An Analysis of the Catholic Church’s Response
to Genetic Engineering
by Emma Young
“With genetic engineering we could improve the human race.”
Stephen Hawking, Scientist
“Genetic engineering represents a fundamental threat to the human species.”
David King, Theologian
Introduction
Genetic engineering of human beings is a contemporary issue of particular
ethical and religious interest - ethical because it invites us to choose between
alternatives that may be right (ethical) or wrong (unethical), and of religious
significance given that the topic raises serious theological questions about the
sanctity of human life.
Genetic engineering (GE) is the deliberate manipulation and modification of the
characteristics of an organism through the introduction of genes into the DNA
(deoxyribonucleic acid) of that organism. The process involves the artificial
addition, deletion or re-arrangement of DNA to achieve desired traits that are
not already found in that organism.
Understandably, many people believe that human GE is unethical, has sinister
implications and conjures up images of macabre experiments. Some argue that
scientists are wrong to “play God”. Although, others would likely respond that it
is the abuse of GE that is wrong, not the process itself, and that GE knowledge,
tools and power are neither ethical nor unethical; it is our actions that are good
or bad. While “playing God” could be a key to a better future, images showing
the genetic consequences of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 70 years
ago this month, might give us cause to pause. See Figure 1.
Figure 1: Many children of atomic bomb survivors
suffered from horrendous genetic defects.
1
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to analyse, with perception, the Catholic Church’s
response to the ethical issue of human genetic engineering.
Scope of Analysis
This report describes some GE basics, mentions some recent GE developments,
identifies arguments for and against GE, comments in detail on GE from the
Catholic Church’s perspective, and finishes up with some brief conclusions.
Some Basics
Readers are reminded that within the cell nucleus reside microscopic
chromosomes that are composed of genes made of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).
See Figure 2. DNA is the molecule that contains the genetic code for life
forms. The human genome has about three billion pairs of DNA arranged as 46
chromosomes (two sets of 23).
Figure 2: The cell nucleus contains most of the cell's
genetic material in the form of DNA molecules arranged
as chromosomes.
Two genetic interventions are particularly relevant from a Catholic religious
viewpoint in the ethical analysis of GE of humans – “gene therapy” and “gene
enhancement” described here:
Gene therapy is a technique for using genes to treat or prevent disease.
By adding a corrected copy of a defective gene the process aims to help
diseased tissues and organs work properly.
Gene enhancement is a genetic technique to improve an organism’s
normal traits, whereby for example human offspring might engineered to
have better than normal health or greater than normal ability.
Another important distinction is that the results of these two interventions may
or may not be passed onto subsequent generations, depending on the GE
technique used:
2
Germline gene modification targets reproductive cells and such changes
made to the DNA will be passed on to subsequent generations.
Somatic gene modification targets cells in the body, which changes are
not passed onto the person’s children.
Recent GE Developments
Earlier this year England became the first country to introduce laws to allow for
the creation of babies from three people. Such babies will have some DNA from a
second woman - a permanent change that will echo through the generations to
come. This announcement confirms that human GE is a now reality.
A further GE “advancement” was mentioned in The Dominion Post on 12 August
2015 - Australian scientists have recently isolated the gene responsible for
obesity. Soon we may be able to visit McDonald’s without guilt and without the
prospect of liposuction or being ridiculed for being over-weight (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Eager Big Mac consumer of the future,
safe after her obesity gene knockout procedure.
Closer to home, if Kiwi anxiety caused over “Corngate” (a New Zealand
political scandal in 2002 about the suspected local release of genetically
modified corn) is any indication, Kiwi resistance to human GE would be strongly
entrenched. Yet surprisingly, our government may soon approve the
development and propagation of genetically modified forestry products in the
Hawkes Bay region (The Dominion Post, 10 August 2015).
Given these developments, it is timely to review the pro’s and con’s of human GE,
and find out the current Catholic Church perspective on the issue - what aspects
of GE Catholics embrace and what should be rejected, although we shouldn’t
expect a clear cut answer given the immaturity of the science. A mistake we
could make is to think that eugenics died with the Nazis.
Importantly, GE will not wait for Catholics to catch up.
3
While there has always been some tension between science and religion,
“Christian scientist” is not an oxymoron, and much of our scientific method was
pioneered by Christians including Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Boyle.
But, first let us appraise human GM – arguments for and against this rapidly
developing and contentious science.
Arguments in Favour of Human Genetic Engineering
Disease Prevention. Many people die of disease. With GE we could replace
diseased or disease-prone genes with correctly functioning copies. Some
possibilities are cloned heart cells injected into heart patients, replacement skin
cells grown for burn victims, nerve cells grown for damaged brains and spiral
columns, laboratory production of replacement organs such as livers, kidneys,
lungs and even hearts is possible, infertile couples could have children, clone
bone marrow cells could save leukaemia victims, and Alzheimer's might be
cured. If a medical condition is inherited, our children and future generations
might have it, but by changing the germline we not only cure a disease now, but
also prevent it in future generations. Germline gene therapy means any changes
made to the DNA will be passed on to the next generation. Hence the practice
has divided opinion.
Longer lifespan. Without certain diseases, it would be possible for more people
to live longer and healthier lives. Having enjoyed life, most people want to cling
on to it for as long as possible. Perhaps 100-150 years of age could become the
norm with GE. While gene therapy for a fatal condition will ensure the life of the
patient, genetic enhancement of healthy people would give them an even longer
life. Once we fully understand the genetics of ageing we might even be to reverse
cellular mechanisms that lead to our decline with age, possibly accomplished by
restoring worn telomeres, which are DNA sequences that cap the end of our
chromosomes.
Biodiversity. GE could increase the genetic biodiversity of a population's gene
pool to ensure a variety of traits among the individuals of that population. This
variety then provides an improved chance through natural selection (survival of
the fittest) of a species’ survival in our changing environment. Ecologists believe
that diversity provides for ecological resilience – an enhanced ability to adapt to
future changes. For example, given the unpredictable effects of climate change,
diversity within the genetic structure of mankind could ensure that at least some
of us survive and reproduce.
Desirable traits. With GE we could create people to specification. Inheritable
GE changes would allow couples to make their children healthier, longer-lived,
more athletic, more intelligent and more attractive. Coupled with his benefit is
the makeup of our offspring would be predictable and cloning would guarantee
that such enhancements continue.
Ecosystem survival. The human species should not be seen as isolated
members of an ecosystem, but rather as genetically connected members of a
4
complex interacting community. Genetic traits of one species can influence
ecological interactions. Some would argue that our entire planet is an
ecosystem. Ecosystems are dynamic and the introduction of variety in species
through GE could have positive implications for an ecosystem’s operation and
evolution. We may also be able to eradicate environmentally damaging invasive
species from an ecosystem, to the benefit of mankind.
Other Advantages. GE also holds the promise of a cleaner environment. We
could eliminate waste and consequently reduce pollution. Also, starvation could
possibly be eliminated with GE modified food. Thanks to genetic evidence and
the use of DNA in cases of rape, we can identify criminals and populations could
therefore live with improved security. One might wonder what mixture of
nurture and nature caused New Zealand’s Tony Robertson to recently rape and
kill Blessie Gotingco. While DNA profiling may have helped convict Robertson,
violent offenders have yet to avoid prosecution with a “genetic predisposition
defence” or to undergo GE to prevent such anti-social behaviour. Knocking down
belligerent genes could be possible.
Arguments Against Genetic Engineering
Why is there a case against genetic engineering given that it might cure diseases
and provide for the several benefits mentioned above? The following are key
arguments against GE:
Anti-God. The first argument from a Christian perspective is that God, the
supreme omniscient and sentient being, created this world and all its organisms.
God designed the different distinct species such that no interbreeding would be
possible. Genetically modifying creatures and attempting to create new life forms
is challenging the authority of God and by doing so, humanity may be inviting the
same fate as Lucifer. The belief that God should have ultimate power and we
should not be altering nature is what some Christians believe should have us halt
the progression of human GE.
Safety. Safety is a big concern – perhaps the biggest concern. We just do not
know the side-effects and long-term ramifications of GE. For example, if we were
to stop telomeres from shortening would this have negative knock-on effects
elsewhere in the genome. Also, current genetic GE practices are still very hit and
miss. We have no way of controlling exactly where new genes will place
themselves in the altered cells, and usually it takes many trials to produce an
acceptable result. For example, when we hear of cloning successes such as Dolly
the sheep, we do not hear about the large number of cloning attempts that failed.
Another biological implication of cloning is that as cells divide, their
chromosomes appear to get shorter. It is thought that this may occur because
the DNA sequences that cap the end of a chromosome, called telomeres, reduce
in length every time the DNA is copied. Thus the older a mammal is, the shorter
its telomeres will be, because the cells have divided many times as a natural part
of aging. Also, cloned mammals that do survive are often much bigger at birth
than their natural counterparts. This "Large Offspring Syndrome” (LOS) can lead
5
to breathing and blood flow problems. Similar safety concerns could accompany
human GE. The effects of gene therapy are just much too unpredictable.
Predictability. Nature and life are beautiful only perhaps so long as there is an
element of unpredictability and vulnerability about it. GE humans would lack the
natural touch of ingenuity. Their makeup wouyld be predictable and lack
uniqueness. It would be unfortunate if parents begin to support the concept of
designer babies en masse. There would not be the joy of bringing up a unique
individual nor would there be any room for encouraging unique traits or
maverick talents in one's kids. There could be a world full of demanding parents
who want their kids to have all the advantages of life through GE. This way, they
are both shirking their responsibility to develop the character of their offspring
as well as denying the child the right to their own, unique life. And what is
beauty if everyone is beautiful?
Lack of self-determination. GE limits children’s autonomy to shape their own
destinies. Individuals produced through germline gene therapy cannot give their
consent for GE. If parents are able to determine a child’s genetic makeup, they
are in a sense writing the genetic instructions that shape the child’s entire life. If
our parents give us blue eyes instead of brown eyes, if they make us tall instead
of medium height, if they choose a passive over an aggressive personality, such
choices will have a lifelong effect. Genetic enhancement is immoral because it
could artificially mold people’s lives, pointing their destinies, and the destinies of
their children, in directions that the children themselves would not freely choose
or enhancements that are incompatible with our future environment. Therefore,
GM could represents a fundamental violation of their rights as human beings.
Also, GE could be used to select particular physical characteristics without
regard for the health of the child.
Happiest imperiled. With GE there is risk that connections between parents
and children is disrupted if genetics are substantially altered. Children would no
longer be descendants of ancestors but products of boffins. If we create such
beings, they might well be smarter, but not necessarily happier. GE could lead to
treating children and all people like objects. Germline technologies might
contribute to parental expectations of "pre-selecting" their children's traits, and
to the cultural construction of human beings as biologically perfectible products.
This would dramatically change the nature of the parent-child relationship, and
would likely have other profound and destabilising socio-cultural results.
Affordability and class distinction. If super humans were created through GE
what happens to the people unable to afford genetic engineering? There may be
no racism or sexism, but there would be a crueler form of discrimination,
geneticism. The poorer citizens of the world might never get access to GE and
there will then be widening inequalities and greater stratification within society,
neither of which consequence is desirable. We might have a society where the
rich enjoy genetic enhancements - perfect eyesight, improved height, higher
intelligence - that the poor cannot afford. This idea is expressed in the 1997 film
“Gattaca”. The main character Vincent, a man from a poor background who
aspires to be an astronaut, finds it difficult to achieve his goal because he is
6
short-sighted and has a weak heart. These biological discrepancies are
exacerbated by the fact that his brother, who is the product of GE, enjoys perfect
health and is better able to achieve his dreams. To many, Gattaca is a dystopia
where gaps between the haves and have-nots will become intolerable, due to
genetic inequalities.
Overcrowding. Arguably, there are enough humans on Earth already. Disease
and events, including Acts of God, help prevent overpopulation. If we cure all
diseased people and if we all manage to cheat death for 150 years, we are going
to grossly overpopulate our world. Stephen Hawking's theory is that we have
just 200 years to reduce steady population growth or populate outer space
before we go extinct. Also, with GE countless animals could loose their habitats
through human expansion.
Human survival. If we were all to undergo genetic modification this might limit
our genetic diversity. Could there be a danger that our gene pool diminishes and
that as a population we then become more susceptible to being wiped out by a
hitherto unknown disease threat?
Catholic Church’s Perspective
Catholics would generally agree that GE of plants and animals is permissible and
even to be encouraged if it is done in a responsible manner and done for postive
reasons such as to provide a more abundant and nourishing food supply, but
cloning humans is particularly controversial and widely condemned.
Because genetic engineering was unknown when the Bible was first written, it is
difficult to find definitive biblical references to GE . And also, much of the
information available about the Catholic view on GE is ambiguous. However,
there is a general concern that GE will take on a role over and above that which
God has given to us as stewards of creation. The Bible tells us that all things
were created by God and for Him (Colossians 1:16) and God designed all living
things to reproduce after certain “kinds” (Genesis 1:11-25). Too much
manipulation of the genetics would be tampering with things reserved for God’s
manipulation, our supreme designer.
Reasearch of available material shows that some more hardline Catholics are
totally opposed to GE in any form and maintain that it is the genetic makeup of a
person that gives them their special and God-given identity. To interfere with
this makeup is to interfer with God’s plan, which would be a violation of God’s
natural order. And that GE is exceeding the authority given man by God, even if
GE was to improve people’s lives. Some argue that suffereing is both necessary
and useful, is simply part of life, and that GM is satanically inspired. However,
more moderate Catholics accept the potential benefits of GE, although typically
reject research on human embryos, even when this might be used to create
replacement cells to help people with diseases.
An important question Catholics must ask is whether or not GE of humans is
moral. In the Church’s document the Dignitas Personae it states that every
7
human is sacred from their conception and any experimenting or modification of
the human embryo is unacceptable. Latterly the Church has distinquished
between different categories of GE. The four categories of GE are somatic cell
gene therapy, somatic cell genetic enhancement, germline gene therapy, and
germline genetic enhancement, the last mentioned being the most contentious.
Figure 4 summarises what appears to be the most prevalent Catholic views
about the acceptability of these four categories of GE interventions. Although, no
doubt some would suggest that such categorisation is ripe to create more
confusion than it might solve.
Type of Intervention
No
Therapeutic
Enhancement
Entirely
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Sometimes
Acceptable
Entirely
Unacceptable
Inheritable?
Yes
Figure 4: Catholic perspective on
acceptability of GE interventions.
Essentially, the Church supports “gene therapy”, but not “genetic enhancement”
(sometimes referred to as negative and positive GE respectively). The Church
maintains that gene enhancement is morally wrong, the difference being that
gene theraphy aims to cure genetic diseases, whereas genetic enhancement
genetically modifies a heathy person to be even more than human, not just in
strength, but also in intelligence, beauty or any other trait - all beyond what God
intended. Both are technically GE, but they have rather different objectives and
outcomes.
This distinction inevitably leaves one with examples in which it is difficult to
decide whether a given intervention qualifies as a treatment or as an
enhancement. Thus, gene therapy seeks to return a patient to normal human
functioning, but genetic enhancement assumes a person’s normal state is flawed
and lacking, that their natural biology needs “enhancing.” Genetic enhancement
would intentionally and essentially alter a person in ways not possible by nature,
which is in ways that God never intended. One seeks to return normal
functioning, whereas the other seeks to take normal functioning and alter it to be
abnormal. And from a Catholic perspective, an enhancement that is inherited is
8
entirely unacceptable. This is germline modification - a modification to a
person’s genetic material in such a way that the modification is inheritable by
future generations.
Germline modification, the Church maintains, is genetic engineering at its worst.
Not only would the child have no choice about being genetically modified, but
also the modification would extend to his or her eggs or sperm. The changes
would be "permanent." A genetically modified human would have no choice but
to pass the modification on to their offspring. However, gene therapy would only
genetically modify the diseased tissue and therefore would not be an inheritable
change. Thus, the argument is that Catholics must make a distinction between
gene therapy and genetic enhancement and thus we can reap the rewards of GE
while rejecting any fundamental change to humanity.
The Catholic Church maintains that the goal of GE must always be to support the
natural development of man, respecting the person’s inherent dignity and worth.
Enhancement destroys that inherent dignity by rejecting mankind’s natural
biology. So GE to cure or treat disease or disability is good. GE to change the
fundamental nature of mankind, to take an otherwise healthy person and
engineer them to be more than human is bad. And with the risks inherent in GE,
it should never be attempted on an otherwise healthy person.
There are alternatives to cloning. Stem cells show promise in curing disease,
without the need for cloning. A stem cell is an undifferentiated cell from which
other kinds of cell arise. Given their unique regenerative abilities, stem cells
offer exciting possibilities for treating problems such as diabetes and heart
disease. However, to destroy an embryo for its stem cells, no matter how well
intentioned the action, is currently unethical from a Catholic Church
viewpoint. Thus, the Catholic Church is against embryonic stem-cell research
because it involves the destruction of human embryos.
Pope John Paul II said embryonic stem-cell research is much like abortion,
euthanasia and other attacks on innocent life. The Catholic Church teaches that a
cloned human embryo is as much a human as the person who is cloned. Both
therapeutic and reproductive cloning are unethical since they create humans
asexually, not sexually as God intended. The Church teaches that we must never
do evil, even if good may eventually come of it, and there is no way to obtain
embryonic stem cells without destroying innocent human life, although perhaps
the Catholic Church attitude to ethical stem cell research will softening, given the
“greater good principle” whereby we may permit an evil for the sake of some
greater good.
The “Charter for Health Care Workers” by the Pontifical Council for Pastoral
Assistance sets out the position very clearly:
“The goal of medical intervention must be the natural development of a
human being, respecting their inherent dignity and worth. Enhancement
destroys that inherent dignity by rejecting mankind’s natural biology.
9
A curative intervention, is desirable in principle, provided its purpose is real
promotion of personal well-being of an individual, without damaging their
integrity or worsening their condition of life.
On the other hand, interventions that are not directly curative, the purpose
of which is the production of human beings selected according to sex or
other predetermined qualities, which change the genotype of the individual
and of the human species, are contrary to the personal dignity of the human
being, to their integrity and to their identity. Therefore, they can be in no
way justified on the pretext that they will produce some beneficial results
for humanity in the future. No social or scientific usefulness and no
ideological purpose could ever justify an intervention on the human genome
unless it be therapeutic; that is, its finality must be the natural development
of the human being.”
Also, the 2009 Catholic document on bioethical issues, Dignitas Personae, makes
the following statement on germline theraphy:
“Whatever genetic modifications are effected on the germ cells of a person
will be transmitted to all offspring. Because the risks connected to any
genetic manipulation are considerable and as yet not fully controllable, in
the present state of research, it is not morally permissible to act in a way
that may cause possible harm to the resulting progeny.”
However, some of Catholic faith do not agree with this position and say it is
against the will of God to meddle with the genetic make-up of plants and animals
in any manner whatsoever. And some observers have concluded that because
Pope John Paul II praised gene therapy, the Church must favour genetic
enhancement as well, which is not true, but the confusion is understandable. The
Catholic Church sees genetic enhancement as problematic because its pursuit
demonstrates a failure to accept our place in nature. It shows our discontent
with what humans have been given – whether through divine providence or
through natural selection – and such dissatisfaction is unacceptable. The
Church’s argument is that we are better to accept our limitations and to be
content with what we have rather than to try to change ourselves through GE.
Yet, there are some Catholics who say that even enhancement interventions are
not necessarily against God's plans or "playing God.” Some of Catholic faith
argue, God created us with free will, and the Bible says that he made everyone of
us with a plan for our lives before we were even born. Thus, God must have
planned for us to develop GE. As Christians we should follow in Jesus' footsteps.
Jesus healed people, so perhaps this means that we should do as much as we can
to heal people, which may involve GE. The argument goes that since God gave us
the intelligence to play with genetics, God has also given us the intelligence and
common sense not to do so – to make choices. In the story of Noah's Ark, God
said that he would no longer meddle with the affairs of humans and would let us
develop as we wish. Perhaps we are “co-creators with God.”
10
Conclusions
Like much scientific exploration, breakthroughs in genetics present us all with
promises and predicaments, which after my analysis tells me that potentially
human GE could make a significant contribution to the prevention and cure of
human diseases, but human GE in its various forms has many potential
disadvantages and raises important questions, such as:








Is GE interfering with God’s work?
Are GE positives outweighed by the negatives?
Which is better – longer life or over-crowding?
How can “good” and “bad” uses of GE be clearly differentiated?
Who decides which human traits are normal?
How might we distinquish between a disability and a disorder?
Will the high costs of GE make it only available to the wealthy?
Should we use GE to enhance human traits or only for repair purposes?
Generally, science is descriptive and religion is prescriptive, and since it is
impossible to identify and quantify all relevant GE pro’s and con’s we cannot
reach an objective and definitive decision about the appropriateness of GE, other
than accept that some is good and some is not, and much much more study is
needed.
Although Catholic opinion is divided on several GE issues, most agree that GE to
treat or cure a disease is to be encouraged. This is called gene therapy.
However, if GE aims to make a normal healthy person better than human, then
the Catholic answer is at present an emphatic "No." While germline gene
treatment might spare future generations from genetic disorders, it might also
affect the development of the human fetus in unexpected ways. It may also have
long-term side-effects that are not yet known. Indeed they are “unknownunknowns” – they have yet to be identified and are of unknown consequence or
impact and of unknown likelihood or probability. And if GE requires the cloning
or destruction of a human embryo then this too is officially unethical to
Catholics.
For some Catholics, their stand on GE is steadfast. For them "only God is the
master of human life and of its integrity" and we must therefore be "wary of the
potential for genetic engineering to fundamentally altering God's sacred creation."
However, a rather different view held by some Catholics is that for us to neglect
GE is irresponsible. They argue that God created all sciences when he made the
universe and everything in it and thus he invented genetics. God has therefore
left it to mankind to research and decide on the appropriateness and use of GE.
Human GE is very controversial, demonstrated by the variety of often strongly
held scientific and religious views worldwide and within the Catholic
community. Like all major scientific advances, human GE raises many questions
that must be addressed before any implementation is seriously contemplated.
Meanwhile, Catholics can influence the public consciousness by clearly drawing
11
the line between genetic therapy and enhancement, least our society confuses
the two.
Finally, in recent years our society seems to have shifted from a biblical and
moral model more towards a scientific model in order to explain sinful
behaviours. Important social issues have been given a purely biological
dimension, where for example drunkenness is now termed alcoholism, gluttony
is labelled compulsive overeating, and promiscuity is called sexual addiction. Is
immoral behaviour wrong if it is genetically determined? The idea that it is all in
our genes raises questions for Catholics who believe in morality and free will.
Surely we must resist attempts to convert antisocial behaviours into genetic
diseases that remove personal responsibility and accountability.
References:















Ertelt, S. (2007). “Pope Benedict condemns genetic engineering”. (Online). Available:
http://www.lifenews.com/2007/02/23/int-191/ (date accessed: 12/08/15).
Catholic answers. (2004). “Is genetic engineering immoral?”. (Online). Available:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=217502https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_v
iews_on_genetically_modified_foods (date accessed: 12/08/15).
Yahoo Answers. (2010). “Does the Cartholic Church disagree with genetic engineering?” (Online).
Available: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110418160237AA9LdjB (date
accessed: 13/08/15).
Irving, D. (2008). “Human Embryology and the Catholic Church”. (Online). Available:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8541 (date accessed:
13/08/15).
Buzzle. (date unknown). “Arguments against genetic engineering”. (Online). Available:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/arguments-against-genetic-engineering.html (date accessed:
13/08/15).
Retro report. (2013). “Dolly the sheep: controversial clone”. Available:
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002496111/dolly-the-sheep.html (date accessed:
13/08/15).
Mckenzie, M. (2009). “Chrsitian and genetic engineering”. (Online). Available:
http://www.equip.org/article/the-christian-and-genetic-engineering/ (date accessed: 13/08/15).
Bohlin, R. (2000). “Human genetic engineering”. (Online). Available:
https://www.probe.org/human-genetic-engineering/ (date accessed: 14/08/15).
Order of malta. “Is there anything wrong with altering the genes of future generations?” (Online).
Available: http://www.orderofmalta.org.uk/downloads/Zephyr_debate_3Altering_the_genes_of_future_gener.pdf (date accessed: 14/08/15).
Taylor, R. (2012). “Human or Superhuman?” (Online). Available:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/human-or-superhuman/ (date accessed: 14/08/15).
Mary meets Dolly. (2015). “Catholic Teaching on Human Engineering”. (Online). Available:
http://www.marymeetsdolly.com/index.pl?%7C%7Cac=marymeetsdolly&%7C%7Ccm=2c&%7C
%7Ccv=1&%7C%7Cpp=20&%7C%7Crp=1&%7C%7Crv=titledescription&%7C%7Csi=00ZKNPHS
3VX3 (date accessed: 14/08/15).
Mary meets Dolly. (2008). “What is the catholic view on genetic engineering?” (Online). Available:
http://www.marymeetsdolly.com/blog/index.php?/archives/706-What-is-the-Catholic-view-ongenetic-engineering.html (date accessed: 14/08/15).
Caine, K. “Genetic Engineering”. (Online). Available:
http://worldreligionsprojectkelsiecaine.weebly.com/genetic-engineering.html (date accessed:
14/08/15).
Vatican website: “Congregation for the doctrine of the faith”. (online). Available:
perfection.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfai
th_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html (date accessed: 15/08/15).
The Dominion Post, 10th and 12th August (articles on genetic engineering).
12