 |
In 1953, scientist, James Watson, won the Nobel Prize for his part in the discovery of the structure of DNA. Always somewhat controversial, Watson has a habit of making provocative statements. Although he has now somewhat withdrawn some of his statements, what he said is most instructive. He has argued recently that the entire continent of Africa is made up of genetically inferior people in terms of intelligence. Although he wants to affirm equality, he states that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” Columnist Michael Gerson summarizes some of Watson’s other strange comments: “In 2003, Watson spoke in favor of genetic selection to eliminate ugly women: ‘People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great.’ In 2000, he suggested that people with darker skin have stronger libidos. In 1997, Watson contended that parents should be allowed to abort fetuses they found to be gay: ‘If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn’t want a homosexual child, well, let her.’ In the same interview, he said, ‘We already accept that most couples don’t want a Down child. You would have to be crazy to say you wanted one, because that child has no future.’”
No matter how one views the various conditions that Watson describes, his comments are appalling and offensive. Those who know families with a Down Syndrome child, know how much of a blessing from God a child truly is. Watson symbolizes a hardened, dead conscience. But, although he is extreme, he also represents where human reproductive and genetic technologies could lead us. In our civilization, we are already doing genetic testing. We already abort 90% of the fetuses found to have Down syndrome. Gerson summarizes a recent study from Europe which shows that 40% of unborn children in Europe with one of 11 congenital defects are killed via abortion.
We are talking here about the temptation to eugenics. As genetic screening becomes more widespread and as reproductive technologies become more standard, these practices, in the words of Michel Gerson, are “a form of absolute power of one generation over the next—the power to forever define what is ‘normal,’ ‘straight,’ and ‘beautiful.’ And it leads inevitably to discrimination. British scientist Robert Edwards has argued, ‘Soon it will be a sin of parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease.’ A sin. Which leaves disabled children who escape the net of screening—the result of parental sin—to be born into a new form of bastardy and prejudice.”
This then presents liberalism with an irreconcilable tension for its worldview. Modern day liberalism champions absolute equalitarianism and unrestricted science. For example, in the last presidential election, Senators Kerry and Edwards argued that we must “tear down every wall” that inhibits medical research. This is an unacceptable position, in my judgment. Watson and other geneticists often view humans as the sum of their chemical processes and have no value beyond that. The Bible totally rejects this and will have none of it. Scripture assigns infinite worth and value to the human being because only humans bear God’s image. We are not the sum of our chemical processes! It is ethically wrong to manipulate to perfection in the current way genetics is defining “perfection.” God asks Moses, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Exodus 4:11). The Bible also makes it clear that God permits, allows such infirmities for His greater glory and greater purpose. Humans are not sovereign and will never achieve perfection through technology. God in His common grace has permitted humanity to understand genetics and the human genome. What we do with this becomes a matter of stewardship before Him. Extreme comments like Watson’s and the entire practice of genetic screening do not give one hope that some in science are handling this stewardship responsibility very well.
See Michael Gerson Washington Post (24 October 2007) and James P. Eckman, Biblical Ethics, pp. 39-46. |
