Slashdot Mirror
Hybrid Human-Animal DNA Experiments Raise Concerns
Kevin Fishburne writes
"British scientists are calling for a new agency to oversee the mixing of human and animal DNA, which is progressing at a rate most may not be aware of: 'Among experimentation that might spark concern are those where human brain cells might change animal brains, those that could lead to the fertilization of human eggs in animals and any modifications of animals that might create attributes considered uniquely human, like facial features, skin or speech. ... Some disagree. "We think some of these should be done, but they should be done in an open way to maintain public confidence," said Robin Lovell-Badge, head of stem cell biology and developmental genetics at Britain's Medical Research Council, one of the expert group members. He said experiments injecting human brain cells into the brains of rats might help develop new stroke treatments or that growing human skin on mice could further understanding of skin cancer.'"
A furry's wet dream... *shudder*
Do we have to include the ghastly emotive rot among the potentially legitimate concerns?
Zoonotic diseases are certainly a real issue(though we've caught plenty just through good, old-fashioned, living in close proximity), and any techniques that would hypothetically involve the production of excessively human central nervous systems in laboratory animals might get ethically dodgy; but are "skin" and "facial features" really 'uniquely human' attributes that squick us out so much we just can't stand it? The idea that having a cartilage-and-soft-tissue structure that looks kind of human, rather than having a differently shaped one, is somehow an 'ethical' problem, rather than pure squeamishness, is just emotive rot.
"The effect of custom, in preventing any misgiving respecting the rules of conduct which mankind impose on one another, is all the more complete because the subject is one on which it is not generally considered necessary that reasons should be given, either by one person to others, or by each to himself. People are accustomed to believe, and have been encouraged in the belief by some who aspire to the character of philosophers, that their feelings, on subjects of this nature, are better than reasons, and render reasons unnecessary." -J.S. Mill
If making catgirls becomes illegal in Britain, we'll just make them in Japan. That would be disastrous. The Japanese are already years ahead of us in catgirl technology. We cannot afford a greater catgirl gap.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
If Slashdot had circles, I would add you to one called "fruitbat".
There are no indigenous vegetarians, let alone vegans.
If you're using your spine properly, you don't need any adjustments. Try Tai Chi.
Live naturally, that doesn't include chiropractic care! Enjoy your nasty, brutish, and short life. The last people to naturally live over a hundred years on a regular basis failed to develop their technology (this was the cost of their lifestyle) and were essentially wiped out.
Or put another way, if we were made, we were obviously made to wage war, among the other things. So by extension, all the funky food and TV watching is also natural.
In summary: I find your theories laughable, and I wish to pee on your newsletter
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Pass laws that any creature with human DNA is human and has the same rights as any other human. Have the law make those who create such creatures be financially responsible for them until such time as they can be demonstrated to be able to care for themselves.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
As long as I can get a cat that will tell me exactly what it wants instead of me having to figure it out, I'm good.
Then they can apply that gene to women.
Yes, let's scare more people with a bunch of fictional nonsense intended to play on people's fears and fool them into believing that fear response is the same as morality.
H.G. Wells was a great author, but that does not qualify him to be a credible source of perspective on the ethics of genetic research, especially when his implicit goal was to be salacious enough to sell books, not to have the most honest and balanced possible view.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
The problem is that species have evolved with what they have over time, so that problematic and crippling mutations are rapidly selected out.
If you start creating hybrids, you create traits for which a species has not evolved, and as such those traits may have massively debilitating effects on the creature.
Effectively, when we've long learnt that sometimes the best thing to do for an animal that is suffering, is to put it down, because it's more ethical than letting it suffer, then is it not ethically wrong to create creatures that will suffer with the intention of keeping them alive for experiments?
Would it be fair to manipulate a human embryo to make it grow up with skin cancer all over it's body to examine skin cancer? is it fair to do it to an animal?
I'll admit I side with the activists here, I think it is cruel and quite horrible, however, I'm also not sure that if we want to advance science that there's any alternative, and that leaves us at a disturbing crossroads- is the advancement of science worth ignoring ethical concerns? If it is in this case then where does it stop, where is the line drawn at which point it is not worth it? or do we carry on until we really do have mad scientists like in the movies!
Do you know what has to happen before nature can 'rapidly select out' bad mutations? They have to exist first. We are a part of nature, produced by natural processes, and I would argue that making mutated things with a purpose is better than other natural mutations that are mere accidents of reproduction. "Bad" mutations are going to happen anyway, they might as well at least be useful.
All of this requires perspective. Tests done on animals that were both fatal and brutal have in the end saved millions of lives. I would gladly personally torture an animal or a dozen to death if it would save a million human lives, and that is a natural instinct. It's what's put us where we are in the first place. Animals that are vicious tend to survive better in a universe that doesn't care.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
It's fairly obvious what cats want. They want their servants to understand their needs and fulfill their wishes before they have realised what they want, themselves. If you're not doing this, the fault is yours, not theirs. Maybe you're mixed up about who is in charge in that relationship?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I absolutely agree, and everyone here is way too tough on Dr. Bob. A few years ago I had a severe case of Bonus Eruptus. It was so bad some days I just couldn't get out of bed. One trip to a chiropractor (his name was Nick), and I was pretty much cured. Those adjustments were a life saver.