Next

CHAPTER 021

At the Congressional Biotechnology Prayer Breakfast in Washington, Dr. Robert Bellarmino waited impatiently for his introduction to end. Congressman Henry Waters, famously long-winded, droned on. “Dr. Bellarmino is known to all of us,” he said, “as a physician with a conscience, a man of science and a man of God, a man of principle in an age of expediency, a man of rectitude in a hedonistic era where anything goes, especially on MTV. Dr. Bellarmino is not only a director of the National Institutes of Health, but also a lay pastor of the Thomas Field Baptist Church of Houston and the author of Turning Points, his book of spiritual awakening to the healing message of Jesus Christ Our Lord. And I know-well, he’s looking at me, and he has to be at the congressional hearing room in one hour, so let me present, our man of God and science, Dr. Robert A. Bellarmino.”

Handsome and assured, Bellarmino stepped to the lectern. His topic, according to the printed schedule, was “God’s Plan for Mankind in Genetic Science.”

“My thanks to Congressman Waters, and to all of you for coming today. Some of you may wonder how a scientist-especially a genetic scientist-can reconcile his work with the word of God. But as Denis Alexander points out, the Bible reminds us that God, the Universal Creator, is separate from His creation but that He also actively sustains it moment to moment. Thus God is the creator of DNA, which underlies the biodiversity of our planet. That may be why some critics of genetic engineering say we shouldn’t do it, because it involves playing God. Some ecological doctrines hold a similar view, that nature is sacred and inviolable. Such beliefs are of course pagan. ”

Bellarmino paused, letting his audience savor the word. He considered saying more about pagan beliefs, particularly the pantheistic nature worship that some called “California cosmology.” But not today, he thought. Press on.

“The Bible tells us clearly, in Genesis 1:28 and 2:15, that God has given human beings the task, the responsibility to care for the earth and all the creatures on it. We are not playing God. We are answerable to God if we are not responsible stewards of what God has given us in all its majesty and biodiversity. This is our God-given assignment. Weare the stewards of the planet.

“Genetic engineering uses the tools the Creator has given us to carry out good works on the planet. Unprotected crops are eaten by pests, or die of frost and drought. Genetic modification can prevent that, use less crop acreage, leave more untouched wilderness, and still feed the hungry. Genetic engineering allows us to distribute the munificence of God to all His creatures as He would want. Genetically modified organisms make pure insulin for diabetics, pure clotting factors for hemophiliacs. Previously these patients often died of contamination. Surely for us to create this purity is God’s work. Who will say it is not?

“Critics charge that genetic engineering is unnatural, because it changes the very essence of an organism, its deep and profound nature. That idea is Greek and pagan. But the plain fact is that domestication of plants and animals, as practiced for thousands of years, does change the deep and profound nature of an organism. A domestic dog is no longer a wolf. Corn is no longer a stunted, largely inedible weed. Genetic engineering is simply another step in this long-accepted tradition. It does not mark a radical departure from the past.

“Sometimes we hear that we shouldn’t change DNA, period. But why not? DNA is not fixed. DNA changes over time. And DNA interacts constantly with our daily existence. Should we tell athletes not to lift weights, because it will change the size of their muscles? Should we tell students not to read books, because that will change the structure of their developing minds? Of course not. Our bodies are constantly changing, and our DNA with them.

“But more directly-there are five hundred genetic diseases that can, potentially, be cured by gene therapy. Many of these diseases cause terrible suffering in children, early and agonizing death. Other diseases hang over a person’s life like a prison sentence; the person must wait for the disease to come and strike him down. Should we not cure these diseases if we can? Should we not alleviate suffering whenever we can? If so, we must change DNA. Simple as that.

“So do we modify DNA or not? Is this God’s work or man’s hubris? These are not decisions to be taken lightly. And so it is with that most sensitive subject, the use of germ cells and embryos. Many in the Judeo-Christian tradition are unequivocally opposed to embryo use. But such views will, eventually, conflict with the goal of healing the sick and alleviating suffering. Not this year, not next year, but the time will come. Careful thought and much prayer are needed to arrive at our answer. Our Lord Jesus made men walk again. Does that mean we should not do likewise, if we can? It is most difficult, for we know man’s hubris takes many forms-not only overreaching, but also stubbornly holding back. We are put here to reflect the glory of God in all His works, and not the willful ego of man. I, myself, have no answer as I stand before you today. I confess I am troubled in my heart.

“But I have faith that God shall lead us, in the end, to the world that He wants for us. I have faith that we shall be guided to wisdom, that we shall be cautious, and that we shall not be willful in tending His works, His suffering children, and all the creatures in His creation. And for this I pray, most humbly, in the name of God. Amen.”

The speech worked, of course-it always worked. Bellarmino had been giving it in various versions for a decade, and each time, he pushed forward a little harder, spoke a little more firmly. Five years ago, he did not use the wordembryo. Now he did, cautiously and briefly. He was laying the groundwork. He was getting them thinking. The thought of suffering made them uneasy. So did the thought of enabling the crippled to walk again.

Of course, no one knew whether that would ever happen. Personally, Bellarmino doubted it ever would. But let them think it was coming. Let them worry. They should: the stakes were high and the pace of advance rocket-fast. Any research that Washington blocked would take place in Shanghai, or Seoul, or S?o Paulo. And Bellarmino, skilled and sanctimonious, intended to make sure that never occurred. Nothing, in short, that would interfere with his lab, his research, and his reputation. He was very good at protecting all three.

An hour later, in the wood-paneled hearing room, Bellarmino gave testimony before the House Select Committee on Genetics and Health. The hearing had been called to consider whether it was appropriate for the patent office to grant patents for human genes. Thousands of such patents had already been issued. Was this a good idea?

“There is no question we have a problem,” Dr. Bellarmino said, not looking at his notes. He had memorized his testimony so he could deliver it while facing the television cameras, for greater impact. “Gene patentsby industr y pose a significant problem for future research. On the other hand, gene patenting by academic researchers causes far less concern, since the work is freely shared.”

Of course this was nonsense. Dr. Bellarmino did not mention that the distinction between academic and industry workers had long since been blurred. Twenty percent of academic researchers were paid by industry. Ten percent of academics did drug development. More than 10 percent had a product already on the market. More than 40 percent had applied for patents in the course of their careers.

Nor did Bellarmino mention that he, too, pursued gene patents aggressively. In the last four years, his laboratory had filed 572 patent applications covering a wide spectrum of conditions, from Alzheimer’s and schizophrenia to manic depression, anxiety, and attention-deficit disorders. He had secured patents for dozens of genes for specific metabolic disorders, ranging from deficiency of l-thyroxy-hydrocambrine (associated with restless leg disorder of sleep) to an excess of para-amino-2, 4-dihydroxybenthamine (causing urinary frequency in sleep).

“However,” Dr. Bellarmino said, “I can assure this committee that gene patenting in general is a system that serves the common good. Our procedures to protect intellectual property work well. Important research is protected, and the consumer, the American patient, is the beneficiary of our efforts.”

He did not tell them that more than four thousand DNA-based patents were granted each year-two every hour of each working day. Since there were only thirty-five thousand genes in the human genome, most experts estimated that more than 20 percent of the genome was already privately owned.

Bellarmino did not point out that the biggest patent owner was not some industrial giant but the University of California. UC owned more gene patents than Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, and Wyeth combined. They owned more patents than the U.S. government.

“The notion that someone owns part of the human genome strikes some people as unusual,” Bellarmino said. “But it’s what makes America great and keeps our innovation strong. True, it causes the occasional glitch, but over time, all that will get resolved. Gene patenting is the way to go.”

At the conclusion of his testimony, Dr. Bellarmino left the hearing and headed for Reagan Airport, where he would fly back to Ohio, to resume his research on the “novelty gene,” research being conducted at an amusement park there. Bellarmino had a film crew from60 Minutes following him around, putting together a segment that would show his varied and important genetic research, and also tell his personal story. Time spent in Ohio was a significant part of the final film. Because there he interacted with ordinary people, and as the filmmakers said, the human touch was what was really important, especially with a man of science, and especially on television.

Massachusetts Office of University Technology Transfer GOVERNMENT CENTER, BOSTON

For Immediate Release

First “Partial Life Form” at MIT

Possible Applications in Hearing Technology

MIT scientists have grown a human ear in tissue culture for the first time.

Australian performance artist Stelarc collaborated with labs at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to produce an extra ear for himself. The ear was one-quarter scale, slightly larger than a bottle cap. The tissue taken from Stelarc was cultured in a rotating micro-gravity bioreactor while growing.

MIT issued a statement that the extra ear could be considered “a partial life form-partly constructed and partly grown.” The ear fits comfortably in the palm of the hand.

Last year, the same MIT lab made steaks of frog tissue grown over biopolymer mesh. They had also grown steak from the cells of an unborn sheep. And they created what they referred to as “victimless leather.” This was skin that had been artificially grown in the laboratory and was suitable for shoes, purses, belts, and other leather goods-presumably with an eye to the robust vegan market.

Several hearing-aid companies have opened talks with MIT about licensing their ear-making technology. According to geneticist Zack Rabi, “As the American population ages, many senior citizens may prefer to grow slightly enlarged, genetically modified ears, rather than rely on hearing-aid technology. A spokesperson for Audion, the hearing-aid company, noted, “We’re not talking about Dumbo ears. Just a small increase of 20 percent in pinna size would double auditory efficiency. We think the market for enlarged ears is huge. When lots of people have them, no one will notice anymore. We believe big ears will become the new standard, like silicon breast implants.”