Genes and Grace

Geneticist Marc A.T. Muskavitch, a professor of biology at Boston College, has authored a thought-provoking article titled “Genetic Determinism in the Post-Genomic Age” in the new issue of Integritas: Advancing the Mission of Catholic Higher Education. Muskavitch holds a number of patents and is a well-published author in areas related to malaria and vector biology, vector mosquito genomics and genetics, and malaria parasite proteasome function. His essay, though, raises a theological question: in light of what we now understand about the human genome and the environmental factors which can affect the human genome (that is, the emerging science of epigenetics), might God’s grace affect the impacts of genetic and epigenetic variation on our lives?

Obviously, Muskavitch is comfortable resisting the tendency towards naturalistic scientism—that is, the epistemological framework which admits only observable, measurable, empirical phenomena to the dynamic process of understanding reality. His is an epistemology of complementarity rather than of exclusivity: there is science, and there are the larger questions that science helps us to raise, propelling our desire to understand further. (Theologian William Mattison explores this epistemological complementarity further in issue 3 of the same volume of Integritas. More on that in a later post.)

Consider the direction of Muskavitch’s argument.

This essay will discuss how the impacts of genotypes that predispose us toward disease can be modulated by other genes we inherit, and by the interactions of our genotypes with our environments. We will explore, as well, whether those impacts may be affected by the power of mind-body interactions and the power of grace in our lives.

He explores what genetics has helped us understand about disease. It is an excellent primer for non-geneticists. He goes on to raise the question whether genetics and epigenetics point toward a new kind of determinism, a sense that our lives are determined by the genes we inherit. His answer is no, in large part because there are environmental influences that impact the ways our genes work—not the least of which involve the mind/brain and its many stimuli.

The known connectivity among the brain, the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems and the lymphoid organs enable us to entertain the possibility that our perception of stress and our sense of well-being may modulate immune system-mediated self-surveillance and inflammation, and thereby modulate the health outcomes for conditions and diseases associated with genetic and epigenetic variation. Furthermore, our growing understanding of mind-body interactions allows us to entertain the possibility that our psychological state-of-mind may modulate the integration of our central nervous system, neuroendocrine system and immune system in ways that can benefit or degrade our overall health and sense of well-being, within the biological framework of the genetic and epigenetic variation that we inherit and accrue throughout our lives.

In light of this connectivity—this dynamic interplay between inherited genes, environmental factors (like famine or exposure to toxins), and the mind—Muskavitch asks the theological question.

Given the intricate interrelationships in the life of the human mind and body that appear to unfold among these systems, might grace—or existence within a “state of grace”—have the power to affect the impacts of genetic and epigenetic variation on our health and well-being?

He begins with an answer that initially deflects whether or not God influences health, focusing instead on the perception that God influences health.

We may believe that the health, well-being and good fortune we experience are the gracious gifts of a loving God. When confronted with illness or the prospect of illness, affecting us or those we love, we often ask for the gift of God’s protective, healing grace. So, might grace ameliorate the potential impacts on our biological destinies of disease-predisposing genetic and epigenetic variation, or forestall the impacts of such variation?

Muskavitch surveys some of the literature on psychoneuroimmunology, showing evidence of the relationship between religious belief and health.

The premise that dwelling in a state of grace could positively modulate mind-body interactions, and improve health or forestall disease, rests in part on the premise that the perception of well-being, which we would expect to experience when we dwell in a state of grace, positively modulates neurologic, circulatory, metabolic and immune function. This premise is supported by consideration of the physiological and perceptual experiences of adherents of healthy life styles, religious belief, mystic practice, meditation and mindfulness-based stress reduction. These experiences and practices have been shown to reduce stress and improve relaxation and psychological state, and they may reduce symptoms of chronic pain, fibromyalgia, cardiovascular disease and other diseases.

He concludes:

It seems likely that these benefits accrue because our central and peripheral perception modulate our mind-body ecosystem, including our immune system, central nervous system and neuroendocrine system, in ways that can divert or quell the storms of neurologic, immune and other disease, thereby leading to improvements in our health and in our sense of well-being. And, if that is the case, as seems very likely, it’s a short walk to the place from which we could posit that the perception, or the reality, of dwelling in a state of grace can ameliorate the impacts of genetic or epigenetic variation that predispose us toward disease. And in this way, dwelling in a state of grace may constitute yet another means of moderating the potency of genetic determinism in our lives.

The key line above is “we could posit that the perception, or the reality, of dwelling in a state of grace can ameliorate the impacts of genetic or epigenetic variation that predispose us toward disease.” As a responsible scientist, Muskavitch cannot deploy scientific rationalism in order to prove God or the reality of grace. Instead, he opens up a direction of theological inquiry, a direction of questions that the language of the theological tradition can help address. Grace may be perceived, but it may well be because it is real. Some examples of these questions:

•         Why does belief in God give comfort to those experiencing illness?
•         Does God heal some people? Why do only some people experience healing through appeal to God?
•         Is health something that people of faith should actively desire, or rather indifference toward sickness and health (example)?

There are further ethical questions which Muskavitch’s paper raises:

•         Ought the use of genetic information guide reproductive decisions or decisions about health care?
•         Will genetic information become another division between rich and poor?
•         Do children have a right to their genetic information, especially in situations where they do not know their genetic father and mother?
•         If faith and religious practices can influence health and well-being, what does that mean for hospitals who serve a diverse community?

There are many other questions. But these point to the value of universities willing to engage the theological tradition not only with the distance of an anthropologist or sociologist, but also the engagement of the philosopher or the theologian.