16AR21-21

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )

AR 21:21 - Gene editing: 'Not just another scientific revolution'

In this issue:

EVANGELISM - NY Times on Tim Keller's "push" to preach the gospel to skeptics

GENETICS - the gene-editing of human embryos begins, begging the question: Where will it end?

Apologia Report 21:21 (1,294)

June 8, 2016

EVANGELISM

"Evangelists Adapt to a New Era, Preaching the Gospel to Skeptics" by Samuel G. Freedman -- an update on "the push by [Manhattan, NY] Redeemer Presbyterian's prominent pastor, the Rev. Tim Keller, to preach the gospel to skeptics." Freedman suggests that it will take longer for evangelistic engagement to produce results if Christian norms continue to be rejected in the west. He uses the example of Assistant pastor Craig Ellis, who "was sharing a lectern with the Rev. Bijan Mirtolooi, the assistant pastor for [Redeemer's] 83rd Street church. In the chairs around them sat people like Frank Ying, 33, who works for a technology start-up. Brought up in the Dallas area by immigrant parents who had been raised amid the official atheism of the People's Republic of China, Mr. Ying tried exploring Christianity with his high school classmates, even accompanying them to megachurches, only to be put off by their fundamentalism. ...

"Mr. Ying heard about Redeemer Presbyterian from a few acquaintances after moving to Manhattan several years ago. He dipped his toe slowly, watching a YouTube video of Dr. Keller in conversation with a journalist and a historian, emissaries of the secular world. By now, Mr. Ying is a regular at the WS Café <www.goo.gl/UHGcPO>, not because he believes, but because his doubts get heard. ...

"Mr. Ellis and Mr. Mirtolooi cited popular culture (movies like 'The Revenant,' 'Inside Out') and real-life examples (the way a parent sacrifices free time to raise a child) in order to make palpable the concept of suffering leading to the remission of sin. Very deliberately, they did not lean heavily on Scripture.

"'The difference with the Café is what you're using as your authorities,' Mr. Ellis said later. 'Typically, in a Christian class, the Bible is your authenticity. To this group, the Bible is just another book. You can use it, but it's just one piece of the puzzle. You rely on those your listeners would find credible — scientists, philosophers, authors — and you show how Christianity makes sense.'" New York Times, Mar 4 '16. <www.goo.gl/ifpVu8>

Keller is also the author of the bestselling book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism [1] (a companion DVD study <www.hgoo.gl/IrcKPk> is available as well).

---

GENETICS

"Britain wades into controversial waters with approval of genetic experiment" by Lonnie Shekhtman -- "Britain's fertility regulator approved the use of a new and controversial gene-editing technique on human embryos" reads the subtitle. "Nearly a year after Chinese scientists made the first, controversial attempt to modify genes in human embryos, Britain's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority <hfea.gov.uk> has approved a similar experiment to be led by Kathy Niakan, a molecular biologist at the Francis Crick Institute <crick.ac.uk> in London.

"Dr. Niakan wants to use a new genome-editing procedure called CRISPR–Cas9, invented a few years ago, to modify genes in the first seven days of a human embryo's development, when it forms from a single cell to around 250 cells. ...

"The geneticist will use the CRISPR-Cas9 technique to switch genes on and off in fertilized human eggs and then to look for the effects these modifications have on the development of the cells that go on to form the placenta. ...

"In January 2015, Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist involved in developing the CRISPR technology, held a one-day conference <www.goo.gl/oLjLb7> of scientists and ethicists to discuss the ramifications of the genetic breakthrough. That meeting yielded a perspective article in Science <www.goo.gl/D4VJXh> advising researchers to slow down, engage in a broader discussion, and develop standards around the use of the technique." Christian Science Monitor, Feb 1 '16. <www.goo.gl/dIlxWS>

A related Time magazine story by Alice Park, also dated Feb 1, begins: "The new technique offers hope for victims of genetic condition and infertility but also raises major ethical issues.

"A U.K. researcher will be the first to use a precise but controversial new gene-editing technology called CRISPR to alter the genes in a human embryo. ...

"CRISPR allows scientists to precisely snip out and replace genes, and for the first time, the newly green-lit experiment will apply this to the so-called germline cells in an embryo - the DNA in an embryo so early in its development that all of its resulting cells will carry the change - and pass it on to the next generation. Monday's decision has been eagerly anticipated by scientists around the world." None of whom "have dared to alter the germline genome until Chinese researchers attempted it - to the horror of many western scientists - last April. (The results were disappointing, perhaps because the embryos they used were abnormal which, say some experts, are not the ideal test for CRISPR.) ...

"The U.K. ... has been at the forefront of genetic engineering feats, from pioneering the IVF [in vitro fertilization] process to creating a welcome environment for the study of embryonic stem cells, the early cells that develop into all of the tissues in the human body. ...

"CRISPR raises the notion of designer babies, made-to-order genetic traits and so forth." Robin Lovell-Badge, group leader at the Crick Institute, "says that makes him uncomfortable about how CRISPR might be applied outside of the U.K. Any IVF clinic, for example, already has the means to use CRISPR to edit genomes of the embryos they implant - they just need to order the right genetic cassettes to cut out and replace whichever genes they desire. In the U.S., because IVF clinics aren't regulated, any private IVF clinic could theoretically start to employ CRISPR and promise parents-to-be their own customized baby. 'That really scares me because you can imagine someone with a big ego whether it's a patient or a clinician wanting to be the first to do this type of thing,' he says." <www.goo.gl/Ny9NJZ>

In "CRISPR–Cas9: Not Just Another Scientific Revolution," Kenneth W. Krause, writing for Skeptical Inquirer (May/Jun '16, pp24-31), begins: "Poised to transform the world as we know it, a new gene-editing system has bioethicists wringing their hands, physicians champing at the bit, and researchers dueling with demons." Krause asks: "Is it possible to overstate the potential of a new technology that efficiently and cheaply permits deliberate, specific, and multiple genomic modifications to almost anything biological? What if that technology was also capable of altering untold future generations for nearly any given species - including the one responsible for creating it? And what if it could be used, for better or worse, to rapidly exterminate an entire species?"

Krause discusses the mechanics involved in genetic editing. Along the way he notes that "Today, a biologist wanting to edit a specific sequence in an organism's genome can quickly and cheaply design [code] to match that sequence, order it from a competitive manufacturer for $65 or less, and have it delivered in the mail."

The technology isn't isolated either. CRISPR-Cas9 "is only one among many prokaryotic CRISPR systems that could, at some point, prove useful for any number of human purposes." This is followed by a lengthy review of related ethical concerns, including the eerie observation that an "altered gene is almost always inherited" when a "gene drive" such as a targeted contagion is utilized.

Importantly, Krause concludes that such gene drive effects are not permanent, since "most transgenes would prove especially vulnerable to evolutionary deselection, for example. But neither would they turn out as problematic as some might imagine. They can be easily detected through genome sequencing, for instance, and are unlikely to spread accidentally into domesticated species. And if scientists sought for whatever reason to reverse the effects of a previously released drive, they could probably do so with the release of a subsequent drive."

Still, "unlikely to spread accidentally" is the operative phrase here. This introduces the specter of malicious genetic code written for advanced biological warfare - an abuse we very well could be learning about in the not-to-distant future.

Also see <www.goo.gl/aPizIj> and <www.goo.gl/a8yDpT>

-------

SOURCES: Monographs

1 - The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, by Timothy Keller (Penguin, 2008, paperback, 320 pages)

<www.goo.gl/oJs7ud>

------

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )