Louisiana Rep. Preps State Bill Banning Human-Animal Hybrids

mikeljnola writes with an excerpt from NOLA.com that says state senator Danny Martiny (R-Kenner) will introduce a bill to the Louisiana legislature on April 27 to "'make it illegal to "create or attempt to create a human-animal hybrid, ... transfer or attempt to transfer a human embryo into a non-human womb ... (or) transfer or attempt to transfer a non-human embryo into a human womb."' With budget cuts all around, our struggling state is concerned with the eminent danger of human-animal hybrids. The upside is that the odds of the Louisiana becoming the Bayous of Dr. Boudreaux are now even slimmer."

Comments

Such hybrids have been made...

[betterunixthanunix]

I recall an experiment involving a human-cow hybrid; specifically, human nuclear DNA and cow mitochondrial DNA. The embryo was allowed to grow to 16 cells before being destroyed, and there were a lot of cries about the ethics of such experiments.

Re:Such hybrids have been made...

[the_humeister]

Why do people make such a big deal about these things? So what if that embryo had cow mitochondria?

Re:Such hybrids have been made...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why do people make such a big deal about these things?"

Because "people" often protest or complain that the law is all to often behind scientific progress, instead of leading it. This usually occurs after something that is scientificly not a great leap for the field but is a shock to the general public and laypersons.

This was the case with in vitro fertilization decades ago. Embryo storage and parental rights in the late 80s and early 90s. This was the case with Dolly, which ended up with federal attention on cloning which continues today. Now this, even though mammallian hybrids have been attempted and were successful before. People don't seem to realize that they've already genetically selected and engineered human embryos (see Carlos Boozer's family); if something was discovered to enhance survivability in mammals, there is little to no impediment to the DNA being introduced and zero oversight.

Now that the story is the law itself leading or attempting to curb, expect the knee jerk "state with a Republican governor is setting back science" crap that beset the Bush administration (which many claimed "interfered" with science, esp. if you read the comments and opinions by the Scientific American magazine editors (otherwise decent science coverage)). Now, I know some of you out there think Bush interfered with science and policy and was the first to do so, but that's not the case. (I'd rather have a treatment that is available to be used by more people than less.)

Also, you say people. Which people? You people? Them people? Media? Liberal? Conservative? Middle? In general?

On /., it's all to often the case the anti-science story is put forward because /. has a leftist bent to it, so any Texas, Kansas, Kentucky, or Lousiana story to bash what are traditionally peceived conservative states and to raise the profile of the "the liberals are right." It's political stereotyping, similar to the present day attack against the Texas governor's alleged secession talk; it doesn't matter what was actually said and meant, but someone wants to whip some crowd up instead of having an actual discussion of the matter (see Hardball 2009.04.16). It doesn't matter Texas has a huge technology industry, probably only second to California. Alabama is often attacked for being deep south conservative with a put down and downtrodden black majority, ignoring the fact that it has military and space resources and port locations that are highly efficient and at the forefront.

It's a double-standard, akin to when some white guy alleged rapes a black woman, it's disgusting racism and an example of class superiority abuse in our equal in principal not in reality society (see Duke lacrosse team), but the dozen or more white college girls raped and reported in Hyde Park by south side Chicago black men over the past 2 decades is simply crime or excusable "getting back"--at the very least the coverage is not the same to fit the liberal media bent.

This is the problem with a selected submission process on /. that does not have overall review--it's an aristocracy, chosen to cater to a populist crowd, enhanced by a moderation system that is abused regularly and feeds on itself. Lousiana is considered backwards--see the crawlfish comments, attacks on religion or trying to blame religion as the cause (WHAT state doesn't have huge religion?), attacks on southern states, etc.

Same old shit, different party, different president.

Zoophilia?

[Lord_Frederick]

If you had sex with a human-animal hybrid, could you be prosecuted for bestiality? Of course *I* wouldn't have sex with a hybrid. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I think.

Question: What is a human?

[Orleron]

It may sound dumb, but....

Directly combining cells from two species is one thing, and this bill is going after that, but the term "hybrid" makes me nervous. A mouse with a single human gene is technically a hybrid. Are they going to outlaw transgenic lab animals, therefore? That would be a huge blow to science.
Gotta love the Catholic Church, the bastions of innovation and human progress that they are. Not.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Since when...

[gardyloo]

are humans not animals?

What a shock

[kuzb]

Clicking on the link, the first thing that caught my eye was a picture of a catholic priest. When are we going to stop allowing these people to mess around in our science and politics? Separate church and state already.

Re:Damn

[the_humeister]

transfer or attempt to transfer a human embryo into a non-human womb ... (or) transfer or attempt to transfer a non-human embryo into a human womb

This has got to be one of the stupidest thing I've ever read. The one thing that would quickly decrease the risks of pregnancy to absolutely zero is an artificial womb! Pregnancy itself has a host of potential complications that range from mildly irritating to quite deadly (eg. abdominal stria, pregnancy induced diabetes, pre-ecclampsia, ecclampsia, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary thromboemboli, amniotic fluid emboli, ectopic pregnancy, choriocarcinoma, etc.).

Hopefully this piece of legislation gets voted down.

Genetic hybridization

[macraig]

Unless this prohibits ALL the numerous creative means of achieving genetic "intermingling", this bill is pretty much useless except to satisfy one particular faction's pseudo-moral obsession.

uhh.. define human ?

[goffster]

without using the term "human"

Aren't humans already animals?

[SpuriousLogic]

Humans are already animals, so would this mean that human to human mixing would be illegal? Jesting aside, this might be hard to legislate, as it would require a scientific description of exactly what genes are required to be human. While at first pass this might seem to be a no-brainer, it actually opens up some serious ethical concerns. If you get a child that has a genetic mutation that either has extra genetic material (or less) than the definition, that person could LEGALLY be considered not human. This is an enormous can of worms. What rights would a sentient non-human, who looks human, expect to have in society?

Re:Damn

[Attila Dimedici]

Having read your post, I fail to see why you think that "people" have any inherent value. As far as I can tell, you believe that humans are biological machines. If that is correct what value do they have beyond a sufficiently complex machine. For that matter what is this term "value"? Is it how much money you are willing to spend to obtain one?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Let cows make our babies

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course employers hate children. They are a time drain on their employees. EMPLOYERS CARE ABOUT MAKING MONEY.

Re:Question: What is a human?

[nEoN nOoDlE]

I know which faith I'd rather have influencing law makers.

So do I... none.