# Animal-Human Hybrids spark controversy



## Baytor (Jan 28, 2005)

So, what do you all think of this?


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html

Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy

Maryann Mott
National Geographic News

January 25, 2005


Scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimerasa hybrid creature that's part human, part animal. Chinese scientists at the Shanghai Second Medical University in 2003 successfully fused human cells with rabbit eggs. The embryos were reportedly the first human-animal chimeras successfully created. They were allowed to develop for several days in a laboratory dish before the scientists destroyed the embryos to harvest their stem cells. 





In Minnesota last year researchers at the Mayo Clinic created pigs with human blood flowing through their bodies. 

And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains. 

Scientists feel that, the more humanlike the animal, the better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing "spare parts," such as livers, to transplant into humans. 

Watching how human cells mature and interact in a living creature may also lead to the discoveries of new medical treatments. 

But creating human-animal chimerasnamed after a monster in Greek mythology that had a lion's head, goat's body, and serpent's tailhas raised troubling questions: What new subhuman combination should be produced and for what purpose? At what point would it be considered human? And what rights, if any, should it have? 

There are currently no U.S. federal laws that address these issues. 

*Ethical Guidelines* 

The National Academy of Sciences, which advises the U.S. government, has been studying the issue. In March it plans to present voluntary ethical guidelines for researchers. 

A chimera is a mixture of two or more species in one body. Not all are considered troubling, though. 

For example, faulty human heart valves are routinely replaced with ones taken from cows and pigs. The surgerywhich makes the recipient a human-animal chimerais widely accepted. And for years scientists have added human genes to bacteria and farm animals. 

What's caused the uproar is the mixing of human stem cells with embryonic animals to create new species. 

Biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin is opposed to crossing species boundaries, because he believes animals have the right to exist without being tampered with or crossed with another species. 

He concedes that these studies would lead to some medical breakthroughs. Still, they should not be done. 

"There are other ways to advance medicine and human health besides going out into the strange, brave new world of chimeric animals," Rifkin said, adding that sophisticated computer models can substitute for experimentation on live animals. 

"One doesn't have to be religious or into animal rights to think this doesn't make sense," he continued. "It's the scientists who want to do this. They've now gone over the edge into the pathological domain." 

David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University, believes the real worry is whether or not chimeras will be put to uses that are problematic, risky, or dangerous. 

*Human Born to Mice Parents?* 

For example, an experiment that would raise concerns, he said, is genetically engineering mice to produce human sperm and eggs, then doing in vitro fertilization to produce a child whose parents are a pair of mice. 

"Most people would find that problematic," Magnus said, "but those uses are bizarre and not, to the best of my knowledge, anything that anybody is remotely contemplating. Most uses of chimeras are actually much more relevant to practical concerns." 

Last year Canada passed the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, which bans chimeras. Specifically, it prohibits transferring a nonhuman cell into a human embryo and putting human cells into a nonhuman embryo. 

Cynthia Cohen is a member of Canada's Stem Cell Oversight Committee, which oversees research protocols to ensure they are in accordance with the new guidelines. 

She believes a ban should also be put into place in the U.S. 

Creating chimeras, she said, by mixing human and animal gametes (sperms and eggs) or transferring reproductive cells, diminishes human dignity. 

"It would deny that there is something distinctive and valuable about human beings that ought to be honored and protected," said Cohen, who is also the senior research fellow at Georgetown University's Kennedy Institute of Ethics in Washington, D.C. 

But, she noted, the wording on such a ban needs to be developed carefully. It shouldn't outlaw ethical and legitimate experimentssuch as transferring a limited number of adult human stem cells into animal embryos in order to learn how they proliferate and grow during the prenatal period. 

Irv Weissman, director of Stanford University's Institute of Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine in California, is against a ban in the United States. 

"Anybody who puts their own moral guidance in the way of this biomedical science, where they want to impose their willnot just be part of an argumentif that leads to a ban or moratorium.  they are stopping research that would save human lives," he said. 

*Mice With Human Brains* 

Weissman has already created mice with brains that are about one percent human. 

Later this year he may conduct another experiment where the mice have 100 percent human brains. This would be done, he said, by injecting human neurons into the brains of embryonic mice. 

Before being born, the mice would be killed and dissected to see if the architecture of a human brain had formed. If it did, he'd look for traces of human cognitive behavior. 

Weissman said he's not a mad scientist trying to create a human in an animal body. He hopes the experiment leads to a better understanding of how the brain works, which would be useful in treating diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease. 

The test has not yet begun. Weissman is waiting to read the National Academy's report, due out in March. 

William Cheshire, associate professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic's Jacksonville, Florida, branch, feels that combining human and animal neurons is problematic. 

"This is unexplored biologic territory," he said. "Whatever moral threshold of human neural development we might choose to set as the limit for such an experiment, there would be a considerable risk of exceeding that limit before it could be recognized." 

Cheshire supports research that combines human and animal cells to study cellular function. As an undergraduate he participated in research that fused human and mouse cells. 

But where he draws the ethical line is on research that would destroy a human embryo to obtain cells, or research that would create an organism that is partly human and partly animal. "We must be cautious not to violate the integrity of humanity or of animal life over which we have a stewardship responsibility," said Cheshire, a member of Christian Medical and Dental Associations. "Research projects that create human-animal chimeras risk disturbing fragile ecosystems, endanger health, and affront species integrity."


----------



## OUMoose (Jan 28, 2005)

Hmmm...  No comments from Dr. Moreau I see.

I dunno, something just doesn't seem right about this.  Won't go into the ethical discussion as it was pretty well covered in the article.  I'm just curious to know when this kind of stuff is going to get put into soldiers.  You know, mixing in a little hawk/eagle DNA to improve vision distance in our snipers, mixing in amphibian DNA for regeneration, etc etc.  I'll be willing to bet DARPA is foaming at the mouth reading this kind of stuff.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 28, 2005)

Baytor said:
			
		

> Scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimerasa hybrid creature that's part human, part animal. Chinese scientists at the Shanghai Second Medical University in 2003 successfully fused human cells with rabbit eggs. The embryos were reportedly the first human-animal chimeras successfully created. They were allowed to develop for several days in a laboratory dish before the scientists destroyed the embryos to harvest their stem cells.



Can anyone say "_trolloc_?"  So this is how Aginor did it!


----------



## Baytor (Jan 28, 2005)

Nice Wheel of Time reference.  That gave me a good laugh.:lol:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 28, 2005)

Baytor said:
			
		

> Nice Wheel of Time reference.  That gave me a good laugh.:lol:



Seriously, that is the only thing I could think about!  This is perhaps one of the most f***ed up things I have seen a long time!


----------



## Baytor (Jan 28, 2005)

I don't know...The gay bomb and bad breath bomb that I read about a week or two ago was pretty bad too.  This is right up there too, though.


----------



## someguy (Jan 28, 2005)

Ok I have given up hope in humans.


----------



## Baytor (Jan 28, 2005)

Not to worry...now you can put your hope in a half human half badger.


----------



## Simon Curran (Jan 28, 2005)

Baytor said:
			
		

> Not to worry...now you can put your hope in a half human half badger.


I don't know, which martial artist wouldn't like a bit of badger fighting spirit, they are scary little fur balls...


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 28, 2005)

Baytor said:
			
		

> So, what do you all think of this?
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...5_chimeras.html
> 
> Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy
> ...


The devil works in mysterious ways don't he?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 28, 2005)

Of course this could give animal kung fu an entirely new aspect.  Imagine praying mantis or tiger claw or monkey style in the future!


----------



## BrandiJo (Jan 28, 2005)

hmm surely these people have better stuff to do then create little freaky things? i maen they are makeing way to much and have way to much time on there hands if this is on the list of things to do today


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 28, 2005)

I dunno... I could use an "All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl" of my very own.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 28, 2005)

BrandiJo said:
			
		

> hmm surely these people have better stuff to do then create little freaky things? i maen they are makeing way to much and have way to much time on there hands if this is on the list of things to do today



Yeah, I'm waiting for the "five assed monkey" and then the line between reality and TV will truly be non-existant.


----------



## Baytor (Jan 28, 2005)

you guys are cracking me up.


----------



## Baytor (Jan 28, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I dunno... I could use an "All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl" of my very own.


But does Nuku Nuku count?  Isn't she a robot or android or something?


----------



## raedyn (Jan 28, 2005)

> Later this year he[Weissman] may conduct another experiment where the mice have 100 percent human brains. This would be done, he said, by injecting human neurons into the brains of embryonic mice.
> 
> Before being born, the mice would be killed and dissected to see if the architecture of a human brain had formed. If it did, he'd look for traces of human cognitive behavior.


I'm not sure how I feel about this topic in general. I'm trying not to be overly swayed by the rhetoric on either side. But this protion troubled me. If these mice have the arcitecture of a human brain, and he's able to find traces of human cognitive behaviour... that means they'd be (on a basic level) thinking like a human. I imagine it would be difficult to determine to what extent they were thinking, but this really pushes this boundaries of what I find acceptable. How much more like a human does another creature have to get before we should start treating it with the same rights? If we can't tell how much of thinking feeling creature they become, we could potnetially create something other than we intended. That might seem absurd, but this is blurring the lines f'sure. It just opens up so many questions.

Everybody has their own personal line of right/wrong in a different place. Some people can't agree with destroying human embryos for science. But what about animal embryos? What happens to embryos that are created around reproductive technologies (ie: in vitro fertilization and the like) and don't get used?

Questions, questions. I don't really have any answers at this point, but it's definiately something I'm interested in hearing more about through thoughtful opinions and information.


----------



## Autocrat (Jan 28, 2005)

OK.... how about we break down the issues and cover them seperately ?

Take a step back and look at all the pro's and con's for...............

The Medical side
...medicines, diseases, finding preventative measures, spotting symptoins early on, generating organ/bone/limb/flesh/cell farms etc.

The Sociological side
....comparing the behaviorial traits that occur in the new cross-species, recognising interaction behaviours, observing social genesis and advance of sub-societies in comparatively low tech but potentially fully sentient creatures, (us about 12 years agon?), etc.

The Ethical side
.... Where does being human begin and end, quality of life, animal rights, the right to practice advanced geno-science etc.

anything else people can think of for breaking this thing down?

On a personal view point.... this sort of thing could offer a way to heal most of our hurts... oor to create new ones...... it's a great "get out" clause to side step practicing on humans etc..... then again, I don't trust people that do this sort of thing... no more than I trust people with chemicals etc..... theres always going to be someone upstairs that uses it for the wrong reason.

It has so much potential for great things, yet I can garentee it's used for the wrong reasons.... or not at all!

Look at what we can do with science already in this area.... we can grow walls of meat.... virtually fat free, full of protein etc..... africa's problems could be sorted in a year or two..... advanced crops immune to disease, vegetables that grow to twice the size, (erghh.... sprouts!).... yet it doesn't happen.

I suppose, at the end of the day, my real problem with the whole situation is that it involves Humans!  If it was highly intelligent mice cross breeding pigs with monkeys... great.... just don't trust us at all!


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 28, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how I feel about this topic in general. I'm trying not to be overly swayed by the rhetoric on either side. But this protion troubled me. If these mice have the arcitecture of a human brain, and he's able to find traces of human cognitive behaviour...



Yep, this is straight up "Secret of NIMH."

Sorry, Autocrat, I'm still in allagory mode.  Perhaps it a bit, I'll get around to the ethical questions you raise.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 28, 2005)

To quote Bart Simpson:

"God Shmod, I want my monkey man!"


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 28, 2005)

I think we have to look at the possible scientific benefits with the ethical considerations.

While my training in animal behavior, human development, and molecular biology has not gone on for, say, 40 years, from my 7.5 years of graduate study, I would say that some of these proposed exeriments don't sound scientifically that sound to me.  Results from a mouse with "human-like" brain structures can only tell us so much - and then the mouse will have "human-like" structures (whatever they want to design for), rather than "mini human brains". 

At the same time, I find references such as MACavers to the "work of the devil" as odd, too.  We've been breeding pigs to be used for heart transplants to save humans.  Is that the work of the devil?  Is in-vitro-fertilization (IVF) the work of the devil, so some couples can have children?  Is retinal transplants so blind patients can see, the work of the devil?  I perceive these differently - as a God-inspired gift, perhaps.  

Some say yes, some say no.  

For most of the experiments proposed, it seems foolhardy, really.  Getting "lion genes" doesn't mean a person will act/feel/be like a lion.  It means that maybe their aggression levels might be higher, a male might develop penile spines (good luck getting a date with those), or all-over-body hair (ditto the previous).

Although I'm a scientist, I'm not one to say "full speed ahead" to just anything.  I just don't see the purpose behind some of these ideas - I think the better science is in studying human variation, and other species' variation, within the species.

But, alas, often funding goes to some of the "cooler" ideas.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 28, 2005)

I personally feel that religious arguments have no place in scientific research (i.e., we shouldn't research something cuz Big Poppa Deity sez so) at all, but that's just me.

Ethics, however, that's a whole 'nudder story...


----------



## digitalronin (Jan 28, 2005)

Which creations will take our place top of the the top of the hill,  the beasts or the machines.


----------



## Melissa426 (Jan 28, 2005)

digitalronin said:
			
		

> Which creations will take our place top of the the top of the hill, the beasts or the machines.


Dear me, do I want to live in the Matrix or on the Planet of the Apes? I absolutely don't want to look like Vincent Price did in "the Fly."

Anybody remember what happened with that case in Florida (I think) with the couple that supposedly were raising a cloned human child?

Oh and BTW if you know any diabetics on Insulin?  Back in the old days, all insulin was beef or pork insulin. Some people couldn't take it because it caused something like an allergic reaction.  Now most people use human insulin, made by human insulin genes inserted into a strain of E. coli bacteria. 

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 28, 2005)

All I know is that as a Christian, I am not opposed to this experimentation for 1 simple reason...



I want a Catgirl.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 28, 2005)

Interesting concept.  

Mice with human brains...I don't know how they'll pull that off given the cranium's of mice.  That's putting five pounds of stuff into a half-ounce bag.


Do you think they could give me...horse parts?    


I'd be willing to pay.  Anything.  I'd take a second job, even.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 28, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Do you think they could give me...horse parts?



Watch out man.  You'd have to get a good tailor to do some...alterations.  Now that is going to be expensive.

Oh yeah, and then there is the fact that everytime a pretty women walks by you'd pass out...you'd hit the ground and it'd look like one of the "alien" movies.

"Ohmigod!  It's hatching!"


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 28, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Watch out man.  You'd have to get a good tailor to do some...alterations.  Now that is going to be expensive.
> 
> Oh yeah, and then there is the fact that everytime a pretty women walks by you'd pass out...you'd hit the ground and it'd look like one of the "alien" movies.
> 
> "Ohmigod!  It's hatching!"




I was thinking more of a pogo-stick sort of scenario.

Hey...it's MY fantasy.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 29, 2005)

HAHAHAHA.

 SICK AND WRONG.

 Im Next after Hardhead...


----------



## Kane (Jan 29, 2005)

Many people anthropologists actually think we might be close enough to apes to actually mix-breed with them without the use of lab equipment, completely natural. Though I am very skeptical about it, you never know whether it is true.

Check out this article about the humanzees:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Humanzee

I saw a documentary many years ago about a chimp named Oliver who walked on upright, smelled different than other chimps, rejected by the chimp communion, and even went after women (the wife of one of Oliver's caretakers was actually almost raped). When they took a DNA analysis of the chimp they found he was just a bipedal chimp. However it did make people think of the possibilities and boundaries of our genetics. Here are some links about Oliver;

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf110/sf110p06.htm

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/creatures/article.htm



200 posts! YEAH, I'm a blue belt!artyon:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 29, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> HAHAHAHA.
> 
> SICK AND WRONG.
> 
> Im Next after Hardhead...



There is so much good stuff on this thread!  

I am Atropos...the archtypical _thread _ "cut-up."

Yeah, and me three.  Who needs the hotmail ads?

Ladies...

ah **** my wife grabbed the sword...


----------



## Melissa426 (Jan 29, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Do you think they could give me...horse parts?


Gentlemen, 

Before you take this jump, please consult your favorite  partner in "horsin' "
around. Despite what you may believe, some of us might take one look and bolt.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 29, 2005)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Gentlemen,
> 
> Before you take this jump, please consult your favorite  partner in "horsin' "
> around. Despite what you may believe, some of us might take one look and bolt.
> ...




Melissa,

I did indeed consult with her, and a compromise was reached.  I'm to be hybridized with a giraffe or an anteater.

It would be kind of neat to have the arms of a chimp.  I'm practically a knuckledragger now as it is, being a third generation biped and all.  Imagine how powerful one's hand techniques would be?  And the REACH.

Seriously, I doubt this research is going to do much.  Massive mixing of genes in this way won't result in a viable fetus.  Genes have more than one effect, typically, in the expression of a trait.  While we might be able to come up with smarter chimps, or ones that can speak...we might ask "why?"  If it aids the advancement of knowledge insofar as behavioral sciences, general development and genetics, I can see a valid reason.  If it is to create a new species, then we'd need justification.

I think most of the research will be like the one study they described, where they sacrifice a mouse fetus and analyze neural development.  Of course someone, somewhere might argue for insoulment of that human brain in that mouse.  We'll see.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Baytor (Jan 29, 2005)

I just remembered an old book I read years ago about this sort of thing.  The government (of course) was experimenting and created two animals.  One was a golden retriever that had human intelligence.  The other was called "the outsider" and was a mix of a babboon, alligator and something else i think.  It wasn't as smart as the dog.  The dog was for spying, and the outsider was for combat.  They both got loose and you can imagine where the plot went from there.  Two really crappy movies were made based on this book.  I can't remember the names of the books or the movies, and that's probably just as well.
So the point of this post?  If the government gets to start making hybrids for the military, they will get loose and wreck havoc on the local population and also possibly fling poo if it's part monkey.  Later it will be brought down by a courageous but burned out and emotionally distant cop/special forces soldier/journalist/private investigator.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 29, 2005)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Gentlemen,
> 
> Before you take this jump, please consult your favorite partner in "horsin' "
> around. Despite what you may believe, some of us might take one look and bolt.
> ...


Bolt?  Hardly.  I'd get my knives and make the appendange more to my liking.

Hey, I've done some surgery....


----------



## Baytor (Jan 29, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Bolt? Hardly. I'd get my knives and make the appendange more to my liking.
> 
> Hey, I've done some surgery....


Using the smilies, I am able to give a visual representation of this frightening statement. 

:ultracool           

%-}      


:uhohh:          


:enguard:      


:xtrmshock


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 29, 2005)

and, appropriately...


:roflmao:


----------



## digitalronin (Jan 29, 2005)

stay away from mouse shes dangerous.







excuse me while i go find my steel cup






nice mousey nice


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 29, 2005)

lol!  Who's afraid of a little mouse???


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 30, 2005)

_Did I just kill this thread?  Oh dear...._


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 30, 2005)

Yeah good job.

Hey... Human Brained Mice... 

Feisty Mouse...

Hmmm. Hmmm.

YOU ARE A HUMAN BRAINED MOUSE PRETENDING TO BE A PERSON ARENT YOU???


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 30, 2005)

_The real trick was figuring out how to create a mouse-sized keyboard to interface with the humans' computer system...._

What?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 30, 2005)

If I got "anteater" parts, nobody would argue with that.  Nobody.

I wouldn't have to use my hands to wash my back.

I've heard that with genetic recombination they've been able to take jellyfish photoluminescence and make mice that glow in the dark.  Do I see a market here for pets that glow in the dark?  How about people?  Running at night would be safer, certainly.  Dreams of ninjahood might not bear fruit, however.

I'd also like gills, a kangaroo pouch for my wallet, and maybe retractable fangs like a viper for those days my wife gets a little too hormonal.  It'd be fun to have the sexual energy of the bonobo, the metabolism of a small rodent, and the ability to smell and hear like a dog...though that might tempt me to drive with my head out the window, lolling my tongue.  I'd be concerned about having an innate desire to sniff a dog's butt upon meeting him.  That could be somewhat socially embarrassing...if not for the dog, then for his owner.

I see great potential for this technology.  Ethics be damned!


Regards,


Steve


----------

