Slashdot Mirror
Human Animal Hybrid Created in Lab
guanno writes "National Geographic has an article stating that... "Scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras--a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Oh great. Here come the furries.
I thought there were laws against that kind of thing.
Research is one thing... actually creating hybrids (which will inevitably has a short and painful life) is really sick.
Sign me up for the first CatDog produced!
a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal. oh my god, they've cloned my relatives
God shmod, I want my monkeyman!
Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?
HUMANIMAL
[Dramatic string hit as Humanimal is displayed to the gasping black-and-white crowd]]
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
When do I get my wings?
...is this really a line that we should cross? For a deep question: Will we loose our own humanity if we continue to destroy our morals for the sake of progress?
And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains.
/-McK
Yes and the answer is 42.
I suppose thats one way to solve your poulation problems. Mix your babies with rabbit, that way you can eat the extras...
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
Microsoft already perfected this years ago.
I for one welcome our new rabbit-human chimera overlords.
time is a perception of a being's consciousness
time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
I remember reading about another medical circumstance that also used the term Chimera. Apparently it's possible for two fraternal embryos in a pregnant woman to combine and become one organism, with two sets of genetics. Some beings composed this way stand out due to differing genetics manifesting different skin on the body; some don't stand out because certain organs or systems have a different genetic makeup than other systems, all internally. It's interesting, as these people have two DNA structures. When I first read Chimera in the context of the headline I wondered what this new thing had to do with the old use, but they appear to be exclusive of each other.
More here and here.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Sweet. I can sit back and let that sucker go STRAIGHT to the pr0n. clickety, clickety
It says they terminated the hybrids after only a few days. My question... what would have they come up with if they hadn't?
My first guess is that the species wouldn't be able to survive very long due to vast incompatibilities. How will this be at all useful, beyond the harvesting of stem cells, if the fetus can't develop properly?
* Olaserov is in the process of thinking up a signature.
Did you see that line!!
Think Pinky and the Brain....
Soon the mice will be taking over..
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
I've been saying for a while this was going to happen regardless of laws or ethical qualms. I always use a dolphin-boy as my example.
All it takes is one mad scientist, and there are plenty of mad scientists out there. I think people are going to learn to live with our partially human friends or have to kill them all (a hard prospect even if they are weird looking.)
This is false advertising - when most people think Chimera they think Dongeons and Dragons etc. They even have a picture of a lion with the head of a goat and the tail as a serpant.
So I read this article and it talks about cells in petri dishes and mice with 1% human brains (which, from what I've read, is a bit of a downgrade).
I think that there's no sense in starting an uproar over "creating new species" and "playing god" yet. A petri dish is ever so slightly different from a goat-lion-serpant or a girlfriend with the head of a shark.
It's just human/human. For example you have some of your mom in you, literally. That is, cells with your mother's exact DNA.
So, how long until Colonization?
The coolest voice ever.
from tfa:
And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains.
Usually i'm all for scientists doing what they want and all, but I hope this isn't true. What the hell? Why would there ever be a use for mice with human brains? Even if there were one. Jeez, that's gotta be the sickest thing in biology I've ever heard of.
surely you meant "humans with mice brains"....
for a minute there, i lost myself...
were combined and, to their delight, the U.S. IT industry has created the long-awaited "Code Monkey": it writes Java code but works for peanuts.
Finally, a real chimera. But the article lacks some important information. For example, what is this creature's AC and THAC0?
And all this time I thought we were minerals.
to watch The Island of Dr. Moreau again?
Honestly though, I don't care what your moral or ethical beliefs are... this is something that needs watching and a good combination of government and private control. Playing God in a petri dish is one thing, but creating a new species and bringing an unknown consiousnous with who knows what kind of mental trama to bear is just plain wrong. I'm no scientific antagonist, but this is one line that should not be crossed.
"One doesn't have to be religious or into animal rights to think this doesn't make sense," he continued. "It's the scientists who want to do this. They've now gone over the edge into the pathological domain."
Indeed.
(And obviously if we did muck around in this too much, homo sapiens would eventually be overthrown as the dominant species of this planet. That would kinda suck.)
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
I don't think you have to be Bush, the "religeous right", or the Catholic Church to have a problem with this.
There are ALOT of ethical issues here outside of religeon - so can we PLEASE try to keep this from turning into the usual religeon flamewar?
Hell, everyone should go nuts on this... you are using genetics to create a sub-human hybrid, for what purpose? Has no one read The Time Machine and the lessons of the Morlocks? Or A Brave New World, where a genetic sub-race of humans is created to be pure workers? No no, we're "just" going to do it to study disease.. but you know that every discovery is constantly yearning for applications.
Everyone reads The Uplift War and says "oh boy, we can use the good parts of being human to improve our friends the animals", but you know that it is human nature to domesticate animals, and make them workers... what better to create an animal with human dexterity without the burden of intelligence, without the moral dillema of the "handicapped"... such a worker would toil in a sweatshop with singlemindedness, as oxen would plow a field. Well, scientific culture and its wild abandon of any moral forethought has led to this, so I guess its time to reap what we sowed...
Haven't these people seen enough bad sci-fi movies to know that this is a horrible idea? Just like the story a couple of months ago about the armed autonomous robots...
When will these people learn?
bash: rtfm: command not found
This is starting to sound like the plotline to FarCry....
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Sorry, that classification is already occupied by Congress.
From what I vaguely recall, one of the greatest risks of a chimera (aside perhaps from the slippery moral slope), is the risk of a genetic material from diseases that affected their species making a jump to the human species. In essence, diseases that affected that species may be dormant or preserved in those animals, and unleashed, so to speak, in the presence of foreign material such as human organs.
For example, in this case rabbits: a viral pandemic that killed all but the few naturally-immune bunnies may have left remnants of its genetic material in their DNA. All living bunnies are immune, having derived their genetic material from the bunnies that survived the pandemic. No humans however, have that immunity. Crossing the species procures the possibility of a transfer from bunnies to humans.
How plausible this is, I couldn't really say. But I seem to remember it having some merit when juxtaposed with concerns over xenogenic transplants, concerns which seem applicable here also. Though the probability of this happening may be low, the damage may be astronomical since it could concoct a disease wholly unknown to science.
Ok, now I am really starting to believe that other organisms that are as intelligent as humans will exist on earth in the near future. Think about it, this kind of technology is rapidly growing. Imagine a chimpanzee solving differential equations or debating you on what the better Linux distro is. Scary.
I can begin working on my army of Centaurs! I'll capture Manhattan...then the world. MUUUHOOOHAAAAHAAA!
Yes they're half human and half animal but they only have three asses! They'll have to be destroyed.
First thing that popped into my mind upon reading this. The second thing was that we're going to need them to learn the law. What is the law? No spill blood of course.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Cripes.
There are two problems with your post.
1. Don't associate the Catholic Church with the religious right or *shudders* W. Tell me again: what religion was Kerry? Also, what religion is dominant in cities like St. Louis, Chicago, L.A., and Boston, all Democratic strongholds? I'll give you a hint: not Methodist.
2. Anyone who says that they can't see any ethical issues with this is lying. Can you honestly say that you have no problem with this?
This is going to turn out like the Island of Doctor Moreau 90's version, that movie sucked.
We barely understand the human brain. Shouldn't we grasp it a little more before we go shoving them into other animals.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
Now that I don't have to worry about waking up in a bathtub full of ice with only one kidney. Since we can just grow them in some chimera monstrosity.
Humans are animals. We're just a little bit smarter and better at making and using tools than most other animals.
"all i wanted was a pepsi..."
ah right, but if i recall correctly, the mouse with a human brain lost the 1992 american presidential election as a third-party candidate....
for a minute there, i lost myself...
This is an important moment to ask ourselves: do we have the right to play, or even to be gods themselves? Have we already crossed the line? Where is that line? What are the consequences, both physical and ethical, to our bodies and souls, if we can create life? Does it mean that we can not only create souls, but in fact design completely new kinds of souls, new races of people? This is both fascinating and frightening. Could the price for being gods be ethernal damnation? This seems highly unlikely, but can we positively eliminate that possibility. What could that mean to humanity as we know it? So many questions, so little answers... During the next few decades it should be clear whether we as humanity have made the most disastrous mistake in the history of human kind, or the greatest achievement since the creation of the universe. I only hope we will live long enough to understand it. I am really looking forward to know answers to the most important questions of our existance, power, purpose and meaning. Fascinating breakthrough.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
When mixing a human with another animal, I wonder how much DNA would need to be changed before the creature is no longer considered human.
what is nailchipper?
Anyone remember those?
Homer and Mindy are at the hotel and they called room service.
Mr. Burns: Room service again? We'll see about that..
*removes curtain off cages. See monkeys with fake bat wings attatched*
Mr Burns: Fly my minions! Fly!
*Monkeys go thru window and all fall*
He will soon be able to achieve that!
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Before you all start concocting fantasies about bizarre creatures from the morally and ethically bankrupt future...
For example, faulty human heart valves are routinely replaced with ones taken from cows and pigs. The surgery--which makes the recipient a human-animal chimera--is widely accepted
In 1988, a group at Stanford built a "race" of naturally immune deficient mice with human immune systems and published the result in Science (McCune, Weissman et al).
It's called the SCID-hu mouse, "hu" being short for "human".
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
*sigh* when will those scientists ever learn? ;)
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
I just love Jeremy Taylor's Transplant Calypso
The other day I was feeling ill
I went to the doctor to get some pill
he looked at me in despair, said my friend you're badly in need of repair
now with this up-to date surgery
we get our spare parts from the menagerie
so if you'll kindly sit down a while I'll just telephone for a crocodile
I got the heart of an ape
the liver of a chicken
the blood of an ox
through a tube which they stick in
to me spleen
which I borrowed from a cow
I was human once
but I'm not sure now.
Walking down the street
me girlfriend I happen to meet
me heart went bom-diddy-bom
just like the ape that I got it from
me ox blood boiled, I started to moo
I was pawing at the ground,
what else could I do?
and when at last she walked on by
I said cockadoodle-doo and started to fly
Help me!
I got the heart of an ape...
Going out one night
me and a feller got into a fight
I hit him with a left then I hit him with a right
but somehow I just couldn't finish the fight
no matter what I did he kept coming at me
he was the stubbornest man I ever did see
it was in vain, I find out last
this feller's got the jawbone of an ass
and me
I got the heart of an ape...
Well in the end I was getting fed up
I said to this doctor, look man, I've had enough
All this animal junk won't do
Get me some organ that doesn't come out of the zoo
He said, what about this for size?
I tell you, I could hardly believe me eyes
I looked at this thing with dismay & suspicion
It was the brain of a politician.
I'd rather have
The heart of an ape...
Does anybody else find it interesting that this is essentially the same as stem-cell research, but combined with animals? It's "ok" to do stem-cell, but with this addition, it's suddenly disgusting and wrong...
Screw ethics.. I want to be able to run faster, jump higher, and hell flying would be cool..
Boxing Equipment Reviews
I can't wait to see the photoshops!
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Evidently speaking lucidly is unpopular with the moderators ;]
where's my prehensile tail? I could be twice as efficient using my tail on my mouse.
+5, Truth
I've been showed enough evidence to suggest that our government is wholly corrupt (meaning not limited to either party), uses force to exhert control over drug and oil sources and traffic routes, takes bribes from corporations who launder money from terrorist groups and drug cartels, uses terrorism to scare it's populace into giving up civil liberties and going along with nothing short of global imperialism, and to top it all of we have a media that won't tell us about any of it (by the way, it's not just Fox News that's to blame).
Although there is a lot of evidence to suggest that such a bloodline dating back to Babylon existed in the middle ages as the top-tier of untoachables in the Freemasonic cult, I haven't seen any evidence that suggests that they rule the world.
At any rate, if they did, that would certainly increase the likelihood of a quite Biblical apocalpse happening.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Well, I have a problem with bad spelling...AND SO DOES GOD!!!
This also in!
... they will be the way of the future!
Computers!
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Many have posted objections regarding uplifting other terrestrial species with human DNA. The objections seem rational, as it appears the uplift would be done in order to exploit the results.
What about the reverse, uplifting humans by grafting in superior dna found in the animal kingdom? Better eyes? Superior strength? whatever...
I am curious about your view on this.
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
Once a year, or so, I have a 'flu vaccination. Last I checked, I was told this vaccine is made in chicken eggs. I'm not exactly in the high risk of death from 'flu category, but if killing a chicken fetus protects me from a week of misery, it's the chicken every time.
I understand that rabies vaccine is made in rabbits (I'm remembering this from over 30 years ago, so this may not be current). If I was bitten by a mammal in a country with rabies, I wouldn't worry about rabbit bits & pieces, or even about the life of that rabbit. If it's a choice between the bunny & me, the bunny gets it every time.
Now I hear that spare parts for my body could be grown in an animal.
If the safety issues can be resolved, I see very little ethical difference between making an animal live just so it can be killed for my food, making an animal live to make medicine for me and making an animal live so it can be killed to extend my life.
Wow...
This is all TV's fault....
old news; the stockpile already polluted with animal proteins has been found to be useless for humans. Pussies! make some goddamn decent HUMAN DNA strains and quit beating around the "Bush." This research is a cover-up. Tinfoil hat firmly between head, buttocks, and nuts on this one.
SSIA
Human is an animal, thank you very much. Biped, primate mammal, in fact. They may've created a new hybrid breed which involved human species, and that's bad thing, though.
Haven't these people seen the movie yet?
First Glofish, now this... wtf!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
I used to hunt that fuckers down after they escaped from the secret labs in Cabatu. A lot of mercenaries protect that place , but if you keep to the shadows you can get to them. Just watch out for the big ones with machine-guns. Nice place, but It's a far cry from being in paradise.
"I used to have that really cool,funny sig
You mean a cross between a human and a NON-human, right? People are animals too!
blurring the line between human and animal Newsflash: there is no line.
Can I have some sais genetically modified for me? I love sais, and genetically modified sais would be even cooler!
[Sidenote: It's a joke, take a pill]
UTF-8: There and Back Again
I don't see any.
While people from every walk of life will have some issues against this area of study, I just don't have a quick opinion about it. I am very very curious about it however and for that sake alone I generally support the idea whether it's a huge mistake or not.
We're still at a rather primitive level when it comes to understanding things like this. But the only way to grow beyond what we know is to experiment with it. It would be like the whole tribe of humans killing anyone who experimented with fire because it was the realm of the gods or because it was considered generally dangerous.
We're not going to understand it without poking around with it. We need to understand it and therefore we should poke around with it. I really think it's that simple.
Then, it will become all ... "we got to have this because they have it too".
I dunno, if you can look upon the schism, this will create between the US govt. and the catholic churches, as a bright side.
As Jesus used to say (more or less): "Every politician who argues against medical research must promise to commit sepukku at the age of 50" - since that's how long people would live without those e-e-e-e-vil doctors...
Let's see how many people would gladly give up the chance of longer life in exchange for their moral values. IMO, any of those who do would be nothing less than a saint.
On the one hand, other animals are non-sentient (AFAWK) but feeling creatures. This part of me disdains harm that is brought upon them in the name of research, result-yielding and non-result-yielding. And I'm not even going to mention trying to reconcile their right to live with our need to farm them for food...
On the other hand, there are several parts of me that really enjoy seeing the results of this research: my scientific side, and---ahem---the, uh, you-know-what side of me.
I'll definitely not see most of the fruits of this kind of research (unless we make some really outstanding medical discoveries), but I'd love to know how it turns out.
But in the end, I conclude that I am not capable of resolving this on my own. So what else is new?
Yeah, those sick fuckers want to have a pig, which would be raised for slaughter anyway, be able to provide me with a lung transplant in case I get hit by a bus, or get cancer. That's totally sick. I can't believe they would want to do such a horrible thing. Next time some kid gets caught in the crossfire of a gang war, you and I can go to the hospital, and try and keep everybody who tries to save his life away from him. It isn't natural for him to survive, so it must be wrong.
And, guts and organs give me the heebie-jeebies. I can't stand the site of blood, so I make all my moral and ethical decisions based on what personally makes me feel the most comfortable. If I don't have to think about food-animals being able to grow vital organs for humans, then I don't have to think about yukky slimy stuff. Yeah, so it's sick and wrong.
When somebody makes a real Spiderman.
It would be pretty cool to recreate the mythical creatures of ancient Greece... the chimera, the minotaur, the centaur, the satyr, the harpy, the medusa, the pegasus...
Heck, with a little more effort, we could recreate the whole Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual!
MMORPG? Pfeh. I vote for Real Life Monster-Fighting Adventures!
On (2), I see no problem if humans can get eagle's eyesight and elephant's long life. What's wrong with that? You don't have to make monsters, after all - unless that's what you really want to do ;-)
Funny how 8 years later, all the arguments in TFA are exactly the lame arguments Noske blasts in that book.
Noske used a neat example of research offered to Amnesty International using pigs to evaluate effects of torture on humans. Pigs make good models, because their skin is so similar -- but wait a second, if they're similar, why don't they have any rights? Oops... from TFA:
Ahem, *Sub*-human says it all: they're below, we're on top. Now don't get me wrong, I had pork for supper. But to assume we're on top for anything besides a food chain is hard to prove (and bible references don't count as proof in my books).
Most of the debate around the ethical problems posed by chimeras assume that distinction, but it never really was there.
This is why Rifkin's attitude makes more sense. What gives us the right to blur the species line in the first place? Why do we insist on splicing fish genes into tomatoes, bacteria into food plants? The risk can not yet be known, and for whose advantage are these apprentice sorcerers working?
OK, I've said my bit, and donned the asbestos underwear. Flame away if you wish
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
So, from what I've seen/heard/whatever, Kerry is NOT Catholic. (Just to block a few flames, neither am I, as it happens).
.. you get people jumping up and down when you graft some stem cells into a pig so that its blood is structured like a human's, but there's no such outcry over the fact that great apes effectively have no rights?
Chimps and gorillas have far more in common with humans than half of the potential chimeras mentioned in the article will ever do.
Come on people, this is not:
- A crime against nature
- A crime against God
- A crime against humanity
- Proof of our lack of morals
- Prelude to apocolypse
This is scientists, making our world better.
Remember, their job?
For those of you who have responded with "Whoa, nay, immoral!" and are also pro-life/anti-abortion, ok, you can go (I'll argue with *you* later, but at least you are consistent). Animal rights types are also excused. For the rest of you, really now, grow up. Even if this was what everyone seems to think it is, a creature magically endowed with half human and half animal DNA, how are you going to justify *NOT* doing it? Superstition? Movies? Old literature? "Just feels wrong?" (like heart transplants, mechanical hearts, vaccines...)
In order to make a case against something like this, you need to show *who is hurt*.
A nonsentient lump of cells? Like the ones grown and killed daily in the service of science? Like aborted fetuses? Like the lab animals that can actually feel pain, but we experiment anyway? These are things I'm in favor of, and many of you as well. If you want to get up in a row about something, there's a lot more dubious things than this concept. Getting upset at new things because they are new is for stupid people.
I expected better from Slashdot, honestly.
I wonder if it will be able to speak human words... :-/
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
If this experiment succeeds in producing human cognitive thought in a mouse, we most certainly have an issue.
What you're envisioning is not possible, and not what the scientist is interested in.
We're not going to end up with a super-intelligent mouse who could speak if it only had the proper vocal chords. Think about the space a mouse has in its skull, and how much room we have, and this will start to make more sense.
He's curious if the mouse's brain is built from human cells instead of mouse, how that will affect its development -- will the cells work more like human brain cells (given the source), or mouse brain cells (given the environment)? The shape of the brain, and the activity patterns, would be interesting to observe and he could gain insights into factors in normal human brain development (and defects in that process).
Unfortunately, the article tends towards a generally thoughtless, alarmist tone (including mentioning these experiments without any explanation...). Personally, I'm not worried.
"Sterrance is way cuter than that stupid, ugly, washed-up The Cheat I used to have."
the face of a genuinely astonished human being.
'Humanity as -WE- know it' is an illusion. Ten thousand years ago, humans nearly identical to ourselves lived their entire lives as animals. Many aboriginal tribes still live in the stone age today. The -only- difference between ourselves and most other animals is our capacity for learning and the house of cards that is civilization.
I'm a vegetarian, but I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with such experiments. If I did, I would be joining the lunatic fringe of the animal rights movement that wouldn't stop at burning down MacDonalds restaurants. I think what one needs is moral consistency. If it would be wrong to kill a mouse with a nominally human brain, then why is it okay to kill an adult cow for beef? I would rate the adult cow higher on the sentience scale than a mouse with an uneducated human brain.
I'm a sci-fi vegan: I don't want the aliens to think we have as much right to live as the fried chickens we eat.
Comon this is not creating some semi-concious being. Its creating a mouse with some human brain cells. That way they can study it. If they let it be born it wouldnt learn english and try to take over the world. Personally I HAVE NO ISSUE with any of these experiments as long as they stay above board about everything that they are doing. If you try and stop scientists they will go underground and do this shit without telling any1. Trust me. Let me restate that this is not about creating a sentient mouse but a mouse with different cells. I mean WTF deal with ur own issues. If your wife/daugter/friend was dying of some congenital disease and this research could have saved them would you still have a problem. You eat KFC those chickens got more steroids and gene therapy than arnie. And you probably even have a pet, who was domesticated to serve your will. I dont care how much you love it. It wouldnt be ur dog if somewhere up the track it was taken away from its loving mother and bred specifically for a purpose. Oh selective breeding is not gene therapy? Bullshit. I love they way people justify what is now but are scared of what will be. Embrace what can be!
Mickey Mutant
Yeah, we knew it was coming. Even though I think it is morally reprehensible to fuck with life it's bound to happen, and has been happening for a while.
All we can really hope is that this stage of research is made obsolete quickly.
Anyway, I wonder what kind of processing capability a scaled-down human brain would have. My understanding was that smaller brains actually decrease the length of time it takes for impulses to jump across neural connections, or something along those lines. (IANANeurosurgeon.) Maybe those super-intelligent transdimensional mice aren't too far off.
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
Catnip.
My other first post is car post.
No ... it's Dog that has a problem with it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
This is a purely political issue.
Swarms of mice being churned out of the labs with tiny human brains will obviously be voting Republican in the next US election. If the GOP is not now sponsoring this type of research, it soon will be.
Yes, yes, I can.
I have no problem with this. Why should I?
Strictly by definition, deciding what I should have for breakfast is an ethical question. Or at least according to the definition I got from the last philosophy class I took, back in the day. I don't see why this, however, is in any way an urgent ethical question. Same goes to genetic engineering. It's legally restricted enough already, I don't think i'll worry about it.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Interesting research will be done. Somewhere.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Same thing we do every night, we try to take over the world!
Seriously though, tranplanting human neurons into a developing mouse to see if can grow a human brain might make super smart mice, but the real moral dilemma is this:
What makes a human life worth more than an animal life? If a mouse has the brain of a human, the capacity to think as a human, a human consciousness, then how can the researchers just kill those mice and dissect their brains? Is it not the same as killing someone who's body is paralyzed or otherwise abnormal and dissecting their brain?
is that they're already splicing human genes into bacteria and farm animals... huh? Leave me out of my food please!
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
Any organism created by artificially combining genetic information from different species is a chimera.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
surely you meant "humans with mice brains"....
--
free ipod [freeipods.com]? gmail invite if you do it
Then maybe there'd be someone dumb enough to click on your "free iPods" sig. (And that's so passé, "free Mac Minis" is the scam du jour.)
Anyone who says that they can't see any ethical issues with this is lying.
I cannot understand why you have to paint everyone with your ethical and moral brush.
Can you honestly say that you have no problem with this?
Yes? What's wrong in this - if anything, it will help us create human organs that may prolong our lifespans.
If you are that concerned, remember that nature in and of itself has done these things in the course of evolution. And you're probably killing life everyday by consuming plants and animals.
This is no different. You're playing nature and the moral issues associated with it are no different.
If by any chance the chimeras do end up being sentient, we'll find a way of getting rid of that sentience and using them.
*shrug*
Imagine a Frankenstein cluster of these! ... or some such
i fear for the day when they start combining prisoners with dogs...
(fullmetal alchemist refrence)
We do it because we can. If we can do it, we MUST do it.
There is only one Good, Knowledge
There is only one Evil, Ignorance.
. . . . . . . . Socrates
"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious." --pg 61 1984
Ethics is not a word to throw around like "morality", there is a science to it, a set of theories (NET's, Kant, Util, etc.) that are to be taken as seriously as any other scientific theory.
Right or wrong, it will happen.
Maybe one day we'll realize it's the coping skills, and not the "ethics" of the human race that are truly lacking.
playing god? perhaps we can do better.
"You took a time bomb
and a case of crackers
and you made a maelstrom of organic debris
then you took a work bench
and a rusty anvil
and you polished them for everyone to see
you have created an unhealthy monster
but you're nowhere but nowhere to be found
so I guess I'll just cope with my provisions
from now until the day theu lay me down
you took a babboon
and made him perfect
you took a lion
and stripped him of his pride
then you took a million more varieties
a scalpel and a sartory
and you stitched up a horrible surprise
you have created an unsocial monster
and you're searched for all over the globe
and most belive that things would sure be better
if you'd come down here and tell us what you know
who is to blame for this?
someone tell me please
His handiwork is flawed
and it's there for all to see
mutataions, abberations and blatant anomalies
they multiply and give rise to this...monstrosrity
you took the most abundant smallest bits of matter
and you instilled them with affinity
and then you stratified accumulations
weeded out bad variations
and blended up your unique recipe
you have created a powerful monster
with direction and purpose all its own
and if you were here
would things be any different?
or are you just a mosaic of thoughts alone?"
--Chimaera, Bad religion
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
It'll be fine, as long as they have a house of pain...
A mouse or rat with a human brain would be a gold pot for research. Today, Neuroscientists are studying brain stroke by causing them in mice and watching how the brain responds. Studying plasticity and treatment techniques. Unfortunately, we don't want to cause a stroke in a test subject that is human just to study stroke.
Testing in animals is just an approximation to the human brain. Although a very good one. An animal such as this with human cells would optimal to study the effects of drugs, addiction, stroke, brain trauma, virtually any ailment that affects the human brain.
Are we killing people? no! These are mice and rats that we've been euthanising for a long time. They will not be intelligent, they will likely not function as well as normal mice (instincts and such would likely be absent). I think they would most likely be empty shells that have to be fed and watered to keep alive so that a few months down the road, we can use them to find a cure to stroke.
P.S. Note, this is my normal sig. I did not change it for this post. I think it fits well!
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. --Isaac Asimov
Am I the only one who read the summary and kinda shuddered and blanched?
-
According to Sitchin's interpretation of the Sumarian texts. This is not unlike how humans were created by the gods. In a feat of genetic engineering by Enki (whose symbol was the intertwining snakes that are used as the symbol of medicine now and looks similar to the DNA helix,) and his half-sister Ninharsag, they created a new creature by mixing the genes of the gods and a terrestial creature (proto-human) to create a new species with dexterity but not so much smarts to use as slave labor in the mines.
Further mixing of the genes led to the current race of humans. If there is truth to this, it would explain why there is no "missing link" and would bridge the gap between evolution and creationism. But I agree with the above poster that human attempts at gene mixing with other animals would most likely be turned into a slave race (not too much different than the way we use mules).
I posit that despite much progress, we have still not risen above slave class to the gods.
The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. -Albert Einstein
What's in a name?
"Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear."
Sometimes you wonder how random those words actually are. On another note, I hear next year they're working on a chimera that can talk.
Sigs are like bumper stickers.
I, for one, welcome our new animal hybrid overlords. :)
He must learn the law!
Not to go on all-fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men?
Not to claw the Bark of Trees; that is the Law. Are we not Men?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Yeah! And from what I've heard, all Christians must believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that only 144000 people get to go to heaven! Hell, I don't remember the last time I saw a woman getting stoned for adultery. So, from what I've heard, most of the people out there who say they're Christian really aren't!
And if you didn't get the sarcasm: religion is a person thing. Different people are free to choose to believe different things. Moreover, some people are intelligent enough to realize that, while they may believe one thing, it isn't their right to force those beliefs on others, let alone have them codified in law. I know, I know, it's hard to believe! People with actual, sophisticated belief systems, where things aren't all black and white... amazing, eh?
And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains.
Now [i]that[/i], my friends, is hilarious. Imagine the depression that poor mouse will have when it figures out it wasn't only born in a petree dish, but also has the peter the size of a ball point pen. But then again, it will rule the world.. so, it has that going for it.
I say to Moreau,
You say Tomorrow!
Let's call th ewhole thing off...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
...to the age-old question:
"Are we mice, or are we men?"
Can they splice an Elephant and a Potbellied pig??
I want a mini Elephant damnit, or i'll kick you square in da NUTS!
It's be long thought that Humans are a resault of Alien and Primate DNA mixed to form what is now known as the Human species. But there is just one flaw in this theory...
The parent post clearly points out that we still throw shit at eachother. So much for the failed evolution experiment.
Life is not for the lazy.
Get real even if they manage to create some self aware organism you really cant have a MORAL problem with it. For you to have a moral problem with this implies you are involved otherwise you are forcing your moral view on others which incidentally is immoral (quite a predicament for you) Anyway the best part was when they mentioned "Human dignity". How dignified are we when elect drunks as our leaders? How dignified are we when the Person in charge of the US is "as moral" as the people he is kicking out of other countries. Human dignity has been on its death bed for as long as I have been alive.
Hybrid evidence.
Table-ized A.I.
Sorry, we haven't used apocryphal gospel of Saint Yukimori the Samurai Doctor for *years*.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Yeah! And from what I've heard, all Christians must believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that only 144000 people get to go to heaven! Hell, I don't remember the last time I saw a woman getting stoned for adultery. So, from what I've heard, most of the people out there who say they're Christian really aren't!
I don't really know what your point is about Christians. The debate was whether Kerry could be considered a good Catholic. You seem to be exclusively associating Catholicism with Christianity. They aren't the same thing. Christianity includes Catholicism. That being said, about adultery, read Johm 8:3-11, you know, the part of the Bible where Jesus sais "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7, KJV)
Also, about belief: Christianity itself (Ie the most basic level) requires you to believe nothing more than believing that Jesus is God, God raised him from the dead, and not be afraid to say it out loud. This is all in the epistle to the Romans.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
"They were allowed to develop for several days in a laboratory dish before the scientists destroyed the embryos to harvest their stem cells."
Expect fundie retards to be up in arms over this "playing God." When you couple that with their irrational bitching about regular stem-cell research, you'll notice that fundamentalist Alzheimer's patients are poetically hilarious.
If I had to make all the choices for everyone in the biotechnology field... I'd make it my first order of business to find someone else to do the job instead. There's a lot of tough decisions and strange new ethical questions on the horizon and I do not have any good answers.
That said, looking back on it a hundred years from now, we'll probably be wondering what all the fuss was about. Maybe our great great grandchildren will experience life-spans well into the three-digit range and enhanced senses and abilities. Perhaps in the future they would not bat an eye at producing animals full of human organs for use in transplants. Heck, perhaps our great great grandchildren will be given pets with enhancements such as a life-span matching that of it's owner or the ability to help with homework (rather than eat it).
The mouse with a "human" brain? I doubt you'll have to worry about Pinky and The Brain becoming a reality show. Though it might have human brain tissues, and it might even produce a similar brain structure to that found in humans... such a creature could not think the same way us humans do. To make the point I'll totally disregard the fact that our brains just wont fit into that creature. Even if you could build a mouse with an exact replica of a human brain, it's body is different and therefore it's perception of the world changes.
Where do we draw the line? I personally feel that, for most things, lines should be drawn in hind-sight. A lot of the things we are afraid of could be possible... but they might not be all bad either. So some fool doctor on an island creates a bunch of chimeric monstrosities with qualities similar to both humans and the animals they came from... are they happy? No? Well, maybe there's one line. But remember, that was a movie, and not real life. The story could play out differently with just a few tweaks. When we actually do that in reality, then we should decide.
Not that it hurts to be cautious, but I personally wouldn't care if my bacon contained human genes because the pig was designed in a lab to provide both food and viable organs for human patients. It's the sum of all our genes that makes us human. I'd be concerned if the pig was also given an intelect, hands, and whipped into slavery... but that's all far from what we see here now.
Caution, but don't judge what's wrong or right until it has actually been done. We need to understand genetics. If not for any reason other than to understand ourselves.
I have issues with your post, too. Being myself from a mostly catholic country (and not catholic), I can tell you a couple of things:
1.- The Holy Roman Catholic Church is not rightist, or leftist. It's wherever the money is.
2.- In the US, the Democratic Party is considered to be a somewhat leftist party. In most other countries, similar behavior is considered to be right wing (although not too conservative). True leftism (even mild leftism) does not exist in the US and is actively disencouraged by the two parties (and, if they can, they'd outlaw it) by labeling they members "communists", "anti-patriots", "terrorists". Hell, right now, even "pacifist" will do.
PS: Before you tell me that I don't really know America, and how much America has helped my country and all that pre-recorded propaganda, I do live in the US.
This anime feautres chimeras. It's quite a good anime too. I only have 3 episodes left to watch =x
Have you metaroderated recently?
Interesting. If we're part god, how come I can't fly, live forever, or use KA-ME-HA-ME-HA?
I, for one, welcome our new chimera overlords.
A Catholic is supposed to defer to the authority of the Pope when he declares an infallible decision. Such decisions are generally made on questions of theology. Indeed, in two thousand years there has been only one infallible declaration by the Pope (Mary was assumed into heaven). Yes, most Catholics tend to give the Pope's opinion weight, but it is not a requirement. There are tons of priests, bishops and indeed a whole half of the Church (Eastern Orthodox) who have disagreements with the Pope, but are still Catholic.
A Catholic believes in the sancitity of life. They are not directly supposed to be anti-abortion. For example, if not having an abortion will kill the mother, the mother is not required to sacrifice her life for that of her child.
The essence of Catholicism is contained in the Creed/Profession of Faith read each week at Mass. It doesn't mention Pope or abortion.
It is not your place to declare whether someone is Catholic. By doing so you are passing judgement. As the name Catholic (meaning 'universal') implies, the Catholic Church encompasses a huge range of people and opinions, including conflicting ones.
If you really want to understand what makes a Catholic, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's easier to read in book form. It's a pretty mind blowing document (apart from the length!) when you consider the number and quality of minds which have worked on it. It's interesting that the aforementioned 'creed' is used at the table of contents for first part of the Catechism, so that prayer really is a neat summary of what makes a Catholic.
In case you haven't twigged I am Catholic. It makes me seethe with anger to see what US (and other) religious wackos are doing in the name of Christ. I feel justified in my anger in that I equate the wackos with the moneychangers who hijacked the temple in Jerusalem for their own ends, and got driven out by an angry Jesus.
The chinese have enough *PEOPLE* to populate their military if need be.
Does it taste like chicken??
No they wouldn't! They'd get jobs living on a giant computer designed to find out the Question of life the universe and everything.
Maybe by next week they'd figure out what colour the "Wheel" should be.
My theory is: It was Noah's Job to preserve the genetics of each animal. The flood wiped out all the Chimeras. So.. um yeah
There's a correlation between brain mass and size that doesn't necessarily correspond to smarts. The ratio is the important part.
i am a cat girl
naked, young, and so supple
please discipline me
If people are messing with these kinds of genetics?
How long do you think it will take before someone considers it ART!
once more into the breach
i posit that you have shizophrenia.
Anyone know of a good chimera repellent? These pesky little bastards have been digging through my trash all week!
No more so than scientists knocking out the immune systems in mice, so as to get better insight as to how the human immune system responds or doesn't respond to things like Ebola, HIV-4, etc.
Will it ever be a perfect analogue? No. But it doesn't have to be. It can simply be a bit of a bullshit filter, which directs research in areas that would appear to have a much higher probability of relevance.
We already knock out genes in fruit flies that make them grow eye cells in various parts of their bodies, and who knows what else.
Having lived in the Chicago area, I will hazard a guess that most of the Catholics in Chicago *probably* voted for the W.
Now on to the business.
Once again, it comes down to the old question: just what is it about a person, that we value to such an extent that we say it has rights?
If you answer that it has something to do with chromosomes or DNA, then I'm really disappointed. If you're approaching philosophy from the molecular level, you are out on the fringes. I don't give a were-rat's ass if someone programs a chile to produce some protein that I'm not getting/making enough of. But fine, go ahead and try to make a case for why some molecules are sacred and some aren't. At worst, you'll be boring and at best you'll amuse.
For the mystics, it's easy: just ask if the chimera has a soul. Since you don't have any real way of determining that other than dogma, you'll just make up an answer that you can't defend. But your answer can't be attacked, either, so you'll come off looking better than the human-DNA-is-special wackos. (But remember this: just because people aren't arguing with you, doesn't mean they take you seriously. They just don't see the point.)
I know what I value in a person. It doesn't have a damned thing to do with sperm and eggs, or DNA at all. In fact, not all people have what I value; some choose to opt out of civilization. Sit down and make yourself comfy in that electric chair, Ted Bundy. I even pay taxes for the military, with the understanding that I want them to kill people under certain circumstances.
Human behavior itself can cross the line, and you're worried about chemistry?!
If people can cross the line from this side, maybe they can come over from the other side too. I welcome this Frankenstein stuff, just like I welcome AI and little green men from outer space. I'll make up my mind about the "monster" when I meet him.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
What is the moral and ethical difference between creating something "less than human" and taking a human and just "pithing" them.
I'm not a religous zealot, but it just seems wrong to me that we are "re-defining" what our humanity means.
This is a VERY slippery slope. I don't think that we should even set foot on it.
We are not God.
Now I'll be getting penis enlargement spam telling me how I could get genetically modified to be a human with a horse's penis. :/
God shmod, I want my monkeyman!
I've always thought Saruman meant monkeyman in Japanese... (Saru=Monkey)
It's subliminal I tell ya!
my blog
No kidding. The non-human animals have yet to break 850 on the SAT, so they're stuck in low-paying blue collar jobs. The dolphins have made abacuses out of shells and driftwood, but I'll be impressed when they implement function keys.
Anyway, I gotta go now. I have a chimp friend who's getting married at a church downtown. His mom was going to make him one of those fancy, three-level wedding cakes like humans have. However, she wasn't quite smart enough to do it, so it ended up as a big heap of cake. Then she flung handfuls of icing at it. I think she's upset because of the recent stock market decline. Chiquita and Dole took a hit.
There is a demand for this kind of research, so it is inevitable. If we were realistic and stopped stuffing our heads in the sand, we would see that there is more chance of controlling this in the open rather than forcing it into places where scary stuff can really happen. The horse bolted a long time ago.
How else are they going to get new Pop Stars and Newscasters.
It is not like they can grow them in tanks.
Oh wait. They already do.
Nevermind.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
Nothing really new here, but it explains some phenomena - now I'll now that some politicians are clearly a result of a human-mice brain experiment which went bad...
Now think about it. Clearly "the brain" is completely insane. Pinky always manages to thwart his schemes, but never lets on that he's doing so. Pinky is the genius.
Q.E. Narf D.
... revelations can really happen, beast wise.
Hmmm, Bush is against abortion but this has to be something he is in favor of, end times and all he believes.
We already knew mice were conducting experiments on us, and you'll notice their brain mass as a percentage of body mass is significantly higher than ours.
paintball
Start thinking creating treatments which imbue qualities of roaches(which are immune to radiation) to people, to create soldiers that can laugh off anything less than a direct nuclear strike.
At which point you can happily nuke a warzone, killing only enemy soldiers. Paranoidal thinking yes, but military loves to invest in Science fiction stuff like this, if they can get a cost effective edge against the enemy.
Admit it, half a billion radiation-proof soldiers are way better than half a billion normal soldiers.
The way to kill the chimera effect would be to make a law that says, "Mrs Jones/Mr Watanabe/Mr Akbar, we have found an organ replacement for you. It comes from Chimera # 1,552,225, which was produced in a slimey, slightly-cooled, sack that incubbated for 15 months in a dark, green-goo-like-shit-filled vat. There is a 38% chance of rejection, and a 15% chance that your organs will mutate, your nails will grow, and you will dream of eating rodents..."
...
To the doomsayers...
Really, before I get into (more) wit or wry/lame/irreverent humor, will these "shimmery-chimera-effect" organ-makers produce "yoo-mons"? Seems like the "human experience" will turn into pure hell and a bunch of hand/claw/hind-hoof wringing if these things become more than a twinkle/shimmer in the eyes of a mad scientist (or greedy investor/shareholder...)
Dr. Carol Marcus probably never would create life from lifelessness if humans in Trek got chimeras beyond the "vats and vials of organs and organelles..."
Ferrengi have "hyoo-moon"
Scientists make "Chee-mon"
-----------
By "googling" chimera, I found:
http://monsters.monstrous.com/chimera_6.htm
(possibly the half-cousin of an uncle Bil-... umm, snip (the missing/last "l", hehe), due to risk of libel, hehehe)
Where will software development go if we have shimmery chimera software? (not talking about the real Chimera software company, but software made for Chimera Werker, 2215...)
I guess the fashion appearal industry will go to hell and back, heheh... On what kind of cross/crucifix would a chimera be crucified. A "cross-i-fix"? (hybrid)...
I guess Ford could make CUVs (Chimera Utility Vehicles...)
Legal departments will have unholy hell of making "human-friendly" "transform" or "transmute" to "'chima'-friendly"...
Imagin having a cell-mate (pun INtended and sort of not intentended...) and being banged in your cell in your cell by a chimera... shimmy-chimmy-bang-bang...
----
and "life" from a chimera...hehe
http://www.syntheverse.com/
Might be useful for any of you artistic slashers...
--------
Now, if only hollywierd would make a crossing-over/crossover/hybrid move:
"The Glimera Man: Glimmer Meeets Chimmer"
or "AVP v. ChimmerMan"
---------
David Syes
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I'm somewhat fearful of the man upstairs, but if he/she/it didn't intend for us to dick around with Life(r), then he/she/it wouldn't have given us the means and the desire to do so, or he/she/it would have explicitly forbade us to do so. At least the God I think I know. God gave us science. For the most part, we are using it to help each other. He also gave us common sense. A blob of a hundred human cells is not a human being. If that blob can save hundreds of humans, or say give them the ability to walk, then tough luck for the blob. That blob, and the life saving benefits that come with its destruction, are both products of the talented minds God gave the human race so that we can survive.
Half of God's expiriment is getting along with each other; the other is beating nature (tsunamis, earthquakes, terrorists). Earth is kinda like God's version of Survivor. As long as we play within the rules, we'll be alright. What we need are fewer people who claim they know God's "unwritten" rules (rules with no consensus, and the ones that make no friggin sense whatsoever). One rule we do need is if anyone is caught attempting to create their own little army of super humanoids, they will be sodomized by those humanoids every 15 minutes for the rest of their lives.
Well, the Webster dictionary disagrees. Note definition 3.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Ancient "standards" of morality should be reexamined and rebuilt from the ground up. It "feels" wrong but nobody can really tell, why. So did transplants, blood transfusions, artificial insemination in case of otherwise infertile parents... These aren't bad things, but they are "slippery" too.
We should come with a "short and sweet" list of axioms of what is good and what is bad, based on actual profits (especially long-term) and costs to the humanity, and everything should be then examined in light of these axioms. A lot of harmless practices are suffering nowadays because someone somewhere believed them wrong. Think how "slipery" is the zone of sexuality - and putting aside pathologies like abuse, it's perfectly harmless. On the other hand, model of success without really looking behind, winning by conquest, exploiting the weaker for own profit is really popular, all the "business strategies", trying to cheat people. It's just as wrongly on the "plus" side.
Technology of creation of human-animal hybrid is just a blind tool. Maybe one of more dangerous ones, but still a tool, without its own moral value. Like gunpowder. Can be used to kill (gunpowder: ammo. hybrid: produce soldiers with better senses), can be used to profit at cost of suffering of others (weapons of oppression, breeding animals for "replacement parts" for humans), can be used for something useful (explosives to help in construction, "improved" humans of better health and traits), something pretty (fireworks, Furries), saving life (signal flares / cloned body parts in organisms without "feeling" facilities, i.e. brainless), and many others.
It's the application that has some moral value, and that should be controlled. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Just the same way, "hybrids aren't evil, misusing hybrids is evil."
It would be a good role for the Church, if they only for a moment stopped shouting "No, Veto, Never, Nothing of this" and instead thought and guided precisely "This, this and this - yes, this - try it, but stop if..., and this - better stay away".
Created on God's likehood, where it's said we weren't given the power to create new lifeforms?
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
although it's not a copy it also is about chimeras, bluring line between man and animal and ethics http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6534243/
or is
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
This whole new way of creating "life" challenges us in three respects:
(a) Can human kind go beyond religion?
(b) at the same time, can good prevail through its action?
(c) Can human be smart enough to know the difference between good and dumb? (e.g., "what evil good can be")
Do we allow ourselves to expand our vision to explore our own biomolecular structure or let religion prevent us from leaping forward? (and die as a consequence...hey, religion could actually be the end-of-the-world device to insure that human do not advance enough to sustain its civilization...now that would be funny). And then, without help of religion, can we all have good intention while fiddling with the "life" question? And lastly, while our intention being good, can we be all smart enough to make a dumb mistake (bad enough to wipe us out)?
I think we are being challenged now. Or am I making this too dramatic? We'll see about that.
I don't have any problem with this, either, but I'd like to take this thread on a slightly different tack. Maybe you have problems with it, and maybe you don't.
And most likely, you're consuming genetically engineered plants and animals with added Vitamin C, and lest we forget the Caffeine and other drugs you take to make your head hurt a little less! Science is impacting your life. It's altering your brain, and changing how long you live.
Well, moral issues such as killing human embryos are different. The question that many people get stuck on is: At what point does the human embryo get a soul? Does it happen before it shows up on the ultrasound machine? How about after it's born? At what point does our society recognize life as human. If Chimeras are an abomination to our society, and some are released into the wild and brought to light, then do they have legal rights as humans do? Can they keep the fact that they are different hidden, or does it matter? Dogs and Cats have certain rights as protected by the ASPCA, but humans have lots more rights.
Furthermore, I challenge that "all men are created equal". I think that I'm smarter than most men, and I am not as athletic. I think that I'm quite creative compared to the average human, but I'm not as well read. My point is that we aren't equal, and we most certainly weren't created equal. I'm more prone to several kinds of diseases genetically than other people are. I happen to have blood which makes me a universal donor.
I'd much rather hope that we introduce them into society. Just think about how much better off we would be as a "species" if we could engineer our way around the hurdles we are faced with? What if we could engineer a breed of humans with brains 10% larger and redundant organs? What about having organs that could grow back if removed? It would be nice to be able to get a heart transplant from a human with an extra working heart that would grow back after you removed one. What if brain size wasn't the most important factor to intelligence. What if we could build computers interfaces into humans. Imagine being born with computer implants in your brain that as you grew enhanced your ability to grow and understand the world around you. Imagine how your brain might form differently, and how you would be able to communicate and function if your brain patterns could wirelessly connect with other people and computers on the internet.
Now, the definition of species has much to do with being able to successfully reproduce, but I don't think that it would be so bad if we created species which we were genetically incompatible with that were superior in some ways (maybe even all ways). Unless they bred faster than we did, or a plague impacting only our species happened, there would be a mixed population of sentient species of humans and others. Who says that our 100% pure human children are the best evolved? Why not let our science help create more evolved humans. Over time, humanity will be better equipped to survive in the situations we will live in.
How about we make humans with two heads! Two heads are better than one. I'd love to get my head transplanted onto a body which would outlast my own... Just think about all the poorer people looking for
First of all, I have to remind all of you (and especially to the obviously mentally deficient authors of the article) that chimeras are not hybrids because they do not have a combined DNA, and therefore can not produce offsprings that inherit their traits.
Second, I really don't see what the problem is. Anyone wants to write an angry email to the Pope about the possibility of keeping human organs in glass jars? No? What about metal jars? Plastic? Quartz?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Nuff said.
Haven't read the article. But it seems that someone better invest heavily in some fabulous PR company to explain the word chimera and what is being done.
Or else the scientists may have to worry about their lives. The backlash could be worse than against abortion clinics.
Human and rabbit mixes? They have to be called "hubits" because they can't be called "ramans." Unless you put them in soup. Which the Chinese might do.
My Chinese friends have told me that folks even buy fetus on the black market in Canton and eat it.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Rifkin said, adding that sophisticated computer models can substitute for experimentation on live animals.
No. No they can't. Even if we understood the whole human organism, which we don't, it's still a self modifying entity which can behave in ways not immediatly obvious based on its initial conditions.
Why do people always advocate 'computer models' for such complex and poorly understood phenomenon. Besides the obvious self-righteous reasons, of course.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Let's see grandparent answer parent successfully!!
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
1. I wonder if they taste like chicken
2. I, for one, welcome our new mutant leader. All Hail Chimera!!
------
There's a fine line between cuddling and holding someone down so they can't get away.
Yes? What's wrong in this - if anything, it will help us create human organs that may prolong our lifespans.
What's wrong is that you are creating a large risk of viruses jumping the species barier to humans. And for what? To create yet another assault on the natural selection among the human gene pool -- save a few lives now, so that many more will suffer in the future. The fact is that when you only have diversification and remove selection, the population's fitness does not only not improve, it actually gets worse (easy to see by experimenting with genetic algorithms).
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
--Stephen
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
What's the big idea?
ARGH why don't I have mod points? Or more preciesely, why do I never see posts like this when I do?
..and breed new mice...
We could soon have a whole mouse-army of Frankensteinian proportions !
First indications of this will be when you find that the mouse has spend all night eating cheese from your mousetrap, while blocking the spring with a piece of wood.
Or, he could be lifting the poison you laid on the ground straight to your cornflakes....
Apart from this, the thing that would most worry me is a meriad of mice dancing on my table, while operating the remote control of my audio set...
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
What line? I was unaware that Homo Sapiens were not animals.
Some already have a human president with a 1% mouse brain... :)
No don't insist, I will not disclose any name.
É que os desafinados também têm um coração
"We must be cautious not to violate the integrity of humanity or of animal life over which we have a stewardship responsibility," said Cheshire, a member of Christian Medical and Dental Associations. "Research projects that create human-animal chimeras risk disturbing fragile ecosystems..."
Note:
1. Cheshire (smiles a lot, I bet)
2. member of. not the president, not the press secretary, not the janitor. just "a member".
3. Medical and Dental Associations - reknowned science experts one and all.
4. disturbing fragile ecosystems? huh?
Looks like they had to turn over rocks to dig up a sufficiently alarming-sounding (if ludicrous) statement. The existence of a dentist somewhere who spews such nonsense is saddening but hardly surprising.
Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard
......But mice are already the most inteligent animal on the planet and have been experimenting on us for years........ if only we listened to those damn dolphins......
So it's a vast conspiracy to get mice to do our bidding...?
the link you posted was brain to body weight ratios, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
the parent poster was 100% correct. humans do have much brains several thousand times larger than mice, and human brain cells would not be optimal for living as a mouse.
increase the mouse's brain size several thousand times, then there might be an issue with mouse sentience.
it's rather unlikely you're going to get anything approaching sentience from 0.4 grams of brain cells.
"Might as well start arguing that a blastocyst is fully human. OK, if THAT is fully human, then why is an adult-derived stem cell not?"
Because an adult-derived stemcell on itself can't grow into a baby? Ah yes, but maybe you don't consider it as 'fully'? After all, one could also argument that an 22 weeks old embryo isn't 'fully human', or a 9 months old one, or even a baby for that matter.
The fact is, the line you draw between 'fully human' or 'partly human' or 'not human' (especially now with the chimeras) is completely arbitrary. So yes, it could be argumented that a blastocyst is human. As for the 'fully'...well, why should it be fully? And what is to considered fully? Physically, only adults are fully developed humans, and mentaly, one could argue that mentally handicapt people aren't 'fully' humans; a concept the Nazi's had agreed on, for instance.
The problem with 'fully human' is that it is decided by another human, and one can wonder if that one is fully human in the first place.
For me, it's enough that it is human, to raise ethical questions. It doesn't have to be 'fully', because then I ask myself the question who's going to decide whether it is or not, and why their view on things would be more right then that of mine. Since it's completely arbitrary, I don't think this can be done.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Much of the argument against such research seems to be along the lines of "this is dangerous waters", or "you're trying to play God", or, to quote from the article, "It would deny that there is something distinctive and valuable about human beings that ought to be honored and protected," said Cohen One could view this "issue" in the same way Galileo saw the universe out there in his social context. That the earth was not the centre of the universe was unacceptable back then. Fast forward to now, such research simply challenges the "Man is the centre of the universe" postulate. What ego!
Weissman has already created mice with brains that are about one percent human.
I know a few humans with the very same feature.
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
I don't think it was Dr Zhivago, but something like that. A mad scientist movie where he moves to a deserted island to do just this? Rejected by his peers and society he creates animal people and the whole thing blows up in his face?
Probably the only science fiction movie that has ever come true. At least for the beginning. We've yet to see the ending
What's wrong is that you are creating a large risk of viruses jumping the species barier to humans
this already happens in nature. avian flu anyone?
Who the heck cares?
Every time you pick a mate, you're messing with DNA.
Well, actually. . , the problem is that the control belongs to soulless corps. How long until they start breeding dumber humans with a gene which makes people reflexively want to Buy Useless Crap. Or react poorly to non-GM foods. Or work smarter with fewer complaints. Oh, the list is endless in a lame sci-fi kind of way.
The comforting thing is that they never paid much attention to anything but the most trivial 'augmented soldier' nonsense on Star Trek, which leads me to think that it's probably not much of a problem we'll be needing to make any choices about in our current reality. There's not really enough time left to worry about this kind of thing. --The damage was done back when humans were first written. (Clever adjustments were made, such as linking sexual pleasure to violence, and activating the capacity for a strong sense of jealousy. Among other things.)
-FL
Forget all this chimera stuff. I want a liger. They are only the coolest animal ever. GOSH!
heh...well, despite being a slashdotter (in some sense, at least), I'm actually pro-tech. And yet, I do think there are ethical issues here. A voice of reason is all very well, and I think a lot of people lack that, but it doesn't mean you have to agree with everything that science does. Science, after all, is done by scientists, and scientists are only humans too. Being inhumane is part of the human nature (even though it sounds contradictory).
;-)
I hate it likewise, that anyone argumenting against some scientific development or research is portrayed as being 'anti-tech', or some sort of zealot. I, for instance, I'm very much pro science, more so then the joe doe on the street, I believe. I'm neither a green animal/tree-hugger nor a christian catholic (well, exept by birth, but I hadn't anything of a say in that). I consider myself to be an agnostic.
Yet, I do think that some experiments where there is a melting of humans and animals should be severely controlled, restricted, and in some cases, forbidden, indeed. This has a very clear (and rational, btw) reason: if you start with the premise that humans can't be experimented on (because it is unethical), not even to advance science, then the melting of animals and humans obviously cause problems. Namely, when does it remain animal, and when does it become human?
Where ever one draws the line, it is clear that there is such a line, and it is also clear that that line is fully arbitrary. I would say that any chimera experiments might produce something that could be considered, at least partly, human. And are we going to allow human experiments, even if they have animal genes in them? I would say no.
Then again, we already experiment on human embryos as well, so clearly the line IS arbitrary. However, rest assured I consider that ethical burdersome too, and I think if one wants to stay consistent, one should forbid that too.
Consistency is a nice thing.
I do not develop my view out of a zealot-green or catholic beliefsystem, but rather on a basic premise and rational thinking. Somehow, this seems implausable to other people proclaiming to be progressive or scientifically minded (which I consider myself to belong too). Progress is good, but not to all costs, and I do think sometimes the price can be too high. And let's face it, in reality, in science, there is often more then one way to get the same useful data. The matter of fact is, scientists, being human, often do unethical things (sometimes downright illegal things) to cut corners or because it is more easy, not because it's the only way in the universe to proceed and progress.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
So "animals", as a group, have rights that preclude the existence, in laboratories, of certain experiments. That doesn't make sense. Do they have the right not to be infected by viruses? Do they have the right to prevent humans from selectively breeding other animals? Do they have the right not to evolve?
Is he saying that a non-existent animal hybrid has the right to continue not existing?
I wish DRM technologies had the right not to be invented.
but aren't humans already animals ?
Because, if you put a blastocell in it's natural ideal conditions (womb, and all that), it grows out (or can grow out) into a baby, and when you you place an adult-derived stemcell in it's natural ideal condictions, it doesn't (and can't)?
My point was, one CAN argument it both ways, and it really is arbitrary. The parent poster thinks he has an overriding (ratioanl) viewpoint, but he hasn't. Being rational or not has nothing to do with it; it's a matter of premise. One can argument, completely rationally, that severely mentally handicapt people should not be considered fully human, for instance.
Feel free to demonstarte I'm wrong, and that the ethical question of when you consider something human as being human is not arbitrary, but can be demonstrated in an objective, scientific manner.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"There are other ways to advance medicine and human health besides going out into the strange, brave new world of chimeric animals," Rifkin said, adding that sophisticated computer models can substitute for experimentation on live animals."
Unless there have been huge leaps in our understanding of biology and chemistry, as well as huge advances in mathematics and computer science and increases in computer manufacturing technology-that I am not aware of, this last statement is most certainly not true. If a computer model could replace animal testing, it would be done. Do people just think that scientists enjoy torturing innocent animals"
Honestly, the absurdity of this argument is appalling. There are two alternatives to animal testing, human testing and no testing.
And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains.
Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?
Personaly i don't like emphasising difference between humans and animals.. we are both part of the same evolution. We are carbon based life forms, some breathe through gills, some lungs. The only difference is that we have built so much and understand things around us (who says animals don't :D ).
But we're basicly the same when it comes to Primal needs, feeding, mating, killing rivals etc..
If you visit any computer lab you'll find a lot of creatures that clearly aren't quite human. Although I suspect some of them are part vegetable, now that I think about it.
RMN
~~~
So when exactly did human stop being an animal as well?
I think i've met a few of those pigs with the blood of humans
...I offer you the following corrections:
...extremely causious with such experiments
...both of nature and eachother
I don't think any concious person...
Conscious.
Cautious.
Each other.
Your willingness to learn is impressive, as is your current grasp of English. Keep up the good work.
Cheers,
CD
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
island of dr moreau anyone?
"Potpourii doesn't taste as good as it smells." - Dark_Link2135
"That's because there are a number of people on slashdot that don't really understand science or its underpinnings."
;-).
;-)
Or, maybe, they do understand, but they do not agree?
As I have said before, I dislike this kind of 'if you're not for science, you're against it' mentality. It sounds Bushy to me. I have made several posts in this thread why I still think there are ethical issues, and that some of this (chimera) research should be forbidden. It has *nothing* to do with being anti-science or being non-rational. In fact, you would be hardpressed to find a regular reply/poster to me that would claim I'm not a staunch fan of using rational and logic reasoning. Ask Halo1 if you have any doubts
Yet, I do not agree with a laissez-faire viewpoint, just because it advances science, for the reasons I mentionned in my other posts. I find it hugely disturbing that anyone that opposes some form(s) of scientific research would be deemed irrational, just because he does so. Since when did scientific progress became the new dogmatic principle? *That* is quite unscientific, actually.
" Sure, they can plug a CPU into a motherboard, install a service pack, perhaps even a linux distro. But they're incapable of critical thought (especially reflective critical thought, but that's another story), and have difficulty applying reason or logic."
What I said above: your conclusion (or at least insinuatuion) that because someone is not for it, he is incapable of critical thought and has difficulty applying reason or logic, is premature at best, and flawed at worst. It is just because I think in a critical and rational way (and consistent), that I DO see (ethical) problems, and that I DO think some forms of research should be forbidden.
"Engineers with rigorous formal training are usually the first to admit that they are not scientists. Engineers with sloppy minds and little formal training think they know it all, or think that what they know in one area is easily transfered to another completely different area."
I must confess I usually think I know it all.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Gkack! ... uh sorry just a hairball.
Watch put Mrs. Frisby, the Rats of Nimh are coming for your children.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
It's pretty much my favorite animal. It's like a lion and a tiger mixed... bred for its skills in magic.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0374900/
I wonder if the reason that some groups are upset over this is because they see it (particularly things like the killing of the human-brained mice) as a "backdoor" way to justify abortion, by blurring the boundaries as to what a human is through scientific means?
(I mean, a lot of the funamentalists view just about anything as an attack on their beliefs anyhow, going as far as to extrapolate rampant bestiality from gay marriage. And they seem to have a general distrust of science in general...)
Cows can learn to open doors -- no mean feat for an animal that has evolved with no concept at all of manipulating objects (cf dogs which naturally carry stuff) and has then been bred purely for food for a few centuries. Cows can plot a path home from today's field to the shed -- sheep will just stand there and die of cold. Cows can actually learn not to eat poisonous things, which makes them Einsteins among farm animals (horse owners will know what I mean here).
I'd say the only creatures on the farm smarter than cows are the dogs, the pigs, and mayyyybe the cats.
And maybe the people.
Although not in every case.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
So, how many asses does that make?
[Inside the South Park Genetic Engineering Ranch]
Moreau: I'm so pleased that you children are interested in genetic engineering.
Cartman: Eh, it's ok Fluffy, nobody's going to hurt you.
Moreau: It's thanks to the wonders of genetic engineering that soon there will be an end to hunger, disease, pollution, even war. I have created things that will change the world for the better. For instance, here is a monkey with four asses.
Monkey: Mhhh.
Kyle: How does that make the world better?
Moreau: And here, of course, is my four assed ostrich. And my four assed mongoose.
Stan: Do you have anything besides just animals with four asses?
Moreau: Oh, uh, I suppose so uh. Oh yes, over here. Here I have rats splice with ducks, and gorillas spliced with mosquitos, and here I have rabbits spliced with fish to make little, bunny fish.
Cartman: Heyyy, these bunny ears are tied on with little strings.
Moreau: And over here, swiss cheese spliced with chalk, and a beard.
this sig has been rated E for Everyone.
Like it or not, it all boils down to morality. There's no question that scientists will continue to make progress in this area. There's also no question that there could be dramatic benefits or drawbacks.
The question becomes SHOULD it be done. People's response to this depends on where they fall on the morality of it: are there moral concerns to this or not? If so, where is the line drawn between moral and immoral experiments and activities.
It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss either side of the argument. If you believe there are no moral qualms with this, you at least need to admit that if others feel there are that doesn't make them stupid. If you believe there are moral qualms, that doesn't make those who believe otherwise evil.
Identify where you stand on the morality question, flesh out detailed reasons for your position, and debate. You're not going to convince anyone with shouting and name-calling.
Facts are stubborn things.
"Why? A mouse with a brain that is genetically human is hardly making a mouse that has a human brain."
And a human with a brain that is genetically that of a mouse, is hardly making a mouse that has a human brain neither. I mean, think of the possibilities! If one would be able to create complete bodies, but with no human brain, you can't call them humans, right? And imagine the harvesting of organs that could be done! We could use spare parts like changing parts on a car, and live twice as long in good health!
In fact, maybe we don't have to wait for mouse brains: you could use ape-brains, or just genetically manipulate the bodies so they don't produce the (front)lobes that produce higher thought. In fact, we have human bodies even now, that are exactly like that, in mental institutions! Why wait any longer; let's engineer and clone a multi-usable 'crawler' and use that creature for spare parts! It would make any man or corporation rich beyond their dreams - and you help thousands of (paying) customers at the same time, so it can't be bad!
And hey, if some ethic commision would protest, throw in some animal genes and claim it's an animal now, and all your probs are gone. Nothing should stand in the way of scientific progress and corporate profit (though not necessary in that order)!!
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Scientists attempted to make a pig-elephant chimera, only to find that pig and elephant DNA just won't splice.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
"...a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal." According to Merriam Webster m-w.com this is what Chimera is: 1 a capitalized : a fire-breathing she-monster in Greek mythology having a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail Correct me if I am wrong in here. Chimere is not a human at all isn't?
I haven't RTFA, of course, but this topic in itself brings up very serious concerns about viruses getting a boost into jumping the species barrier. And even a benign virus can become extremely lethal to a new population that has never been exposed to it. Many deaths, and virus generations, are necessary before natural selection makes the new virus less lethal to its new host.
I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
Is it April 1 already?
"Last year Canada passed the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, which bans chimeras. Specifically, it prohibits transferring a nonhuman cell into a human embryo and putting human cells into a nonhuman embryo.
Cynthia Cohen is a member of Canada's Stem Cell Oversight Committee, which oversees research protocols to ensure they are in accordance with the new guidelines.
She believes a ban should also be put into place in the U.S."
Considering Canada's political atmosphere compared to that of the US, I would tend to agree that religion is not really involved at this point, but general overall scientific ethics (or lack thereof, depending on your POV).
But I could also return the question: if it's not wrong to kill a mouse with a nominally human brain, why then should a human body with the same nominally human brain not be killed or experimented on?
And if it is not wrong, why wait untill we have created them in a lab? We already have severely mentally handicapt people (missing the complete front lobes, for instance, which makes them vegetate, let alone show mental activity as some animals can)...we could use them right now!
I agree that consistency is extremely important, also (and maybe even more) in ethical issues, but one should be careful which premise one starts with.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Sorry. I just had to reference this: http://www.bartleby.com/1001/.
Are there any real life pictures of these hybrids? I would be interested to see how they turned out.
But just as you would not want someone to override your personal religious beliefs, it is wrong for you to try and override another person's belief.
I'm an organ donor but I would in no way deny someone his personal religious convictions just for his organs.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Horses and donkeys, of course, can cross-breed to create mules. I recall from one college class (physical anthropology) a discussion about the fact that, in principle, humans and chimps could also cross-breed, though of course the offspring would (like a mule) be sterile. As discussed here: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=152885 2&lastnode_id=1694132 the number of chromosomes don't necessarily need to be the same, as long as the chromosomes are "homologous" and the male has the fewer number of chromosomes. So in theory we could make a human chimera via simple cross-breeding.
From the "everything2.com" article referenced above:
"liger = male lion + female tiger
tigon or tiglon = male tiger + female lion
mule = male donkey + female horse
hinny = male horse + female donkey (jenny)
zorse = zebra + horse
zonkey or zebrass = zebra + donkey (ass)
cama = camel + llama
catalo or beefalo = buffalo + cattle
yakalo = yak + buffalo
wholphin = whale + dolphin (specifically a false killer whale and a bottlenose dolphin)
Toast of Botswana = goat + sheep
Obviously this deserves some clarification. While a sheep can be impregnated by a goat, the kid/lamb is always stillborn... except in one case in the early 1990s. This animal was nicknamed the Toast of Botswana. Since it was the only one ever known to have lived, no other name has been given to a goat/sheep combination."
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
I guess that show wasn't so far fetched after all
--
Hidden message contained here
Think about how inmoral was to open a body to "operate" in the past.
i think someone's been watching too much Full Metal Alchemist...
How long will we survive now that our iniquity (Gn XV:16) is filling up so quickly?
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
This article is very interesting from an animal animal liberation/animal rights point of view. Some of the arguments made on both sides are pretty weak:
The assumption seems to be that if we are able to decide when a chimera becomes human, we have solved part of the issue. Why would knowing that an organism is human make a moral difference? If something is genetically human or not does not make a morally relevany difference unless you take a speciecist position claiming that species membership is morally relevant in itself. No defense of that position has to my knowledge been presented.
Also, it is difficult to see how there can be any new questions of rights since the genetic make-up of an individual is not what grants (or should grant) moral rights in the first place.
The problem with any theory of rights is that it does not take into the consideration the consequences of an action beyond which rights are violated, in this case Rifkin claims that it doesn't matter what medical breakthroughs will result, it is still wrong to cross species boundaries. How does this make sense?
It is also interesting that he believes that animals have the rights not to be crossed with other species -- but who's rights are being violated when that is done? Unless the stem cells being tampered with have rights (how could this possibly be?) it must be the rights of the fully developed chimera which is constantly violated, since it is a cross of different species. But unless the chimera is in some way hurt by being the crossing of two species, what reasonable ground can there be for claiming that its rights are violated anymore than the rights of the mule -- the mixing of a horse and a donkey? Does the fact that humans have deliberately created a new genetic make-up make a moral difference? Why?
The Act bans chimeras only when one party is genetically human. How can this be justified? This is a law, and does not carry any ethical/moral weight, but what possible arguments could lay behind the law? Cynthia Cohen gives us an answer:
"Human dignity", a fancy phrase that sound nice, but is devoid of any meaning. It is the last resort when arguments from a factual basis fail, or maybe a reflection of religious beliefs. She puts it pretty clearly when implying that it would be wrong to "deny that there is something distinctive and valuable about human beings that ought to be honored and protected". This should be denied, vigorously, as it is the basis of much unjustified oppression of non-human animals. Until it is shown what characteristic of humans are "distinctive and valuable" that exists in all humans and does not exist in any non-human animals, there is no merit to the idea of a special human dignity. It is nothing more than poorly masked discrimination on the sole basis of species membership, something which holds
"Let me play devil's advocate here, and ask: Why shouldn't that line be crossed?
;-) thought they should be able too, and they did it.
;-) derive one from the other and vice versa.
If we could give dogs the brains of humans (uplift-them, David Brin style[1]), why shouldn't we? "
If we could create human bodies with the brains of a dog, why shouldn't we? If we could throw in a few ape-genes and call a human an animal (or put a bunch of human genes in apes), and keep them as slaves, why shouldn't we?
If we can experiment on handicapt persons and jews, why shouldn't we?
The nazi's (hmm...isn't this invoking some law?
Your point completely surpasses the ethical question, which was the whole issue in the first place. You begin with shouldn't, and argument with can't. The answer is; if you can, you can, but whether you should is a question of opinion, and opinion is based on morals. You can not argument an ethical vision as being a rational conclusion, unless you start with the same premise and then use rational reasonings all the way. There is no way that you can conclude your ethial viewpoint is the only valid one, not even the only rational one.
As history has proven, the "can't" is only limited by the power one has, and the "shouldn't" by morailty. You can't (or at least shouldn't
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
(I think they meant human/non-human hybrid. Humans are animals too, you know. :)
"such a worker would toil in a sweatshop with singlemindedness, as oxen would plow a field."
I once again give you Chairman Yang:
"My gift to industry is the genetically engineered worker, or Genejack. Specially designed for labor, the Genejack's muscles and nerves are ideal for his task, and the cerebral cortex has been atrophied so that he can desire nothing except to perform his duties.
Tyranny, you say? How can you tyrannize someone who cannot feel pain?"
Chairman Sheng-ji Yang
"Essays on Mind and Matter"
How many scientists were scared away from the fate of Jordano Bruno?
Ethics evolve too...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Does this mean the next stuart little or scooby doo movie is going to be live action?
It's illegal to murder - are you more likely to do it?
Let's flip this, since -- where I live -- it's already illegal to murder folks. Try "It's now legal to murder -- am I more likely to do it?". My answer is a clear "no", since it's well outside my built-in and learned-in code to murder someone. This has nothing to do with the law, in my particular case. YMMV.
Laws are *extremely* important for defining the boundaries of what is right and wrong. Without them you get everyone making up their own rules.
There are plenty of counterexamples to this kind of logic. It's illegal to manipulate corporate books, but executives have been known to do that from time to time; they bend the rules because They Want To.
Since laws aren't universal, there's no rational way to determine What's Right based on said laws. I live in a country that has a legal death penalty(1) for certain crimes; most of the world's countries do not. Is that Right?
(1) Please note that I am *not* arguing for or against the death penalty, and am not implying *any* personal stance either for or against it. It's an example, folks.
Where people grow babies which have a minimal 'non-human' component, and then harvest them at certain ages (birth-18) for cosmetic surgery / transplants.
Of course it is legit, because they are animals, not humans, with a little bit of human in them, to make things better for us.
Which side of this coin did the people funding this see?
sick fucking assholes.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'm already envisioning a Planet of the Apes scenario. Implanting human brain cells into monkeys instead of mice. There's enough room there to mimic the human brain. I can see it.
From the article:
"And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains."
Isn't one of the most important definitions of human life that we possess a working human brain? I.e. if you were in an accident and only your brain survived and lets say we were able to keep it alive in a vat, this would still be 'you'. The same would not be true for your heart, legs of liver.
So we are going to have a human brain INSIDE another animal. How absolutely wrong is that? I don't really care what can be learned, for the poor human trapped inside a rats body its clearly horrible (obviously this would be a sub-human of sorts since their brains would be much smaller and would have less opportunity to develop, I assume).
We need to step back and think about things like this before doing them first.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
But I was raised by pigeons, you insensitive clod! :)
Er....but seriously though.. You got me...it was late, I was tired, etc etc.
I'm not sure, but I already work with human beings that have the intelligence of mice, so I'm thinking the human-brained mice should be able to fit in somewhere.
Just think how handy they would be if you were pulling cable and it gets stuck in the conduit somewhere? Or when you drop a bolt in a hard to reach place.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
You probably thought that post was about you. =)
What's funny is that I don't think I read any of your posts. I got disgusted with just a lot of the usual slashdot bullshit. Yeah, I know. I must be new here. But it looks like I hit a nerve? =)
Sure, I can think of examples of immoral science. Nazi experiments on people in concentration camps, for one (Godwin forgive me). But there is nothing unethical with what those scientists in China did, nor in Minnesota, nor what the Stanford scinetists propose to do.
As far as the ethical opinions expressed in the article go, I think they can be summed up thusly:
Rifkin: Free the lab mice. They are our brothers! Let's play Civ III instead.
Magnus: While there is potential for ethical abuse in how such chimeras might be used, we don't know of anyone contemplating research that might cross this line.
Cohen: Direct quote: "It would deny that there is something distinctive and valuable about human beings that ought to be honored and protected." Translation: The purity and essence of our natural fluids will be diminished and corrupted by unclean beasts and this should be banned.
Weissman: Oh shit! Here comes the God Squad!
Cheshire: We might try to set a limit, then not realize we passed that limit until it's too late. [He's part of the God Squad, but he's engaged in these types of experiments, so he either knows he's already going to hell, or he wants to be able to say that what he did is OK, but that others might go to hell if they " violate the integrity of humanity or of animal life".]
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
...Rabbits with human breasts and female sex organs...
:-)
:-) it is funny! :-)
Fuck did I say that out loud? It is a money spinner... buy it as a 'novelty' gift for your best friends wedding!
Warning: once dead keep refrigerated, use for up to 3 days.
sick I tell you! oh this is so going to get modded down!
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Don't you people watch the SciFi channel?!?!
Crossing species is bad! Very bad!
Now we'll have to find a team of 12 people (who will slowly be killed off, one by one) to fight this thing (until the last one or two finally kill it.)
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
look for traces of human cognitive behavior.
It wouldn't surprise if sometime in the future that more sophisticated means are developed to communicate with the brain more directly, kind of like an EEG on steriods.
When that happens, probably we'll discover a couple of things that will make people uncomfortable and have to rethink their ethical positions. We may discover human fetuses (simmering pro-choice, pro-life abortion debate) capable of more cognitive ability and we may discover animals (you know, the kind we eat for food) are also capable of thoughts, feelings, communication.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Now children have a real reason to be scared of the Easter Bunny.
I'm ok with pigs with human organs so that they can be used in heart-transplants etc, but growing animals with human brains to see how cognitive functions develop... that's sick.
I'm curious to hear where /.ers think the ethlical line should be in medical research in general. Something like this would have been unthinkable decades ago. On one extreme, you have the fringe completely opposed to medical research on animals and humans. On the other you have Nazi-styled "expiriments" on mentally ill and "lesser races". I would imagine most of us fall somewhere in between.
Personally, my opposition to this is more in the destruction of a human embryo than the mixing aspect. If a way were developed to do this from adult cells, I'd be less alarmed. So, my line is at killing human life, though I recognize many don't agree on what constitutes "human life". Where is yours? How close do you get to the "anything goes" extreme before drawing the line?
Do you know what we're going to do tonight, Pinky?
The rest of the story almost writes itself...
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Cool! Can we put in requests?
"A liger is just about my favorite animal, bred for it's skills in magic. Flippin' idiot."
Join Tor today!
That is officially F#*'3d. Think of the what could happen if a hybrid mouse/human had a mouse only disease that mutates to become effective to humans too!
But then I already feel like a White Lab Rat...
Most of the arguements I'm seeing revolve around the assumption that humans beings are different from non-human animals. What if this proves that there is no real difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom? I think most of the dilemmas stem from people's need for their species to be "special" or separate from the rest of the planet, when in reality we're all made of the same stuff and live in the same place. This also hits hard on religious beliefs but since science has always defied religion, religion has always changed itself to fit the new universe. There was a time when saying the earth was not flat was a sin against God and get you killed. Now it's common knowledge and religion is still with us and it's still taken as absolute truth even though the truths change from century to century. You don't have to fear your religion being wrong in some aspect because it will adapt just like it has been since the beginning of time.
We have laws that protect both humans and non-human animals from harm. Abuse a dog and you go to jail. Why wouldn't we be concerned about the welfare of these chimiric animals in the same way? Instead of worrying about their existance, most people are worrying about their own feelings of self-importance and their own need to be separate and special from everything else.
I don't see any difference between putting a pig's heart in a human, and growing a human heart in a pig. Either way, the pig is going to die and lose it's heart. Any differences are illusory and stem from the need to be special and if you're willing to do one then both should be ok.
What about adding citrus smells to human skin to stave off mosquitos, and eyes like a cat to see better in the dark.
Sure, you wouldnt want to create something less than human...but an improvement.
Would that be such a bad thing, or is there fear of creating something that would supercede us?
This is not my sig
The premise here is that things are pretty much legal by default. Do whatever you want, folks. It's a free country.
Again, not for everyone, but in at least one nation-state, to make something illegal, you need two things to happen:
A sufficient majority agrees that it should be illegal.
That's "Democracy". In its purest form, it's a very scary thing: formalized mob rule.
The document that specifies the functions and limitations of government says "The people, are allowed to regulate this activity.".
Now you have a "Constitutional Democracy". In this scenario, the Constitution is the thing that stands in the way of the tyranny of the majority.
Again--with respect for those who prefer monarchist, oligarchist, fascist, religious or other types of government, this is just one way of doing things--you don't have to do the same.
But we like it. And we're sure that once you try it, you will, too...
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
So if YOU were one of the thirteen virgins that a satanist cult wanted to sacrifice at the next full moon, you'd have no problem with that? You'd just offer yourself up for sacrifice rather than offend their sensibilities?
And if not, what's the difference between sacrificing virgins in the name of religion and withholding the gift of life in the name of religion? Just because some "holy" book says something, it can still be WRONG. {Cf. the old Kosher and Halal ritual slaughter methods.}
I restate my earlier assertion: A god who would deny you Eternal Life because you helped another deserves no worship.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Visions of Peter F. Hamilton dance in my head...
Not too far off from Edenists and Adamists. Now all we need is the affinity gene.
There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
And here we all thought he was just the president.
b ushchimpanzee.htm
He's a member too!
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/bl
user@host$ diff
Well, no sweat; during the history of slashdot, I probably have not read hundreds if not thousands of posts :-)
If you want to read more of a particular person, you can klick on his name and then on the posts he made, however. (Just saying because you seem to indicate you're new and may not know this).
"Sure, I can think of examples of immoral science. Nazi experiments on people in concentration camps, for one (Godwin forgive me). But there is nothing unethical with what those scientists in China did, nor in Minnesota, nor what the Stanford scinetists propose to do."
Well, my point is, that that is YOUR opinion. You can not scientifically and in an objective manner demonstarte that your ethical viepoint is the correct one, not even the only rational one. Which was my point. I *do* see ethical problems when you experiment with human brainscells and mixing animal/humans in a way that could involve brainprocesses.
As you said; you object to experiments on people... but what constitutes "people"? Clearly, as the nazi's have shown, that's rather arbitrary. If scientists create something that is 49% human and 51% animal, is it to be considered an animal, which can be experimented on? Or a human?
Or, ultimately, does it revolves around being able to produce coherent thoughts? but then, shouldn't scientists be able to experiment on babies too? After all, they are not capable of coherent thought.
You see, the question is rather complex, and I don't like claims of having a rational reasoning by people that, when their reasoning is followed consistently, do not agree where their own reasoning leads to.
I, for one, think that all experiments that could lead to human-like thought should be forbidden. And possibly, the experiments with the mice might fall under that (the example of human blood in a pig doesn't, however). I mean, I dunno..and actually, neither do the scientists. Imagine, just imagine, that those mice with 100% human braincells develop a neural network that gives them a sense of self-awareness...what do those scientists kill by the dozens, then? Is it simply mice? They might think the chance of that happening is minute, but the truth and the fact is, they don't really care that much.
After all, biologists routinely use apes, of which we now they have a sense of self-awareness, and still they are merily used to experiment on. I must agree with the greens and tree-huggers on that one: I think chimps and the lot should not be used. I do not agree with them that all animal research should be abondoned (unless it can be done without it too, ofcourse). but I'm not saying even *that* is ethical right, I think killing even lower animals for the advancement of science is, on itself, not right, I just realise that, as a human, I think I'm more important then a dozen mice, 5 pigs and 12 rabbits.
I'm not convinced my life is more worth then another sentient being, however. But such a thing is impossible to define by rationalisation, if you don't agree to the premise. Many would argue, that they do not care, and that they are more important then any number of chimps or dolphins. Many would even say (and have said in the past) that they are more important then other people, even.
So, how do you think a chimera would do, that is half human, and half animal? Knowing human nature, I think not very well. If we do not set laws to limit this kind of research, then sooner or later, we'll be killing and experimenting on beings that maybe arne't strictly human, but aren't really animals neither. Do I think this is an ethical issue, based on rationale? Yes. And these mouse might be the first step.
And I can't remember science ever to have taken a step back, unless the law obliges them (and even then).
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
The way you eat? or is it your face? :)
> But too conscious control over processes which should be
>random or out of conscious control has definite social and
>political dangers, even if you don't mix humans with other animals.
>
Aieeeeee... it sounds like you're saying random chance has a better chance of producing a positive outcome than directed scientific research does. OF COURSE scientists should be careful... and guess what, they're TRAINED to be careful, and to spread their discoveries around so others can comment, but... these anti-research comments sound a LOT like the clips I just heard on NPR about how organ transplants were a terrible idea, unsafe, and we needed to do something about these self-glorifying surgeons who would even consider such a thing! Grrrr.
Ethical questions aside, my concern is that some disease that rats or pigs have became immune to may find a pathway to infecting humans through this genetic crossing.
Remember when we couldn't contract the "Kitty Flu" because we're of a different species? Well, with the gray area filled between "animal" and "human" (not like we're any different anyway), this opens all sorts of doors to new viruses and diseases since they're known to mutate slightly in order to make themselves at home in the host. By doing this, we've pretty much given full "administrator rights" of our bodies to the offending diseases. Whoever thought it was necessary to "plug the hole", needs to have his/her hole plugged with my size 18 boot.
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
Speaking as a Monkeyman, I am highly offended by the insinuation that George W. Bush is a Monkeyman, you insensitive clod.
To wit: We Monkeymen are a generally peaceful race, encouraging community growth and prosperity through distribution of resources and responsiblity. Disputes are often solved through rational discussion of all available information and opnion, and in trivial matters, a simple game of rock, leaf, branch will do.
Additionally, Monkeymen are well groomed and rarely taken off guard or out of context, as our cognitive capabilities allow us a great deal of awareness, clear communication, and understanding of our surroundings.
Drug addiction is virutally non-existent in the Monkeyman community, save for the occassional guarana-chewer, and even then, those Monkeymen make excellent banana harvesters.
We have no concrete theological system, which probably contributes to the long-standing peace our race has acheived, and those Monkeymen who do believe in a higher power use their beliefs to foster understanding, compassion, and goodwill without regards to the beliefs of our neighbors, friends, or even mortal enemies from the CrocoSapien camp across the river.
Lastly, Monkeymen realize that our personal opinions of other Monkeypersons' actions are only that - opinion. We do not try to use questionable and subjective criteria such as "moral values" as a reasoning to impose our will on other Monkeymen if their actions have no direct effect on other Monkeymen.
Contrast these qualities with your so-called Monkeyman of Penn. Ave, and I think you'll see that your judgement of Monkeymen is offensive, short-sighted, and uneducated.
I hope that I was able to clear up some misconceptions that many humans have about Monkeymen and our social behavior.
And even identical twins don't have identical genetics, as there are random mutations going on during development after the split. They're just very similar. Heck, there's even a very small chance of identical twins with different genders, although some would say that that large of a difference keeps them from being identical no matter how they developed. Gosh, and that's not even getting into half-identical twins, where the split in the egg happens before fertilization...
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
This is the Uplift Saga...ok without the aliens...for now...
s /-/10/ref=pd_sr_ec_ser_b/102-8381395-8756106/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/serie
*sigh* i know... i'm upset my cousin (and a few friends) got a free ipod despite thinking they'd never send a free ipod. so i'll keep (barely) trying.
for a minute there, i lost myself...
Dunno about him, but I never pretended to have some higher morals about it.
Having any rights has not much to do with morals, it has to do with (A) a sort of a "truce" we came up with, so we can live with each other ("ok, I won't kill you if you won't kill me"), and (B) basically being able to defend it, by hurting anyone _hard_ if they break those rules. (Or more accurately we've let the government handle the hurting part. It's more efficient that way.)
Either way, there is nothing inherent, divine or universal about those "morals". It's just an arbitrary collective truce we've come up with at some point in history -- and which is also continuously changing -- so we can live together.
However, like any truce, you need to be as dangerous to the other as he/she is to you. Otherwise one of the sides has no incentive to enter it. You could kill me, but then I could kill you instead. Maybe I'll be faster. Maybe I'll do it in your sleep. Hmm... better let's aggree that we both have a right to live. That's morals.
It's sorta like the cold war: ok, we could all become extinct, or we can just sulk and fume at each other and aggree to not shoot those missiles. That's human morals, in a nutshell.
And again, a large part in having any rights was having a big enough stick to threaten those who don't want to play by those rules.
You can probably see how that all doesn't apply to bunnies. They're cute, they're fluffy, but they're not in much of a position to make a truce with us. Now if we were talking killer bunnies like in Monty Python, who can each massacre a squad of armed elite soldiers without breaking a sweat... now that's a race we'd be willing to make a truce with. Those would have plenty of rights.
Not saying this is the "right" or moral or sensitive way to think about it. It's just the historical way it is.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
God shmod, I want my monkey man!
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
Ethics is a subject that by its very nature is open to individual interpretation. The "mob" decides what is acceptable by objecting en masse or not objecting strongly enough. Whatever can be done without a public outcry will usually be done. Science is very political.
Now, above and beyond the general public, there is the scientific community. They are comprised of the same people as "the mob" but they are *on the average* more sophisticated and educated about the alternatives and professional ethics in their fields.
Religious folks who believe in a God that created people and sets them apart from animals think that there is something sacred about humanity.
Non-relgious folks don't think there is anything better than the Greater Good and Individual Rights, although these two things are at odds with each other. (I am capitalizing these ideas to illustrate that I am discussing the grand idealized versions of these concepts.)
For example, if you could take 100 people and experiment on them and cure cancer, would you do it? Pure logic says that over time you will save millions of lives. Aren't the lives of millions worth the lives of 100? Surely this is for the best. The rights of the individual, however, is part of our self preservation, and speaks up and says, "Hey, every person has the right to live and not be harmed by others as long as he has not harmed others."
Aside from these basic ethical points, everything else is a subjective mess. Should animals be tortured by excruciating experiments that could save lives? Should human cells be mixed with animal cells? There is no right anwer to these questions because there are no absolutes in Ethics. The only concrete thing you can point to with Ethics is the "greater good." Anything else is soap opera drama.
I'm not saying that we should start imprisoning people and doing mass unrestricted testing; far from it -- I personally believe strongly in individual freedom. I'm saying that no matter what your arguments, there'll be holes in it because it's about Feelings, not logic.
But, I'm just pointing out that 99.9% of the drivel posted in this forum is subjective bullshit that can be argued for a thousand years with no final arbiter in sight.
Oh, there are a few good points in among the crap here. The person who suggested that chimera could pose a threat by becoming a bridge vector for animal diseases to the human body. Excellent point.
The opposite side of that coin should be considered as well. If pigs get some extremely virulent disease and we have hogocide, we could lose out on some tasty BLTs in the future. It reduces our menu options, and we lose species variety in our biosphere, both obviously negative factors regardless of ethics.
"Biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin is opposed to crossing species boundaries, because he believes animals have the right to exist without being tampered with or crossed with another species."
In your face, mules!
That green slime had it coming.
Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
"Biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin is opposed to crossing species boundaries, because he believes animals have the right to exist without being tampered with or crossed with another species." So animals have the rights, but not humans. Using animal parts in humans is ok, but should the owner of the cells being crossed with animal cells have the right to deny/accept it? Or would that redefine the start of life as being an embryo, instead of a birth?
#include bier;
I cannot understand why you have to paint everyone with your ethical and moral brush.
There are issues. The parent may not care about them, but the grandparent is evidence that some people do. Therefore, there are issues. We must come to agreement on them or face conflict.
We are not responsible for what nature does in evolution. We are responsible for what we do. If nature creates suffering, we try to mitigate it. (For instance, the recent tsunami.) We do not try to imitate it.
If we act using genetics to create modified beings, we may create great suffering. Of the modified beings, of us, of other unmodified animals. We have ever-greater power, but we still lack control. Let us take small steps only, and with caution. Perhaps there are some things we should not do, even though we can.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Okay - I'd like to chip in my $0.02.
There are things we wish we could uninvent - like VX Gas.
Holding on to the last remaining smallpox seems dangerous, but they've made an excellent case in my opinion, that destroying it forever would be even more dangerous.
But we are absolutely talking about doing experiments that we as a culture (let alone we as a species) do not all agree we should do - and that we can't undo.
We should be cautious.
Science is a tool - it doesn't have some holy purpose. Science for the sake of science is like a hammer for the sake of a hammer - even if you're hitting people with it.
For the most part, scientists do have a purpose which for the most part benefits us all. But I think it's a reasonable position that this crosses the line. (At least as sensationalized here - maybe the true facts are more innocuous.)
I also happen to believe that it's a reasonable position that this does not cross some arbitrary line. I hold that view - I think this is reasonable work. But I am forced to acknowledge that the alternate viewpoint is just as reasonable.
I'm an atheist, so you can't go claiming I'm a religious zealout here - and I consider myself to be a very scientific thinker.
Human + NotHuman is a recipe for argument.
If you agree that there's no logical way to resolve an argument based on differing but reasonable personal opinions, then maybe we've just agreed that this should be halted.
Education is the silver bullet.
Yes.......Pinky............... I wonder if the mice would try to dominate the world?
Ah, but why should we believe that a priori? Pernkopf's work is suspect because of the environment in which it was conducted. In short, we might know they are accurate now (sixty years of post-war work), but there is no reason to initially grant Pernkopf any veracity.
Finally, even if work is done by good people under good circumstances, the hallmark of science is repeatability. If people are advocating using Nazi experiment results because those experiments could not be conducted today, then they are really missing the point, IMO.
"No sane man will dance." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
I, for one, welcome our new human-animal hybrid chimera overlords.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
Will you spelling Nazis please stop interrupting threads with your irrelevent comments?
DAILY ROTATION
Later this year he may conduct another experiment where the mice have 100 percent human brains. This would be done, he said, by injecting human neurons into the brains of embryonic mice
Who can say Pinky and the Brain?!?!
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
... maybe a bit of both.
I think, as other
Anyway, I think that is really sane to start as soon as possible the debate about the human rights (here included protection from traumas and whatnot) and even civil rights (why not, if appliable?) of human/non-human hybrids, which, as I see it, is not very far away from the issue of human/civil rights of human-like-thinking robots (as discussed also on
I'm an atheist, I have absolutely no bias against "playing god" or whatever and I think it's foolish to reject stem cell research and everything, nevertheless I also think we ethically should be properly prepared to ensure the proper appliable rights to any human-like-sentient-albeit-not-necessarily-or-ent
In order to being able to do so, we need at least a definition for "human-sentient being" and a determination of which are these "proper appliable rights" (human rights? also civil rights? a subset of them? what else?) For example, I agree to entitle human rights to high-evolved primates, but I wouldn't agree to entitle them to vote. (Digression: any of you would, instead?)
It really doesn't seem an easy issue, so I think that a serious and as much public as possible discussion on the topic is due.
As usual,
I for one welcome our human-brain mouse overlords!
This whole thing reminds me of that disturbing scene in one of the Alien movies where Ripley entered a room with "failed hybrids" that were being kept alive (and suffering) for some reason.
This area of research just opens up a million more questions than it answers...
Or a Human-Insect hybrid, like the Fly or something...
WTF? Over?
I don't really know what your point is about Christians.
Evidentally.
The debate was whether Kerry could be considered a good Catholic.
And my point, that you didn't get, is that the definition of "good Catholic" is subjective, just as the definition of "good Christian" is subjective, because religious belief is, ultimately, a personal thing.
That being said, about adultery, read Johm 8:3-11, you know, the part of the Bible where Jesus sais "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7, KJV)
Yes, I realize the bible contradicts itself, thank you for pointing that out. This is, of course, why there are so many Christian denominations out there... everyone picks and chooses the parts they like.
Also, about belief: Christianity itself (Ie the most basic level) requires you to believe nothing more than...
Thank you for providing *your* definition of Christianity. If I go talk to a Dutch Reformist friend of mine, he'll give me a different definition. And if I talked to a member of the United church, they'll give me yet another. Which is, again, the point that you missed.
I hope it's not a one-button mouse! Regardless of what the apple UI fans think, if I was half-mouse, I'd want the up/down scroll wheel.
Think about it, would you want to be able to do more than one trick?
...when one of these things grows up, would it be wrong to think Jessica Rabbit is hot?
Reject Fear - Embrace Hope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordwainer_SmithHis stories are full of the underpeople, half-cat, half-turtle etc. They are mainly used as servants but often seek justice and equality. I don't have a knee-jerk reaction against this, but it needs a GREAT deal of thinking about.
On y va, qui mal y pense!
Eat dust, homo sapiens.
postmodernsideshow.com
There's an enormous problem with this argument. People who refuse to donate their organs are not killing anyone. Everybody has a right to life, but nobody has the right to take somebody's organs against their wishes.
(2) Does any god who would deny someone admission to Heaven for someone who had saved another life, whilst admitting someone to Heaven who had denied another the gift of life, deserve to be worshipped?
You are not in a position to dictate to others what is and is not worthy of worship. To do so would be to admit that you place no value in the concept of free religious practice. Why not just admit it? You want to do away with the separation of church and state. Only religions which fit certain criteria are allowed.
(3) Which is the greater sin: to bury or burn a valuable resource which could have saved a life, or to cut up a piece of meat without asking someone first?
As sin is a religious concept, the only person capable of judging what is and is not sin is the worshipper.
Your opinions are tyrannical and dangerous. Luckily, you're just another sociopath ranting on Slashdot.
Just FYI I've been working on patents for this technology for over 10 years (and I entered into the field well after they'd started on these explorations). Science has been producing these chimeras for some time; the fact that the technology is being publicly reported in this way means that some people are obviously ready to start business plans and profit from the research. Original technology tended to focus on practical applications such as developing "materials" for various military, industrial and research purposes, robotics and computers etc. (brains and other body parts); and for adaptations to experiment with developing controlled food sources and medical/health controls (as Monsanto and others are now doing with patenting food crops and explorations into tying that into developing food animals and humans genetically requiring those specific food crops or being unable to consume other natural food sources; or requiring use of medical products they hold the patents and production rights on). Some of it could be beneficial; some is evil for the sake of The Mighty Dollar and other dark purposes. But there's no stopping it.
Humans are animals, so the whole human/animal distinction in the article is unneccessary.
The methods mentioned in the article are no more (or less) 'tampering with nature' than any other hybrids and breeding experiments we've been doing for centuries.
You should check out the Anime called Gilgamesh. The story revolves around this Sumerian theme. It's very interesting, though the story can be confusing.
Of course Full Metal Alchemist also deals very much with Chimera, and is also an excellent Anime series.
If I had created the world I wouldn't have messed about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers
So what would morally outrage you? Is there any type of experiment that you would find too nasty? Or do the ends justify the means? If the Nazis discovered a procedure to cure your child of stupidity: Would you feel comfortable telling the doctor to perform the "auschwitz" procedure on your child? Is there anything beyond what you would consider acceptable research? There are some really looney folks with wierd ideas they want to try. They all promise to save lives and reduce misery. Are there any experiments you would stop?
For sale...mace (+1 against chimeras). Barely used. Cheap!
Well, if you go check out Elfen Lied, the catgirls also all have tentacles. It's a win-win situation!
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
...welcome the humanoid vulpine girls. You can be my overlord any time you want, babe! ~_^
Circumcision is child abuse.
Like the paradox of the pile of sand (i.e. how many grains do you remove before a pile of sand is not a pile), you must evaluate the issue of human-ness of these chimera as a continuum between human and not-human. This must lead the religious to question things from their own perspective.
From what I understand, to the religious, a "soul" cannot exist as a continuum between "soul" and "not-soul". I see this as a problem for those that believe that a deity "deposits" a "soul" into a human body at some point. It was a bad enough problem for the single-egged twin situation - division after fertilization, hence after the assignment of a soul. But now, will we have hu-mouses that have to accept Jesus as their personal savior (or eat a cracker and drink some special wine) to get into heaven?
It is simply not ethical to push the boundaries without first pondering the implications. Granted this kind of research is still nowhere near creating a half man/half cheetah hybrid, and that scenario is still a ways off. We should definitely proceed with caution.
These chimeras and siamese twins introduce some ambiguity to the word "individual". I guess the best defining characteristic of individual is if you you consider yourself an individual. It's really interesting that our minds are really built out of the network and interconnects between cells. The cells themselves have no consciousness, and two different kinds of cells can network into one mind--one human. Those who claim that a zygote is a human is a soul will have a hard time explaining what happens when the zygotes fuse (chimera) or separate (identical twins).
I'm really getting tired of hearing people throwing around the same old phrases without even thinking about them. I only ask that you consider what you are saying before you yell "crime against nature".
After all, are we not part of this "nature" thing? We are product of natural evolution just as a dog or a chimp is! We share about 90% of our genetic code (add or take a few percent) with monkeys! How does this 10% of genetic difference make us so damn different from any other animal on the face of the earth?
We are just a little bit more adaptable than the rest of the animals but that's about it. We can fill out any and all avaliable ecological niches and actively create our own if we need to. We can shape our environment to suit our needs.
Pack of wolves change their environment too - they mark their territory, they controll the population of their pray within that area and they chase off any intruders. We are a little better because we can put up a fence, and shoot the bunnies with a gun, and ram the dear with our SUV - but the principle is the same.
When you take a shit - is that unnatural? How about when you kill a chicken to make chicken soup? Are you unnatural when you milk a cow? When you breed dogs? Everything we do is natural, because we are part of nature! But as soon as you do something like genetic modification - oh no! You are creating abdominations, you are playing God, etc...
I think the fact that we are able to do these things is a clear indications that they are part of nature - of our human nature. Our evolution made us natural tinkerers - we take things, mold them and shape them so that they serve us better. That is exactly what we are supposed to do. How can you claim that one of the most basic features of our developed brain is unnatural?
Who are you to pass judgment on what is natural and what is not? How do you know that this is not something that we were destined to do?
Think about it. Even if you are religious the "unnatural" argument does not make sense. Perhaps that divine being you mention so eagerly is not opposed to genetic modification at all? Can you really say with 100% certainity your god didn't create you for that specific reason? Maybe humankind is here on earth for the sole reason of speeding up natural evolution via genetic engeneering? How do you know this is not the case?
Sigh... This is just an example of how arogant we are as a species. We think so highly of ourselves that we no longer consider ourselves to be part of nature. We are the living gods who hold the fate of the world in our hands...
I say this is bullshit. The only difference between you and your dog is that you can wipe your own ass more efficiently after you take a dump. That's about it. Oh, and you can also make outrageous claims about your superiority over animals.
We are animals for god's sake! Get it straight people! Sure - we are the smartest ones on the planet, gut geezz. We are not THAT great.
All this morality and human dignity crap is just garbage made up by bunch of bible beating idiots who have their heads up their asses so far that they wont even admit that we are descended from the apes. So let's just cut the crap, do our thing. Let's stop artificially inflating our ego's with empty, false ideas such as humand dignity, and unnatural conduct.
I'm teminally incoherent
What kin of geeks are you people?
Everyone mentions Pinky and the Brain. No one mentions the rats of NIMH.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
1. The Cat (Caesar)
Generally cat-like, and hence was pretty much above the rest of the world. Beat the crap out of the dog on a regular basis.
2. My brother.
Generally pretty smart except when he trained one of the sheep to charge everything and then wondered why he had to do all the barnyard chores until that psychotic ram went to slaughter.
3. The dog.
Our sheltie pretty much did what it wanted to all day, pushed all the other animals around at will and generally had a good time doing whatever came into it's brain that minute. The dog was enraged by squirrels and snakes and would lose all sense though.
4. Goats
They figure our doors, fences and pretty much do what they want. Not a lot scares them and they mostly ignore the dog.
5. The Horse
Actually rather smart. I trained it to come when called, work without harness or saddle and almost got it to sit on command (really! althouth this one pissed it off) The only problem is that horses are basically very, very blond. Anything and nothing can scare them into a high-speed witless panic. Horses get bored easily and can get cranky and neurotic.
6. Ducks
Bird brains, but they get along by themselves. They are not an active health hazard to themselves.
7. Sheep & Chickens
Both are high proof stupid. The chickens have an excuse. They, after all, can run around with most of their brains amputated, which is pretty much what they do with all their brains. We raised a few ducks with our chickens and they chics would follow the duck hatchlings into the watering trough and immediately sink to the bottom. A gu on Whidbey Island, in Washignton State, assembled a glock of chickens and kept htem with a dog and a certain type of hawk. The dog and the hawk would keep most of the other predators away and he let chickens breed and fend for themselves. Eventually he came up witha flock that would hide in tall weeds, watch out for the hawk, and generally survive without a lot of replacements and help. It took 20 years.
Sheep should do better with their larger brains, but they don't. Sheep will pretty much kill themselves unless a human intervenes. One lamb tried to taste the flame of a blowtorch I was holding. Twice. When motivated, a herd of sheep can trample most things without a lot of trouble, but they never seem to learn to use this offensively. Really, if they had middle fingers, they could give it to the dog and go back to getting their heads stuck in the fence while trying to reach the grass on the other side. I hate sheep. If humans start getting sheep parts, the end of the world is about two hours away.
8. Other
We didn't raise cows, thank god. I think that some people think cows are stupid because they are big enough to sit there and look at you without giving a crap what you think. That and the regurgitating and re-chewing lunch makes people wonder. Pigs are supposd to be as smart as dogs, but I don't know. Geese are somewhat smarter than chickens and they're frickin' mean.
I know this isn't prime geek material, but certainly the people doing this work realize these things and won't try to foist animal braisn on people. That would be unkind.
Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
yet another prime example of humans playing gods
To whoever modded the parent down: You only did it because you know I'm right.
:)
I've got karma to burn. Modding this one down'll only prove my point!
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
ker-Dupe.
...I got nothing.
I might be wrong, but I don't think the eggs used for flu vaccine are fertilized. The eggs you buy in a grocery store are not fertilized either. Hens will lay eggs regardless if a male is around.
In the (original) game Resident Evil there was an enemy called the chimera. It would hide in the air ducts, then jump down and rip your spine out in the lab area... or something of that nature. I belive the scintists there where also messing around with stuff of this nature.
they have been doing this for years not to mention the fact that technically pig and cow valves being used in humans are a form of chimera so big deal besides I read about human gene splicing in mice about 7 year ago
When she said, "You're a horse's ass", you might have misunderstood her meaning.
But scientists still haven't perfected the cart that the mouse will use to carry its human sized brain around with it.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
So mebbe the smaller brain volume limits its potential, but the "wiring" should follow human patterns. Concievably, this could lead to more advanced thought than most mice are capable of. Of course, without proper education it might be difficult to tell the mouse intellect from a completely uneducated human mind. Imagine having human-like thoughts but being unable to talk. Or lacking mouse survival instincts and getting picked on by the other lab mice.
I'm not making a binary statement. There's already a fair bit of control in our system. It's possible to have too much control and structure in the same way that it's possible to have too much randomness.
Take genetics as a metaphore. If you get a species which is too well adapted to a certain niche, it will be seriously inconvenienced if you remove it from that niche. The ability to deal with randomness is what allows a system to adapt to change.
Also, it's dangerous to put too much faith in 'science' since science is ultimatly done by people and can be corrupted in the short term. Take, for example, the issue with the FDA where the head was taking money from the producers of various statin drugs such as lipitor and in turn advocated that statin drugs be proscribed even when a person's cholesterol was inside what should have been a 'safe' zone. Cholesterol is needed for neurogenesis, and while it's not listed as a side effect, these drugs can seriously interfere with a person's memory. It happened to my grandmother and it can happen to other people as well. As my organic chem professor told me in College, people put too much confidnece in the benevolence of the FDA.
Applied science (technology) is and always has been vulnerable to corruption by those with vested interests.
Besides, scientists are typically reductionist. They're trained to get confirmation of their theories on the mechanistic level, but they're not trained at all to consider the social rammifications.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Stop and think about this again :
;)
[quote]
Research projects that create human-animal chimeras risk disturbing fragile ecosystems, endanger health, and affront species integrity.
[/quote]
imagine the possiblities... Guess this menas Google isn't going to take over the world afterall...
Darn
Hybrids should be legal both for research and for actual production. They'd be a boone to humanity. Humans could self-evolve by adding animal traits we haven't yet been gifted with by evolution. Animals could be more useful to us and their lifes could be improved. Finally the answer of "Are we alone in the Universe?" could be answered - by creating new intelligent species to join us.
Why not create hybrids? There is no reason a hybrid's life would be short and painful other than because small minded people feel threatened and would want to destroy them. As long as we protect hybrids from such abuse there is no reason they shouldn't exist. If anything research is where we should take the most care. We need to remember that these are living creatures, possibly human, and deserve our respect and care.
Evolution is part of nature and species have always helped create and destroy other species. This is nothing new. This is just the first time those new species could be created to precise specifications by a different species.
I do think there will be a radical change in how we treat both human and animal rights as hybrids become more mainstream. Overall I think animal rights will improve and the definition of human will expand. This should be good for everyone involved.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I'm still more interested in human bodies with animal brains. How much better could life get than to have a pet that looks like a human but still is as loving as your cat or dog? Who needs a girlfriend?! ;)
C'mon you know you want one! A sexy redhead girl that wants to sit on your lap and rub against you and who loves to lick. Why horny geek boy doesn't want that?
It'd be good for them to. You could take your pet to dinner. How often has your cat or dog been left at home while you went and had steak? Finally they could join in!
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Hm. My bad. Yeah, the bio guy down the hall tells me i'm wrong, too. Sorry about that, guess I had a flash of false expert syndrome.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
> Would that "grown on a papaya tree" being,
I was referring to individual organs, not a complete being.
But...
> with an I.Q. of 80, have the same legal rights as the result of the interaction
> of an ovum and a sperm that resulted in a child with an I.Q. of 80?
If it was up to me, yes.
> Does property ownership play a role? If I grew something on a "papaya
> tree" with an I.Q. of 80, (remember, I watered, pruned, and fertilized (no
> pun intended)) that tree, do I then have "Property Rights" over the fruit of
> that tree? (again, no pun intended.)
You feed, clothe and nurture your children (or at least I hope that you do), what's the difference?
Yeah, I was just watching that. Coincidence, eh?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Apparently d day is upon us... People need to die at some point... leave the nature in nature before we are that Lion Headed Serpent Tailed Goat. Chimera just sounds to dang fluffy bunny. I suggest everyone goes out and reads "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley (btw... I don't care to read much and it was great)
I think all us geeks took down this site with constant page views. Anyone got a mirror?
What is the law?
No spill blood!
No eat flesh!
Walk on two legs, not on four!
ARE WE NOT MEN?!
i'm not lying.
he even got a 'i
it's sad that you would think that of me. are we just a little disgruntled?
for a minute there, i lost myself...
I saw a Liger in person (it was about 50 feet away) at King Richard's Fair last fall. It was one BIG cat.
i ger.html
More info on the same animal here:
http://www.tigers-animal-actors.com/about/liger/l
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Here's a Liger:
i ger.html
:)
http://www.tigers-animal-actors.com/about/liger/l
Prolly not what you meant, I know.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
In response to (B), we "legally" don't consider an
unborn human a human.
TROLL?!? Why I fucking post on Slashdot these days, I don't know...
What are you talking about? Without mice our lovely computer called Earth wouldn't have been even built!
Everything is possible.
What these people have totally failed to consider is that all mammals (and most non-mammals) have a unique set of viruses and bacteria that are unique to their species. These things live in the digestive tract, blood stream, organs, etc. of every creature and they are typically unique to that species of critter. We humans have our own. Mixing our "cooties" with their "cooties" is disasterous.
The "Bird Flu" is one example. People were exposed to an avian virus that was supposed to be begnin but which does what all viruses do, mutated. Then the people got very ill and many died from the "begnin virus".
There is more than a small amount of evidence that AIDS was a gift to the world from the WHO. It seems that the WHO sent a bunch of Belgian doctors and scientents to what was at the time the Belgian Congo to vaccinate the locals against polio and small pox. The doctors and scientists were overwhelmed by the numbers and soon ran out of vaccine. Since they knew how to make the vaccine and there were a nice handy supply of local monkeys available, they started making and administering their own home grown vaccine. The only problem with that was the local monkey population was the Green Monkey, which carries SIV. In the process of vaccinating people for polio and small pox, they were inadvertently given SIV as well. The SIV virus does what any good virus does and mutates. Instead of SIV, now we have HIV.
Growing the cells together doesn't help this process. In many organisms, the bacteria and viruses have a co-dependent relationship with the host. Oral bacteria is another example. We humans have a whole host of particulary nasty bacteria that live in our mouths. Let them become unbalanced and you see conditions like thrush and other oral diseases. However, these organisms aid in the digestion processes. Scientists aren't really sure how they are acquired. Same goes for the extensive list of little friends living in our digestive tract.
Now you want to start mixing animal and human? Scientists have found species-specific bacteria and viruses in cloned animals and even when the clone is implanted in a host species, many of these things are still present. They appear to be quite integrated with the actual organism. The exact method of acquision is as yet unknown. Until this can be seperated, which may not be possible, we're playing with some serious juju.
Man, we have go to get our selves off this rock before some l4m3r breeds a superbug that wipes the place clean.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
I agree, I just metamoderated the moderator of your post as "Unfair".
Which answers a couple of long-standing questions of mine - is meta-moderation effective and does it undo the original moderation? (Also answers what I didn't think was a question - are you banned from posting in threads where you've meta-moderated and vice versa, like moderation?) Slashdot has become a strange old place, but I'm glad some people have some sense. Cheers, man.