Sunspots 599

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Christianity: Relevant says that the U. S. is not now, or soon won't be, a Christian nation, and suggests how to react to this.

Relevant also has a post on reasons why we don't actually have a quiet time, even though we know we should.

Listverse gives us 10 common misconceptions about the separation of church and state.

From the National Association of Evangelicals, brief statements on "Biotechnology and Bioethics," "Sanctity of Life," and "Bioethics and Stem Cell Research." (These are not new, one going back to 2005, but they seem to be current."

Billy Graham turned 98 a few days ago. Christianity Today (which Graham founded) looks back over his life, which was characterized by "chastity, integrity, sincerity, ambition, humility, and, above all, hope."


Humor: (or something) The BBC reports on giant natural snowballs in Siberia.


Politics: The Presidential election is supposed to be over by now. But the New York Times examines the effectiveness, or not, of fact-checking.

Science: A graphic, showing all of the rivers, and their tributaries, in the 48 US states.

Scientific American reports that one-celled organisms that act like both plants and animals are much more important to ocean life than we had known.

Scientific American also reports on the reason why first-born children make more money than later children.






Image source (public domain)

Altering genes in human embryos and cloning hamburgers

Three recent articles have come to my attention, and seem worth commenting on.

National Public Radio reports on a scientist in Sweden who is modifying the genes of human embryos. (The embryos are "leftovers" from in vitro fertilization procedures, and the parents have given consent for such use.) He says that he is trying to figure out how to fix harmful genes.

There are serious ethical problems with this type of research. One such is the question of whether it is ethical to experiment on human embryos at all. Other questions include the likelihood that such techniques would be used to produce "designer babies" -- children with genes for, say, artistic ability -- and thus genetic haves and have-nots. Another question relates to the possibility of making some sort of mistake while pursuing this technique in an embryo which is brought to birth. Such a mistake would damage such a child, and would also be passed on to that child's offspring. The scientist says that he is not planning to implant any of the embryos he is working on, but someone else might.

Scientific American has an article about the "yuck factor" (I just don't like it) in making ethical decisions. An example would be making hamburgers from human tissue. (No one is doing that!) The article also discusses the production of hamburger meat from cow tissue. That has been done, but is some distance from being marketable. There are potential advantages in using such meat, which are discussed.

Scientific American also discusses the possibility (and, perhaps, likelihood) of using gene editing techniques to improve intelligence. 

Thanks for reading!

Editing genes in human embryos -- we may be almost there, for better or for worse

And all long-term exercises of power, especially in breeding, must mean the power of early generations over later ones. - C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man. HarperOne, 2015 paperback edition, p. 57. (Originally published in 1943)


Wired has recently reported on what they are calling gene editing. (Another term is human genetic engineering.) The title of the article is "America Needs to Figure out the Ethics of Gene Editing Now." Yes.

What is gene editing? Gene editing is changing the DNA of an embryo. In the Wired report, it mentions that Chinese scientists attempted this, with the goal of curing an inherited disease before the embryo was born. According to the article, the experiment didn't work, and was terminated. My guess is that, even if there were no reasons not to do this, and government and industry invested heavily in it, we still wouldn't see any successful medical interventions of this type for several years.

The article includes several statements from scientists and others, all concerned that there is a possibility that this sort of treatment is likely to result in unforeseen bad consequences, most likely in deformed embryos or infants. (That seemed to happen in the Chinese experiments.) In other words, even if the techniques become well understood, and scientists and medical personnel become proficient in such techniques, the procedures won't always work.

Another reason for concern, not really raised in the statements, is the likelihood that human embryos will have to be used, and sacrificed, in the development of the techniques, for practice, as it were.

Yes, we need to have a conversation about this, and now. As the quotation at the beginning of this post indicates, C. S. Lewis, for one, was concerned about this sort of thing, although his statement was published about ten years before the discovery of the DNA double helix. Others, including ethicists, politicians, theologians, lawyers and scientists, have been concerned since that time. The reasons for their concerns are almost coming to fruition. (Not everyone is concerned. Some people want to forge ahead, and let the consequences fall where they may.)

The research discussed above is motivated by a desire to help children who have inherited diseases. But future gene editing might be for less beneficent purposes. For example, it might be possible to edit the genes of an embryo so that that embryo would be more likely to develop into someone with athletic prowess; or with a certain kind of hair, eye, or skin color; with the likelihood of getting better grades at school; or even with genes from other organisms -- firefly or jellyfish fluorescence comes to mind, as a cosmetic "enhancement." Such gene editing would most likely exaggerate the gap between the haves and the have-nots, even if there were no other bad consequences. It also might be an important step on the road towards re-defining what a human being is, and is not.

Thanks for reading.

Kathryn Applegate, at BioLogos, has commented on this research, and the questions surrounding it.

Medical ethics: Introduction, and questions for Christians

Bioethics is a word derived from the Greek words for biology and ethics. Biology is the study of life. Ethics is concerned with right behavior. So bioethics is an academic, and applied, discipline, about to proper behavior related to living things. You might suppose that bioethics concerns such matters as protecting endangered species, and, from the origin of the word, it should, but that branch of ethics is usually called environmental ethics, and will not be considered further here. (For more on that subject, see this post on “Environmental Stewardship in the Bible.”)

Bioethics, for this post, considers what behavior is right, in relation to health care. It is also called medical ethics.

Christians should be concerned with bioethics. Why? Here are some questions on the subject to consider:

1) Should a Christian seek medical treatment, or never do so, but trust in God to heal, in answer to prayer? Should a Christian avoid paying for health insurance, but trust in God’s provisions for financial needs?
2) Abortion, for some Christians, is the most important issue in society. Is this type of medical “care” ethical? If not, why not? Does the Bible clearly indicate that abortion is murder? If it doesn’t (or even if it does), is abortion ever justifiable? Are any forms of birth control acceptable for Christians to use? Are various forms of apparent wrong-doing, from deceit in anti-abortion ad campaigns, through murdering doctors who work in abortion clinics, things that Christians can do without sin?
(Here’s a more extensive discussion of abortion.)
3) What is a person -- that is, someone who should be treated as if they had rights? Is an infant a person, in that sense? A fetus? An embryo? A fertilized egg? A sperm? An unfertilized egg? A child? A person in a persistent coma or persistent vegetative state? A person who is temporarily unconscious? A person who has died within the past few hours? An intelligent animal, such as a dolphin, whale, chimpanzee or bonobo? A really fast computer with lots of processing ability and memory? A computer program capable of interacting in English with a human being such that the human can’t be sure whether the interaction is with a computer or another human? An intelligent alien organism? (Note that these are not scientific questions, or at least not mostly scientific questions. They are moral, religious, legal, political and philosophical. There have been times when, to our shame, blacks or women were not considered persons, in many senses.)
4) Some types of procedures or treatments strike some Christians (and some others) as so unnatural that they shouldn’t be allowed. Human cloning is one such procedure. Other types of “enhancements,” such as the use of drugs by athletes, are more common. Are there limits to what should be done to “enhance” the human body, including the brain?
5) Christ taught justice and concern for the poor, and Psalm 72 indicates that the government (in that case, King David, who was the government) has some responsibility for care of the poor. Is it right that the relatively wealthy, and seniors, should have access to expensive medical care, when the poor don’t? If not, why not?
6) Should Christians oppose the current fee-based “system” of medical care in the U. S., as unfair and wasteful? That “system” has financial rewards for medical facilities that encourage expensive procedures, as opposed to more simple treatments like exercise and diet. It also has financial rewards for doctors who become specialists, as opposed to those who become family practice, physicians, or geriatric physicians. It gives insurance companies incentives for not paying for treatments, for delaying payment, or for not covering sick people, who need insurance most, at all. It makes it likely that patients who are unable to pay for care will go to emergency rooms, where care, which someone has to pay for, is more expensive, and where their care may be interfering with true emergencies. The “system” emphasizes treatment, rather than prevention, which would often be cheaper and more effective.
(As I understand it, so-called Obamacare would do little, or nothing, to fix most of these issues, or might make the problems worse.)
7) Many people in the US have no healthcare insurance. Currently (Obamacare may change this) such insurance is most often obtained through employment. This often results in employers hiring people on a part-time basis, so they don’t have to pay for part of the employee’s health insurance, when, otherwise, that same employee might have been hired on a full-time basis. Also, health insurance costs for companies are high enough that it is difficult for them to compete with firms from other countries where health insurance is not a benefit of employment. Should Christians work to change this way of doing things? Do Christians have any special duty to advocate particular modes of governing, or of economics? Is trying to spread the gospel of salvation, which is important for eternity, compatible with trying to change laws, or trying to change those who have political power? Why or why not?
8) Research to bring new medicines and treatments to usefulness is expensive, and should be compensated, especially since the majority of such new treatments and drugs don’t turn out to be useful, and it is usually impossible to know that without years of expensive testing. But drug companies charge considerably more to US customers, in many cases, than they do to others, and they keep patents on medications active by tweaking minor features, such as the color or shape of the pill, when otherwise such medications could be sold as generic. Is this fair? Should Christians oppose this?
9) Everyone, barring the second coming, is going to die. When should we “let them go,” and let someone die, if ever? Should everything possible be done to keep someone breathing? If not, why not? Is it ever all right to administer treatment which will hasten death? If not, why not? Does God ever allow Christians to take their own lives, or to engage in actions that will lead to their deaths? A lot of healthcare resources are spent in taking care of persons who are within a few days of dying. Is this legitimate?
10) Are psychoses, addictions, emotional illnesses and physical handicaps the result of sin in the person’s life, or are they diseases, like, say, chicken pox, and the result of living in a fallen world? Should addictions and emotional illnesses receive any specialized treatment, other than prayer and care?
11) How do we deal with aging, or otherwise incapacitated, relatives and friends? Must a Christian put her life on hold to help such people? Is it ever right to act against their wishes, or even to deceive them?
12) Should there be differences in how people get health care, based on sex, age, income, ethnicity, religion, disability, and the like? If so, why? If there are such differences, should Christians oppose this?
13) Are we, as a society, spending too much on healthcare, at the expense of, say, public school education, or infrastructure?
14) Each Christian should examine her own life. Does she exercise properly? Get enough sleep? Eat healthful foods? Avoid exposure to UV rays, from the sun or tanning beds? Avoid harmful foods and drinks?

Where can we get guidance on such issues, and others?
There are several candidates for such guidance, among those who claim expertise in bioethics. They include:
1) Deontological ethics. This type of ethics holds that some things are always wrong, or always right, no matter what the circumstances. For example, it could be argued that it is never right to deliberately deceive a patient. Following deontological ethics doesn’t answer the question of how to decide what’s always right and always wrong. The Ten Commandments, the Bible as a whole, or the Hippocratic Oath, might be taken as guides for this, but they don’t cover all questions in bioethics. (There have been many attempts to modify the Oath for our culture -- Hippocrates lived four centuries before Christ. Here is one such.)
2) Consequentialist ethics. This type of ethics holds that what is right and wrong depends on the consequences, so we should try to make as many people happy as possible, and as few unhappy. Perhaps the Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12 is a form of this type of decision-making. One problem with this approach is that we don’t always know what the consequences will be.  Another problem is that this approach seems to deny the possibility of absolute moral directives.
3) Be virtuous. (See Virtue Ethics in the Wikipedia.)
4) Establish principles, and work from them. The book that was, for many years, the most important text in biomedical ethics was built around four such principles, in order from the most important to less so: Autonomy, giving the patient power over decisions; Beneficence, doing good; Nonmaleficence, not doing harm; Justice, treating people fairly.

If principles are to be the touchstone for medical ethics for Christians, the following is a proposed set of Christian principles which are relevant:
A. Treat others with unselfish agape love (1 Corinthians 13, and the Golden Rule); 
B. Treat one’s body as if it were the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).
C. Treat resources as if they came from God, (1 Chronicles 29:10-14) as responsible stewards.
D. Remember that life and death are ultimately in God's hands (Deuteronomy 32:39).

This was originally posted on August 16, 2013, but has since been tweaked a little. Thanks to anyone who may read this post.

Genetic engineering may be used to change DNA in a human egg

National Public Radio reports that some scientists are considering changing some of the DNA in a human egg, so that the resulting offspring would not have an inherited disease. Up until this point, genetic engineering has been used only to change the DNA of a child, so that the results of genes in that child that cause disease can be mitigated. (See here for the Wikipedia article on genetic engineering.)

As the article points out, there are a number of ethical concerns, such as whether it is acceptable to use human eggs for this purpose, whether it's acceptable to modify an egg in such a way, whether there is potential harm to any offspring born, as a result of such a procedure, whether it's acceptable to treat women in this way, and whether we have any business tinkering with reproduction in this way. Up till now, genetic engineering in humans has not been used to change the type of fertilized egg produced, which, of course, could lead to a change in the offspring produced, and to that change being perpetuated in the population as the offspring had descendants.

On the other hand, there is certainly potential for alleviating harm, and lots of it. If, for example, sickle cell anemia, or Lou Gehrig's disease, could be stamped out by genetically engineering eggs, should we do it?

Good question. The answer depends a lot on the answers to the questions about ethical concerns. It also depends on motive -- why would we do this? To make money? To win Nobel Prizes? There are questions of justice that the report doesn't mention, either. Assuming that we decide to do this, what conditions, in what populations, do we consider treating in this way? Which ones don't we treat, or don't we treat right away? How do we make these choices? God help us, either way.

Falling Free, by Lois McMaster Bujold

I recently read Falling Free, by Lois McMaster Bujold. The book, published in 1988 (Riverdale, NY: Baen) is part of the Vorkosigan saga. Miles Vorkosigan, the main character in that series, does not appear until about two centuries after the events in this book.

I last posted on this saga here. The saga is space opera, an often superficial type of fiction, but Bujold works in important ethical and moral issues. At least one character in the saga is a Christian.

In Falling Free (Riverdale, NY: Baen, 1988), Bujold explains the origin of the quaddies, intelligent, capable humans with four arms, two of them replacing their legs, and some less obvious differences from normal humans, deliberately bred by GalacTech, so as to work in low or zero gravity. The plan is to use them as temporary labor, with GalacTech getting the pay for their work. (There are a few quaddie characters in subsequent books.) Leo Graf, an engineer, is sent to the Habitat, where they live, and discovers that they are not paid in any way (although they do have a place to stay, and food), that they are taught a distorted view of history, and that they are considered the property of the company that developed them, at least by the company. They are also told who to breed with, as parts of a breeding program, and who to breed with may be different for each child. Their babies may be taken from them, to be raised by normal human cartakers. All this is in the interest of quickly establishing a large breeding population.

There are characters in the book who believe that the production of the quaddies in the first place is a moral monstrosity. Graf, and some others, believe that their subsequent treatment is the moral monstrosity.

There is a sudden development -- scientists from Beta, a scientifically advanced civilization, have produced a new gravity-making device, which makes the quaddies obsolete. GalacTech decides to move the quaddies to a gravity world, and let them fend for themselves, or just kill them all.

Van Atta stopped abruptly, and backed up two screens on his vid. What had that said again?
Item: Post-fetal experimental tissue cultures. Quantity: 1000. Disposition: cremation by IGS Standard Biolab Rules. (293) Thus, some faceless person in GalacTech's General Accounting & Inventory Control has declared the quaddies, who are sentient, intelligent, moral agents, and biologically human, no more than "tissue cultures."

Graf decides to lead a quaddie escape to an asteroid belt. He has a little help from a man who has been doctor to the quaddies for many years, and a jump pilot helps them escape, because they are giving him the jump ship that they have taken. But the initiative is Graf's:

"This isn't crime. This is -- war, or something. Crime is turning your back and walking away."
"Not by any legal code I know of."
"All right then; sin."
"Oh, brother." Ti rolled his eyes. "Now it comes out. You're on a mission from God, right? Let me off at the next stop, please."
God's not here. Somebody's got to fill in. (161.) Leo thinks the last line, and he has, indeed, filled in for God, righting a monstrous wrong. Ti is going to be the pilot. Graf, like some other Bujold characters, is acting for a deity, doing God's work. He doesn't realize it, though.

The quaddies, since they have been oppressed, feel morally superior. This is a mistake, as one of them finds out. Silver felt that she had to use a weapon on an uncooperative jump pilot, or the quaddie escape wouldn't succeed. (She didn't kill him.) Her thoughts:
Was this the pleasure in power Van Atta felt, when everyone gave way before him? It was obvious what firing the weapon had done to the defiant pilot; what had it done to her? . . . So. Quaddies were no different than downsiders after all. Any evil they could do, quaddies could do too. If they chose. (199)

Bujold writes good books, well-written, and exciting, and she puts in moral and ethical, even sometimes religious questions.

Thanks for reading.

Dignity versus autonomy

The August/September issue of First Things has a thought-provoking editorial on autonomy versus dignity as important concepts in medical ethics, or in the ethics of how we treat various categories of humans. The editorial was provoked by an essay by Steven Pinker, in The New Republic.

Pinker argued that dignity is a fuzzy and meaningless concept, but one which is invoked by Christians and others who are concerned, for example, about the production of embryos for the development of stem cells.

The First Things editorial basically agrees, but argues that Pinker's attempt to substitute autonomy for dignity is misguided. Autonomy, says the author, is also fuzzy, and should not be used to justify things that should not be justified.

Pinker makes some disparaging remarks about the predictive power of Huxley's Brave New World. The First Things editorial, on the contrary, says that fantastic stories, such as Ishiguro's Never Let me Go, may be giving us valid warnings. I have posted about Ishiguro's book, here.

Interesting reading. Thanks for reading.