Interview with Ellen ter Gast
By Mirjam Kosten Groen / Scientific Institute of the ChristenUnie / Photo: Folkert Rinkema / Translated by ChatGPT
“Now we can get tattoos, soon we will be decorating ourselves with tails.” In Zembla’s episode Doktering with DNA, someone was already imagining it. Philosopher and biologist Ellen ter Gast often sighs at such ideas about what genetic engineering can achieve. These are practically unfeasible ideas that belong to the realm of science fiction. What we should be talking about is what makes better humans. Are they more beautiful, smarter, stronger?
Are you happy with the discovery of CRISPR-Cas?
“It has been possible to alter DNA in mammals since the 1980s. Compared to the techniques we had, CRISPR-Cas is precise, relatively simple, more efficient, and cheaper. As a biologist, I find it interesting because it offers many new opportunities for research, making changes, and better understanding DNA. It’s fascinating how nature works, and that we can alter DNA to explore possibilities for addressing problems. As a philosopher, I think genetic engineering reveals something about what life is and how it works. The fact that we can exchange DNA with animals says something about species boundaries and our position on this planet.”
What are the potential applications of CRISPR-Cas?
“The classic example is the modification of the malaria mosquito to make it less effective at spreading malaria. That seems like a great application to me. To clarify: there is a difference between somatic and germline therapy. In somatic applications, you affect one individual, while in germline applications, the changes are hereditary. Somatic treatments for genetically simple diseases in humans may become an option: imagine modifying the body’s cells in someone with diabetes so they start producing insulin again. There’s also research into boosting the immune system. Maybe soon someone could use their own immune system to better attack cancer cells; that would be amazing!”
And changes in the germline to eliminate genetic diseases?
“To change the germline, you would have to alter DNA in a single-celled embryo. I really wonder: who would want to do such an experiment? Who wants to give birth to a child that is essentially a scientific experiment? There’s a significant chance of harmful consequences. I wouldn’t want that, and I can’t imagine anyone else would. Even a genetically modified baby is a human like us, a child is not an experiment. But there’s another issue with eradicating hereditary diseases. It can only be done for genetically simple diseases. Most diseases are caused by multiple genes that we cannot address simultaneously. It’s not that we’re not smart enough; it’s biologically too complex. And then I think: why modify when you can select? Simple defects can also be eliminated by choosing not to reproduce if you’re a carrier of a certain gene. That sounds harsh, so I would say: use pre-implantation diagnostics instead. Otherwise, you’re offering a high-tech solution with many risks, when there’s a much simpler alternative. In Europe, I don’t see genetic modification of embryos happening anytime soon. It’s too dangerous, and there’s a cheaper and safer alternative. Besides, it goes against human rights. After all, the embryo cannot choose for itself.”
The English bioethicist John Harris says, “Human enhancement is an obligation.” Maybe the techniques for this will soon be available. How do you view that?
“Harris argues that we’ve always wanted to become smarter, stronger, and better. That’s why we send our children to school. That’s what we want, and if we can achieve it with technology, it’s all the better. I think that’s sloppy thinking. First of all, biologically, it’s not that simple. Intelligence is not located on just one gene that you can adjust, and it also has to do with upbringing and training the brain. But there’s something else that bothers me about these theories. It’s always about making people better. But they forget to ask the most important question first: what is a better person? Smarter, stronger, more beautiful? I don’t agree with that. Shall we first talk about what makes a better person? Then you can ask whether genetic engineering can help us with that. To be honest, I don’t think so. In my opinion, a better person is kinder, more loyal, non-violent. A better person, in my eyes—I’m not a Christian—is a peaceful person who doesn’t spend all their time looking in the mirror; someone who looks around, doesn’t cause conflict, lives moderately, and reproduces responsibly. I’m just listing a few things. I don’t find those qualities in Harris’s story.”
A healthier person, then—isn’t that something worth pursuing?
“We are already becoming healthier, and 80% of that has to do with lifestyle: eating healthier and exercising more. The average lifespan has increased by 20 years in the last hundred years. That didn’t happen because of genetics, but due to better hygiene and the national vaccination program. Before asking the question about technology, we need to discuss what makes a better person.”
So, genetic engineering doesn’t help us achieve perfection?
“What is perfection? Perfect people are boring to me. We often hear that we want to improve ourselves. Fine, I’ve done that. If you see my two daughters, you would really say: you’ve improved yourself. They’re perfect, they’re my children, and therefore the best in the world. I say that objectively and hope every parent says the same about their child. The best cat? Lives in my house. The best boat? I have it. And why is that? Because they’re mine; it’s about the connection! Can gene therapy change that? No. Someone asked me recently: but what if you want a child with blue eyes? I can’t imagine why that would be important. And if it is, you should pay a little more attention when selecting a partner and maybe start dating in Sweden. Many people are obsessed with appearance. For that, we have the fashion industry and Photoshop. And if that obsession goes further, you have a psychological problem, and I’d recommend seeing a therapist and deleting Instagram from your phone. Accept yourself; genetic engineering isn’t meant for that.”
What if aggression was on one gene, and we could turn it off?
“By putting something in the drinking water? That’s manipulation, and I don’t support that. Big revolutions don’t come from technology but from how we think and behave. You can’t change that with a pill or an injection. I don’t like the easy quick fix; it’s laziness in genuinely addressing problems. Moreover, are we going to adapt people to systems, or should we also reconsider the systems themselves? Speaking of systems, with somatic gene therapy, you’re always negatively affecting evolution. The imperfect human gets patched up again with plastic surgery, glasses, hearing aids, and soon genetic engineering. The pressure on the genes decreases, and genetically speaking, you get a lesser population. In that respect, humans are the most flawed species on Earth. In the jungle, you only see perfect specimens. But humans have managed to circumvent that evolution with tools. If there were no glasses, the population would eventually have better vision.”
There’s something charming about people with glasses, isn’t there?
“Certainly. And it shows that we are not only biological beings but also cultural beings that can create tools.”
We have CRISPR-Cas. Should there be a societal debate about it? What does that debate look like?
“The discussion about the use of CRISPR-Cas technology should be held separately for each specific application. There’s a difference between applying it in a laboratory or outside of it. Each case has different risks and interests. Who are the stakeholders in the technology? Will this technology lead to a division in society? When it comes to agriculture: can all farmers afford these products, or will there be a monopoly? Who will benefit, who will profit? How does something affect the environment, how are the advantages and disadvantages distributed? The technology itself isn’t the issue; it’s the application that needs to be thought through. These are questions for experts. That conversation will continue because it could be that in four years, we think differently about something due to an event than we do now.”
Where does the public debate come in?
“When I talk to people about topics like genetic engineering, they usually have no idea. There’s hardly any public debate. Yet it’s important that we discuss these issues, and that starts with good biology education. People really know little about biology, about how their own bodies work. You need to know how it works and what the difference is between a virus and a bacterium. I think biology is just a bit more important than German. Not everyone in the country needs to think about every specific application, but we do need to keep discussing what better humans are, and what perfection is. If we discuss those topics in the public debate, that’s a gain. Currently, debates about genetic engineering too often revolve around science fiction.”
In discussions about medical ethics, the debate is often held between Christians and non-Christians. Can that be improved?
“Often, such discussions don’t go deep and remain superficial. It creates a dichotomy: Christians are good and against it, while non-Christians are apparently bad and for it.”
Or: Christians are old-fashioned and against it. I hear that more often.
“You hear that too. But with those contrasts, we’re needlessly polarizing. What we’re not doing is asking why certain values are so important to the other. I think the debate should be conducted well. So, not: ‘I’m a Christian, so…’. Or: ‘I read in the Bible, so…’. No, explain to me why you’re a convinced Christian. It’s not about reading the Bible every day but being able to explain why you think it’s a good book and why you agree with God. In such a conversation, you’ll come to the surprising conclusion that I also value the things you find important. Only, I didn’t get them from God, but thought of them for other reasons. Otherwise, the debate polarizes unnecessarily and remains superficial.”
What advice do you give the ChristenUnie on the topic of genetic engineering?
“You base your views on the Bible. That document was written in a time when this technology didn’t exist. So, you can’t ask the Bible: is CRISPR-Cas allowed? Your task is to translate the spirit of that text to the present day and then see if a particular application of technology fits with it or not. That seems quite challenging and requires creativity. But there are concepts you can use. Stewardship is a useful concept. If you take stewardship as a starting point, there are quite a few applications you can rule out, while others would fit well with it. God didn’t make a statement about technology, but you can look at the spirit of the technology. That’s complicated, because these texts can be interpreted in different ways. But keep talking about values; that’s your big challenge. And remember that there are technical applications that can do something good. An anti-technology stance is naive.”
At the ChristenUnie, we’re not so fond of the concept of ‘malleability.’ What do you think about that?
“Humans are inherently creatures that make things; we always want to move forward. We want to make things better, and I think that’s also a very Christian concept. An idea of the good that you strive for. In that sense, malleability is also linked to Christianity. What probably bothers you—and it bothers me too—is when malleability stands for a superficial image of perfection. Glossy perfection.”
