Slashdot Mirror
UK Moves To Allow Human Hybrid Experiments
penguin_dance writes "The UK is apparently rethinking its ban on human hybrid experiments. If approved by regulators, '[t]he move opens the door to experiments involving every known kind of human-animal hybrid. These could include both "cytoplasmic" embryos, which are 99.9% human, and "true hybrids" carrying both human and animal genes.' Previous calls for an outright ban on all human-animal embryos outraged scientists, according to the article, who believe that 'work on human-animal hybrid embryos will greatly speed up progress in stem cell research.' The report claims there will be a provision for regulation of the research to incorporate any 'unforeseen developments.' Let the Island of Dr. Moreau comparisons begin!"
Reminds me of Patricia Piccinini, an Australian artist who made a a set of sculptures called "The Young Family".
http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/31/Patricia_Piccinini/249/
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
>But allowing a human hybrid to come to term (If possible) I am against.
I will never understand that point of view. If that being is secured a place in a good family (as pet or child), then what is the ethical problem?
Why is it more moral for a child to be created by rape? A crack whores illicit child? A drunken chance encounter? a one night stand?
What is it people abhor so much about a child or a new species created on purpose?
Same here. It always struck me a bit like someone who'd prohibit minorities from having kids because they might face the hardships of racism. A kinder, gentler, eugenics movement. Though, even above that it always strikes me when people even think it's possible for it to happen in the conceivable future. The kind of hybrid's we're talking about aren't exactly the most viable fish in the sea.
Everything will be taken away from you.
Furthermore once the biological hurdle is overcome would it then be possible graft some sort of "Freaking Laser" to the shark/human hybrid?
I've just "fled" Blighty for Switzerland, where the people are equally crazy but in a completely different way.
Well over 50 years ago a British author, wrote of the angst of slave owning and the first requirement of de-humanizing the property. Migrant workers, mine workers, homeless, illegal immigrants; they make us uncomfortable to the degree we find them human and worthy of sympathy. And to the degree we think them less than ourselves, we de-humanize ourselves. In Cordwainer's world, the lovely C'mell helps a young man find his humanity at the expense being a member of the overlords. On the other hand it was genetically enhanced apes that won in a different world.
Your position appears to be that any research that has applications (a) does not advance fundamental knowledge and (2) is amoral. I believe the first claim is the excessive, and the second is unsupported opinion.
What good would increasing the fraction of lifespan people enjoy good health? I should think that is good in itself. What people do with their improved vigor is up to them.
I'll leave aside your simplistic economic assumptions for a moment, and get to the hear of the matter. You don't seem to have a recognizable definition of "good". Certainly you don't have a utilitarian concept of good, so it must be deontological. However you have been arguing in a utilitarian mode (this research takes food out of the mouths of the poor). If there are basic principles which in your view make this research immoral, you should come clean on them.
Saying the research is amoral doesn't make sense. All research is fundamentally amoral. Morality, like funding, is an external constraint on what research can be done. Morality is involved in how we do research and what we do with the knowledge gained; but one piece of knowledge in itself is not more or less moral than any other piece of knowledge. So if the research is immoral, exactly what moral principles does it violate and how? And please no utilitarian arguments unless they apply to any research, indeed any activity.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
...since 60% of my genes are the same of those of a drosophila (fruit flies). BTW I also share 90% of my genes with mouses, not to mention that 98% with chimpanzees. I also have 30% of the genes of yeast, which makes of me a human/fungi hybrid I guess.
No really, people using terms like "human/animal hybrid" or "chimera" when talking about DNA modifications are probably trying to scandalise more than inform.
Actually, I think plant breeders have a pretty good idea of what they are doing: they cross plants with desirable characteristics. Your argument would actually apply more to certain kinds of pharmacological research where they generate new compounds and try to see if they have any kind of biological activity that might have promise as a drug.
In any case, I think we are responding to a straw argument. It is certainly false to characterize the research as "mixing up genes for the heck of it." Rather, I'd consider it "mixing up genes in order to discover what the genes in question do and how they do it."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Even your average mentally retarded person is much smarter than apes or dolphins. In fact, the average mentally retarded person is even capable of posting on Slashdot. It's true that the animals you mention show signs of intelligence- and as a result most people have problems experimenting on or eating them. Why do you think we have 'Dolphin Safe' tuna, but not 'Shark Safe' or 'Other Fish Safe' Tuna? Dolphins aren't much cuter than fish, but they are obviously much more intelligent.
All life has value, but some life is more valuable than others. Even plants have the ability to perceive their environment, communicate, and adapt, but you're not advocating we shouldn't eat plants.
There are a few humans who are so mentally disabled that parrots and dolphins are smarter than they are. (Terri Schiavo would be the best-known example). It's very hard to argue that they are human in any sense other than genetically. Our legal and ethical system are (and should be) designed to give genetic humans the benefit of the doubt, however. Since more than 99.99% of living genetic humans are smarter than any non-human animal we've seen, it makes sense to assume that all genetic humans are until proven otherwise. (Technically small human infants know less than a mature dolphin, but they are still smarter, since they can learn information faster. By the same token, dolphins are smarter than my computer- my computer may have more information stored than a dolphin's brain does, but it's incapable of learning like a dolphin can). Posting Anon because I've already moderated in this discussion.
I am a "genetic experimenter". I've put genes from mice, humans, and frogs into chick embryos. I've even assembled genes from pieces of mouse and human genes, even creating some sequence myself. I've created 7 different retroviruses. All of this has been done to gain a deeper understanding of developmental biology so that some day people who've gotten into an accident and lost the ability to walk can do so again. Go ahead, experiment on me.