different. But as members of Clergy and Laity concerned we are 
rooted In a faith that proclaims a creator, a God of all Life and 
Being, and our human security lies there) not with a laboratory 
technician, ©r effeclent administrative officers, or comprehensive 
offices of security and safety. And that you not misunderstand me, 
we also have greater faith In the process of evolution and the pace 
at which life evolves, than we have In a scientists' genetic Inter- 
vention or an NIH time-line. 
Also, our immediate experience suggests to us that our faith Is 
not blind faith. There are serious reasons why we choose to place 
our confidence elsewhere. There Is history shaping our concerns. 
We received significant promises with the arrival of the nuclear 
age. Benefits seemed to outweigh costs. Now we are forced to coin 
new words like John Somerville's "omnicide , " killer of all, for the 
nuclear reality we face dally. And we received significant promises 
with the arrival of the chemical revolution. Benefits seemed to 
outweigh dangers. Now we are forced to coin words like ecocide, 
killer of the ecosystem, for the carcinogenic pollution that 
ravages the planet. Again, now, we are assured of Important benefits 
with minimal dangers, by the biological revolutionaries. And we will 
most likely be forced to consider geneclde, spelled In a new way, 
with an "e" not an "e." 
Assuredly, natural recombination occurs, without our Interven- 
tion. Assuredly, natural recombination is a moving force in the 
evolutionary process. In about 1 % of the cases. Where violent 
Intervention in genetic heritage occurs in the natural process, 
99 % of the time It is harmful or detrimental to the organism 
involved. The most dangerous research begins, in our opinion, 
when we are most convinced that we can secure our own genetic 
[ 370 ] 
