I’ll admit that I looked forward to reading the proposed ELCA social statement on genetics, Genetics, Faith and Responsibility.
Before getting into observations on it and in the interest of “full disclosure” I should acknowledge that I am a Christian, an ELCA member to be more precise. I’m an agriculturist. I was born and raised on a dairy farm but now live in a large metropolitan area. I am trained as a dairy scientist, with a doctoral degree in dairy cattle breeding and population genetics. I currently work as an industry consultant.
I will be a voting member to the ELCA Churchwide Assembly this summer where we will take action on the statement. I share these tidbits of my life because while genetics determine some of our characteristics, our life experiences shape who we are and our perspectives on life.
As you may surmise from my background, I was interested in seeing what my church would say about a major part of my lifework that has extended from childhood to the present.
Another “life factor” that had an impact on my perspective was that about the same time as I read the statement I also participated in the first International Biosafety & Biocontainment Symposium, which was sponsored by two of the research arms of United States Dairy Association. We did, in fact, discuss many of the issues that are addressed in the social statement.
Speaking as a scientist
I have never seen faith and science, including genetics, as being in conflict. Our genetic makeup, and that of the world around us, is part of what God created and has given to us. With God’s help, we have and will continue to use it wisely. I am pleased that this church is now choosing to join in a discussion relative to wise use of these tools.
When I began to read the statement, I wasn’t sure if I should approach it as a manuscript for a scientific journal as it has a number of scientific terms and basic overviews of genetics, or a theological paper since it includes numerous biblical references.
Looking further, I could see commonality with my work, providing a network between groups with common interests, but who may not know or understand each other well.
I help bring scientists, regulators and producers together so that they can work effectively in the event of an animal health or food safety emergency. In doing this we recognize that these groups frequently use terminology that is unfamiliar to each other and to the general public, so we also work with communications specialists to find appropriate terminology to explain the situation, what is being done and what needs to be done in terms that are understandable to the targeted groups who will receive the information.
Bringing it all together
I see the genetics social statement seeking to do the same, provide a forum for discussing a topic of common interest in a manner that speaks to an audience with varying knowledge of the subject matter and who may have differing perspectives, based on their life experiences, as to how the information may be used.
So what can we say about the content of the statement? While section 4.3 includes a few “rejected” activities including human reproductive cloning, I am pleased the general tone is neither advocating for nor against technology in general or genetic research in particular.
The basic direction I see is the wise use of technologies to enhance the common good. I believe this direction should be common for all technology, not just genetics.
A basic concern from one who works in the field is that the statement is somewhat late in the process.
Researchers and research funders have needed to deal with many of the concepts long before the document came out.
One example comes from the symposium noted previously. The “Dual Use” potential of life science research has been recognized. The United States Dairy Association has established the National Science Advisory Board on Biotechnology that is charged with oversight of United States Dairy Association funded research and publication of the results in an effort to minimize potential misuse of the work.
More examples could be cited, but suffice it to say it will be useful to have this church included as a constructive partner when decisions are made. We as individual Christians have been involved in the process, but the broader church has not.
Statement highlights
Section 4.7 highlights useful “convictions,” some of which do not seem clear in the “Implementing Resolution.” To facilitate more active involvement, I would add:
- To be a positive participant in forums identifying and prioritizing research needs.
- To facilitate collaboration that encourages the discussion of ethics in the science curriculum and biological science in the humanities curriculum.
Along with this we must recognize the international scope of the discussion. The statement recognizes that we are part of a global community.
Actions taken locally, be it in the United States, European Union, India or China can and will impact all of us. As we move forward we need to assure that we are part of the global discussion.
Overall, the statement provides a sound framework for rational discussion and planning for the future. I look forward to this church playing a positive role as we look to use tools and knowledge that God has provided to make a better world for all.
Ken Olson is a member of Lord of Life Lutheran Church, Schaumburg, Ill.
Post a comment