Human Animal Hybrid Created in Lab 1208
guanno writes "National Geographic has an article stating that... "Scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras--a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal."
Human / Animal Hybrids? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Human / Animal Hybrids? (Score:5, Interesting)
So many people hate other HUMANS who are different.. Imagine the hell that a real life "furry" would go through?
Remember that TV series "Gary the Rat"? I'm sure it would be about 500 times worse.
-Zorin the Lynx, but would rather stay human in real life. }:)
Re:Human / Animal Hybrids? (Score:3, Insightful)
Metamorphosis [amazon.com]
That would be playing god. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That would be playing god. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That would be playing god. (Score:5, Funny)
one word... (Score:3, Funny)
Coming right up... (Score:5, Funny)
Mouse..... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes and the answer is 42.
"Chimera" other uses of the word (Score:5, Interesting)
More here [termpapergenie.com] and here [rcn.com].
Re:"Chimera" other uses of the word (Score:3, Informative)
Chimera was beaten by Belerephontis (sp? i know the greek name only) and his horse, Pegasus.
And
So it makes sense to use it in this context.
Re:"Chimera" other uses of the word (Score:3, Informative)
There are a few known examples of XY/XX Chimeras if memory serves, though I don't really remember how physical characteristics developed.
Scarier yet, there are conjoined twins that share what looks to be a single torso and legs, looking like one body with two heads. Apparently the girls have seperate ribcages and upper organs, but their backbones merge into a single pelvis, and th
gosh, mice w/ human brains?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:gosh, mice w/ human brains?!? (Score:5, Funny)
False Advertising (Score:5, Informative)
So I read this article and it talks about cells in petri dishes and mice with 1% human brains (which, from what I've read, is a bit of a downgrade).
I think that there's no sense in starting an uproar over "creating new species" and "playing god" yet. A petri dish is ever so slightly different from a goat-lion-serpant or a girlfriend with the head of a shark.
Re:False Advertising (Score:3, Funny)
I take it there's no such thing as too much teeth for you...
Re:False Advertising (Score:3, Informative)
I sortof agree. But the question is, When is it okay? When can we become upset? It's a very hard line to draw. I think we should be constantly pushing forward and constantly questioning at the same time.
Because what if they hit upon something? Which might be very useful? Or have ramifications we weren't prepared to deal with? Legislation and public reaction can move slow if the awareness isn't there
Re:False Advertising (Score:5, Funny)
The Wise Words of Chairman Yang (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Wise Words of Chairman Yang (Score:4, Interesting)
Trial and error - systems with feedback, memory.
Pain - warning reaction in case of damage/failure.
Suffering - The "pleasure center" of your brain isn't stimulated enough, opposed to these of "negative feelings". Motivates to change.
Hard work - just result of learning, "work and you will profit" - create better conditions for your brain pleasure center to be stimulated better and more often.
Learning - memory system.
Love - chemistry, hormonal reactions.
Will to life - evolution eliminates these without it.
All the old "higher values" can be reduced to some formulas and equations. That's the ultimate truth. I know it's not comfortable, but lying to yourself isn't the solution.
WTF? (Score:3, Funny)
When will these people learn?
xenogenics (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, in this case rabbits: a viral pandemic that killed all but the few naturally-immune bunnies may have left remnants of its genetic material in their DNA. All living bunnies are immune, having derived their genetic material from the bunnies that survived the pandemic. No humans however, have that immunity. Crossing the species procures the possibility of a transfer from bunnies to humans.
How plausible this is, I couldn't really say. But I seem to remember it having some merit when juxtaposed with concerns over xenogenic transplants, concerns which seem applicable here also. Though the probability of this happening may be low, the damage may be astronomical since it could concoct a disease wholly unknown to science.
Re:xenogenics (Score:3, Informative)
I can finaly put my mind at ease...... (Score:5, Funny)
um island of dr moreau (Score:3, Informative)
Haven't these people seen the movie yet?
First Glofish [glofish.com], now this... wtf!
I think (Score:3, Funny)
Heck, with a little more effort, we could recreate the whole Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual!
MMORPG? Pfeh. I vote for Real Life Monster-Fighting Adventures!
blurring what line exactly? (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny how 8 years later, all the arguments in TFA are exactly the lame arguments Noske blasts in that book.
Noske used a neat example of research offered to Amnesty International using pigs to evaluate effects of torture on humans. Pigs make good models, because their skin is so similar -- but wait a second, if they're similar, why don't they have any rights? Oops... from TFA:
Ahem, *Sub*-human says it all: they're below, we're on top. Now don't get me wrong, I had pork for supper. But to assume we're on top for anything besides a food chain is hard to prove (and bible references don't count as proof in my books).
Most of the debate around the ethical problems posed by chimeras assume that distinction, but it never really was there.
This is why Rifkin's attitude makes more sense. What gives us the right to blur the species line in the first place? Why do we insist on splicing fish genes into tomatoes, bacteria into food plants? The risk can not yet be known, and for whose advantage are these apprentice sorcerers working?
OK, I've said my bit, and donned the asbestos underwear. Flame away if you wish
Why is it that.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Chimps and gorillas have far more in common with humans than half of the potential chimeras mentioned in the article will ever do.
Re:Why is it that.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Chimps and gorillas have far more in common with humans than half of the potential chimeras mentioned in the article will ever do."
It's about time someone mentioned this! It's funny how the religious right exists on both sides of the equation in this one. If you mess with the sacred human materi
Re: Why is it that.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Likewise, it is silly to propose rights to children with advanced cases of Down's syndrome, for exactly the same reason. Instead, we should use them for medical experimentation.
And chimps don't practice "infanticide." They prefer the term "total birth abortion."
Slashdot fears tech? (Score:5, Insightful)
- A crime against nature
- A crime against God
- A crime against humanity
- Proof of our lack of morals
- Prelude to apocolypse
This is scientists, making our world better.
Remember, their job?
For those of you who have responded with "Whoa, nay, immoral!" and are also pro-life/anti-abortion, ok, you can go (I'll argue with *you* later, but at least you are consistent). Animal rights types are also excused. For the rest of you, really now, grow up. Even if this was what everyone seems to think it is, a creature magically endowed with half human and half animal DNA, how are you going to justify *NOT* doing it? Superstition? Movies? Old literature? "Just feels wrong?" (like heart transplants, mechanical hearts, vaccines...)
In order to make a case against something like this, you need to show *who is hurt*.
A nonsentient lump of cells? Like the ones grown and killed daily in the service of science? Like aborted fetuses? Like the lab animals that can actually feel pain, but we experiment anyway? These are things I'm in favor of, and many of you as well. If you want to get up in a row about something, there's a lot more dubious things than this concept. Getting upset at new things because they are new is for stupid people.
I expected better from Slashdot, honestly.
Re:Slashdot fears tech? (Score:4, Insightful)
So YOU say, but you do not speak for the entire human race. Think about it.
And how then, would you define what a "person" was?
What rights would something that came from less than 100% human gene stock have?
You have really not even begun to scratch the surface of the biological, political, economic, ethical OR moral perspectives, and yet you just blindly assume that it's all for the good?
I think you might have forgotten why Nobel created the peace prize.
Re:Slashdot fears tech? (Score:3, Insightful)
DNA isn't sacred (Score:5, Interesting)
Now on to the business.
Once again, it comes down to the old question: just what is it about a person, that we value to such an extent that we say it has rights?
If you answer that it has something to do with chromosomes or DNA, then I'm really disappointed. If you're approaching philosophy from the molecular level, you are out on the fringes. I don't give a were-rat's ass if someone programs a chile to produce some protein that I'm not getting/making enough of. But fine, go ahead and try to make a case for why some molecules are sacred and some aren't. At worst, you'll be boring and at best you'll amuse.
For the mystics, it's easy: just ask if the chimera has a soul. Since you don't have any real way of determining that other than dogma, you'll just make up an answer that you can't defend. But your answer can't be attacked, either, so you'll come off looking better than the human-DNA-is-special wackos. (But remember this: just because people aren't arguing with you, doesn't mean they take you seriously. They just don't see the point.)
I know what I value in a person. It doesn't have a damned thing to do with sperm and eggs, or DNA at all. In fact, not all people have what I value; some choose to opt out of civilization. Sit down and make yourself comfy in that electric chair, Ted Bundy. I even pay taxes for the military, with the understanding that I want them to kill people under certain circumstances.
Human behavior itself can cross the line, and you're worried about chemistry?!
If people can cross the line from this side, maybe they can come over from the other side too. I welcome this Frankenstein stuff, just like I welcome AI and little green men from outer space. I'll make up my mind about the "monster" when I meet him.
Nothing new... (Score:3, Funny)
Not hybrids (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, I really don't see what the problem is. Anyone wants to write an angry email to the Pope about the possibility of keeping human organs in glass jars? No? What about metal jars? Plastic? Quartz?
They already did this with mice and humans (Score:3, Insightful)
Who the heck cares?
Every time you pick a mate, you're messing with DNA.
Well, actually. . , the problem is that the control belongs to soulless corps. How long until they start breeding dumber humans with a gene which makes people reflexively want to Buy Useless Crap. Or react poorly to non-GM foods. Or work smarter with fewer complaints. Oh, the list is endless in a lame sci-fi kind of way.
The comforting thing is that they never paid much attention to anything but the most trivial 'augmented soldier' nonsense on Star Trek, which leads me to think that it's probably not much of a problem we'll be needing to make any choices about in our current reality. There's not really enough time left to worry about this kind of thing. --The damage was done back when humans were first written. (Clever adjustments were made, such as linking sexual pleasure to violence, and activating the capacity for a strong sense of jealousy. Among other things.)
-FL
"sophisticated new computer models" (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless there have been huge leaps in our understanding of biology and chemistry, as well as huge advances in mathematics and computer science and increases in computer manufacturing technology-that I am not aware of, this last statement is most certainly not true. If a computer model could replace animal testing, it would be done. Do people just think that scientists enjoy torturing innocent animals"
Honestly, the absurdity of this argument is appalling. There are two alternatives to animal testing, human testing and no testing.
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Cross-Breeding Humans (Score:3, Interesting)
From the "everything2.com" article referenced above:
"liger = male lion + female tiger
tigon or tiglon = male tiger + female lion
mule = male donkey + female horse
hinny = male horse + female donkey (jenny)
zorse = zebra + horse
zonkey or zebrass = zebra + donkey (ass)
cama = camel + llama
catalo or beefalo = buffalo + cattle
yakalo = yak + buffalo
wholphin = whale + dolphin (specifically a false killer whale and a bottlenose dolphin)
Toast of Botswana = goat + sheep
Obviously this deserves some clarification. While a sheep can be impregnated by a goat, the kid/lamb is always stillborn... except in one case in the early 1990s. This animal was nicknamed the Toast of Botswana. Since it was the only one ever known to have lived, no other name has been given to a goat/sheep combination."
are you sure about that? (Score:5, Funny)
Blurring the line (Score:3, Insightful)
This article is very interesting from an animal animal liberation/animal rights point of view. Some of the arguments made on both sides are pretty weak:
The assumption seems to be that if we are able to decide when a chimera becomes human, we have solved part of the issue. Why would knowing that an organism is human make a moral difference? If something is genetically human or not does not make a morally relevany difference unless you take a speciecist position claiming that species membership is morally relevant in itself. No defense of that position has to my knowledge been presented.
Also, it is difficult to see how there can be any new questions of rights since the genetic make-up of an individual is not what grants (or should grant) moral rights in the first place.
The problem with any theory of rights is that it does not take into the consideration the consequences of an action beyond which rights are violated, in this case Rifkin claims that it doesn't matter what medical breakthroughs will result, it is still wrong to cross species boundaries. How does this make sense?
It is also interesting that he believes that animals have the rights not to be crossed with other species -- but who's rights are being violated when that is done? Unless the stem cells being tampered with have rights (how could this possibly be?) it must be the rights of the fully developed chimera which is constantly violated, since it is a cross of different species. But unless the chimera is in some way hurt by being the crossing of two species, what reasonable ground can there be for claiming that its rights are violated anymore than the rights of the mule -- the mixing of a horse and a donkey? Does the fact that humans have deliberately created a new genetic make-up make a moral difference? Why?
The Act bans chimeras only when one party is genetically human. How can this be justified? This is a law, and does not carry any ethical/moral weight, but what possible arguments could lay behind the law? Cynthia Cohen gives us an answer:
"Human dignity", a fancy phrase that sound nice, but is devoid of any meaning. It is the last resort when arguments from a factual basis fail, or maybe a reflection of religious beliefs. She puts it pretty clearly when implying that it would be wrong to "deny that there is something distinctive and valuable about human beings that ought to be honored and protected". This should be denied, vigorously, as it is the basis of much unjustified oppression of non-human animals. Until it is shown what characteristic of humans are "distinctive and valuable" that exists in all humans and does not exist in any non-human animals, there is no merit to the idea of a special human dignity. It is nothing more than poorly masked discrimination on the sole basis of species membership, something which holds
Dying of cancer diminishes dignity! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Eh..? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I read in the article that they're thinking of making a mouse with a human brain? I'm wondering a couple things. A) Is this mouse-person going to have the same experience as a human would, albeit in a mouse's body? Will this hybrid respond to things the same way a human would? B) When do we consider these things human? A human brain in a different organism's body sounds enough like a human to me. If anyone could shed some light on A) or has a legal definition or something for B), fire away!
You Say (Score:5, Funny)
You say Tomorrow!
Let's call th ewhole thing off...
Re:How is this legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
But, by not using the research the people who were tortured went through it for nothing. We can all agree(I hope) that the torture was a horrible act and shouldn't be something that happens in the future, but since it did we should try to at least make some good of it.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Japan discovered curative agents during some of the shit they pulled during WWII on American POWs, which would be more morally outrageous: disregarding whatever useful information that is in there because a few people were killed for it (thus causing even more people NOW to suffer and die when you have the solution in your hand), or cutting your losses so that others may live?
There is so much medical knowledge that we have that has been acquired over time through means that would not make it past the ethics boards of most research institutions. To single one issue out as being too tainted just seems to be even more callous than whatever crimes were committed to get the knowledge in the first place.
Otherwise, we would still be blood-letting people to let the "bad humours" out of their blood (Aristotle's "facts" about human biology persisted for over two hundred years, before a few criminals decided to actually start cutting open human corpses).
A Mouse-Person will not, cannot, by definition, have the same "experience" as a human. We can't even define a uniform meaning of what the "human experience" is in the first place. Your experience is yours, mine is mine. Ultimately, it is no more or less important, or meaningful (or relevant), than my dog's experience.
Might as well start arguing that a blastocyst is fully human. OK, if THAT is fully human, then why is an adult-derived stem cell not?
legality and ethics (Score:3, Insightful)
Because an adult-derived stemcell on itself can't grow into a baby? Ah yes, but maybe you don't consider it as 'fully'? After all, one could also argument that an 22 weeks old embryo isn't 'fully human', or a 9 months old one, or even a baby for that matter.
The fact is, the line you draw between 'fully human' or 'partly human' or 'not human' (especially now with the chimer
Re:How is this legal? (Score:3, Informative)
Also, A lot of America's golden age of the 50's came directly out of stolen german scientists and science. Mengala actually contributed a lto to modern medicine btu through horribl horrible research. Nasa owes the German rocket program a lot, and at the time the Germans were two generations ahead of everybody else in almost eve
Re:How is this legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is basic psychology. The media and politicians, the ones who are heard the most (and therefore representative of our society here in America, albiet NOT correct as most people seem to believe), do relate foreign politics and events by going to what the commoner understands and knows on a daily basis, therfore being more effective. This is not a matter of who we lov
Re:How is this legal? (Score:3, Informative)
In a word, no. *Really* RTFA: "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."
Cogito, Ergo... (Score:3, Insightful)
look for traces of human cognitive behavior.
It wouldn't surprise if sometime in the future that more sophisticated means are developed to communicate with the brain more directly, kind of like an EEG on steriods.
When that happens, probably we'll discover a couple of things that will make people uncomfortable and have to rethink their ethical positions. We may discover human fetuses (simmering pro-choice, pro-life abortion debate) capable of more cognitive ability and we may discover animals (you know, t
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article (and Slashdot summary) are pretty sensationalistic.
These aren't experiments where half human, half animals are created. They're things like engineering mice with human brain cells, or pigs with human organs.
Of course, that won't stop ridiculous hippie and religious activists from breaking out the torches and pitchforks because TEH SCIENTISTS ARE RAPING MOTHER NATURE AND BABY JESUS WITH THEIR UNNATURAL AND THEREFORE MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE EXPERIMENTS ad nauseum. There are even some quoted in the article.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Engineers with rigorous formal training are usually the first to admit that they are not scientists. Engineers with sloppy minds and little formal training think they know it all, or think that what they know in one area is easily transfered to another completely different area.
If you the thought occurred to you that these words might apply to you, then they probably don't. If you're sure that they don't apply to you, then perhaps they do apply.
or is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, maybe, they do understand, but they do not agree?
As I have said before, I dislike this kind of 'if you're not for science, you're against it' mentality. It sounds Bushy to me. I have made several posts in this thread why I still think there are ethical issues, and that some of this (chimera) research should be forbidden. It has *nothing* to do with being anti-science or being non-rational. In fact, you would be hardpressed to find a regular reply/poster to me that would claim I'm not a staunch fan of using rational and logic reasoning. Ask Halo1 if you have any doubts
Yet, I do not agree with a laissez-faire viewpoint, just because it advances science, for the reasons I mentionned in my other posts. I find it hugely disturbing that anyone that opposes some form(s) of scientific research would be deemed irrational, just because he does so. Since when did scientific progress became the new dogmatic principle? *That* is quite unscientific, actually.
" Sure, they can plug a CPU into a motherboard, install a service pack, perhaps even a linux distro. But they're incapable of critical thought (especially reflective critical thought, but that's another story), and have difficulty applying reason or logic."
What I said above: your conclusion (or at least insinuatuion) that because someone is not for it, he is incapable of critical thought and has difficulty applying reason or logic, is premature at best, and flawed at worst. It is just because I think in a critical and rational way (and consistent), that I DO see (ethical) problems, and that I DO think some forms of research should be forbidden.
"Engineers with rigorous formal training are usually the first to admit that they are not scientists. Engineers with sloppy minds and little formal training think they know it all, or think that what they know in one area is easily transfered to another completely different area."
I must confess I usually think I know it all.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:3, Funny)
If we can't reproduce, nobody else should be able to either.
a luddit anti-tech position (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate it likewise, that anyone argumenting against some scien
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
For the most part, you are correct. However, the article does mention that the goals of one of the studies is to create mice with 100% human brains. He said he intended to terminate the mouse before birth, and look for signs of human cognitive activity. If this experiment succeeds in producing human cognitive thought in a mouse, we most certainly have an issue.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Funny)
jobs (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe by next week they'd figure out what colour the "Wheel" should be.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: How is this legal? (Score:5, Funny)
> However, the article does mention that the goals of one of the studies is to create mice with 100% human brains.
And the other mouse will be called "Pinky".
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the size of mice's skulls, I think the term "cognitive activity" was chosen with care and is far, far from "cognitive thought" you've assumed. If such animals were allowed to be born (the researcher plans to kill them before then) they'd be unlikely to be super smart mice, but more likely pretty dumb compared to other mice); we're smarter mostly because we have brains a few thousand times larger than mice, not because of any special virtue of our brain tissue, and our brain cells are certainly not going to be optimal for controlling a mouse's body and living as a mouse.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. [highnorth.no]
Your argument at best is an oversimplification.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument at best is an oversimplification.
These results might be because at the lower end of the scale, the correlation between brain size and body size falls apart. You simply can't have a brain where its size has no lower limit, to still control a body and its organism's behavior efficiently. We'd end up at less than a grain of sand for small organisms.
Do you think it's a coincidence only mice have this strange relation, where whales have not? I don't think so.
So I'm pretty sure the gr
er, right. not wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)
the parent poster was 100% correct. humans do have much brains several thousand times larger than mice, and human brain cells would not be optimal for living as a mouse.
increase the mouse's brain size several thousand times, then there might be an issue with mouse sentience.
it's rather unlikely you're going to get anything approaching sentience from 0.4 grams of brain cells.
It's not what you think (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're envisioning is not possible, and not what the scientist is interested in.
We're not going to end up with a super-intelligent mouse who could speak if it only had the proper vocal chords. Think about the space a mouse has in its skull, and how much room we have, and this will start to make more sense.
He's curious if the mouse's brain is built from human cells instead of mouse, how that will affect its development -- will the cells work more like human brain cells (given the source), or mouse brain cells (given the environment)? The shape of the brain, and the activity patterns, would be interesting to observe and he could gain insights into factors in normal human brain development (and defects in that process).
Unfortunately, the article tends towards a generally thoughtless, alarmist tone (including mentioning these experiments without any explanation...). Personally, I'm not worried.
Re:It's not what you think (Score:5, Interesting)
Put this in terms understood on slashdot - it would be like trying to run a full release of linux w/ all the KDE and Gnome stuff on an 8088 with 4k (as in kilobytes - not megabytes) of ram - oh and using a tape recorder for a storage device.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that mean it's wrong to strive towards true AI? Why is it more ethical to create intelligence in a machine rather than in some human chimera?
In any case, it seems inevitable that at some point in our future, we will have to deal with a non-human intelligence. Whether it is of our construction seems irrelevant. The nature of sentience, and the concept of humanity shouldn't be tied to our physical form anyway.
Gives new meaning... (Score:3, Funny)
"Are we mice, or are we men?"
Re:How is this legal? (Score:3, Funny)
-- The Brain
The best thing for neuroscience (Score:5, Insightful)
Testing in animals is just an approximation to the human brain. Although a very good one. An animal such as this with human cells would optimal to study the effects of drugs, addiction, stroke, brain trauma, virtually any ailment that affects the human brain.
Are we killing people? no! These are mice and rats that we've been euthanising for a long time. They will not be intelligent, they will likely not function as well as normal mice (instincts and such would likely be absent). I think they would most likely be empty shells that have to be fed and watered to keep alive so that a few months down the road, we can use them to find a cure to stroke.
P.S. Note, this is my normal sig. I did not change it for this post. I think it fits well!
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, nevermind.
Re:Moral consistency (Score:5, Funny)
Spoken like a true city folk. Ever been on a farm? Ever heard of the phrase "cow tipping?" Ever actually *seen* a cow? Of all the farm animals you could have chosen, you picked the slowest, dumbest, most sedentary creature of them all. And I'm including hen's eggs. Mice *sperm* are farther up the sentience scale than cows, my friend.
Re:Moral consistency (Score:4, Informative)
Ever done it? I'd bet a bundle you haven't! For those who believe this bullshit (pun intended), take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_tipping [wikipedia.org]
If _you_ had ever been on a farm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Cows can learn to open doors -- no mean feat for an animal that has evolved with no concept at all of manipulating objects (cf dogs which naturally carry stuff) and has then been bred purely for food for a few centuries. Cows can plot a path home from today's field to the shed -- sheep will just stand there and die of cold. Cows can actually learn not to eat poisonous things, which makes them Einsteins among farm animals (horse owners will know what I mean here).
I'd say the only creatures on the farm smarter than cows are the dogs, the pigs, and mayyyybe the cats.
And maybe the people.
Although not in every case.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm, no. It is typical authoritarian thinking which tends to be indulged in by most people.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Back under the bridge, troll.
I am entirely a liberal, and entirely support this type of research, so long as it is sensibly and carefully controlled. Of course, at some point, there might be ethical issues raised, but let's be a little sensible here. Putting a human gene sequence or two into a mouse does not make that mouse some sort of "mini-human".
I could argue that it's typical conservative thinking that it's "tampering with God's order", and besides that, these scientists are considering -gasp- performing an abortion. Really, it has nothing to do with either-it is pro-progress thinkers vs. scared Luddites. And scared Luddites exist on -both- sides of the political spectrum.
Contrary to popular (and apparently your) belief, "liberal" is a DIFFERING OPINION, not a swear word. It is a philosophy, not a negative epithet. Not all idiots are liberals. (Don't believe me? Listen to Rush Limbaugh.) Granted, some are. (I've heard Michael Moore.) However, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore -both- fill their place very effectively-they convince those who are too dumb and sheeplike to examine an issue and form a real opinion. Once again, those people exist on BOTH sides of the liberal/conservative line, and form the majority of Americans now.
And intelligent people exist in both camps, as well. I've met many intelligent conservatives. Demonizing your opposition, however, makes you look more like a rabble-rouser. That is not the way to an informed, reasonable debate.
Re:Ya Gotta Have Faith.. (Score:3, Insightful)
There are ALOT of ethical issues here outside of religeon - so can we PLEASE try to keep this from turning into the usual religeon flamewar?
Err... not a religious issue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone reads The Uplift War and says "oh boy, we can use the good parts of being human to improve our friends
Re:Err... not a religious issue. (Score:5, Funny)
"such a worker would toil in a sweatshop with singlemindedness, as oxen would plow a field."
If that's the case, I'll bet EA is underwriting the research.
Re:Err... not a religious issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ya Gotta Have Faith.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I cannot understand why you have to paint everyone with your ethical and moral brush.
Can you honestly say that you have no problem with this?
Yes? What's wrong in this - if anything, it will help us create human organs that may prolong our lifespans.
If you are that concerned, remember that nature in and of itself has done these things in the course of evolution. And you're probably killing life everyday by consuming plants and animals.
This is no different. You're playing nature and the moral issues associated with it are no different.
If by any chance the chimeras do end up being sentient, we'll find a way of getting rid of that sentience and using them.
*shrug*
useless (Score:5, Funny)
*sigh* when will those scientists ever learn? ;)
Re:Anybody in the mood... (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you say the same of, say, letting a severely deformed child live?
Re:Anybody in the mood... (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly though, I don't care what your moral or ethical beliefs are... this is something that needs watching and a good combination of government and private control. Playing God in a petri dish is one thing, but creating a new species and bringing an unknown consiousnous with who knows what kind of mental trama to bear is just plain wrong. I'm no scientific antagonist, but this is one line that should not be crossed.
Let me play devil's advocate here, and ask: Why shouldn't that line be crossed?
If we could give dogs the brains of humans (uplift-them, David Brin style[1]), why shouldn't we?
Right now, we think nothing of breeding a new kind of corn, or a new breed of dog. For all we can tell, a dog can feel pain, feel happiness, dream, and solve simple problems. Yet, for the most part, we treat dogs as objects, to be bought or sold.
If human-level intelligence is bothering you, adult human beings make decisions every day about creating new intelligent beings. Often the decision was under the influence of mind altering drugs. The first experiment with the mind of a human will at least be brought into this world with much more planning than the average human baby.
[1] Uplifting dogs was mentioned somewhere in the first trilogy, but presumably Earthclan sacrificed the plans in one of the negotations with the galactics.
Re:Anybody in the mood... (Score:3, Insightful)
This hardly sounds like "uplifting" (from the article):
Frankly, I don't trust us not to be cruel, selfish and oppressive. We are not mature enough as a species to reproduce like this (if it's possible to mature to that point).
Re:Anybody in the mood... (Score:3, Interesting)
The atom bomb was not created by physicists who thought they "knew everything". Rather, it was an application of known science to a specific problem, undertaken by the government of the United States. Certainly, the physicists who worked on the Manhattan project were the best and the brightest the US had to offer, and certainly they could have declined to participate (some did, IIRC). But it was not arrogance that motivated the physicists
Animal parts in humans (Non-PC) (Score:5, Insightful)
Once a year, or so, I have a 'flu vaccination. Last I checked, I was told this vaccine is made in chicken eggs. I'm not exactly in the high risk of death from 'flu category, but if killing a chicken fetus protects me from a week of misery, it's the chicken every time.
I understand that rabies vaccine is made in rabbits (I'm remembering this from over 30 years ago, so this may not be current). If I was bitten by a mammal in a country with rabies, I wouldn't worry about rabbit bits & pieces, or even about the life of that rabbit. If it's a choice between the bunny & me, the bunny gets it every time.
Now I hear that spare parts for my body could be grown in an animal.
If the safety issues can be resolved, I see very little ethical difference between making an animal live just so it can be killed for my food, making an animal live to make medicine for me and making an animal live so it can be killed to extend my life.
Re:uh huh.. (Score:3, Insightful)
And, guts and organs give
Re:WHY?! (Score:3, Informative)
> we grasp it a little more before we go shoving
> them into other animals.
It is to understand the human brain that researchers do this, for goodness sake.
Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the whole reason to grow human brain tissue in animals; or would you prefer to experiment on living humans? If it was being done for more frivolous reasons there would be no support at all.
Holy non-appreciation, Batman! (Score:3, Funny)
No kidding. The non-human animals have yet to break 850 on the SAT, so they're stuck in low-paying blue collar jobs. The dolphins have made abacuses out of shells and driftwood, but I'll be impressed when they implement function keys.
Anyway, I gotta go now. I have a chimp friend who's getting married at a church downtown. His mom was going to make him one of those fancy, three-level wedding cakes like humans have. However, she wasn't qu
Re:This is just wrong..... (Score:3, Insightful)
arguments like, vaccination trivializes humanity, vaccination defies the will of god, vaccination contaminates your body with (xyz animal), etc.
your argument has a rather 1800s ring to it.