CHAPTER 5: MORAL, ETHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS IN MODERN BIOTECHNOLOGY
5.1.3 Patenting: Life is not an intellectual property, but God's property In this thesis, we have noted that scientists are crossing species boundaries at an ever-
increasing rate, inserting human genes into animals, and animal genes into other animals and plants for profit maximization. In order to obtain a better return on the substantial capital investment required to 'create' these 'new' genetically engineered life forms, multinational corporations and research institutions seek patent protection for their biotechnology 'creations'.194 This leads to economic injustice as major MNCs gain firm control of the biotech industry.
This is clearly a concern to theologians, ethicists, church leaders and society. Life in all its forms and species shares God's sacredness and is God's gift and property. As such, life should not be regarded as if it were a chemical product subject to genetic manipulation and 'patentable' for economic and commercial gain. This would be in violation of life as sharing God's holiness, and God's gift and property. No one can rightly claim to have invented something that has life. Animals and plants are creatures
193For a detailed discussion, see, Holland,A. 1990. The biotic Community: a philosophical critique of genetic engineering.InThe Bio-Revolution: Cornucopia or Pandora 's Box?, ed. P. Wheale and R. Mc Nally. London: Pluto Press, p.170. This thesis offers a very useful and thoughtful discussion of a number of issues.
194WCC,ibid., pp.21ff
that have a life of their own. Animals, plants and microorganisms owe their creation and origin ultimately to God Himself, and not to any human endeavor.
The patenting system and intellectual property rights can theologically be categorized as 'playing God'. Literally, the concept of 'playing God' implies usurping the creative prerogative of God by doing something which belongs to God alone. In this sense, 'playing' denotes taking on a position, which originally was not ours to have. From a broader perspective, this expression 'playing God' has been used as a general label for the idea of taking upon us an inappropriate role of the way other living organisms are made up. Donald and Ann Bruce are correct in stating that: "the story of the tower of Babel in the book of Genesis illustrates the folly of human technological action in autonomy from God.,,195
The genetic modification of seeds so that plants do not naturally germinate and produce seed for the farmer may be said to involve a denial of intrinsic fertility of plant life on which community farmers rely for sustenance and livelihoods in view of promoting food security and sovereignty. This denial violates the life of the seed as bio-technologists tamper with the productive capacity of the seed to naturally carry on life to the next generation of plants. This defeats the very purpose of food security. This intervention in the natural genetic order, as is the case with genetic engineering and biotechnology, crosses over the line of behaviour, which is not permitted to us. This is, clearly, a sense of 'playing God' from a negative perspective.
There is also a positive understanding of the term 'playing God'. This positive sense is grounded in the 'imago Dei' concept in which human beings act out God's image before
- -
- -- - ..--
the rest of creation, in relation§hiQ and obedience to God. This, I think, entails 'ust and
re~ponsible stewardship rather than domination and manipulation, as is the case with GE
-
-
-biotechnology. This takes recognition of the biblical revelation that creation is ordered by God, from whom it owes its very existence. All creation finds its.0EgiE-, sustenance and destiny in God.
IJ!.
this line, then, human activity in nature, of which genetic engineering biotechnology is one, ought to be set within this theocentric context. Creation cannot be195Bruce, Donald and Ann, Ibid., pp.84-85
regarded simply as ours to do with as we please. The concept of 'playing God' understood from a negative perspective is very evident in the practice of patenting life as we have discussed above.
5.1.4 Ethics of accountability, inter-relatedness and creativity
An ethic based on the notion of relationshi s, in!.er-relatedn~ss ~~ ~ccountabil.i1Y.. in the acts of creativity is crucial when dealing with GE biotechnology. This holistic dimension would enable us, upon further reflection, to come up with an ethic which embraces everything in existence, thereby avoiding the problem of manipulating genes at will.
Any credible ethical theory has to accommodate the fact that we belong to the earth and everything we encounter shares this existence with us. The problem of our ethical theory, however, is that it has been too anthropocentric in the sense that human beings come to exult themselves above nature so that the purpose of nature is seen primarily as that of serving human needs and to be subdued by human beings. Here, we should bear in mind that we human beings exist in an intricate web of relationships so that our moral actions
..
-_._---
anj ..~aluing should ul9..!Jl~elyj>e seen as contributing to this w:,eb rather than to th~
f
individual or corporate self-interest. Scientific and biotechnological activities have to
.---
- -
romote the common good of society as well as that of the environment and genetic
- -- - -
...corn~n. Hence, it is advocated that the promotion of the common good can only be meaningfully achieved within the ethical paradigm of a relational world-view in which accountability and just stewardship are pillars.
5.2 The position of Christian bodies
To see these specific moral, ethical and theological considerations and implications in r- DNA biotechnology in action, in this section, we will examine the position of three selected Christian bodies. Their positions are largely influenced and shaped by the theological framework discussed in chapter one as well as the moral, ethical and theological implications discussed in this chapter above.