There’s this joke… you’ve probably heard it. Basically, scientists tell God they don’t need him any more because they’ve figured out the secrets of life, from DNA to cloning to whatever, and they know how to create a man from scratch. So God says, let’s see. And the scientists say OK, we just need to gather up the right minerals and chemicals to synthesize what we need, and… God says, “Hold on, there: Use your own dirt.”
Anyway, they’re still using God’s dirt for raw material, but science moved a little closer to making the joke’s scenario a reality, with the announcement of the first “artificial cells.”
The Church (on this blog, The Church is always the Roman Catholic Church) has weighed in on the subject already, with a basic This all sounds very well and good, but do you really know what you’re doing? (“Church warns cell scientists not to play God”) Which I think has merit, as reactions go.
To put it another way, in hyping what a big deal this is, one of the science boffins said the following:
“This is a tour de force and a landmark paper … that is akin to Jurassic Park or Frankenstein,” said Dr. Anthony C. Forster, a molecular biologist at Vanderbilt University who is an expert in the field of artificial life forms. “I think it will probably be regarded as the dawn of synthetic genomics.”
Yeah. Exactly.
I’m not worried about an 8 foot tall guy staggering around with a bolt through his neck. I’m more concerned about a microbe with unintentional effects — saying, wiping out all life on the planet, or other inconveniences.
Oh, I’m sure the scientists are all being careful and oh-so-responsible. But… do they really know what they’re doing? And as the knowledge spreads, and more and more people learn to do it and try different tricks with it, and the probability that someone will screw up majorly increases….
Maybe I’m just a worrier. Maybe I should just adopt Alfred E. Neuman‘s stance, since the toothpaste is already out of the tube.
Related Posts
Citing the Catholic Church concerning the ethics of scientific experimentation is akin to asking PETA to discuss the merits of a meatloaf recipe. Until the Catholic Church gets its own house in order they just need to shut up about ethical matters.
because THE CHURCH has such a long and distinguished history of being proved right on matters of science, eh, Galileo?
OK, you two, got it out of your system? I know y’all hate the church (especially bud, who practically spits fire whenever the subject comes up).
But maybe, just maybe, you can calm down enough to go, huh — maybe this COULD be a problem. (And Kathryn, your point is particularly off the point. The Church isn’t making a point about science here. It isn’t saying some theory is true or not. It’s just saying good for you, scientists, but be careful.)
I could have written this without mentioning the church (and if I had, maybe y’all could focus) — all of this occurred to me in the first moments of reading about it yesterday, and was reinforced by the “Frankenstein” quote — but I mentioned it because seeing that headline today was what reminded me to post something about it…
And I especially enjoy the way Galileo always comes up. Nobody thinks to mention Father Gregor Mendel, the founder of modern genetics — which in this context would be far more relevant…
There’s risk in every human endevour. We have plane crashes and oil spills. The risks should be weighed against potential gains. We should continue flying planes but the risks of drilling offshore just seem too large right now given the small potential for large findings.
With that said it seems like the cell manipulation is pretty safe right now given it’s current status as basic scientific experimentation. I say go for it. The knowledge gained is likely to offset any obscure risk.
One challenge in ethics discussions is there are often two viable points of view. There is no question a possible outcome is “a microbe with unintentional effects — saying, wiping out all life on the planet . . .” But there are also many good possible outcomes. The question becomes should this technological advancement stop because of possible negative outcomes? Is it a problem in the Catholic Church’s opinion that Father Mendal’s research is the basis allowing genetic manipulation? This, along with the classic abortion discussion of women’s choice versus not destroying something that could become a human (with the problem that sperm and eggs are also potential humans),is an ethical dilema. Great discussion; I’m very interested to read others’ opinions.
I don’t hate THE CHURCH. I hate some of the things some of the people in authority, and others, do.
Stories like this one
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072
have kind Catholics, like the nun and the canon lawyer, and ones of dubious judgment in my book. I just cannot believe Jesus would have let the woman die.
He would have healed her — which is like, you know, cheating. No big moral dilemma there…
Jesus would not have counseled someone with non-healing powers to let the mother die.
To return to the original point, the problem is that human beings, being the curious primates that they are, are going to pry into whatever they can find to pry into. Whether this is part of the ‘image and likeness of God’ or part and parcel of Original Sin, or some combination of both is open to question. But, given the fact that given the knowledge and ability that the human race now has, someone is going to attempt to create DNA, I’d much rather have responsible scientists who are following rigorous protocals doing it, rather that having it done underground, under some not-so-nice regime, for (possibly) intentionally nefarious reasons.
I’m beginning to believe that the basis of religion is 99% folklore. Scientists have yet to prove any of these miracles other than in theory.
Did a sea actually part?
Can a man walk on water (not ice)?
Can a man turn water into wine?
Where is there physical proof this “Jesus” guy even existed?
What happened to the person who died, was buried, reappeared, then what happened to him?
Where are, a worldly, high profile person such as Jesus’ remains or place of burial? We know of lesser known’s final resting places for thousands of years prior to 0 A.D.
What were the years after B.C and before A.D called?
Can a virgin conceive and give birth? With that said, what was Mary’s husband Joseph waiting for?
Was the universe created in 6-7 days?
When did the human form depicting Adam and Eve evolve into cavemen? We know how it evolved from cavemen to current human form.
Anyway, back to the actual point — the thing that worries me about this potentiality is what happens down the line, when lots of people are doing this, thereby greatly increasing the chances of something going terribly wrong.
Of course, maybe it will be like making an atom bomb. That has remained such a huge challenge that it takes the resources of a state, and generally a very advanced state, to come up with even one.
The creepy thing about this moment in time is that we’ve reached the point that some our more messed-up countries have managed, by trying really, really hard, to overcome the technical barriers.
When we were faced with invading the Japanese mainland (or main islands, whatever) with the examples of Iwo Jima and Okinawa fresh in our minds, having the atom bomb seemed like a very expedient thing — even a more humane one, when you consider what happened among the civilian population on Okinawa, and imagine that happening throughout Japan. And for years, we fancied that we could keep the lid on it. And even with the Soviets having it, M.A.D. kept us honest. But eventually, the technology becomes accessible enough that enough people have them, and you’ve really got a mathematical nightmare in terms of likelihood of one of the things being used.
So the thing that worries me about synthetic cells is down the line, when it’s common enough to be commercialized and industrialized, and somebody somewhere makes a tiny error, and bingo, we have the new anthrax, or ebola or something…
We should cultivate this feeling of worry…call it ‘constructive anxiety’…so that people stay interested, and developments go forward with full-time, societal scrutiny. Credit to the team working on this that they actually bother to let the information out.
I hate the Jurassic Park reference. Wasn’t all of that created in secret, and then unleashed upon an unsuspecting world? This isn’t nearly the same. This guy Craig Venter and his team have been doing astonishing stuff for years, and telling the world about it, but people barely pay attention. Human Genome Project, anyone?
I see it the same as splitting the atom. A certain wrong turn and SynBio could easily, obviously kill us all. But it’s even more likely that we’ll all eventually come to rely on it in ways we can’t yet imagine, in the same way that many of us in SC get at least some of our power from nuclear reactors and don’t even know it.
The potential here is really unlimited. Supposing it were possible to synthesize microorganisms that can metabolize radioactive waste, perhaps producing high-energy byproducts, or at least benign residues, as terminal excretions? Or what if the microorganisms themselves were combustible, and could replicate in your car’s gas tank, ad infinitum? What if it were possible to synthesize massive arthropods in such a way that navigational hardware and software can interface with their nervous systems? SuperBeetle CMRTA, anyone?
Well, that’s true of a lot of nifty new technologies–a lot of scientists are nervous about nanoparticles — and nanotechnology is one of USC’s Big Push areas. Nanosilver, which has antibacterial, and thus also anti-odor properties is of particular concern, but nano-zinc oxide, which makes a better looking sunblock is also of concern.
I think you can’t stand athwart technology, yelling “stop” and expect to get anywhere. It’s going to happen. That’s where the much-derided-by-you ethics part comes in.
Shoot, might as well throw this in, from the New Yorker last September. For those who really want to go down the rabbit hole:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/28/090928fa_fact_specter?printable=true
Gee, and I was just looking for an excuse to post the “Young Frankenstein” clip.
IT… COULD… WORK!
Ice-9. Think about Ice-9. That didn’t turn out so hot for humanity, did it? Never mind the Church; maybe we should be talking about Bokonon.
Stuff like this always reminds me of Laura Bush campaigning against stem-cell research, because the benefits weren’t proven before research began.
Ah, Terri Garr. She was HOT in Young Frankenstein!
Lord help this poor gal. The Catholic Church couldn’t do it. I don’t know who can.
Theme song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYmIKcP7Nbc
The Catholic priests couldn’t excise the demons from this poor girl: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1o8Et76d6o&feature=PlayList&p=7F06C69158F52B23&playnext_from=PL&index=1&playnext=2
Yes, Ralph, Teri Garr WAS hot in the “Young Frankenstein.” (“Vould you like a little roll in ze hay? Rrroll, roll, roll in ze hay…”)
Finally, somebody gets what I’m on about!