Still wondering..."What Defines Us?"

Last February the editors of Science marked the 10th anniversary of the publication of the complete human genome. They invited a dozen or so people to contribute short reflections on the meaning of this milestone.

I was given 250 words for my article, entitled “What Defines Us?” In that small space I tried to suggest two things. First I noted a simple irony: As we gain more scientific information about our genome and our evolution, the philosophical and religious concepts of humanity become blurred or defocused. Second, I suggested that this defocusing need not be a cause for discomfort. Precisely because we are humans—whatever exactly that means anymore—we switch almost immediately from discomfort to wonder and excitement. The quick switch is what makes us human. I ended by asking: “Who are we, and where will we go next?”

It is as if we are making ourselves up as we go along. Recent discoveries in human evolution intimate just such a view. Anatomically modern humans are now believed to have interbred with Neandertals and with the more recently discovered Denisovans. Many of us carry the DNA of these extinct forms of humanity in our own genome. In that sense they are not distinct at all but live on in every cell of our bodies. More recently, it has been suggested that similar interbreeding occurred in sub-Saharan Africa.

Interestingly, it has also been suggested that interbreeding enhanced us. In August, a research article in Science suggested that our immune systems are more resilient than they might have been. Why? Because our ancestors interbred with Neandertals and Denisovans.

The evolutionary tree of humanity is beginning to look less like a tree and more like a tangled vine. And now we are led to wonder whether it is the tangle that enhances us. What makes us less clearly Homo sapiens seems, paradoxically, to make us more extraordinary as a species. Well…we’re running far ahead of the science here, but (as I suggested in Science), wondering is what makes us human. It’s not just the DNA; it’s what we dare to do with it.

I have been thinking about this recently because I will be speaking on November 10 on this very topic at the University of South Florida Saint Petersburg. They have planned an exciting lecture series, Festival of the Genome: Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of the Sequencing of the Human Genome, showcasing various perspectives on human genome research.

Transhumanism and "Super-human"

I am working on a book on human enhancement through technology. It covers various technologies, including drugs for cognitive enhancement or strategies to extend the human lifespan. The core question for me is theological: what do these technologies mean in light of the classic Christian hope that our lives are to be transformed in Christ?

Part of the book deals with transhumanism, which is a movement that promotes the use of these technologies to enhance human capacities. Today I was looking especially at the antecedents of transhumanism. The word "transhuman"--considering all its cognates in Latin--seems to originate in Dante's Divine Comedy, Paradiso, I.70 (more on that in a later post). What's really interesting is that if we include the Greek equivalent--hyperanthropos--the earliest uses go all the way back to about 150CE.

I ran across an interesting article by Paul Monaghan, who writes about aesthetics and theater. Here's an extended quote from an article by Monaghan:

"I want to introduce another term here, the hyperanthropos or ‘more-than-man’. The first known use of the word itself is in a comic dialogue called Kataplous (chapter 16) by Lucian of Samosata in the second century A.D., in connection with Prometheus, the Titan god who taught mankind how to live independently of the gods by giving them fire, and who is strongly associated with Ananke and suffering in human life. But I am using the term hyperanthropos as a useful shorthand for a concept that had appeared in one form or the other from Homer and Hesiod onwards, was dominant in Greek culture, and has continued to play an important role in Western metaphysics. The hyperanthropos was, and is, either part man, part god (for example, the Homeric Heroes), or a man who is raised well above ordinary men by reason of his intellect (philosophers), physical abilities (athletes), or the great benefits he provides mankind (such as Prometheus). The protagonist in Greek tragedy was a hyperanthropos who had been ‘separated out’ from the Chorus, and whose actions had enormous ramifications for that community of ordinary (often very ordinary) men and women. Socrates himself was seen as a protagonist and hyperanthropos by Plato, and Plato has been regarded as such throughout the centuries, along with the ancient Greeks in general."

But what Monaghan doesn't say is that around the same time, a charismatic Christian named Montanus, later regarded as a heretic for (among other things) recognizing the leadership of women, used the same word--hyperanthropos--to describe ordinary believers.

Transhumanists themselves tend to credit Julian Huxley with creating the word "transhumanism." The fact that it goes back not just to Dante but to Lucian of Samosata and to the early Christian Montanus is more than just a correction. It show that the hope for human enhancement is intertwined with--even rooted in--the longing for a more profound transformation. Transhumanists like to associate their vision of human transformation with Prometheus but not with Christ.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Policy

Rob Stein’s article in yesterday’s Washington Post was one of the few reports to recognize that in announcing his support for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, President Obama left several big questions unanswered.

According to Stein, NIH insiders were caught off guard. They had expected Obama to say that cell lines derived at any date from donated embryos would be eligible for research dollars. That step removes the barrier set by Pres. Bush, who made funds available but only for cells from donated embryos and derived before August 2001.

But Obama’s statement raised new questions:

First, will federal funding be available for research involving embryonic stem cells taken from embryos that were created specifically for research? Second, will funding be available for cells taken from cloned embryos?

The first of these questions is of course the more urgent of the two. A majority of Americans appear to support the view that research using cells taken from donated embryos is morally acceptable. These embryos already exists by the hundreds of thousands in storage in the nation’s fertility clinics. Most seem to think that it is better donate them for research that could lead to medical breakthroughs than destroy them.

But is it right for scientists to create the embryos, just for research that will not help the embryo but will instead destroy it? Here’s where many draw a line. It will be interesting, to put it mildly, to see if NIH agrees. What NIH will need to do, of course, is to assess carefully the impact of funding research on cells from donated embryos but not on cells from embryos created specifically for research. Will such a line really hold back science?

My own view is that, within strict limits and only if there is a need that cannot be met another way, it is permissible to create embryos for research. I believe that position can be argued on the basis of Christian theology and ethics. I also know that I am in a minority, and I am willing to recognize that policy in this field must be respectful of the deeply-held moral views of the majority. Recognizing that this area of research is contentious, I think it might be wise for NIH not to press too far in changing the guidelines. Unless it can be shown that science is seriously compromised by limiting federal funds to cells from donated embryos, it would be wise to put the limit right there.

The second question—whether federal funds will be available for research on cells from cloned embryos—is a bit more speculative. One of the great hopes for cloned embryos is that researchers could develop patient-specific stem cell lines, first to test drugs on human cell cultures but perhaps to implant in patients without provoking the immune system. Now these hopes are largely addressed with the 2006-2007 breakthroughs in induced pluripotency. Whether cloning still provides a significant scientific advantage over induced pluripotency is something that will have to be argued.

If the argument for the need for cloned stem cells is compelling, then perhaps NIH should recommend that these cells be eligible for use in federally funded studies. But if not, then it would be best, I think, for the NIH to exclude this source of cells.

In his statement yesterday, President Obama was clear that he did not wish to open the door to reproductive cloning. Reproductive cloning is, of course, a far different thing that using cloning (more precisely, nuclear transfer) to create a cloned embryo for research. Even so, many in the general public link the two and object equally to both. Perhaps the most convincing way to close the door to reproductive cloning is to exclude funding for work on cells from cloned embryos.

On top of everything else, NIH will need to consider rules for informed consent, first of all for couples who donate embryos for research, but also for anyone who donates cells that are induced to become pluripotent stem cells. If that’s not enough, NIH and other agencies need to move forward to get ready to oversee clinical trials in this field.

All this is to say that the NIH will be doing two things at once. It will be closing the first stem cell debate (the Bush-era debate over the embryo as the source) and opening a whole new era of stem cell ethics, centered around the pluripotency of cells and of what they might become—in the laboratory, in the body of patients, and in the future of regenerative medicine

Stem Cells Research and Christian Ethics

President Obama has opened a new era for stem cell research in America. He has asked the National Institutes of Health to draft new funding guidelines that will make federal research dollars available to US stem cell researchers without imposing unnecessary restrictions.

The restrictions were imposed on August 9, 2001, by Pres. George W. Bush. He approved the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research (something that outraged the religious right at the time), provided the cells were derived before the moment he gave the speech. Since then, the number of qualifying cell lines has shrunk while the number of new, unfunded lines has expanded.

Very few of us ever could grasp the moral difference between an embryo destroyed before August 2001 and one destroyed afterward. And most Americans favor embryonic stem cell research if it uses cells from embryos already created for fertility clinics but unused and ready to be destroyed anyway.

What's not so well known is that several religious groups support the Obama position. Jewish scholars are very clear in their support, as are experts in Islamic law. Christians are of course divided. The Vatican clearly opposes any use of embryos, but not all individual Catholics agree. Some Protestant denominations--the Presbyterian Church (USA), for example, or my own United Church of Christ--have gone on record supporting this research.

In the next few months, it will be interesting to see whether the NIH draft provides for funding for stem cell research on cell lines derived from embryos that were created especially for research. Here, more Americans are opposed, and NIH might be wise to draw a line: Offer funding for lines from donated embryos but not from embryos created expressly for research. Drawing the line at that point would also rule out cloning or nuclear transfer, since any cloned embryo is by definition created for research.

In the meantime, congratulations to Pres. Obama for recognizing the promise of this field of research, the moral complexities that lie ahead, and the need to set aside the artificial limits of the past while working toward consensus on the moral vision that guides the future.

Enhancement and Christianity

Last week I gave a talk at Oxford on "Human Enhancement and Christianity: A Case of Friendly Fire?" The talk was co-sponsored by the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, the Future of Humanity Institute, and Sophia Europa Oxford. An audio version is available on the Uehiro Centre site or by going directly to this page.

I just sent a text version of the talk, which should be posted on the Uehiro site in the next day or two.

In the talk, I compare the goals of the secular enhancement project with the vision of traditional Christianity, suggesting point by point that the overlap between the two is not just strong but quite overwhelming. Of course, Christians might say that technological enhancement is an illegitimate means to achieve a worthy goal. But the question I pose at the end is whether theology can look at technology as an alien power, or whether it must say that technology is an emerging tool in the hands of the unfailing Creator.

Charles Darwin on Religion

What did Charles Darwin actually think about the religious questions raised by evolution? For an expert discussion, I heartily recommend a new statement coming from the International Society for Science and Religion and written by the distinguished historian, John Hedley Brooke. As Darwin's 200th birthday approaches on February 12, many clergy will be searching for ways to address the challenges of evolution. Brooke's statement is really helpful toward that end.

Are Cybrids Even Possible?

A study published this morning by Robert Lanza's team at Advanced Cell Technology suggests that cybrids--a controversial attempt to create a cloned human/nonhuman embryo--may not even work.

What is a cybrid? The word is short for "cytoplasmic hybrid embryo." The idea is to use nuclear transfer or cloning to create a cloned embryo as a resource for stem cell research. But in the case of a cybrid, the human nucleus is transferred, not to an enucleated human egg, but to an egg from a cow or a rabbit.

Last year, the government of the United Kingdom, following a particularly nasty debate, passed legislation allowing researchers to create cybrids. No sooner had the legislation passed, however, that "induced pluripotency" became widely accepted as a technically easier way to achieve many of the goals that motivated scientists to want to create cybrids. Not just technically easier, of course, but morally easier, because induced pluripotency creates pluripotent stem cells without embryos--cybrid, cloned, or IVF.

Now comes the Lanza study, suggesting that the interplay between the human and nonhuman genes prevents the cybrid from developing at all, not even to the point of being useful for deriving pluripotent stem cells.

The whole cybrid question is intriguing theologically. Are they human, these strange entities that have human nuclear DNA but the mitochondrial DNA of a cow or a rabbit? For more on the religious and ethical questions, let me refer you to a statement that I helped to co-author, available through the International Society for Science and Religion. Sadly, the cybrid controversy marked a new low-point in the UK on the religion-science front, with the moral concerns of religious people often misconstrued as being anti-science. On the brighter side, the question of the cybrid challenges theology and ethics to engage research as it develops while asking the perennial questions, such as what does it mean to be human.