Human Germ Line Modification:

How Religions are Reacting

Kevin Kim




RELS 2001
Abbas Barzegar
May 19, 2014

Kim 2
In this essay I will discuss religion, and its views on human germ line
modification. Germ line research has always been controversial, but has allowed
scientists to cure life threatening diseases and viruses. Human germ line modification has
also allowed researchers to cure/eradicate to life threatening diseases and viruses before a
fetus is even born. Many religions offer their own opinions, and surprisingly their
viewpoints are positive when it comes to saving lives; often allowing forms of human
germ line modification. However, this approval is not across the board, many are
frightened and against this scientific advancement which will be a big focus of this case
study. My goal is to explore how the possible existence of human germ line modification
would impact Christianity.
The Science
Human genetics, cloning, germ line modification, stem cell research, the list goes
on and on. We have all seen some sort of journal article or televised news broadcast on
these topics.
With nearly every advance in medicine, from the smallpox vaccine to organ
transplants, there has been controversy over how much we should be altering
nature. When Louise Brown, the worlds first test-tube baby (now a healthy 23-
year-old), was born in England in 1978, some people called the conception
outside the body immoral and tried to have the technique banned.
1

By the mid 1900s, scientists knew that all forms of life had DNA; the latter of the
twentieth century was spent analyzing and trying to understand the fundamentals. Up till
this point in time the advancement of technology has allowed humans to even sequence
Kim 3
the entire human genome (completed in 2003). As understandings of human genes are
increasing, so are decisions pertaining to conception and birth. Mothers and families with
hereditary diseases would seek out genetic counselors for advice on whether to have
children or not. Now with amniocentesis
2
-- a procedure in which amniotic fluid is
extracted from the womb and examined--, we now have the means of screening fetuses
for specific genetic traits that can indicate for hereditary diseases.
Just as all books in a library can be written in a single language, so, too, are all
living things the result of different messages written in the same exact DNA
language. That means that if a stretch of DNA is taken from a donor and inserted
into the DNA of a hosts cells, those cells will read the new message, regardless
of its source. Doctors found particularly promising, the idea of fixing broken
genes by manipulating DNA through a process known as gene therapy, a form of
genetic engineering.
3
When talking about changing the DNA in human germ cells, scientists use the
term germ line therapy. However in plants or animals, it is what we commonly think of
as genetic engineering.
4
In the upcoming decades, human germ line mutation will
become more and more common. Not only in therapeutic forms, but aesthetic ones as
well. Germinal choice technologies (GTC)
5
are a way future parents can alter their
unborn childs germ line. Stock
6
claims that this technology will be available in the next
few decades, and there is uneasiness of it creating a division of the wealthy and
genetically enhanced, versus the unenhanced. However if such practices were obtainable
and banned by the government, the story would be very different.
Kim 4
Any national ban would merely raise the price of the procedure, drive it
underground, and shift it to more hospitable environments, and reserve it for the
wealthy, who could easily circumvent such a restriction, since borders are
permeable. Advanced embryo screening will soon be with us, and it seems
destined eventually to become the foundation for other, more provocative GCT.
7

Religion
With this technology society will become far more secular than before, even with
the media and how it is today. DiSilvestro
8
provides an argument against human germ
line modification through the religion of Christianity. With Christianity having so many
branches, DiSilvestro will be focusing on the Protestant denomination. The first argument
presents that playing God is morally prohibited, and germ line engineering is playing
God.
9
Many Protestants and most Christians would agree that in the book of Genesis,
God created man in the image he saw most fit. They would argue that altering the human
germ line would mean God had made an error. However could the same be said for those
who are born with abnormalities and hereditary diseases?
This now-dominant secular culture has abandoned traditional Christian norms. It
no longer endorses traditional sexual norms restricting sexual intercourse to the marriage
of a man and a woman.
10
Delkeskamp-Hayes argues that the church over the years has
gradually given in to social pressure. A prime example would be abortion, from the point
where secular culture became more tolerant of the procedure, however was condemned if
it was for the purpose of selecting the sex of a future child. Thus furthering the argument
that Human Germ line Genetic Engineering (HGGE)
11
would get support from the
Kim 5
secular culture if it meant no more birth defects and hereditary illnesses. However, not
many are willing to entertain this notion.
Jones gives serious credit to Glovers idea that HGGE amounts not only to a
choice between the presence and the absence of a disability in a persons future
offspring Jones interprets such choice in terms of a replacement of a persons:
certain persons whom God would have wanted to come to life are now replaced
by persons whom God had not wanted to come to life. HGGE would thus amount
to interfering with what God would have wanted a persons offspring to look
like.
12

Jones further argues that the resulting generations of persons that God did not
wish to be born would not be able to realize the purpose and existence God planned for
them, because in theory, they would not have one. Why should the presence or absence of
a disability determine someones identity? Is that person not the same with or without the
given disability? Jones seems to be unwilling to allow God any foreknowledge of future
humans. He cannot, surely, disallow such knowledge in all respects, for otherwise God
could not have predicted Abrahams and Jacobs seed being as numerous as the sand in
the desert or the stars of heaven.
13

Traditional Christianity has always affirmed medicine as a gift from God.
14
It is
considered an answer to the many prayers of the sick and ill. Lastochkina proposes that
if one thinks of genetically inherited diathesis to certain kinds of self-destructive
passions like smoking and alcoholism, or to perverted inclination like homosexuality,
would it not be acceptable and perhaps even desirable for Christians to ensure through
Kim 6
HGGE that ones progeny be relieved of such burden from our fallen-nature-
inheritance?
15
Would Christian viewpoints change if this were the case? Over time
Traditional Christian viewpoints would surrender to the secular populace, judging from
the habits of the Christian Church (as mentioned before ex. Abortion). This shows that
Christianity evolves and adapts, and when HGGE is possible then the church will
hopefully reexamine their findings.
In 2012 the Nuffield Council on Bioethics agreed that germ line therapy is
acceptable in order to avoid the maternal transmission of mitochondrial disease.
16
As of
the present, most medical professionals help to identify abnormalities in order to weed
out unborn children with a disability.
17
With this sort of embryonic testing being
available today, and abortion being legal, there is nothing to stop couples from trying
again and again until a genetically sound embryo comes along. There would be
significant emotional stress from having to terminate numerous embryos due to a
hereditary disease. If this hypothetical couple were Christian, they would pray for a way
to have a healthy child, and in a way, advancement of HGGE is the answer to those
prayers.
Before any further research occurs, we should consider the kind of society in
which we want to live. None of us is perfect and invincible. Some infirmity will,
sooner or later, affect those of us who are lucky enough to grow old. Many of us
would feel ill at ease in a society that fails to welcome the infirm and the disabled.
Moreover, suffering might teach us better to co-suffering with others. It might
help us to become more tolerant, more helpful, and more understanding of people
Kim 7
who need us or who are looking to us for friendship, companionship, and
sympathy. As Christians, we are called to love our neighbors.
18

It is basic human instinct to be frightened by the unknown. Human Genetic Germ
line Engineering will no doubt be further explored, and it will not slow down for any
religion. Instead Christianity and other religions will have keep up.













Kim 8
Notes


1
J. Trefil, SMITHSONIAN; 2001, 32(PART 9):38-46 Pub: United States, THE
MCLAUGHLIN GROUP, 2001
2
Trefil, SMITHSONIAN, part 9
3
Trefil, SMITHSONIAN, part 9
4
Trefil, SMITHSONIAN, part 9
5
Gregory Stock, Reproductive BioMedicine Online (Reproductive Healthcare
Limited). Mar2005 Supplement 1, Vol. 10, p27-35. 9p.
6
Stock, Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 30
7
Stock, Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 29
8
Russel DiSilvestro, Christian Bioethics: Non-ecumenical Studies in Medical
Morality. Aug2012, Vol. 18 Issue 2, p201-218. 18p.
9
DiSilvestro, Christian Bioethics: Non-ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality,
205
10
Corinna Delkeskamp-Hayes, Christian Bioethics: Non-ecumenical Studies in
Medical Morality. Aug2012, Vol. 18 Issue 2, p219-230. 12p.
11
Delkeskamp-Hayes, Christian Bioethics: Non-ecumenical Studies in Medical
Morality, 221
12
M. Lastochkina, CHRISTIAN BIOETHICS; AUG, 2012, 18 2, p163-p170, 8p.
13
Lastochkina, CHRISTIAN BIOETHICS, 166
14
Delkeskamp-Hayes, Christian Bioethics: Non-ecumenical Studies in Medical
Morality, 228
Kim 9

15
Lastochkina, CHRISTIAN BIOETHICS, 168
16
Agneta Sutton, Ethics and Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics,
29(1), 17-22. 6 p. Spring 2013.29(1), 17-22. 6 p. Spring 2013.
17
Sutton, Ethics and Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics, 18

18
Sutton, Ethics and Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics, 20




































Kim 10

Bibliography

Delkeskamp-Hayes, Corinna. Christian Bioethics: Non-ecumenical Studies in Medical
Morality. Aug2012, Vol. 18 Issue 2, p219-230. 12p.
DiSilvestro, Russel. Christian Bioethics: Non-ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality.
Aug2012, Vol. 18 Issue 2, p201-218. 18p.
Lastochkina, M. CHRISTIAN BIOETHICS; AUG, 2012, 18 2, p163-p170, 8p.
Stock, Gregory. Reproductive BioMedicine Online (Reproductive Healthcare Limited).
Mar2005 Supplement 1, Vol. 10, p27-35. 9p.
Sutton, Agneta. Ethics and Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics, 29(1), 17-
22. 6 p. Spring 2013.29(1), 17-22. 6 p. Spring 2013.
Trefil, J. SMITHSONIAN; 2001, 32(PART 9):38-46 Pub: United States, THE
MCLAUGHLIN GROUP, 2001




















Kim 11