Scientists Give Human Organs to Lamb 589
TK Interior writes "Myrtle Beach Online reports the existence of a lamb-human chimera-- a blend of two different species. Not only has a lamb been given a human liver and heart, but mice are sporting human brain cells. At what level is a chimera 'too' human? Where do you draw the line between human and animal? How will this affect evolution?"
Too human? (Score:5, Insightful)
A disease that affects sheep maybe can gestate over years in a flock of sheep and then suddenly because they have many human organs its affecting humans too. It opens a door of potentials not all of which are good
The nets biggest nude anime gallery's [sharkfire.net]
lamb with a human liver is no more human... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really a Chimera? (Score:3, Insightful)
Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Many things effect evolution... Medical science has been effecting evolution for a very long time as people who would have died because of genetic illness have lived on through medical science. The human species has not had real natural selection for a long time because we do not die from genetic problems as often.
The only evolution humans are likely to undergo is a scary one. Stupid people are having more children than smart people, therefore people are going to get stupider. Maybe it's already happened
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Not at all since the reproductive cells are not affected.
-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. You might as well claim that birds don't face natural selection because their parents feed them as babies instead of letting them starve or that that they don't face natural selection because their nests help keep them warm.
A bunch of people helping each other to survive is a product of natural selection, not its absence.
Part of our environment is now the existence of hospitals and scientists. Some people thrive in that environment who would die childless in other environments. Again, this is natural selction at work.
You don't draw the line... (Score:2, Insightful)
Lambs are animals.
Humans are animals.
Simple as that. Humans are not some special exemption - they are animals, and so to say "when do you draw the line between humans and animals" is just plain wrong. Go take a basic high school Biology course.
Perhaps what was meant to be said was "species" - a species is defined as a group of related organisms capable of interbreeding. Although humans could technically breed with sheep (and living near Wales, I should know...), the offspring would be sterile...
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Birds do indeed feed their young but if the parents believe that the young are incapable of surviving adequately they are thrown out of the nest to die in a lot of cases. People thriving because of hospitals is not natural selection, it's artificial - a kind of eugenics.
Re:lamb with a human liver is no more human... (Score:5, Insightful)
Such thinking is behind all the current nonsense concerning abortion and stem cells research.
If you believe DNA is what determines human-ness, then all the cellular detritus that you leave scattered about every day is just as human as you are. You would have to claim that the snot you pick out of your nose has the same human rights as your mother. It's just daft.
What counts as human is not the DNA.
What constitutes human then? The sensible answer is my view (and others) is that it depends upon the thing's ability to be part of a society with other 'humans', and to have qualities such as empathy, self-consciousness and the like which are regarded as human qualities. Without those, a thing is no more human than its DNA might be.
I imagine that every time I sneeze, I eject more 'human' than there is in a 3-day old embryo -- by the DNA line of reasoning. It's just silly.
DNA is simply something that current humans have in common. Given how unimportant it really is, it seems quite possible in the future that there will be (human-constructed) things which are human in all the important senses, even if they don't have the same DNA as my toe-nail clippings.
Only Objection (Score:2, Insightful)
The only real problem I see is illustrated in the following quote: If two such chimeras - say, mice - were to mate, a human embryo might form, trapped in a mouse.
Not everyone agrees that this would be a terrible result.
"What would be so dreadful?" asked Ann McLaren, a renowned developmental biologist at the University of Cambridge in England. After all, she said, no human embryo could develop successfully in a mouse womb. It would simply die, she told the academy.
Such a callous disregard for human life underscores the objection many people have to things such as embryonic stem cell research and abortion. This person obviously believes the unborn child is "alive"- otherwise it could not logically die. However, she does not care that it dies because of her irresponsible actions.
I think the medical profession above anybody has a responsibility to preserve life- even when it is just begining. In cases where there is a conflict between preserving two lives (as in embryonic stem cell research), the professional should look for alternatives- such as cord-harvested stem cells- that do not involve killing one human to preserve another.
That said, conservatives need to be open to those practices that, though unorthodox, have potential to preserve life without taking it.
Dangerously human (Score:4, Insightful)
As it stands asia is the source of virtualy all flu and africa the source of all Ebola. In both cases it's believed to be because of the biological conditions that put animals and humans in close contact where the viruses can jump between species. In the case of flu the host animal is birds which then jumps to mamals via pigs. Pigs are close enought o human that the jump to human is easy. and then it's flu season. In the case of Ebola no one knows what the host animal is. Apparently its not harmful to its host since it would slauter it wholsesale if it were as deadly as it is in humans. When it jumps to human's the only good nes is that it is so lethal it tends to kill it's host quicker than it spreads in rural africa. NY city might be a different story.
Some people think that ebola's natural host is a monkey or an ape.
Apes get many diseases we dont. For example Simian Aids. What would happen if we were to put human cells in an ape, then simian aids learned how to infect these cells. Then it jumped to the human population.
We are porting disease from the antire animal kingdom to our own without considering the consequences
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, no species has ever been shown to evolve into another species. No scientific experiment has ever proved this.
Actually, species have been OBSERVED evolving into other species. Bacterial species. You may have experienced the result yourself: antibiotic resistance.
What constitutes human then? The sensible answer.. (Score:2, Insightful)
And this portion, ability to be part of a society, probably disqualifies half of the people reading this message.
Re:Evolution (Score:1, Insightful)
This is an example of "natural selection", but it does not show the changing (evolving) of one species into another.
Re:Too human? (Score:5, Insightful)
But why do this?
With the massive shortages of organs for transplantation, we need to do somehing.
Using stem cells to grow new organs or repair damaged ones was a good idea until Bush nipped that in the bud.
So instead of that relatively safe research, scientist are looking to alter animals to grow the organs for us.
But, as you point out, there are many risks involved. Transpecies pandemics is just one of them.
~X~
"If ignorance is bliss then Bush must be living in a fucking paradise."
Re:Only Objection (Score:3, Insightful)
That is an entirely different kind of 'life' and 'death' to the kind you're talking about, which is to say, a kind of autonomous human life--a life of its own (which a toe does not have). At that point you are talking about a matter of definition--is the embryo a separate life form yet, or is it merely an extension of the mother, in the same way as any other body tissue?
The doctor you quoted is not addressing this question when she says that the embryo would die, she is merely stating a technical fact. The implication is that her definition of when living tissue takes on 'a life of its own' is different to yours--but that is not the same as having a disregard for human life; it is merely a different definition of what constitutes *a* human life.
Re:What constitutes human then? The sensible answe (Score:3, Insightful)
People in comas who have relationships with other people, are definitely part of the network of human society, even though it may be passive. You can make a case for them being human in some senses but not others. Same applies for infants.
Even if you disagree with these sorts of criteria for determining human-ness, you have to acknowledge that the DNA-based one makes no sense at all. Or else attack me for the inhumane way I subject soiled hankerchiefs to chemical warfare when I do the washing.
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
You must have been reading Creationist propaganda. Beware. Those guys lie a lot (it's OK--it's all in the service of the Lord). In reality, there are lots of examples [talkorigins.org]of speciation being observed. For that matter, some of the products of artificial selection, such as Great Danes and Chihuahuas, would unquestionably be classified as different species if discovered in the wild. This isn't evolution (because the selection is artificial rather than natural), but it does demonstrate the ability of selection to produce massive change over a geologically miniscule interval of time.
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Fears of genetic disease increasing because of treatment prolonging survival are largely misplaced. Unless people with the disease have more children than people without it (i.e. if the "disease" is in some sense beneficial in a fitness sense) their reproduction will not contribute to an overall increase in disease frequency. So if the treatment is perfectly effective, then the frequency of the disease will only increase at the rate at which new carriers of the disease allele arise by spontaneous mutation. However, most treatments are not perfectly effective (i.e. people with diabetes are still a lot more likely to die young than people without it) and the mutation rate is low. So increase in genetic disease frequency due to medical treatment is unlikely--at worst, it will decrease more slowly.
And eventually, it will be possible to correct all identified genetic diseases at the DNA level, and the problem will become moot.
Re:Too human? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe this is the major difference between birds with natural selection/evolution, and what you procure as human "evolution." The bird has no qualms ejecting less viable offspring, while a human baby born with any defect is treated to the maximum extent of avaliable medical attention, usually regardless of cost. In this sense, rather than eject the less viable offspring, more resources are spent keeping it alive than would otherwise be spent on other healthy offspring. Thus natural selection in it's purest form is circumvented- the weak, unable to care for themselves, or worthy of parental care, die off before they can pass their weakness on to offspring. Modern medicine defeats the process by saving as many lives as possible, regardless of weakness or genetic deficiencies (which I'm not saying is a bad thing at all, just differing from common knowledge of natural selection).
All in the name of science ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The question isnt about evolution, the question is about ethics. Should we as humans be "playing god"?
I believe so. Thats not to say that I am correct though.
Was this a waste? Looking at the rate of organ rejection and other complications not to mention the recepient already being in bad health, it could have easily failed inside of a human and worked in a sheep.
There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people waiting for organs who go without everyday because people don't sign their organ donor cards or because family members refuse to let them be a donor.
If anything let this article serve as a beacon of hope for the future and a reminder to let your family know if you are an organ donor.
Even with the rate of failure of transplants, you don't need them when you're dead.
Re:Dangerously human (Score:4, Insightful)
I hear a gargling sound.
I suggest you have a look at _Guns, Germs, and Steel_. Most, if not all, of our diseases have come from herd animals that we domesticated. We've gotten this far after 6,000 years with the filthy beasts; I hardly think we'll become extinct now, especially with our new-fangled medical technology.As far as simian AIDS infecting humans, human AIDS is probably the exact same thing -- a bug some human picked up from an ape around 70-100 years ago in Africa. What would happen if simian AIDS jumped again? Probably what's going on now with regular AIDS.
"We are porting disease from the antire animal kingdom to our own without considering the consequences." This is nothing new. We've done fine so far.
Re:Dangerously human (Score:3, Insightful)
What if the sheep with such a transplant managed to adapt it's antibody to protect it's implant?
I'm not a doctor so i have no idea if it's possible, but i'm thinking along the lines of how we produce snake anti-venon with the aid of horses.
Psst... Evolution is Dead (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you get when this happens? You got a few billion people with the collective capacity to undergo agricultural, industrial, and eventually post industrial revolutions. Sure, your stock might be less discriminating then the stock of the past, but who cares? One the advantages of being a technological species is that you can do evolutions work. For instance, I was a horrible asthmatic when I was young. I should have died 10 times over when I was young. Modern medicine absolutely saved my life on more then one occasion. These days I am a perfectly healthy adult. People with poor eyesight wear glasses. Weak people don't need to run to survive. Half of the population (namely woman) have been freed up to contribute to technology and society of this choose.
The places where this all leads is a good one. Well within the next 100 years, you can almost rest assure that we will start to tinker more with our own genetic code and enhance ourselves further with technology. Things like asthma and diabetes will start to be cured and removed from the population. It wouldn't surprise me if a human 500 years from now is not recognizable as human because it is such a technological and/or genetic wonder.
Evolution is hard at work through technology. For us humans, it is headed for better places.
Making Chimeras is dangerous... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the greatest nightmare of the Centers for Disease Control. They strongly discourage experimentation and research involving chimeras, even (and especially) research using animal organs for human transplant.
This is not a joke, or poorly written science fiction.
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking as an evolutionary biologist, I'd say the above post was the work of someone who has the higher brain functions of a chimp with a botched lobotomy. Lemme put that in small words so you can understand it: you're a fuckin' idiot. Plus, anyone who would "me too!" it is a moron.
Darwin did say life was tough, and that therefore those least fit to survive the struggle, tend not to survive. This is a statement about how the world is. It does not logically follow that the world oughtto be this way. It's simple, morals = how the world ought to be, science = how the world is, so the two do not have a lot to do with each other. Jesus fucking Christ. Read a philosophy book once in a while. For that matter, read a book once in a while.
Re:Too human? (Score:2, Insightful)
Along the same vein, I wonder if our climate controlled living arrangement is having an adverse affect on our long term viability as a species.
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Two things here:
Answers: (Score:3, Insightful)
At what level is a chimera 'too' human?
When it is sentient.
Where do you draw the line between human and animal?
In the current definition "human" means species homo sapiens. The only significant distinctive feature of humans, is sentience, that is a result of a particular advanced structure of human brain, that, among other distinctive features, provides capability for development of abstract thought, structured language and production of tools. First never develops in animals or machines (machines can perform operations that are part of abstract thinking process, however only humans are currently capable of developing abstract structures from external stimuli without pre-existing knowledge of their structure, so development is still specific to humans), second and third are not developed by anyone but humans except in the simpliest forms possible. In theory, there may be, or will be other sentient beings that should be considered human, even if they do not share the same origin, and some creatures that have the same or close origin, yet lack sentience, and therefore can never be considered human.
How will this affect evolution?
Not at all. Evolution happens only through hereditary changes in organisms.
Can we go home now? I mean, didn't humans develop a better definition for themselves than "Two-legged, without feathers"?
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:2, Insightful)