UK Moves To Allow Human Hybrid Experiments

penguin_dance writes "The UK is apparently rethinking its ban on human hybrid experiments. If approved by regulators, '[t]he move opens the door to experiments involving every known kind of human-animal hybrid. These could include both "cytoplasmic" embryos, which are 99.9% human, and "true hybrids" carrying both human and animal genes.' Previous calls for an outright ban on all human-animal embryos outraged scientists, according to the article, who believe that 'work on human-animal hybrid embryos will greatly speed up progress in stem cell research.' The report claims there will be a provision for regulation of the research to incorporate any 'unforeseen developments.' Let the Island of Dr. Moreau comparisons begin!"

It will happen

[ebusinessmedia1]

Woof! er..... I meant "Hi"

Re:

[setien]

Still, that's preferable to someone sniffing your butt when you first meet.

Re:

[ozmanjusri]

Says Mr Two-legs...

Re:

[duggi]

I am really interested to see the results, jokes apart, cures for some major aliments can be found. This is a really good step taken, but I doubt its success , there will be lot many failures before we get to see something remotely useful. I doubt what average joe's reaction to medicine(or the product for curing a disease) would be.

Re:

[gomiam]

On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog [unc.edu].

Re:Cordwainer Smith & Empire of Man

[Howard2nd]

Well over 50 years ago a British author, wrote of the angst of slave owning and the first requirement of de-humanizing the property. Migrant workers, mine workers, homeless, illegal immigrants; they make us uncomfortable to the degree we find them human and worthy of sympathy. And to the degree we think them less than ourselves, we de-humanize ourselves. In Cordwainer's world, the lovely C'mell helps a young man find his humanity at the expense being a member of the overlords. On the other hand it was genet

There's no need

[Rik Sweeney]

Given my experience on most Friday nights, animal-women hybrids already exist.

I'm such a bitch...

Re:There's no need

[Anonymous Coward]

Given my experience on most Friday nights, animal-women hybrids already exist.

Yeah, well, the average non-slashdot-reader spends his Friday nights in a bar, not in the MMORPG where you live.

Instant dates.

[MikeFM]

I'd buy an animal-woman hybrid if they can produce the body of a teenage girl with the brain of say a cat. Finally a date that is impressed by going to a buffet and that just wants to go home and spend some time licking and petting.

Okay - so I'm married now so I guess I couldn't buy one. I just don't think my wife would let me keep a pet that looked human and especially not one that tended towards being an attractive nude female. It'd be awful hard to explain to the kids too.

Re:

[Nefarious Wheel]

It'd be awful hard to explain to the kids too.

Naw, they'd be too busy clawing the curtains.

Re:Instant dates.

[CmdrGravy]

Sounds ideal although you equally well find your new pet spent all day crouched in a box hissing at you and all night howling in the garden and screwing your neighbours only to turn up in the morning dragging a half eaten child into the kitchen to play with for a while.

It could all go horribly wrong !

Transhuman critters for all?

[AHuxley]

Reminds me of Patricia Piccinini, an Australian artist who made a a set of sculptures called "The Young Family".
http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/31/Patricia_Piccinini/249/ [roslynoxley9.com.au]

Re:Transhuman critters for all?

[noidentity]

Ack, we need a new acronym, NSWE: Not safe while eating

Re:

[burntogold]

Hey now!
I got forced into moving to a fairly remote area of the deep south about a year ago.
Some of the locals would try to take you to court for using images of their family like that!

Lucky for you, I don't think many of them are /. readers. The internet is so new here, this county only got cable modems within the last two years.

Re:

[Hognoxious]

I'm not especially worried about a new generation of anthro pigs being born

Me neither, but don't try patenting them - there's prior art [wikipedia.org]

Bushism comes true?

[Tablizer]

That comment from G.W. Bush on human-animal hybrids was kind of dismissed as whimsical religious paranoia. However, maybe the man had a point after all.

The next generation of terrorists may have tentacles.

   

Re:Bushism comes true?

[BiggerIsBetter]

The next generation of terrorists may have tentacles.

I think it's rather unlikely that the next generation of terrorists will come from Japan.

Speaking of the Japanese...

[n dot l]

The next generation of terrorists may have tentacles.

I think it's rather unlikely that the next generation of terrorists will come from Japan.

Perhaps not, but I think we might be getting closer to who's actually in charge of Gundam here...

Re:Bushism comes true?

[UbuntuDupe]

I'm not so sure. The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture may not be in charge of Gundam, but it has full regulatory authority over tentacle rapist breeding.

Re:

[marcello_dl]

Well, given that Bush appears as a religious fanatic (the textbook false prophet, if you ask me, but I digress) helps in dismissing his ramblings.
In fact my foremost objection to this kind of experimentation is philosophical, not religious.
If I experiment on my fellow humans' genome I'm going to sacrifice an embryo to do research. To save other people? That's what they say, but it really is "to save other people under our terms". Because profit will be made out of this research, because patents will decide

Re:

[Tony Hoyle]

One of the main reasons is organ shortages. You can (with some effort) use a pigs heart in a human, but not for example a pigs kidney. Mix in some genetic manipulation and voia.. a living breathing oinking organ bank.

Never saw the problem with this - no different than eating sausages.

Just lemme know...

[Cyno01]

When the X5s are ready.

There goes the animal metaphors.

[Solokron]

He is hung like a horse! No, I really mean it Tiffany!

Re:

[Tablizer]

He is hung like a horse! No, I really mean it Tiffany!

What would really piss off Tiffany is if the horse is hung like a human.
       

Re:

[AHuxley]

Tiffany: I hopped the lab fence for this???

Most offensive joke ever...

[smellsofbikes]

You say: "Know why Jesus was sexy?"
Everyone says "why?"
You put your arms out to either side, fingers curled inwards, and say "coz he was hung like *this*."

Coo Coo Cachoo

[Tablizer]

Yoko Ono's dream of having an octopus child may become a reality.

Finally!

[greenreaper]

At last the species-dysmorphic among us will have some way of making things right. Plus it would be neat for those of us [wikia.com] who like the idea of anthropomorphic animals.

Better late than never

[jeremyp]

I think kdawson needs to find a better news source. The BBC reported this story more than a month ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6978384.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:

[Sockatume]

It's worse than that, TFA in the original post is about them considering a route to authorising animal-human hybrids. We passed that stage a long time ago. "Olds for nerds"?

Yirmiyahu 31:26

[Apple Acolyte]

"Behold days are coming, says the Lord, and I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with seed of man and seed of beasts."

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[dido]

Actually the relevant verse is Deuteronomy 28:31: "...thine ass shall be violently taken away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee..."

Re:

[Fizzl]

Damn, I was getting my hopes up that I just got a new sig.
However, it turns out there's only 29 verses in Deuteronomy chapter 29.

Re: Yirmiyahu 31:26

[Black Parrot]

"Behold days are coming, says the Lord, and I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with seed of man and seed of beasts."

What has Onanism got to do with this story?

Finally,

[Fengpost]

they make the live action Thundercats movie. I can't wait to see the picture of Cheetara!

Re:

[ZeroExistenZ]

So, basically you want a movie of these [awfulplasticsurgery.com] running around?

Are there no better ways to spend our money

[tgv]

The problems with this kind of research are ethical. So let us consider possible advantages. What is this research for?

a) Rare diseases. Many people die in poor countries because there is no proper health care. Why fund research with possibly far reaching ethical dilemmas that might one day cure some rare disease when there are millions to be saved?

b) Common causes of death. We now reach an average age of around 80. That's enough. There is no point in following Faust's example with the risk of getting us in

Re: Are there no better ways to spend our money

[Black Parrot]

This line of research is not going to give us more insight into nature, nor is it morally acceptable at this point.

I don't know about you, but for me a cell isn't a person.

Re:

[tgv]

From the article:

human embryos modified with animal DNA [-] will also be allowed under licence.

That's a bit more than a cell.

Re:

[Tony Hoyle]

An embryo is a cell pretty much. Then a bunch of cells.

The things are going to be destroyed after 15 days - never gets past the 'bunch of cells' part.

No ethical dilemmas to see here... move along...

Re:

[tgv]

Until someone argues that there could be a great, big promise when we let them develop a little bit more. Just to see where the specialization sets in, how it is different from normal human embryo's. Perhaps we can cure some fashionable disease with it then!

Repeat 17 times and congratulations, you're the proud father of the first Chimera(TM) and my God, will you feel sorry for it.

So stop it, before it's too late. We can always start the investigation again if we stop now, but if we continue, we can't undo i

Re:Are there no better ways to spend our money

[clickclickdrone]

>What is this research for?
Might help find a cure for:
Elephantitus
Dog Breath
Catalepsy
Hare loss (work with me here)

Re:

[stranger_to_himself]

a) Rare diseases. Many people die in poor countries because there is no proper health care. Why fund research with possibly far reaching ethical dilemmas that might one day cure some rare disease when there are millions to be saved?

That argument doesn't hold a lot of water. The reasons people die in poor countries are economic, not due to a lack medical knowledge, so by your logic, all medical research should stop until we've solved third world economics?

b) Common causes of death. We now reach an av

Re:

[tgv]

I would say funds for possibly unethical, dangerous and nonsensical medical research could be applied to better causes.

About the quality of life: I can't imagine giving everyone a stem cell DNA-replacement treatment (or whatever might be the hypothetical outcome of this research) for free. And, on the off-chance that this will happen anyway, it *will* extend life, whether you like it or not, and open up a whole new bunch of disabilities for elderly people.

Re:

[hey!]

But admitting this, your argument becomes circular: research is unethical if it wastes money that could go to solve social problems. Money on research is wasted if the research is unethical.

If you want to bring the effects of research on the poor into this, you must either treat all research equally, or show why this research has effects on the poor that are peculiar to it.

Alternatively, you need to come up with a definition of "useful" that includes pure science but not applied science that may provide n

Re:

[tgv]

No, by unethical I mean amoral. The research starts without knowing what good it is going to do, takes risks, manipulates things people don't want manipulated and will put us up with its outcomes. Furthermore, I don't expect any great insights from research where the basic target is mixing up genes just for the heck of it and see what comes out. Hey, perhaps we can patent it.

The promise of this kind of research is always something medical (treat some disease, basically), never fundamental knowledge.

Conseque

Re:Are there no better ways to spend our money

[stranger_to_himself]

Furthermore, I don't expect any great insights from research where the basic target is mixing up genes just for the heck of it and see what comes out.

Um.. That's bascially all that conventional plant breeders do, and you benefit from that every single day.

Re:

[hey!]

Furthermore, I don't expect any great insights from research where the basic target is mixing up genes just for the heck of it and see what comes out.

Um.. That's bascially all that conventional plant breeders do, and you benefit from that every single day.

Actually, I think plant breeders have a pretty good idea of what they are doing: they cross plants with desirable characteristics. Your argument would actually apply more to certain kinds of pharmacological research where they generate new compounds and

Re:

[hey!]

No, by unethical I mean amoral. The research starts without knowing what good it is going to do, takes risks, manipulates things people don't want manipulated and will put us up with its outcomes. Furthermore, I don't expect any great insights from research where the basic target is mixing up genes just for the heck of it and see what comes out. Hey, perhaps we can patent it.

The promise of this kind of research is always something medical (treat some disease, basically), never fundamental knowledge.

Your pos

Re:

[zippthorne]

Why do you think 80 is enough?

Re:

[tgv]

Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon (Susan Ertz)

Re:

[stranger_to_himself]

Maybe. But I want to live forever. One of the things that troubles me the most is that I'll not get to see the scientific discoveries that are made after my death. I want to know whether there's life on other planets, and talk to artificial brains, and understand the universe. I always think it's unfair that I know more about the world than most of the greatest scientists who ever lived. So 80? Not enough I think. Not for me anyway.

Re:

[tgv]

Me too, but face it: if you can live forever, so can 6 billion other people. And their offspring. Not to be too Malthusian, but we're already stretching the limits of what this planet can bear. Curiousness kills the cat, but it shouldn't kill a planet.

By the way, if there is no extraterrestial life, you're going to have to wait pretty long for an answer.

Re:

[Jtheletter]

Wow, glad you summed up a complex argument, moral dilemma, and vast as yet un-explored research field in two points. I'm hoping you were being sarcastic. If not then you, as a scientist, shift your area of research to only the most massively-important topic of the year every time it changes right? So which cancer are you curing? Or are you working on AIDS research? No? How about increasing crop yields for harsh-climate strains? Hm, inventing cheap potable water conversion techniques, or desalination? Or I g

Re:

[tgv]

It's not just cells. The article says that

human embryos modified with animal DNA ... will also be allowed under licence.

Galileo didn't have this problem. He wasn't asking the pope for funding, much less in a competition for it. If he would have been in a funding competition paid for by the Holy See, I'm sure his request would have been ignored and the money would have gone to another project, and "thus ensure that the winning piece of research is valuable".

Re:

[tgv]

a) Increasing scientific knowledge can be done in a different manner and scientific knowledge is not the highest goal. Complying with Godwin's law: remember the experiments in WWII. They got us a lot of scientific knowledge, e.g. about safe diving depths, but you'll agree that the price wasn't worth it.

b) Faust is not someone to fuck with unless you're Mephistopheles.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Dr. Cody]

...they've already conquered Second Life--now they're setting up for an invasion of the first one, too!

You know it's true

[suv4x4]

1. We're already experimenting with animals, including almost-humans (apes). They have similar self-appreciation, feelings, pain and confusion like you. We're only less sympathetic since they're not EXACTLY like us. But they are, in fact, more like us than we suspect.

2. Experimenting with human embyos, experimenting on people will dramatically further science and improve life for the rest of us (billions). It means we need to come to terms with the fact that humans are animals as any, and experimentation is required. But how do we do that without allowing for genocide? Not simple problem, but unless we solve it, we'll all be victims to save the few from being victims.

Re:

[oliderid]

I would put the problem this way:

- What is a human being? What makes us "Human"? I don't mean biogically, i mean philosophically speaking.
- When do we become "human"? Once an ovule is fertilised?
- When there is some cerebral activities?
- Once the heart starts to beat?
- Are few hundreds of cells already a human?
- Can you already consider it as a victim even if there is no developped organs?
- When a body even without a mind can react to stress?

We all want to live longer, healthy and in a securised environment

Re:

[suv4x4]

and we are inherently superior to animals. That of course does not mean animals are worthless; they are God's creations as well. But they are not people.

That's ok you believe that, as long as you can support it with solid evidence.

Let's leave the proof of God's existence out of the discussion, I want to ask, what means "inherently superior"?

Is it in magical "just so" way superior? Sort of like Aryans are superior to Jews or something?

If you have something else to quite beside the Bible, we're here to hear y

Re:

[kmac06]

It is based in religious belief. I know that's not good enough for you, but I don't care. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm explaining my point of view. By all means, continue mocking my beliefs...

Re:

[suv4x4]

It is based in religious belief. I know that's not good enough for you, but I don't care. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm explaining my point of view. By all means, continue mocking my beliefs...

Well, look, you're the one who came with the claim humans are superior just because [fill blanks], and now escape discussion. Granted, you're free to have all sorts of beliefs based on [fill blanks], but you should expect it to be challenged if it's questionable.

If I gotta give you that: I've no clue if God exis

Re:

[kmac06]

with it the ability to fool the average knowledgeable person has dropped dramatically.

You do realize that some of our greatest minds have been religious throughout human history? Of course that doesn't prove anything, other than the fact that your statement (or rather, what you are implying with it) is nonsense.

Not new

[clickclickdrone]

This has been going on in secret for years. How else do you account for Gordon Brown?

Re:

[3waygeek]

Or, for that matter, George W. Bush [bushorchimp.com]?

Obligatory Quote

[MikShapi]

"I'm Barf, half-Dog and half-Man. I'm my own best friend!"

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

thats too much

[unity100]

im liberal, im humanist, im netizen, im even new ager, kind of hippie, but thats way too much. WAY too much.

Makes me think of Bioshock

[sherriw]

Should we just rename Earth to Rapture right now and get it over with?

Seriously though, I think if we get into these waters we may end up triggering some kind of genetic arms race- I can't even imagine.

I also agree with some other posters- don't we have bigger medical crises to spend money on? How about clean drinking water and fighting malaria in Africa?

Ethics versus Personification

[Bones3D_mac]

Is this really a question of ethics, or just fueling our beliefs that our beloved pets must have emotions/souls? By imposing our own human mannerisms on top of their default primal, instict-driven, action-reaction behavioral patterns, we delude ourselves into thinking our pets would really bother to think twice about eating you alive if the "easier" food sources suddenly became scarce. Sure, you might be able to stop one of them, before the main course starts, but not without enduring a decent amount of dam

So... Let me get this straight;

[d3ac0n]

We spend multiple millions of years crawling out of the primordial ooze to walk on two legs, develop opposable thumbs and a brain large enough to create a civilization that dominates our planet, and now we're gonna start going BACKWARDS? What the hell were the last several million years of evolution for?

Spoiler alert on the unforseen development proviso

[Jtheletter]

The report claims there will be a provision for regulation of the research to incorporate any 'unforeseen developments.'

It's Ripley with a flame thrower.

Britain is morally bankrupt, some red flags...

[Wonderkid]

1) BBC (once a trusted institution) caught fabricating programming, not to mention what the other broadcasters get up to. 2) Crime massively on the rise, with no police action, they are too busy pulling over the sensible middle class for driving 40 MPH in a 35MPH zone. 3) BBC cutting 2500 staff, mainly in 'Factual Programming'. See item 1). 4) Extremist entities being given more airtime than others who have a more constructive and honest message. 5) General massive dumbing down of our society with a focus o

Hello, I'm a human/animal hybrid...

[Anonymous Coward]

...since 60% of my genes are the same of those of a drosophila (fruit flies). BTW I also share 90% of my genes with mouses, not to mention that 98% with chimpanzees. I also have 30% of the genes of yeast, which makes of me a human/fungi hybrid I guess.

No really, people using terms like "human/animal hybrid" or "chimera" when talking about DNA modifications are probably trying to scandalise more than inform.

Re:Dibs on Crab People.

[Tablizer]

I call dibs on the first of the Crab/Human hybrid.

Sorry, Dick Cheney is prior art

-1 Flamebait
       

Re:

[clickclickdrone]

>Yuch. Chowing on someone who tastes like crab is not pleasant.
Girls get really offended when you crack out the Thousand Island Dressing, no idea why.

Re:

[backwardMechanic]

I'm curious now, what sane place have you found to hide?

Re:

[backwardMechanic]

I've just "fled" Blighty for Switzerland, where the people are equally crazy but in a completely different way.

Re:

[glwtta]

Let me get this straight.....I can fuse a human with a shark

I'm really curious to find out what your conception of a "human-animal hybrid embryo" is in this context.

Re:

[Frogbert]

Furthermore once the biological hurdle is overcome would it then be possible graft some sort of "Freaking Laser" to the shark/human hybrid?

Re:

[twbecker]

1 step at a time please. There have been some promising advances with mutated Sea Bass. Hopefully the experience there will translate to the hybrid sharks.

Re:

[Joe Tie.]

The standard of science reporting is now so low that journalists should be deprived of access to modern medicine and technology until they do better, though given the usual standard of their education they would just end up banging rocks together and trying to brew cider from windfalls till the end of time.

One of the funniest comments I've ever seen on slashdot. I've thought the same thing myself, if a bit less eloquently, far too many times to count.

Re:What on Earth does it mean

[glwtta]

In common speech the word "animal" is used to refer to animals that are not humans. There is really no way that anyone did not understand what they meant.

You really are just trying too hard.

Re:

[kestasjk]

Technically they're not hybrids either, because they just mix up the starting stem cells and don't actually mix up DNA. So they're not animal-human and not hybrids.

Let's just call them FRANKENSTEINS, or ABOMINATIONS (caps are mandatory).

Re:

[glwtta]

Technically they're not hybrids either, because they just mix up the starting stem cells and don't actually mix up DNA.

TFA seems to be talking about actual hybrids (they mention that chimeras will be allowed as well, though).

It will only end in tears

[Nefarious Wheel]

It will only end in tears

http://www.egyptgiftshop.com/images/papyrus/paintings/horus3_large.jpg/ [egyptgiftshop.com]

Does it occur to you

[Flying pig]

That in fact the description is intended to be sensationalist? That it plays to the religious fundamentalists who want to stop biological research? That it is NOT an accurate description of what is being done? And that some of us actually are of have been working scientists or heads of research departments, and care about accuracy of reporting because we don't like having our work, or that of others, misrepresented?

Recently we had the case of journos talking up Craig Venter's research as producing "artificial life". I had to read his own original comments to see that he never made that claim, and in fact his own comments agreed with my own Slashdot posting on the subject.

Science is not common speech, and attempts to make it so result in misunderstanding and sensationalism. I don't know who modded this "informative" (presumably the same people who moderated me "overrated" because that doesn't get metamoderated, but whoever you are, you clearly know diddly squit about biology.

Re:

[glwtta]

Science is not common speech, and attempts to make it so result in misunderstanding and sensationalism.

I'm confused. You are saying that the strict technical meaning of "animal" includes humans - fine. So how is "human-animal hybrids" more sensationalistic than "hybrids of humans and other animals"?

To me, the description seems to be technically accurate, if likely to be misinterpreted by some of the non-biologically-inclined readers. Really doesn't seem like they are trying to purposefully obfuscat

Re:

[ZombieWomble]

The goal of a science journalist is to communicate information. "Human-animal hybrid" pretty much perfectly describes what is going on here to the majority of people, and I'm sure nobody who isn't trying damn hard to be pedantic would bat an eye at the slightly non-technical definition.

Re:Hybrids

[qc_dk]

>But allowing a human hybrid to come to term (If possible) I am against.

I will never understand that point of view. If that being is secured a place in a good family (as pet or child), then what is the ethical problem?
Why is it more moral for a child to be created by rape? A crack whores illicit child? A drunken chance encounter? a one night stand?

What is it people abhor so much about a child or a new species created on purpose?

Re:

[Joe Tie.]

Same here. It always struck me a bit like someone who'd prohibit minorities from having kids because they might face the hardships of racism. A kinder, gentler, eugenics movement. Though, even above that it always strikes me when people even think it's possible for it to happen in the conceivable future. The kind of hybrid's we're talking about aren't exactly the most viable fish in the sea.

Re:

[Broken scope]

Who gets to decide what is a pet and what is a child?

Who gets to decide what is human and what is not?

Who gets to decide if its okay to use hybrids for testing purposes since they resemble humans so closely?

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I don't think humanity is currently ready to answer those questions. Maybe i'm just so cynical that I expect people to fear anything that is near human but not quite.

A child borne of a rape/one night stand is still a human.

Re:Hybrids

[n dot l]

Who gets to decide what is a pet and what is a child?

Who gets to decide what is human and what is not?

I hate these arguments. I mean, who gets to decide whether the unusually intelligent should be given freedom or forced to invent things to service the rest of us? Who says the unusually strong shouldn't be forced to do manual labour? Who says slavery is wrong? Who gets to decide that people that suffer from deformities shouldn't be put on display and exploited for public entertainment? These are all things we've already worked out the answers to.

The real question should be: who gets to decide that a trait which has been added to the genome by scientists purposefully rearranging DNA is unnatural and makes something inhuman (and thus not subject to existing moral codes), while the odd mutations that have been caused by exposure to radiation, or pollution, or bad drugs, etc. are natural, and that those that bear said mutations are clearly still human?

Who gets to decide if its okay to use hybrids for testing purposes since they resemble humans so closely?

I always want to add, "Right. Who gets to decide that death row inmates, or the mentally retarded, or people who's skin color varies from our own should not be used for medical experiments?" to that one. This isn't anything new in terms of moral issues. Next!

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I don't think humanity is currently ready to answer those questions.

Humanity could answer those questions just fine if it could assert reason over the urge to declare everything an us or a them, often over the most trivial of differences...but I'm really not arguing with you because I don't have any faith in the general public's ability to think clearly about this.

Maybe i'm just so cynical that I expect people to fear anything that is near human but not quite.

Yeah. With you on the cynicism.

For the record, I don't think avoiding the issue is right either - regardless of the fact that, yes, we're going to screw things up no matter how we approach this (or any other) new field. I mean really, imagine where we'd be if mankind had just sat around discussing the ethical issues of fire, as opposed to learning what it is and how to harness it. True, we'd never have burned all those people at the stake, but...

A child borne of a rape/one night stand is still a human.

Obviously, I think this only gets dragged into the discussion to counter the argument that we shouldn't create creatures that could only face a life of pain and misery - because it's kind of obvious that we're already perfectly capable of taking care of even the most unwanted of our own, though we don't always choose to do so.

Re:Hybrids

[stranger_to_himself]

What is it people abhor so much about a child or a new species created on purpose?

There are lots of good reasons to be worried about this. First, there's no way of knowing what the long term medical, biological, psychological etc outcomes would be for the child. There's clearly no medical need at the individual level for this sort of thing (there might be at the social level, but that doesn't count in medical ethics). There's also no notion of consent, you couldn't retrospectivly ask the child whether they agree to be an experiment. So ethically, at the moment at least, it's a non-starter, even within the existing rules of medical ethics.

I agree though that the "ewww" reaction and the 'abhorrence' is a bit irrational and is not a good basis for policy.

Having said all this, medical and biological sciences will advance, and one day we're going to have to deal with this sort of thing as a real possibility. We should be starting to get the ethics sorted out now.

Re:

[stranger_to_himself]

I don't like abortion at all, but as far as I understand there's no suggestion that these embryos will even be implanted or allowed to get past a few cell divisions.

Re:

[lgw]

In the U.S. stem cell research and cloning are perfectly legal. The ban is on federal funding because it is morally questionable.

And the ban on funding is only on embryonic stem cells, and not because the research itself is (rationally) seen as morally questionable, but because to make a medical product using embryonic stem cells, one would have to deliberately create a human embryo for purposes of harvesting, which should give one pause.

Re:

[clickclickdrone]

>human/eagle hybrids
Suddenly our failed Olympic skier Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards makes sense - always looked like an experiment that went wrong.

Re:

[IndustrialComplex]

You views on evolution are wrong. I'm not saying that to be harsh, but your are making a common mistake in thinking that there are any sort of steps that humanity takes. There isn't a 'plateau' or ideal that something evolves to.

Rather than get into detail, the short of it is this; as long as people are reproducing, humans won't stop evolving.