Bioethical Advice

0 Comments | Insight on the News, August 20, 2001 | by Larry Witham

Biotechnology companies are turning to theologians and ethicists to find how the public will respond to new genetic medicine and designer foods.

"They want to avoid a clash of culture between the biotech industry, its supporters and investors, and a substantial segment of the religious population," says the Rev. Ronald Cole Turner. He was among a group of religious thinkers who attended a conference sponsored by Biotechnology Industry Organizations, which represents 950 companies, schools and state biotech centers. "It is a sincere effort," says Turner, who teaches theology and ethics at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. "It's not a matter of gathering intelligence on the enemy. They hope to develop public strategies in accord with public support."

Iowa State University religion professor Gary Comstock, whose recent book Vexing Nature? looks at the controversy, says the agricultural biotechnologists were taken by surprise when protesters began to demonstrate against "Frankenfood," or genetically engineered crops. Case by case, companies in the industry "are consulting theologians or ethicists as a way to anticipate" public reactions.

Those reactions, rising in many cases from religious groups, have stirred the debate over stem-cell research on human embryos, patents on genetic products, cloning and other issues. Though the term "biotechnology" was coined in 1919 and "genetic engineering" in 1941, the moral debate seemed first to explode in 1995 when 200 religious leaders urged Congress to ban human-gene patenting, calling it an industry attempt to own human DNA.

Earlier, in 1990, the U.S. Human Genome Project recognized these public concerns by mandating that 3 to 5 percent of its annual budget go to a division for Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI). While ELSI is not aimed at the public or industry, the ethical interest rubs off "by example," according to ELSI Program Director Jean McEwen. "We are more of a research program," says McEwen. "Our highest priority has been education of public-health professionals."

A 2000 federal report evaluating ELSI, which spent $76.8 million during its first decade, urged more research on "the ways in which new genetic knowledge may interact with a variety of philosophical, theological and ethical perspectives." Issues on the horizon: how "behavioral genetics" will affect "traditional notions" and personal responsibility and how "genetic enhancement technologies" will affect "conceptions of humanity."