April 10, 2005

Rev. Henry Ticknor
Unitarian Universalist Church of the Shenandoah Valley

God and the Human Genome

Some of you may be old enough to remember the immensely popular movie Jurassic Park. If so, you may recall that in the movie, adapted from Michael Crichton’s novel, dinosaurs were recreated from DNA taken from insects preserved in amber. The insects were thought to be mosquitoes that had dined on such dinosaurs as T. Rex. The blood ingested by the insects was then combined with Frog DNA and voila; the result was a baby dinosaur. As we all know, Crichton was writing in the best science fiction tradition—just a pinch of science in a large serving of fiction.

Now, let me bring you up to date. In case you missed it, a couple of weeks ago, there was a news story that related how the broken thigh-bone of a fossilized Tyrannosaurus Rex had yielded what appeared to be the only soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. According to an account in the National Geographic on-line news service, "Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation."

The article goes on to sate, "Most fossils preserve an organisms hard tissues, such as shell or bone. Finding preserved soft tissue is unheard of in a dinosaur-age specimen."

Taking a slightly more tabloid approach, a writer for the London Times said, "In a scene worthy ofJurassic Park, scientists have cracked open the fossilized leg of a 70-million year old Tyrannosaurus Rex and found juicy bone marrow."

The article went on to explain that the scientists were staggered as they recovered what appear to be elastic soft tissues, blood vessels and even, possibly, cells—bearing a remarkable similarity to those of the modern ostrich.

UnlikeJurassic Park, no one, at least not yet, is suggesting that a T. Rex might be reconstituted by recovering the DNA from the recently discovered tissues and finding an ostrich willing to be a surrogate mother; but the question cannot be far off.

As scientists isolate the different components from the raw material from T. Rex, they may be able to learn new details of how dinosaurs lived. Is this not cool stuff? I mean my first thought was science once again trumps fiction. Surely, the real Dino- DNA will trump anything shown in the movieJurassic Park. Soon we will be able to understand if dinosaurs were warm or cold blooded. We will learn more about dinosaur evolution; we will learn for sure if modern birds really did evolve from reptiles? As one of the scientists quotes in the Times article said, "It’s all very exciting."

It was also very exciting when in June 2003, to much publicity and fanfare, scientists announced the completion of the entire human genome. The high-quality reference sequence was completed in April 2003, marking the end of the Human Genome Project - 2 years ahead of the original schedule. Coincidentally, this was also the 50th anniversary of Watson and Crick's publication of DNA structure that launched the era of molecular biology.

The human genome is the group of billions of molecules and 23 paired chromosomes that wind around each other in the double helix of DNA that is at the core of every human cell. According to one researcher, "The sheer volume of information that is stored in the human genome is enough to put the best computers to shame—about 3.5 billion "base points" of information, each formed by a chemical called a nucleotide and always found in pairs.

If the DNA in any human cell were uncoiled and stretched out, it would be six feet long. Each cell in our bodies contains a version of this information—so elaborately shrunk and wrapped, it’s difficult to see even with an electron microscope.

If the information in the human genome—the blueprint for human life—was printed out as a book, it would cover almost 200,000 pages—longer than a shelf of the Encyclopedia Britannica."

Or, as one of my favorite science writers, Bill Bryson, explains it: Look at yourself in the mirror and reflect upon the fact that you are beholding ten thousand trillion cells, and that almost everyone of them holds two yards of densely compacted DNA, and you begin to appreciate how much of this stuff you carry around with you. If all your DNA were woven into a single fine strand, there would be enough of it to stretch from the Earth to the Moon and back not once not twice but again and again. Altogether, according to one calculation, you may have as much as twenty million kilometers of DNA bundled up inside you.

Now, another interesting result of the Human Genome Project is the growing understanding of how closely human kind is related to the other creatures of the planet. As humans we share 90 percent of our genes with mice. We share 98.4 percent of our genes with chimpanzees. Humans have approximately 30,000 genes while some plants have 25,000. One writer wryly noted that humans and asparagus are not all that far apart from a genetic standpoint.

But I suppose the more remarkable fact is this—if you compare your DNA to that of any other human being on planet earth; any other human being, there will be a 99.9 per cent correspondence. And it is this astonishing fact that I want to talk about this morning.

If we humans around the globe share in common 99.9 per cent of our genetic material on what basis do we claim that every individual is unique? What do we mean when we speak of a person’s inherent worth and dignity? What does it mean to be apart of the interdependent web of all existence? In short, what does it mean to be human?

Susan Thistlewaite, the President of the University of Chicago theological Seminary writing on the human genome has noted that we are impacted by our social environment. "The chemistry of gene expression has been shown to be enormously complex and is deeply connected with the stressors of an individual’s whole environment. Our communities, our lives together, really do make us "one body"; if our society is sick, then so are we. Healthy communities, communities that put human well being at the center, directly affect the health of the individuals within them."

More and more it is becoming apparent to those who pay attention to such things, that our quality of life—that is the quality of life of our families, our communities and society as a whole is dependent upon how the whole human community lives in relationship with one another. If we practice the arts of hate and violence in our families, our communities and as nations, then those same methods will be lifted up against us. If we continue to oppress and subject others to living in poverty and without the interventions of health care and education, then we are depriving ourselves from the riches to be found in these untapped human resources.

One of the first thoughts that come to mind in this discussion is how matters of race and racial discrimination, as it is practiced the world, over fit into this awareness that human beings are profoundly related to one another. "At the immediate practical level," writes the theologian Theodore Jenkins, "race is a category invented by early modern Europeans and is a complete fiction, a fabrication of the will to domination. One of the most alarming and instructive inventions of modernity and of science has been white supremacy." Jenkins concludes, "So while in one perspective, the scientific perspective of the human genome, the human race is one; the social constructs of racism endure."

And within this human family, I find our similarities to be so much more significant than our differences. We are made male and female. Some of us are gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual. Some of us are not. But again, we are 99.9 percent more the same than we are different and isn’t the expression of our sexuality one of our wonderful differences? Rather than discriminate against those who are different from us perhaps we should honor them for they are more precious in their individuality than many of the rest of us in our alikeness. How boring this planet would be if we all looked alike, acted alike, spoke alike, thought alike, and loved alike. I wonder, too, if it’s so important knowing why sexual partners are attracted to one another, as much as it is to celebrate the most basic of human needs—to love and to be loved.

I think all this wonderful science leads us to ask some very powerful questions. For example, how will our understanding of human genome influence our understanding of what it means to be human. Traditionally, people have used terms such as self-actualization, self-perception, and self-awareness; but do such distinctions remain in the face of our understanding of our genetic histories?

What will insurance companies and our employers do with the information gained from genetic screening? What therapies will be applied? What enhancements will individuals expect? Will our children be able to walk into a physician’s office and order a blond, blue-eyed baby who will reach 6 feet five, possess remarkable athletic skills and an IQ to match just assure acceptance at some well-known college or university?

What will be the socio-economic implications? Will only the rich be able to afford designer children and specific gene therapies for the treatment of certain diseases? Jim Naughton has written that, "Knowledge of the human genome may do us profound harm, even if it is used only for virtuous purposes. It’s the greatest weapon we have yet created in our species long battle against its natural weaknesses." This in turn invites the question to what extent should we meddle in natural affairs? We humans have indeed eliminated many deadly diseases such as smallpox and in some parts of the world measles is a distant memory. And so many of these medical advances have greatly diminishes suffering the world over.

But are we ready to meddle with the very basic architecture of life? Are we ready to re-define our biological make-up? Are we ready to clone those individuals who we perceive to be superior by whatever measure we use? What are the unforeseen consequences of tampering with our genetic material?

Like so many technological advances the question must be asked, "Can humanity be trusted to use our newfound knowledge to improve the human condition? Or will we use our knowledge to interfere recklessly in the processes of evolution and to play God by choosing our physical traits?

Recently many popular magazines carried the picture of a fuzzy kitten that had recently been cloned. But, I ask, how many cats are euthanized on a daily basis in this country? Just because we can manipulate our genetic code, should we?

"The end of man is knowledge," wrote Robert Penn Warren in his novel, All The King’s Men, "But there’s one thing he can’t know. He can’t know whether he is killed because of the knowledge which he has got or because of the knowledge he hasn’t got and which if he had it would save him."

I took the title of this sermon, "God and the Human Genome" from the title of a book. I chose the title not because I am sympathetic with those who would support the notions of God’s hand in intelligent design, but rather out of concern that we humans might be tempted to participate in our own notions of intelligent design and use our increasing knowledge of the human genome to become our own creator. We must be sure that social policy keeps up with technology.

All people ought to have the right to participate in the evaluation of trends in genetic research. All of us need to fully examine the social and biological implications of this so called "genetic revolution" and to participate in the conversations guiding the ethical, moral and religious implications of genetic engineering. When we speak of the inherent worth and dignity of all persons we need to consider exactly what this means in the light of genetic research. When we speak of our place in the interconnected web of all existence we need to be ready to protect the earth’s biological and genetic diversity.

What impact will the human gene sequence have? For now, it’s only data. Now science has a map of what genes are where, but they don’t yet fully appreciate what the map means. As one pundit said, "It’s as if some one came into possession of a map of every road in the world but with all the destination names whited out—you can tell where the roads are, but not where they lead.

Where this science will take us is very much unknown. What is known, says Bill Bryon, "is that every cell in nature is a wonder. Even the simplest are far beyond the limits of human ingenuity. To build the most basic yeast cell, for example, you would have to miniaturize about the same number of components as are found in a Boeing 777 jetliner and fit them into a sphere just five microns across; then somehow you would have to teach them to reproduce."

I suppose that someday science will find the answers to all the questions that remain concerning of genes work and, for that matter, how the cosmos works. For the moment though, most of us can only speculate about such things and to be open to the mysteries and awe of creation. The need to grope our collective way through such quandaries may force theologians, philosophers and scientists to engage one another on new levels.

Remember what Einstein once said. He said, " The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. The person to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: His eyes are closed." Einstein was neither convinced there is a God nor convinced not; he sensed that it was far too early in the human quest for knowledge than to do more than speculate on such questions.

God and the human genome? I sense it’s far too early to do more than speculate.

Amen and Blessed be