Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Give Human Organs to Lamb
TK Interior writes "Myrtle Beach Online reports the existence of a lamb-human chimera-- a blend of two different species. Not only has a lamb been given a human liver and heart, but mice are sporting human brain cells. At what level is a chimera 'too' human? Where do you draw the line between human and animal? How will this affect evolution?"
These things aren't new, they've been posting on /. for years!
This can only be ba-a-a-a-ad.
Too human is perhaps the point when, if, we get to making an animal that can perform as the midspecies link between two diseases?
A disease that affects sheep maybe can gestate over years in a flock of sheep and then suddenly because they have many human organs its affecting humans too. It opens a door of potentials not all of which are good
The nets biggest nude anime gallery's
than a human with a pig heart is a pig. It's about DNA, not body parts.
I welcome our 5 assed overlords!
I wouldn't consider transplanting human organs into an animal a chimera. When they can put human DNA and make human organs grow naturally in an animal, then we'll have a chimera (and a little problem on our hands).
~Ilyanep
To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
Did we see this article (by the same author from the Washington Post) in a /. post a couple of days ago?
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/2 0/2240209&tid=191&tid=14
it really kicks the llama's ass!
"How will this affect evolution?"
Many things effect evolution... Medical science has been effecting evolution for a very long time as people who would have died because of genetic illness have lived on through medical science. The human species has not had real natural selection for a long time because we do not die from genetic problems as often.
The only evolution humans are likely to undergo is a scary one. Stupid people are having more children than smart people, therefore people are going to get stupider. Maybe it's already happened
99 bottles of beer in 175 characte
How will this affect evolution?
Not at all since the reproductive cells are not affected.
-Colin
First of all, no species has ever been shown to evolve into another species. No scientific experiment has ever proved this.
But back to the topic at hand, I don't think we have anything to fear from inserting human genes into non-human subjects. As long as the resulting creatures are kept isolated from the general population of creatures, such a "mutation" is highly unlikely to infect the general population with abnormal genes.
But then again, this all throws in the trash the whole idea of genetic engineering which is to develop cures for our current problems using the existing genetic materials which may be helpful. The development of insulin-building cells is a direct result of genetic engineering. So too are the "skin farms" which generate sheets of usable skin for burn victims.
The main problem is in how to decide to whom these benefits should go. Given unlimited supplies, anyone who had need should get them, but with current limited supply, it is difficult to decide who ought to be eligible for these.
Should the gay guy with AIDS be allowed to take advantage of these skin cells? Or should it go to the cancer patient who is losing skin like crazy as he quickly descends down the path of mortality? Should we only give these benefits to the ones who are likely to be healthy?
The problem is not the technology. We can develop greater technology. The problem is a philosophical one, because we can't offer these advances to everyone. We must decide who is important and who is not..
A tough choice, to say the least.
At what level is a chimera 'too' human?
...?
Slashdotter:
Goat: Not tonight honey, I have a headache.
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
In science, an animal is a chimera if the cells throughout the animal are from two different animals. This is accomplished by mixing the zygotes (see the geep). You don't get a chimera through organ transplant.
-Colin
...because there is no line to draw. "Animal" simply means "A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia" - Animal is a classification, and humans are part of the Animalia kingdom. Thus, humans are animals.
Lambs are animals.
Humans are animals.
Simple as that. Humans are not some special exemption - they are animals, and so to say "when do you draw the line between humans and animals" is just plain wrong. Go take a basic high school Biology course.
Perhaps what was meant to be said was "species" - a species is defined as a group of related organisms capable of interbreeding. Although humans could technically breed with sheep (and living near Wales, I should know...), the offspring would be sterile...
I personally wish they wouldn't do things like this. One mix-up and we could have an all powerful, super smart bear on our hands. Just leave the dumb animals alone.
You know lambs, wolves... oh, just forget it.
Lends a whole new meaning to the Fundies' proselytizing question, "are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?", doesn't it?
"Yes, that lamb really did die for my sins, in this case, donating its liver to redeem the rampant alcoholism I developed trying to wrap my head around why you Fundies voted for four more years of Bush."
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Why do mice need human brain cells?
Aren't they the smartest species on Earth (followed by dolphins)?
http://www.ntk.net/media/developers.mpg
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
As it stands asia is the source of virtualy all flu and africa the source of all Ebola. In both cases it's believed to be because of the biological conditions that put animals and humans in close contact where the viruses can jump between species. In the case of flu the host animal is birds which then jumps to mamals via pigs. Pigs are close enought o human that the jump to human is easy. and then it's flu season. In the case of Ebola no one knows what the host animal is. Apparently its not harmful to its host since it would slauter it wholsesale if it were as deadly as it is in humans. When it jumps to human's the only good nes is that it is so lethal it tends to kill it's host quicker than it spreads in rural africa. NY city might be a different story.
Some people think that ebola's natural host is a monkey or an ape.
Apes get many diseases we dont. For example Simian Aids. What would happen if we were to put human cells in an ape, then simian aids learned how to infect these cells. Then it jumped to the human population.
We are porting disease from the antire animal kingdom to our own without considering the consequences
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I want my monkey man!
Perhaps this will hold you over in the mean time.
Well, I can think of situations where a person no longer qualifies for your definition of human. Quick example - someone in a coma. An infant probably wouldn't qualify either.
And this portion, ability to be part of a society, probably disqualifies half of the people reading this message.
before we have a talking dog named Nina then?
(I've been watching too much Fullmetal Alchemist lately and all these chimera stories are giving me the heebie jeebies)
You know what they're doing tonight? The same thing they do every night. PLOTTING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
You must think in Russian.
I would imagine that the doctor was speaking of the embryo dying in the same way you might speak of someone's liver dying, their toe dying, or any other living tissue dying.
That is an entirely different kind of 'life' and 'death' to the kind you're talking about, which is to say, a kind of autonomous human life--a life of its own (which a toe does not have). At that point you are talking about a matter of definition--is the embryo a separate life form yet, or is it merely an extension of the mother, in the same way as any other body tissue?
The doctor you quoted is not addressing this question when she says that the embryo would die, she is merely stating a technical fact. The implication is that her definition of when living tissue takes on 'a life of its own' is different to yours--but that is not the same as having a disregard for human life; it is merely a different definition of what constitutes *a* human life.
A person in a coma, who is not going to come out of it unassisted, and who does not have anyone care about them one way or the other, is effectively not any more human than a forgotten dead person is, at least as far as anyone else is concerned.
People in comas who have relationships with other people, are definitely part of the network of human society, even though it may be passive. You can make a case for them being human in some senses but not others. Same applies for infants.
Even if you disagree with these sorts of criteria for determining human-ness, you have to acknowledge that the DNA-based one makes no sense at all. Or else attack me for the inhumane way I subject soiled hankerchiefs to chemical warfare when I do the washing.
How could having a human heart make an animal human? That's like saying a person with a liver transplant is now two people. No Einstien, its one person and a liver (albeit a new one). When we can transplant a mind and a soul to an animal and then have a conversation with it in which we contemplate the meaning of life, that's when we can start asking quesitons like this. And that is never going to happen.
And as far as evolution is concerned... that's just another pile of horseshit. The only difference is that more people believe that one then just a couple slashdoters. Tell me this, if evolution is true then where are all the "half-monkey/half-man" things walking around now? They are nowhere.
Evolution is always talked about as if it is a fact. It is a *theory* people. And it is an utterly ridiculous one at that. Open your eyes and look around; there is obviously distict separation between species. Evolution was concieved by people with utter contempt for the idea of a God who was personally involved in creation. Evolutionists just make themselves look stupid in their attempt to define their own existance, and most are driven simply by a desire to define their own morals and close their eyes to the light of Him who made us all.
Sure, there are ancient fossils of animals that are now extinct, etc. But this idea of the half-monkey/man that will contemplate life with you and then go nest in a tree and eat its own dingleberries is just a myth.
...at least on the genetic level.
Since one of the x chromosomes in every female is "deactivated" and turned into a Barr body (to avoid aneuploidy) and which one is chosen is completely random, it can be said that all women contain two separate genetic makeups, resulting in a genetic mosaic: a chimera.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
...and this time the lamb had a little Mary.
Or so the Scots would have it. ;)
Never heard this old saw?: "Why do Scotsmen wear kilts? Because sheep can hear a zipper a mile away...."
And yes, I have Scotch blood, so I'm allowed to poke fun. Or is that Scotch in my blood? Bother....I can never remember.
Got mead?
Formation of Barr bodies is a result of inactivation of one x chromosome, thus keeping all genes on of them from being expressed, resulting in a different genotype from a cell where the other one is inactivated. Meaning there are two different possible genetic informations for each cell depending on which one forms the Barr body. A chimera is defined as an organism consisting of cells containing more than one genotype (usually created by combining embryonic cells at an early development stage), which human women fit. And I took a genetics course, thankyouverymuch.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
The question isnt about evolution, the question is about ethics. Should we as humans be "playing god"?
I believe so. Thats not to say that I am correct though.
Was this a waste? Looking at the rate of organ rejection and other complications not to mention the recepient already being in bad health, it could have easily failed inside of a human and worked in a sheep.
There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people waiting for organs who go without everyday because people don't sign their organ donor cards or because family members refuse to let them be a donor.
If anything let this article serve as a beacon of hope for the future and a reminder to let your family know if you are an organ donor.
Even with the rate of failure of transplants, you don't need them when you're dead.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
"At what level is a chimera 'too' human?"
When it asks for the right to vote. Of couse, I guess it really wouldn't make much of a difference.
Evolution is dead, and that isn't a bad thing. You can't live in a technological society without first doing a number of evolution. In order to have fancy things like computers, you need humans to not only live well past 30, but you need a lot of them, and they need lots of free time. In other words, you need to make people live longer and healthier lives with surviving to do. You need to put them into shelters, give them more food then they need, protect them from infection, and insure that they can crank out lots of babies that all live to see adulthood (instead of suffering terrible childhood mortality rates).
What do you get when this happens? You got a few billion people with the collective capacity to undergo agricultural, industrial, and eventually post industrial revolutions. Sure, your stock might be less discriminating then the stock of the past, but who cares? One the advantages of being a technological species is that you can do evolutions work. For instance, I was a horrible asthmatic when I was young. I should have died 10 times over when I was young. Modern medicine absolutely saved my life on more then one occasion. These days I am a perfectly healthy adult. People with poor eyesight wear glasses. Weak people don't need to run to survive. Half of the population (namely woman) have been freed up to contribute to technology and society of this choose.
The places where this all leads is a good one. Well within the next 100 years, you can almost rest assure that we will start to tinker more with our own genetic code and enhance ourselves further with technology. Things like asthma and diabetes will start to be cured and removed from the population. It wouldn't surprise me if a human 500 years from now is not recognizable as human because it is such a technological and/or genetic wonder.
Evolution is hard at work through technology. For us humans, it is headed for better places.
-East Coast Americans believe it's the West Virginians
-For Canadians, I've heard it's the "Newfies" (Newfoundlanders)
-In England it's the Welsh
-The Irish think it's the Scottish
-The Scottish think it's the Aussies
-Aussies and New Zealanders accuse each other having intimate relations with Lamb Chop on a regular basis
-and, apparently South Africans think we Aussies are the sheep-fuckers...
If you think about it, it's really the sheep who are the sluts.
These things have the potential of being extremely dangerous. Unknown viruses that have become harmless to the animal may be lethal to humans. In a chimera, the virus may mutate to be able to pass from one human to another, even through airborn contact.
This is the greatest nightmare of the Centers for Disease Control. They strongly discourage experimentation and research involving chimeras, even (and especially) research using animal organs for human transplant.
This is not a joke, or poorly written science fiction.
Speaking as an evolutionary biologist, I'd say the above post was the work of someone who has the higher brain functions of a chimp with a botched lobotomy. Lemme put that in small words so you can understand it: you're a fuckin' idiot. Plus, anyone who would "me too!" it is a moron.
Darwin did say life was tough, and that therefore those least fit to survive the struggle, tend not to survive. This is a statement about how the world is. It does not logically follow that the world oughtto be this way. It's simple, morals = how the world ought to be, science = how the world is, so the two do not have a lot to do with each other. Jesus fucking Christ. Read a philosophy book once in a while. For that matter, read a book once in a while.
Now you are perfectly right... the way things _are_ and the way things _ought_ to be are often two completely different things. What is interesting is that we have actually evolved to becoming a species that perceives that things ought to be somehow different from what they actually are. The way things _are_ is that only the fit survive. But this is not how most people think things ought to be. We do not abandon our sick, injured, or weak... we look after them. And the higher brain functions that we have evolved seem to be serving a purpose of actually _weakening_ our species, rather than strengthening it.
That's what I find insightful... and perhaps it was my bad for not clarifying that point in my own previous post, but it really hadn't occurred to me that it would be necessary.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Two things here:
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
At what level is a chimera 'too' human?
When it is sentient.
Where do you draw the line between human and animal?
In the current definition "human" means species homo sapiens. The only significant distinctive feature of humans, is sentience, that is a result of a particular advanced structure of human brain, that, among other distinctive features, provides capability for development of abstract thought, structured language and production of tools. First never develops in animals or machines (machines can perform operations that are part of abstract thinking process, however only humans are currently capable of developing abstract structures from external stimuli without pre-existing knowledge of their structure, so development is still specific to humans), second and third are not developed by anyone but humans except in the simpliest forms possible. In theory, there may be, or will be other sentient beings that should be considered human, even if they do not share the same origin, and some creatures that have the same or close origin, yet lack sentience, and therefore can never be considered human.
How will this affect evolution?
Not at all. Evolution happens only through hereditary changes in organisms.
Can we go home now? I mean, didn't humans develop a better definition for themselves than "Two-legged, without feathers"?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
An example of (1) would be Stephen Hawking.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
An analogy I've found is helpful to use on people who have trouble with this concept:
Saying that we should not aid those who are weak because it opposes the theory of evolution is like saying we should not build support beams in bridges because it opposes the theory of gravity.
Evolution, like gravity, is a description of nature, not a philosophy of how to build a civilization.