Is the Creation of Human/Animal Hybrids Legitimate or Ethical Science?
The British Parliament has decided it will permit the creation of a hybrid embryo either by mixing animal sperm with human eggs or human sperm with animal eggs. They have already previously approved a process where other human genetic material is injected into animal eggs to make hybrid cells, with the proviso that the living material must be destroyed at 14 days. They were created by injecting DNA from human skin cells into eggs taken from cows which had almost all their genetic material removed. Moreover, already scientists in different countries have fused rabbit and human cells, made human blood flow through pigs and are planning to grow human brains in mice. British scientists want to use the hybridizing techniques so that they can produce embryonic stem cells in order to discover causes and cures of diseases such as motor neurone disease, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.How are we as Christians to evaluate these processes and technologies? Does the manufacture of animal/human hybrids or living hybrid cells or embryos offend against the Law of God?
Our great ethical authority is always the Word of God (Isaiah 8:20). Nonetheless, looking at this question through Christian spectacles and therefore in the light of the teaching of the Bible is not a simple matter. At present British scientists claim that their recent experiment has produced cells
which were 99.9% human and .1% animal. The scientists hope that by developing this procedure they will be able to use these hybrid cells to determine and evaluate human diseases and their treatment. Just imagine the benefits to society if this science led to a cure for diabetes or some other serious and debilitating disease. Such an argument is extremely powerful. And there is certainly a principle in Scripture that we are to do good to others and seek their wellbeing and happiness. We are even to love our enemies (Mt 5:44: ‘But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you’ ). Even so, we cannot justify an unethical action on the premise that some might benefit from it. We cannot do evil that good may come (Romans 3:8: ‘And not rather, {as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say}Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just’).
Experimentation itself is not unethical. In the Lord’s providence great advances have been made in medical science which have led to tremendous benefits for societies and for literally billions of human beings. Often experiments have initially used animals, but later drugs have been used experimentally on a small sample or population of men. So experimentation is not unethical, nor the use of animals or human beings when testing drugs or treatments for diseases. After all, man was given dominion over the animals according to the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:26-28 and in Adam’s naming of the animals (Gen. 2:19).
Biblical prophecy also points to a period of world history where living to an old age will be the norm (Isaiah 65:19-22), and when the world will live in peace and love (Micah 4:3). This could only occur in a society which had advanced medical technologies to overcome causes of present diseases which limit life expectancy.
What is new about these advances in science is the ability to create living cells which mix animal and human genetic material. What does the Bible say about such experiments? Patently the writers of Scripture had no knowledge of modern scientific discoveries and possibilities, and the Holy Spirit, the primary author of Scripture, never discusses this precise ethical dilemma. Nonetheless, we believe that the Bible does give ethical principles which can be applied to every moral choice, even in matters not envisaged by the biblical writers, such as genetic manipulation, cloning and human/animal hybridization or chimeras (as they are also called). What are some biblical principles which might apply to these modern ethical dilemmas? Firstly, the Bible teaches the sanctity of human life (Exodus 20: 13 with Genesis 9:6), and the initiation of that life at conception. The destruction of embryos which contain human lifeforms is under the prohibition of the sixth commandment.
1. The Creation And Destruction Of Hybrid Embryos Is The Unlawful Taking Of Human Life
We argue as Christians that human life starts at conception, at the very earliest initiation of the growth of cellular life in a form, which if nurtured and if it survives, will result in a conscious living separate being in the world (Ps 139:15-16). It is for this reason that Christians reject the experimentation which goes on using human embryos obtained in any manner whatsoever. While science may try to argue that the embryo which results from these hybridization techniques is not human life, they are refuted by their own facts. If an embryo contains 99.9% of human genetic material, human life, however incomplete, has been generated in a form which if it were to be implanted in a womb could conceivably become a separate being with an independent viable life. To use this embryo for experimental purposes with the intention to also kill that embryo must still be seen as using and killing human life, even if it is mixed with animal dna.2. The Sanctity Of Man’s Physical Nature Is Compromised In Any Hybridization Attempts
There are some things man may not do because they contravene the ethical norms of Scripture. God created all creatures and gave man dominion over them, but did not give man the right or sanction to create new species. An objection can be raised that God does not in Scripture specifically outlaw man creating new species . While there is no one text of Scripture prohibiting this, it does not mean that we cannot still deduce from good and necessary consequence God’s will in this area. We know that God in His wisdom created vegetation and animals ‘after their kind’ (Gen. 1:12 and 1:21). The Hebrew word 1. ‘mîn’, translated ‘kind’ is not necessarily synonymous with the modern classification ‘species’ or ‘genus’. Mîn occurs in thirty one passages - all but one in the Pentateuch. Hebrew scholars are uncertain of its etymology2., but there are some grammatical points associated with the use of this word which illuminate its meaning: It is always used with a preposition, either ‘to’ ‘in respect to’, or ‘according to’. This indicates that the term is being used to specify discrete parts of God’s creation. Secondly it always occurs in the singular even though English translations often put it in plural form (see Ezek. 47:10). Nonetheless it is always a collective noun indicating a generic form. Thirdly, it is always followed by one of five pronominal endings which strongly implies, according to TWOT, ‘that each form has his, her, or its own generic group to which it belongs by order of the Creator’. Even though it is difficult and probably pointless to try and equate Linnean taxonomic classifications with the biblical ‘kind’, these grammatical points together indicate that God intended to make distinctions between His creatures as part of their original design and purpose.Another feature of God’s creation is that the created entities are said to reproduce according to ‘kind’. This is more than a statement of fact. It is an indication of God’s intention for His creation. He gives us no warrant to attempt to bring forth offspring not according to ‘kind’. There is, therefore, an underlying theme throughout Scripture of the uniqueness of different segments of God’s creation. In the New Testament Paul, for example, stresses the differences between the physical makeup of a human being and an animal:
1 Cor: 15:35- 39 ‘But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds’.
Although it is not his main teaching point, Paul does distinguish between the types of the flesh of men and beasts. There is obviously a physical difference, because we cannot transplant directly an organ from an animal into a human being and expect it to last without at the very least some genetic manipulation of that animal ‘flesh’. The sanctity of the h
uman body as special ‘flesh’ in comparison with animals is highlighted in the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead. The Bible teaches a general resurrection at the end of time when Christ will return and inaugurate the day of judgement. On that day all human beings ever born will be raised to live in new eternal bodies.
Australian artist Patricia Piccinini's concept
of what human-animal hybrids might look like.
The picture is entitled "The Young Family".
The righteous will go to the new heavens and the new earth for all eternity while the wicked will be cast into hell in their new resurrection bodies. Because the body will be resurrected, the Christian church has always stressed the sanctity of the body and therefore opposed or should oppose the growing preference for cremation.
That God has intentionally created a system of separate ‘kinds’ of creatures suggests to the pious mind that this is what God intended for all time. Since God has deliberately made us physically separate and complete, there can be no good reason to manipulate His creation to endeavour to create a new ‘kind’ such as a hybrid human/animal.
Furthermore the separation of human and animal flesh is emphasised as something God demands in the proscription of any sexual contact between men or women with animals. Human/animal sexual union is forbidden and called a ‘confusion’: Lev 18:23 ‘Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion’.
The word translated confusion ‘tebel’ is derived from the Hebrew word which means ‘to mix, mingle or confuse’. Tebel only occurs twice in the Old Testament - here and in the prohibition of incest in Lev. 20:12. The term ‘confusion’ describes the perversion or distortion of God’s distinct kinds engaged in an abhorrent intimacy - such as was never envisaged or approved by God. While modern technology which fuses the animal and human genetic material creating a hybrid embryo is not achieved through sexual contact between man and animal, the procedure produces a result normally achieved through the ordinary sexual connection which takes place within species. The ‘confusion’ or perversion is not merely external and physical in a temporary way, but permanent and irreversible in the living cells. If sexual union between man and animal is considered an abomination by God, then surely genetic union must also risk God’s wrath.
3. The Spiritual Nature Of Man Is Compromised By Any Merging Of Mankind With Animals
Even though scientists might be constrained by ethical rules which say such a hybrid or chimera must be killed after so many days, the very existence of the technology makes it possible that someone somewhere in the world at sometime will develop such a hybrid embryo to a stage where it may be inserted into a woman’s womb, or an animal’s womb to gestate and grow, and ultimately be born as a new species or sub-species. And what if a hybrid was created? If it consisted of part animal it could hardly be man as God originally made him. God had created man as the high point of His creation, even making man in God’s own image: ‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them’ Gen 1:27. Man possesses an inherent dignity which should never be compromised.That image is described in the Bible as the possession of righteousness, holiness and knowledge. These are spiritual qualities an animal cannot possess, and express. Together they qualify a man for communion with the Triune God. This fellowship of love is beyond the reach of any other creature including the angelic creation, which also stands in God’s presence basking in His glory and doing His will. Humanity was also given the ultimate honour in the incarnation when God became man, Immanuel. This great fact alone should warn us not to abuse the human body or soul, since God Himself not only created mankind, but exalted man by eternally uniting with humanity in the Lord Jesus Christ.
So important is man, the image bearer of the divine, that God introduced capital punishment for anyone who would kill a man: ‘Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man’Genesis 9: 6. This should give us pause to consider the immense value God places upon human life. To take that life and destroy it or mix it with animal life in such a way that the purpose of human life is distorted and thereby destroyed will invoke God’s immense wrath. We are not told in Genesis that the taking of life, implied in the phrase the ‘shedding of man’s blood’, is limited to classical murder. Creating a human/animal hybrid embryo with the intention of robbing its stem cells and thus killing the embryo is equally the taking of human life.
But could a human/animal embryo be said to bear God’s image? Could a hybrid embryo be gestated and born as an independent creature and bear the image of God? That image, as we have noted, is said in Scripture to be according to righteousness, holiness and knowledge.
Paul writes to the Ephesians: ‘And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness’ Eph. 4:24. Man is created in the image of God according to righteousness. That is to say man is a moral agent who is responsible for obeying the entire Law or will of God, including acting righteously towards his fellow man. Man is also created in the image of God with respect to holiness. This holiness is said to be ‘true holiness’ signifying the authentic holiness of man in relationship with God. Because God is holy, the Old Testament records a whole range of unclean relationships and activities which offend a holy God. The mixing or confusion of animal and man in sexual union is one example of offending against God’s holiness and that holiness possessed by the image bearer.
Man’s image-bearing also involves ‘knowledge’. Pauls write to the Colossians that the Christian is renewed in knowledge: ‘And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:’ Col 3:10.
This knowledge is a spiritual knowledge of Christ which is only appropriated through repentance and faith and which is imparted by the Holy Spirit. Knowing God also implies not only an awareness of God’s will and the way of salvation, but a motivation and willingness to live according to that knowledge. It is a restoration of the knowledge of God Adam had in the garden of Eden. Piety is represented in Scripture as precisely this knowledge (John 17:3). While the embryo which is 99.9% human life is incapable of consciously reflecting righteousness, holiness and knowledge, its potential is sufficient to give that embryo special status. God looks upon human life as individual and personal from conception as we noticed from Psalm 139.
Of course this raises the question of the likelihood of a hybrid creature having the possibility of being redeemed and so possessing a possibility of the restoration of God’s image in him. Would even such a creature have a soul? These are questions which cannot be answered. That uncertainty in itself is sufficient to cause man to forbid any attempt to create such life. Perhaps a mouse which has been engineered to possess a human brain might have ‘knowledge’ or the ability to know as a human being does. Yet it could not be said to be under God’s blessing as an image-bearer as Adam and Eve and all their posterity are. How could a mouse with a human brain be subject to the righteous laws of God as a human being would be? How could such a hybrid be considered holy, since God’s prescription for holiness is tied to the idea of separation and distinctiveness? How could a hybrid possess the holiness of a human being when it is part animal in its entire genetic structure. Would such a creature have a soul and be considered sinful? Would it need salvation and would it be able to contemplate sharing in the resurrection and in eternal life? Again the doubts raised about the status of such a creature should be sufficient for sane men to forbid their monstrous creation.
Moreover, there is an instinctive repulsion at the thought of creating mixed human and animal life. This is often termed the ‘yuk’ factor. Indeed 80% of the British, no longer known as a nation of pious church-goers, when surveyed decried such hybridization technology. Instinctively we seem to know that it is wrong to go down this path. Paul writing to the Romans teaches that God’s moral Law is written on every heart, and it is this vestige of conscience in the fallen human race which still registers disgust at the idea of an animal and human union (Rom. 2:14-15 ‘ For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)’.
Hybrids May Be Created For Slavery Or For Military Purposes
Scientists pushing for this new technology argue that these cells will not continue to live after 14 days and so a creature will not be created which is part human and part animal. Professor Chris Shaw of King's College London argues: ‘People think we are generating a hybrid animal. This is just cells, just for science. No animal is ever going to be created’ (BBC, 5 Jan. 2007). How can he speak for every scientist present or future?Would such hybrid creatures be put to use as mules or slaves for men? Such a hybrid may have enough human intelligence to perform tasks an animal could not successfully attempt. If a hybrid creature was possible, then knowing man’s depravity it is inevitable that a megalomaniac somewhere will attempt to make or clone such creatures for performing simple tasks or as a military force. Just as he has done with nuclear energy, man always finds a way to misuse science for his own greed or happiness.
Hybridization Raises The Possibility Of The Cross Species Transmission Of Viruses
There are other pragmatic arguments for not allowing the creation of hybrids. One obvious one is cross species virus transmission. The hybridizing procedure could cause the development of a super virus which could theoretically destroy the human race. Alternatively a human virus could morph in a hybrid vector and then move into animal populations as a highly virile organism which could potentially wipe out man’s food supply.Providential Opportunity Does Not Make The Possible Ethically Legitimate
Science cannot be ethically pursued just because it is possible. So we may ask, ‘when do experiments involving human life become unlawful?’ Let us consider a hypothetical situation. If it could be shown that to develop a cure for cancer and prove its efficacy in human beings, 1000 children will need to be injected with a chemical to evaluate the technology. The children to be used will be Indian children whose parents are paid enough so that they can use the money to escape poverty. But there is a catch. 500 of those children will die in the process. This is known before the experiment gets underway, but the upside of this experimental science is that a cure for cancer will be found saving the lives of millions of people and the associated health costs now spent on millions of cancer victims. We would all see the wonderful benefit, but who would approve of the certain death of 500 children? ‘It could never happen’, you might say. Do not be so sure. There are examples of eugenics programmes (the Nazis for example) where human beings have been deliberately sacrificed in science experiments. And really how far away is the use of newborn babies, who were to be aborted, for scientific experimentation? If as a society we permit the killing of the unborn who are at an age where they would be viable outside the womb, why could man not justify keeping those babies alive to experiment on them? However improbable this scenario may sound to anyone, it demonstrates at least that there are ethical boundaries most people (though not all)will not cross when it comes to experimenting with human beings.Hybrid Embryos are not Necessary?
Another reason for abandoning hybridizing is that there is no need for such technology. It has not been shown that this technique is necessary for making advances in science. Indeed recently scientists have created stem cells from adult cells showing that there is no need for human embryos or hybrids to perform medical research into human diseases. If stems cells can be created from adult human tissue, then surely the clamour to use human embryos or the need to create human/animal hybrids falls to the ground.Conclusion: Man is a unique creation. As a direct result of the fall in the Garden of Eden, disease and death became inseparably linked with mankind in this earthly sojourn. Although redemption became possible, since God had supplied a Redeemer and thereby a way back into His fellowship, still disease would plague us. Medical science has made tremendous strides to control diseases which once decimated large populations. However, many serious diseases are still present in the human race. With advances in technology and medical techniques, especially through experimentation with human stem cells, the future holds out the tantalising possibility of defeating some of the most intractable diseases which remain and which shorten and debilitate the lives of many. Some scientists do not believe that stem cells obtained from adult tissue are adequate and researchers will continue to require embryonic stem cells to use in their experiments. There is a clearly defined moral argument against the harvesting and use of human embryos for research, but scientists believe that using hybrid embryos created by fusing human genetic material with a prepared animal embryo will eliminate the need to use human embryos.
In my view, the hybridization of species raises more ethical questions than it answers. A hybrid embryo can still be considered human life and therefore sacrosanct. The Bible sees man’s physical nature as holy or sacred and distinct from animal creation; so much so that God prohibits the sexual union of man and animal. Hybridization also compromises the physical uniqueness of man. This science equally compromises man’s spiritual nature and relationship with God. God Himself had given man’s physical and spiritual nature the ultimate accolade when He became man and even now as the Second Person of the Trinity rules the universe as God and man. To join human nature to an animal is still compromising the image-bearing capacity of man and placing the hybrid life in spiritual jeopardy, for God has not promised to redeem hybrids. There are also practical or pragmatic arguments against this hybridization or creation of human/animal chimeras. If man at some time decides to bring such life through to birth and adulthood, the temptation by evil men to use the result for military or other socially unacceptable practices such as slavery cannot be discounted.
Equally serious is the potential for cross species transmission of deadly viruses which could affect both mankind and our animal food sources. Just because a technical or scientific experiment is possible does not mean that it is ethically justifiable. The ethical boundaries must be derived from other considerations. Finally, neither is there a clear necessity for this technology since stem cells can now be created from adult tissue without the need to raid embryos. For all these reasons I can only conclude that to permit such hybridization is to offend God and place us all at risk of His judgement. One cannot play God and fear God at the same time ( 1Peter 2:17 ).
Garnet Milne PhD.
