Playing God??????????

Frankenstein & The Island of Doctor Moreau on a collision course is how I would describe these 2 stories. Given Archbishop Rino Fisichella's recent controversy involving the Brazilian Abortion case (Head of Pontifical Academy for Life Should be Removed: Academy Members) his response in this case is not non-commital, it is too soon. My concern is this, at what point do we cross the line? & does this cross that line? If it does, then nothing good can come of it. & saying the end, in this case "to treat pathologies", for me rings way too close to saying that Nazi experiments could be justified as well. & the end never justifies the means.

I guess my concern is can this be used without crossing over into eugenics? & I really don't see how it won"t cross that line given the current state of things.

"Frankenstein" or Scientific Breakthrough?: U.S. Biologist Creates Controversy with Artificial DNA

Motor Neurone Disease Group Donates £800,000 for Human/Animal Hybrid Clone Research

The 2nd story adds to my concerns about the direction artificial DNA could take. If we can create artificial DNA, & create human/animal hybrids, then where do we stop? In fact, that is exactly the direction opened up by what has been done by Craig Ventor. Albeit what he did only involve 2 different bacteria, what next? He artificially sequenced the DNA of 1 type of bacteria, added it to the cell of another type & the result? They reproduced daughter cells with both the natural & artificial DNA.

The fact that, as the article points out, Venter has been working for years to create artificial life forms, doesn't do anything to reduce my concerns either. & his response to criticisms that he is "playing God", doesn't help either. “I always reply that - so far at least - we are only reconstructing a diminished version of what is out there in nature.” "So far at least" implies that is is not adverse to "playing God" & that it could very well be his goal to do just that.

The comments by the head of the Italian’s bishops’ conference, Angelo Cardinal Bagnasco, were a lot better than Fisichella's. Bagnasco said that the invention is “further sign of intelligence, God's gift to understand creation and be able to better govern it.” True in so far as it goes. But he made sure that what he was saying wasn't a ringing endorsement & that he did have some concerns. “On the other hand, intelligence can never be without responsibility. Any form of intelligence and any scientific acquisition ... must always be measured against the ethical dimension, which has at its heart the true dignity of every person.”

I have no problem with better learning how DNA works. I do have problems with creating "artificial life forms" or human/whatever hybrids.