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"
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"
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.
Yeah, well, the average non-slashdot-reader spends his Friday nights in a bar, not in the MMORPG where you live.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
>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
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 this research for?
Might help find a cure for:
Elephantitus
Dog Breath
Catalepsy
Hare loss (work with me here)
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
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.
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
Furthermore, I don't expect any great insights from research where the basic target is mixing up genes just for the heck of it and see what comes out.
Um.. That's bascially all that conventional plant breeders do, and you benefit from that every single day.
I'm not so sure. The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture may not be in charge of Gundam, but it has full regulatory authority over tentacle rapist breeding.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
...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.