The Biotechnology Revolution: A Christian Perspective
New Mexico Conference of Churches Faith and Order Working Group
February 2002
Contents
I. Biblical Background for Conversation between Science and
Technology
II. The Search for Truth: Science and Theology
III. Ethical Background and Considerations
V. Case Studies and Discussion Questions
Preface
Prayer of Gratitude for Technological Advances
Let no technological wonder disturb you.
Let no scientific breakthrough frighten you.
None.
Not laser beams. Not implants. Not cyberspace. Not cloning.
None. All technology is limited. The Spirit alone is limitless.
Wonder attains enlightenment. One who has God is filled with awe.
Behold, God alone makes all things new.
Mary Lou Kownacki, OSB
When the arrogance of some scientists says "because we can--we will"
confronts the arrogance of some church bodies that says "because we
say you shouldn't--you won't," can there be a dialogue?
As we enter the first decade of what has been called the "Biotech
Century," science and society as a whole have presented to the Christian
churches an opportunity to speak out on the moral implications of biotechnology
and our responsibility as co-creators for the stewardship of all creation.
The explosion of our knowledge of genetics--plant, animal and human--is
unparalleled in human history. Combined with the technological advances
in computer science and biological intervention and manipulation this new
knowledge has the potential to radically change the world as we know it.
The potential benefits of this new knowledge and technological ability hold
great promise for humankind and all of creation for which we have been given
the responsibility of stewardship. At the same time, they have the ability
to do irreversible harm not only to the human organism but also other biological
organisms and the environment as a whole. In order for the community of
Christians to exercise the stewardship we have been assigned it is necessary
for us to carefully and prayerfully evaluate the nature of that stewardship.
Three models of our response to intervention and/or manipulation of the
created order have been proposed by Max Stackhouse. These models can help
us understand the basis of our responsibility for stewardship.
- The preservationist perspective, the most conservative and minimalist,
holds that all creation is essentially broken by sin and that any intervention
to modify the created order, while legitimate, cannot effect substantial
change. - The restorationist perspective, a "middle-ground" approach,
holds that as stewards of creation we have the responsibility, the Christian
duty, to restore creation to its unbroken condition intended by the creator - The progressivist (constructionist) perspective, holds that all human
intervention and manipulation of the created order that is aimed at perfecting
or improving that order, is not only legitimate, but required by our role
as co-creators with God of all creation.
Which model of stewardship we choose to follow will determine how we welcome
or confront, encourage or restrain, accept or reject the scientific breakthroughs
and technological advances that are before us. It is our responsibility
as a community of believers to address the critical ethical issues presented
by this new and radical scientific activity that is a reality in the 21st
century.
The potential conflict between science and religion is nothing new for
the churches. That the certain knowledge of faith as present in religion,
and the certain knowledge of reason as present in science, may collide is
to be expected. They are two different approaches to the "truth,"
and they have not and will not always arrive at the "truth" at
the same time or in the same context. In the past this conflict has most
often arisen over a different understanding of what the created order is.
In recent times, the conflict has very often been over the appropriate use
of that created order.
The potential conflict today between science and religion is not simply
an issue of degree. It is not just a more thorough/complete understanding
of, or the more serious consequences of our use of the created order. The
conflict today is essentially different in that it is based not on our understanding
of the created order or our use of it, but rather on our ability to change
the very nature of the created order itself
In the position statement that follows, the Faith and Order Working Group
has attempted to spell out our understanding of our response to, and Christian
witness concerning the new knowledge and scientific abilities that are and
will be a significant part of the Biotech Century.
I. The Biblical Background For The
Conversation Between Faith And Biotechnology
It is obvious that the authors of the Biblical writings did not have the
faintest idea of the issues, which in our generation are raised by modern
biotechnology. No string of quotations from the Scriptures can answer the
question what "the Bible says" in reference to an emerging science
which--for better or worse--seems to put much of life into human hands.
However, it is also clear that Biblical thinking suggests some fundamental
perspectives and parameters, or concerns, which Christians as partners in
the conversation would want to keep in mind when they reflect upon the implications
of their faith for the issues that have arisen. Such perspectives would
include the following:
- Christian belief in God as creator, sustainer, and redeemer instills
a sense of God's majesty, power, sovereignty, holiness, mystery and thus
evokes respect, trust, confidence, commitment, the desire to do his will.
Therefore, a Christian ethos cannot be simply utilitarian, pragmatic,
anthropocentric, hedonistic, rather, it is oriented towards God's purposes
as best as we can understand them. - Christian belief in God as Lord over life and death entails a profound
respect for life, the gift of life itself, its own worth and dignity reaching
beyond its possible "handicaps." It does so without idolizing
life or denying the reality of death. - The creation stories (Genesis 1-2) assign to humans the highest place
of all of God's creatures (cf. Psalm 8). God established a special relationship
between the creator and humankind. Having created them in "God's
image" and having "breathed into their nostrils the breath of
life," God tells them "to till the garden" and to have
"dominion" over plants and animals. Men and women are the only
creatures who can answer God, either in trust or in defiance, - Both the belief in God as creator and the understanding of the human
being as uniquely related to God and thus entrusted by God to take care
of creation as well as of the gift of life are the basis for the Christian
affirmation and interpretation of human dignity and fundamental human
freedoms, essential human rights and human responsibilities. - Beyond these general perspectives, often shared by people of different
faiths, Christians would express particular concerns, for instance, about
demands implicit in the commandment of love toward one's neighbor, including
care for the well-being of children and future generations; respect for
the individual conscience, support of the poor and implementation of social
justice in medical care; careful consideration of consequences and side
effects of our experiments and actions upon ourselves as well as others;
and respect for the wholeness of the human being--body, mind and soul.
II. The Relationship of Science
And Religion
Introduction
In popular culture and in the popular mind there seems to be a conflict
between religion and science. Though the fact of the matter is that religious
people have greatly contributed to the advance of science, and though the
vast majority of scientists, like the general population, are believers,
the popular conception of the scientist is that he or she is the cold, calculating,
logical and self-reliant person who has no need for God either in their
work or in their lives.
As a matter of fact there is no conflict between science and religion.
When either moves out of its sphere to create a conflict, it becomes either
bad science or bad religion. There ought to be a mutual respect and admiration
for the contribution of both to the common good and to bringing out the
best in the scientist and in the religious person.
We use the terms religion and theology somewhat synonymously because the
science of religion is theology. The theologian is required to have the
precision of the scientist when speaking of religion, just as the scientist
is required to have the reverence of the theologian when speaking of religion.
As will be pointed out elsewhere in this project, moral theology and ethics
are very important to the determination of what is best for society in the
area of genetic and biotechnical research. In this area of human concern
theology and science need to be listening to each other. They need to cooperate
in their mutual search for truth and what is right.
The Search for Truth
What science and theology have in common is the search for truth. Truth
is not something we possess. It is something we constantly seek. In theological
terms God is truth. And so we will never possess God, we simply find God
revealed more and more deeply and clearly as we explore the Scriptures,
history and the world around us. Similarly science is a search for truth.
It is the discovery of God in the laws of nature, in the marvels of the
cosmos and of the microcosm. The telescope and the microscope are the tools
of the scientist. And the truthful scientist will admit that every discovery
opens up new possibilities of further discoveries.
As we write, the scientific world has announced the mapping of the human
genome. At a press conference, the leading doctors from Cela and from the
government sponsored genome program admit the many surprises they found
as they finally mapped the human genome. They do not consider this discovery
the end of the line, but rather the beginning of a whole new level of discovery.
They have established a platform from which future scientists can launch
further exploration.
Scientific truth and theological truth may seem to be, in many ways, very
different. But in the end they are very similar. Honesty and humility are
required in both science and theology in the search for truth. Both sciences
have their rules and their limitations. Both have long been considered ancillary.
Without their mutual collaboration, the common good will suffer.
The Common Good
In an earlier age, the common good was a concept that was well understood
and appreciated. There was a greater sense that, as John Donne put it, "No
man is an island. We are all a part of the continent." What affects
the least, affects all. A chain is as strong as its weakest link. The greatness
of society is measured by its care for the poor. All of these aphorisms
reflect a sense that the greatest good of all is linked to the good of the
least. The value of an idea or a project should be assessed by its impact
on the weakest and poorest members of society.
In our time, materialism, individualism and secularism have turned persons
and society itself inward. So much so that a selfish self-seeking seems
to dominate the prevalent value system. We have already begun to reap the
whirlwind that was sown in this turn to self as the prime value of society.
Self-sacrifice is at the heart of the Judeo-Christian message. It is at
the heart of the long tradition of Greek and Roman culture and its ethical
standards. The city is as strong as its weakest citizen. Society is as strong
as we make each member. Such strength can only come from a sense of the
communion that binds us together as human beings and members of society.
The common good is at the heart of ethical demands of human existence.
If science or even theology are left to ride roughshod over the common good,
it is not hard to imagine the kind of chaos will follow. This is the experience
of the ages. This is the experience reflected in the sacred writings which
Christians believe to be inspired by God.
The Abuse of Power
Religious people must admit that in the past there were many abuses of
power. The Inquisition is but one example. The pursuit of science, many
claim, was impeded by an overbearing interference of the Church--and of
religion generally--in the pursuit of science. It is possible we are facing
the opposite abuse of power today. There are those in the world of science
who would seem to advocate that what can be done, ought to be done; that
the pursuit of "pure science" is the ultimate goal of human beings.
Science fiction is replete with examples of what such unbridled pursuit
of science can bring. One need only think of the monster created by Dr.
Frankenstein. In 1999, hundreds of thousands of acres of Iowa corn were
rendered useless by a rather reckless experiment recently that gave us all
some pause about the "pure good" of biogenetic engineering.
The "American Experiment" is predicated on a system of checks
and balances. This system assures that no part of our government will be
absolute. Each has its role. All must cooperate with respect to the rights
and privileges of the other. Thus neither the executive, the legislative
nor the judicial branch of the government is absolute. Each has its place.
Ultimately the courts are the arbiters of the law. But the executive and
the legislative branches of government have their respective roles in the
formulation and amendment of laws. The people, finally, have the power to
elect those who make the laws and govern the people.
The value of this system of checks and balances can be seen in other areas
of human interaction. It is visible where science and theology must collaborate.
This is particularly true in the area of ethics and morality. Specifically
this collaboration is necessary in the area of genetics and biotechnical
research.
The Collaboration of Science and Theology
Science and theology, religion and bioethics, pursue a common goal: the
truth. Scientists and theologians need to respect each other. They also
need to help each other. Each must be given academic freedom to pursue its
own ends. And each must be allowed to explore the possibilities that lie
open to it. Each must have the humility to know the limitations of its inquiry.
Each must realize that seeking its own self-aggrandizement is a form of
idolatry. As such it risks to pit the human mind against the eternal. As
such it threatens to turn human beings into monsters.
With mutual respect and collaboration science and theology can help each
other. This is especially true in ethics, morality and medicine. The ethical
boards of hospitals and research laboratories render a great service to
the scientists who work in them. They are the conscience and guide of the
scientist, as the scientist is the conscience and guide--at least in some
respects--of religion.
It is the hope and promise of this collaboration that guides this study
of bioethics undertaken by the Faith and Order Working Group of the New
Mexico Conference of Churches. It is with deep appreciation for the contributions
of modern science to the health, well-being and life of modern men and women,
that we seek to collaborate with men and women of science in looking together
at what the Church and the scientific world can do together to assure that
the common good is pursued and served by future experimentation and research.
Conclusion
We pray that our reflections will be helpful in putting scientific research
in the context of a deep appreciation and respect for the truth. We ask
God to bless our brothers and sisters who seek to advance the quality of
life of our contemporaries. We share that common goal. We see human existence
in a broader and more comprehensive view than a limited number of years
on earth. We see our pilgrimage as reaching to transcendent and eternal
dimensions. In this view we believe the work of the scientist is not diminished
but given greater and lasting value.
III. Ethical Background and
Considerations
Normative Ethics
Classical ethics can accurately and appropriately be defined as "the
study of right behavior in human relationships." It is sometimes called
"moral philosophy" and is concerned with the universal values/principles
that must be considered when determining right and wrong behavior in human
relationships. Because it is that branch of philosophy that deals with behavior
in the context of relationships, it presupposes the reality of "the
common good" without defining what that "good" is. It is
more concerned with the questions we must ask ourselves and others regarding
right behavior than with the answers to those questions and the specific
behavior that is being studied.
Formal (classical) ethics does not provide us with directives regarding
what we should do, but rather, it identifies for us what we must consider
in deciding what we should do. Ethics as such is built on reason. When ethics
is built on or informed by faith it is no longer ethics (moral philosophy),
it is moral theology.
Formal/Classical ethics provides us with the framework for exploring right/wrong
behavior with individuals who do not share our faith-informed values and
principles. In our increasingly pluralistic and diverse society, ethics
can provide us with a common ground for discussion. When dealing with science
and scientists this reason-based approach may be the only common ground
available to us as people of faith.
Identifying universally held values and principles can be very difficult
in that these values and principles are played out in a cultural, often
faith-shared, social context. Whether we use the ontological theory of Aristotle/Thomas
Aquinas, the utilitarianism of John Stewart Mill (not to be confused with
20th century situation ethics), virtue ethics as proposed by Immanuel Kant,
or the ethics of care as developed by Carol Gilligan, the number of universally
held ethical values and principles is small.
The ethical values and principles common to (although sometimes differently
stated) and considered to be universally accepted by the above stated normative
ethical theories are justice, autonomy, integrity and veracity. Using these
four values, we have a shared base for entering into a discussion of the
ethical implications of biotechnology with science and scientists.
Christian Ethics
Because we are Christian, our ethics, no matter which normative ethical
theory we embrace, is informed by our faith in Jesus Christ. To be apologetic
for that faith is to do a disservice to ourselves, our denominational faith
communities, the faith itself and the scientists and scientific community
with whom we seek a dialogue. In the person of Jesus the Christ we have
the model for our ethical behavior. Although our different denominations
may arrive at different specific value judgments on biotechnology issues
and procedures, we hold certain ethical modifiers in common:
- Justice must be tempered by mercy.
- Autonomy must be seen in the context of community (all creation).
- Integrity requires a preferential disposition to the poor and voiceless
in the context of the common good. - Veracity must be in service of the ultimate truth.
The "genie is out of the bottle" and no matter how much we wish
we could slow down or even reverse what has been accomplished in biotechnology,
we can not. Species both plant and animal have been genetically altered,
cloning (even human cloning) is a present reality not a future threat, and
the environment has been (maybe irreversibly) changed.
It is our responsibility as a people of faith to bring our ethical perspectives
on biotechnology to the broader community and specifically to those individuals
and institutions that are responsible for the biotech revolution we are
part of.
IV. Pastoral Concerns
At the heart of our American experience of democracy lies the cherished
belief in the individual's right and responsibility to participate and speak
out. The member communions of the New Mexico Conference of Churches understand
that this belief includes public institutions as well as individuals. It
is from this that we add our voice to the civic discussion now in progress
around the question of genetic engineering and cloning.
We offer this paper as our common voice in this ongoing conversation with
the prayer that it will be of use to members of the Conference churches
as they make life changing genetic decisions. It is also offered to public
policy decision makers, boards of directors and financial investment advisors
of multi-national corporations, scientists, researchers, medical staff in
public and private institutions and to any others involved in this crucial
decision making process.
In the more than a year and a half that our Faith and Order Working Group
labored on this paper, significant advances took place in the field of genetic
engineering and human cloning. At the end of 2001 and in early 2002 as we
put on the finishing touches public announcements were made revealing the
first successful cloning of human cells and of 'CC', a calico kitten. Despite
what some of us felt, that this paper is more an exercise in shutting the
barn door after the horses are out, others of us felt that there was great
value in our voice being heard and our contribution being offered.
The pace of technological development and change, scientific research and
medical innovation began increasing exponentially in the middle of the 20th
century and has not slowed since. When this was coupled with an economic
system based solely on conspicuous consumer consumption, traditional values
changed. Once careful, considered decisions growing out of reflection and
dialog among diverse individuals and communities was a prime social value.
Now the instant reaction of a select 'focus group' of demographically representative
consumers determines the future of everything from political positions to
toothpaste to genetic engineering. By the beginning of the 21st century
rapid adaptation to change has emerged as a critical and necessary major
life skill for the survival of individuals and institutions. Anyone or any
institution that pauses to raise questions about the wisdom of pursuing
flat out change and unreflective innovation is labeled a 'Luddite' and written
off as useless. Left in the dust of the past.
To the casual observer it appears that the Church (used here to represent
the members of the New Mexico Conference of Churches--Roman Catholic and
'Mainline' Protestant communions) is a good example of a dust covered Luddite.
It moves so slowly that it cannot keep up. Definitely not on the cutting
edge, it is not seemingly even part of the handle. Yet this very 'slowness,'
judged a weakness by some, becomes the strength we bring to any discussion
of choices and directions.
The Church moves slowly because it has a long memory. In our decision making
process of reflecting and discerning, we consider not only the immediate
necessities of 2002 but also the necessities of 3002. We consider not only
the 2000-year history of the church, but also the history of the faithful
who preceded the Church. We consider not only the needs of the consumer
economy and the scientific/technical/military/ industrial complex but also
the needs of those whose voices have been ignored as well as those of Creation
itself. We take into consideration not just the results of technical and
scientific research but also the stories in our Scriptures and other documents
that contain much about human history and human nature. We look up from
the questions of 'can we do it?' and 'what's the bottom line' and consider
the questions of 'what does God intend for human life?' and 'what does it
takes to make and keep human life human?'
The Church moves slowly because we have learned from our own failures and
mistakes. In the histories of each of our respective denominations we can
point to times and seasons when our pride and hubris blinded us to the work
of God. We wandered off into the conviction that our particular understanding
of the faith was most beloved by God and so, of course, was the only fitting,
appropriate and 'right' expression. So, we thought, the use of any and all
means available to us to insure that people conformed to our understanding
of the faith was acceptable. At great cost in human suffering and death
we have each learned that God doesn't like to work that way. The road back
from this excess was long and painful and often not straight. Even now we
exercise great vigilance with each other to keep from wandering off again.
We can speak from experience about the cost of tunnel vision.
The Church moves slowly because the experience that created us, the life
of Jesus as recounted in the Gospels and illumined by the Spirit, continues
to elude capture, containment and domestication. Just when we thought we
understood it, something unseen before emerges from the texts and traditions
and widens our view. One recent illumination for us has been the directive
to listen to the voices of those with no power, who reside on the margins
and who cannot speak for themselves. We are still learning the painful lesson
that God very often speaks through those we've thought to be useless and
whom we have ignored and overlooked.
So we ask whose voices, in this conversation about genetic engineering,
are not being heard? Around the tables in government offices, in the boardrooms
of multi-national corporations, in the meetings of hospital and university
ethics and policy committees, in the triage centers of health care insurance
providers, who is not heard and not listened to? Who speaks? Who does not?
What does the earth and the environment say about genetic manipulation?
Will anyone, can anyone, speak for the new life our technology and science
is now creating? Of what value is the voice of a cloned creature? Will the
concerns of those who cannot afford the cost of the new technology and medical
treatment be heard? Who speaks for those who will have to deal with the
inevitable waste, by-products and failed results that will have to be dumped
someplace?
The Church moves slowly because we know first hand how easily humans can
deceive themselves through pride, blindness and hypocrisy. We know what
happens when one acts on the spur of the moment, for the short-term big
bottom line, when one fails to ask questions about the long haul or take
into account the law of unintended consequences. Our own history has taught
us this. Our own experience continues to teach us this lesson. We pose the
question: What makes institutions of scientific endeavor and technological
innovation, less proud, blind, and hypocritical than we? Or are they?
The Church moves slowly because we know and celebrate the marvels of technology
and the achievements of science. We affirm that these have improved life
for human beings even as we witness to our belief that there is more to
human life then gadgets, things and an end to suffering and struggle. We
remember those times in our history when the Church resisted change and
held back innovation and the world and life in it suffered needlessly. We
also remember those times when we did not resist change and hold back innovation
and the world and life in it suffered needlessly.
The Church moves slowly because in all that happens we are listening for
God. What does God desire for the human race? One question we are asking
ourselves is 'In what way do genetic engineering and cloning respond to
our belief that what God is up to in this world is an end to suffering and
sadness and the defeat of death?'
The Church moves slowly because we know life to be a divine mystery. We
are not ready to "…give up on life…by presuming to 'understand'
it--that is by reducing it to the terms of our understanding and by treating
it as predictable or mechanical." Life, in its broadest sense, is a
miracle and we are clear that it cannot be enslaved, made into property
or put up for sale.
To encourage conversation on genetic engineering and cloning, we offer
the following case studies and discussion questions.
V. Case Studies and Discussion Questions
- A member of your congregation has just learned that another close female
relative has been diagnosed with breast cancer. Her physician recommends
that she at least consider a prophylactic radical mastectomy to greatly
reduce the odds that she will develop breast cancer as well. - A couple in your neighborhood has been working with an infertility clinic
for several years. After giving birth to healthy triplets, they decide
that their family is large enough. The clinic staff ask them what they
intend to do with the leftover frozen embryos. There are so many choices,
and all of them seem to be both wise and dangerous. They discuss this
with family and friends and neighbors. The options they are considering
are: continue to pay for the storage of the embryos and wait to decide
what to do with them; donate them to scientific research where the stem
cells might help in the development of treatment for diseases such as
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's; donate them to an anonymous childless couple
so that they can be brought to birth; donate them to a childless couple
whom they choose from a registry (and decide whether or not to continue
a relationship with the potential parents of their offspring-); or donate
them to a known couple. - Your brother-in-law has confided in you that he has been tested for
Huntington's chorea, a genetic disease that causes certain death. He is
waiting for the results, but hasn't told his wife (your sister-in-law)
or his siblings or his children that he has been tested. He believes that
everyone would be better off not knowing the results, so he plans to keep
them to himself. - A couple in your church have a four-year-old son with cystic fibrosis.
They have just discovered that they are pregnant, but do not want to go
through the heartache of having a second child with the disease. They
are uncomfortable with the idea of abortion, but are frightened about
genetic testing results that might force them to make that decision. - After raising four sons, a couple discover a peri-menopausal pregnancy.
They are willing to continue the pregnancy if the fetus is female, but
not if it is male. They share their concerns with other members of the
choir, and the story spreads. Now, they are being shunned by members in
the congregation who think that sex selection is an unethical basis for
abortion. - Prior to their first pre-marital counseling visit, the groom confides
in the minister that he is concerned about the incidence of mental illness
in his fiancée's family. They are committed to having a family,
but he is worried that the pattern of bipolar disease will continue in
their children. Should he suggest genetic testing to the couple?
These are not scenarios out of science fiction. They happen to real people
now, and we only hear or read about them if they are people known to us
or the press gets hold of the stories. How we think and feel about these
issues is colored by our faith, our own experience, our uneasiness about
science, and our hope in medical miracles. How do we, then, consider them
from a theological and faith based position?
Study and Discussion Questions:
1. Is there a greater good, to protect children and families from disease
and suffering, that outweighs the sanctity of human life?
2. Is it always necessary to know the truth even if one doesn't seek it?
Is information always neutral? Does genetic information require an action?
3. What are parents' responsibilities to their future children?
4. How confidential should genetic information be in cases of married couples?
5. Should there be a duty to warn family members of potentially dangerous
genetic information? Should a doctor violate confidentiality in order to
protect other family members?
6. Who is responsible for paying for genetic testing: the individual or
family, or society? Remember that society will bear some of the cost of
caring for or treating people with genetic diseases.
7. Does a diagnosis of mental illness, particularly one that can be managed
with medication, mean that one should not have children? That a pregnancy
should be terminated? Is a life with mental illness or disability not worth
having?
Selected Bibliography
Beauchamp, Tom, and Bowie, Norman, E., Eds. Ethical
Theory. Prentice Hall, 1997.
Berry, Wendell. Life is a Miracle: An Essay Against
Modern Superstition. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint,
2000.
Bouma, Hessel, Douglas Kiekema, Edward Langerak, Theodore Orttman and Allen
Verhey, eds. Christian Faith, Health and Medical
Practice. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
Cahill, Lisa Sowle. "The Genome Project: More Than a Medical
Milestone." America, 2000, pp. 7-13.
Geis, Sally B. and Donald E. Meseer, eds. The Befuddled
Stork: Helping People of Faith Debate Beginning-of-Life Issues.
Nashville: Abingdon, 2000.
"Genetics and Faith." The Park Ridge Center
Bulletin. January/February 2000.
Genetics! Where Do We Stand as Christians?
(Study Guide). Chicago: Division for Church in Society, Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America, 2001.
Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982.
Holland, Suzanne, Karen Lebacqz, and Laurie Zoloth, eds. The
Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy.
Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2002.
Kant, Immanuel. Foundations of the Metaphysics of
Morals. Macmillan Publishing Co., 1959.
Keller, Evelyn Fox. The Century of the Gene.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Kilner, John F., Nigel M. de S. Cameron and David L. Shiedermayer, eds.
Bioethics and the Future of Medicine: A Christian
Appraisal. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1995.
Kilner, John F., Rebecca D. Pentz and Frank E. Young, eds. Genetic
Ethics: Do the Ends Justify the Genes? Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Kownacki, Mary Lou, OSB. Prayers for a New Millennium.
Liguori, MO: Liguori Press, 1998.
Lebacqz, Karen, ed. Genetics, Ethics and Parenthood.
New York: Pilgrim Press, 1983.
Medina, John. The Genetic Inferno: Inside the Seven
Deadly Sins. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press, 2000.
Meilanener, Gilbert C. Bioethics: A Primer for Christians.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Meilanener, Gilbert C. Body, Soul and Bioethics.
Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995.
Mills, John Stewart. Utilitarianism.
Longmans, Green and Co., 1882.
Newton, Lisa H., ed. Ethics in America.
Prentice Hall, 1989.
Peters, Ted. For the Love of Children: Genetic Technology
and the Future of the Family. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 1996.
Peters, Ted, ed. Genetics: Issues of Social Justice.
Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1998.
Peterson, James C. Genetic Turning Points: The Ethics
of Human Genetic Intervention. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2001.
Preston, Richard, "Genome Wars." The New Yorker,
June 12, 2000, pp. 66-78.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.
Reiss, Michael J. and Roger Straughan. Improving
Nature: The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Ridley, Matt. Genome: The Autobiography of a Species
in 23 Chapters. Harpers Collins, 1999.
Rifkin, Jeremy. The Biotech Century.
New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 1998.
Shreeve, James, "Secrets of the Gene." National
Geographic, October 1999, Vol. 196, No. 4, pp.42-75.
Spohn, William C. Go and Do Likewise: Jesus and
Ethics. Continuum Publishing Co.: 1999.
"The Presiding Bishop's Consultation on Bioethics."
Anglican Theological Review, Vol. 81, No. 4, Fall 1999.
U.S. Catholic Bishops. Science and the Catholic Church.
. Critical Decisions: Genetic Testing and Its Implications.
. The Promise and Peril of Genetic Screening.
Web sites are available for all major denominations. Check individual
sites for further information regarding denominational statements and resources
about genetics.
