Inspired by the success of its first debate of the year, the Chester-Belloc Debate Society of Christendom College boldly proposed another controversial resolution for its second debate: "Genetic engineering is an expression of man’s stewardship over nature."

     During the debate, which took place on Sunday, September 14, some in favor of the resolution argued that using genetic engineering on humans to “remove a defect,” such as Down’s syndrome, would indeed be an expression of man’s stewardship over nature.

     They further argued that, regardless of the morality of human genetic engineering, by logic only a few examples were necessary in order to pass the resolution. They then reasoned that, because the genetic engineering of foods such as corn and broccoli is clearly an expression of man’s stewardship over nature, it was only logical that the resolution should pass.

     Those who argued against the resolution pointed out that genetic engineering of the unborn to remove the “defect” of Downs’ syndrome is entirely too risky. According to Thomas O’Connor,’11: “The risk [of human genetic engineering] does outweigh the intent” even though “the intent may be good.”

     Peter J. Smith,’09, argued that genetic engineering should not be performed on humans, because it changes something fundamental about the person, and is an attack on the integrity of that person.

     Those against the resolution also raised a question that was never adequately answered: once man can justify replacing one human chromosome, what is to stop him from taking another step, and another, and possibly going too far? They asked if not all human genetic engineering is prohibited, where then does one draw the line?

     However, those opposed to the resolution failed to explain why genetic engineering of plants and animals would not be expressions of stewardship.

     The majority of those present were skeptical that human genetic engineering could rightly be considered stewardship. Nevertheless, the majority also felt that genetic engineering of plants and animals is an expression of man’s stewardship over nature, reasoning that after all, is it not good for man to find ways to raise better corn, tomatoes, broccoli, or beef?  Thus the resolution passed with 22 in favor, 16 opposed, and 4 abstaining.

     Although the resolution had passed, several of those who voted “yes” still felt somewhat dissatisfied with the debate.

     “Logically, the resolution is an individual affirmation, which can only be contradicted by a universal negative,” explained Kieran DuFrain,’09, seeming a bit annoyed that more voters had not recognized this.

     “To reject the proposition, you would have to show that there are no examples of genetic engineering as stewardship.”

     Those who voted “no” likewise had much to say after the debate. Many felt that the speeches had not been very pertinent to the resolution itself. With a small group of debaters gathered around her, Josepha Bertolini,’09, voiced her concern that no one had clearly defined the term “stewardship” during the debate. The idea emerged that genetic engineering is not an example of stewardship at all, but rather—well, “engineering.”  It was suggested that an engineer is one who designs, while a steward merely cares for what has already been designed. Thus, it is the role of the steward to take care of his master’s property, not to change it fundamentally. Therefore, if no engineering is stewardship, Bertolini contended, the resolution should not have passed, regardless of whether or not man is morally allowed to engineer God’s creation.

     Overall, however, the debate sparked uncommon interest in the subject of genetic engineering. Several students bemoaned what they called a deficiency of scientific education on campus, while others perceived a need for further emphasis on logic in the core curriculum.

     The next debate of the Chester-Belloc Debate Society will undoubtedly generate campus-wide commotion for weeks to come. What topic could be expected to create such tumult on an otherwise quiet campus?  The Civil War, War Between the States, War of Northern Aggression, etc. returns to Virginia with “Resolved: That South Carolina was justified in seceding from the Union.” The debate will take place on Sunday evening, September 28, in Regina Coeli. Check CBDS flyers around campus for the time of this event.