Playing God or Playing Doctor?

The ethical and religious debate on Gene Editing

Natali_Mis Getty Images

Gene editing, especially with tools like CRISPR, is one of the most groundbreaking yet controversial scientific advancements of our time. The ability to alter DNA opens the possibility to eliminate genetic diseases, improve quality of life, and even extend human capabilities in ways never thought possible. But at what cost? Proponents view gene editing as a natural progression of medical science, a moral responsibility to use technology we created for the greater good. Others believe it to be an act of arrogance, a way for humans to “play God”, meddling in things we don't completely understand.

When looking at medical controversies, we often use our religious beliefs to argue for or against a particular side. However, religious perspectives on gene editing are deeply divided. Some traditions emphasize that life is sacred and shouldn't be altered by human hands, while others see genetic advancements as an extension of medical care, aligned with the duty to heal. Beyond religious concerns, the ethical and regulatory debates surrounding gene editing raise even bigger questions. For example, who gets to decide what’s ethical? Should we even have the ability to edit genes, and if so, what are the limitations?

Religious Perspectives

Faith plays a huge role in how people view medical advancements, and gene editing is no exception. Across different religions, the question of whether modifying human DNA is ethical hinges on interpretations of divine will, natural law, and moral responsibility.

Christianity: Gift from God or Dangerous Overreach?

Christian views on gene editing aren’t a one-size-fits-all perspective. Some opponents believe that altering DNA interferes with God’s plan, arguing that humans are created in His image and shouldn’t be “redesigned.” There’s a strong concern that gene editing could lead to a slippery slope. By first starting with eliminating diseases, then making genetic enhancements to fit a vision, it would lead to a society where eugenics is normalized.

However, not all Christians see it this way. Others argue that while medicine itself is a divine gift, meant to alleviate suffering. If the technology to heal is present, why isn’t it being used? The Bible is filled with stories about healing and compassion, and some Christian scholars believe gene editing could fall into that category. The key question within Christianity isn’t just whether gene editing is possible, but whether it aligns with the values of human dignity.

Islam and Judaism on Preserving Life

Both Islam and Judaism take a more pragmatic approach to gene editing, largely because of their emphasis on preserving life. In Judaism, the concept of pikuach nefesh teaches that saving a life is one of the most important moral duties. If gene editing can prevent suffering, many Jewish scholars believe it should be allowed. However, there’s still hesitation around using it for non-medical reasons, since it raises ethical concerns about fairness and unintended consequences.

Similarly, Islamic bioethics operates under the principle of maqasi al-Shariah, which prioritizes the protection of life. Many Muslim scholars view gene editing as acceptable when it’s used to cure disease or prevent suffering. However, as in Judaism, there’s a strong ethical distinction between using the technology as a therapeutic application or as an enhancement. Any genetic modifications that create injustice or inequality would go against the broader moral tenets of Islamic teachings.

Hinduism and Buddhism take on Karma and Dharma

Hindu and Buddhist perspectives on gene editing often focus on the natural order and doctrines of karma and dharma. Karma is understood as the consequences of one’s actions. From a Hindu perspective, it shapes future existence. While not everyone has similar interpretations, many argue that genetic modifications disrupt this natural cycle as an individual’s genetic makeup is viewed as a manifestation of their past deeds. Therefore, altering one’s DNA might interfere with their destined path.

Buddhism, with its emphasis on ahimsa, takes a similar approach. This practice focuses on the avoidance of harm to any living creature. While there is no unified stance on gene editing, Buddhist ethics generally support interventions that reduce suffering if it is seen as compassionate and ethical. But if it leads to unforeseen harm or disrupts the balance of nature, it can become harder to justify. Since Buddhism encourages mindfulness and responsibility in all actions, there also exists a caution of rushing into genetic modifications without fully understanding the long-term consequences.

Beyond Religion

While religious considerations are taken into account in the ethical debate surrounding types of genetic engineering, it is not the only concern. The scientific and medical communities take into account both the merits and the pitfalls. There is both the question of if we should pursue, and if so, how far it should go?

One of the strongest arguments in favor of gene editing is its potential to eliminate genetic diseases. Conditions like sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and Huntington’s disease are caused by specific genetic mutations, which CRISPR technology could potentially correct. Many scientists contend that withholding life-saving interventions when available is as unethical as employing them irresponsibly.

Gene editing also holds promising potential in revolutionizing medical research. With the addition of this new technology, scientists are using it to better understand genetic disorders, develop new treatments, and even explore regenerative medicine. The ability to edit DNA is said to lead to groundbreaking advancements in organ transplantation, cancer treatment, and aging-related diseases.

However, ethical dilemmas arise when considering genetic enhancements beyond therapeutic purposes. Modifying traits such as intelligence, physical abilities, or appearance introduces concerns about “playing God.” Also leading to concerns about genetic inequality. If only the wealthy have access to genetic enhancements, it could create a society where genetic privilege widens the gap based on income.

As with any major technological advancement, gene editing raises the question of who makes these decisions. Should regulatory and ethical questions be dependent on the opinions of governments, medical professionals, individuals, case-by-case basis, social norms, etc.?

Many countries have taken a cautious approach. The UK, for example, allows gene-editing research for strictly medical purposes, banning modifications for enhancements. In contrast, China made headlines in 2018 when a scientist used CRISPR to genetically modify twin babies, claiming to make them resistant to HIV. This move was widely condemned by the scientific community as reckless and unethical, highlighting just how unregulated and controversial the nature of this field is.

Adding another layer, some countries with official state religions align their policies with such values. For example, Iran, an Islamic Republic, frames genetic research around Islamic ethical principles. In predominantly Buddhist Bhutan, spiritual balance is central. In contrast, those in neutrality regarding religion to influence policies may use historical experiences. Germany, for instance, enforces some of the world’s strictest laws, prohibiting most forms of gene editing. This likely followed by the horrors of eugenics under Nazi rule.

Ultimately, gene editing stands at a conflict of remarkable potential and ethical controversy. The capability to modify DNA offers the promise of preventing suffering and improving human health. Yet, it also prompts questions about the boundaries of human intervention and the role of religious principles in guiding technological advancements.