A Christian Response to Genetically Modified Babies

Last updated on: February 28, 2014 at 10:04 am by Ellen Painter Dollar

A Christian Response to Genetically Modified Babies 2014-02-28T10:04:03-05:00 Ellen Painter Dollar

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

An New York Times op ed by Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society cautions against FDA approval of a technique that could produce genetically modified babies. The FDA is considering mitochondrial manipulation technologies, which would allow women at risk of bearing children with mitochondrial disease to have healthy, genetically related children. In mitochondrial disease, which affects several thousand U.S. children each year, the cells’ mitochondria, or “power houses,” fail to convert food into energy. Disease symptoms can range from mild to severe. In the proposed technology, a woman at risk of having children with mitochondrial disease would have nuclear material removed from one of her eggs. That nuclear material would be inserted into an egg from an unaffected donor. The resulting egg, containing the nuclear DNA from the prospective biological mother and the healthy mitochondrial DNA from the donor, could then be fertilized by the prospective father’s sperm and grow into a healthy baby.

Darnovsky raises several key objections to this technology, including the unknown health risks that these genetic modifications could pose to any children born as a result. She notes that many in the scientific community have largely agreed that, “Genetic modifications of sperm, eggs and early embryos should be strictly off limits. Otherwise, we risk venturing into human experimentation and high-tech eugenics.” Another key point is that, contrary to how these technologies and others (such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD) are frequently cast, they don’t actually save lives, in that they don’t alleviate symptoms of existing people who are sick. Rather, these technologies seek to prevent diseases and genetic disorders from occurring in the first place. With mitochondrial manipulation technologies, disease is prevented by joining material from two eggs taken from two different women. With PGD, disorders are prevented by only selecting unaffected embryos for implantation during an in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. Both techniques raise serious ethical questions, about whether creating genetically modified babies or disposing of embryos affected by genetic disorders raise such significant moral concerns that we ought to approach them cautiously, despite the compelling possibility of healthy babies.

I agree with Darnovsky’s concerns with mitochondrial manipulation technologies. I also found myself contemplating these sentences in particular:

Others have failed to note how very few women would be candidates for even considering them. And they could turn to safer and simpler alternatives. An affected woman could adopt or use in vitro fertilization with another woman’s eggs. Of course, the resulting child would not be genetically related to her, but neither would the child be put at grave risk by an extreme procedure.

While donor eggs, IVF, and even PGD are potential options for women at risk of having children with mitochondrial disease to have babies, these techniques also raise significant ethical concerns. Women in this situation don’t have any ethically, emotionally, or physically straightforward and simple way to have children without risk of mitochondrial disease. I’ve read enough of Marcy Darnovsky’s work to believe that she would absolutely agree that the options she names—donor eggs and IVF—raise concerning ethical questions of their own. The hard fact is that any woman at increased risk of having a child with a genetic disorder faces very difficult choices, because there is no easy choice. (Hmmmm…Where have I heard that phrase before?) As Christians, our first response to women facing such difficult choices ought to be empathy and compassion. No matter what we think of reproductive technology from an ethical standpoint, we must first recognize the grief and angst people bear when they cannot simply get pregnant and hope for the best as most parents do.

The rarity of mitochondrial disorders is an argument in favor of extreme caution when considering whether or not genetically modifying babies is justified. But for the women at risk of having babies with this disorder, and their partners, the condition’s rarity is meaningless. This is their babies we’re talking about. In some cases, women willing to undergo this technique will already have children who have suffered or even died from a mitochondrial disorder. For them, this is a deeply personal issue affecting the children with the chubby hands they will wipe after breakfast each morning, the eyes and lips and cheeks they will stroke at bedtime each night. We believe in a God who knows and loves every human being intimately, who numbers the hairs on our heads. Parental love reflects the intimate, knowing love of God—a fact that, again, calls us primarily to compassion toward parents for whom ethically fraught technologies feel like an answer to a thousand wrenching prayers.

Finally, God’s intimate, deeply personal love of each and every human being is another reason that we should question whether genetic modification of babies is justified or just too potentially dangerous. We understand a lot about how babies are conceived and borne. But there’s still a lot we don’t understand. In her op ed, Darnovsky reminds us that many predictions from the early days of genetic science, about how our knowledge would lead to cures for diseases and other wonders, have not come to pass.

While we understand much about the mechanics of reproduction and genetic information, much of the process is still shrouded in mystery. In that mystery, I, as a believer, see a reflection of God’s intricacy and mystery, and a message of sorts about what it means to be human. Our humanity cannot be reduced to our genetic code. There is so much about how we become who we are, about how genetics does and doesn’t influence that process, that we don’t understand. Might we someday? Perhaps. But right now, there is too much unknown for us to say “yes” to techniques leading to genetically modified babies, even as we understand how these techniques would potentially provide hope and health to families affected by mitochondrial disease.

mitochondrial disease

mitochondrial manipulation technologies

New York Times

reproductive ethics

suffering

Previous Post

February 26, 2014

The Problem with the Honey-and-Cinnamon (& Every Other) Miracle Cure

Next Post

March 3, 2014 Writing Letters for Lent

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category disability ethics parenthood Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In the Parable of the Prodigal Son, what did the younger son demand?

Select your answer to see how you score.

His inheritance The best robe Forgiveness A feast