Focus on Issues: Halacha and Bio-genetic Engineering

— Two rabbinic experts on halacha (Jewish religious law), one Orthodox and one Conservative, have expressed in separate statements the opinion that, with appropriate safeguards, halacha does not ban bio-genetic engineering.

The Orthodox scholar, Dr. J. David Bleich of Yeshiva University, expressed that position in reference to “in vitro” fertilization experiments which have led to what the news media dubbed the world’s first test-tube baby, Louise Brown in Britain. There have been reports that a number of such in vitro fertilization implants are in various stages of gestation.

The Conservative scholar, Rabbi Seymour Siegel, until recently chairman of the Rabbinical Assembly’s Committee on Law and Standards, endorsed genetic engineering, in general, on theological, ethical and political grounds, though he did not deal specifically with in vitro fertilization experiments.

Siegel, Ralph Simon professor of ethics at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, declared in his statement that “questions about the creative powers of men have been raised” as a result of the “dramatic breakthroughs in the field of genetic engineering” and that scientists, “combining the fragments of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) of different organisms, have opened new vistas of human progress.”

HALACHIC IMPLICATIONS OF ENGINEERING

Bleich’s views on the halachic implications of in vitro aspects of such engineering are outlined in a chapter of his forthcoming book, “Judaism and Healing.” Noting that many infertility problems condemning couples to childlessness stem from “blockage of the wife’s fallopian tubes, “he declared that “the newly-developed technique enables conception to occur outside the fallopian tubes.”

Removal of the mature ovum from the ovary and placing it in “an appropriate culture medium” in a petri dish, and adding the male sperm to the solution is followed, after incubation, by placement of the fertilized ovum in the wife’s uterus. Success to that point permits the fetus to continue to develop in an apparently normal manner, Bleich declared, adding that the identical technique can be used to over-come “moderate male infertility” because of a low sperm count.

The Talmudic expert said perfection of this method has, “as might have been anticipated,” sparked many moral, theological and halachic questions. He said his intention was to spell out those issues and show how they could be resolved in the light of “earlier precedents in Jewish law.”

Bleich rejected the condemnation of the process by some Christian theologians who have held that “such interference” was morally unacceptable as “a violation of natural law.” He declared that Judaism does not “posit a doctrine of natural law, as such” and that the bio-engineering processes “must be examined solely in the light” of possible infraction of halacha.

THE CRUCIAL ISSUE

He called “the crucial issue” the theoretical possibility of “increased risk of chromosomal abnormalities” leading to physical and mental defects “when the ovum is fertilized outside the body.” Bleich added that “it is entirely possible that some aspect of the experimental technique may cause genetic damage.”

But he also noted that an estimated half of all pregnancies “are spontaneously terminated by the time of implementation,” which he said might be nature’s way “of providentially” preventing development of a deformed fetus.

Discussing the ethical implications of experiments which may result in the birth of a defective infant, Bleich declared that Jewish law does not sanction abortion motivated only by a desire to eliminate a defective fetus, nor does it sanction “sterile marriage” as a means of preventing “transmission of hereditary disorders.” But, he added, Jewish law “does discourage marriages which would lead to the conception of such children,” citing a specific warning that “a man should not marry into an epileptic or leprous family.”

Bleich also cautioned that it will require the birth and maturation through adolescence and adulthood of many healthy test-tube babies “before the technology can be viewed as morally acceptable.”

He declared that the means to get sperm for in vitro fertilization did pose a halachic problem. In a brief review of rabbinic discussion, he reported that “removal of sperm from the vaginal tract following coitus for in vitro fertilization would appear to be regarded by most authorities as the optimal method.”

However, Bleich added some halachic authorities “advise that semen be obtained by coitus interruptous” and others “sanction a condom.” Both procedures are strictly forbidden to Jews as birth control devices. Whatever the method used, Bleich stressed, “under no circumstances should the sperm of any person other than the husband be utilized.”

The Yeshiva University scholar noted that it was “not at all inconceivable that genetic characteristics may be ordered” sometime in the near future “to conform with virtually any parental preference.” Stressing that “the moral, genetic and societal implications of such practices are truly awesome, “Bleich declared, however, that “the distinction between capricious genetic manipulation and in vitro fertilization which simulates natural procreation and is designed solely to alleviate infertility due to abnormality of the fallopian tubes should be readily apparent.”

SEARCHING QUESTIONS RAISED

In his more wide-ranging discussion, Siegel conceded that searching questions have been raised about “the rightness of these wonderful researches.” He said one such question was: “Can man play God interfering in the genetic make-up of organisms, upsetting, it seems, the finely tuned balances of a universe it has taken millions of years of evolution to produce?”

Discussing the theological formulation that “man–it is argued–should imitate God,” not “impersonate him,” Siegel declared that “the universe is created by God” but “it is not God. The biblical writers see man’s role as not merely to conform to nature but also to improve it, if possible. This is the underpinning of the whole medical enterprise.”

Siegel examined the ethical issue in terms of the possibility that harm might come to mankind “from bacteria and other organisms escaping from the laboratory.” As a result of expressions of concern by scientists in 1973, he reported, the federal National Institutes of Health established criteria “for the construction of facilities which would not permit the escape of harmful organisms.”

Siegel concluded that “the theological premise” at “playing God” can be met by the realization that “bold scientific research does not defy God, it helps fulfill our human destiny.”