You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Genetic technology has put within human reach a power earlier generations could only imagine: to read, edit and even rewrite the molecular instructions of life. The AQA specification treats genetic engineering under the Christianity component, but its ethical analysis draws on the whole toolkit of normative theory. This lesson sets out the science precisely — the crucial divisions between somatic and germline intervention, between therapy and enhancement, and between reproductive and therapeutic cloning — and then runs the major positions across it: the natural-law objection that such intervention is "playing God", the slippery-slope argument, and the utilitarian and Kantian analyses that frame the secular debate. Throughout, the discipline is to watch each theory reach a verdict and to find where it is most exposed, rather than to gather opinions.
The reason these technologies provoke such unease is that they touch the deepest questions of the subject at once. They raise the status of the embryo (in stem-cell research and PGD), the identity and nature of the human being (in cloning and enhancement), the rights of future generations (in heritable editing), and the relationship between humanity and its Creator (in the charge of "playing God"). They also force a recurring choice between two evaluative stances: a consequentialist readiness to do whatever relieves suffering and improves welfare, and a deontological or natural-law insistence that some lines — the deliberate killing of innocent life, the instrumentalising of persons, the redesign of human nature — should not be crossed whatever the benefit. Almost every disagreement in the field can be traced to which of these stances a thinker treats as foundational, which is why the same five theories, applied consistently, generate the competing verdicts.
Examiners reward candidates who handle the technical distinctions with care, because the ethics turns on them. Genetic modification (GM) alters an organism's DNA, whether by inserting genes from another organism (transgenics — the basis of GM crops and of insulin-producing bacteria) or, now, by editing the existing sequence. CRISPR-Cas9, developed as a precise gene-editing tool by Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier (Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2020), made such editing cheap and accurate, sharpening every question in the field. Two distinctions then organise the ethics.
Key term: Somatic vs germline: somatic gene therapy edits the non-reproductive (body) cells of an existing patient, so changes affect only that individual and are not inherited; germline editing alters reproductive cells or early embryos, so changes are heritable and pass to all future descendants.
The somatic/germline distinction is the most important in the topic. Somatic gene therapy edits the body cells of a consenting patient to treat a disease — the strategies behind treatments for sickle-cell disease and some inherited blindness — and changes die with the patient; almost all ethicists, religious and secular, treat it as continuous with ordinary medicine. Germline editing alters eggs, sperm or embryos, so every cell of the resulting person, and of all their descendants, carries the change. This raises a different order of concern: the alteration is heritable and effectively irreversible, off-target effects could propagate through the gene pool, and — most discussed of all — the future persons affected cannot consent. The second distinction is between therapy (restoring normal function: curing or preventing disease) and enhancement (improving a capacity beyond the normal: greater height, memory or longevity). Most frameworks accept therapy more readily than enhancement, though, as we shall see, the line between them is contested.
Key term: Therapy vs enhancement: therapy uses genetic technology to treat or prevent disease (restoring normal functioning); enhancement uses it to augment capacities beyond the normal range. The distinction is widely invoked but its boundary is contested.
Much genetic medicine depends on stem cells — cells able to develop into other cell types. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent (able to become any cell type) and so hold great therapeutic promise, but harvesting them destroys an early embryo, which reactivates the entire moral-status debate developed in the beginning-of-life lesson: if the embryo is already one of us, it is being killed for others' benefit; if its moral status is minimal before the primitive streak, the loss is correspondingly less grave. The discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) — adult cells reprogrammed to a pluripotent state, for which Shinya Yamanaka shared the 2012 Nobel Prize — offers a route to pluripotent cells without destroying embryos, and is welcomed by those who object to embryo research as a way of securing the benefit without the moral cost. In the UK, embryo research (including the derivation of stem cells) is permitted under licence up to fourteen days under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as amended 2008), overseen by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). That fourteen-day limit — set at the appearance of the primitive streak, before which the embryo can still split into twins and after which a single individual is established — is itself a gradualist compromise of exactly the kind examined in the beginning-of-life lesson, and the genetic-ethics candidate should see that the stem-cell debate inherits the whole unresolved dispute over when, and to what degree, the early human being acquires moral status. For natural moral law the embryo is innocent human life that may not be directly killed, so the deliberate creation and destruction of embryos for research breaches a primary precept whatever the benefit; for a utilitarian the non-sentient embryo barely registers against the suffering its tissues might relieve. The advent of iPSCs is welcomed precisely because it promises to dissolve this standoff — securing the medical good while sidestepping the status question altogether.
Not all the ethical stakes are human. GM crops — plants engineered for herbicide tolerance, pest resistance or enhanced nutrition — are among the most widely deployed genetic technologies, and the AQA topic of genetic engineering includes them. The utilitarian case in favour is strong: higher yields and pest resistance can reduce hunger, lower pesticide use and water demand, and crops such as Golden Rice (engineered to produce beta-carotene) were designed to prevent the vitamin-A deficiency that blinds and kills children in poorer countries. The case against weaves together several worries: ecological risk (gene flow to wild relatives, harm to non-target species, the entrenchment of monocultures), the corporate control of the food supply through patented seed and the dependency it creates for small farmers, and a more diffuse unease — sometimes voiced theologically — that engineering the living world treats creation as raw material. Religious responses are mixed: many theologians and the Catholic magisterium have judged GM crops acceptable in principle as a legitimate exercise of stewardship to feed the hungry, provided risks are managed and justice in distribution is observed, while others align with the precautionary instinct of the environmental movement. The engineering of animals (faster-growing livestock, disease-resistant strains, and animals modified to grow human-compatible organs for xenotransplantation) folds the genetic debate into the animal-ethics questions of the previous lesson, sharpening the worry that creatures are being redesigned purely as instruments.
Key term: Genetic engineering: the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology — including transgenic modification (inserting genes across species) and gene editing (altering the existing sequence) — to change its characteristics.
It would misrepresent religious ethics to present it as uniformly hostile to genetic intervention. A significant theological current argues the opposite: that the human vocation, given in Genesis, is precisely to share in God's ongoing creativity. The Lutheran theologian Ted Peters has argued that human beings are "created co-creators" — made in the image of a creating God and called to exercise responsible, healing dominion over creation, which can include the use of genetic knowledge to relieve suffering and improve the world. On this view, to refuse to use a God-given capacity to cure disease would itself be a failure of stewardship, and the reflex appeal to "playing God" can mask a fearful conservatism rather than a moral insight. Peters insists this is not a blank cheque — co-creation must be governed by love of neighbour, justice for the vulnerable, and humility about consequences — but it reframes the question from "may we trespass on God's territory?" to "are we exercising our delegated creativity responsibly?" Set against the natural-law caution, this internal Christian disagreement is fertile ground for evaluation, because it shows that the religious tradition contains both a warning against hubris and a mandate for healing creativity, and the live question is where the boundary between them falls.
The phrase "designer babies" captures the prospect of selecting or engineering a child's non-medical traits. The technology already in clinical use is pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), which screens IVF embryos for serious heritable conditions (cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease) before transfer, and can also identify an embryo that is a tissue match for a sick sibling — a "saviour sibling" whose cord blood may treat the older child (the case of Adam Nash, born 2000, whose cells treated his sister's Fanconi anaemia, is the textbook example). Selecting against serious disease commands wide acceptance; selecting for non-medical traits — sex, and in prospect intelligence, height or appearance — is far more contested, and germline editing would extend selection into outright design.
Key term: Saviour sibling: a child conceived by IVF and selected by PGD to be a tissue match for an existing sick sibling, so that stem cells (e.g. from the cord blood) can be used to treat the older child; the central worry is whether the child is being created as a means to another's good.
Julian Savulescu (b. 1963) presses the case for choice with his Principle of Procreative Beneficence: prospective parents have a moral reason to select, of the possible children they could have, the one expected to have the best life (or at least a life no worse), given the relevant available information. If we already accept that good parents secure the best environment — nutrition, schooling, healthcare — then, he argues, declining to secure the best genes where we can is an inconsistent failure of the same parental duty. Critics reply that the principle commodifies children, treating them as products built to specification; that it rests on the contested assumption that we can reliably predict which traits make for "the best life" (is height, or a competitive temperament, a blessing?); and that, if enhancement is available only to the wealthy, it threatens to entrench inequality and create a genetic "underclass". Savulescu answers that selection need not imply conditional love, and that the inequality worry is an argument for fair access, not for prohibition — but the disagreement over whether choosing a child's traits expresses responsible care or the vice of treating offspring as artefacts is exactly the kind of tension a strong essay weighs rather than settles.
Cloning produces a genetic copy. Reproductive cloning — bringing a cloned embryo to birth — was achieved in a mammal with Dolly the sheep (1996–2003) at the Roslin Institute, created by somatic cell nuclear transfer. The prospect of human reproductive cloning is almost universally opposed: it is grossly unsafe (Dolly was one live birth from 277 attempts, and cloned animals suffer high rates of abnormality), it is widely held to offend human dignity by manufacturing a person to a template, and it could be abused to produce a child as a means to another's ends. Therapeutic cloning uses the same nuclear-transfer technique not to make a baby but to create an early embryo from which patient-matched stem cells can be harvested; it sidesteps the safety objections to reproductive cloning but still creates and destroys an embryo, which the Catholic Church condemns as a violation of the sanctity of life. UK law reflects these distinctions: human reproductive cloning is prohibited (Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001), while embryo research, including therapeutic-cloning techniques, is permitted under HFEA licence.
Two features of germline intervention generate ethical problems that no amount of technical refinement removes, and they deserve separate treatment. The first is the problem of consent. Every person whose genome is edited at the germline, and every one of their descendants, is altered without having agreed; they inherit a design chosen by others. Ordinary medicine treats a consenting patient, and even paediatric medicine treats an existing child whose interests can be weighed; germline editing reaches into persons who do not yet exist and binds them irrevocably. Defenders note that parents already make countless unconsented decisions that shape their children (where they are born, how they are raised, even — through choice of partner and timing — which genes they receive), so the objection cannot be that any unconsented genetic influence is wrong; the sharper worry is the deliberate, designed and irreversible character of the alteration. The second feature is scientific uncertainty: CRISPR can produce off-target edits (unintended changes elsewhere in the genome) and mosaicism, and because the long-term, multi-generational effects of a heritable change cannot be observed in advance, we would in effect be running an irreversible experiment on the gene pool. This is why even many who see no objection in principle to germline therapy regard its present use as wrong on grounds of safety alone — a verdict that bears directly on how one reads the He Jiankui case.
The 2018 announcement by the Chinese biophysicist He Jiankui that he had used CRISPR to edit the genomes of twin girls ("Lulu" and "Nana") to confer resistance to HIV provoked near-universal condemnation and led to his imprisonment in 2019. Analysing why the episode was wrong is more instructive than merely citing it, because it concentrates several of the objections at once. The editing was not therapeutic in the strict sense — the embryos were healthy, and safer means of preventing HIV transmission already existed — so it shaded towards enhancement against disease risk rather than the cure of an otherwise untreatable condition. It was unsafe: the edits were incomplete and carried unquantified off-target risks imposed on children who could not consent and on their descendants. And it was conducted outside any legitimate oversight, in secrecy, evading the regulatory and consent frameworks that exist precisely to hold the line the slippery-slope argument warns about. The case is therefore not a reason to think all germline editing equally wrong, but a vivid demonstration of the wrong that the prohibition rightly targets — and a warning that the relevant line will be crossed by individuals unless international regulation is robust.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.