Pro-Life Works: Synthetic Life?

June 1, 2010

Synthetic Life?

John Macias

Intern

In the May 20 issue of the journal Science, a group of researchers from the J. Craig Venter Institute published an article claiming to have created, “the first bacteria cell controlled by a synthetic genome” (www.rawstory.com) which is capable of producing other such cells (www.wired.com; www.rawstory.com).  Several stories published on this topic have called this the creation of “artificial life.”  The science behind this discovery is indeed complicated, and the true meaning behind it may be very difficult to understand for those of us without a clear grasp of the technical workings of the experiment.  Such media reaction, however, does cause some concern and forces us to reflect on the implications of this achievement. 

Is this, in fact, life?  What kind of life is it?  These are vital questions to ask when determining the philosophical and moral implications of any experiments which touch on this important issue.  What is most important to note is that no one (as of yet) seems to have claimed that this is the making of human Life.  The J. Craig Venter Institute claims to have created a “synthetic bacterial cell” (www.jcvi.org).  Bacteria, however, are not human.  Thus, it seems clear that at the very most, this experiment claims only to have created a kind of extremely basic vegetative life. 

Could this lead to an attempt to create human Life? Just last summer, British scientists at Newcastle University claimed to have “created a cocktail of chemicals and vitamins that turned human stem cells into sperm,” and even “raises the possibility of babies being born entirely through artificial means” (www.dailymail.co.uk).  The experiment involved drawing stem-cells from embryos and, although one scientist involved said that he hoped to perform the same process using skin-cells.  It must be said, however, that the task of trying to create human life from nothing would, philosophically speaking, be impossible. 

St. Thomas Aquinas argues in his Summa Theologica that only God is capable of creating human Life (ST, Prima Pars, Q.90, a.2-3).  For reasons which are as complicated as the scientific ones, human Life cannot be created from materials which are already present.  This is precisely what is going on in the research done by the Venter Institute, and the only mode possible for any researcher. They are beginning with materials such as chemicals and other components, and making a bacteria cell, not creating a human Life.  Likewise, researchers at Newcastle University were not creating new life, but simply manipulating human Life which already existed.

Now that we know this is not, in fact, human Life, what other considerations might be involved?  Is it possible that such experimentation would lead other scientists to begin to search for ways to create or manipulate human Life?  Such actions would be very tragic.  This kind of work already occurs in terms of embryonic stem-cell research, in vitro fertilization, and the work done at Newcastle University.  Such experiments must be opposed by those of us in the Pro-Life movement, but it seems unclear that making bacteria or non-human life would lead to such moral difficulties.  This calls for careful vigilance and the continued affirmation of the dignity of human Life.