Bad Axioms in Genetic Engineering The parade of wonders mounted by biological science marches by at an increasinly rapid race. In a kind of mimicry of Genesis, we have synthesized a living, functioning gene from shelf chemicals in the laboratory. Through improved cloning techniques we are able to produce exact copies of lower life forms--genetic replicas down to the very shape and location of spots on the backs of leopard frogs. Even more significantly, recent techniques for gene mapping and recombination ("gene splicing") are throwing open doors to the treatment of diseases, ecological control, and the technological production of a wide range of goods from pharmaceuticals to peanuts. In short, we are now able to control the destinies of ourselves, our offspring, and our environment in ways that are much more direct and trait-specific than previously imagined. Profound and fascinating moral dilemmas accompany the new biotechnical achievements, particularly those that involve manipulating the human genome, going to the very heart of who we are and how we think about ourselves. Many have argued that our technical advances have outpaced our ability to deal ethically with them. But they have not said why this is so, or what we ought to do about it. In fact, no ethical tradition seems sufficient to comprehend either the peculiarity of the genetic dilemma or the multiplicity of moral conundrums it presents. New Moral Challenges The new methods of genetic engineering pose difficult ethical problems in part because they offer technological options that never before existed. Still, it is not the fact of options that is problematic, but rather their nature. What revisionist social philosophers and theologians of hope have described as the category of the novum, the generation of the qualitatively new, independent of any organic evolution from what already exists, has seen its first genuine demonstration in the realm of the biological sciences. Inasmuch as many of the new genetic techniques allow scientists to bypass development in creating novel life forms, some scientific achievements can be appreciated only in these nonorganic, nonontologic terms. In the new biology, we confront in its most irreducible form the direct, minute, and purposeful design of life. That fact presents us with moral problems that are not just new in history, but new in kind. As it applies specifically to human genetic manipulations, genetic engineering presents an unprecedented technological leap from merely designing the environment to "designing the designer." [1] These prospects threaten wholly to subvert traditional philosophical paradigms and undermine the standard ethical touchstones of "human nature," "humanity," and "rationality." These would become synthetic products rather than points of common reference. Of course, this scenario would result from proposed eugenic manipulations to alter human capacities in "positive" ways. It may be precisely such scenarios that give us a distinct basis for deciding where we would balk at further interventions. An additional complicating feature is that genetic engineering is not a single problem at all, but rather a complex set of problems occurring in quite different domains of inquiry--epidemiological, ecological, evolutionary, human-genetic, and political. Many of the original concerns about recombinant DNA arose on the epidemiological level, involving fears about the accidental dissemination of altered, pathogenic bacteria for which there is no known antidote. And fear of the consequences of human germline alteration led fifty-six clergy and several scientists in 1983 to adopt a "Resolution", delivered to Congress, requesting a ban on all such interventions. Finally, what Willard Gaylin has called the "Frankenstein factor" has influenced the tone of the genetic debate in negative ways. The spectter of new life forms somehow "threatens our sense of identity, our sense of uniqueness, and our sense of primacy among the creatures of the earth. …