Biotechnology and the Human Good

SEVEN: Conclusion: Toward a Foundation for Biotechnology

C H A P T E R 7 Conclusion: Toward a Foundation for Biotechnology It’s knowing what to do with things that counts. —Robert Frost, ‘‘At Woodward’s Gardens’’ IN the preceding chapters, we have presented the background considerations necessary to inform the theoretical foundations of biotechnology . Our goal in this conclusion is to develop these concepts into a series of principles, expressed through questions, that we hope will help assess biotechnologies philosophically, theologically, and practically . We do not in any way claim that our thoughts are a complete systematic philosophy or theology of biotechnology. Although a comprehensive treatment of these issues will have to be reserved for another volume or series of volumes, we hope that this work will begin a discussion that must take place for all of us to think critically and respond responsibly about the challenges raised by both existing and future biotechnologies. Questioning Technology There are many questions that we must ask both collectively and individually of any technology, not least of biotechnologies. These questions should probe not only what the technology does but how it is developed and produced. The following list is representative of the kinds of questions that must be answered before we embrace new technologies. 138 C H A P T E R S E V E N Question: Does the technology assist us in fulfilling our stewardship responsibilities? • Does it treat natural resources responsibly within the constraints of good stewardship of our common resources? • Does it create ecological problems or peril? For example, does the technology produce land, air, or water pollution or ecosystem imbalance? As we explained in chapter 2, the Christian worldview understands humankind’s place in the order of Creation as one of responsible stewardship . This stewardship necessarily entails consideration of ecological concerns and does not give license for the irresponsible destruction of ecosystems or the poisoning of our commonly shared environment. Human flourishing is dependent on environmental considerations. A well-worn canard is that the Judeo-Christian tradition is the root of the ecological destruction attendant with modern industrialization. Pannenberg has addressed the discordance between this myth and the real worldview underlying ecological irresponsibility: The criticism of biblical anthropology that blames the giving of dominion in Genesis 1:28 for the unrestricted exploitation of nature by modern technology and industrial society, and for the resultant ecological crisis, must be rejected as without merit. Modern industrial society has its basis in modern secular culture, which . . . cut off its historical roots in Christianity . Emancipation from religious ties and considerations . . . had been one of the presuppositions of the autonomous development of economic life in the modern age. . . . But this world is still the Creator’s, and God’s will as Creator is still standard for the dominion we exercise as God’s image. This dominion, then, excludes arbitrary control or exploitation. . . . Because the world of nature is still God’s, . . . our self-glorious misuse of the power we have been given by God rebounds upon ourselves and plunges us into ruin. In this sense we may view the ecological crisis at the end of the modern age of emancipation as a reminder that God is still the Lord of creation and that human arbitrariness in dealing with it is not without limits or consequences.1 Environmental impact must therefore be a necessary consideration in the evaluation of any technology. Conclusion: Toward a Foundation for Biotechnology 139 Question: Does the technology facilitate healing or restoration from disease or disability, or is it for reengineering (so-called enhancement)? • Does it foster or inhibit community development? • Does it promote a community that values and accepts all individuals regardless of their attributes? As a possible negative example, a Carnegie Mellon University study of 169 individuals over one to two years of time on the Internet found an overall negative trend in authentic human interaction.2 More time spent online resulted in decreased communication with immediate family members, a shrinking of the subject’s social circle, and increases in self-reports of both loneliness and depression. Question: Does the technology require or promote the commodification or destruction of human life? Does the technology demean, debase, or degrade individuals? • Does the technology require or reinforce diminished views of human life, human value, and the human being? Some philosophers, theologians, and scientists have gone so far as to reject the given status of human beings, declaring Homo sapiens to be a...