"daring to discuss the important and the amusing"

NEWSLETTER #10

FALL 2002

"Two great questions confront the human race at the start of the biotech century." This according to bioethicist Nigel Cameron in his testimony before the US Senate on the topic of stem-cell research. Cameron, dean of the Wilberforce Forum and former Provost and Distinguished Professor of Theology and Culture at Trinity International University & Divinity School, will provide a Graduate Christian Fellowship Roundtable on December 7th entitled "Cloning and the Challenge of Biotechnology : a critical public issue from a Christian perspective."

Even prior to the two great questions, it is interesting to note that Cameron refers to this as "the biotech century." He may be right. Only ten years after constructing a large facility devoted to biotechnology, Cornell University is embarking on a $500 million New Life Sciences Initiative designed "to look at biological systems all the way from atoms to ecosystems." Noting that the "possibilities for improving life abound," a document from the development office declares that "Cornell has the capacity to shape the course this new science will take, the capacity to improve the quality of human life. Your life" (emphasis original).

I hope as much as anyone does that these new research initiatives succeed at delivering on their promises to treat Alzheimer's, improve crop resistance to disease, and reduce malnutrition. And I am at least somewhat heartened by the acknowledgement--perhaps unavoidable today if not a century ago--that such ambitions entail "ethical, legal and social issues." Still, if Cameron is correct, there is cause for concern in language such as that above. According to Cameron and other ethicists, the greater the promise of improvement--and much literature on biotechnology is more lyrical than scientific--the greater the temptation to compromise ourselves and our standards along the way.

Quality of life arguments are by nature utilitarian, one extreme extension of which can be seen in the cold logic of Princeton professor (and Cameron's debating opponent) Peter Singer. We may be tempted to dismiss Singer, for surely reasonable persons will not follow him, for example, in his advocacy of killing babies at parental discretion until age one. I am with Cameron, however, that we do well to parse even problematic prescriptions.

I first encountered Singer in his early work on animal rights, where he argues that those who believe humans are of greater value than other animals are "speciesist." Before dismissing this argument simply for its conclusion (which would be very utilitarian), consider the following. The Oxford English Dictionary traces the first use of the word "speciesism" to a 1975 article by the British psychologist R.D. Ryder, who in turn attributes the original insight to none other than C.S. Lewis. Indeed, Lewis opposed vivisection and held views we today associate with animal rights.

What gives? How could Lewis' metaphysics possibly lead to Singer's unethical ethics?

The solution to the riddle is not that Lewis had a momentary lapse into utilitarianism, nor that Singer makes poor inferences--his reasoning is deadly logical. The problem is rather in the premises. Lewis posited a continuity of human and animal life within a theistic worldview that declares life good; Singer has appropriated this continuity into a worldview that asks what life is good for. To Lewis, animals, like humans, are more than mere matter; to Singer, humans, like animals, are nothing but matter. Lewis thus opposes animal experimentation as a matter of principle, and Singer as a matter of expediency. Singer opposes animal experimentation not because he has such a high view of animals, but because he has such a low view of humans. All of which explains why babies don't always fare well in Singer's cost-benefit analyses.

The challenges of the biotech century are not simple, but neither are they all irreducibly complex. Of Cameron's two great questions, one is the future question of how we will respond to our growing capacity to design our very nature. The main question, however, is already upon us--"whether we should use members of our own kind, in whatever stage of biological existence, for a purpose that is other than the good of the individual concerned; whether we should sanction the use of ourselves, in however early a form, as experimental subjects whose final end is destruction."

This is an ethical question, and not a new one. "At the heart of our conception of civilization," Cameron writes, "lies the principle of restraint: that there are things we shall not do, shall never do, even though they may bring us benefit; some things we shall never do, though the heavens fall." He concludes that " In a culture fixated with the satisfaction of its needs and the healing of its woes, it has become hard even to say that we shall never, for whatever benefit, experiment on our own kind. Shall we do evil, that good may come?" For anyone wondering what difference it makes to be a Christian, this is a question on which theological and utilitarian ethics decidedly differ.

We hope you will consider joining us for what is sure to be a stimulating presentation and discussion. The details of this event, along with information on other events and ministry updates, can be found below. Thank you for your interest in and support of Chesterton House.

-Karl E. Johnson

Weekly when Cornell is in session:
Fridays, 1-5pm
Resource Room Open Hours

All Chesterton House events are open to the Cornell and Ithaca communities. Unless otherwise noted, all events are held at the Crossroads Life Center, 604 E. Buffalo St. The Chesterton House Resource Room is open and staffed on Friday afternoons when Cornell is in session, from 1:00-5:00pm. For a complete schedule of events, please visit the Chesterton House website.

We will soon begin sending out occasional ministry updates by mail. These updates will supplement the quarterly electronic newsletter, not duplicate it. To receive these updates, please enter your address into the user-friendly template on our webpage: http://www.chestertonhouse.org/news_reg.html Thanks to webmeister Ray Zimmerman, I can promise it is very painless.

Chesterton House is sustained by the grace of God, and by the generous assistance of many volunteers. We are currently in need of assistance with database entry for both our bibliographic and mail list databases. Anyone interested in helping may contact our world headquarters by responding to this email.

We are pleased to announce that Dr. Christopher Barrett, Cornell University economist and President of the Association of Christian Economists, will speak at the Upstate New York InterVarsity Graduate/Faculty Ministries conference on April 5th, 2003. Barrett teaches and conducts research in the areas of international development, environmental and resource economics, international trade, markets and price analysis, agricultural production and distribution, and applied econometrics. Save the date; more information to follow in future newsletters.

. . . (speaking of economics) . . . are helpful and appreciated, and may be sent to Chesterton House, c/o Crossroads Life Center, 604 E. Buffalo St., Ithaca, NY 14850.

We named this ministry "Chesterton House" for a variety of reasons almost as wide as Chesterton himself. One reason was, and is, that Chesterton is under-appreciated. If we are not careful, however, that could change. The current issue of Christian History (Vol. 21: 3) continues the trend of rediscovery of "the jolly journalist" and "prince of paradox." The issue includes articles by our friend Dale Ahlquist of the American Chesterton Society, and Cornellian John Warwick Montgomery. The articles range widely from the important ("The central Christian theology . . . is the best root of energy and sound ethics") to the amusing ("I once borrowed a corkscrew and found myself trying to open my front-door with it . . . Few will believe my statement, but the incident came before and not after the more appropriate use of the corkscrew.") Some of the articles are available online, or you can stop by your local Christian Studies Center to see the full issue.

Those interested in the above-mentioned Peter Singer may wish to know about a volume of essays from Gordon Preece and his colleagues at Ridley College in Australia, entitled Rethinking Peter Singer: A Christian Critique (IVP, 2002). The literature on the larger topic of biotechnology is vast, but some suggested titles include Gilbert Meilaender, Bioethics: A Primer for Christians (Eerdmans, 1996), and Cameron's (ed.) BioEngagement: Making a Christian Difference through Bioethics Today (Eerdmans, 2000). There are several other titles from Eerdmans on medical ethics. Finally, a recent and very substantial volume worth noting is John H. Evans, Playing God: Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical Debate (U of Chicago, 2002). Evans discusses how the "thin" form of argumentation required by government advisory commissions has marginalized theological ethicists.

"We are learning to do a great many clever things. . .
The next great task will be to learn not to do them."
-G.K. Chesterton