Biotechnology is at the cutting edge of scientific advancement, revolutionizing medicine, agriculture, and environmental conservation. Innovations such as gene editing, stem cell therapies, human cloning, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) hold immense promise for treating diseases, enhancing food security, and preserving endangered species. However, these advancements also raise profound ethical and theological concerns. From a theological perspective, they challenge the sanctity of life and hence the moral implications of “playing God,” demanding the Christian responsibility of stewardship and justice. This article explores the ethical dimensions of biotechnology, examining its potential benefits and the moral boundaries that must guide its application.
The Promise and Peril of Biotechnology
Biotechnology’s breakthroughs are remarkable. Since James D. Watson and Francis Crick described DNA in 1954 as the “secret of life” hidden in the “spiral staircase structure of this, the master molecule of life,” scientists have harnessed genetic engineering to address human need and suffering.
1. Agricultural Advancements: Genetic engineering has revolutionized agriculture by creating stronger, more resilient crops. Scientists have developed plants that are resistant to pests, diseases, and herbicides, reducing the need for chemical treatments and increasing crop yields. Genetically modified seeds not only improve food production but also enhance the nutritional value of crops, addressing malnutrition in many parts of the world. Additionally, genetic modifications have extended the shelf life of fruits and vegetables, reducing food waste. Researchers are also exploring ways to modify insects to naturally control crop pests, which could significantly reduce the reliance on harmful pesticides. In August 2024, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the growth and breeding of HB4 wheat, a genetically modified variety developed by Argentina's Bioceres Crop Solutions. Designed to withstand drought conditions, HB4 wheat offers potential benefits to farmers facing severe weather challenges.[1]
2. Medical and Human Genetic Engineering: Genetic engineering has offered groundbreaking treatments for genetic disorders, infectious diseases, and chronic conditions. Gene therapy holds promise for curing illnesses like cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia by correcting faulty genes, while genetically modified bacteria produce human insulin, ensuring a reliable diabetes treatment. Advances in genetic research have also led to safer vaccines and rapid diagnostic tools for infections. Additionally, stem cell research provides hope for treating degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, highlighting the vast potential of genetic engineering in healthcare. In February 2025, a CSIRO-backed initiative proposed releasing genetically modified Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in Queensland, Australia. Developed by Oxitec Australia, these mosquitoes carry a self-limiting gene causing female offspring to die before reaching adulthood, aiming to reduce populations of mosquitoes that transmit diseases like dengue fever.[2] Modifying mosquito populations could have unpredictable effects on local ecosystems. Many species depend on mosquitoes, so reducing their numbers could harm them.[3]
3. Animal Genetic Engineering and Cloning: Since the birth of Dolly the sheep in 1996, the first mammal cloned from an adult somatic cell, cloning technology has advanced significantly, leading to the cloning of various animal species. Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua are the first primates cloned using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), the same technique that produced Dolly the sheep. They were born in late 2017 at the Institute of Neuroscience of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Shanghai. This achievement marked a significant milestone in cloning research, demonstrating the feasibility of cloning primates using SCNT.[4] New research suggests that because there aren't enough human organs, genetically modified pigs might be able to provide organs for transplantation as an alternative for people whose organs are failing beyond repair.[5] Chinese scientists have created laboratory mice with two male parents using genetic engineering to manipulate embryonic stem cells. By modifying imprinted genes, which typically inhibit unisexual reproduction in mammals, the researchers produced bipaternal offspring.[6]
The Ethical Dilemma of “Playing God”
A central ethical question in biotechnology is whether humanity is “playing God” by altering life at its most fundamental level. Francis Collins, in his book The Language of God, raises a pertinent question: “Is the science of genetics and genomics beginning to allow us to 'play God'?” (p. 272). For him, the phrase ‘play God’ is frequently used by those who express concerns about scientific advancements, even when the person using it does not believe in a God. Genetic engineering grants humans the unprecedented power to modify life forms, raising profound religious and moral concerns about interfering with divine creation. The concept of human cloning, for example, is often viewed as a departure from natural reproduction, reducing humans to “laboratory products” and raising concerns about depersonalization. Such advancements challenge the very essence of human identity and uniqueness. Moreover, recent developments in synthetic embryos—created from stem cells without the need for sperm or eggs—have intensified ethical debates. While these embryo models offer insights into human development, they blur the lines between scientific innovation and the sanctity of human life. Similarly, gene editing technologies like CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) have made it possible to alter an individual’s genetic structure, which has transformed the fields of genetics, medicine, and biotechnology, potentially eliminating genetic disorders but also raising fears of designer babies and genetic inequality. The possibility of enhancing traits such as intelligence or physical abilities fuels concerns about a future where genetic privilege dictates social hierarchies.
Embryonic stem cell research continues to present significant ethical challenges. The extraction of pluripotent embryonic stem cells, capable of differentiating into any of the 200 cell types in the human body, necessitates the destruction of early embryos. This practice raises profound concerns about the sanctity of human life and the moral implications of such research. In response, scientists have developed induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) by reprogramming adult cells into a pluripotent state, thereby reducing reliance on embryonic sources and mitigating associated ethical issues. Researchers have successfully developed heart muscle patches from iPSCs to repair damaged cardiac tissue, offering new hope for heart failure patients. These patches integrate with the patient's heart, enhancing its function and reducing the need for transplants.[7]
The creation of human-animal chimeras, for example, challenges traditional species boundaries and raises questions about human identity and dignity. Such an act conflicts with biblical principles as mentioned in Leviticus 19:19, which warns against the mixing of species: “You shall not let your animals breed with a different kind.” Similarly, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and terminator gene technologies pose potential risks to biodiversity and may increase corporate control over food production. Advancements in gene therapy, particularly those aimed at enhancing traits such as intelligence or lifespan, have revived fears of eugenics and genetic discrimination. Notably, a U.S. startup has recently offered services to screen embryos for predicted intelligence, a practice that has sparked significant ethical debate.[8] These new technologies show how important strong ethical oversight is to make sure that biotechnological innovations are in line with moral principles and societal values.
The Sanctity of Life
Francis Collins wrote, “In the area of medicine, furious debates currently surround the question of whether or not it is acceptable to carry out research on human embryonic stem cells. Some argue that such research violates the sanctity of human life; others posit that the potential to alleviate human suffering constitutes an ethical mandate to proceed” (p. 22). Navigating these perspectives demands a careful balance between the potential scientific advancements and the ethical principles. From a theological perspective, the Christian view of life is grounded in its divine origin and sacredness. The Bible teaches that God is the Creator, sustainer, and ultimate authority over life, as seen in Genesis 2:7, where God breathes life into Adam, and Acts 17:28, which states, “In him we live and move and have our being.” Humans, created imago Dei (Genesis 1:27), possess intrinsic dignity, distinguishing them from other life forms through morality, reason, and creativity. This dignity extends to all creation, including animals and plants, as evidenced by Genesis 6:19, where God instructs Noah to preserve all species, and Deuteronomy 20:19–20, which protects fruit trees even in wartime. The sacredness of human life is indeed the single most important precept in society because all human beings are made in God’s image. This contrasts with secular humanist views, which may prioritize a “quality-of-life” principle, defending practices like abortion, euthanasia, and embryo destruction as personal choices. For Christians, however, life’s value is incalculable, and its manipulation for utilitarian purposes risks reducing humans to mere objects. Scripture teaches us that each [embryo] is an individual, made in the image of God, which raises moral objections to their destruction for scientific gain.
From Atheism to Belief: Francis Collins
The story of Francis Collins's transformation from atheism to belief, as described in his book The Language of God,[9] is deeply intertwined with his personal and professional experiences, including his encounters with patients. One older woman whom he met during his third year of medical training impacted his perspective on faith, suffering, and the human spirit. This older woman was suffering from severe and untreatable angina. Her daily life was marked by pain and suffering, yet she exhibited a remarkable sense of peace and resilience. Her faith in God provided her with a profound reassurance that she would find ultimate peace, whether in this life or the next. One day, during a bedside conversation, the woman turned to Collins and asked him directly, "What do you believe?" This simple yet profound question caught him off guard. Collins, who had spent much of his life avoiding serious consideration of faith, found himself stammering, "I'm not really sure." Her surprise at his uncertainty brought into sharp relief a truth he had been avoiding because he had never seriously examined the evidence for or against the existence of God. This moment haunted Collins for days. As a scientist, he prided himself on drawing conclusions based on evidence and data. Yet, when it came to the question of God, he realized he had been practicing "willful blindness." The woman's unwavering faith, even in the face of immense suffering, challenged Collins to confront his beliefs.
This encounter was a turning point for Collins. It prompted him to begin a serious exploration of the rational basis for faith. He started by reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, which presented compelling intellectual arguments for the existence of God and the universality of moral law. Lewis's insights, particularly the concept of the "Moral Law" as a clue to the meaning of the universe, resonated deeply with Collins. He began to see that the sense of right and wrong inherent in humanity could not be easily explained by evolution or cultural conditioning alone. He realized that science, while powerful in explaining the natural world, could not address questions beyond its scope—such as the existence of God. This realization marked the beginning of his journey toward belief, as he began to see faith not as a contradiction to science, but as a complementary way of understanding the deeper mysteries of life. He writes, “Faith in God now seemed more rational than disbelief” (p. 30). Francis Collins is now the world’s leading scientist and also a physician. He headed the Human Genome Project and served as director of the National Institute of Health from 2009 to 2021.
Moral Law
C.S. Lewis, in his book Mere Christianity,[10] emphasizes that the Moral Law is not just a human construct or a reflection of our instincts (e.g., herd instinct, self-preservation). Instead, it is a higher principle that judges between conflicting instincts and guides us toward what we ought to do, even when it contradicts our natural desires. He argues that the Moral Law is more like mathematics—a universal truth that is discovered, not invented.
Bioethics rests on the foundation of the Moral Lawas described by Francis Collins, which provides universal principles for ethical decision-making. These principles—respect for autonomy, justice, beneficence, and nonmaleficence—are shared across cultures and religions, offering a common framework for addressing complex bioethical issues. Collins notes that "we all have an innate knowledge of right and wrong; although that can be obscured by distractions and misunderstandings, it can also be discovered through careful contemplation" (p. 243). This allows individuals with diverse worldviews to often reach shared conclusions once the facts are clear.
The Moral Law ensures that ethical decisions are guided by fairness, compassion, and respect for human dignity, even when conflicts arise between principles. In bioethics, the Moral Law could serve as a framework for evaluating decisions about life, health, and human dignity. For instance, it could guide decisions about euthanasia, genetic engineering, or resource allocation by appealing to an objective standard of right and wrong, rather than relying solely on utilitarian calculations or cultural norms. On the whole, Moral Law
· Resolve conflicts between competing values or instincts.
· Evaluate the morality of cultural practices and technological advancements.
· Promote moral progress and protect human dignity.
· Encourage a balanced, responsible approach to ethical decision-making.
· And lays a unifying foundation for bioethics in a pluralistic society.
Honoring Life as God’s Gift
Rather than rejecting biotechnology, believers are called to engage it as stewards of God’s creation. Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 6:26, “Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them,” underscores our responsibility to care for all life. We are called to oppose technologies that destroy innocent life, advocate for those afflicted by genetic diseases, and promote global justice in the ethical application of biotechnology. The church must advocate for ethical boundaries that protect human dignity, animal welfare, and environmental integrity. It is important to note that genetic engineering must align with God’s love for all creation. We need to place more emphasis on transparency in government policies, collaboration between theologians, scientists, and ethicists, and addressing global inequities. Every year billions of dollars are spent on sophisticated biotechnology research, and at the same time, hundreds of thousands of children are dying in poor countries from conditions that are easily treatable with the minimum of medical technology. A Christian bioethic must prioritize the marginalized, ensuring equitable access to biotechnological benefits.
Biotechnology’s advancements hold immense potential to alleviate suffering and improve life, yet they demand careful ethical and theological reflection. Scripture cautions against relying solely on human wisdom apart from divine guidance, reminding us that true knowledge must align with God’s will: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5). Genetic engineering should therefore be pursued in ways that reflect God’s love for all creation, preserving the sanctity of life rather than manipulating it for human ambition. The development of transgenic species requires scrutiny—not only of its scientific feasibility but also of the motivations behind it, as “All a person’s ways seem pure to them, but the Lord weighs the motives” (Proverbs 16:2).
As biotechnology continues to advance, it must be guided by a vision of holistic well-being that encompasses not just physical health but also ethical integrity, human flourishing, and the care of all creation. True flourishing, from a biblical perspective, is not defined by technological progress alone but by a life lived in alignment with God’s design, marked by justice, compassion, and stewardship. While biotechnology offers opportunities to heal and improve life, it must not be driven by an anthropocentric mindset that prioritizes human dominance at the expense of moral responsibility toward all of creation. “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it” (Psalm 24:1), reminding us that our role as stewards requires wisdom, restraint, and a commitment to justice. By embracing ethical alternatives like iPSCs, upholding the dignity of life, and seeking God’s wisdom in scientific progress, Christians can ensure that biotechnology serves as a tool for holistic well-being and true human flourishing—honoring the Creator and reflecting His love for the world.
Rev. Dr. Samuel Richmond, serves as the Executive Director, Caleb Institute, Gurugram and Hon. Secretary, EFI-Theological Commission. He is actively involved in bridging the relationship between Science and Theology.
