Animal-to-Human Organ Transplant Experiments Cancelled 10
Spudley writes: "The BBC is reporting that experiments aimed at creating a pig with organs suitable for human transplant have been cancelled. Apparently the funding has been withdrawn, over fears of introducing new diseases to the human population. The research group involved is the Roslin Institute - the same people who brought us Dolly the sheep." Kinda creepy.
Threat of disease is the key issue (Score:1)
It's not moral issues, animal rights, or the fact that it's "kinda creepy", though all are valid considerations.
It's the very real threat of cross-species viral or prion infections. Think AIDS (primate origin) or mad cow disease. The risk is unacceptable.
Stupidity dooms thousands to death (Score:2)
It's already in practice.... (Score:1)
A variety of tissues have already been used in cross-species transplants. Valves from pig's hearts just being the tip of the iceberg.
PrimalChrome
Re:Threat of disease is NOT the key issue (Score:1)
And without transplanting anything, it easily spreads from sheep to cow to human to squirrel to whatever. Though there is evidence that people can also be genetically pre-disposed towards having it, as well as being genetically more susceptible.
It's basically a regular brain protein gone amok. It runs about re-folding the proper proteins and making them go "bad", too.
-A. Aria
Re:Threat of disease is the key issue (Score:1)
"The virus apparently was a mutation that evolved in American pigs and was spread around the globe by U.S. troops mobilized for World War I. "
Here's [junkscience.com] a link to the full article.
Remember the influenza epidemic of 1918?? (Score:2)
By genetically engineering pigs that are somewhere in between humans and real pigs, the risk of a new strain mutating to hit us goes up. Way up.
http://www.junkscience.com/news/flu1918.htm
I feel for those that are in need of organs and I'm a fully body donor on my license but given the choice of thousands of lives risked or millions, I'd choose the former.
Threat of disease is NOT the key issue (Score:2)
Kind of creepy? (Score:1)
Re:Threat of disease is the key issue (Score:1)
However, as I pointed out, all new technologies have associated risks. Would you support xenotransplant experiments if you felt that sufficient precautions were taken, and if the benefits outweighed the risks? If so, under what conditions? For example, if the pigs were raised in a sterile enclosure, would that satisfy you that the risk of disease transmission was low enough to proceed with the experiments? What if transplant recipients were monitored weekly for 5 years post transplant for signs of infection?
As you point out, we are already subject to substantial risk of disease transmission from pigs. Yet is it appropriate to discriminate against potential xenotransplant recipients, who, after all, depend upon transplants for their lives? Why not shut down all pig farms as well? The existence of pig farms,if we accept the argument above, led to the existence of a virulent strain of swine flu that killed 27-50 million people, after all. If we're willing to tolerate pig farms in order to have bacon for breakfast, can we not tolerate a somewhat higher risk of disease in order to save people's lives?
What benefits do xenotransplants offer? Xenotransplants offer benefits to everyone, not just those currently on transplant waiting lists. No doubt you would regard it as a terrible tragedy if everyone on the face of the earth died instantly in a nuclear holocaust. Would it be any less of a tragedy if they all died in a day? A week? A year? A hundred years? Yet all of us face physical decline and eventual death unless we figure out how to stop/reverse aging. For example, heart disease is the number one cause of death in the U.S. In 1997, according to the National Center for Health Statisitics [cdc.gov], 730,000 people died from heart disease. If healthy, young hearts were inexpensive and readily available, we could replace everyone's heart when they turned 50, prevent most of those deaths, and buy those people many more years of life. Likewise, all of the other organs could be similarly replaced. But this is not an option if organs remain rare, expensive, and difficult to obtain. Xenotransplants can change that.
Re:Threat of disease is the real issue (Score:2)
Yes, some people may become infected from pig organs, and other people may in turn contract disease from them. But we're not helpless in the face of disease. Pigs can be tested for the presence of pathogens prior to transplant. Individuals can be monitored for the presence of bacteria and viruses (and you can be sure that people receiving pig organs will be closely monitored.) Individuals who contract diseases can be quarantined.
Also, we already face the risk of become infected with diseases and parasites from other species. You can contract trichonosis by eating undercooked pork. Slaughterhouse workers are exposed to pig blood and offal on a daily basis. Transplant recipients are simply a new transmission vector among many other pre-existing vectors.
Finally, keep in mind that we can be certain that people will die if they don't get organ transplants. According to the Council of Europe's home page [www.coe.fr]:
Keep in mind that this doesn't represent the true need for organ transplants, as only patients who're most likely to benefit from a transplant are put onto the waiting list. The benefits of saving these patients lives, outweighs the admittedly unknown, but probably low, risk of disease transmission.