Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Green Light for Human/Animal Hybrids

Posted by Zonk on from the monkeymen-soon-to-be-our-servants dept.

Henneshoe writes "BBC News is reporting that two research facilities have been given the green light to create part human, part animal embryos. According the the report, 'Scientists want to create hybrid embryos by merging human cells with animal eggs in a bid to extract stem cells. The embryos would then be destroyed within 14 days.' The decision to allow the embryos was made after research showed that people in large are OK with the idea."

9 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. Public Permission? by ranton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since when should the perception of the public decide what research is done and which is not? I can at least understand why a panel such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority would want to have their opinion heard, but why would they waste their time consulting the public?

    Why even create such a government body if they were just going to conduct opinion polls to make their decisions? If you are going to assemble a panel of scientists and ethicists to regulate the scientific community (well at least in the UK), at least you would hope they would use their expertise instead of referring to the public.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:Public Permission? by Serge_Tomiko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Since when should the perception of the public decide what research is done and which is not?

      In the United States, governmental authority and sovereignty rests with the "public". Presumably, their perceptions guide their exercising of their power.

      I have always found the issue of sovereignty a bit strange in the United Kingdom. In the end, the law either derives from the people or the monarch. In either case, a panel of scientists is irrelevant as they do not exercise political power, at least not beyond that of any other citizen.

    2. Re:Public Permission? by ranton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wasnt talking about having no regulation. But if you RTFA, and then read more about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority at their website: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/, you will find that it is a panel consistant of doctors, scientists, and ethicists. In my post I was saying that it is people like this that I would like making these decisions, not joe six pack.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    3. Re:Public Permission? by ranton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why should the public be consulted? Because the public are the ultimate arbitrator of ethical issues

      I disagree. Are you saying that your average southern plantation owner should have been consulted in 1800 about the ethics of slavery?

      I personally think that the public should be the absolute last result as an arbitrator of ethical issues. The public is often vastly uninformed on most topics. I honestly think that an ethicist, or at least someone with enormous experience and training in dealing with ethical issues, is a much better arbitrator of ethical issues than joe six pack.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  2. How is this better? by shadylookin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know a lot of people are against cloning human embryos extracting the stem cells and then aborting them. So how on earth could splicing humans cells with animals, harvesting it, and then aborting it possibly be construed as better? Personally I don't care either way, but I can't see how you could be happier with cross species embryos than with good old cloning from a moral standpoint

  3. Island by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The embryos would then be destroyed within 14 days.

    I have a hunch that some lab tech would end up with a private Island of Doctor Moreau in their garage, via a few test tubes that were somehow misplaced at the lab.

    Dan East

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  4. Re:Green light for animal cruelty by thanatos_x · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So you not only take issue with human stem cells, but animal stem cells as well. You have concern for the small number (say 10,000) of animals which may die to provide the embryos.

    Somehow you seem more horrified that those 10,000 die to provide embryos (which you so clearly point out can be used to ease human suffering) than the millions upon millions of animals that die every year to feed us (inefficiently, from a calorie viewpoint), or the thousands of animals which get tested on.

    Why people care so much about things which are never self-aware, let alone capable of feeling pain, yet turn a blind eye to the suffering of people (and animals) that is very real astounds me. Darfur? No, you're more outraged about stem cell research.

    You can have moral issues with both, but please get your priorities straight. Hundreds of thousands dying and starving for NO good reason compared to cells with hundreds of deaths that were going to happen anyway (abortion isn't going away, even if made illegal) that may alleviate the suffering of millions.

    --
    I am not an expert. If I am misled in something, please correct me.
  5. Just as usual. by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There are certainly those who are willing to let it grow beyond the 14 day limit...

    Can be a creepy result... A sheep with a human brain... Or the opposite... Those are extremes...

    But what about a human with polar bear fur?

    Never mind - there are better features that I would have had... Better eyesight maybe? Birds are able to see UV-radiation, and some birds have a lot better vision than humans. On the other hand the genome for UV isn't lost in humans - it's actually changed into blue instead, probably because it's more useful that way. (so we can see the BSOD from M$)

    Or a simple feature - why does humans really need toilet paper? Most animals can keep themselves clean anyway!

    And the XXX industry would like to have a man hung like a horse...

    And the athletes would like to be able to run like a cheetah.

    But don't forget - humans are actually one of the more adaptable species in the world, even if laziness and sex drive are the most prominent features of a human. (don't underestimate the amount of work a human can do to avoid work later...)

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  6. Can anyone explain the logic of this to me? by mam_bach · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The reason given for wanting to use animal material last time this came up (probably the start of the consult process) is the chronic shortage of human stem cells. Why is this the case?

    Nobody seems to have asked for donated human material, with consent to use the cells in this fashion. I'm sure male cells can't be hard to obtain...
    (Hmm - "Wank for research material! Form orderly queue here!")
    Why is it that the hairdresser throws away my hair, donating blood is laudable, organ donation saves lives - but donating some of my hundreds of useless eggs (how many kids I am realistically going to have?) is morally outrageous and really quite hard to do - neither my doctor nor the local fertility clinic had any clue on how to do such.

    Who do we vote out / mob / de-fund to get some common sense injected to reasearch ethics committees?