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?"
Um exact same article as a couple of days ago? (Score:2, Interesting)
Evolution (Score:2, Interesting)
But back to the topic at hand, I don't think we have anything to fear from inserting human genes into non-human subjects. As long as the resulting creatures are kept isolated from the general population of creatures, such a "mutation" is highly unlikely to infect the general population with abnormal genes.
But then again, this all throws in the trash the whole idea of genetic engineering which is to develop cures for our current problems using the existing genetic materials which may be helpful. The development of insulin-building cells is a direct result of genetic engineering. So too are the "skin farms" which generate sheets of usable skin for burn victims.
The main problem is in how to decide to whom these benefits should go. Given unlimited supplies, anyone who had need should get them, but with current limited supply, it is difficult to decide who ought to be eligible for these.
Should the gay guy with AIDS be allowed to take advantage of these skin cells? Or should it go to the cancer patient who is losing skin like crazy as he quickly descends down the path of mortality? Should we only give these benefits to the ones who are likely to be healthy?
The problem is not the technology. We can develop greater technology. The problem is a philosophical one, because we can't offer these advances to everyone. We must decide who is important and who is not..
A tough choice, to say the least.
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Interesting)
not only have we evolved to match our environment, we've evolved to the point where were maniupulate our enviornment to suit our needs. i'd say that's a most substantial and more impressive evolution than any other creature has demonstrated so far.
think about it this way - jackets might save the thin-skinned from dieing off in the cold the way your view of natural selection suggests they might have otherwise. that means people prone to frostbite and chills and compromised immune systems in cold weather are more likely to pass on their jeans. but because we've developed these nice big brains, we DID learn to create jackets, a marketplace to buy them in, and a delivery system to get them to the consumer. Those things are products of evolution as well.
All women are chimerae... (Score:3, Interesting)
Since one of the x chromosomes in every female is "deactivated" [rcn.com] and turned into a Barr body (to avoid aneuploidy) and which one is chosen is completely random, it can be said that all women contain two separate genetic makeups, resulting in a genetic mosaic: a chimera.
good work! (Score:1, Interesting)
If they've got it working one way, i.e. human --> lamb, then they can make it work the other way.
Amazing news for anyone in NYHA Class 4 heart failure, or the kids with cystic fibrosis, or people with liver failure.
Re:Damn it (Score:2, Interesting)
When it asks for the right to vote. Of couse, I guess it really wouldn't make much of a difference.
Re:Evolution (Score:2, Interesting)
Uh, the Delta-32 variant of the CCR5 receptor [bbc.co.uk] is believed to have become fixed in the population about 700 years ago. The common wisdom is that the mutation became fixed in European populations as a result of the Black Death--against which it also confers immunity. Some are now arguing that the mutation became widespread in Europe not because of the plague but because of smallpox [dailycal.org].
What is interesting about the Chinese woman isn't that she is unique, but that she is the one of the few non-Europeans known to possess the mutation.
BTW, individuals don't evolve, populations do. Individuals mutate.
Re:Too human? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:3, Interesting)
Now you are perfectly right... the way things _are_ and the way things _ought_ to be are often two completely different things. What is interesting is that we have actually evolved to becoming a species that perceives that things ought to be somehow different from what they actually are. The way things _are_ is that only the fit survive. But this is not how most people think things ought to be. We do not abandon our sick, injured, or weak... we look after them. And the higher brain functions that we have evolved seem to be serving a purpose of actually _weakening_ our species, rather than strengthening it.
That's what I find insightful... and perhaps it was my bad for not clarifying that point in my own previous post, but it really hadn't occurred to me that it would be necessary.
To phrase your idea a little differently... (Score:2, Interesting)
An analogy I've found is helpful to use on people who have trouble with this concept:
Saying that we should not aid those who are weak because it opposes the theory of evolution is like saying we should not build support beams in bridges because it opposes the theory of gravity.
Evolution, like gravity, is a description of nature, not a philosophy of how to build a civilization.