🧬GENETICS🧬 Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content https://goodshepherdmedia.net/category/truthful-news/science/genetics/ Christian, Political, ‎‏‏‎Social & Legal Free Speech News | â’¸2024 Good News Media LLC | Shepherd for the Herd! God 1st Programming Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:00:40 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.1 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Good-Shepherd-News-Logo-150x150.png 🧬GENETICS🧬 Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content https://goodshepherdmedia.net/category/truthful-news/science/genetics/ 32 32 Controlling Heredity – A Tale of Two Families https://goodshepherdmedia.net/controlling-heredity-a-tale-of-two-families/ Sun, 13 Jul 2025 17:33:49 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=21187 Controlling Heredity – A Tale of Two Families

 

Richard Dugdale Study on Genetics – Max Jukes vs Jonathan Edwards

In 1874, Richard Dugdale, on behalf of the New York Prison Commission began to visit state prison facilities and, in doing so, discovered a particular family connection between some of the incarcerated guests in Ulster County. Interestingly, a descendant of Jonathan Edwards was president of this commission, but we will get to the Edwards connection soon enough. This lead to further research and, in 1877, the publication of a study entitled The Jukes: A Study in Crime, Pauperism, Disease and Heredity. “Jukes” is a last name made up to represent people living and deceased whose identity he did not wish to disclose. He traced the lineage of this family tree to a man of Dutch ancestory named “Max,” born in 1720 in the Hudson Valley. Dugdale estimated that there were 1,200 members of this family tree and was able to report on the details of 540 of these descendants, plus another 169 who married into the family line. One member of the family tree was said by Dugdale to be “Ada Juke,” who married one of Max’s sons, and was nicknamed “Margaret, Mother of Criminals.” Of the total group of related individuals, Dugdale found that:

Robert-Dugdales-The- Max Jukes- vs Jonathan Edwards.jpg
Robert-Dugdales-The- Max Jukes- vs Jonathan Edwards.jpg
  • 310 were paupers who spent a combined 2,300 years in poorhouses;
  • 130 were convicted criminals;
  • 50 women were prostitutes;
  • 7 were were murders; and
  • these paupers and criminals cost the state of New York $1.5 million to pay for their incarcerations and $1.25 million in public welfare and other costs to society apart from incarceration.

The lack of documentation supporting Dugdale’s research, specifically the identities of the subjects concerned and the incompleteness of the family study, and the research methology (for example, the financial calculations), has given rise to criticism of this study, notably by Dr. Robert Frick, but it has gained enough credence in popular lore that the name “Jukes” is a by-word for “bad seed.” His study provided ammunition in his day for the Eugenics movement, although Dugdale ascribed this remarkable family connection to both genetics and environment.

Scott Christianson, “Bad Seed or Bad Science? The Story of the Notorious Jukes Family,” New York Times (February 8, 2003):

In 1911, some eugenicists discovered Dugdale’s original charts and notes, including the actual names of the Jukeses. They rushed the records to the Eugenics Record Office in Cold Spring Harbor, the leading eugenics research facility operated by the Carnegie Institution, where a field worker, Arthur H. Estabrook, was assigned the task of reviewing the records and updating the study.

The family’s real names were kept hidden, but Estabrook said he had confirmed Dugdale’s study and used the records to trace 2,111 Jukeses in addition to the 709 that Dugdale had described, bringing the total number of people studied to 2,820. His book, “The Jukes in 1915,” reported that 1,258 Jukeses were still alive and reproducing — at a cost to the public of at least $2 million (about $35.2 million today).

In 1900, Albert Edward Winship published another supplemental study, Jukes-Edwards: A Study in Education and Heredity, this time tracing the descendants of America’s leading theologian, Jonathan Edwards to compare them with the Jukes family. The results are generally non-controversial but fascinating. He reported that out of approximately 1,400 known descendants:

  • “practically no lawbreakers”;
  • more than 100 lawyers and 30 judges;
  • 13 college presidents, 100+ professors;
  • 100 clergymen, missionaries and theological professors;
  • 62 physicians;
  • 80 elected public officials, including 3 mayors, 3 governors, several congressmen, 3 senators and 1 vice-president (Aaron Burr);
  • 60 authors or editors with 135 books to their credit; and
  • 75 army or navy officers.

In more recent times, this godly lineage was marred by one descendant of Jonathan Edwards, Janet Edwards, a, uh, minister, in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) who officiated at a 2005 lesbian “wedding” ceremony, and was later acquitted at her church trial.

Moreover, the two churches that Edwards pastored in Northampton and Stockbridge are both now liberal.

Meanwhile, back to Max Juke, researchers discovered a poorhouse graveyard in 2001 located in New Paltz, New York, and additional records led them to conclude that one particular graveyard is that of the real Max in question — whose true name is, apparently, Max Keyser.

There is a great deal of misinformation about the comparison of these two families that Christians and others would do well to keep in mind when considering these facts. Statistics can be used and they can be misused, and facts can be blurred, intentionally or unintentionally. It does not help the cause of Christ to misuse statistics or blur facts. It is always good to verify one’s sources as much as possible. The two studies, it seems to me, serve best as a talking point for discussion, but I would not press the reported facts too far to make a point that Scripture makes on a more solid foundation.

God has promised blessings to godly families (Ex. 20.3-6, 12; Deut. 6; Ps. 112.1-2; Ps. 115.14; Ps. 128; Mal. 2.15; Eph. 6.1-3; etc.) and wrath to families who break his covenant and rebel against him (Ex. 20.5; 34.7; Num. 14.18; Deut. 5.9; Ps. 79.6; Jer. 10.25; etc.). But these promises and threatenings are general and not directed to particular generations within particular family lines. Godly families are known to have ungodly children and the Lord has been pleased to save many out of ungodly families so that the children no longer walk in the sins of their fathers. Trust not in (Matt. 3.9) nor blame (Deut. 24.16; Ezekiel 18) your parentage, but rather to each of us the word is: “Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:” (Isa. 55.6). The meek shall indeed inherit the earth (Ps. 25.13; Matt. 5.5), but not by virtue of their physical lineage. God builds his church not only through families but also by breaking generational curses and delivering those whom the world despises. Each of us is responsible to God for our own life and shall have to give account for himself or herself, and not plead or blame his or her physical lineage in support of his or her case. This is a truth that many of us already know, but since it is human nature to tend this way, we must be on guard against this tendency when we speak of multi-generational blessings and curses.

Certain points to bear in mind:

  • The sources and methodology of Richard Dugdale are not known for certain, so his study, while it has stood up to some follow up research and scrutiny, may not be completely sound. What about the 500 or so descendants of Max who Dugdale could not report on?
  • The name of the anti-hero was ascribed by Dugdale as “Max Juke,” though it has been reported by others as “Max Dukes” or “Max Jukes”. Max Juke is a pseudonym, not a real name. More recently, researchers have come to believe that his real name is Max Keyser. Much has been said about his notorious life, but little is actually known.
  • Some have reported that the Max Jukes study was performed by Princeton professor Benjamin B. Warfield, which is incorrect; it was performed by Richard Dugdale.
  • Facts, figures and inferences about these two have been reported by many, and much has been written about the multigenerational consequences of righteousness and sin. The Bible does teach that covenant-faithfulness and covenant-breaking does have consequences from one generation to the next. But we must be on guard not to give people the impression that godliness is a purely genetic quality. And there are certainly exceptions to the honorable Edwards legacy, such as Janet Edwards and the two churches that Edwards pastored in Northampton and Stockbridge are both liberal. Moreover, statistics do not tell the complete story. The fact that certain Edwards descendants were elected officials or professionals does not necessarily speak to their virtue or godliness. Statistics give us a snapshot but how does one really quantify godliness?
  • Who knows about the descendants of Max Juke/Keyser today? Perhaps the Lord would be pleased to “bind the strong man” in that family and save some of those descendants. It is a dangerous thing to put trust in one’s ancestry or to dismiss others because of their own reputed ancestry. While the comparison of the Edwards/Juke-Keyser family trees makes for a good story and there is a Scriptural principle about covenant fidelity that can be legitimately spoken of in connection with this story, Christians would do well to bear in mind the caveats, the exceptions, the uncertainties, about these studies and stand first and foremost upon the word of God over and above the potentially flawed scientific studies to make their point. source

 

 

Robert Dugdale’s Study on The Jukes Family

Richard Dugdale’s study, “The Jukes: A Study in Crime, Pauperism, Disease, and Heredity,” compared the descendants of a man named Max Jukes with those of Jonathan Edwards, aiming to understand the influence of heredity and environment on social outcomes. Dugdale’s work, published in 1877, focused on the “Jukes” family, a pseudonym for a lineage with a history of poverty, crime, and other social problems. He contrasted this with the Edwards family, known for its notable achievements and virtue, tracing their lineage back to Jonathan Edwards, a prominent theologian. 

Key aspects of the study:
  • The Jukes Family:

    .

    Dugdale traced 1,200 descendants of “Max Jukes,” finding a pattern of poverty, crime, and other social issues. He identified 7 murderers, 60 thieves, 190 prostitutes, 150 other convicts, 310 paupers, and 440 physically wrecked by alcohol. 

  • Jonathan Edwards Family:

    .

    Another study, conducted by A.E. Winship, traced the descendants of Jonathan Edwards, finding a stark contrast to the Jukes family. This lineage included 285 college graduates, 100 clergymen, 100 lawyers, 80 public office holders, and many others in positions of influence. 

  • Environment vs. Heredity:

    .

    Dugdale’s work explored the relative contributions of heredity and environment. While acknowledging the role of heredity in physical and mental capacity, he argued that environment plays a significant role in shaping behavior. He believed that environment could lead to habits that might become hereditary. 

  • Eugenic Interpretations:

    .

    Some interpreted Dugdale’s work as a eugenic tract, suggesting that social problems were primarily due to heredity. However, others argue that Dugdale did not advocate for forced sterilization or other eugenic measures and acknowledged the influence of both heredity and environment. 

  • The “Five-Generation Rule”:

    .

    The study is sometimes used to illustrate the concept of the “five-generation rule,” which suggests that the way a parent raises a child can have a lasting impact on subsequent generations. 

In essence, Dugdale’s study aimed to highlight the potential impact of both heredity and environment on shaping individuals and families, using the contrasting examples of the Jukes and Edwards lineages. 

Robert Dugdale worked as a stenographer with strong avocational interest in social betterment and corrections. As part of his responsibilities as a member of the Prison Association of New York, he was charged with inspecting and reporting on several county jails in upstate New York.

During these visits to penal institutions, Dugdale observed that many inmates were related to one another by blood or marriage. He interviewed inmates and their relatives in Ulster County and began constructing a detailed genealogical study of the group he called, for reasons of privacy and simplicity, the Jukes family. The Jukes were not an actual family, consisting instead of over 40 families with only 540 of its 700 members related by blood. His 1875 report to the Prison Association was published in 1877 as The Jukes: A Study in Crime, Pauperism, Disease and Heredity.

The Jukes was the first in a long series of “degenerate family” studies published well into the first quarter of the twentieth century, with manufactured family names such as Kallikak, Nam, Win, Hickory, and Hill Folk. Dugdale’s study differed from most of the subsequent ones in that he believed the environment to be as important to the development of degenerates as heredity. He urged public welfare reform and social and educational assistance to the poor, diseased, and uneducated.

On display are tabulations of ancestry and individual characteristics of “habitual drunkenness” and its attendant defects. source

 

The Jukes family was a New York “hill family” studied in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The studies are part of a series of other family studies, including the Kallikaks, the Zeros and the Nams, that were often quoted as arguments in support of eugenics, though the original Jukes study, by Richard L. Dugdale, placed considerable emphasis on the environment as a determining factor in criminality, disease and poverty (euthenics).

Harris’ reports

Elisha Harris, a doctor and former president of the American Public Health Association, published reports that Margaret, in Upstate New York, was the “mother of criminals” and he described her children as “a race of criminals, paupers and harlots”.

Robert-Dugdales-The- Max Jukes- vs Jonathan Edwards.jpg
Robert-Dugdales-The- Max Jukes- vs Jonathan Edwards.jpg

Dugdale’s study

In 1874, sociologist Richard L. Dugdale, a member of the executive committee of the Prison Association of New York, and a colleague of Harris’ was delegated to visit jails in upstate New York.[1][2] In a jail in Ulster County he found six members of the same “Juke” family (a pseudonym), though they were using four different family names. On investigation, he found that, of 29 male “immediate blood relations”, 17 had been arrested, and 15 convicted of crimes.

He studied the records of inmates of the 13 county jails in New York State, as well as poorhouses and courts, while researching the New York hill family’s ancestry in an effort to find the basis for their criminality. His book claimed Max, a frontiersman who was the descendant of early Dutch settlers and who was born between 1720 and 1740, had been the ancestor of more than 76 convicted criminals, 18 brothel-keepers, 120 prostitutes, over 200 relief recipients, and two cases of “feeble-mindedness”.

Many of the criminals could also be linked to “Margaret, the Mother of Criminals”, renamed “Ada” in his report, who had married one of Max’s sons. Dugdale created detailed genealogical charts and concluded that poverty, disease, and criminality plagued the family. Dugdale estimated to the New York legislature that the family had cost the state $1,308,000. He published his findings in The Jukes: A Study in Crime, Pauperism, Disease and Heredity in 1877. Dugdale debated the relative contribution of environment and heredity and concluded that the family’s poor environment was largely to blame for their behavior: “environment tends to produce habits which may become hereditary” (page 66). He noted that the Jukes were not a single family, but a composite of 42 families and that only 540 of his 709 subjects were apparently related by blood.

He urged public welfare changes and improvements in the environment in order to prevent criminality, poverty and disease, writing: “public health and infant education… are the two legs upon which the general morality of the future must travel” (page 119). The book was widely read in the 19th century and stimulated discussion about the roles of heredity and environment. The term “Jukes” became, along with “Kallikaks” and “Nams” (other case studies of a similar nature), a cultural shorthand for the rural poor in the Southern and Northeastern United States. Legal historian Paul A. Lombardo states that very soon the Jukes family study was turned into a “genetic morality tale”, which combined religious notions of the sins of the father and eugenic pseudoscience.

Estabrook’s study

A follow-up study was published by Arthur H. Estabrook of the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, New York, in 1916 as The Jukes in 1915. Estabrook noted that Dugdale’s conclusions were that the 1877 study “does not demonstrate the inheritance of criminality, pauperism, or harlotry, but it does show that heredity with certain environmental conditions determines criminality, harlotry, and pauperism”. Estabrook reanalyzed Dugdale’s data and updated it to include 2,820 persons, adding 2,111 Jukes to the 709 studied by Dugdale. He claimed that the living Jukes were costing the public at least $2,000,000.

Estabrook’s data suggested that the family had actually shown fewer problems over time, but he pronounced that the Jukes family were “unredeemed” and suffering from just as much “feeblemindedness, indolence, licentiousness and dishonesty” as they had been in the past. Strongly emphasizing heredity, Estabrook’s conclusions reversed Dugdale’s argument about the environment, proposing that such families be prevented from reproducing, since no amount of environmental changes could alter their genetic inheritance towards criminality.

Photographs of members of the Jukes family and their homes, as well as family trees of some branches of the Jukes family, were displayed at the Second International Congress of Eugenics, held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City in 1921. Historians have noted that Dugdale’s conclusions have been misused by subsequent generations: “Estabrook’s version is the one that carried the day. After 1915, the Jukes came to symbolize the futility of social change and the need for eugenic segregations and sterilization”.[5] American scientists, doctors, politicians, clergy and the legal profession all embraced the eugenic movement, and the Jukes family research was used as evidence in Buck v. Bell, a 1927 US Supreme Court case which made forced sterilizations legal in the United States.[1] In the 1930s eugenics was widely repudiated by geneticists, and after the Nazi eugenics program became known, its influence died out.

Further research

Research in the 1960s pointed out fundamental problems with the studies, such as the subjects were not one family and not necessarily related. In addition, the attempt to link a trait, such as poverty, to genetic makeup, ignoring environmental issues, has been “totally discredited”, as noted by geneticist AndrĂ©s Ruiz Linares in a 2011 historical review.

In 2001 a poorhouse graveyard was discovered in New Paltz, in Ulster County. Some of the unmarked graves belonged to members of the so-called Jukes family. Further information was found in the archives at the State University of New York at Albany and in records of a forgotten Ulster County poorhouse. A code book, labeled “classified”, was found and listed the real surnames of the “Jukes” family. Hundreds of names were listed, including Plough, Miller, DuBois, Clearwater, Bank and Bush. Max, the “founder”, was identified as Max Keyser.[2] However, “the mythology of so-called ‘genetically problematic families’ is still with us,” said Paul A. Lombardo of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Virginia. “Even today, the Jukeses seem to be getting a third life on the Internet as we see some religious and political groups invoking them as examples of inherited immorality.” source

 

Multigenerational legacies – The Story of Jonathan Edwards

Jonathan Edwards, was a Puritan Preacher in the 1700s.  He was one of the most respected preachers in his day. He attended Yale at the age of thirteen and later went on to become the president of Princeton college. He married his wife Sara in 1727 and they were blessed with eleven children. Every night when Mr. Edwards was home, he would spend an hour conversing with his family and then praying a blessing over each child. Jonathan and his wife Sarah passed on a great, godly legacy to their eleven children.

An American educator, A.E. Winship decided to trace the descendants of Jonathan Edwards almost 150 years after his death.  His findings are remarkable, especially when compared to another man from the same time period known as Max Jukes.


Jonathan Edwards’ legacy includes: 1 U.S. Vice-President, 1 Dean of a law school, 1 dean of a medical school, 3 U.S. Senators, 3 governors, 3 mayors, 13 college presidents, 30 judges, 60 doctors, 65 professors, 75 Military officers, 80 public office holders, 100 lawyers, 100 clergymen, and 285 college graduates.

How may this be explained? Edwards was a godly man, but he was also hard working, intelligent and moral. Furthermore, Winship states, “Much of the capacity and talent, intensity and character of the more than 1,400 of Edwards’ family is due to Mrs. Edwards.”

Max Jukes’ legacy came to people’s attention when the family trees of 42 different men in the New York prison system were traced back to him. He lived in New York at about the same period as Edwards. The Jukes family originally was studied by sociologist Richard L. Dugdale in 1877.

Jukes’ descendants included: 7 murderers, 60 thieves, 190 prostitutes, 150 other convicts, 310 paupers, and 440 who were physically wrecked by addiction to alcohol. Of the 1,200 descendants that were studied, 300 died prematurely.

These contrasting legacies provide an example of what some call the five-generation rule. “How a parent raises their child — the love they give, the values they teach, the emotional environment they offer, the education they provide — influences not only their children but the four generations to follow, either for good or evil.” What a challenging thought! If someone studied your descendants four generations later, what would you want them to discover? Do you want an Edwards’ legacy or a Jukes’ legacy? The life you live will determine the legacy you leave! source

The descendants of Jonathan Edwards

Praise the Lord! How blessed is the man who fears the Lord, who greatly delights in His commandments. His descendants will be mighty on earth…” Psalm 112:1-2a

Many consider Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) to be the greatest theologian North America ever produced. He was a major voice in America’s first Great Awaking of Christian faith that occurred roughly between 1727 and 1744. He is the author of several weighty theological works, such as Original Sin, Freedom of the Will, and Religious Affections. He wrote The Life of David Brainerd, that has inspired many to take the gospel of Christ to the ends of the earth. His famous Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God sermon helped ignite the Great Awaking in Connecticut.

What is less known about Edwards is his family legacy. On July 28, 1727, he married Sarah Pierrepont, of whom he wrote “has a strange sweetness in her mind…is most just and conscientious in all her conduct…you could not persuade her to do anything wrong or sinful if you would give her all the world….She will sometimes go about from place to place, singing sweetly and seems always to be full of joy and pleasure; and no one knows for what.”

One of their daily habits was an evening horseback ride, where they would converse about the day without the distractions of home. Though Jonathan was constantly studying, Sarah was always welcome to come to him. Before retiring every night, they read the Bible and prayed together.

The Edwards’ had eleven children. For one hour before dinner each evening Jonathan helped them with their school lessons and listened to their adventures of the day. At the conclusion he prayed a blessing over each child. “Every house,” he said, “should be a little church.” In high demand as a speaker outside his own parish, whenever he left town for other engagements, one of his children always accompanied him.

In 1747 the seriously ill missionary to the Indians, David Brainerd, came to the Edwards’ home. Their daughter Jerusha cared for him. They fell in love and would likely have married had he not died on October 9, 1747. Jerusha passed four months later, having contracted the same tuberculosis that plagued Brainerd for most of his adult life.

Edwards’ daughter Esther once wrote in her diary, “Last eve I had some free discourse with my father…I opened my difficulties to him very freely and he as freely advised and directed. The conversation has removed some distressing doubts that discouraged me much in my Christian warfare. He gave me some excellent directions…that tend to keep the soul near to God, as well as others to be observed in a more public way. What a mercy that I have such a father!” The Edwards children all turned out well, as did their posterity.

By contrast there was another man named Max Jukes, born about 1720. Jukes was an atheist, who married an ungodly woman. In 1900 American pastor and educator Albert Edward Winship wrote a book entitled “Jukes-Edwards: A Study in Education and Heredity.” In it he traced the posterity of the two men. Of Max Jukes’ 540 studied descendants, 310 died as paupers, 150 were convicted criminals, there were 7 murderers, over 100 drunkards, and 190 female prostitutes.

From Jonathan Edwards’ 1,394 studied descendants came an American vice-president, 3 senators, 3 governors, 3 mayors, 30 judges, 13 college presidents, 65 college professors, 100 lawyers, 60 physicians, 75 military officers, 100 preachers and missionaries, 60 prominent authors, and 80 other public officials. How we who are fathers live our lives, treat our wives, and relate to our children now will affect generations after us, for good or for evil. source

The “Five Generations Rule”: Lessons from a Christian Family

The “Five Generations Rule:” Lessons from a Christian Family

Every once in a while, a whole family will come to the notice of the general public for its distinguished and extraordinary service. The Edwards are such a tribe in the Christian story. We present this group of parents and siblings as fine examples of child-rearing through troublesome circumstances. Timothy and Esther, who were Congregationalists, produced devout followers of Christ through the five generations who followed them.

The Edwards Family

Rev. Timothy Edwards (1669-1758) had a sixty-five-year long ministry as the pastor of the Congregationalist church at East Windsor, Connecticut. Esther, his wife, was a daughter of Solomon Stoddard, long-time pastor of the church at Northampton, Massachusetts. These two married in 1694, just three years after Timothy graduated from the new college called Yale. Timothy and Esther had four daughters and then Jonathan (1703-1758), their fifth child and only son, was born to these devout saints. Six more girls followed. All eleven children grew up valuing learning and the love of God and His service.

After a rigorous home schooling, Jonathan entered Yale College in New Haven, Connecticut, at the age of thirteen and graduated four years later in 1720, although he stayed two more years to study divinity. The manuscripts that survive from his student days record his remarkable powers of observation and analysis, the fascination he had with science and scientists like Isaac Newton, and his desire to publish scientific and philosophical works in opposition to the materialism and atheism of his day. Throughout his life, Jonathan studied with pen in hand, recording his thoughts in numerous hand-sewn notebooks. Most of these still survive.

After a brief pastorate in New York, Jonathan earned an MA degree, and from 1724-1726 was a tutor/professor at Yale. He was shy, awkward, studious, and thin. In the preface to his Greek grammar book, he writes of young Sarah, only fifteen at the time, who was his exact opposite in many ways, yet shared a deep love of God. Sarah Pierrepont was the daughter of an old and respected New England family. She was beautiful, poised, outgoing, winsome, and funny. She was also devoted to God above all else, a character trait which Jonathan much admired.

In 1727, when she turned seventeen, and he was twenty-four, they married in Northampton, where he had just become the colleague of his grandfather, Solomon Stoddard. Sarah knew that Jonathan’s call to ministry was her call too. Beginning in August of 1728, Sarah and Jonathan had a child about every two years until there were eleven in all: Sarah, Jerusha, Esther, Mary, Lucy, Timothy, Susannah, Eunice, Jonathan, Elizabeth, and Pierpont. At age eighteen, Sarah’s great role of motherhood began. Here is George Whitefield’s assessment of her parenting. He wrote that he wanted a wife like Sarah.

“She seldom punished them, and in speaking to them used gentle and pleasant words. When she had occasion to reprove, she would do it in a few words, without warmth and noise, and with all calmness and gentleness of mind . . . she would address herself to the reason of her children, that they might not only know her inclination, but at the same time be convinced of the reasonableness of it. In their manners they were uncommonly respectful to their parents.”

There was an intentional pattern to their child-rearing. Every night Jonathan was home, he would spend an hour talking with his family and then praying a blessing over each child before bed. Sarah provided the warm, safe environment, and early schooling, for all of their children.

Upon Rev. Stoddard’s death in 1729, Edwards became pastor of the most important church in Massachusetts, outside of Boston. When he looked over the congregation that first Sunday, he realized that most of his parishioners were Christian in name only. He began to meet with a handful of faithful church members every week for prayer and Bible Study. After five years and consistent doctrinal preaching, a great revival broke out in Northampton during 1734-35. This grew in intensity until Rev. George Whitfield came from England to preach in 1740 and the First Great Awakening exploded in the Colonies. More than 300 of Jonathan’s church members made professions of faith in Christ.

The Awakening produced not only conversions and changed lives, but also excesses and denominational and civil strife. Jonathan wrote and preached against these disorders, although he thought the Awakening was a work of God. In 1749 Jonathan edited with his own “Reflections,” the memoirs of David Brainerd, the young pro-Awakening Presbyterian revivalist missionary to the Mohicans. Jonathan’s second daughter Jerusha and David were engaged to be married, but David fell ill with tuberculosis. He was brought home to Jonathan and Sarah’s house, where Jerusha nursed him and also contracted the disease. When David died in October of 1747, he was buried in the Bridge Street cemetery. Jerusha died the next February and was buried next to him.

Meanwhile, in the midst of this sorrow, Edwards’s relationship with his own congregation became strained. One reason for it was his changed view on the requirements for admission to the Lord’s Supper. Rejecting the more lax standards of his grandfather, Edwards insisted on a public profession of saving faith, based on the candidate’s religious experiences, as requisite not only for the Lord’s Supper, but also for church membership. The public announcement of his position in 1749 ignited a controversy that resulted in his dismissal. On July 1, 1750, Edwards preached his dignified and restrained “Farewell-Sermon.”

With few financial resources, forty-year old Sarah, the mother of eleven children, the youngest less than a year old, began to take in work to support the family. Jonathan and Sarah then decided to move to the Mohican Mission at Stockbridge, where 150 Indian and twelve white families lived. There Jonathan and Sarah served as pastor and headmaster of the boarding school for all of the children.

In this missionary chapter, the Edwards children continued their schooling and learned the language of their playmates. During these eight years, Jonathan wrote books on free will, original sin, and true virtue. In 1750, the eldest daughter Sarah married Elihu Parsons, and the fifth daughter Mary married Timothy Dwight. In 1752, the third daughter Esther married Dr. Aaron Burr, Sr., president of the College of New Jersey (later Princeton).

When Esther’s husband died unexpectedly of a fever in the fall of 1757, Jonathan accepted the invitation to become president of the College and arrived there in January of 1758. Sadly, less than five weeks after his inauguration, on 22 March, he died at age fifty-five from complications arising from a smallpox inoculation and was buried in the Princeton Cemetery, next to Aaron Burr Sr. Esther, who had nursed both her husband andfather, also contracted smallpox and died on 7 April, leaving two small children, Aaron Jr. and Sarah Burr, whom her mother Sarah took into their home. Then, Sarah also contracted smallpox and, at age forty-eight, died in October of the same year, followed by the youngest sister, eleven-year-old Elizabeth two weeks after that.

The Rest of the Story

While the Edwards left no financial legacy, the events that followed after their parents’ deaths shows how the rest of their sons and daughters developed and improved their valuable inheritance of intellectual, moral, and religious training. Added to the six unmarried orphans, all still under age twenty-one, were their niece Sarah and nephew Aaron, aged four and two respectively. Here was a large family from which father and mother, older and youngest sister, and brother-in-law had been taken almost at a single blow, with almost no financial inheritance. The older unmarried siblings, Lucy, Timothy, and Susannah, went to work, and the married sisters Sarah and Mary helped. Esther’s children went to live with Mary and Timothy Dwight.

Of the three sons and eight daughters of Jonathan Edwards there was not one, nor a husband or wife of one, whose character, ability, purpose and achievement, were not a credit to their parents. Of the seventy-five grandchildren, with their husbands and wives, there was but one for whom an apology may be offered (third vice-president of the US, Aaron Burr Jr., who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel), and nearly all were exceptionally strong in scholarship and moral influence.

The sons were ages eight, thirteen and twenty at the time of their parents’ deaths. All three sons graduated from Princeton, and five of the eight daughters married college graduates, three of them from Yale and one each from Harvard and Princeton. They were all eminent leaders. One held the position of president of Princeton and one of Union College, four were judges, two were members of the Continental Congress, and one was a member of the governor’s council in Massachusetts. One was a member of the Massachusetts War Commission in the Revolutionary war, one was a state senator, one was president of the Connecticut house of representatives, three were officers in the Revolutionary war, one was a member of the famous Constitutional Convention which birthed the United States, and one was pastor of the historic North Church of New Haven. This by no means exhausts the useful and honored positions occupied by three sons and five sons-in-law of the Edwards.

Reflections on the Edwards Family

In 1899, American educator A.E. Winship decided to trace the 1,400 descendants of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards’ family who lived in the 140 year period since their deaths. When his report was published in 1900, his findings were remarkable. The Edwards’ legacy includes: one U.S. vice-president, one dean of a law school, one dean of a medical school, three U.S. senators, three governors, three mayors, thirteen college presidents, thirty judges, sixty doctors, sixty-five professors, seventy-five military officers, eighty public office holders, 100 lawyers, 100 clergymen, and 285 college graduates.

Their legacy provides a Christian example of what some sociologists have called the Five-Generation Rule: “How a parent rears their child — the love they give, the values they teach, the emotional environment they offer, the education they provide — influences not only their children, but the four generations to follow, either for good or evil.” What a challenging thought! If someone studied our descendants four generations later, what would they discover? The lives we live today produce the legacy we leave tomorrow. We honor Jonathan and Sarah Edwards, who conducted their family responsibilities well. source

The Family Life of Jonathan Edwards

We’re speaking this morning of the family life of Jonathan Edwards. We spent the first day and a half talking a lot about their doctrine, about what they taught, about the family. And the last session in this session is given to examining some of the prominent Puritans and how they actually walked this out in their home lives. What a blessing it has been for me to study Jonathan Edwards and see how the doctrine that he held matched up with the home life that he cultivated in North Hampton and then in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. There were three other sources that I used, but the one that was dominant was a book by Elizabeth Dodds titled Marriage to a Difficult Man, and I would highly recommend it.

Jonathan Edwards was a difficult man in that he was an extraordinary man. God did not leave him in a quiet life. God called him to a just rigorous, great amount of study to leave a deposit for future generations. And today, we’re the beneficiary of that deposit. But it meant that it wasn’t an easy Y for Sarah Edwards.

That’s the title of the book. What we find is that there are many, many ways where we can look at the Edwards household and how they related to each other and how they conducted themselves, and we can say with confidence that in these ways that we can follow the Edwardses as they followed Christ. And so that is really the objective this morning, is to look at their family life, look at the ways in which they patterned that family life after the Scriptures, and then say, let’s follow them in these things as they followed Christ. The first quote that I have is from Jonathan Edwards’ farewell sermon in Northampton. He had labored among this congregation for over two decades, and then conflict between him and the congregation caused them to dismiss him for a number of theological differences that existed.

As you can imagine, in a farewell sermon, this is your parting shot. If you’re ever going to have an impact in some way, this is your last opportunity for a pastor who’s labored for two decades in a congregation to have that impact. And so you can imagine the emphasis we would put on his words to that congregation, knowing that this was the last time that he would address them as their pastor. And these were some of his comments. He goes straight to family life.

And he says this, We have had great disputes about how the church ought to be regulated. And indeed the subject of these disputes was of great importance. But the due regulation of your families is of no less, and in some respects, of much greater importance. Every Christian family ought to be, as it were, a little church, consecrated to Christ and wholly influenced and governed by His rules. Family education and order are some of the chief means of grace.

If these fail, all other means are likely to prove ineffectual. If these are duly maintained, all the means of grace will be likely to prosper and be successful. Let me now, therefore, once more, before I finally cease to speak to this congregation, repeat and earnestly press the counsel which I have often urged on the heads of families while I was their pastor, to great painfulness in teaching, warning and directing their children, bringing them up in the training and admonition of the Lord, beginning early where there is yet opportunity, and maintaining constant diligence in labors of this kind. Remember that as you would not have all your instructions and counsels ineffectual, there must be government as well as instructions which must be maintained with an even hand and steady resolution as a guard to the religion and morals of your family and the support of its good order. Take heed that it not be with any of you as it was with Eli of old who reproved his children but restrained them not and that by this means you do not bring the light curse on your families as He did on His.

In this final opportunity that Jonathan Edwards had with the congregation that God had caused him to lead for 20-plus years. This farewell sermon. Jonathan Edwards chose to speak of the due regulation of families, saying that the Christian family ought to be, as it were, a little church consecrated to Christ. Don’t we want our homes consecrated to Christ? And he calls this a chief means of grace for the family, saying that if you fail to do this, that the other means of grace are likely not to be effectual.

But if we would do this thing, that the other means of grace would likely to be wildly successful. This is what Jonathan Edwards preached, and he preached it relentlessly to his people, and he preached it with great passion. But my address today has very little to do with what Jonathan Edwards preached. It has to do with how he functioned in his household, how he related to his dear wife, Sarah, and how they joined together in this dual mission, working together to raise up their children in the training and in the admonition of the Lord. This time is dedicated to a study of how they lived.

His home was a little church. The home life that Jonathan and Sarah Edwards carefully and intentionally built together in North Hampton and then in Stockbridge was a chief means of grace for their family. And boy, do we see the output of that grace as we study their descendants. It was patterned around the clear teachings of Scripture. And now looking back, we can see that we can see so clearly that God used this home to give himself what he says clearly that he desires in Malachi 2.

He says, Why did I join the two into one? I seek godly offspring. This is what God did through the Edwards home. He joined this man and woman together in a sacred mission to bring himself glory by giving himself godly offspring. On his deathbed, Jonathan Edwards spoke with thankfulness of this quote, uncommon union with his wife Sarah.

And though it was an uncommon union, and though it would be an uncommon union in our day, it was thoroughly biblical in so many ways. So as we examine the history of this family, we see that the blessings they received as they faithfully built their home around the patterns of Scripture resulted in a great multi-generational blessing of faithfulness. God brought glory to himself in an almost unprecedented way through their descendants, and I Trust that as we study their home life, we’ll be provoked to jealousy, desiring that God would use our homes to give us the same multi-generational faithfulness that we see in the Edwards home. And looking at the home life of Jonathan and Sarah, I’ve distilled their excellent example into ten categories where we can say, this is what their home life was like. And we can map that back to the flagship Scriptures about family life and say, they were doing this.

We should follow them. We should make our homes like their home life. There are ten. Number one, this godly home life began with Jonathan Edwards’ own heart. It began in his own heart.

Deuteronomy 6 says this, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, “‘with all your soul and with all your strength. “‘And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. There’s a progression that we see here in Deuteronomy 6.

It’s that the head of a home would love the Lord his God with all his heart, soul, and strength. It would consume him. It would be a love without rivals, and he would hide the words of God in his heart and then he would teach it diligently to his children. And this was the case in the Edwards home. It was fueled by a father who had a passionate love for God and who had hidden his words in his heart.” One of the beautiful things that I love about this book is there are appendices in the back where the author just gets out of the way and gives you Jonathan Edwards in his own words just directly from his writings.

And so I’m pulling a lot of this from these appendices where he’s writing. 20 years later, looking back at the time of his conversion and just talking about how his heart was on fire for the Lord, he says this, The soul of a true Christian, as I then wrote meditations, appeared like such a little white flower as we see in the spring of the year, low and humble on the ground, opening its bosoms to receive the pleasant beams of the sun’s glory. Rejoicing, as it were, in a calm rapture, diffusing around a sweet fragrancy, standing peacefully and lovingly in the midst of other flowers round about, all in like manner, opening their bosoms to drink in the light of the sun. Are There any John Piper fans here? Isn’t this very Piper-esque where he’s talking about the delight in God that we should have?

Well that that’s not a coincidence. John Piper is definitely a Jonathan Edwards disciple. He’s studied extensively Jonathan Edwards. And so when you hear Piper, you hear the echoes of Jonathan Edwards. And we might think, how odd for a Puritan to be so focused on delight in God.

I thought they were the ones who had the lemon faces that always had a pucker with no happiness. No, not so. That’s our improper training about the Puritans. The Puritans did understand sin and God’s wrath against sin, but they had an even greater affection and even greater emphasis on delight in God. And certainly this was true of Jonathan Edwards.

Piper gave an address, an overview of Jonathan Edwards’ life, and he said this, what our people need is not a nice little moral or psychological pep talks about how to get along in the world. They need to see that everything, absolutely everything from garage sales and garbage recycling to death and demons have to do with God in all his infinite greatness. Most of our people have no one, no one in the world to placard the majesty of God for them. Therefore, most of them are starved for the infinite God-entranced vision of Jonathan Edwards, and they don’t even know it. And this is what we see as we examine the writings of Jonathan Edwards, that he did have a God-entranced vision, that God was eating him up from the inside.

He had set him on fire with passion and desire for himself. And this was the fuel for the home life of the Edwards family. Edwards wrote this, On January 12, 1722, I made a solemn dedication of myself to God, and wrote it down, giving up myself in all that I had to God, to be for the future in no respect my own, to act as one that had no right to himself in any respect. He also wrote this, I felt with all an ardency of soul to be what I know not otherwise how to express than to be emptied and annihilated, to lie in the dust and to be full of Christ and to be perfectly sanctified and made pure with the divine and heavenly purity. Doesn’t this remind you of your first days of salvation when the Lord had impressed himself and in a way you’d never seen it, and you saw it, the light came on.

And such zeal and desire for the Lord. Doesn’t these words remind you of that? Finally he writes this, Another Saturday night, January 1738, had such a sense how sweet and blessed a thing it was to walk in the way of duty. To do that which was right and meet to be done and agreeable to the holy mind of God. That it caused me to break forth into a kind of a loud weeping, which held me some time, so that I was forced to shut myself up and to fasten the doors.

I could not but, as it were, cry out, How happy are they which do that which is right in the sight of God! They are blessed indeed. They are the happy ones.” This was the heart that God had placed in Jonathan Edwards, And it created an atmosphere in their home life that allowed them to bring up their children in the admonition and training of the Lord. Jonathan Edwards brought a heart full of passionate love for God into his marriage and into his home. And so should we.

Let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home in this way. Number two. Jonathan chose his wife carefully and well. Definitely an emphasis of the Puritans, the choosing of a spouse carefully and well, and Jonathan Edwards did. Jonathan married Sarah Pierrepont on July 28, 1727.

It was not the result of a man chasing his libido. It was not even the result of a man pursuing the more noble causes of friendship and companionship. Although Sarah was known to be quite lovely, And although they had a deep and abiding friendship, these were not the objectives of Jonathan Edwards when he went in search of a wife. In Malachi 2, the Lord through the prophet Malachi is rebuking the people of Israel. And the Lord says this, Judah has dealt treacherously and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem, for Judah has profaned the Lord’s holy institution, which he loves.

He’s married the daughter of a foreign God. Here God calls marriage the holy institution which I love.” Wow. And he’s condemning the people because they’ve spurned what God has called holy and they’ve taken for themselves pagan daughters to be their wives. And Jonathan Edwards understood the principle that the calling of God is that we would be equally yoked in spiritual matters, that we’d be joined together with other strong believers, because we’re given a mission to bring the government of God to the ends of the earth through the Gospel. And that the only way that happens is if a man joins together with a woman and they both have their affections turned towards God.

This is what Jonathan Edwards was looking for when he went to seek a wife. So he wanted to marry this Sarah Pierrepont. And what kind of woman was this Sarah Pierrepont? Well, we have a lot of content on that. We have a Greek study book of Jonathan Edwards, where he wrote, prior to their courtship, about this young lady, He should have been studying his Greek, but he was thinking of Sarah, and he wrote down his thoughts.

They say there is a young lady in New Haven who is beloved of that almighty being who made and rules the world, and that there are certain seasons in which this great being, in some way or other, invisible, comes to her and fills her mind with exceeding sweet delight, and that she hardly cares for anything except to meditate on him. That she expects after a while to be received up where he is, to be raised out of the world and caught up into heaven, being assured that he loves her too well to let her remain at a distance from him always. There she is to dwell with him and to be ravished with his love, favor, and delight forever. Therefore, If you present all the world before her with the richest of its treasures, she disregards it and cares not for it and is unmindful of any pain or affliction. She has a strange and sweetness in her mind.

And sweetness of temper, uncommon purity in her affections, is most just and praiseworthy in all her actions, and you could not persuade her to do anything thought wrong or sinful if you would give her all the world, lest she should offend this great being. She is of a wonderful sweetness, calmness, and universal benevolence of mind, especially after those times in which this great God has manifested himself to her mind. She will sometimes go about singing sweetly from place to place and seems to be always full of joy and pleasure and no one knows for what. She loves to be alone and to wander in the fields and on the mountains and seems to have someone invisible, always conversing with her.” Now, we might say, oh, come on. Everybody thinks like that before courtship.

Give it a year of marriage. Well, after many years of marriage, this is what Jonathan Edwards wrote about his wife. He describes her this way. He says that she’s daily sensible of doing and suffering everything for God, Eating for God and working for God and sleeping for God and bearing pain and trouble for God and doing all as the service of love. And so doing it with a continual uninterrupted cheerfulness, peace and joy.

Oh that our spouses after years of marriage would write something like this about us. That love for God would have so consumed us and shaped us that this is how we would be described years into our marriage. This sounds remarkably like his passion for God, isn’t it? Yes, it is. He went in search of a wife who was consumed with God because he was consumed with God.

And this shaped their life together. It shaped their home life. She was well educated. Though not all the Puritans looked favorably on the education of women, Sarah had the best training that a girl was allowed to have. George Whitfield, the great evangelist, visited and spent time in their home on numerous occasions.

And he said this, a sweeter couple I have not yet seen. She talked feelingly and solidly of the things of God and seemed to be such a help-me for her husband that she caused me to pray God that he would be pleased to send me a daughter of Abraham to be my wife. This woman was so inspiring in her faith towards God that when the great evangelist George Whitfield comes and visits them in their home, she inspires to him that he would pray that God would give him a wife like this. Jonathan Edwards was a wise man when he went in search for a wife, and he found what he was looking for. Jonathan and Sarah years later participated actively in the courtships of their own children.

Samuel Hopkins was a New England pastor. He was much younger than Jonathan Edwards. At the time, it was customary for a pastor in training, a pastor in waiting, to go and spend time, months at a time, in the home of an established pastor to live with his family and to watch him in ministry and to be an understudy to him, and then he would go out and take his own parish. Samuel Hopkins was such a man in the home of the Edwards family. And many of the quotes that come from here to the end of the talk will come from Samuel Hopkins.

And he speaks as an expert because he lived there for months at a time. And then, even after he had his own pastorate, through the years he would frequently visit their homes. So he speaks as a man who knows about the home life of this family. He says this about these courtships that happened later in life as their children grew. If any gentleman desired acquaintance with his daughters, After handsomely introducing himself by properly consulting the parents, he was allowed all proper opportunity for it, a room and fire if needed.

They understood, Jonathan and Sarah understood, the principle of equal yoking in the Lord. And so they practiced it themselves and they also helped their children in it. They engaged their children in it years later. And it resulted in a family line that you can trace, spectacular multi-generational faithfulness. They understood this principle, then they applied it to their children.

And so should we. Let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home in this way. Number three. Their marriage was characterized by intense mutual affection and respect. As we’ve seen repeatedly over the last two days, Ephesians 5 unashamedly calls for the submission and respect of the wife and the active, self-sacrificing love of the husband.

And Jonathan and Sarah had these things in abundance in their marriage and in their home. Elizabeth Dodds, out of her research, she writes this about their home life. In the case of the Edwardses, familiarity bred respect. The real test of the feeling of one person for another is in the daily encounters, when one must pay bills, carry out the trash, sniffle through a head cold. This period of homely testings disclosed to the couple that they were permanently committed to one another, so they turned now to translating their love into work, into a way of life.

You can’t maintain it forever. You’re only thinking about her. You can’t study in your Greek. You’re writing all the flowery language. And then marriage and life hits and children come and there’s a routine to life.

What does that do to your home life? Does familiarity breed contempt? No, not for the Edwards. It bred respect. It deepened their friendship.

And they understood that they were committed to one another to serve the Lord together for life, and so they worked together in friendship, to give God godly offspring. Dodd also writes this, The casual observer saw the difficult husband, the endlessly giving wife. Actually, more than anyone in the outside guessed, she leaned on him. Though she carried all the practical details of managing the house, Sarah depended on Edwards for her own spiritual replenishment. She would dart into his study during the day confident that no matter how intent he was on his writing, he would put down his pen and turn to her with lighted face.

She fed on his leadership of family prayers and on the quiet time she and Edward spent together on devotions after the children were in bed, the time that put a benediction on all the bustle of the daylight hours. The rhythm of life in this marriage held love and constant companionship. Dodd writes this, Sarah’s transactions with her children were reinforced because Her husband treated her with total courtesy and serenely expected that each child would follow his example. Do you see this? Do you understand what’s being communicated here?

Jonathan treated his wife well in their home, and their children were watching. And because he treated her with respect and friendship, it was unspoken to the children that they should treat their mother the same way and it impacted the way their children related to their mother because they saw how their father did. Men, is this something we can copy in our homes? That our conduct towards our wives would be so full of gentleness and love and respect and friendship that our children would not dare to treat them improperly. Jonathan and Sarah had a marriage filled with intense mutual respect and affection.

And so should we. Let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home in this way. Number four. We do pick up steam, by the way. We’re not really only 30 percent through.

When I said number four, I saw some looks on faces that made me need to interject that. Number four, family worship was central to family life. They built their life around family worship. It’s called family worship in some places. It’s called family prayer.

But it didn’t mean just praying together. They meant the whole act of studying the Word together and singing together and praying together. And they built their family with this as the cornerstone. Back to Deuteronomy 6 where we’re exhorted to teach an unrivaled love to God diligently to our children. Elizabeth Dodd writes this.

He had noted in his journal in January 1728, I think Christ has recommended rising early in the morning by His rising from the grave very early. I don’t know about the hermeneutic on that, but it’s not my quote. So everyone in the house was routed out, even in the dark winter dawns for prayers by candlelight. With the servants joining in, they all heard a chapter from the Bible and asked God’s blessing on the day ahead. This is how the day started in the Edwards home.

Before the sun was up, They would be routed out of bed even on the cold winter mornings and they would be given a chapter of the Bible by candlelight. This was the rhythm of their life together. Elizabeth Dodd says this, the surge and thunder of the King James Bible heard twice a day aloud in their father’s voice became part of the children’s earliest memories. I have a friend whose father was a pastor who had this practice in their home. He would read to them every day.

And he said to me, at the time I didn’t appreciate it. I wanted to go play and do other things. But now, when I hear the Bible read aloud, I hear it in my father’s voice. And this was true of Jonathan Edwards’ kids as well. Edwards brought the Word of God to them tenderly and this was the routine and the rhythm of their life together.

In 1874, long after Jonathan and Sarah were gone, there was a reunion of their descendants. And there was a story related there that Sarah Noe Dwight was gathering material for his book about his great-grandfather, Jonathan. And he interviewed a very old man, Dr. Lathrop of West Springfield. And Dr.

Lathrop had been a local physician who had participated from time to time in their family prayers. And he told of hearing Edwards preside at family prayers and commented that He never heard another prayer that brought heaven and earth so near together. This was not lifeless, mechanical duty being lived out in the Edwards home. It was a man who was on fire for the Lord who was bringing this and imparting it to his children. He was bringing heaven near to earth during their times of family prayer.

The Edwards made worship the central routine of their lives, and so should we. Let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home in this way. Number five, honor and obedience were secured from the children. Honor and obedience were secured from the children. Ephesians 6, 1-4, Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.

Honor your father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise, that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth.” Samuel Hopkins, the young pastor-to-be who spent months in their home, wrote this about Sarah and her governance of the children. She had an excellent way of governing her children. She knew how to make them regard and obey her cheerfully, without loud angry words, much less heavy blows. She seldom punished them and in speaking to them used gentle and pleasant words. If any correction was necessary, she did not administer it in a passion.

When she had occasion to reprove and rebuke, she would do it with a few words, without warmth. She doesn’t mean warmth in the way we think it. She means without anger, without warmth and noise. In her directions and matters of importance, she would address herself to the reason of her children that they might not only know her will, but at the same time be convinced of the reasonableness of it. She had need to speak, but once she was cheerfully obeyed.

Murmuring and answering again were not known among them. In their manners, they were uncommonly respectful to their parents. When their parents came into the room, they all rose instinctively from their seats and never resumed them until their parents were seated. And when either parent was speaking, they were all immediately silent and attentive. The kind and gentle treatment they received from their mother, while she strictly and punctiliously maintained her parental authority, seemed naturally to promote a filial respect and affection and to lead them to a mild, tender treatment of each other.

Quarreling and contention, which too frequently take place among children, were in her family unknown. She carefully observed the first appearance of resentment and ill will in her young children towards any person whatever and did not connive at it, but was careful to show her displeasure and suppress it to the utmost, yet not being angry wrathful words which often provoke children to wrath. Her system of discipline was begun at a very early age, and it was her rule to resist the first as well as every subsequent exhibition of temper or disobedience in the child, wisely reflected that until a child will obey his parents, he can never be brought to obey God. Isn’t that better than 99.9% of the childhood books in modern evangelicalism? They have much to learn from the Puritans.

Esther, their oldest daughter, wrote many letters to her mothers and she normally addressed her as my honored mother. And this was not lip service, just pen to page. This was lived out. They honored their mother because Jonathan and Sarah understood that it was their responsibility to secure the honor and obedience to their children for their welfare later in life. Jonathan and Sarah did secure the honor and obedience of their children, and so should we.

Let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home in this way. Number six, the children were carefully and rigorously educated. Ephesians 6, 4 says, And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.” Edwards was a man with a full schedule. He resolved himself to study 13 hours a day. To study 13 hours a day.

Not a lot of chit-chat, small talk, wasted time in the Edwards home. But the hour after dinner was his hour of relaxation. And Elizabeth Dodds relates how he would normally use this hour. She said, Edwards would use this relaxed hour to hear one child’s lessons. He had the idea, unusual in those times, that girls as well as boys should be educated.

The girls, tutored by their father at home, learned Latin, Greek, rhetoric, and penmanship. Edwards also expected all the children to know Jewish and church history, the chronology of biblical events, and how to correlate passages in the Old and New Testaments. A child never knew when at the dinner table he would be called upon to give a crisp answer to some such question as, How long was it after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar until Babylon was destroyed by Cyrus? I shudder to think whether I could accept a dinner invitation from such a man. He was busy.

He preached, he wrote, he traveled, but he had time to educate his children. He tried to take a daughter with him on each of his trips, and they would ride on the cushion behind the saddle. He practiced the walk-along talk-along discipleship we see in Deuteronomy. Dodd says this, he took opportunities to converse with them singly and closely. There were 11 children he studied 13 hours a day.

But this was a priority, so he took opportunity to converse with them singly and closely. Deuteronomy 6 commands us to teach the ways of God diligently to our children. In that mold, Jonathan and Sarah carefully and rigorously educated their children, and so should we. Let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home in this way? Number seven, the home was run by an industrious homemaker.

And boy, was it ever run by an industrious homemaker. Proverbs 31, 10 through 16, familiar territory. Who can find a virtuous wife? Jonathan Edwards can. For her worth is far above rubies.

The heart of her husband safely trusts her, so he will have no lack of gain. She does him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeks wool and flax and willingly works with her hands. She is like the merchant’s ships. She brings her fruit from afar.

She also rises while it is yet night and provides food for her household and a portion for her maidservants. She considers a field and buys it. From her profits, she plants a vineyard.” Elizabeth Dodd says this, however, Sarah had most of the responsibility for the property. So you have the picture. Jonathan’s studying 13 hours a day.

What in the world is getting done at home? And Elizabeth Dodd tells us. She saw that the garden was planted and that the hired man had his instructions for each day. They used to tell in North Hampton how once Edwards asked, isn’t it about time the hay was cut? To which Sarah mildly replied, it’s been in the barn for two weeks.

This could happen at my house. Samuel Hopkins, this man who stayed with them for months at a time, says, It was a happy circumstance that he could trust everything to the care of Mrs. Edwards, with entire safety and with undoubting confidence. She was a most judicious and faithful mistress of a family, habitually industrious, a sound economist managing her household affairs with diligence and discretion. While she uniformly paid a becoming deference to her husband and treated him with entire respect, she spared no pains in conforming to his inclination and rendering everything in the family agreeable and pleasant.

She accounted it her greatest glory, and there wherein she could best serve God in her generation to be the means of promoting His usefulness and happiness. We have this great deposit from Jonathan Edwards that can be a blessing and a help for the church in this century and in the next century. And it’s a deposit that Sarah Edwards paved the way for by how she handled the affairs of their household so that he could be in his study thinking and reading and praying and developing a deposit to pass to us. We’re in the debt of this woman. Samuel Hopkins also said this, When she herself labored under bodily disorders and pains, which was not infrequently the case, instead of troubling those around her with her complaints and wearing a sour or dejected countenance as if out of humor with everybody and everything around her because she was disregarded and neglected.

She was accustomed to bear up under them, not only with patience, but with cheerfulness and good humor. The Edwards home was managed by a hard-working, industrious homemaker, and so should ours be. Let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home in this way. Number eight. Hospitality was a trademark of their family life.

There are no chapters in this book without this as a theme. They had people in and out of their home all the time. It was a trademark of their family life. 1 Peter 4, 9 and 10 says, Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” The Edwards’ home had received an abundance of the manifold grace of God, and they opened up their homes so that others could participate in this grace as well.

Hospitality was a trademark. Elizabeth Dodd says, those were days of dubious taverns, so most travelers counted on stopping with the ministers in whatever town they struck by night. As Edward’s reputation mounted And the charms of his daughters became widely known, the number of guests grew. May it be so among us, Samuel Hopkins said. She was peculiarly kind to strangers.

By her sweet and winning manners and ready conversations, she soon became acquainted with them and led him immediately to feel as if he were at home.” As I mentioned, Samuel Hopkins was an understudy to Edwards as it was customary for a pastor in waiting to be, and there were many others like him who were adopted by the Edwards and brought into their home for months at a time so they could see this family life and be an understudy of pastoral duties. Their home is a place of laboring together. Their house functioned efficiently because Sarah Edwards took these 11 children, and you get a flavor in the book about the different personalities. This was not a cookie cutter where they were just stamping out exact replicas, exact carbon copies one right after the other. They had very varied personalities and giftings.

And Sarah was in the background working these together, causing them to labor together in hospitality. It was a very efficiently run home. And it allowed them to have guests day after day and month after month because they knew how to labor together in the Lord. Jonathan and Sarah had a home that was given to hospitality, and so should we. Let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home in this way.

Number nine, the family was made ready for adversity. Matthew 7, 24 and 25, Therefore whoever hears these sayings of mine, says Jesus, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain descended, the floods came, the winds blew and beat on that house, and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.” For the Edwards home, the rains did come, the winds did come, the floods did come, and their house was found to be established on the rock, on Christ. Edwards’s first pastoral assignment was to take the pulpit of his grandfather, A well-respected pastor in the area for decade upon decade, even though in some ways he had different theology than Solomon’s daughter. Can you imagine the difficulties that would accompany taking that place?

He experienced them. The death of close friends like David Brainerd, the missionary who came and lived in their house also for months at a time, contracted tuberculosis and died in their home. A dear friend of theirs through the years. Sarah’s period of darkness, she was a stalwart rock, except for about six months, where she had a breakdown. There’s really no good explanation for it other than the Lord sent it their way.

There’s nothing specifically that you can tie it to that would cause those difficulties in that time frame to be different than the other difficulties, But she went into that time as a rock, and she came out of it as a rock, but there was six months where she was not herself. And there was much adversity in that, and they did not unravel. The family rallied Jonathan around his wife and their children around their mother, and they withstood the adversity. Jonathan being dismissed from his pastorate of 20-plus years in Northampton, along with the slander and the conflict and contention that comes along with the pastor being dismissed. Later in life, their children would marry and some of their spouses would die.

This was true of their oldest daughter, Esther. She married a man by the name of Aaron Burr. It’s not the Aaron Burr you’re thinking of. That’s the father of the Aaron Burr you’re thinking of. He was vice president of the United States.

And this Aaron Burr, the husband of Esther, their daughter, died suddenly prematurely. And this is what Esther wrote to her parents. God has seemed sensibly near in such a supporting and comfortable manner that I think I have never experienced the like. Thus, dear madam, she’s writing to her mother, thus, dear madam, I have given you some broken hints of the exercises of my mind. Oh, dear madam, I doubt not, but I have your and my honored father’s prayers daily for me.

But give me leave to entreat you to request earnestly of the Lord that I may never faint under this severe stroke. Oh, I am afraid I shall conduct myself so as to bring dishonor on the religion which I profess.” Her fears did not come to fruition because she grew up in a family where the members were readied for adversity. Their home was built on the rocks so that when the winds came and the rains beat against it and the floods rose, they stood firm in their generation. Jonathan and Sarah readied their home for the day of adversity, and so should we. Let’s let our home be like the Edwards home in this way.

Finally, God gave them a lasting inheritance for their faithfulness. God gave them a lasting inheritance. We look back on their heritage and we say, yes, it was well done. They were good and faithful servants of our God. Psalm 127, 3-5.

Behold, children are heritage from the Lord. The fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them. They shall not be ashamed, but shall speak with their enemies in the gate.” God gave the Edwards home, 11 children, and they thought rightly about it.

Jonathan and Sarah thought rightly about it. They knew it was a stewardship and a trust and that God was filling their quiver full of arrows so that they could send mighty warriors into the next generations for the spread of the Gospel. And this is exactly what happened in their family line. Their grandson, this is a funny story, their grandson Timothy Dwight was invited to be the president of Yale. But his parish, he was the pastor of a parish, but his parish voted to refuse to dismiss him.

And this was their reason, that there hath been a constant uninterrupted harmony and a good agreement with the people of this place. We will not let you go. There’s been too much harmony and blessing here while you’ve been among us.” So the outside church hierarchy came in and made them release him so that he could go be the president of Yale, but they didn’t want him to go. He was a blessing, And this was the fruit of the Edwards home. I mentioned in 1874, descendants of the Edwards clan converged on Stockbridge, Massachusetts, which is where they went after Jonathan was dismissed from the church in North Hampton.

And Mrs. Mary Edwards Whiting, the only living grandchild, she was 92 years old, the only living grandchild of this marriage, was unable to attend but sent this message, she wishes to bear her testimony at that meeting to God’s covenant faithfulness and to his covenant mercies to her and hers. The fruit of the Edwards home. John Todd was at that gathering, that family reunion, in 1874. He was not an Edwards, but he married an Edwards.

And this was his testimony. I married a wife, and it was years before I found out what made her so much my superior. But when I discovered that she belonged to the Edwards family and that she had their blood in her veins, I gave up the contest and have admitted all that she demanded ever since. That’s not funny, Janet. In 1900, a man named A.E.

Winship conducted a study of almost 1, 400 of their descendants, just to track them, see what had happened to them. And here’s a comment that he made. He says, The family has never lost tone through marriage. The family has never lost tone through marriage, for its members have chosen men and women of like character and capacity. What we see in the mother and father, what we see in the lives of Jonathan and Sarah, we see in the lives of their children and their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren and their great-great-grandchildren.

They ordered their home in such a way that God put His imprint there in a way that it would flow down through the generations. We’re all so frightened that our vices would be transmitted to the future generations, aren’t we? But we should set our mind that God can give us virtues and create an environment in our home in such a way that our virtues will be passed down through these generations under his mighty hand. We should pray for that. The result of this study was an interesting comparison between two families.

One the line of Jonathan Edwards, one the line of Max Jukes. There’s a reason you’ve never heard of Max Jukes and that you have heard of Jonathan Edwards. Here’s the study. Max Jukes was an atheist. He did not believe in Christ.

He did not believe in Christian training. He married an ungodly girl and refused to take his children to church even when they asked to go. At the time of this research, there were approximately 1, 200 descendants from this union. Of these, 1, 300 died as paupers. At least 150 were criminals, seven were murderers, 100 were drunkards, and more than half of the women were prostitutes.

These hooligans cost the state of New York $1.2 million in the 1800s. That’s a lot of money in the 1800s. Jonathan Edwards lived at the same time as Max Jukes. He married Sarah Pierrepont, a godly woman, and his spiritual equal. They gave the Lord godly offspring, raising them in the training and admonition of the Lord.

Of his 13 and 94 known descendants, 13 became college presidents, 65 became college professors. 100 lawyers, 30 judges. 60 physicians. 76 Army and Navy officers. 100 preachers and missionaries.

60 authors of prominence. Three United States senators. One vice president of the United States… Who was one of the more unruly of them, by the way. Eighty public officials in other capacities.

Two hundred ninety-five college graduates among whom were governors of states and ministers to foreign countries. Jonathan and Sarah desired to have this spiritual legacy given to them from the Lord, And so should we. Let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home in this way. They poured themselves out to conform their home to the patterns of Scripture And God gave tremendous increase for their laborers, not so that we would stand around or sit around and say, look at Jonathan and Sarah Edwards, but so that we would say, look at the hand of a mighty God working through the generations, that He would raise up such a man and such a woman as Jonathan Edwards and Sarah Pierrepont and join them together in a holy mission to raise up children, to give Himself godly offspring for the spread of the gospel and then see it happen through the generations. On his deathbed, his wife was not there.

He had gone to be the president of Princeton. He’d been there less than a month. He was inoculated for smallpox and as a result contracted smallpox. And these were among his dying words. Give my kindest love to my dear wife and tell her that the uncommon union which has so long subsisted between us has been of such a nature that I trust is spiritual and therefore will continue forever.

Heavenly Father, would you give us uncommon unions where our homes are founded out of a love for you that you breathe into our hearts, that is a consuming love, that we would love you with all our heart, all our soul, all our strength, and that these words would be in our hearts and that we would teach them diligently to our children, and that you would give us a heritage, not so that our name would be known, but that so your name would be known that the earth would be filled with the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. We ask this in Jesus name, Amen. Thank you. Thank you.

We’re speaking this morning of the family life of Jonathan Edwards. We spent the first day and a half talking a lot about their doctrine about what they taught about the family in the last session and this session is given to examining some of the prominent Puritans and how they actually walked this out in their home lives. What a blessing it has been for me to study Jonathan Edwards and see how the doctrine that he held matched up with the home life that he cultivated in Northhampton and then in Stockbridge Massachusetts. There were three other sources that I used but the one that was dominant was a book by Elizabeth Dodds titled marriage to a difficult man and I would highly recommend it. Jonathan Edwards was a difficult man in that he was an extraordinary man. God did not leave him in a quiet life. God called him to a just rigorous great amount of study to leave a deposit for future generations. Today we’re the beneficiary of that deposit. But it meant that it wasn’t an easy wife for Sarah. EDWARDS That’s the title of the book. What we find is that there are many many ways where we can look at the Edwards household and how they related to each other and how they conducted themselves and we can say with confidence that in these ways that we can follow the Edwards’s as they followed Christ and so that is really the objective this morning as they look at their family life. Look at the ways in which they patterned that family life after the scriptures and then say let’s follow them in these things as they followed Christ.

The first quote that I have is from Jonathan Edwards farewell sermon in Northhampton. He had labored among this congregation for over two decades and then conflict between him and the congregation caused them to dismiss him for a number of theological differences that existed as you can imagine in a farewell sermon. This is your parting shot If you’re ever going to have an impact in some way. This is your last opportunity for a pastor who has labored for two decades in a congregation to have that impact. And so you can imagine the emphasis we would put on his words to that congregation knowing that this was the last time that he would address them as their pastor. And these were some of his comments. He goes straight to family life and he says this. We have had great disputes about how the church ought to be regulated and indeed the subject of these disputes was of great importance. But the due regulation of your families is of no less and in some respects of much greater importance. Every Christian family ought to be as it were a little church consecrated to Christ and holy influenced and governed by his rules and family education and order or some of the chief means of grace. If these fail all other means are likely to prove ineffectual if these are duly maintained all the means of grace will be likely to prosper and be successful. Let me now therefore once more before I finally cease to speak to this congregation. Repeat and earnestly press the council which I have often urged on the heads of families.

While I was there pastor to great painfulness in teaching warning and directing their children bringing them up in the training and admonition of the Lord. Beginning early where there is yet opportunity and maintaining constant diligence and in labors of this kind. Remember that as you would not have all your instructions and counsels ineffectual. There must be government as well as instructions which must be maintained with an even hand and steady resolution as a guard to the religion and morals of your family and the support of its good order. Take heed that it not be with any of you as it was with Ely of old who reproved his children but restrained them not. And that by this means you do not bring the like curse on your families as he did on his this final opportunity that Jonathan Edwards had with the congregation that God had caused him to lead for 20 plus years. His farewell sermon. Jonathan Edwards chose to speak of the due regulation of families saying that a Christian family ought to be as it were a little church how many times have we heard that in the last 24 hours its Puritan after Puritan after Puritan calling the family a little church of Jonathan Edwards does the same he says ought to be as it were a little church consecrated to Christ don’t we want our homes consecrated to Christ and he calls this a chief means of grace for the family saying that if you if you fail to do this that the other means of grace are likely not to be effectual. But if you would do this thing that other means of grace are likely to be wildly successful.

This is what Jonathan Edwards preached and he preached it relentlessly to his people and he preached it with great passion. But my address today has very little to do with what Jonathan Edwards priest has to do with how he function in this household how he related to his dear wife Sarah and how they joined together in this in this dual mission working together to raise up their children in the training and in the admonition of the Lord. This time is dedicated to a study of how they live. His home was a little church the home life that Jonathan and Sarah Edwards carefully and intentionally built together in Northhampton and then in Stockbridge was a chief means of grace for their family. And when we see the output of that Grace as we study their descendants it was patterned around the clear teachings of scripture. And now looking back we can see that we can see so clearly that God used this home to give himself what he says clearly that he desires and Malakai too. He says Why did I join the two into one. I seek godly offspring and this is what God did through the Edward’s home. He joined this man and woman together in a sacred mission to give him the bring himself glory by giving himself godly offspring on his deathbed. Jonathan Edwards spoke with thankfulness of this quote in common union with his wife Sarah. And though it was it was an uncommon union and though it would be an uncommon union in our day it was thoroughly biblical in many in so many ways.

So as we examine the history of this family we see that the blessings they receive as they faithfully built their home around the patterns of scripture resulted in a great multigenerational blessing of faithfulness. God brought glory to himself in an almost unprecedented way through their descendants. And I trust that as we study their home life will be provoked to jealousy desiring that God would use our homes to give us the same multigenerational faithfulness that we see in the Edwards home and looking at the home life of Jonathan and Sarah. I’ve distilled their excellent example into ten categories where we can say this is what their home life was life. This is what their home life was like and we can map that back to the flagship scriptures about family life and say they were doing this. We should follow them. We should make our homes like they are like their home life. There are ten number one this godly home life began with Jonathan Edwards’s own heart the Gahn in his own heart. Deuteronomy 6 says this here O Israel the Lord our God the Lord is on you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart with all your soul and with all your strength and these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children and shall talk of them when you sit in your house when you walk by the way. When you lie down and when you rise up there’s a there’s a progression that we see here in Deuteronomy 6. It’s that the head of a home would love the Lord his God with all his heart soul and strength it would consume him. It would be a love without rivals.

And he would hide the words of God in his heart. And then he would teach it diligently to his children. And this was the case in the Edward’s home. It was fueled by a father who had a passionate love for God and who had hidden his words in his heart. One of the beautiful things that I love about this book is are appendices in the back where the author just gets out of the way and gives you Jonathan Edwards in his own words just directly from his writings. And so I’m pulling a lot of this from these dependencies where he’s writing. Twenty years later looking back at the time of his conversion and just saying just talking about how his heart was on fire for the Lord he says this The Soul of a true Christian. As I wrote as I then wrote meditations appeared like such a little white flower as we see in the spring of the year. Low and humble on the ground opening its bosoms to receive the pleasant beams of the Suns the glory rejoicing as it were. In a calm rapture diffusing around a sweet fragrant sea standing peacefully and lovingly in the midst of other flowers round about all in like manner opening their bosoms to drink in the light of the sun. There any John Piper fans here isn’t this very Pyper ask where he’s talking about the delight in God that we should have that. That’s not a coincidence. John Piper is definitely a Jonathan Edwards disciple. He studied extensively Jonathan Edwards and so when you hear Piper you hear the echoes of Jonathan Edwards.

And we might think how odd for a Puritan to be so focused on the line in God. I thought they were the ones who had the Limmen faces always had a pucker with no happiness no. Not so. That’s our improper training about the Puritans. The Puritans did understand sin and God’s wrath against sin. They had an even greater affection and even greater emphasis on delight in God. Certainly this was true of Jonathan Edwards. Piper gave an address and overview of Jonathan Edwards life and he said this what our people need is not a nice little moral or psychological pep talks about how to get along in the world. They need to see that everything absolutely everything from garage sales and garbage recycling to death and demons have to do with God in all his infinite greatness. Most of our people have no one no one in the world to placard the majesty of God for them. Therefore most of them are starved for the infinite God entranced vision of Jonathan Edwards and they don’t even know it. And this is what we see as we examine the writings of Jonathan Edwards that he did have a god entranced vision that God was eating him up from the inside. He had set him on fire with passion and desire for himself. And this was the fuel for that home life of the Edwards family. Edwards wrote this on January 12 1722 I made a solemn dedication of myself to God and wrote it down giving up myself and all that I had to God to be for the future. In no respect my own to act as one that had no right to himself in any respect.

He also wrote this I felt with all an ardency of soul to be what I know not otherwise how to express than to be emptied and annihilated to lie in the dust and to be full of Christ and to be perfectly sanctified and made pure with the divine and heavenly purity. Doesn’t this remind you of your first days of salvation when the Lord had impressed himself in a way you’d never seen it and you saw the light came on and such zeal and desire for the Lord doesn’t. These words remind you of that. Finally he writes this. Another Saturday night January 1738 had such a sense how sweet and blessed the thing it was to walk in the way of duty to do that which was right and meet to be done and agreeable to the Holy mind of God that it caused me to break forth into a kind of loud weeping which held me some time so that I was forced to shut myself up and to fasten the doors. I could not but as it were cried out How happy are they which do that which is right in the sight of God. They are blessed indeed they are the happy ones. This was the heart that God had placed in Jonathan Edwards and it created an atmosphere in their home life that allowed them to bring up their children in the ammunition and training of the Lord. Jonathan Edwards brought a heart full of passionate love for God into his marriage and into his home and so should we let’s let our homes be like the Edward’s home. In this way.

Number two Jonathan chose his wife carefully and well definitely an emphasis of the puritans the choosing of a spouse carefully and well and Jonathan Edwards did. Jonathan married Sarah Pierpont on July 28 1727. It was not the result of a man chasing his libido. It was not even the result of a man pursuing the more noble causes of friendship and companionship. Although Sarah was known to be quite lovely and although they had a deep and abiding friendship these were not the objectives of Jonathan Edwards when he went in search of a wife in Malakai to the Lord through the prophet Malakai is rebuking the people of Israel and the prof and the Lord says this Juda has dealt treacherously and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem for Judah has profaned the Lord’s holy institution which he loves. He’s married the daughter of a foreign God here. God calls marriage the holy institution which I love. Wow. And he’s condemning the people because they’ve spurned what God has called holy and they’ve taken for themselves pagan daughters to be their wives. And Jonathan Edwards understood the principle that the calling of God is that we would be equally yoked in spiritual matters that we be joined together with other strong believers and because we’re given a mission to bring the government of God to the ends of the earth through the gospel and that the only way that happens is if a man joins together with a woman and they both have their affections turned towards God. This is what Jonathan Evans was looking for when he went to seek a wife and so he wanted to marry Sarah Pierpont and what kind of woman was this sirup here upon. Well we have a lot of content on that.

We have a Greek study book of Jonathan Edwards where he wrote prior to their courtship about this young lady. He should have been studying his Greek but he was thinking of Sarah and he wrote down his thoughts. They say there is a young lady in New Haven who is beloved of that Almighty Being who made and rules of the world and that there are certain seasons in which this great being in some way or other invisible comes to her and fills her mind with exceeding sweet delight. And that she hardly cares for anything except to meditate on him that she expects after awhile to be received up where he is to be raised out of the world and caught up into heaven being assured that he loves her too well to let her remain at a distance from him always. There she is to dwell with him and to be ravished with his love favour and delight for ever. Therefore if you present all the world before her with the richest of its treasures she disregards it and cares not for it and is unmindful of any pain or affliction. She has a strange sweetness in her mind and sweetness of temper uncommon purity in her affections is most unjust and praiseworthy and all her actions and you could not persuade her to do anything thought wrong or sinful. If you would give her all the world lest she should offend. Great being she is of a wonderful sweetness calmness and universal benevolence of mind.

Especially after those times in which this great God has manifested himself to her mind she will sometimes go about singing sweetly from place to place and seems to be always full of joy and pleasure and no one knows for wife she loves to be alone and to wander in the fields and on the mountains and seems to have some one invisible always conversing with her. Now we might say Oh come on. Everybody thinks like that before a courtship given a year of marriage. Well after many years of marriage this is what Jonathan Edwards wrote about his wife. He describes her this way he says that she’s daily sensible of doing and suffering everything for God eating for God and working for God and sleeping for God and bearing pain and trouble for God and doing all the service of love and so doing it with a continual uninterrupted cheerfulness peace and joy. Oh that our spouses after years of marriage would write something like this about us that love for God would have so consumed us and shake us. This is how we would describe years into our marriage. This sounds remarkably like his passion for God isn’t it. Yes it is. He went in search of a wife who was consumed with God because he was consumed with God. And this shaped their life together and shaped their home life. She was well educated though not all the Puritans looked favorable favorably on the education of women. Sarah had the best training that a girl was allowed to have George Whitfield. The great evangelists visited and spent time on their home in their home on numerous occasions and he said this a sweeter couple. I have not yet seen.

She talked feelingly and solidly of the things of God and seemed to be such a help me for her husband that she caused me to pray God that he would be pleased to send me a daughter of Abraham to be my wife. This woman was so inspiring in her faith towards God that when the great evangelist George Whitfield comes and visits them in their home she inspires to him that he would pray that God would give him a wife like this. Jonathan Edwards was a wise man when he went in search for a wife and he found what he was looking Jonathan AnseRa years later participated actively in the court ships of their own children Samuel Hopkins was a New England pastor. He was much younger than Jonathan Edwards at the time it was customary for a pastor in training a pastor and waiting to go and spend time months at a time in the home of an established pastor to live with his family and to watch him in ministry and to be an understudy to him and then he would go out and take his own parish. Samuel Hopkins was such a man in the home of John Edwards family and many of the quotes that come from here to the end of the talk will come from Samuel Hopkins and he speaks as an expert because he lived there for months at a time and then even after he had his own pastorate through the years he would frequently visit their homes. So he speaks as a man who knows about the home life of this family. He says this about these courtships that happened later in life as their children grew.

If any gentleman desired acquaintance with his daughters after a handsomely introducing himself by properly consulting the parents he was allowed all proper opportunity for it room and fire if needed. They understood Jonathan and Sarah understood the principle of equal yoking in the Lord and so they practiced it themselves. And they also helped their children and they engaged their children in it years later and it resulted in a family line that you could trace spectacular multigenerational faithfulness. They understood this principle. Then they applied it to their children and so should we. Let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home. In this way. Number three their marriage was characterized by intense mutual affection and respect. As we’ve seen repeatedly over the last two days Ephesians 5 unashamedly calls for the submission and respect of the wife and the active self sacrificing love of the husband and Jonathan and Sarah had these things in abundance in their marriage and in their home Elizabeth Dadds out of her research she writes this about their home life. In the case of the Edwards’s familiarity bred respect the real test of the feeling of one person for another is in the daily encounters when one must pay bills carry out the trash sniffle through a head cold. This period of homely testing’s disclosed to the couple that they were permanently committed to one another so they turned now to translating their love into words into a way of life. You can’t maintain it forever you’re only thinking about her you can’t studying your Greek your writing all the flowery language and then marrieds in life hits and children come and there’s a routine to life. What does that do to your home life. Does familiarity breed contempt. No not for the Edwards bred respect.

It deepened their friendship and they understood they were committed to one another to serve the Lord together for life and so they worked together in friendship to give God godly offspring Dodd also writes this The casual observer solved the difficult husband the endlessly giving wife. Actually more than anyone of the outside guessed she leaned on him though she carried all the practical details of managing the house. Sarah depended on Edwards for her own spiritual replenishment. She would dart into his study during the day confident that no matter how intent he was on his writing he would put down his pen and turned to her with lighted face. She fed on his leadership of family prayers and on the quiet time she and Edward spent together on devotions after the children were in bed. The time that put a benediction on all the bustle of the daylight hours the rhythm of life in this marriage held love and constant companionship Dodd writes this series transactions with her children were reinforced because her husband treated her with total courtesy and serenely expected that each child would follow his example D.C. this do you understand what’s being communicated here. Jonathan treated his wife well in their home and their children were watching and because he treated her with respect and friendship. It was unspoken to the children that they should treat their mother the same way and impacted the way their children related to their mother because they saw how their father did. Men. Is this something we can copy in our homes that our conduct towards our wives would be so full of gentleness and love and respect and friendship that our children would not dare to treat them improperly.

Jonathan and Sarah had a marriage filled with intense mutual respect and affection and so should we. Let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home. In this way Number four we do pick up steam by the way we’re not really only 30 percent and through. And I said number for us also looks on faces that may be needed to interject that number for family worship was central to family life. They built their life around family worship. It’s called Family Worship in some places is called family prayer but it didn’t mean just praying together they meant the whole act of studying the word together and singing together and and praying together. And they built their family with this as the cornerstone. Back to Deuteronomy 6 where were exhorted to teach an unrivaled love to God diligently to our children. Elizabeth Dodd writes is he had noted in his journal in January 1720 a I think Christ has recommended rising early in the morning by his rising from the grave very early. I don’t know about the hermeneutical on that but it’s not my quote. So everyone in the house was routed out even in the dark winter dawns for prayers by candlelight. With the servants joining in they all heard a chapter from the Bible and ask God’s blessing on the day ahead. This is how the day started in the Edwards home before the sun was up. They would be around and out of bed even on the cold winter mornings and they would be given a chapter in the Bible by candlelight. This was the rhythm of their life together.

Elizabeth Dodds says this the surge and thunder of the King James Bible heard twice a day allowed in their father’s voice became part of the children’s earliest memories. I have a friend whose father was a pastor who had this practice in their home you’d read to them every day and he said to me at the time I didn’t appreciate it. I wanted to go play do other things. But now when I hear the Bible read aloud I hear it in my father’s voice and this was true of Jonathan Edwards kids of the world. Edwards brought the word of God to them tenderly and this was the routine and the rhythm of their life together in 1874. Long after Jonathan and Sarah were gone. There was a reunion of their descendants and there was a story related there that Cyrano de White was gathering material for his book about his great grandfather Jonathan and he interviewed a very old very old man Dr. Lathrop of West Springfield and Dr. Lathrop had been a local physician. Who had participated from time to time in their family prayers and he told of hearing Edwards provide preside at family prayers and commented that he never heard another prayer that brought heaven and earth so near together. This was not lifeless. Mechanical duty being lived out in the Edwards. It was a man who was on fire for the Lord who was bringing this and imparting it to his children. He was bringing heaven nearer to Earth during their times of family prayer. The Edwards made worship the central routine of their lives. And so should we let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home.

In this way number five honor and obedience were secured from the children honor and obedience were secured from the children. Ephesians 6 1 3 4 children obey your parents and the Lord for this is right. Honor your father and mother which is the first commandment with promise that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth. Samuel Hopkins the young pastor to be spent months in their home wrote this about Sarah and her governorates of the children. She had an excellent way of governing her children. She knew how to make them regard and obey her cheerfully without loud angry words much less heavy blows. She seldom punish them and in speaking to them use gentle and pleasant words if any correction was necessary. She did not administer it in a passion which she had occasion to reprove and rebuke she would do it with a few words without warmth doesn’t mean warmth in the way she thinks she means without anger or without warmth and noise in her directions in matters of importance she would address herself to the reason of her children that they might not only know her will but at the same time be convinced of the reasonableness of it. She had need to speak but once she was cheerfully obeyed murmuring and answering again were not known among them in their manners. They were uncommonly respectful to their parents when their parents came into the room. They all rose instinctively from their seats and never resumed them until their parents were seated and when either parent was speaking they were all immediately silent and attentive.

The kind and gentle treatment they received from their mother while she strickly and Punke till piously maintained her parental authority seemed naturally to promote a filial respect and affection and to lead them to a mild tender treatment of each other quarrelling and contention which to frequently take place among children were in her family. She carefully observed the first appearance of resentment and ill will and her young children towards any person whatever and did not connive at it but was careful to show her displeasure and suppress it to the utmost yet not being angry wrath yet not using angry wrathful words which often provoked children to wrath her system of discipline was begun at a very early age and it was her rule to resist the first as well as every subsequent exhibition of temper or disobedience in the child wisely reflected that until the child will obey his parents he can never be brought to obey God. Isn’t that better than ninety nine point nine percent of the childhood books in modern evangelicalism. They have much to learn from the Puritans Esther their oldest daughter wrote many letters to her mother’s and she normally addressed her as my honored mother. And this was not lip service just pen to page. This was lived out. They honored their mother because Jonathan and Sarah understood that it was their responsibility to secure the honor in obedience to their children for their welfare. Later in life Jonathan and Sarah did secure the honor and obedience of their children and so should we let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home.

In this way number six the children were carefully and rigorously educated Ephesians 6 4 says and you fathers do not provoke your children to wrath but bring them in the training and admonition of the Lord Edwards was a man with a full schedule. He resolved himself to study 13 hours a day. To study 13 hours a day. Not a lot of chit chat small talk. Wasted time in the Edwards home but the hour after dinner was his hour of relaxation. And Elizabeth the Dadds relates how he would often how he would normally use this hour she said. Edwards would use this relaxed hour to hear one child’s lessons. He had the idea unusual in those times that girls as well as boys should be educated. The girls tutored by their father at home and learned Latin Greek rhetoric and penmanship. Edwards also expected all the children to know Jewish and church history. The chronology of Biblical events and how to correlate passages in the old and new testaments a child never knew when at the dinner table he would be called upon to give a crisp answer to some such question as how long was it after the destruction of Jerusalem by never canals or until Babylon was destroyed by Cyrus I shudder to think whether I could accept a dinner invitation from such a man. He was busy. He preached he wrote. He traveled but he had time to educate his children. He tried to take a daughter with them on each of his trips. And they would ride on the cushion behind the saddle he practice the walk along talk along discipleship. We see in Deuteronomy Dadds says this he took opportunities to converse with them singly and closely. There were a lot of children.

He studied 13 hours a day but this was a priority so he took opportunity to converse with them singly and closely Deuteronomy 6 commands us to teach the ways of God diligently to our children in that mold. Jonathan and Sarah carefully and rigorously educated their children and so should we. Let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home. In this way Number 7 The home was run by an industrious home maker and boy was it ever run by an industrious home maker Proverbs 31 10 through 16. Familiar territory. Who can find a virtuous wife. Jonathan Edwards can for her worth is far above rubies. The heart of her husband’s safely trust her so he will have no lack of gain. She does him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeks wool and flags and willingly works with her hands. She is like the merchant ships she brings her Frood from afar. She also rises while it is yet night and provides food for her household and a portion for her maid servants. She considers a field and buys it. From her profits she plants a vineyard. Elizabeth Dodds says this however Sarah had most of the responsibility for the property. So you have the picture Jonathan studying 13 hours a day. What in the world is getting done at home. Elizabeth Dodds tells us she saw that the garden was planted in a hired man had his instructions for each day. They used to tell in Northhampton how once Edwards asked Isn’t it about time the hay was cut to which Sarah mildly replied. It’s been in the barn for two weeks. This can happen in my house.

Samuel Hopkins this man who stayed with them for months at a time says it was a happy circumstance that he could trust everything to the care of Mrs. Edwards with entire safety and with undoubted confidence. She was a most judicious and faithful mistress of a family habitually industrious a sound economists managing her household affairs with diligence and discretion. While she uniformly paid a becoming deference to her husband and treated him with entire respect she spared no pains and conforming to his inclination and rendering everything in the family agreeable and pleasant. She had counted it her greatest glory. And there where in she could best serve God and her generation to be the means of promoting his usefulness and happiness. We have this great deposit from Jonathan Edwards that can be a blessing and a help from the church. In this century and in the next century and it’s a deposit that Sarah Edwards paved the way for by how she handled the affairs of their household so that he could be in his study thinking and reading and praying and developing a deposit to pastor. We are in the debt of this woman Samuel Hopkins also said this when she herself labored under bodily disorders and pains which was not infrequently the case instead of troubling those around her with her complaints and wearing a sour or dejected countenance as if out of humor with everybody and everything around her because she was disregarded and neglected. She was accustomed to bear up under them not only with patience patience but with cheerfulness and good humor. The Edwards home was managed by a hard working industrious homemaker and so she had hours. Let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home.

In this way number a hospitality was a trademark of their family life. There are no chapters in this book without. This is the thaim day where they had people in and out of their home all the time. It was a trademark of their family life first Peter for nine and 10 says be hospitable to one another without grumbling as each one has received the gift. Ministering to one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God Edward’s home had received an abundance of the manifold grace of God and they opened up their homes so that others could participate in this grace as well. Hospitality was a trademark. Elizabeth Dodds says those were days of dubious Tavern’s so most travelers counted on stopping with the minister of whatever town they struck by night as Edward’s reputation mounted and the charms of his daughters became widely known. The number of guests grew. May it be so. Among Us Samuel Hopkins said she was peculiarly kind to strangers. By her sweet and winning manners and ready conversation she soon became acquainted with them and led him immediately to feel as if he were at home. As I mentioned Samuel Hopkins was an understudy to Edwards as it was customary for a pastor in waiting to be and there were many others like him who were adopted by the Edwards and brought him to their home for months at a time so they could see his family life had to be an understudy of pastoral duties. Their home is a place of laboring together that their house functioned efficiently because Sarah Edwards to these eleven children and you get a flavor in the book about the different personalities.

This was not a cookie cutter where they were just stamping out exact replica exact carbon copies one right after the other they had very varied personalities and gift bags. And Sarah was in the background working these together causing them to labor together and hospitality. It was a very efficiently run home and it allowed them to have guests day after day and month after month because they knew how to labor together. In the ward Jonathan and Sarah had a home that was given to hospitality. And so should we let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home. In this way number nine the family was made ready for adversity Matthew 7 24 and 25. Therefore whoever hears these sayings of mine says Jesus and does them I will like him liken him to a wise man who built his house on the Rock and the rain descended the floods came the winds blew and beat on that house and it did not fall for it was founded on the rock for the Edwards home the rains did come. The winds did come. The floods did come and their house was found to be established on the rock on Christ Edwards’s first pastoral assignment. Was to take the pulpit of his grandfather a well respected pastor in the area for decade upon decade even though in some ways he had different theology and sollom than Solomon Stoddard. Can you imagine the difficulties that would accompany taking that place. He experienced the death of close friends like David Brainerd the missionary who came and lived in their house also for months at a time contracted tuberculosis and died in their home.

A dear friend of theirs through the years Sera’s period of darkness she was a stalwart rock except for about six months where she had a breakdown. There’s really no exit there is no good explanation for it other than the Lord sent it their way. There’s nothing specifically that you can tie it to that would cause those difficulties in that time frame to be different than the other difficulties. But she went into that time as a rock and she came out of it as a rock. There was six months where she was not herself and there was much adversity in that. And they did not unravel. The family rallied Jonathan around his wife and their children around their mother and they withstood the adversity. Jonathan being dismissed from his pastorate of 20 plus years and Northhampton along with a slander and the conflict and contention that comes along with the pastor being dismissed later in life there are children with Mary and some of their spouses would die. This was true. Their oldest daughter Esther. She married a man by the name of Aaron Burr. It’s not the here and Burrier thinking of that’s the father of the ear and are thinking of who was vice president. United States and this Aaron Burr the husband of Esther their daughter died suddenly prematurely. And this is what Esther wrote to her parents God has seemed sensibly near in such a supporting and comfortable manner that I think I have never experienced the like thus. Dear Madam she’s writing to her mother thus dear madam I have given you some broken hint hints of the exercises of my mind.

Oh dear madam I doubt not but I have your and my honored father’s prayers daily for me. But give me leave to entreat you to request earnestly of the Lord that I may never think under this severe stroke or I am afraid I shall conduct myself so as to bring dishonor on the religion which I profess her fears did not come to fruition because she grew up in a family where the members were readied for adversity. Their home was built on the rocks so that when the winds came and the rains beat against it and the floods rose they stood firm in their generation. Jonathan and Sarah readied their home for the day of adversity and so should we let’s let our home be like the Edward’s home. In this way finally God gave them a lasting inheritance for their faithfulness. God gave them a lasting inheritance. We look back on their heritage and we say yes it was well done they were good and faithful servants of our God. Some 127 3 3 5 behold children are our heritage from the Lord the fruit of the womb as a reward like arrows in the hand of a warrior. So are the children of one’s youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them. They shall not be shamed but shall speak with their enemies in the gay God gave Edwards home eleven children.

And they thought rightly about it Jonathan and Sarah thought rightly about it they knew it was a stewardship and a trust and that God was filling their quiver full of arrows and they could send mighty warriors into the next generations for the spread of the Gospel and this is exactly what happened in their family line. Their grandson this is a funny story their grandson Timothy Dwight was invited to be the president of Yale but his parish. He was the pastor of a parish but his parish voted to refuse to dismiss him and this was their reason that there has been a constant uninterrupted harmony and a good agreement with the people of this place. We will not let you go there’s been too much harmony and blessing here why you’ve been among us. So the outside church hierarchy came in and made them release him so that he could go be the president of Yale but they didn’t want him to go. He was a blessing. And this was the fruit of the Edwards Tom I mentioned in 1874 descendants of the Edwards clan converged on Stockbridge Massachusetts which is where they went. After Jonathan was dismissed from the church in North Hampton and Mrs. Mary Edwards Whiting the only living grandchild she was 92 years old. Only living grandchild of this marriage was unable to attend but sent this message. She wishes to bear her testimony at that meeting to God’s covenant faithfulness and to his covenant mercies to her and hers. The fruit of the Edward’s home John Todd was at that gathering that family reunion in 1874. He was not an Edwards but he married an Edwards and this was his testimony. I married a wife and it was years before I found out what made her so much my superior. But when I discovered that she belonged to the Edwards family and that she had their blood in her veins I gave up the contest and have admitted all that she demanded.

Ever since that’s not funny Janet. Nineteen hundred a man named a. E. Winship conducted a study of almost 4500 of their descendants just to track them. See what had happened to them. And here’s a comment that he made says the family has never lost tone through marriage. The family has never lost home three marriage for its members have chosen men and women of like character and capacity. What we see in the mother and father what we see in the lives of Jonathan and Sarah we see in the lives of their children and their grandchildren and great grandchildren and their great great grandchildren. They ordered their home in such a way that God put his imprint there in a way that it would flow down through the generations. We’re all so frightened that our vices would be transmitted to the future generations aren’t we but we should set our mind that God can give us virtues and create an environment in our home in such a way that our virtues will be passed down through the generations under his mighty hand. We should pray for that. The result of this study was an interesting comparison between two families one the line of Jonathan Edwards one the line of Max Jewkes. There’s a reason you’ve never heard of Max Jukes and that you have heard of Jonathan Edwards. Here’s the study. Max Jukes was an atheist. He did not believe in Christ he did not believe in the Christian training. He married an ungodly girl and refused to take his children to church even when they asked to go.

At the time of this research there were approximately twelve hundred descendants from this union. Of these 3300 died as paupers. At least 150 were criminals. Seven were murderers. One hundred were drunkards and more than half of the women were prostitutes. These hooligans cost the state of New York one point two million dollars in the hundreds a lot of money. The 8300 Jonathan Edwards lived same time as Max Jewkes. He married Sarah Pierpont a godly woman and his spiritual equal. They gave the Lord godly offspring raising them in the training and admonition of the lord of his 13 and 94 known descendants. 13 became college presidents 65 became college professors 100 lawyers 30 judges 60 physicians 76 Army and Navy officers one hundred preachers and missionaries. Sixty authors of prominence three United States senators one vice president of the United States who was one of the more unruly of them. By the way 80 public officials and other capacities. Two hundred ninety five college graduate credit graduates among whom are governors of states and ministers to foreign countries. Jonathan and Sarah desired to have this spiritual legacy given to them from the Lord. And so should we. Let’s let our homes be like the Edwards home. In this way they poured themselves out to conform their home to the patterns of scripture and God gave tremendous increase for their labors.

Not so that we would stand around and or sit around and say look at Jonathan and Sarah Edwards but so that we would say look at the hand of a mighty God working through the generations that he would raise up such a man and such a woman as Jonathan Edwards and Sarah appear upon and join them together in a holy mission to raise up children to give them self godly offspring for the spread of the gospel and then see it happen through the generations. On his deathbed his wife was not there. He had gone to be the president of Princeton he had been there less than a month. He was inoculated for smallpox. And as a result contracted smallpox and these were among his dying words give my kind of love to my dear wife and tell her that the uncommon union which has so long subsisted between us has been of such a nature that I trust is spiritual and therefore will continue for our heavenly father. Would you give us uncommon unions where our homes are founded out of love for you that you breathe into our hearts. That is a consuming love. We would love you with all our heart all our soul all our strength. And that these words would be in our hearts and that we would teach them diligently to our children and that you would give us a heritage. Not so that our name would be known by that so your name would be known. That the Earth would be filled with the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. We ask this in Jesus name Amen.

]]> The State Owns Your Newborn Blood Spot DNA California can share your baby’s DNA sample without permission! https://goodshepherdmedia.net/the-state-owns-your-newborn-blood-spot-dna-california-can-share-your-babys-dna-sample-without-permission/ Wed, 25 Sep 2024 08:03:20 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=18745 California can share your baby’s DNA sample without permission, but new bill could force state to publicly reveal who they’re giving it to

The State Owns Your Newborn Blood Spot DNA

Genealogy companies like Ancestry.com and 23andMe have to get your permission before they store, use, or share your DNA, under the Genetic Information Privacy Act. However, the California Department of Public Health doesn’t have to. In fact, the agency has been storing DNA samples from every baby born in California since the 1980s.Researchers can purchase those samples for state-approved studies and law enforcement can access them with a court order, but state agency officials recently refused to provide CBS News California with a list of recent law enforcement and research requests for newborn bloodspots.

After more than a decade of CBS reporting on the biobank, this is the first time California officials have refused to reveal to us who has access to California’s newborn bloodspots. Under previous administrations, the agency regularly provided that information under the California Public Records Act.

Keep in mind, if you’re even related to someone born in California since 1983, thanks to genetic genealogy, portions of your DNA are in the biobank too, and can likely be used to identify you.

While California’s Newborn Genetic Biobank is undoubtedly saving lives, the appearance of state secrecy is raising concerns. In response, some California lawmakers are pushing for transparency, but they face an uphill battle at the State Capitol. (To learn more about newborn blood storage, and how to opt out, click here.)

For some, newborn DNA testing is a lifesaver

“He was a very cute, very adorable baby,” Ronnie’s dad said, as he described seeing his son for the first time, “and perfectly healthy.”

At the time, the new father (who for medical privacy reasons asked us not to use full names in this report) didn’t think much about what happened next. Like every baby born in the state, Ronnie got a heel prick shortly after birth. That blood filled six spots on a special card used to test babies for dozens of disorders that, if treated early enough, could prevent severe disabilities or death.

A couple of days after taking their seemingly healthy boy home from the hospital, they got a call from the local pediatrician, who said the child was diagnosed with “no immune system at all.” They learned Ronnie’s heel prick revealed that he had a rare genetic disorder called SCID, also referred to as “bubble boy disease” after David Vetter, who lived his life in a bubble in the ’70s before dying at age 12.

Ronnie’s first infection could have killed him, but thanks to research, the disease is no longer a death sentence. Ronnie was rushed to UCSF Medical Center where he received lifesaving gene therapy. That’s where he met Dr. Jennifer Puck, who created the test that saved Ronnie’s life.

“I could never have developed a newborn screening test for SCID if we hadn’t had stored dried blood spots,” Puck said.

Doctors only need a few of the baby’s blood spots for their own lifesaving genetic test, but the rest becomes the property of the state and can be purchased by outside researchers.

While newborn bloodspots had been used in research for years, the SCID test was the first to be developed using extracted DNA from bloodspots stored in California’s massive newborn genetic biobank. The state doesn’t extract or sequence the DNA from bloodspots, they store the physical bloodspot samples, which researchers can purchase for state-approved studies and extract or sequence the DNA themselves.

“You have to go through a scientific review to say, is this a worthwhile project,” Puck explained.

Many parents don’t know the state is collecting  newborn DNA

California has amassed what’s believed to be the largest stockpile of newborn bloodspots in the country. It is one of the few states that is still storing every baby’s bloodspots indefinitely, without first getting parents’ consent.

Therein lies the concern. Back in 2018, CBS News California randomly selected six new moms to ask what they knew about the newborn genetic testing program. When asked whether they knew the state was storing their children’s DNA, all said they did not; when asked if they felt they should have been made aware, they agreed they should have.

“I didn’t know there was repository of every baby born in the state,” one concerned mother said. Another added, “There just should be accountability and transparency.”

Some states allow parents to opt-in to storage or give informed consent. California automatically stores your baby’s genetic material, then sends you home from the hospital with a pamphlet that points you to a website where you can request that they destroy the sample. But first, you’d have to know they were storing it in the first place.

“I feel like that’s something that should have been discussed with us in person,” one concerned mother said.

“Everyone who came into our room gave us another pamphlet,” another added.

A CBS News-Survey USA news poll found three-quarters of new parents had no idea the state was storing their baby’s leftover bloodspots indefinitely or that they had the right to have their child’s sample destroyed.

“Blood is intrinsically personally identifiable,” one mother pointed out.

Could privacy violations, lawsuits threaten California’s biobank?

Public records CBS News California obtained from the California Department of Public Health in 2010 revealed that, in addition to research, newborn genetic bloodspots are also used by law enforcement.

Our reporting found at least five search warrants and four court orders for identified blood spots, and that was before the Golden State killer case made genetic geology a common law enforcement tool.

Since then, we know at least one cold case was recently solved with the help of California’s newborn blood spots.

A lawsuit alleges police subpoenaed a 9-year-old’s newborn samples from New Jersey’s biobank to link his father to a cold case rape before the child was born. And Texas reportedly provided race-specific blood spots to the federal government to build a DNA database.

But when we recently asked California’s health department for an updated list of research and law enforcement requests, the agency denied us, saying it “is no longer tracking” that information like it used to and it’s “not required to create a record” telling us who has access to California’s stored DNA:

“Unfortunately, GDSP is unable to provide you the information as requested. Previously, GDSP provided you with an existing spreadsheet of research studies… GDSP has since moved to a new computer program for collecting this data and is no longer tracking research studies using the spreadsheet and the table. Pursuant to Government Code section 6252, subdivision (e), and established case law, a public agency is not required to create a record that does not exist at the time of the PRA request. (See Haynie v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1061, 1075; Sander v. Superior Court (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 651, 665-666.)”

For years everyone from privacy advocates to lawmakers to genetic detectives have warned California’s secrecy could ultimately harm trust in the biobank.

“People have the right to choose how their DNA is used and how their children’s DNA is used,” said Cece Moore, a genetic detective.

Texas is one of several states that had to destroy their bloodspots after being sued for storing them without consent. It was a devastating blow to the research community and many worry that California’s biobank could be next.

“I think we need to find ways that parents can consent without harming research,” Puck said.

Medical community opposed allowing opt-ins in the past

The medical community has historically opposed allowing parents to opt into storage, for a number of reasons.

“If you required consent, a lot of people would say yes, and some people would say no,” explained Puck. “And the people who say no, we don’t know if that’s a biased sample. And so that would skew the biobank.”

Puck adds there is also a possibility that the parent could say no and then later really come to regret that decision.

However, the California Constitution guarantees the right to “pursue and obtain privacy” and state law “prohibits health care providers from sharing, selling, or using patient medical information without consent.”

Legal experts involved in lawsuits in other states tell us that it’s only a matter of time before California’s biobank is taken to court. If the state proactively allowed consent, they say it could ultimately help save the biobank.

Despite support, why has newborn DNA legislation stalled?

The Texas Law Review cited our ongoing reporting on this issue and so did legislative analysts when our reporting led to a bill last year that would have let parents opt out of storage or research before the samples were stored. Even the powerful medical lobby removed their opposition to the bill after the author made significant changes.

The bill passed three different committees, at least one with a near-unanimous vote. Then the bill quietly died in January behind closed doors in the Senate suspense file. Why? Money and politics. Any bill that is estimated to cost more than $150,000 is sent to the “suspense file” where, in a budget deficit year, many bills go to die.

The state health department claimed it would cost roughly $4 million to implement, plus ongoing costs of over $1 million a year, to give parents the right to opt out of storage or research before the state automatically stores their child’s DNA.

An independent appropriations analysis of a similar bill in 2015 estimated $120,000 to implement that bill with half a million in ongoing costs.

Neither California’s health department nor the Senate Appropriations Committee could provide an accounting or evidence of the estimated costs. But maybe more importantly, the bill should not have cost taxpayers anything because research fees are supposed to pay for the program.

Still, the Appropriations Committee chair has the power to kill any bill they want to by holding it in the “suspense file,” where it automatically dies without a vote. Then-chair, Glendale Senator Anthony Portantino, decided to do just that, ultimately killing the bill before the rest of the senate got a chance to vote.

The appropriations analysis of the bill clearly states that CDPH’s estimated costs would be covered by the Genetic Disease Testing Fund (GDTF), not the general fund. State regulation requires the biobank program pay for itself through the (GDTF), by charging researchers to use the bloodspots.

The committee analysis does cite potential additional “(c)osts to local registrars for administration,” however, regulations are clear: “It is the intent of the Legislature that the program… be fully supported from fees collected…”

We asked the CDPH Office of Communications to confirm that any costs related to the bill would have been covered by increased fees charged to researchers. The agency did not respond. However, we did receive an unsolicited notice that a California Public Records Act request had been submitted on our behalf. Under state law, that gives the agency two weeks to decide if it will answer our questions.

We also asked the Appropriations Committee and former chair Asm. Portantino, to clarify why they chose to let the bill die in the suspense if the bill would not have created any additional costs to the state?”

They did not respond to repeated emails.

Two new California bills introduced in 2024

Privacy advocates are at it again with two new bills this year.

Prompted by our recent reporting, SB 1099 would force the state to publicly reveal, among other things, who’s using California’s newborn bloodspots and why.

The other, SB 1250, would amend California’s Genetic Information Privacy Act to require the state government to follow the same rules as consumer genetic testing companies and get consent before using or sharing your genetic data.

“Consent is definitely a good option,” said Ronnie’s dad, who supports the biobank and consent.

Genetic data from those stored blood spots has undoubtedly saved thousands of babies, including Ronnie’s, who is thriving — outside of a bubble. source

The State Owns Your Newborn Blood Spot DNA

The #ReportersNotebook entry below was first published in 2015. Since then, we’ve identified new concerns. Please also see the updated story here:

If you or your child was born in California after 1983, your DNA is likely being stored by the government, may be available to law enforcement and may even be in the hands of outside researchers.

Like many states, California collects bio-samples from every child born in the state. The material is then stored indefinitely in a state-run biobank, where it may be purchased for outside research.

State law requires that parents are informed of their right to request the child’s sample be destroyed, but the state does not confirm parents actually get that information before storing or selling their child’s DNA.

Reporter Julie Watts has learned that most parents are not getting the required notification. She also discovered the DNA may be used for more than just research.

In light of the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook scandal and the use of unidentified DNA to catch the Golden State Killer suspect, there are new concerns about law enforcement access, and what private researchers could do with access to the DNA from every child born in the state.

Continue Reading at CBS San Francisco…

For more information on how your child’s specimen might have been used for research, email newsmom.com@gmail.com

#ReportersNotebook 2015

Do you know if your child’s  DNA is being stored in a government database? If you live in California, or at least 20 other states, it likely is.

In this report for CBS San Francisco, we took a closer look at the life-saving “Newborn Screening Test.”

No one disputes the need for, or benefits of, the mandatory genetic screening program. However, the controversy stems from the lack of disclosure about what they do with your child’s newborn blood spot DNA after the test.

For decades, state governments have been collecting, storing and “selling” babies’ DNA to private companies for research without parental consent—DNA from a blood test that you pay for.

Newborn Screening Test

Every baby born in the U.S. is pricked on the heel at birth so that their blood can be screened for rare genetic disorders. The test is required by law and is even performed following home births.

The Newborn Screening Program allows babies with rare genetic disorders to receive early diagnosis and treatment, often saving their lives.

SaveBabies.org outlines the screening process and the benefits of the test. It also highlights stories of lives saved because of the test.

Genetic screening really is a miracle of modern science.

However, in at least a couple dozen states, the blood spots that are used for the screening are not destroyed after the test.

Now, storing your child’s DNA is not inherently a bad thing. State researchers use the stored blood spots to come up with new genetic tests for other diseases, ultimately saving more lives.

What They Don’t “Tell” You

The issue for many, however, is the fact that some states store and sell your babies’ DNA without your consent or even knowledge.

In addition to state researchers, law enforcement and lawyers can obtain your child’s DNA, and private companies can purchase it for research.

(Note: The California Newborn Screening Program insists that the state does not profit from the sale of blood spots, rather private companies reimburse the state for costs incurred—often tens of thousands of dollars per blood spot.)

Parents do have the right to ask that the blood spots be destroyed, but did you know they even existed? Most don’t.

We asked the California Department of Public Health how it informs parents their child’s blood spots will be stored after the Newborn Screening Test. The state response made me laugh out loud.

The information for parents about storage and use of blood spots is provided on pages 12 and 13 of the Newborn Screening brochure. In addition to being available on the internet in multiple languages, healthcare providers give the brochure to parents prenatally and at birthing centers and hospitals.

Between trying to figure out how to nurse my newborn, change a diaper, sleep train my baby, learn the “5 S’s,” find time to shower, research vaccines, get to doctors’ appointments, interview nannies and deal with insurers, it never occurred to me to comb through the four folders of forms and information I was sent home from the hospital with to find that brochure so I could flip to page 12 and 13.

You’d better bet I did just that, though, as soon as I started researching this story. You know what I found? A “Newborn Screening Test Request Form (TRF),” filled out in a stranger’s handwriting that didn’t even have a spot for my signature.

Requesting/Destroying Your DNA

California’s genetic testing program began in 1980, so I took advantage of my rights in California to request information about how my DNA had been used.

Turns out the state didn’t begin “storing the DNA” until 1983.

So, I requested the same information about my sister and my daughter, but I was told that their specimens had “not been used for research.”

I then asked to have my daughter’s DNA/blood spot card returned to me so that I could ensure it would not be used without my consent. This is the response I received:

Unfortunately, department policy does not allow for specimens to be released to an individual, “The Newborn Screening Program tests newborn specimens to provide medical results for disorders for which we screen.  The residual specimens may be used for research concerning diseases of women and children.  When requested by parents or an adult who was screened as a child, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) will destroy newborn screening specimens so that they are not available for research or CDPH will send a portion of the specimen safely to another facility for further medical testing. CDPH does not release individual specimens to members of the public pursuant to requests by those individuals.”

So in short, you should trust that the agency that took your child’s DNA without your consent will destroy it upon request. They will not return that DNA to you even though it’s technically yours. I have not yet asked if they will return it to my pediatrician.

Also, note this disclaimer from the state:

You have a right to ask the Newborn Screening Program not to use or share your or your newborn’s information and/or specimen in the ways listed in this notice. However, we may not be able to comply with your request.

Though, keep in mind that by destroying your child’s sample, you are preventing researchers from using it to come up with new, potentially life-saving, tests. California has one of the largest databases in the country, and as a result can test for more genetic disorders than any other state.

After hearing from parents whose children have been saved by those tests, I opted to request that the state simply mark my daughters “specimen” as “do not use for outside research.”

Privacy

Now, to be clear, the state does not sequence the DNA, so it’s not exactly a “DNA database.” Rather, the state stores your child’s blood spots, which can then be sold for research.

It’s the researchers that extract–and potentially sequence–your child’s DNA.

The state claims the information is “de-identified,” so your baby’s DNA can’t be tracked back to the child. However, Yaniv Erlich of Columbia University and the New York Genome Center says there is no way to guarantee that.

As we point out in our CBS Report:

His research demonstrated how easy it is to take anonymized DNA, cross-reference it with online data and connect it to a name. “You need to have some training in genetics, but once you have that kind of training the attack is not very complicated to conduct,” he said.

Once he realized that there’s no guaranteed privacy when it comes to DNA, Erlich took it a step further and created dna.land. It’s essentially a crowd-sourced database where people voluntarily donate their DNA to share with scientists.

Its motto: “Know your Genome to help science.” Similar to 23 and me, you can also find long-lost relatives at dna.land. However, dna.land is free and run by academics at Columbia University and the New York Genome Center.

Is the state database legal?

Even if researchers couldn’t track your child’s DNA back to your child, the states can. They obviously have to be able to find your DNA if you ask to have it destroyed.

We requested public records and found that the state also hands over that DNA to law enforcement. It can be, and often is, subpoenaed. However, as far as we know, no one has yet been convicted of a crime based on their blood spot DNA in the state’s database.

A fairly new federal law requires that any federally-funded researchers using newborn blood spots must first get parental consent. However, that does not apply to state-funded or privately-funded research.

For now, the legal right to store and sell the dried blood spots is determined by each state. However, Pediatrics reported some states “may be acting outside the scope of their legal authority.”

Parents in Texas sued the state for selling their children’s blood without consent. It was later determined that the state sold blood spots to pharmaceutical companies for research and “loaned” it to the U.S. Armed Forces.

The state settled with the families out of court and subsequently destroyed the DNA taken without parental consent. Texas has now enacted a law allowing parents to “opt in” to the program.

The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) was also sued for establishing a biobank without parental consent. Samples were allegedly used for research by drug companies and equipment manufacturers.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that written, informed consent is required for storage, use or dissemination of any remaining blood samples or test results after completion of a newborn screening.

Ultimately the state was forced to destroy hundreds of thousands of test samples and results. Minnesota later enacted a law requiring written informed consent before newborn samples can be used for research.

That is something the medical community in California is trying to avoid.

We asked the California Department of Public Health why it does not allow parents to opt in, or at least provide informed consent, before storing and selling a child’s DNA. The state declined an interview and ultimately provided this response after our story aired.

Healthcare providers at California’s many birthing facilities give parents informational brochures about opting-out of blood spot storage. Since parents of newborns have many other concerns shortly after birth, this procedure allows them to make that decision at any time, without pressure. Parents can then contact the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and learn more about their options from knowledgeable professionals who are directly involved with the Newborn Screening Program.

Again, I had to  point out to the state that neither I, nor any new mother I’ve spoken with, recall ever being informed that our child’s DNA would be stored and/or sold after their genetic test.

I’ve now asked if they keep any records or have any evidence that parents are, in fact, informed. I’ve also asked the state to elaborate on why parents are not offered the opportunity to provide “informed consent for the storage and sale of their child’s blood spots at some point during in the 9 months leading up to the delivery.” I am still awaiting a response.

Lawmakers Trying To “Fix It”

Earlier this year, California Assemblyman Mike Gatto introduced the DNA Privacy Bill that would require the state to get informed consent from parents before storing and selling a child’s DNA.

“Whenever data is stored, data can fall into the wrong hands. Imagine the discrimination a person might face if their HIV status, or genetic predisposition to a mental disorder were revealed to the public,” said Gatto. “Parents should have the right to protect their children and people should have the right to control how their personal medical records are used once they reach adulthood.”

The bill was strongly opposed by the biotech, medical and research communities. However, after five revisions, the only remaining opposition was from the California Hospital Association. CHA declined to comment for our story.

Here are excerpts from the opposition to informed consent:

The California Hospital Association (CHA): 
...this bill would also increase the administrative burdens on hospitals, physicians, and new mothers which, in turn, will increase health care costs.
The University of Southern California (USC):  
California's database is internationally recognized as a critical public health asset and allows for the study of these rare diseases among its diverse communities.
The American Academy of Pediatrics and March of Dimes (CA Chapters):
... oppose any amendments that would link consent for storage and research of newborn screening blood spots with the initial collection and testing of the blood spots.
California Children's Hospital Association (CCHA):
... the current California blood spot database is an internationally recognized public health asset because of its size and diversity.... Implementing an informed consent policy will require significant financial resources...
The University of California (UC): 
... this measure could significantly limit the availability of the valuable data and biosamples collected by the CNSP for research use.

The bill ultimately failed. Gatto says he will re-introduce it next year.

Bottom Line

The bottom line is that newborn genetic testing saves lives. Without access to the stored blood spots from the millions of babies born every year, researchers say they would not have been able to create the life-saving tests to begin with.

The question remains: Should parents have the right to consent/opt in to the state storing and selling their child’s DNA after the test is performed?

Currently, the state admits it does not obtain consent, and the industries that benefit from the program are fighting to keep it that way. The general belief is that many parents would not consent if given the option, and the scientific community would ultimately suffer. source

DNA of every baby born in California is stored. Who has access to it?

You probably know where your Social Security card, birth certificate and other sensitive information is being stored, but what about your genetic material? If you or your child was born in California after 1983, your DNA is likely being stored by the government, may be available to law enforcement and may even be in the hands of outside researchers, CBS San Francisco’s Julie Watts reports.Like many states, California collects bio-samples from every child born in the state. The material is then stored indefinitely in a state-run biobank, where it may be purchased for outside research.

State law requires that parents are informed of their right to request the child’s sample be destroyed, but the state does not confirm parents actually get that information before storing or selling their child’s DNA.

CBS station KPIX has learned that most parents are not getting the required notification. And the DNA may be used for more than just research.

In light of the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook scandal and the use of unidentified DNA to catch the Golden State Killer suspect, there are new concerns about law enforcement access, and what private researchers could do with access to the DNA from every child born in the state.

Health

DNA of every baby born in California is stored. Who has access to it?

SAN FRANCISCO — You probably know where your Social Security card, birth certificate and other sensitive information is being stored, but what about your genetic material? If you or your child was born in California after 1983, your DNA is likely being stored by the government, may be available to law enforcement and may even be in the hands of outside researchers, CBS San Francisco’s Julie Watts reports.Like many states, California collects bio-samples from every child born in the state. The material is then stored indefinitely in a state-run biobank, where it may be purchased for outside research.

State law requires that parents are informed of their right to request the child’s sample be destroyed, but the state does not confirm parents actually get that information before storing or selling their child’s DNA.

CBS station KPIX has learned that most parents are not getting the required notification. And the DNA may be used for more than just research.

In light of the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook scandal and the use of unidentified DNA to catch the Golden State Killer suspect, there are new concerns about law enforcement access, and what private researchers could do with access to the DNA from every child born in the state.

The Lifesaving Test

It all begins with a crucial and potentially lifesaving blood test.

The Newborn Genetic Screening test is required in all 50 states, and is widely believed to be a miracle of modern medicine.

Nearly every baby born in the United States gets a heel prick shortly after birth. Their newborn blood fills six spots on a special filter paper card. It is used to test baby for dozens of congenital disorders that, if treated early enough, could prevent severe disabilities and even death.

It’s estimated that newborn screening leads to a potentially life-saving early diagnosis each year for 5,000 to 6,000 children nationwide.

The California Department of Public Health reports that from 2015-2017 alone, the Newborn Screening test diagnosed 2,498 babies with a “serious congenital disorder that, if left untreated could have caused irreparable harm or death.”

But, unless you or your child is diagnosed with one of these disorders, the test is often lost in the fog of childbirth.

KPIX randomly selected six new moms and asked what they knew about their child’s genetic test.

Three of the moms remembered the heel prick, while the other three say they think they knew about the test. But, like most parents, none knew what happened to their baby’s leftover blood spots after the test.

They were shocked when KPIX reporter Julie Watts explained it to them.

Your rights after the test

The lab generally only needs a few of the blood spots for the baby’s own potentially lifesaving genetic test. They use to collect five blood spots total from each child in California, they’ve now increased that to six.

Some states destroy the blood spots after a year, 12 states store them for at least 21 years.

California, however, is one of a handful of states that stores the remaining blood spots for research indefinitely in a state-run biobank.

Even though the parents pay for the lifesaving test itself, the child’s leftover blood spots become property of the state and may be sold to outside researchers without the parent’s knowledge or consent.

“I just didn’t realize there was a repository of every baby born in the state. It’s like fingerprints,” new mom Soniya Sapre responded.

Amanda Feld, who had her daughter 15 months ago, was concerned in light of recurring data breaches. “We know that companies aren’t very good at keeping data safe. They try,” she said.

New mom Nida Jafri chimed in, “There should be accountability and transparency on what it’s being used for.”

“Blood is inherently or intrinsically identifiable,”added Sapre.

Some states allow parents to opt-in or give informed consent before they store the child’s sample.

In California, however, in order to get the potentially lifesaving genetic test for your child, you have no choice but to allow the state to collect and store the remaining samples.

You do have the right to ask the biobank to destroy the leftovers after the fact, though the agency’s website states it “may not be able to comply with your request.”

You also have the right to find out if your child’s blood spots have been used for research, but you would have to know they were being used in the first place and we’ve discovered that most parents don’t.

Samples used to save more lives

Dr. Fred Lorey, the former director of the California Genetic Disease Screening Program, explained that blood spot samples are invaluable to researchers.

“They’re important because these samples are needed to create new testing technology,” Lorey said.

He explained that they’re primarily used to identify new diseases and improve the current tests, ultimately saving more babies

With nearly 500,000 births a year, California’s biobank is, by far, the largest and is crucial for research nationwide.

According to the Department of Public Health, more than 9.5 million blood spot samples have been collected since 2000 alone. The state has stored blood spots since 1983.

As a result, California can now test newborns for more than 80 different disorders, more than any other state. The standard panel nationwide is around 30 disorders.

But researchers with the California Genetic Disease Screening Program aren’t the only ones with access to samples stored in the biobank.

Blood spots are given to outside researchers for $20 to $40 per spot.

Regulations require that the California Genetic Disease Screening Program to be self-supporting.

“It has to pay for itself,” Lorey noted. Allowing outside researchers to buy newborn bloodspots helps to recoup costs.

According to biobank records, the program sold about 16,000 blood spots over the past five years, totaling a little more than $700,000. By comparison, the program reported $128 million in revenue during the last fiscal year alone, mostly generated by the fees parents pay for the test. Parents are charged around $130 on their hospital bill for the Newborn Screening Test itself.

Making money off your DNA

But while the state may not be making money off your child’s DNA, Lorey admitted that there is the potential for outside researchers to profit off your child’s genetic material.

“Do any of those studies result in something that the company can make money from?” reporter Julie Watts asked Lorey in a recent interview. “Could they create a test or treatment that they ultimately profit from?”

“Theoretically, yes,” Lorey admitted. “I’m not aware of any cases that that’s happened because virtually all, not all, of these researchers that have made requests are scientific researchers.”

He explained that researchers who request the spots must meet specific criteria. Their studies must first be approved by a review board. They’re also supposed to return or destroy remaining blood spot samples after use.

However, privacy advocates point to the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook scandal where third-party researchers were supposed to destroy data, but instead used it for profit – and untimely to attempt to influence a presidential election.

Watts pressed Lorey on that point.

“So there is no possibility a researcher may request blood spots for a specific research experiment … but then keep blood spots without the department’s knowledge to be used for other purposes?” she asked.

“I want to say no” he said. “But I’m not ready to say no because I know how humans can be sometimes.”

“De-identified DNA”

However, Lorey stressed that the blood spots cards, stored in the state biobank, are “de-identified.” There is no name or medical information on the card, just the blood spots and a number.

Lorey explained the identifying information is stored in a separate building and after a few years is microfiched so it’s not even kept on a server. Samples do need to be re-identified for various reasons, but Lorey says, in those cases, parents are notified.

And to be clear, he stressed, there is also no genome database. The state does not sequence or extract the DNA from the blood spots collected, although a researcher might, depending on the study.

Privacy advocates, like Consumer Watchdog’s Jamie Court insist DNA is inherently identifiable.

“There is no such thing as de-identified DNA,” Court said. “The very nature of DNA is that it identifies you and your genetic code specifically.”

Court points to the recent case of the Golden State Killer. Investigators used public ancestry sites to identify a murder suspect using decades-old unidentified DNA from a crime scene.

And we’ve learned, researchers aren’t the only ones with access to the blood spots.

Law enforcement access

A public records request revealed coroners often use blood spots to identify bodies, and at least one parent requested blood spots to prove paternity.

Law enforcement also can — and does — request identified blood spots. We found at least five search warrants and four court orders, including one to test a child’s blood for drugs at birth.

According to the Department Of Public Health, “Only a court order can provide a third-party (including law enforcement) access to an identified stored specimen without parental consent.”

“I think the storage of DNA for purposes other than medical research without informed consent clearly is violating a duty and a trust that the state has to the public,” Court said. “What are they trying to hide?”

State law says parents should know – but they don’t

According to the Department of Public Health, it’s not hiding anything. The agency points to page 13 of the Newborn Screening brochure which does disclose that the blood spots are stored.

“In addition to being available on the Internet in multiple languages, healthcare providers give the brochure to parents prenatally and at birthing centers and hospitals,” the Department of Public Health stated.

We asked the six new moms to bring in all the paperwork they collected from the hospital. Only one of the six women actually had the required newborn screening pamphlet and she admitted that between delivering a baby and learning to raise a tiny human, she hadn’t found the time to flip to page 13.

“I feel like that’s something that should have been discussed with us in person, not on whatever page in a document,” another new mom, Lesley Merritt, responded.

Argelia Barcena added that they were not told the pamphlet was crucial or mandatory reading material.  “I saw it as reference material, to refer to if needed, they dont tell you ‘you must read it,'” she pointed out.

Keep in mind new parents are generally sent home with folders full of paperwork including a variety of medical testing forms and pamphlets with information ranging from breastfeeding and vaccines, to sudden infant death and CPR.

“Everyone who came into our room gave us another pamphlet,” New Mom Amanda Feld pointed out.

In the case of the Genetic Screening Pamphlet, the moms agreed they wouldn’t have thought it was relevant to read after the fact unless their child was actually diagnosed.

And they’re not alone. We conducted an exclusive Survey USA news poll of parents with kids born in California over the past five years.

While a majority of parents reported that they did know about the life-saving test, three-quarters said they didn’t know the state would store the leftover blood spots indefinitely for research, and two-thirds weren’t sure they ever got the newborn screening information.

When we read the six moms that portion of page 13 that disclosed the blood spots could be used for outside research, they noted that it’s not clear the blood spots are stored indefinitely, available to law enforcement, nor that using blood spots for “department approved studies” means giving them to outside researchers.” P.13 states:

“Are the stored blood spots used for anything else? Yes. California law requires the NBS program to use or provide newborn screening specimens for department approved studies of diseases in women and children, such as research related to identify-ing and preventing disease.”

Lorey helped draft previous versions of the pamphlet. He agreed that the portion on page 13 “could be clarified,” but he said he believed the information included provides “adequate disclosure.”

He was surprised, however, when Watts showed him all the forms she was sent home from the hospital with and he acknowledged it could be difficult for parents to digest it all while also learning to care for a newborn.

He was also surprised to see the version of the newborn screening brochure that Watts was given.

Instead of the required 14-page pamphlet with the storage disclosure on page 13, she had a one page, tri-fold hand-out with no mention of storage, or a parent’s right to opt out of it. Instead there was a web link where parents could go “For more information…”

Required disclosure

State regulations say that parents are supposed to get the full 14 page pamphlet twice, once before their due date, and again in the hospital before the heel prick test.

But in practice, most parents say they didn’t even see the pamphlet until after the test, if they got it at all.

While the state says it “distributes more than 700,000 copies of the booklets to health providers each year,” it admits that it doesn’t track whether doctors are giving them out. It also does not confirm parents are informed of their rights to opt out of storage before storing or selling the child’s DNA.

Federal law

Under federal law, blood spots are currently defined as human subjects, and therefore require informed consent for federal research. But, that doesn’t apply to private researchers, and even that protection is about to expire when a new federal policy, known as the Common Rule, takes effect this year.

Following strong opposition from the research community, proposed protections for unidentified bio-specimens were stripped from the final rule. This means researchers won’t need consent to use de-identified blood spots, and, in some cases, can even use identified blood spots without consent.

It’s ultimately up to each state to develop their own policies on disclosure. Parents in  Texas successfully sued the state, ultimately forcing their biobank to destroy samples taken for research without consent or disclosure.

State law

In California, the newborn screening law doesn’t actually authorize the state to store a child’s leftover blood spots after the test, or give it to outside researchers, it only authorizes the life-saving genetic test itself.

However, the newborn screening law does say that state may store samples of the mother’s prenatal blood, which is taken early in the pregnancy, but only if the mother opts in.

Parents don’t get to opt in to storing their baby’s DNA however and that was not decided by voters or lawmakers.

While the newborn screening law was enacted by the state legislature, the authorization to store every child’s DNA and sell it to researchers is actually in a separate regulation enacted by the Director of California Department of Public Health. It says that a child’s “blood specimen and information,” collected during a test paid for by the child’s parents, becomes “property of the state.”

“Any tissue sample that is given in a hospital or any medical facility, once it’s given, is no longer your property,” Lorey explained. “You can agree with that or disagree with that, but it happens to be the law.”

In 2015, former California Assemblyman Mike Gatto introduced a law that would have initially made both the test and storage opt-in. It was strongly opposed by the powerful hospital and research lobbies, and after several revisions, it died in the Senate Health Committee.

Health advocates said their primary opposition at the time was due to the fact that Gatto’s bill would have made both the test and storage opt in, and since the test itself is crucial to saving lives, they said the test should not be optional.

Researchers, on the other hand, oppose letting parents opt in to the storage too because they believe they would get fewer samples if parents had a choice.

But, that doesn’t seem to be the case in California.

Calif. moms opt in to prenatal

Along with newborn blood spots, the California Genetic Disease Screening Program also tests mothers’ blood in the first and second trimesters, and they’re allowed to opt in.

About 90 percent of pregnant women do opt in to letting the state store their own blood for research. And, unlike the newborn screening test, a majority of moms said they do remember the disclosures and pamphlets about their own genetic test, because they got them early in the pregnancy.

Eighty four percent of parents surveyed said they think they should get information about their child’s genetic screening at the same time they learn about their own. That would give them time — several months without the distraction of a newborn — to process the information and understand their rights before the child is born.

Many said they also should have the right to opt out of storage before their child’s DNA is stored, or at least give informed consent before it is sold for research.

The problem with opting in

Critics of the opt-in option point to Texas. Following a lawsuit by parents, the biobank was forced to destroy blood spots that were taken without consent to store them for research. Now Texas allows parents to opt-in to storage.

When the potentially life-saving screening test is given in Texas, a storage consent form with a matching ID number is given to the parents to take home from the hospital and review. Blood spots are not stored in the biobank unless parents sign and return the consent form. As a result, a significant percentage of samples are destroyed.

Critics note that many parents never return the form, likely in part due to the distractions of a new baby.

Ultimately, that hurts the biobank and researchers because they get fewer samples, and more importantly, fewer samples from certain communities.

This means that research performed with those samples may not be valid for the entire population. In contrast, research performed with samples from California’s biobank is considered very strong and applicable to all babies.

A Calif. opt-in solution

Parents and advocates we spoke with in California would like to see the informed consent given out early in the pregnancy, long before the due date, which may lead to a higher opt-in rate than in Texas.

An opt-in early in the pregnancy would require a system in place to match the mothers’ consent forms, collected in the first trimester, with the babies’ blood spots, collected months later by hospital staff.

Lorey said California already has a similar matching system in place for the prenatal genetic test so it does seem feasible.

Court believes parents should have the right to opt-in before their baby’s genetic material is collected and stored indefinitely by the state, though that would be fought hard by the powerful hospital and research lobbies in Sacramento.

“Informed consent basically means we should know what we’re donating a sample for,” Court said. “If hospitals and the medical complex is so concerned that if we knew that we might not donate our samples, than we absolutely need to know what they’re doing with them because it suggests there is a purpose beyond what we know.”

Meanwhile, a majority of parents surveyed said they would have opted-in to storage if given the chance.

Additionally, they said they’re more likely to destroy their child’s sample now than they would have been if they had been notified of their rights to begin with.

Both the California Hospital Association and the March of Dimes, which opposed previous legation that would have allowed parents to opt-in, say they are now open to improving the way the state informs parents that their child’s samples will be stored and “may be used to advance research.”

However, neither has an official position on allowing parents to opt-in to storage.

Short of an opt-in, Court said he thinks there should at least be a tracking mechanism to ensure every parent is getting complete and accurate information about the storage early in the pregnancy, before the DNA samples are stored.

Since state law already requires prenatal doctors to provide the information, Court notes, it wouldn’t be a stretch to require they also get a signature from moms, allowing the state to track whether or not parents are actually getting the information.

What next?

So the questions remain: Should parents have the right to know that their child’s DNA will be stored indefinitely in a state-run biobank and may be available to law enforcement? Should the state have to confirm that parents are informed of their rights before it stores and sells the child’s DNA? Who has the power to make that happen?

Karen Smith, appointed by Governor Brown, is the current Director of the Department of Public Health. She has the power to adopt new regulations.

Though, for a more permanent fix, lawmakers in Sacramento would need to pass new legislation.

We’ve shared our findings with several state lawmakers on the Assembly Privacy Committee.  Many were shocked to learn that the state was storing DNA samples from every baby born in the state and selling them to outside researchers without parents’ knowledge or consent.

So far, however, none have shown any interest in giving parents the right to opt out of storage before the child is born, or even requiring the state to confirm parents are informed before storing their baby’s blood indefinitely. source

California collects, owns and sells infants’ DNA samples

The DNA data is supposedly anonymized, but one expert says the de-identification is easy to see through.If you were born in California since 1983, the state owns your DNA.

The data of every Californian born since that year is kept in a bland office building in Richmond, a city located in the eastern section of the San Francisco Bay Area.

That data’s not just passively kept, mind you: it’s also being sold, to third parties, for research purposes, according to CBS local station KPIX.

That biometric data, taken by a heel prick at birth to screen for 80 hereditary diseases, represents a wealth of information on an individual, from eye and hair color to pre-disposition to diseases such as Alzheimer’s and cancer.

Besides being sold – in purportedly de-identified form – to third parties, it’s also available for law enforcement requests.

None of this is new, mind you.

Dr. Jeffrey Botkin of the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children, which advises the Department of Health and Human Services on newborn screening, in June 2014 told Newsweek that this is a “long-standing issue and a controversy to a certain extent in the newborn screening field.”

The screening tests are generally mandatory under state law. When the program was first developed in the 1960s, Botkin said that the thinking behind it was that …

...the advantages for newborn screening were so compelling, it was appropriate or acceptable to have states simply mandate screening.

As of July 2014, 43 states allowed parents to decline the screening process based on religious beliefs or philosophical reasons, but the option is rarely exercised.

That’s probably due in no small part to the fact that parents only hear about the program during the hectic time when a mother in labor enters the hospital.

As Newsweek has reported, in most states, the blood spots are transferred to long-term storage banks run by state departments of health and retained for at least a few years.

In 12 states, they’re kept for 21 years or longer.

But California is one of just four states where dried blood samples become the property of the state: along with Iowa, Michigan and New York, it participates in a virtual repository, government-owned and -operated, that enables researchers to access the data and sometimes the blood spots themselves.

It’s not that the screening doesn’t help families. A prime example is the family of Luke Jellin, whose heel prick at birth led doctors to diagnose a rare metabolic disease.

KPIX quotes Luke’s mother, Kelly Jellin, a member of the Save Babies Through Screening Foundation:

Had he not been tested he would have been severely brain damaged, possibly would have had heart and kidney problems. If blood spots hadn’t been saved, they wouldn’t have been able to make the test that saved my child’s life.

Why isn’t this opt-in?

This all may surprise parents of the newborns, given that the tests are administered without parents’ informed consent.

Cases such as that of Luke Jellin notwithstanding, the question remains: why doesn’t the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) obtain permission before taking, saving, sharing and selling these blood spots?

When KPIX asked the CDPH for an interview on the issue, the request was denied.

In denying the interview request, the CDPH also failed to answer the question of why consent isn’t required for the test.

It turns out that information about the tests is buried on page 12 of the brochure about the Newborn Screening Program that hospitals give parents of newborns before they go home.

KPIX interviewed one mother, Danielle Gatto, who says she scarcely remembers the nurse mentioning tests performed at her two daughters’ births.

And she certainly didn’t turn away from her newborn to instead focus on a ream of paperwork, she noted:

I don’t think that any woman is in a state of mind to sit down and start studying up on the literature they send you home with.

The CDPH says that parents have the option of having the DNA samples destroyed: here’s the form to get that done.

Are the blood spots really de-identified?

The CDPH’s premise that DNA samples have been de-identified is questionable, one expert said.

Yaniv Erlich with Columbia University and the New York Genome Center told KPIX that there’s no way to guarantee that the samples can be rendered anonymous.

He’s actually found it quite easy to cross-reference anonymized DNA with online data and connect it to a name, he said:

You need to have some training in genetics, but once you have that kind of training the attack is not very complicated to conduct.

Erlich is, in fact, a supporter of sharing genomic information, for the sake of advancing biomedical research:

This is the only way that we can help families with kids that are affected by these devastating genetic disorders.

For her part, Gatto is unnerved by the unknowns of what could be done with the treasure trove of information stored in DNA samples and thinks that the state should at least ask for consent before storing and selling DNA:

We are at the beginning of a frontier of so much genetic research, there is no knowing at this point in time what that info could be used for. The worst thing as a parent is to think that a decision that you are making today may negatively affect your children down the road.

Her husband, Assemblyman Mike Gatto, introduced a DNA privacy bill this year that would have required signed consent on newborn screening.

The bill was killed after opposition – such as this letter from the University of California – from the state and the industry. source

Danielle Gatto has requested that her daughters’ blood spots be destroyed.

Bills to shed light on newborn DNA storage in California quietly killed or gutted

If you’re related to someone who was born in California since 1983, a portion of your DNA is likely in the state’s massive Newborn Genetic Biobank. In response to our decade-long investigation, lawmakers have introduced several bills intended to shed light on how the state is amassing and using California’s newborn DNA stockpile.

Only one of those bills is still alive, and while privacy advocates say it is a step in the right direction, recent amendments raise new questions about the appearance of state secrecy.

If you’re related to someone who was born in California since 1983, a portion of your DNA is likely in the state’s massive Newborn Genetic Biobank. In response to our decade-long investigation, lawmakers have introduced several bills intended to shed light on how the state is amassing and using California’s newborn DNA stockpile.Only one of those bills is still alive, and while privacy advocates say it is a step in the right direction, recent amendments raise new questions about the appearance of state secrecy.

(To learn more about newborn bloodspot storage and how to opt out of storage or research, click here.)

A life-saving test

Every baby born in California gets a heel prick shortly after birth. Their newborn blood fills six spots on a special card which is used to test them for genetic disorders that, if treated early enough, could prevent severe disabilities – even death.

Doctors only need a few of the baby’s newborn bloodspots for their own life-saving genetic test. The leftovers become the property of the state and are stored indefinitely in California’s massive Newborn Genetic Biobank.

California State Secrets

According to the state, there has never been an outside audit of how California’s stored newborn DNA samples are being used by the state, law enforcement, or independent researchers.

Throughout our decade-long investigation, CBS New California has reported on multiple law enforcement requests for identified newborn bloodspots, and the thousands of de-identified DNA samples that are sold each year to independent researchers.

For years, we’ve obtained those records from the state under California’s Public Records Act. The records have enabled us to show the public how our DNA is being used and highlight the program’s lifesaving benefits.

source

]]> Scientists Release Controversial Genetically Modified Mosquitoes In High-Security Lab https://goodshepherdmedia.net/scientists-release-controversial-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-in-high-security-lab/ Wed, 27 Mar 2024 22:03:56 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=17555

Scientists Release Controversial Genetically Modified Mosquitoes In High-Security Lab

Genetically modified “gene drive” mosquitoes feed on warm cow’s blood. Scientists hope these mosquitoes could help eradicate malaria.

Scientists have launched a major new phase in the testing of a controversial genetically modified organism: a mosquito designed to quickly spread a genetic mutation lethal to its own species..

For the first time, researchers have begun large-scale releases of the engineered insects, into a high-security laboratory in Terni, Italy.

“This will really be a breakthrough experiment,” says Ruth Mueller, an entomologist who runs the lab. “It’s a historic moment.”

The goal is to see if the mosquitoes could eventually provide a powerful new weapon to help eradicate malaria in Africa, where most cases occur.

“It’s very exciting,” Mueller says.

NPR was the only news organization allowed into the lab to witness the moment the releases began in early February. the DEMONCRATS and THE POWERS that be would never ALLOW NON STATE CONTROLLED MEDIA IN, only STATE FUNDED NPR so naturally the info is TAINTED IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE but read into the fact that ONLY A STATE FUNDED NEWS ORGANIZATION was let in

NPR health correspondent Rob Stein was the only journalist in the lab in Italy when a major new experiment testing the modified mosquitoes began. Ruth Mueller runs the lab.

health correspondent Rob Stein was the only journalist in the lab in Italy when a major new experiment testing the modified mosquitoes began. Ruth Mueller runs the lab.

The lab was specially built to evaluate the modified insects in as close to a natural environment as possible without the risk of releasing them into the wild, about which there are deep concerns regarding unforeseen effects on the environment.

“This is an experimental technology which could have devastating impacts,” says Dana Perls of Friends of the Earth, an environmental group that’s part of an international coalition fighting this new generation of modified organisms.

To prevent any unforeseen effects on the environment, scientists have always tried to keep genetically engineered organisms from spreading their mutations.

But in this case, researchers want the modification to spread. So they engineered mosquitoes with a “gene drive.”

A gene drive is like a “selfish gene,” Mueller says, because it doesn’t follow the normal rules of genetics. Normally, traits are passed to only half of all offspring. With the gene drive, nearly all the progeny inherit the modification.

“All the offspring. All the children — the mosquito children — have this modification,” Mueller says.

A technician begins the experiment by placing dishes containing dozens of modified mosquitoes in the pupal stage of development into large cages containing hundreds of their unmodified counterparts.

Researchers created the mosquitoes by using the powerful new gene-editing technique known as CRISPR, which Mueller likens to a “molecular scissor which can cut at a specific site in the DNA.”

The cut altered a gene known as “doublesex,” which is involved in the sexual development of the mosquitoes.

Adult modified mosquitoes emerge within days and start to mate with their unmodified counterparts. Scientists hope they will spread their mutation, thereby sterilizing the mosquitoes that spread malaria.

“The females become a bit more male,” Mueller says. “A kind of hermaphrodite.”

While genetically female, the transformed insects have mouths that resemble male mosquito mouths. That means they can’t bite and so can’t spread the malaria parasite. In addition, the insects’ reproductive organs are deformed, which means they can’t lay eggs.

As more and more female mosquitoes inherit two copies of the modification, more and more become sterile.

The idea is that if these modified mosquitoes are eventually shown to be safe and effective, they might someday be released in African villages plagued by malaria. The hope is that they would spread their mutation and eventually sterilize all the females. That would crash — or drastically reduce — local populations of the main species of mosquito that spreads malaria, known as Anopheles gambiae.

“Malaria is a huge problem affecting probably two-thirds of the world’s population,” says Tony Nolan, who helped develop the mosquitoes at Imperial College London. He is now at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.

Tony Nolan (left) of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and Andrew Hammond of Imperial College London helped create the modified mosquitoes.

Malaria sickens more than 200 million people each year and kills more than 400,000, mostly young children.

Scientists think gene-drive organisms could help solve many problems, including wiping out other insect-borne diseases such as Zika and dengue. Gene-drive creatures might also save endangered ecosystems by eradicating invasive rodents. They could help feed the world by creating more efficient crops.

But critics fear that gene-drive organisms could run amok and wreak havoc if they were ever released into the wild. The insects could inadvertently have a negative effect on crops, for example, by eliminating important pollinators, they fear. The insects’ population crash could also lead to other mosquitoes coming with other diseases, critics say.

“We can’t be taking lightly this extermination technology,” Perls says. “We need to slow down. We need to hit the pause button on gene drives.”

Some activists in Africa agree.

Scientists use a microscope to see if the genetic modification is spreading. Immature modified mosquitoes glow red with yellow eyes when illuminated with a laser.

“This is a technology where we don’t know where it’s going to end. We need to stop this right where it is,” says Nnimmo Bassey, director of the Health of Mother Earth Foundation in Nigeria. “They’re trying to use Africa as a big laboratory to test risky technologies.”

The experiment is a key step in the Target Malaria project. The project’s major funder is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which also supports NPR and so does the US government. so be careful use your head don’t live by DOGMA.

Nolan and Mueller say the project is working methodically and cautiously to assess the mosquitoes in close consultation with scientists, government officials and local residents in Africa. In addition, the gene-drive mosquitoes would affect just one of hundreds of mosquito species.

“There’s going to be concerns with any technology. But I don’t think you should throw out a technology without having done your best to understand what its potential is to be transformative for medicine. And, were it to work, this would be transformative,” Nolan says.

Other experts agree.

Gene-drive mosquitoes are able to spread their mutation quickly. Normally, traits are passed to only half of all offspring. With the gene drive, nearly all the progeny inherit the modification.

“If my kids lived in Africa, I’d say, ‘Go for it as quickly as possible,’ ” says Kevin Esvelt, an evolutionary engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Esvelt is a gene-drive pioneer who has repeatedly warned scientists to move cautiously with the technology because it is so powerful. But Esvelt thinks Target Malaria has been acting responsibly.

“The known harm of malaria so outweighs the combined harms of everything that has been postulated could go wrong ecologically,” Esvelt says.

The project plans years of additional study to evaluate the mosquitoes and possible environmental impacts, as well as social and political consultations to build a consensus for when a release would be permitted. That’s probably at least five years away, Nolan says.

Mueller demonstrated several layers of security at the lab to keep any mosquitoes from escaping. She noted that the experiment is being conducted in Italy, where this species of mosquito could not survive the climate even if the insects did escape.

“We really want to show that we work very, very sound and responsible about this new technology,” Mueller says.

To enter the most secure part of the facility, Mueller punches a security code into a keypad to open a sliding glass door. As the door seals, a powerful blower makes sure none of the genetically modified mosquitoes inside escape. Anyone entering must don white lab coats to make it easier to spot any mosquitoes that might try to hitch a ride out of the lab and must pass through a second sealed door and blower.

Once inside, Mueller points to a small container made out of white mosquito netting. Inside are dozens of mosquitoes.

“Here we have gene-drive mosquitoes — these genetically modified mosquitoes,” she says.

The insects quickly crashed populations of their natural counterparts in small cages in a secure basement lab at Imperial College London. The new experiment is designed to test them in a hot and humid environment more closely resembling their natural habitat in the African countries where this species of mosquito lives.

“This helps us understand better how a gene-drive release would work in the real world,” she says.

Mueller heads to a large, thick metal door.

“We will now enter the experimental chamber where the release takes place today,” she says.

The chamber houses six huge “cages.” The 9-foot-high cage walls are made out of white mosquito netting to keep the insects contained. The netting stretches from the floor to the ceiling. Each cage contains hundreds of unmodified mosquitoes.

Technicians add modified mosquito pupae and warm cow’s blood to large cages of unmodified mosquitoes to start the yearlong experiment.

Every cage is equipped with several features designed to replicate the conditions in which the mosquitoes live in the wild. The idea is to encourage the mosquitoes’ natural behavior.

The cages’ features include stacks of moist clay hollow cylinders for the mosquitoes to use as shelters. Also, large black boxes with white backgrounds are inside the cages. The contrasting colors stimulate swarming, which is when the mosquitoes mate.

A computer precisely controls the light in the chamber to simulate sunrise and sunset and the natural changes in intensity and color throughout the day.

“OK, we can start,” Mueller says as several of her colleagues crowd into the chamber.

After pulling on rubber gloves, lead technician Tania Persampieri carefully picks up a tray holding glass dishes, each containing dozens of the modified mosquitoes in the pupal stage of development. They’re squirming around in water.

Persampieri slowly walks over to the first cage, squats down and picks up one of the dishes holding the mosquito pupae. She gently slides the dish through an opening in the netting that prevents any insects from escaping and places the vessel on the floor.

Within days, the modified mosquito pupae will emerge as adult mosquitoes and start spreading their lethal modification.”The experiment has now started,” Mueller says. “It’s very exciting.”

Persampieri and her co-workers move quietly to avoid unnecessarily stressing the mosquitoes.

Persampieri releases immature gene-drive mosquitoes in four of the six cages. Two cages receive amounts equal to 25 percent of the unmodified populations already in the cages; two cages receive amounts equal to 50 percent. The remaining two cages will be used for comparison and so don’t receive any modified insects.

Other technicians slide canisters of warm cow’s blood into each cage.

“We heat up the blood because this is attractive for the mosquitoes. They don’t like cold blood. They want to have a living animal where they can bite in,” Mueller says.

As the researchers are finishing, the lights in the cage chamber start to dim.

“It’s a slow dimming and also a specific light color — very orange, very warm color — so that they really feel like [they’re] having a sunset,” Mueller says.

That’s key because sunset is when male mosquitoes start their mating dance.

“The males make swarms — many mosquito males flying around,” Mueller says. “It looks a bit like dancing.”

As the males swarm, females fly in and select a male; then the pair flies out to mate.

“They couple and make babies,” Mueller says.

Mueller and her colleagues are collecting thousands of eggs from the cages every week to monitor how well the sterilizing mutation is spreading.

The researchers hope to know within six months to a year whether the modified mosquitoes dance well enough to efficiently spread their lethal modification in the wild.

“Maybe you can see already if you go a bit nearer,” Mueller says, pointing to a few mosquitoes that have begun flying around inside the black boxes.

Turns out, Terni is home to a shrine to St. Valentine. And the experiment is beginning just before Valentine’s Day. So the basilica’s annual Valentine’s Day celebrations are just beginning as well with a church service at his shrine.

As she watches the modified mosquitoes start their first mating ritual in her lab, Mueller muses, with a laugh: “It’s very romantic.”

]]> Grow and Eat Your Own Vaccines? – Oral Vaccination with Transgenic Vegetables https://goodshepherdmedia.net/grow-and-eat-your-own-vaccines-oral-vaccination-with-transgenic-vegetables/ Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:19:54 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=17551 Grow and Eat Your Own Vaccines? – Oral Vaccination with Transgenic Vegetables

The future of vaccines may look more like eating a salad than getting a shot in the arm. UC Riverside scientists are studying whether they can turn edible plants like lettuce into mRNA vaccine factories.

Messenger RNA or mRNA technology, used in COVID-19 vaccines, works by teaching our cells to recognize and protect us against infectious diseases.

One of the challenges with this new technology is that it must be kept cold to maintain stability during transport and storage. If this new project is successful, plant-based mRNA vaccines — which can be eaten — could overcome this challenge with the ability to be stored at room temperature.

The project’s goals, made possible by a $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation, are threefold: showing that DNA containing the mRNA vaccines can be successfully delivered into the part of plant cells where it will replicate, demonstrating the plants can produce enough mRNA to rival a traditional shot, and finally, determining the right dosage.

Chloroplasts
Chloroplasts (magenta color) in leaves expressing a green fluorescent protein. The DNA encoding for the protein was delivered by targeted nanomaterials without mechanical aid by applying a droplet of the nano-formulation to the leaf surface.
Credit: Israel Santana/UC Riverside

“Ideally, a single plant would produce enough mRNA to vaccinate a single person,” said Juan Pablo Giraldo, an associate professor in UC Riverside’s Department of Botany and Plant Sciences who is leading the research, done in collaboration with scientists from UC San Diego and Carnegie Mellon University.

“We are testing this approach with spinach and lettuce and have long-term goals of people growing it in their own gardens,” Giraldo said. “Farmers could also eventually grow entire fields of it.”

Key to making this work are chloroplasts — small organs in plant cells that convert sunlight into energy the plant can use. “They’re tiny, solar-powered factories that produce sugar and other molecules which allow the plant to grow,” Giraldo said. “They’re also an untapped source for making desirable molecules.”

In the past, Giraldo has shown that it is possible for chloroplasts to express genes that aren’t naturally part of the plant. He and his colleagues did this by sending foreign genetic material into plant cells inside a protective casing. Determining the optimal properties of these casings for delivery into plant cells is a specialty of Giraldo’s laboratory.

For this project Giraldo teamed up with Nicole Steinmetz, a UC San Diego professor of nanoengineering, to utilize nanotechnologies engineered by her team that will deliver genetic material to the chloroplasts.

Chloroplasts
Plant viruses provide naturally occurring nanoparticles that are being repurposed for gene delivery into plant cells.
Credit: Nicole Steinmetz/UC San Diego

“Our idea is to repurpose naturally occurring nanoparticles, namely plant viruses, for gene delivery to plants,” Steinmetz said. “Some engineering goes into this to make the nanoparticles go to the chloroplasts and also to render them non-infectious toward the plants.”

For Giraldo, the chance to develop this idea with mRNA is the culmination of a dream. “One of the reasons I started working in nanotechnology was so I could apply it to plants and create new technology solutions. Not just for food, but for high-value products as well, like pharmaceuticals,” Giraldo said.

Giraldo is also co-leading a related project using nanomaterials to deliver nitrogen, a fertilizer, directly to chloroplasts, where plants need it most.

Nitrogen is limited in the environment, but plants need it to grow. Most farmers apply nitrogen to the soil. As a result, roughly half of it ends up in groundwater, contaminating waterways, causing algae blooms, and interacting with other organisms. It also produces nitrous oxide, another pollutant.

This alternative approach would get nitrogen into the chloroplasts through the leaves and control its release, a much more efficient mode of application that could help farmers and improve the environment.

The National Science Foundation has granted Giraldo and his colleagues $1.6 million to develop this targeted nitrogen delivery technology.

“I’m very excited about all of this research,” Giraldo said. “I think it could have a huge impact on peoples’ lives.”

The University of California opened its doors in 1869 with just 10 faculty members and 40 students. Today, the UC system has more than 280,000 students and 227,000 faculty and staff, with 2.0 million alumni living and working around the world. Source

 

 

Tennessee lawmaker wants rules in place for the possibility of vaccines in produce

Tennessee House Bill HB1894

On 21 February 2024, the Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill (HB1894) on food labeling sponsored by lawmaker Scott Cepicky. The bill “prohibits the manufacture, sale, or delivery, holding, or offering for sale of any food that contains a vaccine or vaccine material unless the food labeling contains a conspicuous notification of the presence of the vaccine or vaccine material in the food”.

 

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WTVF — Some Tennessee lawmakers are wanting rules in place to prevent vaccines from possibly being put in fruits and vegetables.

There are no vaccines in your lettuce or tomatoes when you go grocery shopping right now, but Representative Scott Cepicky believes it could happen since researchers in California have “perfected putting vaccines into certain foods.”

The representative crafted what he calls a consumer protection bill to make sure you know whether you’re picking up a tomato with a vaccine in it or not in the event vaccines are admitted in your favorite foods.

He says there need to be safety measures in place.

“If you go to buy tomatoes, and there’s a polio vaccine in there, that you’re aware of what you’re buying as a polio vaccine,” said Rep. Cepicky. “The problem we have is if it’s not treated as a pharmaceutical… How many tomatoes do I have to eat to get the proper dosage versus how many tomatoes do you have to eat? And if you eat too many, do you get an overdose?”

Representative John Ray Clemmons questioned whether having vaccines in fruits and vegetables is legal in TN and if not, is the legislation to protect Tennesseans necessary. Cepicky says having something in place is better than not.

The protection bill passed its latest House committee vote just last week. source

 

A review of oral vaccination with transgenic vegetables by the US GOVERNMENT

C O Tacket 1, H S Mason
Affiliations 

Free article

Abstract

Mucosal immunization of the gastrointestinal tract is an effective way to stimulate local and systemic immune responses. Oral vaccines must be formulated in such a way that antigens are protected as they pass through the adverse environment of the stomach and are delivered to the mucosal inductive sites. Vaccine antigens cloned into edible transgenic plants are a promising new delivery system for oral vaccines. Such vaccines could be safe, inexpensive, and multicomponent.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

LinkOut – more resources

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10816083/

]]>