Mix and match genetics and create a new being, we are there.

“Would it be ethical for scientists to try to create babies that have genetic material from three different people? An influential panel of experts has concluded the answer could be yes.

“The 12-member panel, assembled by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, released a 164-page report Wednesday outlining a plan for how scientists could ethically pursue the controversial research.

“The committee concludes that it is ethically permissible” to conduct such experiments, the report says, but then goes on to detail a long list of conditions that would have to be met first.”

The full story can be read HERE.


I’m going to make this simple; there are two basic ways to look at ethics: procedural and ontological.

When I was a member of the Los Angeles Bar Association and Los Angeles Medical Association Joint Committee on Bioethics all the lawyers and most of the doctors looked at ethics procedurally: how something is done versus is it right to do it in the first place.

Even before I was in college and not yet living in Southern California, a Southern California doctor declared there were no more ethical question concerning IVF (in vitro fertilization). Whatever they did to help a woman become pregnant was moral. I had yet to get my Masters in Ethics, had yet to get my Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy, and yet I knew this wasn’t right because with all the information I had heard by then I still saw ethical questions raised.

Science wants us to believe all moral questions about science, whether it be about physical science or medical science is settled because science has supposedly answered the question of truth, it’s science that is ultimate truth. And that is the question, isn’t it, what is true Truth.

When you read this article, those questions yet to be answered are nothing more than procedural: How can it be done with the least harm?

From an ontological ethical perspective, the basis of ethics is not to be found at our level but much higher, in the realm of God. Is man more than the sum of his parts limited to those parts or is he a creature of a higher being than himself that gives him meaning. If the latter, then ethics asks is what we do consistent with that image we have of God inside us and who we are meant to be. Are we playing God when we begin to genetically modify humanity looking for that perfect person? How do we define that perfect person?

If the only questions you have are procedural, then pretty much you have rejected a higher being to whom we are intimately connected and we are as existential as Sartre describes; we come from nothing and we go to nothing and the only meaning we will ever have is what we do in the middle of the nothings. There being no higher being then we are free to determine for ourselves our meaning, an we can mix and match genetics and create a wholly different creature and still call that human.

For not believing in a God we sure like to play God.