The new genetic technologies: why a theological perspective is necessary

Secular bioethics poses questions that can be recognized as important, though it lacks the resources to answer them. Secular bioethics may retain the sense that there should be moral limits to the use of germline genetic engineering, but it lacks the basis to justify limits in principle. The contemporary practice of bioethics arose in the United States to fill a moral vacuum created by (1) the marginalization of medical ethics through the deprofessionalization of medicine, (2) the secularization of American society, and (3) an increased reliance on individual decision-making. The result is an ethics at the core of secular bioethics severed from a sense of ultimate purpose or direction for humans or the cosmos. This ethics and its bioethics are marked by (1) moral fragmentation and pluralism and (2) a loss of ultimate orientation. This bioethics can at best require (1) the prudent maximization of benefits over harms, (2) the condemnation of malevolent acts, and (3) the use of persons only with their consent. However, there fails to be a basis for a common view of benefit or of harm. Within this impoverished moral context, human biological nature can only appear to be a contingent outcome of spontaneous mutations, selective pressure, the constraints of physical laws, and random catastrophes. Such a bioethics, deprived of ultimate orientation, can provide no ground in principle for forbidding cloning, germline genetic engineering, or the fundamental recasting of human nature. Absent a theological point of orientation, medicine and the genetic technology are left with more power than ever but no clear moral sense of how to use that power.