�There is an urgent need to deploy the resources of biotechnology to the problem of feeding the world. Christians should encourage the development of genetic engineering�. Discuss. The population of the world is growing at a rapid rate. The population is the largest in history. This naturally causes problems, as there are more mouths to feed. The supply of food is not growing at a similar rate. This creates the problem of short supply for some people. Poverty in places like Ethiopia a few years ago or the great famines throughout the twentieth century around the world. Solutions are not necessarily easy to find. One possibility is the widespread use of genetic engineering to produce new strains of foods that have higher yield, can grow in different conditions or similar variations. This would help solve a food supply problem but raises many problems of its own. There are ethical considerations to consider and possible ecological effects. This essay shall examine the Christian attitudes to genetic engineering as well as the secular opinion. It is a very controversial issue that is widely covered in the press who currently foster a very negative attitude towards it. Is this right? Genetic engineering involves scientists modifying the DNA structure of organisms by inserting extra genes and removing others. DNA is nature�s code for how the organism will turn out. Every organism has different DNA and this is what makes each organism unique. The differences are slight in a species, but these are very significant. By inserting a gene that makes the organism live longer then science is modifying natures code for that organism. Effectively science is overtaking nature in determining how organisms grow and develop. Christians see nature�s influence on the make-up of life in this manner as God�s work. God is the one who determines the individual characteristics of each organism in Christian eyes. Christians face the dilemma in that science is overtaking God�s role. Is it right for the human race to overtake God�s role as creator even taking into consideration the fact that the aim is to feed the world to a better degree than we are currently able to. The question is whether the methods are the correct way to achieve the noble aim. An example of genetically engineered food is the tomato. It was genetically engineered to have a longer shelf life. This is of little difference to the problem of the world hunger, but was one of the first examples performed. It was an attempt to make more money, but caused an outcry. The reaction to one of the first mass-production genetically modified food was an indicator of the controversy to ensue. This didn�t cause experimentation to desist and further developments continued. The range of genetically engineered products continued to expand, though public reaction to it has caused problems with labelling and sales etc. The reasons for public reaction in this manner are manifold. The issue of whether it is ethically correct to play God in this manner is one of the issues at the forefront of the public consciousness. The press assisted in whipping up opinion, as is their way. They cannot be blamed for highlighting the concerns of the public and expressing an opinion on such a deeply difficult matter. Oneworld.net expresses farmers� opinion thus: �There has been massive worldwide resistance to GE. Farmers from countries such as Mexico, India and Ethiopia have joined with consumers in Europe to oppose the use of GM crops in the food chain, and even US farmers are now questioning the sense of growing crops no one wishes to eat.� It is in the third world where the main problem with world hunger exists. The advantage of genetic engineering in this instance is that crops can be engineered to have higher yields per acre, thus feeding more people from the same amount of land. Previously infertile land could now be utilised to feed people with crops engineered to grow in terrain that was previously impossible to grow grain on. This is clearly a major boon in feeding the world. Shortages could possibly be brought to an end by utilisation of genetic engineering. There is still much trepidation about releasing genetically engineered foods into these places. Novartis sees it like this: �Technological innovation is no panacea - it is just one stone in a large and complex socio-economic mosaic. Whether the economic blessing becomes a social curse depends on the political and the broad social ramifications. A technology can only be as good as the warp and woof of a society permits. � The concerns are not just to do with ethics, as there are scientific troubles involved as well. There are possibilities that the organisms, be they plants or animals, could interfere with the ecosystem and upset the balance. The release of �superior� organisms with �better� gene structures could cause them to dominate the habitat and force others into extinction. This could have untold effects on the environment. Examples, though slightly different, occurred when explorers from European countries colonised other parts of the world and introduced foreign creatures into habitats that weren�t their own according to nature (i.e. God). The fall of the red squirrel with the introduction of the American grey squirrel into Britain is a prime incidence of this. This has seen the numbers of red squirrels plummeting due to this. The fear exists that similar effects could happen with the introduction of genetically modified creatures into unnatural environments. The Pure Food Campaign expresses this concern: �Genetically engineered "biological pollutants" have the potential to be even more destructive than chemical pollutants. Because they are alive, genetically engineered products are inherently more unpredictable than chemical products -- they can reproduce, migrate, and mutate. Once released, it will be virtually impossible to recall genetically engineered organisms back to the laboratory�. This has to be tempered in that nature has shown itself to be a hardy thing that puts up with a great deal that humanity has already done to it, but it still needs to be considered. The ethical concerns remain over whether it is right for humans to play the role of creator. Dr. Ho sees another scientific problem with this: �Genetic engineering is a technology designed specifically to transfer genes horizontally between species that do not interbreed. It is designed to break down species barriers and, increasingly, to overcome the species' defence mechanisms, which normally degrade or inactivate foreign genes. For the purpose of manipulating, replicating and transferring genes, genetic engineers make use of recombined versions of precisely those genetic parasites causing diseases including cancers, and others that carry and spread virulence genes and antibiotic resistance genes. Thus the technology will contribute to an increase in the frequency of horizontal gene transfer of those genes that are responsible for virulence and antibiotic resistance, and allow them to recombine to generate new pathogens.� In Genesis, humans are given dominion over all the plants and beasts of the world. The extent to which this could be pushed wasn�t known at the time of authorship. The authors couldn�t conceive of such things as genetic engineering and cloning. The intention of the theology expressed in Genesis is to justify mankind�s pre-eminence over all of the other creatures in God�s creation. This theology has been used to justify genetic engineering in a Christian context. It is problematical to use this text in this fashion. As has already been stated, the abilities available to us now weren�t taken into consideration when the text and the theology of Genesis were written. The theology has been developed by some modern theologians to mean that God created humanity as co-creators with him. The task of humans is to continue God�s creation by such things as selection and genetic engineering. This is similar to the theological idea that evolution was part of God�s creation, a method of creation by God, and not an independent scientific concept. It is also a tenet of Christianity that all life is precious. Is it right to force people to starve by not utilising the skills granted us in the existence of genetic engineering when you consider the difference that this could make. For a Christian it is very hard to reconcile this satisfactorily. In order to feed the world, Christians must take on God�s role. This is impossible in a Christian theology yet to not feed the world is also theologically unsound. �The development of GE foods is not being driven by farmers, consumers or less-developed countries but by large multinational chemical companies who have recognised a business opportunity. Six major companies now dominate the production of GE foods worldwide: Monsanto, DuPont, Hoechst, Novartis, Rh�ne Poulenc and Zeneca� This is how Genewatch see the commercial issue of genetic engineering. It is a valid point that the consumers and farmers aren�t the ones calling for more genetic engineering. Companies are, by definition, driven almost entirely by a need for profit. They will tend to look at the short term and how they can make money as quickly as possible. This is not necessarily for the benefit of the wider world over the long term. It is perhaps a philosophical issue as to how to force companies to act responsibly towards the environment, but that is not the issue at stake here. It is of concern that though genetic engineering has so many theological concepts involved, it is secular companies who are the ones who are in charge of genetic engineering. If it is to make a true difference in a correct, ethical framework, surely those should control genetic engineering with a right and proper concern for the world. The difficulty with this is that it will always be unclear as to who should have authority in this issue. With secular firms driving genetic engineering, how can the aims of genetic engineering be conducted in a way conducive to a Christian theological standpoint? Related to the point mentioned above is the issue of patents on genes. Current legislation includes the fact that companies can hold patents on certain genes if they are the first to discover and identify them. This goes against the whole notion of God�s creation that is central to Christian teaching. How can a company hold the patent on something that God created? Essentially stating ownership and creation over what God has created. This sets companies up as effectively gods from a certain point of view. This is offensive to Christian theology. This is a legislative paradox, the companies must have some incentive to invest and innovate as they are the only ones with the funds to develop genetic engineering yet for the companies to be granted the patents goes against Christian theology. The incentive for the companies is that the patents give their �products� exclusivity so they can get the best seeds/animals on the market. This enables them to maximise profits to the best of their ability. In conclusion, genetic engineering raises some serious ethical concerns to a Christian. These concerns are very hard to overlook. They must be overlooked though due to the problem of world hunger and the growth of population outstripping the growth of world resources. The methods in which the genetic engineering is developed and implemented are difficult to determine the correct way in which to organise. Secular companies are far from sure to perform in a way that is conducive to Christian theological concerns. Care must be exercised in this and in control of environmental issues. Environmental issues are important, but it must be remembered that nature is hardy and is constantly evolving itself anyway. It must not be over-stated. The idea that God has instituted mankind as co-creators with Him, an office to continue the development of his work is useful and should be strongly considered by all Christians when they consider the potential benefits and problems with genetic engineering. Bibliography The Pure Food campaign website: http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rone/gedanger.ht Genewatch website: http://www.anth.org/ifgene/genwatch.htm Novartis foundation website: http://www.foundation.novartis.com/genetic_engineering_biotechnology.htm Oneworld website: http://www.oneworld.org/guides/biotech/index.html The Unholy Alliance by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho: http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/john.rose/ho.html
