c. 2000 Religion News Service

(Dale Hanson Bourke is the author of five books and the mother of two children.)

(UNDATED) The unraveling of the human genetic code has been heralded as the greatest scientific discovery of our lifetime. If the predictions come true, medicine could become primarily preventive and most diseases could be treated with targeted, highly effective remedies.

For any of us who have lost a friend or loved one at an early age to cancer or another disease, this discovery is both cosmic and personal. The idea that our children might never live with the fear of cancer is a wonderful thought.

But amid the talk of the great potential of this discovery were some caveats. Scientists have learned how to predict and possibly treat our genetic propensities for disease. But humans will still be subject to diseases brought about by environmental factors or behavioral choices.

While doctors may be able to detect our tendency for certain cancers, they won’t be able to stop the development of lung cancer if we choose to smoke two packs a day. In other words, scientists will not be able to control bad human choices.

A more mundane example relates to obesity.

Scientists already know what makes us fat. For the vast majority of us, eating too much fatty food and getting too little exercise leads to the inevitable spread of flesh. Yet a surprising number of us continue to make poor choices, then seek medical help to dramatically deal with our daily behavior.

And then there are those who choose to ignore what science offers. A woman I met recently who was diagnosed with breast cancer told me the disease has affected women on both sides of her family and she was always aware of her higher risk factor. Yet she had not had a mammogram for several years and even avoided self-exams. By the time she discovered a lump it was too large to ignore. Although she had the information, she chose to avoid dealing with it.

But perhaps the bigger issue brought about by this discovery is a question posed by the late theologian Francis Schaeffer: “How should we then live?”

If the leading causes of death can be greatly reduced or eliminated, most of us will lead a longer, healthier life. But what will we do with it?

Scientists can’t help us here. It is up to the theologians and sociologists to help us make decisions on how we will spend this new life currency. Will we use it to work harder and make more money? Will we find more ways to contribute to society at large? Will we learn to value family more because we will have more opportunity for multigenerational relations?

Having now moved to a point of almost unlimited potential, how will we use our great bounty?

On the same day the genetic discovery was announced I was studying the New Testament book of James. Although the book was written to early Christians nearly 2,000 years ago, its sentiments were surprisingly on point.

James talks both to those who suffer and to those who have great wealth. In the typically upside-down economy of spiritual life, he tells those with great fortune that it will pass away and those who struggle that they are fortunate to learn all they can from their trials.

“The Message,” a contemporary paraphrase of the book by Eugene Peterson, (NavPress) sums up the the advice of James to both the fortunate and the bereft: “Live well, live wisely, live humbly” (James 3:13).

As I tried to imagine the unimaginable possibilities of this modern discovery, I found both comfort and challenge in these words. A world without cancer seems wonderfully rich, yet it creates more opportunity for human choices. We will need to rely on ancient wisdom if we are to live well in this modern world.

DEA DEA END BOURKE