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!"
Woof! er..... I meant "Hi"
Given my experience on most Friday nights, animal-women hybrids already exist.
I'm such a bitch...
Summation 2
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"
That comment from G.W. Bush on human-animal hybrids was kind of dismissed as whimsical religious paranoia. However, maybe the man had a point after all.
The next generation of terrorists may have tentacles.
Table-ized A.I.
He is hung like a horse! No, I really mean it Tiffany!
30% off web hosting. Coupon code "SLASHDOT".
Yoko Ono's dream of having an octopus child may become a reality.
Table-ized A.I.
I call dibs on the first of the Crab/Human hybrid.
Sorry, Dick Cheney is prior art
-1 Flamebait
Table-ized A.I.
>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?
In common speech the word "animal" is used to refer to animals that are not humans. There is really no way that anyone did not understand what they meant.
You really are just trying too hard.
sic transit gloria mundi
I think kdawson needs to find a better news source. The BBC reported this story more than a month ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6978384.stm
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
"Behold days are coming, says the Lord, and I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with seed of man and seed of beasts."
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
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.
Who gets to decide what is a pet and what is a child?
Who gets to decide what is human and what is not?
Who gets to decide if its okay to use hybrids for testing purposes since they resemble humans so closely?
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I don't think humanity is currently ready to answer those questions. Maybe i'm just so cynical that I expect people to fear anything that is near human but not quite.
A child borne of a rape/one night stand is still a human.
You mad
they make the live action Thundercats movie. I can't wait to see the picture of Cheetara!
The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
The problems with this kind of research are ethical. So let us consider possible advantages. What is this research for?
a) Rare diseases. Many people die in poor countries because there is no proper health care. Why fund research with possibly far reaching ethical dilemmas that might one day cure some rare disease when there are millions to be saved?
b) Common causes of death. We now reach an average age of around 80. That's enough. There is no point in following Faust's example with the risk of getting us in troubled waters.
My conclusion: The disadvantages outway possible advantages. These outraged scientists (BTW, I am one, just in another field) just cry for more money. This line of research is not going to give us more insight into nature, nor is it morally acceptable at this point.
The furry are coming.
Resistance is futile.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
1. We're already experimenting with animals, including almost-humans (apes). They have similar self-appreciation, feelings, pain and confusion like you. We're only less sympathetic since they're not EXACTLY like us. But they are, in fact, more like us than we suspect.
2. Experimenting with human embyos, experimenting on people will dramatically further science and improve life for the rest of us (billions). It means we need to come to terms with the fact that humans are animals as any, and experimentation is required. But how do we do that without allowing for genocide? Not simple problem, but unless we solve it, we'll all be victims to save the few from being victims.
What is it people abhor so much about a child or a new species created on purpose?
There are lots of good reasons to be worried about this. First, there's no way of knowing what the long term medical, biological, psychological etc outcomes would be for the child. There's clearly no medical need at the individual level for this sort of thing (there might be at the social level, but that doesn't count in medical ethics). There's also no notion of consent, you couldn't retrospectivly ask the child whether they agree to be an experiment. So ethically, at the moment at least, it's a non-starter, even within the existing rules of medical ethics.
I agree though that the "ewww" reaction and the 'abhorrence' is a bit irrational and is not a good basis for policy.
Having said all this, medical and biological sciences will advance, and one day we're going to have to deal with this sort of thing as a real possibility. We should be starting to get the ethics sorted out now.
Furthermore once the biological hurdle is overcome would it then be possible graft some sort of "Freaking Laser" to the shark/human hybrid?
Who gets to decide what is human and what is not? I hate these arguments. I mean, who gets to decide whether the unusually intelligent should be given freedom or forced to invent things to service the rest of us? Who says the unusually strong shouldn't be forced to do manual labour? Who says slavery is wrong? Who gets to decide that people that suffer from deformities shouldn't be put on display and exploited for public entertainment? These are all things we've already worked out the answers to.
The real question should be: who gets to decide that a trait which has been added to the genome by scientists purposefully rearranging DNA is unnatural and makes something inhuman (and thus not subject to existing moral codes), while the odd mutations that have been caused by exposure to radiation, or pollution, or bad drugs, etc. are natural, and that those that bear said mutations are clearly still human? Who gets to decide if its okay to use hybrids for testing purposes since they resemble humans so closely? I always want to add, "Right. Who gets to decide that death row inmates, or the mentally retarded, or people who's skin color varies from our own should not be used for medical experiments?" to that one. This isn't anything new in terms of moral issues. Next! Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I don't think humanity is currently ready to answer those questions. Humanity could answer those questions just fine if it could assert reason over the urge to declare everything an us or a them, often over the most trivial of differences...but I'm really not arguing with you because I don't have any faith in the general public's ability to think clearly about this. Maybe i'm just so cynical that I expect people to fear anything that is near human but not quite. Yeah. With you on the cynicism.
For the record, I don't think avoiding the issue is right either - regardless of the fact that, yes, we're going to screw things up no matter how we approach this (or any other) new field. I mean really, imagine where we'd be if mankind had just sat around discussing the ethical issues of fire, as opposed to learning what it is and how to harness it. True, we'd never have burned all those people at the stake, but... A child borne of a rape/one night stand is still a human. Obviously, I think this only gets dragged into the discussion to counter the argument that we shouldn't create creatures that could only face a life of pain and misery - because it's kind of obvious that we're already perfectly capable of taking care of even the most unwanted of our own, though we don't always choose to do so.
Recently we had the case of journos talking up Craig Venter's research as producing "artificial life". I had to read his own original comments to see that he never made that claim, and in fact his own comments agreed with my own Slashdot posting on the subject.
Science is not common speech, and attempts to make it so result in misunderstanding and sensationalism. I don't know who modded this "informative" (presumably the same people who moderated me "overrated" because that doesn't get metamoderated, but whoever you are, you clearly know diddly squit about biology.
Pining for the fjords
"I'm Barf, half-Dog and half-Man. I'm my own best friend!"
-
Naw, they'd be too busy clawing the curtains.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
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.
The report claims there will be a provision for regulation of the research to incorporate any 'unforeseen developments.'
It's Ripley with a flame thrower.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
...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.
You say: "Know why Jesus was sexy?"
Everyone says "why?"
You put your arms out to either side, fingers curled inwards, and say "coz he was hung like *this*."
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Sounds ideal although you equally well find your new pet spent all day crouched in a box hissing at you and all night howling in the garden and screwing your neighbours only to turn up in the morning dragging a half eaten child into the kitchen to play with for a while.
It could all go horribly wrong !
> Stem cell research should be legal
It is legal in the USA.
> and funded by the government
Adult and Umbilical Cord stem cell research can be, as well as Embryonic stem cell research on the approved cell lines.
> because it has the potential to cure MANY diseases.
Embryonic stem cells have only been demonstrated to have the potential to cause MANY cancers.
Adult and umbilical stem cells have produced numerous therapies being applied today.
Thus, all the noise is made about embyonic stem cell research (because it turns abortion into an actual GOOD thing, as opposed to unfortunate but legal, which is the best that most people view it).
> I don't mind abortion within the first trimester.
Some, OTOH, are blithely unconcerned.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.