tothesource: Pastors and Christian leaders comprise a large percentage of our readership.  Why should they read A Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World?

Smith: Other than the Jihad, there is no more important or consequential issue than human cloning and its consequences, which along with stem cell research, and the very real threat of genetic engineering, are the primary topics of the book.

We are entering an era in which human life can be literally altered at the molecular level. These matters are often described as science issues. They are not. They are the most profound ethical and moral issues. But in order to make reasoned decisions about them—and for pastors, to help counsel their parishioners—the underlying science must be understood. This is not difficult, once the scientific jargon is translated into “real people’s language,” which was my first task in writing Consumer’s Guide.

Secondly, and more crucially, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, genetic engineering, the drive among the so-called “transhumanist movement” to create a “post human” future via manufacture and the construction of “designer babies,” call into question whether society will continue to believe that human life has ultimate and immeasurable intrinsic value simply and merely because it is human. If society decides that it does, as I assert it must if we are to remain a moral society, then we can make great scientific advances and improve medical care for people without sacrificing the sanctity/equality of life ethic that is the foundation of Christian morality and the pillar of Western ethical thought. For example, adult stem cell research is advancing at a breathtaking pace offering great hope to ill and disabled people.

But if we say that being human is irrelevant to moral worth--as most propagandists for unfettered biotechnology now do—then we are in danger of reducing some human lives into mere commodities and exploitable things. Think about it: Therapeutic cloning would legalize the creation of new human lives via “somatic cell nuclear transfer” cloning (the same procedure used to make Dolly the sheep), and require it to be destroyed and used as if human life were no more meaningful than a soy bean crop.

This is not only unjust to nascent human life, but what does it do to the general mindset? If some human lives can be treated as mere things, why can’t others? And indeed, we see great advocacy in bioethics to use profoundly cognitively disabled people such as Terri Schiavo as so many organ farms.

So you see, very much is at stake. And since pastors are the moral leaders of their communities, it is essential that they understand that these topics, their consequences, and then engage their churches and communities to promote a culture that celebrates science, but which also maintains proper moral parameters around its endeavors.

tothesource: In California and New Jersey there have been some disturbing developments concerning the sanctity of human life.  Can you explain these and let us know why they are so important.

Smith: Advocacy by Big Biotech and its supporters in these states demonstrate just how radical the human cloning agenda really is. A law was enacted this year that may be the most radical ever passed. It:

• Legalized somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning in humans
• Did not outlaw implantation in a woman’s womb. That which is not illegal, is by definition, legal. This means that cloned embryos can be legally implanted and gestated.
• Allows gestation of cloned babies through and up until the very moment prior to birth. Indeed, a woman impregnated with a cloned embryo would only be a criminal if she allowed the child to be born.

This means that we have established a category of human life that must, not can, but must, be killed. That’s a first in human history, as far as I know.

Why would such a law be passed? A cloning experiment with cows may tell us the tale. A few years ago Advanced Cell Technology made a cloned cow embryo. It was implanted in the womb of a cow and gestated to the early fetal stage. It was then aborted, and its primordial kidneys skin-grafted onto the cow whose DNA was used to make the clone. This was touted in the media as a great experimental success demonstrating that therapeutic cloning could work. If the same were done in New Jersey today with human life, it would be perfectly legal.

Meanwhile, California voters just passed Proposition 71. Proposition 71 requires California to borrow $6 billion (including interest) to pay biotech companies corporate welfare to learn how to clone human life. Indeed, it creates a state constitutional right to engage in human cloning and embryonic stem cell research!  

tothesource: You have famously said that the hype over embryonic stem cell research has been cruel.  How so?

Smith: The hype that all-but-promised cures to come from these technologies has just been over the top. Here’s just one example. When former President Ronald Reagan died, Big Biotech’s boosters rushed out to bemoan the supposed fact that he could have been helped by embryonic stem cell therapies. But of all diseases that might be treated with adult and/or embryonic stem cells, Alzheimer’s disease is among the last because it is a whole organ affliction. Indeed, in one of the few examples of accurate reportage in this area by the mainstream media, the Washington Post asked scientists why they were not aggressively correcting the record so that people would know that stem cells were not a likely therapy for Alzheimer’s. (“Stem Cells an Unlikely Therapy for Alzheimer’s,” June 10, 2004.)

It turned out that many scientists were happy to allow Alzheimer’s victims and their families to believe a lie in order to win the political debate. Demonstrating the callous cruelty of this tactic, one stem cell researcher was quoted as saying, “People need a fairy tale. Maybe that’s unfair, but they need a story line that’s relatively simple to understand.” If allowing the families of very ill people to believe that cures are around the corner and that President Bush is responsible for inhibiting their development isn’t cruel, I don’t know what is.

tothesource: Given the drama of the last few months regarding bioethics and their impact on the election and the national debate, do pastors need to be as informed on these issues as possible to remain relevant to the common discourse?

Smith: Pastors, as leaders of their communities, need to understand that the debate over biotechnology is about far more than stem cells. Science and biotech is fast becoming a quasi-religion, known as “scientism,” in which science is seen not as a way to learn about the world but as the source of humankind’s materialistic salvation. There is even eschatology of a future human immortality created through applied cloning and genetic engineering. Anyone who thinks I exaggerate should do a Google search of the term “transhumanism.”

More worrying, the science establishment and many in bioethics now argue forcefully that only scientists can tell us what is moral in science, indeed, that the lay public has no business telling scientists what they can and cannot do. There is even a claim that there is a right to be found in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to engage in human cloning and other scientific research. This is very dangerous given that the prevailing view in science and bioethics rejects the sanctity/equality of life ethic.

If this advocacy succeeds, we may face a situation in which science will cease to serve society but come to dominate it. Frankly, if we aren’t careful, we could find ourselves in a science-ocracy in which religion is belittled and the culture is dominated by the amoral views of philosophical scientism.

Is Aldous Huxley's Dystopia Coming True in America Today?

In Huxley’s 1932 novel, Brave New World, he foretold of a Utopian society where human liberty is exchanged for engineered perfection at the hands of a “benevolent” World State.

His prophetic work issues a warning against the misuse of science in the hands of techno-utopians. Today, his nightmarish vision may come true.
But where did the first living thing come from?

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.