Slashdot Mirror
Human-Mouse Hybrids?
scientistguy writes "There is a remarkable story by Nicholas Wade in the early
morning edition of the New York Times about a discussion to create human-mouse
hybrid organisms. One of these techniques involves the introduction of genetically altered mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells (e.g. with
genes 'knocked-out' or replaced) into a developing mouse blactocyst to create progeny hybrid organisms. Typically, these progeny organisms are then bred to unaltered mice to see
if the genetic alteration has gone germline or is heritable. If heritable, mice can be bred and
animals which are homozygous for the altered gene can be phenotypically examined as long as the manipulation is not homozygous lethal or cause
sterility in a single copy state. Unless using
blastocysts from immunologically crippled mice, there would most likely be a recognition of non-self by murine immune cells not educated (which haven't seen during their development) to the human cells that would wipe them out. Nonetheless, it's amazing that it's
being contemplated due to the ethical implications of such an experiment. What if it were viable? What if there were more than just a few
human cells? Could it be sacrificed? ... or even experimented on further if part 'human'? Perhaps these
types of experiments are best relegated to little known, deserted islands far
away from the reaches of civilization (or perhaps regulation) ..."
...and they were worried about cloning? (rolleyes)
He gave as an extreme example the possibility that a mouse making human sperm might accidentally be allowed to mate with a mouse that had made its eggs from human cells. He gave as an extreme example the possibility that a mouse making human sperm might accidentally be allowed to mate with a mouse that had made its eggs from human cells.
Can I bum a sig?
To understand the true impact of genetic research, look at it like this: today we still see life as hardware, something that has physical shape. We are rapidly approaching the state where we will see life as software, something to be programmed and copied infinitely cheaply.
Human-mouse hybrids? So what. Within a generation you will be able to design any lifeform you can imagine on your computer screen, and 'print' it into a virgin cell that will grow into your animal or plant.
It is an inevitable progression. DNA is a digital code, and it is just a matter of horsepower to crack and then manipulate it.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Why are they having ethical problems with it? It is already being done in a smaller scale all the time. If I understand it correctly, in order to create recombinant monoclonal antibody drugs like Remicade, they place human antibody genes into a bacteria and have the the bacteria pump out antibodies.
People complain and say that scientists should not make half-animal-half-man creatures and mix creatures. Just because it doesn't LOOK like some sort of chimera doesn't make it NOT a chimera.
Isn't antibody engineering and this the same thing?
Nor are birds. At least according to the US government. They excluded from protection under animal welfare laws, and thus should not be worried about, eh?
The actual exclusion is set down in 9 CFR part 1, and reads as follows:
"Animal means any live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or any other warmblooded animal, which is being
used, or is intended for use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet. This term excludes: Birds, rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research, and horses not used for research purposes and other farm animals..."
We can experiment on it (treat it as property) until it asks us to stop.
-Peter
The social implications have been treated some 60 ago by Cordwainer Smith (alias Charles Linebarger). I have found, he has a web site now: http://www.cordwainer-smith.com/
After these technique is as common as taking pills there is no sharply outline border between men and animals any more... Quite a different world...
And rant about all the weenies who are afraid of scientific progress.
I hope they do this. AND cloning, AND every other scientific experiment that might be interesting.
There is no such thing as bad knowledge, there is ONLY accurate or inaccurate DATA. ALL knowldege is good, ALL information should be propagated to every last human being on the planet. Holding back from knowledge, or any potential knowldege out of "fear" Religon" "National Security" or any other such quasi Pandorian bullshit is -to me anyway- being a traitor to the whole human race. I hope that every self proclaimed "ethicist" will someday be seen as merely another inquisitor slowing the progress of humanity out of the dark ages.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
"IMHO, we lost control of everything when commercialization of research took over as the motive"
Absolutely. I worked in science for about ten years (in a field that genomic/protein research has all but taken over) and watched in horror as the investment dollars took over research.
Scientists today are not asking themselves why am I doing this but how much can I get for doing this? Then come the spin doctors (PR, marketing, bean counters, etc.) who hype the science as the greatest thing for humanity ever. Egads.
Doomsday? Probably. It appears we are playing with matches next to a giant bale of very dry hay.
As Samuel L. Jackson said in Jurrasic Park (hated the movie), 'hang on to your butts'.
...what we should be working on
as a PhD-level biochemist/molecular biologist, i can tell you that seemingly pointless experiments such as these provide the necessary knowledge, or building blocks if you will, for us to understand the very complex process of growth and development. it's impossible to know to fix things if you don't know how they work and why they're broken.
you, the public, should know that any form of experimentation on any living thing with a backbone and a nervous system is *highly* regulated, as in many forms to fill out, a review committee, certification of the researcher following compulsory courses, etc.
it is unfortunate that the mainstream press *always* focus on the "freakish" aspect of science research, and not the "big picture". the bottom line is that in order for us to tackle the "big" issues in science and medicine, we need to experiment on living things. full stop, underline. of course i agree that there is an ethical aspect to certain areas of research that should not be neglected, but right now the ethical bar is being set way too low because of uninformed, negative spin on the part of the press.
we have been "genetically engineering" bacteria for over 20 years with no complaints nor public profile, and that research has directly and indirectly contributed immensely to various gene therapies and diagnostics, and to the mechanisms of viral and bacterial disease. the second that genetic engineering (improvement) of foodstuffs is mentioned, bang! alarm bells! when in fact, the bacterial and viral genetic engineering of the past 2 decades has posed a far greater risk of something going "wrong" or of some malevolent person engineering a super-ebola with a one week latency period (in which case we'd all be fucked big time). genetic engineering of food has the potential to solve or at least lessen the ongoing starvation of millions (while we continue to worry about whether we should upgrade to the latest video card...).
now take stem cell research. so what, stem cells. science operating the way it does, the vast majority of stem cells come from people who've died and/or aborted foetuses, not living creatures or "stem cell factories". i know, sounds icky, but stem cells are hugely important in terms of their scientific value and potential outcomes to mankind. and let's face it, once dead, a person's bone marrow is of no use to anyone else, right?
what society needs is some perspective. bush and gov can spin the ensuing iraq invasion in such a manner that many americans think it's kindof OK to *invade* a country and kill thousands of people for the sole reason that bush doesn't like their leader. if thousands of lives of living, breathing people can be wasted for oil, then why should we not make use of those passed away by natural causes to help the living? you.. your sister... your mother... your neighbour...
to be a scientist is to revere life and the process of living above all else. you should have more faith in us to do what is right. better yet, inform yourself about the issue or ask a friendly neighbourhood science pal and thrash out the real issues.
obviously, this is an issue close to my heart...
The guy who sent in the post asks: "What if it were viable? What if there were more than just a few human cells? Could it be sacrificed? ... or even experimented on further if part 'human'?"
These questions just emphasize how silly it is to justify experimenting on animals because "they are not human." Just because these mice will have some human cells, they do not become human, or even partially human. They are still mice. If it was okay to experiment on them before, then it is still okay. If adding human cells to mice makes it not okay to experiment on them, then it wasn't okay in the first place. (Note that by "okay," I mean morally acceptable, and by "experiment," I mean cut them open, kill them, electrocute them, and whatever else scientists think they have the right to do non-human animals that they don't think they have the right to do to humans).
I am not saying that experimenting on animals is wrong. I believe it is justified by the lives saved (we wouldn't have had a polio vaccine as quickly if we couldn't test it on animals, yadda yadda). But for people who try to justify animal experimentation by the reasoning that it's acceptable because animals aren't human, this "test" quite nicely points out the flaws in that distinction. How you say? Let's take a hypothetical human-mouse hyrbid organism. This organism has human cells (which, as the article puts it, obey mouse rules) dispersed throughout its body. Now, the presence of the human cells doesn't really change the mouse's phenotype. If the mouse can breed (and produce viable offsring) with other, "pure" mice, then it's still a mouse by species (and therefore, has the same genotype). Thus, it is only the presence of a few cells which makes this hybrid organism "human enough" that it would be unacceptable to experiment on it. Well, how many human cells make an organism "human enough?" What if some unscrupulous scientist merges mice stem cells with a human? Does this person become a "mouse," i.e., a non-human animal upon whom we can experiment? Does this person lose its status as human by being combined with mouse cells?
Turning back to our hybrid organism, remember that it's still the same species ("mouse"), which means that it still has DNA that is similar enough to the DNA of other members of its species to breed viable offsrping. But don't mice always have DNA that is about 90% the same as human DNA (I can't claim to have the right number here, but I recall that mammals in general have DNA that is around 90% the same)? If a mouse has a DNA structure which is 90% the same as a human's, even before human cells are added, why wasn't it already "human enough" (especially given that the addition of human cells didn't make it substantially more similar to humans)? I predict that careful ethical consideration of whether this mouse-human hybrid experiment should be done is going to require that scientists think about the questions I have asked above, and utimately force scientists (and everybody else, I hope) to make more careful decisions about the ethics of animal experimentation in general.
Bush's extremely restrictive funding guidelines not only had the practicle effect of stopping the research in the US, but also sent a strong message to investors: the Religious Right has the power to severely restrict this technology, despite the claims of scientists that it might lead to cures for some of the biggest killers of humankind.
In such a climate, very little venture funding is being released, after all it's one thing to bet whether a new technology will work out or not, it's quite another thing to bet whether you will lose your money because Falwell decides your technology is immoral...
I disagree that this is a religious issue. I can tell you right now that I don't have a religious bone in my body - however, what I can tell you is that there are people out there with no scruples.
The unfortunate thing with any technology (including cloning and stem cell research) is that people will pervert and corrupt this technology, guaranteed. I can understand fear and opposition to the possibilities of a large multi-national or a doctor looking for a name for herself.
However, having said that, I know full well that anything banned completely loses government control and will still exist underground. Although I am personally very worried about the consequences of cloning, I do believe better the devil you know (think prohibition during world war II).
Lastly, even though I am not religious, I think the fact that you can't see past religion and understand that people may be concerned with change because of the dark side of human nature is disappointing. Religion like anything has good and bad, just like cloning.
End of story.
Your friendly neighbourhood AC