US scientists close to creating artificial life

Like all good science fiction, this story contains futuristic elements which have implications for today’s world.  If we can create artificial life, would there be a difference between these two options:  (1) killing off artificial life forms before they mature, and (2) aborting human embryos?

This story begins, “US scientists have taken a major step toward creating the first ever artificial life form by synthetically reproducing the DNA of a bacteria.”   

The story itself contains enough elements so that partisans can have great fun as they debate the propriety of this research.  My immediate reaction, however, is to look further down the road and ask about the ethical challenges that will be raised by this project.

Thinking in religious concepts, since someday these humans will have created these beings much as God created living beings, then in some sense these scientists will have become like God to them.  Like Moses was to Pharaoh, will they be God in a unique sense to these life forms they have created?

Reflecting back on Genesis 1 we see that most of the creating that was done there was accomplished by making use of pre-existing materials, just like the scientists who are now trying to create life.  Their theory is that creating life is a purely mechanical process.  Some readers will think no further because they assume that we will never have to worry about creating “real” life because only God can do that.  These are “peace in their own time” advocates who are willing to forfeit reaching a large portion of the educated world with the gospel message.

For the rest of us, there are two basic directions we can go when we want to explore our moral responsibility in this area.  The What is Life? direction is favored by most biblically-based Pro-Lifers at this time.  They basically want to argue that God breathing “the breath of life” into the human as described in Genesis means that life is much more than matter, but also consists of a spiritual substance.  We cannot debate this complicated issue here.  Suffice it to say that literary evidence indicates that this phrase simply indicates that the person or animal is alive in the usual sense.

Ethical arguments that depend on the definition of life become technical and legalistic, and inevitably lead to immoral behavior since people will always find a way to do what they want to do anyway.  The bankruptcy of this legalistic approach to social policy is illustrated, in part, by the track record of Pro-Life states according to one report…

Foster care payment rates are lowest in pro-life states. The willingness of the state to aid needy children who remained with their mothers was negatively correlated with pro-life content of the laws. In other words, pro-life states are determined to prevent women from having abortions but seem unwilling to provide a decent level of support for those children after birth.

The final measure of state willingness to aid children-the level of education spending per child enrolled in kindergarten through twelfth grade-also was negatively correlated with the pro-life content of state abortion statues. In fact, it appears that the pro-choice states are more committed to providing for the society’s weakest and most vulnerable than are the pro-life states.  (CET, 2001)

I think a more scientifically and biblically accurate, and a more helpful approach to this challenge is to ask:  
What Do We Want? 

• Do we want all embryos to grow to maturity, regardless of whether they are being raised in families that want them?
• Do we want every life that gets started to have to continue to exist as long as possible no matter what?
• What kind of a world do we want to create?

These are the kinds of questions that should frame the debate about the ethics of life, about abortion, and about end-of-life ethics. 

It’s not too early to be answering these questions, because another recent headline tells us…

 Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years 

Besides that, we need the answers now.