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) ..."

Comments

I'm horrified...

[YanceyAI]

I consider myself open to scientific experimentation, but I guess I just never really considered this as a possiblitlity. I'm surprised that it never crossed my mind. This issue was bound to be raised. Even more disturbing to me is the fact that my repulsion is seems more emotional than logical--a characteristic I associate with rightwing conservative freaks. One telling comment though:

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.

Hardware vs. software

[ites]

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.

Ethical Problems? They already do it.

[Gary Franczyk]

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?

Re:Ethical Problems? They already do it.

[Suidae]

Ethical problems don't exist... It's a made up thing

So likewise, 'laws do not exist... They are a made up thing'?

Ethical problems do exist, but they are personal in nature. Societies choose which ethical concerns they collectively believe ought be enforced across the society. Generally such things are called laws.

we will have a problem as the line between human and animal blurs

There is no such line. Humans are and have always been animals. Its just that most humans believe that they are somehow 'more' than other animals (and most also believe that they are more than other humans too). The truth is that we are simply different.

Should we raise all animals to the level of humans wrt the rights they have?

That is precisely what many people assert. Such a move would obviously require that the entire population either go vegan or engineer and accept meat animals without even basic intelligence (I suspect this would be a great thing for food producers; all the meat and none of the behavour problems of 'real' animals).

Many people consider that beings that suffer (and that we can reasonably identify as suffering) ought not be caused, through our actions, to suffer.

From this point of view, early term abortion is pefectly ok, because the aborted material has not yet evolved to the point at which it is able to suffer.

I tend to agree with this viewpoint, to an extent. I don't think that the suffering of the mice outweighs the value of the research done with them. I'd prefer that they not be harmed, but at the moment it seems necessary. I would not take this position with animals with significantly more cognative power, such as apes.

Don't worry, mice aren't animals.

[jonbrewer]

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..."

Asimov already addressed this.

[pete-classic]

We can experiment on it (treat it as property) until it asks us to stop.

-Peter

Burn a little Karma here

[Tri0de]

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.

Re:I am sure I am not the only one bothered by thi

[fredbsd]

"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'.

Re:I am sure I am not the only one bothered by thi

[d_i_r_t_y]

...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...

Which is having the effect of a ban

[MichaelPenne]

Since federal funding is critical to basic research in the US & since the "78" magically moral lines turned out to be more like 5 or 6 that are actually viable.

Private funding is nearly nonexistent - federal monies can only support research on existing stem cell lines - and obtaining the cells themselves remains exceedingly difficult even for top researchers because of political and intellectual property disputes or the poor quality of the cells themselves.

Of the 78 stem cell colonies worldwide the Bush administration has said are eligible for federally funded research, only about a dozen are in good enough shape to experiment on. Even fewer - perhaps four lines - are being shared and sent to other researchers interested in breaking into a field already clouded with political, ethical and scientific questions.

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...