Too often the ability to do something implies the justification to do it. But should we do everything that we can do?
Remember the story of Pandora’s Box? Pandora, according to Greek poet Hesiod, was the first woman on earth. She was given beauty by Aphrodite, speech by Hermes, and a box by Zeus, along with the warning to never open it. Well, as we all know, curiosity got the best of Pandora, who opened the box and all the evils and diseases of life flew out, afflicting mankind until this day. Only Hope remained.
But the idea that all knowledge is a good and useful thing is very often assumed in science, particularly in the exploding field of genetic engineering. While God has given us the ability to understand His good world with such tools as science and mathematics, it does not follow that just because we can do something we should do it.
Earlier this month on BreakPoint, Eric Metaxas told us about a molecular biologist at Kyoto University who used the skin cells of a mouse to create “primordial germ cells.”
He matured these cells into eggs, fertilized them, and implanted them into a female mouse, which then gave birth to live young. In other words, he made it possible to create life by bypassing normal reproductive channels—and many infertile as well as homosexual couples began asking about whether the technique could enable them to have children, too.
Eric rightly told us that what ultimately sets us apart from the rodents in Hayashi’s laboratory is not our technology or power to cheat nature. It’s our ability to say ‘no’ to things we want to do, but shouldn’t do.”
CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!
Now we’ll see if 23andMe, a California genomics company, can just say “no.”
They just announced a patent for a technology that would allow parents to choose or suppress genetic traits in their children; traits such as “height, eye color, muscle development, personality characteristics, and risks of developing age-related macular degeneration or certain types of cancer.” The patent application even lists the following choices: “I prefer a child with”: “longest expected life span” or “least expected life cost of health care.” It’s not foolproof, but would be a major step toward so-called “designer babies.”