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.
God shmod, I want my monkeyman!
Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?
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'm certain that the cost/pain ratio to people is variant as any other. There are likely places that would have little to no issue with this if it gave enough of an insight into scientific discovery. I do not stand for this under my personal moral code, however, if some group does this and people benefit from it, I will be glad for the superior knowledge all around.
( o ) one could say I'm rather baked
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.
actually creating hybrids (which will inevitably has a short and painful life) is really sick.
The article (and Slashdot summary) are pretty sensationalistic.
These aren't experiments where half human, half animals are created. They're things like engineering mice with human brain cells, or pigs with human organs.
Of course, that won't stop ridiculous hippie and religious activists from breaking out the torches and pitchforks because TEH SCIENTISTS ARE RAPING MOTHER NATURE AND BABY JESUS WITH THEIR UNNATURAL AND THEREFORE MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE EXPERIMENTS ad nauseum. There are even some quoted in the article.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
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.
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.
I so wish I had mod points. I for one, appreciate your voice of reason .... sadly, it will be a minority position. I find it dissapointing how even slashdot tends toward a luddit anti-tech position if the knowledge even remotely touches on biology.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
*sigh* when will those scientists ever learn? ;)
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
For the most part, you are correct. However, the article does mention that the goals of one of the studies is to create mice with 100% human brains. He said he intended to terminate the mouse before birth, and look for signs of human cognitive activity. If this experiment succeeds in producing human cognitive thought in a mouse, we most certainly have an issue.
"such a worker would toil in a sweatshop with singlemindedness, as oxen would plow a field."
If that's the case, I'll bet EA is underwriting the research.
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.
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.
Let me play devil's advocate here, and ask: Why shouldn't that line be crossed?
If we could give dogs the brains of humans (uplift-them, David Brin style[1]), why shouldn't we?
Right now, we think nothing of breeding a new kind of corn, or a new breed of dog. For all we can tell, a dog can feel pain, feel happiness, dream, and solve simple problems. Yet, for the most part, we treat dogs as objects, to be bought or sold.
If human-level intelligence is bothering you, adult human beings make decisions every day about creating new intelligent beings. Often the decision was under the influence of mind altering drugs. The first experiment with the mind of a human will at least be brought into this world with much more planning than the average human baby.
[1] Uplifting dogs was mentioned somewhere in the first trilogy, but presumably Earthclan sacrificed the plans in one of the negotations with the galactics.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
> However, the article does mention that the goals of one of the studies is to create mice with 100% human brains.
And the other mouse will be called "Pinky".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Oh, nevermind.
Considering the size of mice's skulls, I think the term "cognitive activity" was chosen with care and is far, far from "cognitive thought" you've assumed. If such animals were allowed to be born (the researcher plans to kill them before then) they'd be unlikely to be super smart mice, but more likely pretty dumb compared to other mice); we're smarter mostly because we have brains a few thousand times larger than mice, not because of any special virtue of our brain tissue, and our brain cells are certainly not going to be optimal for controlling a mouse's body and living as a mouse.
.. 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.
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.
Back under the bridge, troll.
I am entirely a liberal, and entirely support this type of research, so long as it is sensibly and carefully controlled. Of course, at some point, there might be ethical issues raised, but let's be a little sensible here. Putting a human gene sequence or two into a mouse does not make that mouse some sort of "mini-human".
I could argue that it's typical conservative thinking that it's "tampering with God's order", and besides that, these scientists are considering -gasp- performing an abortion. Really, it has nothing to do with either-it is pro-progress thinkers vs. scared Luddites. And scared Luddites exist on -both- sides of the political spectrum.
Contrary to popular (and apparently your) belief, "liberal" is a DIFFERING OPINION, not a swear word. It is a philosophy, not a negative epithet. Not all idiots are liberals. (Don't believe me? Listen to Rush Limbaugh.) Granted, some are. (I've heard Michael Moore.) However, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore -both- fill their place very effectively-they convince those who are too dumb and sheeplike to examine an issue and form a real opinion. Once again, those people exist on BOTH sides of the liberal/conservative line, and form the majority of Americans now.
And intelligent people exist in both camps, as well. I've met many intelligent conservatives. Demonizing your opposition, however, makes you look more like a rabble-rouser. That is not the way to an informed, reasonable debate.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
On the other hand ... what is it that makes being a slave a bad thing? Well ... suffering, and an awareness that that others have a better live forever denied you. That, in itself, is a kind of torture. A machine, organic or otherwise, that doesn't suffer and couldn't care less about a "better" existence wouldn't qualify as a slave, exactly. Industrial robots aren't slaves, although they perform the work of a thousand human slaves. So ... if we're going to create a race of underpeople to serve us let's make sure that they can't feel misery and don't want the same things we do.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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*
How do you feel about research obtained from torturing people during the Holocaust. I, for the most part, agree with what you're saying, but using information that was obtained through torture is still an issue for me. One side of me says that the research is there and there's no reason not to use it, but another part says that using it just says that there was some valid reason to torture those people. I presume issues like this will become more and more common as the line between human and animal (yes I know humans are animals) becomes more blurred.
Also, I read in the article that they're thinking of making a mouse with a human brain? I'm wondering a couple things. A) Is this mouse-person going to have the same experience as a human would, albeit in a mouse's body? Will this hybrid respond to things the same way a human would? B) When do we consider these things human? A human brain in a different organism's body sounds enough like a human to me. If anyone could shed some light on A) or has a legal definition or something for B), fire away!
-Dizzle
"I most likely AM so interested in myself."
Does that mean it's wrong to strive towards true AI? Why is it more ethical to create intelligence in a machine rather than in some human chimera?
In any case, it seems inevitable that at some point in our future, we will have to deal with a non-human intelligence. Whether it is of our construction seems irrelevant. The nature of sentience, and the concept of humanity shouldn't be tied to our physical form anyway.
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..."
One of the many over-used sci-fi plots has been "man makes creature, creature tries to destroy man." ... it'll be nice to actually see it happen.
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
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.
That's because there are a number of people on slashdot that don't really understand science or its underpinnings. 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.
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.
If you the thought occurred to you that these words might apply to you, then they probably don't. If you're sure that they don't apply to you, then perhaps they do apply.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
because we have brains a few thousand times larger than mice, not because of any special virtue of our brain tissue, and our brain cells are certainly not going to be optimal for controlling a mouse's body and living as a mouse
Wrong.
Your argument at best is an oversimplification.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Sorry, the research was done. To not use it seems to be as equally as wasteful for the unwilling sacrifice made by those prisoners.
If Japan discovered curative agents during some of the shit they pulled during WWII on American POWs, which would be more morally outrageous: disregarding whatever useful information that is in there because a few people were killed for it (thus causing even more people NOW to suffer and die when you have the solution in your hand), or cutting your losses so that others may live?
There is so much medical knowledge that we have that has been acquired over time through means that would not make it past the ethics boards of most research institutions. To single one issue out as being too tainted just seems to be even more callous than whatever crimes were committed to get the knowledge in the first place.
Otherwise, we would still be blood-letting people to let the "bad humours" out of their blood (Aristotle's "facts" about human biology persisted for over two hundred years, before a few criminals decided to actually start cutting open human corpses).
A Mouse-Person will not, cannot, by definition, have the same "experience" as a human. We can't even define a uniform meaning of what the "human experience" is in the first place. Your experience is yours, mine is mine. Ultimately, it is no more or less important, or meaningful (or relevant), than my dog's experience.
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?
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.
"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.
i think someone's been watching too much Full Metal Alchemist...