When people explain why they often doubt their intuition, a common response is that it is difficult to distinguish genuine intuition from hopes, fears, and opinions. I found disturbing evidence supporting this confusion in a provocative book, Cloning the Buddha: The Moral Impact of Biotechnology (Quest Books) by Richard Heinberg. His survey of the moral reasoning behind the pro-andcon views of this new frontier of human activity illustrates how our intuitive need develops. His book raises some pressing questions that require the wisdom of Solomon to resolve. For example: If a doctor can perform a gene transplant on a fetus to address a genetic defect, should the operation be performed? If a farmer in a Third World country can use genetically altered seeds to increase food production, should they be used? These are difficult questions. On what basis shall we answer them? The speed of scientific progress pressures us to fall back upon readily available decision-making tools.

                As we cross the threshold of bioengineering, cloning animals, creating crossbreeds, and altering plants, there’s a growing unease that we are “playing God.” The existence of several myths, from the Tree of Knowledge to the destruction of Atlantis, depicting the calamitous price of unbridled human curiosity and willingness to meddle with nature, suggests that our concern is as deeply founded within human nature as is our meddlesomeness. Unfortunately, according to Heinberg and many others, the former is too often a latecomer after the latter has done its damage. Our technological powers run faster than our ability to understand them and use them wisely. As cocreators or stewards, do we have the responsibility simply to protect the status quo or are we to go where no one has gone before in order to open up new territories to conscious understanding? How would we prepare ourselves for such an adventure? How does respect find a creative coexistence with curiosity?

                Heinberg surveys the ethical elite, those who by profession or calling are supposed to be the deep thinkers and moral prophets in such thorny areas as bioengineering. He discovers that these people are often woefully uninformed about the state of the art of bioengineering and about the evidence of negative, irreversible side effects, such as unleashing new forms of life upon the planet that cannot be controlled. Since biotechnology treats the world as machine, focusing on its componentparts, while it is increasingly evident that the world is an integral living system, it is almost axiomatic that scientists cannot predict all of the consequences of genetic engineering. Something more than rational prediction is required.

                When Heinberg turns to the experts for their moral intuitions, he finds little intuition but more opinion, usually based upon preexisting systems of thought. Using moral reasoning, we apply old tools to new situations. Sometimes the results are worth considering. For example, a Buddhist notes that we need ethics to guard against the negative side of human nature. This view reasons, therefore, that when bioengineering dilemmas are confounded with commercial interests, we cannot expect a morally enlightened resolution. That conclusion seems reasonable.

                 On the other hand, consider the dilemma faced by vegetarian and Jewish thinkers who respond negatively to vegetables which have been genetically “improved” by the addition of genes from animals. They reason that these vegetables are part animal and thus not appropriate for them to eat. Yet, these vegetables have no actual animal parts, but rather merely some molecular programming borrowed from animals. Bioengineering, by blurring boundaries, also destroys traditional categories of thought. Moral reasoning is limited. What we need is moral intuition. It would seem, however, that the ethically elite and the moral leaders may be intuitively challenged. Who can see clearly into the unknown, weigh the possibilities and potentialities, using an appropriate system of values? What intuitive mind can prophesy them?

                Luther Burbank, for example, had an intuitive communication with plants and was able to encourage them to evolve in new directions. Native Americans describe intuitive communication with entire ecological systems, asking permission to make a harvest or otherwise intrude. We need to have an intuitive ability that combines moral vision with insight into evolutionary possibilities. Curiosity won’t be stopped, as it seems to be an inherent part of creation. Moral injunction is not sufficiently adroit to harness curiosity. Only the cultivation of holistic, spiritually sensitive intuition can lead our new Atlantis toward creating an innovative, yet sustainable healthy future.