Explore the vast range of titles available.

Scholars discuss the genetic modification of embryonic cells from the viewpoints of traditional Jewish and Christian teaching, considering both the possible therapeutic benefits of this technology and moral concerns about its implementation. We are approaching the day when advances in biotechnology will allow parents to “design” a baby with the traits they want. The continuing debate over the possibilities of genetic engineering has been spirited, but so far largely confined to the realms of bioethics and public policy. Design and Destiny approaches the question in religious terms, discussing human germline modification (the genetic modification of the embryonic cells that become the eggs or sperm of a developing organism) from the viewpoints of traditional Christian and Jewish teaching. The contributors, leading religious scholars and writers, call our attention not to technology but to humanity, reflecting upon the meaning and destiny of human life in a technological age. Many of these scholars argue that religious teaching can support human germline modification implemented for therapeutic reasons, although they offer certain moral conditions that must be met. The essays offer a surprising variety of opinions, including a discussion of Judaism's traditional presumption in favor of medicine, an argument that Catholic doctrine could accept germline modification if it is therapeutic for the embryo, an argument implying that “traditional” Christian teaching permits germline modification whether for therapy or enhancement, and a “classical” Protestant view that germline modification should be categorically opposed. Contributors Lisa Sowle Cahill, Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Ronald Cole-Turner, Amy Michelle DeBaets, Celia Deane-Drummond, Elliot Dorff, H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., Thomas A. Shannon, James J. Walter

What does it mean to be human in a world of technology? What could be the role of religion in responding to the ecological crisis? Should we be concerned about the modification of food, and even of ourselves? Who do we trust to make decisions regarding our common future? What do we use our technology for? These are not questions for experts only. How can the wider public be involved? Do experts and the general public trust each other sufficiently? Or is the public ignorant, in the eyes of the scientists? And are too many engineers narrow minded, according to the general public? The contributors to this timely and necessary volume address expertise, trust and engagement, as we consider our technological condition , religious resources for the ecological crisis , biotechnology , and matters of trust between scientists and the general public. With contributions from leading scholars in the field, including James Miller from Queen's University, Canada and Tony Watling from the University College, London, this book will captivate a range of readers interested in the spirtitual dimension of of our culture and society. Wat is de invloed van technologie op de menselijke cultuur? Welke rol kan religie spelen als reactie op de dreigende ecologische crisis? Moeten we ons zorgen maken over de modificatie van voedsel, en ook zelfs van de mens? Waar willen we technologische ontwikkelingen voor inzetten een aan wie vertrouwen wij beslissingen over onze toekomst toe? Dergelijke vragen gaan niet alleen de experts maar iedereen aan. Hoe kan het grote publiek deelnemen aan het technologische debat? Of is het publiek te onwetend om mee kunnen praten? In Technology, Trust and Religion gaan zestien wetenschappers op dit onderwerp in en worden deskundigheid, vertrouwen en betrokkenheid tegen het licht gehouden.

This article provides an overview of the response of religious thinkers to the challenge of applying religious values and frameworks to the new and frequently unprecedented issues posed by genetic knowledge and technologies. It explores the kinds of issues that genetic developments raise for both theology and ethics. It then evaluates the efforts of religious thinkers and communities to interpret and illuminate genetic knowledge and significant ethical choices now before society.

To produce clear and justified guidelines as to whether we may use genetics only to cure diseases or also to enhance abilities or traits, we must first specify what we mean by “disease.” In this chapter I will use a definition suggested by one of my colleagues at Dartmouth, explain the importance of its various clauses, and then apply it to the question of whether enhancement through gene therapy is morally justifiable. A person has a malady if and only if he has a condition, other than his rational beliefs and desires, such that he is suffering, or is at

As twenty-first-century Westerners in love with technology, many of us are nonetheless wary and fearful of genetic interventions that might make people taller, faster, stronger, or more aggressive, that might make eyes bluer or hair blonder. As Jews, some of us may be especially hostile to such engineering because of its echoes of the recent past’s murderous eugenics, and because of the fear that it portends ever greater veneration of a model of humanness that looks ever less like our image of ourselves. But what about enhancements that are less superficial but rather aim at enhancing what we, as Jews,

For Jewish religious thinkers, ethics must always be a reflection of theology. Determining the “good” that we should pursue, the virtues that we should cultivate, the norms that should govern our relationships with one another—all these tasks flow from basic convictions about the sort of creatures we are and the ends for which we were created. Such convictions are, in the context of religious traditions at least, matters of theology, questions of how we conceive of God and our relationship to God, of creation and redemption. In the oft-repeated formulation of Clifford Geertz, within every religious system, ethos corresponds

It must be stated at the very outset of the discussion that the following presentation is largely theoretical, certainly as far as germ line modification is concerned. At the present time, the techniques for germ line modification are very far from the consideration of their use in humans by ethical scientists. As Francis Collins stated to President George W. Bush’s Council on Bioethics regarding the status of necessary safety techniques, “We are nowhere near meeting [the requisite safety requirements] and I think will not be for the foreseeable future.”¹ The techniques are primitive, even for somatic cell modification; the potential