UMC Opposes Editing DNA in Human Embryos

Global Health

It’s a scenario straight out of “Jurassic Park:” scientists can now “edit” DNA in human embryos to “fix” genes that cause disease. That’s a development that The United Methodist Church has rejected for more than a quarter of a century.

Some 25 years ago, in a study that was far ahead of its time, The United Methodist Church adopted a groundbreaking statement on genetics. A report developed by a special task force laid out theological, ethical and scientific reasons for the denomination to prepare for developments in genetic science, including a recommendation for pastors to be trained in how to counsel people making decisions about genetic therapies.

On Aug. 2, one of the gravest warnings from the official United Methodist genetic statement came to pass. An international team of scientists announced it had successfully “edited” the DNA of human embryos to “fix” a gene that caused disease (“Scientists Precisely Edit DNA in Human Embryos to Fix a Disease Gene”).

For retired Bishop Kenneth Carder, the news brought to life one of the most serious concerns of the original genetics task force that he chaired from 1989 to 1992.

“I read the article with concern,” Bishop Carder told United Methodist Insight in an email. “The same technology that may prevent disease can be used for destructive purposes.

“Furthermore, we need a clearer consensus of what it means to be a whole and healthy person. With scientific research increasingly funded with financial profitability as the goal, I fear a lack of ethical and moral vision toward which the research is directed. It is important that we Christians remember that our worth and value do not lie in our genetic composition; rather, it lies in our identity as God's beloved sons and daughters, made in the divine image.”

Bishop Carder urged United Methodists “to read the statement on Genetics in our Book of Resolutions. The statement first presented to the 1992 General Conference raises critical theological and ethical questions regarding genetic engineering. The United Methodist statement was really ahead of its time.”

United Methodist Jaydee Hanson staffed the church’s genetic task force from 1989 through 2003 for the General Board of Church and Society. Now Policy Director for Human Genetics and Emerging Technologies at the International Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, D.C., he shared the following statement with United Methodist Insight:

“The flagrant rejection of the consensus of scholars, governments around the world and religious leaders by the Oregon Health and Science University means that we must now develop federal and international laws that prohibit the genetic engineering of humans and which takes away any federal funding from institutions that perform such procedures.

“Until those laws are enacted, we call on scientists around the world to refrain from research aimed at refining gene editing for use in human reproduction. We call on the Trump Administration to stop funding of any research center that uses genetic engineering to ‘edit’ human embryos. OHSU received $234 million from the National Institutes of Health in 2016 alone. This funding should be stopped until OHSU stops funding human genetic engineering.”

Hanson continued that he thought the OSHU team was “too confident that this technique will not produce embryos that have been edited wrongly.

“They did not look at enough embryos and did not look at the whole genome to answer that question,” he said in his statement. “The small insertions and deletions of DNA are a big problem. They found it in 27 percent of their embryos.

“Human embryo gene editing should not be done as these defects can pass down to future generations. Pre-implantation Diagnosis of embryos should be used instead. And Pre-implant Screening for Chromosomal defects can be used too.”

Like Bishop Carder, Hanson recommended that United Methodists pay attention to the resolution “New Developments in Genetic Science,” posted on the official United Methodist website.

In the resolution, the denomination’s basis for rejecting germ-line therapy begins with four theological reasons:

  • All creation belongs to God the Creator.
  • Human beings are stewards of creation.
  • Technology is to serve humans and God.
  • Unintended and even intended consequences of genetic therapy can obstruct God’s plan for creation’s redemption and salvation.

Hanson emphasized the latest statement adopted by the 2016 General Conference:

“We oppose human germ-line therapies (those that result in changes that can be passed to offspring) because of the possibility of unintended consequences and of abuse. We are concerned that both the US and the United Kingdom are considering approving the first experiments that would deliberately change the DNA of a human embryo. With current technology, it is not possible to know if artificially introduced genes will have unexpected or delayed long-term effects not identifiable until the genes have been dispersed in the population.

“Furthermore, we urge that government regulations and professional organization guidelines be developed and effectively implemented for all gene therapies. Given the reports of deaths from somatic gene therapies and the development of genetically engineered leukemia in some patients undergoing somatic-gene therapy, we urge a careful reexamination of the appropriateness of this therapy.”

The gist of the longer statement in the Book of Resolutions was incorporated into the Book of Discipline, its collection of doctrine, organization and policy. The official United Methodist stance on genetic technology is found in the Social Principles, Paragraph 162 “The Social Community,” Section O. Here are some pertinent excerpts:

“O) Genetic Technology—The responsibility of humankind to God’s creation challenges us to deal carefully with and examine the possibilities of genetic research and technology in a conscientious, careful, and responsible way. . . . We recognize that cautious, well-intended use of genetic technologies may sometimes lead to unanticipated harmful consequences. . . .

“Human gene therapies that produce changes that cannot be passed to offspring (somatic therapy) should be limited to the alleviation of suffering caused by disease. Genetic therapies for eugenic choices or that produce waste embryos are deplored. . . . Because its long-term effects are uncertain, we oppose genetic therapy that results in changes that can be passed to offspring (germ-line therapy).”

Specifically, the resolution calls for the denomination:

  • To train clergy to provide pastoral counseling for persons with genetic disorders and their families as well as those facing difficult choices as a result of genetic testing.
  • To support those who must make difficult decisions regarding genetic information related to reproduction, including support for efforts to improve genetic testing on embryos and fetuses so that couples and their doctors can have accurate information about genetic conditions.
  • To encourage seminaries to include courses and continuing education events that equip clergy to address theological and ethical issues raised by scientific research and technology.
  • To establish and maintain dialogue with those persons working to develop or promote genetics-based technologies, including especially those working in the fields of synthetic biology. The ethical concerns of the church need to be injected into the laboratory, the factory, and the halls of government in an ongoing manner.
  • To produce educational resources on genetics science, theology and ethics, including workshops, seminars and resource materials.

While the issue may have been “under the radar” until recently, The United Methodist Church has been preparing to deal with the impact of new genetic developments. United Methodist seminaries and agency staff were still on summer vacation, so their preparations for genetic issues couldn’t be reported immediately. However, a random online search for “United Methodist Church genetics” produced some intriguing examples of how local congregations within the past year have addressed genetic issues.

Cynthia B. Astle serves as Editor of United Methodist Insight, which she founded in 2011.