If so, it seems that these traditional theologies face a moral problem: God''s total observation violates human privacy in a way that seems wrong in most human contexts. We shall begin our discussion by developing further the problem of human privacy posed by traditional Jewish, Islamic, and Christian conceptions of God. As we have just mentioned, theologians in these traditions hold that God engages in a seemingly relentless form of total observation. So while omniscience may excuse God''s total observation, it simply does not follow without any further argument that human privacy has not been violated, that something morally bad has not occurred. He or she could (i) accept that one or both of (1) and (2) are correct, and hence hold that total observation is always-even for God-prima facie morally wrong or bad, but then argue that some set of higher principles justifies the infringement of human privacy.
Around 1997, and amid the talks of Hong Kong''s upcoming return to China and later the Asian financial crisis, a recurring topic in the Chinese media was the so-called ''''gene war of the century'''': the lopsided condemnation of foreign scientists coming purportedly to pilfer China''s vast genetic resources for a profit. Despite his repeated proclamation as a staunch and unwavering patriot loyal to his beloved motherland and dedicated to the advancement of China''s science and technology, he nonetheless later became embroiled in an avalanche of controversies surrounding the ''''gene war.'''' He effectively became a lightning rod for all the controversy on genetic resources, intellectual rights, informed consent, and the protection of human research subjects. (2) Chinese scientists should immediately grasp the opportunity to find disease genes and patent them; (3) We should educate the people, and raise the awareness and importance of protection of our genetic resources; (4) We welcome all international collaborations based on fairness and mutual benefits; (5) Through various avenues, the Chinese scientists should be vocal about certain views deemed to be harmful to China''s genetic research (Xiao et al.
In the following sections, I will describe four elements of institutional conversion that flow from the conversation between Lewis Rambo''s decades of research on religious conversion and what I was hearing as a pointed call for change in Adele''s "Send My Love To Your New Lover." I locate these insights in the realm of theological education, where I work, but imagine they could help illustrate similar dynamics in other areas of higher education and institutional life. Bringing Adele and Rambo into conversation, I distinguish four practices that could loosen institutional stuckness in order to motivate institutions who still want to keep moving through a decolonizing conversion process: (1) untangling initial inclusion from completed conversion, (2) truth-telling about desires not to convert, or resistances, (3) detangling toe-dipping from being in over our heads, and (4) (re)engaging a commissioning call and response in order to (re)commit to conversions in practice.
Third and finally, it was to be attempted to influence the outbreak of disease by environmental stimuli (poisons, chemicals, feeding), not least in order to be able to differentiate between a "general" and a "genetically increased" susceptibility, which, according to Fischer, was "of particular importance in view of the most modern methods of treating diseased humans." At the close of his application Fischer stated his conviction "that these theoretical and experimental studies will be of benefit to suffering humanity and serve the preservation of the genetic health of our Volk." Mentioning discreetly that the Reichsgesundheitsführer shared his views, Fischer guaranteed that he could "carry the full responsibility" for the importance of Nachtsheim''s research "even now at a time of war." When Nachtsheim started in Dahlem, he had at his disposition, as Fischer informed the DFG, a series of rabbit strains that exhibited genetic diseases or disabilities: These were "genetic epilepsy […], shaking palsies and other nervous diseases; glaucoma and other eye diseases; deformation of the limbs, the external sex organs (similar to those of humans), harelip and cleft palate and many others." 239 From Nachtsheim''s report to the German Research Association of January 14, 1941 -the first he submitted from his new position in Dahlem -proceed the work emphases of the group of scientists around Nachtsheim in 1940, that is, still at the Institute for Genetics and Breeding Research.