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.
a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal. oh my god, they've cloned my relatives
Fool! You fell for a Jedi mind trick!
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]]
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 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
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.
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
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.
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?
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..."
"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
*sigh* when will those scientists ever learn? ;)
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Isn't that irony though?
Everyone knows that mice created Earth to compute the answer to the Ultimate Question of life, the universe, and everything.
And now here we are creating mice with human brains. Sounds like a downgrade to me!
-David
Evidently speaking lucidly is unpopular with the moderators ;]
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.
Haven't these people seen the movie yet?
First Glofish, now this... wtf!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
> We barely understand the human brain. Shouldn't
> we grasp it a little more before we go shoving
> them into other animals.
It is to understand the human brain that researchers do this, for goodness sake.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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!
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"
.. 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.
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.
Catnip.
My other first post is car post.
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.
That's the whole reason to grow human brain tissue in animals; or would you prefer to experiment on living humans? If it was being done for more frivolous reasons there would be no support at all.
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*
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
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?"
Spoken like a true city folk. Ever been on a farm? Ever heard of the phrase "cow tipping?" Ever actually *seen* a cow? Of all the farm animals you could have chosen, you picked the slowest, dumbest, most sedentary creature of them all. And I'm including hen's eggs. Mice *sperm* are farther up the sentience scale than cows, my friend.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Ever heard of the phrase "cow tipping?
Ever done it? I'd bet a bundle you haven't! For those who believe this bullshit (pun intended), take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_tipping
Just another day in Paradise
What Chimeras? And what is wrong with Chimeras? You got somthing against Chimeras? They aint good enough for you? They can't get on your fancy little boat.
More proof: Noah was a Nazi.
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!
Never worry about anthropomorphising a little...
yes
When I see a scientist who says animals dont have emotions I get upset.
We are animals, we have emotions that evolved over time
I remember seeing a studdy to see if mice felt pain... thats just dumb.
I've seen people claim that pet animals dont have emotions, that they are just displaying emotion like states, as it increases the chance of putting food in their dishes, argh Idiots.
These mice, with human type brains
will they feel pain when you cut open their heads to see if they have wrinkly human like brains, yes, unless you give them painkillers...
Lets pretend that we make some super mice.
They have human type wrinkled brains, they are smarter than normal mice
We know that normal mice have emotions, so these mice do too.
at what point would you say these mice are smart enough to be given human rights?
ok because of there size they'll never be as smart as us.
but a larger animal might
If I have rights because I'm selfaware and human, but my otter friend does not because although he's as smart a small child he's not human what happens when we encounter / create
some thing that is as smart as us?
Take a look at the second artical on this page
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021
what a crazy waffly post
Kiffer.
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." ---
but aren't humans already animals ?
"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.
...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]
"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." ---
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.
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.
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 think someone's been watching too much Full Metal Alchemist...
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
Does this mean the next stuart little or scooby doo movie is going to be live action?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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."
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
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.
Yes.......Pinky............... I wonder if the mice would try to dominate the world?
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
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...
wait a min here... lest we forget that humans are animals. so, they are cross breeding animals with animals... thats unheard of! just a bad way of wording things.
-Boycot shampoo! demand real poo!
For sale...mace (+1 against chimeras). Barely used. Cheap!
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.