Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Rifkin's antimaterialist argument clearly struck a responsive chord
with religious groups, especially Southern Baptists.
58
The alliance he
formed with Christian and Jewish leaders resulted in a statement
critical of
Chakrabarty
issued by the heads of the National Council of
Churches, the U.S. Catholic Conference, and the Synagogue Council of
America. It called for a reexamination of patent laws on the grounds
that new life-forms could not have been anticipated by those who
wrote the laws, and also noted that the challenges to “the fundamental
nature of human life and the dignity and worth of the individual human
being” went far beyond patents. One of those threats was said to be the
prospect that an “individual or group” will control life-forms for the
purpose of improving people. “History has shown us that there will
always be those who believe it appropriate to 'correct' our mental and
physical structures by genetic means, so as to fit their vision of human-
ity. This becomes more dangerous when the basic tools to do so are
finally at hand. Those who would play God will be tempted as never
before.”
59
The alliance, later extended to other religious groups, has proved both
durable and effective. Thus, in 1983, Rifkin persuaded 58 religious
leaders to sign “The Theological Letter concerning Moral Arguments
against Genetic Engineering of the Human Germline Cells,” which
opposed human germ line engineering.
60
And in 1995, he organized the
“Joint Appeal against Human and Animal Patenting,” signed by 180
leaders representing over 80 religious groups. At the press conference
announcing the one-paragraph statement, Rifkin declared, “By turning
life into patented inventions, the government drains life of its intrinsic
nature and sacred value.”
61
Beginning in the 1980s, then, the issue of justice became inextricably
tangled with the issue of eugenics—now understood to be wrong because
our DNA is sacrosanct. Of course, this position was challenged, and not
only by enthusiasts for human genetic engineering. Thus the psychia-
trist/bioethicist Willard Gaylin asserted: “I not only think that we
will
tamper with Mother Nature, I think Mother wants us to.”
62
Perhaps the
strongest challenge came from philosopher Jonathan Glover. In
What
Kind of People Should There Be
? Glover attempted to separate different
strands in the discussion about the desirability of modifying human
nature through genetic engineering, arguing that there were good reasons
