A biochemistry lecture I once at tended introduced the topic of genes with a passage from the bible, where Jacob takes the black or speckled sheep and goats from Laban’s livestock over successive generations (Genesis 30:25–43). It was, the lecturer stated, the earliest recorded genetic experiment, showing the recessive nature of the ‘specklediness’ phenotype.

So we know God can do genetics, but does that mean we are ‘playing God’ when we interfere with the course of nature?

On one level, it seems impossible for us not to interfere — our very existence plays a crucial part in the complex ecosystem that permeates this world. As such we elicit a change in the genetic make up of those creatures around us, whether that be through resource, competition, or bacteria finding a cosy ecological niche inside our stomachs. Then again it might be argued that this interference is natural and thus decreed by God in the first place.

So at what level does our interference become unnatural? If we take the altering of an animal or a plant’s genetic make up as unnatural, the existence of pigs and any other cattle or domesticated animal is also unnatural, for these have only been created through careful selection and breeding measures, encouraging genetic modification towards food sources, or small fluffy cats. But perhaps because we are only controlling the influencing factors, the modifications the genes undergo are self-perpetuated and thus natural.

The final level would be controlling the modifications the genes undergo, and this seems to be what the average person on the street would call ‘GM’. I see there being two avenues for this: the first is implementing modifications that have the same effect as one that could arise naturally over time, given the right conditions. Here the modifications can be thought of as time saving, with modification happening in one generation as opposed to thousands. The second is implementing modifications that could not possibly have arisen (or do so with a very slim chance), no matter what conditions were placed upon the target species. Most people would call neither of these avenues ‘natural’, but would also agree that the second avenue is even more ‘unnatural’ than the first.

In answering the question, “Are we playing God?”, I think we should consider the reasons behind genetic modification initiated by human designs. When our ancestors were manipulating the conditions and breeding factors to create our now familiar cattle, they did so to create more food so people wouldn’t go hungry, or more wool to clothe people. Such creative use of the intelligence God instilled in us, for the benefit of one’s neighbour, is, I believe, very much to God’s approval.

The same needs have not gone away in today’s world. While the developed countries have more food than they know what to do with, many developing countries suffer because they do not have the fertile lands others are blessed with. If we are content with only manipulating influential conditions, it will be many generations before crops could be grown in high enough numbers, if at all possible. Here I believe creative use of talents He has given us in the creation of suitable GM crops for the benefit of others in need, is appropriate and very much acceptable to His will.

A further area worth considering is that of medicine. Drugs that ‘cure’ or at least reduce harmful symptoms could themselves often be called ‘unnatural’, as are the methods of producing them. One use of GM crops/animals/bacteria is to act as a manufacturing line to produce quantities of a particular drug or chemical. It is not that the process could not be done in the laboratory, but that by utilising GM technology the cost is reduced and the treatment can be manufactured in countries where laboratory equipment is lacking or poorly resourced. This brings benefits both at home and in developing countries, where the cost of drugs often inhibits treatment despite availability of a cure.

There are simpler uses as well — vegetarians would often rather not eat cheese made with animal renet (myself included). The advent of GM technology enabled the same protein to be produced harmlessly in plants.

All very well and good you say, but what about the dangers involved in modern GM technology? It is true that we don’t have a precedent to deal with GM, but that it is the purpose of trials. In much the same way a new drug goes through a rigorous testing cycle taking as long as 13 years before making it to the market. In these circumstances we do our best to predict possible outcomes, then take controlled measures to slowly discover any unpredicted effects. With wisdom and care any unforeseen risks should be minimised. I cannot say risks will be totally eradicated because we are not omniscient but as with so many areas in our lives, the potential benefits fat outweigh the risks of properly managed trials.

Whether or not you believe we should have an influence on the genetic make up of the fauna and flora that surround us, the fact is we already have had an influence and have changed the genes around us to our designs. The question should not be, perhaps, “To what level are we changing the genetics around us?” but instead “What are our reasons for deliberately initiating such a change?”

If the reasons were selfish then I would argue that it was an abuse of the talents we have been so fortunate to receive, as well as our stewardship over all creatures (Genesis 1:26,28). If however, the reasons are within God’s will, for example using the talents he has given us to help our neighbours, then I believe we are not ‘playing God’ but pleasing Him instead. Pray that we may use our talents with all the wisdom and guardianship appointed in us by the Lord.

Andrew Cowley