I just finished reading a book called The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race, written by Walter Isaacson (the same who wrote the Steve Jobs biography). While biology and chemistry are step out of my engineering lane, I found the book fascinating, learned a lot, and it made me go “hummmmmm”.
The book details the discovery of gene editing, using clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR). Stay with me here, there will be a religious tie in coming. I had heard of CRISPR, but what I did not know was it is a naturally occurring phenomenon in bacteria. While the book takes several chapters to explain CRISPR, in very simple terms bacteria, when infected by a virus, uses CRISPR to modify its own DNA to remember the virus and build an immunity to it. What Jennifer Doudna discovered with the help of a lot of other people was a way to use RNA to program CRISPR to cut and edit DNA. She won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2020 for this discovery.
What are the ethics of gene editing? A Chinese doctor has already edited the genes of two embryos, with the result of two children being born that are immune to the HIV virus. It will soon be used not just to treat but to cure sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, coronavirus and many others.
From the book:
If we could safely edit genes to make our children less susceptible to HIV or coronaviruses, would it be wrong to do so? Or would it be wrong not to do so? And what about gene edits for other fixes and enhancements that might be possible in the next few decades? If they turn out to be safe, should governments prevent us from using them?
The issue is one of the most profound we humans have ever faced. For the first time in evolution of our life on this planet, a species has developed the capacity to edit its own genetic makeup. That offers the potential of wondrous benefits, including the elimination of many deadly diseases and debilitating abnormalities. And it will offer both the promise and the peril of allowing us, or some of us, to boost our bodies and enhance our babies to have better muscles, minds, memory and moods.
The Code Breakes, Isaacson
What will religion in general, and the Mormon Church in specific think of this? Is it OK to fix abnormalities (downs syndrome), but not OK to add enhancements (better memory). Is there a clear line between “treatment” and “enhancement”? What if in the future a gene is discovered that makes a person more susceptible to supernatural thinking (religion). If it is removed then they become a non-religious person, and if it is enhanced they become very devoted. We could have a whole Q15 bread to run the Church!
Will the Church be late to the game like everything else they do? If they follow the path of resistance like they did with birth control, at first they will condemn it, then soften the rhetoric, and finally once it is fully accepted by society they will approve it? How does this change the theology that some people are born with disabilities because they were so valiant in the pre-earth life? What if all congenital disabilities are edited out of our lives? Does that thwart God’s plan?
Would we have gotten “The Starry Night” from Van Gogh if his genes had been edited, and he didn’t suffer from his mental disabilities? How did they contribute to his artist endeavors?
Is it OK to edit the genes of an already born person to fix an abnormality or cure a disease, but not OK to change the genes of an embryo so that every cell in the resulting children—and all of their descendants—will carry the edited trait? Getting it wrong editing inheritable genes could have catastrophic consequences for the species.
Is it right that only the rich will be able to do this, especially in the beginning?
So many questions with deep ethical and theological implications.
Thoughts?
Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay
Wheat & Tares 
A good topic for discussion — I need to think about this before I offer an opinion. However, on another matter, I know I am opposed to self-driving no-driver vehicles on our highways, and I wonder if that mindset will carry over into my consideration of this matter?
Humanity will eventually wholeheartedly endorse gene editing to prevent devastating conditions such as HIV and Huntingtons – is my prediction. Then it will move to border cases like preventing baldness and color blindness or even IQ level. Probably even eventually designer babies. Terrible atrocities will be committed along the way – but I just don’t see it going any other way. Even if the US and the UN prohibit (or slow down research of) gene editing there will be countries willing to do it.
The church was behind the times with birth control, it’s behind the times with surrogate pregnancy today (and a bunch of other social issues) it almost assuredly will adopt a stance that at first seems reasonable, but then as science progresses it will leave the church behind. The doctrine of an eternal soul fitting into a temporary physical body – and the powers of procreation- is probably the reasoning the church will use.
There are lots of sci-fi movies exploring this topic, my favorite is Gattaca.
Interesting questions. As a conservative LDS (and LDS conservative), I’ve noticed other conservative LDS often shy away from these questions, though not all. I try not to.
Despite our belief in Exaltation, I think far too many LDS seek to become godly while avoiding efforts to become godlike. I think far too many outside the Church and general religion seek to become godlike while avoiding efforts to become godly. I think more good could be accomplished if people actively sought after both, especially from within the Church. Many members forget that the Holy Ghost can aid all aspects of our lives, not just the religious aspects. Last I checked, there were generally more members represented in the scientific fields, per capita, than most other religious groups. It probably could and should be higher.
That said, there are far more areas I would seek to allocate effort before tackling the question of gene editing, and so much good that could be done to hopefully erase much of the need to tackle the question much at all. There are also other controversial questions I’d personally like to approach first (the prospect of sentient AI, among others).
Among both conservative and liberal LDS, too many testimonies have been lost when they were once prefaced by the words “God would never allow . . .”
“What will religion in general, and the Mormon Church in specific think of this?”
As we learned going clear back to Galileo, what religious leaders have to say concerning scientific breakthroughs have very little impact on the actual event, i.e. clergy throwing Galileo into prison did not change the fact that the earth definitely was not the center of the universe. Scientific “discoveries” have always been an unveiling of what is already there. What is frightening to me is the current mindset of many – as demonstrated by the anti-vaccers/anti-maskers – in the rejection of modern medicine and common-sense practices that could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in favor of fables, false pride, and 14th-century medical practices. We really had the opportunity to show that we cared about other’s safety just by modifying our personal behavior slightly – as in the Constitution’s call to promote the general welfare – and we blew it big time. History will judge us accordingly.
I think Evangelicals are more likely to go bananas over the idea than Mormons are, but for sure, that panic will be something many Mormons follow the far right science fearing idiots.
But I think the official stance of the church is that it should be used to fight genetic disease. The church is usually pretty good about following science, although it drags behind on things that mainline Christianity also have problems with, such as evolution. But if we actually followed Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, we would believe that all truth is part of our religion and that as new discoveries are made, we should be the first to accept them. The church has never been slow to avoid disease and accept beneficial new science. Unless that new science says that women should be allowed to control their own reproduction. So as long as gene editing does not affect how many babies women have, or muck up things like who really is the mother, or empower women in any way, I think they will be good with it for disease control. I mean, Huntington’s is a death sentence with one simple gene. But I think they will be reluctant with the idea of designer babies. That gets into vanity and selfishness.
And in the long run, it might be cheaper to edit a babies genes than say fight obesity and type two diabetes for life. The medicines for diabetes are damned expensive even with insurance and then there is the medicine to treat the effects of diabetes as it damages every organ in the body. Heart disease, kidney disease, and although the medical establishment claim that you won’t have any of these problems if you just control the diabetes, that is crap. My whole digestive system is messed up and my diabetes has always been well controlled, in fact I have had to fight doctors who are reluctant to control it as much as I need to to avoid nerve damage. Being well controlled just slows down the eventual damage.
And the doctors are finding that things like obesity are really more genetic than previously thought.
Just think if we could eliminate those mental illnesses that are genetic, like schizophrenia, depression, and others.
But it will be only for the very rich, because insurance will not cover it, just as they refuse to cover most “experimental” medicine.
I had a friend once who refused to have any children because she knew she carried the gene for Huntington’s and her children would have a 50/50 chance of having it. She thought about gene testing during pregnancy, but then would be forced to decide to about or not. And she didn’t want her children to carry the gene into the next generation, because losing her father to Huntington’s when she was a child was horrible and she wanted to end it. When you have known someone in that position, it makes you in favor of gene editing.
But then again, if general authorities are into the science fiction movies, maybe they will follow the panic and not the science.
If they find a way to extend normal life expectancy, don’t think the Q15 won’t participate. Then we will have 100-year-old apostles instead of 80-year-olds. Fantastic!
Your concern about changing “theology” regarding those born with disabilities is interesting. By the 1980’s and 1990’s I’m pretty sure that was the teaching I heard (that those individuals were the most valiant in the premortal existence) but that wasn’t always the “theology”. Harold B. Lee said “the privilege of obtaining a mortal body on this earth is seemingly so priceless that those in the spirit world, even though unfaithful or not valiant, were undoubtedly permitted to take mortal bodies although under penalty of racial or physical or nationalistic limitations. ” – Decisions for Successful Living (1945). I don’t know when it changed, if we could just change again and agree that “neither this man nor his parents sinned” that he was born blind.
But more central to your post, I agree that the Church needs to address this issue because of the massive ethical and spiritual implications. Germ-line editing is obviously a threshold that society should cross only after a lot more careful deliberations have happened, and I think the Church would want to be involved in those discussions. And while they are at it, they can decide when life ends and begins. Cloning, cell and organ cultures, transplants, etc. all strain the boundaries of what fits in Mormon theology.
Toad, the movie Gattaca was referenced multiple times in the book. I’ve never seen it but now I’ll have to look for it!
Fascinating. When I was on the debate team in high school (30 years), stem cell research was getting a lot of press. I gave speeches about how amazing stem cell therapies were going to be. You could grow your own replacement organs! Heal every disease! Then embryonic stem cells set off a panic about people aborting babies for scientific research. In the US anyway, I think other countries were able to use embryonic stem cells. Then other stem cells joined the group anyway. People definitely benefit from stem cell treatments. I think stem cell treatments are used to help leukemia patients.
If gene editing is going to be like stem cell therapies, there will be huge amounts of hype and discussion about how this will change every aspect of society, and then it will go very slowly. Progress will be slow but there will be lots of drama in the public press. Some treatments will be developed, but they’ll be less dramatic than the initial news stories suggested. I mean, it’s great that stem cells are being used to treat cancer, but no one is growing a new heart from stem cells.
The promise is great. Being able to wipe out Huntington’s disease would be an incredible achievement. We wiped out smallpox with vaccines. If we can wipe out Huntington’s disease with gene editing, I think we should do it. But I can’t help staying a bit cautious about the exciting projections because stem cells ran into a lot of snags and roadblocks, and the whole thing turned out to be a lot more complicated than just “we can grow new kidneys!”
I hope religion stays out of the way of science. Ethics doesn’t need to be based on religious beliefs to have a good solid discussion of the ethics of gene editing. We can talk about what’s good for the human race without people opining on, “hmmm, if gene editing was God’s will, then why didn’t Jesus use it?”
“If they find a way to extend normal life expectancy, don’t think the Q15 won’t participate.”
I realize this was written partially in jest, but I’m a little doubtful of that. Getting myself back more into the original questions, I think it was Joseph F. Smith that taught or hinted that one of the reasons mortality was shortened the way it was, was to give mankind just enough time to get repentance right, and not undo it. I’m not convinced a ton of converted would undo it simply because of a prolonged life, but it’s an interesting thought. Would the current brethren take a similar stance?
A friend’s Dad, as far back as 25 years ago, was telling me about a pill going through the FDA that could potentially shut off many of the genetic markers for aging, potentially extending life hundreds of years. Never heard what became of the pill, but in his opinion, based off the many counterfeits Satan offers, this was the closest counterfeit Satan was going to get to the resurrection.
I don’t necessarily believe genetically prolonging life goes directly against the importance of the resurrection and teachings of the Church, but if you believe the resurrection of mankind to be a gradual process as the millennium is gradually ushered in, and that some or all of that process is observable to the rest of the population, I think it would be somewhat fascinating at that time watching those whose faith is absent or on the fence choose between a resurrection they may not believe is inevitable, and a pill that could prolong the life they’d maybe rather live. Might make the repentance process a lot more interesting.
Captain Justo and the Valley of Bones (a middle reader novel and sequel to Captain Justo from the Planet Is) deals a little bit with that question, but through the vehicle of nanobots keeping the body alive, rather than direct genetic engineering. The sequels promised to go even deeper. Unfortunately, they never came.
I second the recommendation for the movie Gattaca. It’s all about this topic, and well done. I struggle with this concept because my natural instinct is to go with the science and prolong life so long as human suffering is reduced, but I also know that’s the path of eugenics, and we all know where that can lead. You know someone at some point is going to try to “solve” homosexuality or race. If you haven’t watched Foundation (AppleTV), based loosely on Isaac Asimov’s series of books, it’s worth a watch. A large conglomerate of planets are ruled by “Empire,” a cloned dynasty based on a single ruler. It’s an interesting study of genetics, variations, cloning, and the nature of the soul, among other things. Asimov’s series is widely considered to be the inspiration for most sci-fi that follows: Dune, Star Wars, etc.
For novels about human manipulation of the genome read Never Let Me Go and Klara And the Sun by Kazu Ishiguro and Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood. Fiction is the place to explore these topics, if, like me, you are totally ignorant of the science related to genetics, cloning and what it means to be human.
Church leaders are ill equipped to deal with the exploding advance of science and technology. Most of the GA’s have either business or legal degrees and work experience. Technology is almost impossible to regulate. If the US gov wants it curtained, then it will just move to Singapore, etc
Besides, with the rapid evolution throughout the tech spectrum, religions and governments can’t keep up. Their bureaucracies are too cumbersome. They will always be late to the party.
There are peripheral areas where the Church should be involved like green tech, global equality (particularly for women), antiwar, communications, etc. Here the Church can do a great deal more than it are currently.
If anyone is interested in learning more about CRISPR you should watch “Human Nature” by Dan Rather. It is available on Amazon Prime or probably at your library.