Only by cultivating a robust defense of what it means to be a human being can we understand the ethical problems of creating a subhuman life form as a resource and the theological problems of mixing species of different natures on a level that undermines the image of God and diminishes humanity. We must understand what is being proposed, consider the types of arguments offered supporting this research, and evaluate our own unclear responses against it. The only question considered by most scientists is whether or not they will be the ones doing the experiments.”Īny strategy to understand chimera research and formulate a spiritually informed response requires several steps. 4 As a professor of neurobiology and anatomy recently told me in a private conversation, “There is no question as to whether or not the experiments will be done. Whether motivated by consequentialist arguments, a purely reductionist view of humanity, or the simple desire to advance within their profession with no deep reflection about the nature of the life being manipulated, it seems that Wesley Smith is correct there is little desire or willingness to put meaningful regulations into place. As Christians struggle to fit these ever-changing advancements in our worldview, the scientific community rushes ahead at breakneck speed. It is less clear that those alarms will in any way slow down the progression of embryo technology. It is clear the idea of part animal and part human embryos sets off alarms in our intuition. Our moral considerations, which require careful reflection, hopelessly lag behind the accelerating capacities of scientists to manipulate human life. As the outcry from the announcement opening NIH financing for human animal chimeras still echoed, headlines trumpeting the birth of the first “three parent” child erupted on the scene. We barely have time to process one new genetic novelty before another is making headlines. George and Christopher Tollefsen as the abilities of researchers to do things to or with embryos, 3 and genetic engineering advance seemingly daily. Embryo technology, defined by coauthors Robert P. 2 The comments posted at the NIH website expressed warnings and fears about scientific arrogance and playing God. Smith published his response “Brave New World Should Be an Election Issue” at First Things. Rod Dreher’s piece on The American Conservative website was entitled “Christian-Run Agency Embraces Pig-Man.” 1 Wesley J. Some of the headlines that followed in response assured that the NIH would receive plenty of comments. In the same announcement, NIH opened a feedback period and offered the public a chance to voice any concerns about public money being used in this manner. On August 4, 2016, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that it intended to lift a moratorium on combining human and animal genetic material. Purposefully creating a subhuman form of life in order to have something as similar to us biologically as is possible without involving moral obligation is an illegitimate endeavor. Human beings are not the kind of thing that ought to be used for others’ benefit. We are the imago Dei, set apart by the Creator who made each according to our own kind. The most effective counter is to get past ill-defined charges of playing God and provide a robust understanding of what it means to be human, with serious consideration on the nature of the life we wish to create for the purposes of exploitation. Should federal grants be used to encourage more research in this area? Arguments supporting the measures range from those that beg the question and wrongly assume the ethics have already been settled, to familiar consequentialist and utilitarian appeals to the immeasurable possible goods, and reductionist views of human beings as merely animals with no special nature to protect.
Too few people seem to grasp that this is a question of funding, and the research will happen regardless of public discomfort. The rapidly advancing field of genetics rarely affords the opportunity for deep ethical reflection before another breakthrough splashes the headlines.
Chimera human professional#
An immediate response from both professional pundits and the general public expressed profound discomfort with this idea. The National Institutes of Health recently opened the possibility of federal funding for chimera research, the genetic mixing of human and nonhuman animals. For further information or to subscribe to the C HRISTIAN R ESEARCH J OURNAL go to:
Chimera human pdf#
The full text of this article in PDF format can be obtained by clicking here. This article first appeared in the C HRISTIAN R ESEARCH J OURNAL, volume 40, number 01 (2017).
0 kommentar(er)
