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'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.
I'm just waiting for someone to really make those Catgirls you see in anime. Me-YOW!
When life gives you crap, Make Crapade.
Sluggy Freelance.
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.
"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
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.
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.
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*
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.
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!
In other research news, scientists have succeeded in creating humans w/ mice genitals. The automobile industry is thrilled, expecting booming SUV sales.