the studies

summarized in this entry relied on Western ap-

proaches to science and worked exclusively with

subjects within Western cultures.

The major dynamical systems of the body

Human biology partitions the functions of the

human body into eleven major dynamical systems:

cardiovascular, endocrine, gastrointestinal, hema-

tologic, integumentary, lymphatic, musculoskele-

tal, nervous, reproductive, respiratory, and urinary

(Seeley, Stephens, and Tate, 1995).

The cardiovascular (or circulatory) system in-

cludes the structures of the heart, blood vessels,

and blood. Its functions include the transport of

oxygen and waste gases (e.g., carbon dioxide),

nutrients, waste products, and hormones; the reg-

ulation of body temperature; the regulation of

blood pressure; and a contribution to the immune

response.

The endocrine system includes the structures

of the pituitary, thyroid, parathyroid, thymus, and

adrenal glands, as well as the pancreas, ovaries,

and testis. Its major functions are the regulation of

the following: metabolism and growth, the absorp-

tion of nutrients, fluid balance and ion (i.e., chem-

icals in the body with a positive or negative charge)

concentration, the stress response, and sexual char-

acteristics, reproduction, birth, and lactation.

The gastrointestinal system includes the oral

cavity, salivary glands, esophagus, stomach, liver,

gallbladder, small intestine, large intestine, and rec-

tum. Its functions include the breakdown of food,

the absorption of nutrients, and the elimination of

wastes from the body.

The hematologic system includes blood

plasma (91.5 percent water by volume), blood

cells, red bone marrow, spleen, liver, and kidneys.

Blood cells include erythrocytes (i.e., red blood

cells) for the transport of oxygen and waste gases;

neutrophils for consuming microorganisms and

other substances in the blood (i.e., phagocytosis);

basophils for the release of histamine in inflamma-

tory responses and heparin to prevent blood clots;

eosinophils for the reduction of inflammation and

the attack of some worm parasites; lymphocytes

for the production of antibodies and other sub-

stances to destroy microorganisms and other sub-

stances foreign to the body (e.g., transplanted or-

gans); monocytes for the phagocytosis of bacteria,

dead cells of the body, cell fragments, and other

tissue debris; and platelets for clotting blood. Red

bone marrow is the only source of blood formation

in adults and occurs mainly in bones along the

body’s central axis and in the joints of limbs (i.e.,

epiphyses) that are closest to the center of the

body. The spleen holds a reservoir of blood, which

is released in emergencies. The kidneys release a

chemical, erythropoietin, to stimulate erythrocyte

production. Enlarged monocytes in the liver, called

macrophages, consume old or defective erythro-

cytes. The liver also produces most of the body’s

clotting factors.

The integumentary system includes the struc-

tures of the skin, hair, nails, and sweat glands. It

functions mainly to protect other areas of the body

against abrasions and ultraviolet light, to prevent

the entry of microorganisms and other harmful

substances, to reduce water loss, to regulate body

temperature, to produce precursors to vitamin D

(increases calcium and phosphate uptake in the

intestine), and to provide sensory information

about the body and the body’s environment.

LetterH.qxd 3/18/03 1:06 PM Page 429

HUMAN NATURE,PHYSICAL ASPECTS

— 430—

The lymphatic, or immune, system includes

lymph (a clear fluid that is returned to the blood

via the lymphatic vessels; three liters per day),

lymph vessels, lymph nodes, lymph ducts, the ton-

sils, spleen, thymus gland, and red bone marrow.

The functions of the lymphatic system include re-

moving foreign substances from the blood and

lymph, defending the body against elements of dis-

ease, maintaining fluid balance in the tissues, and

absorbing fat. The two major cell types in the lym-

phatic system are B cells, which mature to secrete

antibodies, and T cells, which recognize foreign

molecular patterns on the surface of the body’s

own cells. Once T cells identify something that is

foreign to the body, they either kill the cell or they

activate other immune responsive cells in the body

(e.g., B cells, macrophages).

The musculoskeletal system includes the

bones of the skeleton and all the muscles attached

to the skeleton. Its main functions are to provide

movement of the body, to maintain body posture,

and to produce body heat. This system does not

include the muscle of the heart or the smooth mus-

cles that are not typically under voluntary control.

The nervous system includes the brain, the

spinal cord, the nerves, and sensory receptors

(e.g., photoreceptors in the eye). Its main func-

tions are to provide sensory input for bodily action,

to control bodily action (the somatic nervous sys-

tem), to control physiological processes typically

beyond voluntary control (the autonomic nervous

system), and to allow for human experience.

The reproductive system in women includes

the vagina, uterus, uterine tube, and ovary, and in

men the penis, prostate, seminal vesicle, ductus (or

vas) deferens, the testis, the epididymis, and scro-

tum. Its main functions are to assist in the control

and performance of sexual behavior.

The respiratory system includes the nose, nasal

cavity, pharynx, oral cavity, larynx trachea,

bronchi, and lungs. Its major functions are to

transport oxygen to the lungs, to exchange waste

carbon dioxide for oxygen, and to regulate the

acidity of the blood (i.e., blood pH).

The urinary system includes the kidneys, ureter,

urinary bladder, and urethra. Its major functions are

to remove wastes from the cardiovascular system;

to regulate blood pH, ion balance and fluid bal-

ance; and to assist in regulating blood pressure.

Paleoanthropology, archaeology, and the

body

Humanity’s origin narratives within Western sci-

ence depend largely on the bodily remains of hu-

manity’s ancestors. Where were the remains found?

What is their three-dimensional character? How old

are they? What damage have they sustained? Ac-

cording to Ann Gibbons in “In Search of the First

Hominids” (2002), recent unearthings of ancient

primate bones have generated controversies in

human evolution on questions ranging from

whether bipedalism evolved on the savannah

to what makes a primate a hominid. Nicknames

given to some of these recently uncovered re-

mains, such as Flat-Faced Man and Little Foot, are

consistent with the importance of the body in

paleoanthropology.

Since the discovery of Lucy, then the earliest

known hominid, in Ethiopia in 1973, early ho-

minids have been defined by their bodily resem-

blance to Lucy. Lucy was small, about the size of

a female chimpanzee, had long arms, a

relatively small volume inside her skull (i.e., in-

tracranial volume), thick tooth enamel, large mo-

lars, smaller canines than earlier paleoanthropolog-

ical fossils, foot bones that suggested bipedalism,

and curved fingers. However, there have also been

attempts by scientists to classify hominids by one or

a few bodily characteristics: Ardipithecus ramidus

(Aramis, Ethiopia; 4.4 million years ago) because its

canines are more like human canines than those of

chimpanzees (the converse is true for its molars);

Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (Aramis, Ethiopia;

5.2 to 5.8 million years ago) because the bones of

its feet suggest bipedalism; Orrorin tugenensis

(Tugen Hills, Kenya; 5.7 to 5.9 million years ago)

because its thighbone (i.e., femur) looks more like

human femurs than do those of Lucy and other

Australopithecines, it has even thicker tooth enamel

than Ardipithecus, and it has molars more like

human molars than those of chimpanzees (the con-

verse is true for its canines).

Controversy is also present in identifying the

number and nature of the evolutionary step(s) to

Homo sapiens from its ancestor, due to the differ-

ences in scientific opinions as to which measure-

ments of the body are the deciding ones. Daniel

Lieberman has proposed replacing the typically

long list of measurements used to classify hominid

skulls with two: the roundness of the skull and the

LetterH.qxd 3/18/03 1:06 PM Page 430