First Genetically Modified Human Embryo Under Review 509
Wired is reporting that Cornell University researchers genetically modified a human embryo in 2007, but have only recently been gaining publicity as their work is being reviewed. "The research raises a number of thorny ethical questions. Though adding a fluorescent protein was merely a proof-of-principle step, scientists say that modified embryos could be used to research human diseases. They say embryos wouldn't be allowed to develop for more than a few weeks, much less implanted in a woman and brought to term."
404 on Link (Score:2)
fluorescent protein? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:fluorescent protein? (Score:5, Funny)
wouldn't be allowed to develop? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wouldn't be allowed to develop? (Score:5, Funny)
As much as you murder millions of children every night with bottle of lotion and a box of kleenex...
Re:wouldn't be allowed to develop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think not. Most people can differentiate between the potential for life (semen and eggs) and actual life itself (autonomous life including self-replicating cells that may or may not have certain dependencies for life; don't we all?).
For what value of "most people"?
A popular line of reasoning says that birth control pills = abortion because they prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. They may or may not understand what you're saying, but either way they disagree with your definitions. That isn't something that can be resolved (through education for example).
Potential for life? What is life, then? (Score:2)
Without defining 'life' we can't really define whether something had a potential for life in the first place... if y
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So the people against abortion are thinking of a blastocyst
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. It is pretty well understood in scientific circles that the issue of "when life begins" was settled a couple of centuries ago. The answer: It doesn't, at least not on our planet at this time. Life only continues from previous life; it doesn't arise spontaneously from non-living m
Re:wouldn't be allowed to develop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wouldn't be allowed to develop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wouldn't be allowed to develop? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is "human" to you? (Score:4, Insightful)
Forget whether it's "murder" or not for a second (that's an emotive word that will only derail discussion) and focus on the "human" aspect of things, please.
Fertilized embryos and zygotes are living homo sapien organisms--not some other species, right? They're becoming something we all recognize as human, or would given food and shelter?
So what's the other side of that (and ONLY that--no "murder" discussion, please)? They can't feel or understand pain so it's speciesist to give them special treatment merely because they're homo sapiens. Or perhaps, "What's the difference between them and cell cultures removed from your body? Especially if we could clone those?", ignoring that fertilized embryos are becoming human and samples are not?
I merely want to understand, so no flames please. I would like to hear your reasoning and your philosophy, not your anger.
Re:What is "human" to you? (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone has no brain activity, they are often declared dead. That being said, they may still have some nerve reflexed (as do detached muscle cells).
Re:What is "human" to you? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What is "human" to you? (Score:5, Insightful)
We make the decision every day as to what deserves to live and die in the animal kingdom. Being a part of the animal kingdom means that we are not above that, unless there is really no logic behind it. If the argument is intelligence, I submit that a one-year-old pig is more sentient than a one-year-old baby (humans develop more slowly), and would therefore have a stronger "right" to live. If the argument is potential intelligence, then what of mentally handicapped?
Not making an argument, this is just what goes through my head. Again, I like my steak medium rare.
Re:What is "human" to you? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What is "human" to you? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or perhaps, "What's the difference between them and cell cultures removed from your body? Especially if we could clone those?", ignoring that fertilized embryos are becoming human and samples are not?
If you destroy a culture from your body, you remain alive. In the case of an embryo, that culture is their body.
In the end, it does seem to come down to what defines an "individual". The (practically always) new combination of DNA formed during fertilization seems the most explicit.
The situation of cloning from a sample of your own tissue muddles things, though. The fact that tissue doesn't naturally revert into an embryo would seem to be the clearest line here. Once a human has delibrately set the cel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At the other end, a freshly fertilized egg does not have a sense of awareness (at least, none that science can detect or explain).
I think this plays a part in the discussion. The embryo is human, but is an embryo self-aware?
Re:What is "human" to you? (Score:5, Interesting)
When that happens, good bye, humanism.... good morning, Soylent Green!
Re:What is "human" to you? (Score:4, Funny)
Forget whether it's "murder" or not for a second (that's an emotive word that will only derail discussion) and focus on the "human" aspect of things, please.
Fertilized embryos and zygotes are living homo sapien organisms--not some other species, right? They're becoming something we all recognize as human, or would given food and shelter?
So what's the other side of that (and ONLY that--no "murder" discussion, please)? They can't feel or understand pain so it's speciesist to give them special treatment merely because they're homo sapiens. Or perhaps, "What's the difference between them and cell cultures removed from your body? Especially if we could clone those?", ignoring that fertilized embryos are becoming human and samples are not?
I merely want to understand, so no flames please. I would like to hear your reasoning and your philosophy, not your anger.
An embryo is the whole human, although just very young. In its natural state, it WILL grow, form a personality and wreck daddy's car in about 17 years.
That help?
Re: (Score:2)
Religions might also say that the abomination is creating the embryo under circumstances where they cannot possibly survive, not in allowing them to inevitably die a natural death. The latter is somewhat related to the question of whether doctors should be forced to keep a terminal patient alive with extraordinary means. Depends on how they terminate the embryos, I suppose. Either way, though, there are a lot of moral and ethical questions here....
Re:wouldn't be allowed to develop? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are a mass of cells that one day could become human. My sperm one day could also become human, does that make masturbation a crime if I don't make every attempt possible to fertilize an egg?? Is a woman committing murder because she doesn't attempt to get pregnant every period??
Oh
OK
I've noticed it also depends on whether or not the person arguing is the one that has to support it. Seems that people are more than willing to argue against abortion when they don't have to support the child in the end. I agree with the semi-serious argument that all anti-abortion advocates should have to sign up to adopt all the children that their cause prevents being aborted.
That flimsy argument aside, the US recognizes 90 days of development as to when an abortion can occur, so any embryo that is not developed past that point should be able to be terminated in the US without receiving any permission from a legal authority. The US does not define what methods are acceptable for creating embryos, both natural and artificial means are accepted. So whether or not an embryo is in a placenta or a petri dish should also be irrelevant. Since embryos can be frozen for years, it should be based on physical development, not length of time.
Re:wouldn't be allowed to develop? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that point is often chosen because it's not arbitrary. It's a significant developmental event. Twelve hours before, three weeks later; those are arbitrary points. Your second example of an arbitrary point, when the baby is born, isn't arbitrary either. A true arbitrary point would be something like "after the first trimester."
There's a few other significant points in the development of a baby, such as first mental activity, first heartbeat, and so on. Those aren't arbitrary either. They may not be the correct basis to distinguish a human from a fetus, but they aren't purely subjective.
Re:wouldn't be allowed to develop? (Score:5, Interesting)
> as the point a fetus becomes human. I have just as much basis for that
> statement as anyone who chooses fertilization.
Lots of logic problems here.
Fertilization is the only logical point to draw a line ans say HERE is where a seperate entity begins. Sperm is just a part of you, the egg is just a part of her. When they meet something is created that isn't either of you. Consult a basic biology text is this isn't clear; The parts about immune system issues between the fetus and mother should be especially instructive.
Time of birth is unsuitable for a multitude of reasons. First off, a child a few days from delivery would have an almost 100% chance of independent survival with modern medical science. Happens all the time, some trauma forces an early delivery, etc. But the current legal regime, and your stated position, would allow the same baby who could equally be delivered and have an almost normal chance of a productive life to be aborted instead. Fairly major ethical problem.
Of course we (in the US) live in a Republic that clearly has birth as the legal definition of citizenship. Says so right in the Constituition. The legal problem can be fixed of course.
> I've noticed it also depends on whether or not the person arguing
> is the one that has to support it.
This is a popular straw man argument. First off, once you conclude you are dealing with a child and not a tissue mass support is a given. After all you can't legally kill off a two week old by denying it basic life support. If you accept the child argument it is totally consistent. Besides, there are long waiting lists to adopt so the argument fails anyway.
> That flimsy argument aside, the US recognizes 90 days of
> development as to when an abortion can occur,
It is getting harder and harder by the year to find a legal scholar who won't admit Roe v Wade wasn't one of the worst cases of legislation from the bench in the 20th Century. Depending on such a dubious 'ruling' isn't exactly an appeal to reason. Besides, medical science has advanced a lot since the 1970s and will only continue. Arbitrary 'viability' cutoffs are dangerous ground to stake out firm moral or even legal positions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I tend to side with the quite-serious argument that if people could not have abortions, they may abstain from sex more often or pursue another form of birth control.
You feel that way because you are too young to remember a time before Roe v. Wade. Abortion and infanticide have been around since the dawn of time and, in fact, are the natural actions of a hunter-gatherer society.
The sole benefit derived from legal abortions today is that the woman stands a much better chance of surviving the procedure. To assume that people, denied that benefit, would simply stop having sex is entirely ignorant of human nature, past history, and your own throbbing biological urges.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I find assuming one's conclusion and then imagining that anyone is bound by that is not only poor form, but pretty goddamned intellectually lazy as well.
If an embryo only a few weeks old is a human being, then are HeLa [wikipedia.org] cells human as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's not only a question of whether or not killing embryos at this stage would be wrong, it's als oa question of what the consequences of not carrying out this sort of research. would it morally/ethically be wrong to stifle this kind of research to protect the life of these embryos while millions suffer and die from diseases that could have been treated using this research? I'm not advocating one position or another in this case, just pointing out the other side of this.
To answer your first point, no, it is ethically wrong to force even 1 person to give up their life for others, be it 2, more, or less, unless they agree.
So it all comes back around to defining what a person is.
If it is a person, it is wrong to kill it, otherwise its fine. That is the only part the debate is over anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Just wow. This must be the most valid point to strenghten your position in a discussion. "If you do not agree with my above statement, you must be also part of this other group I loathe with all evil and despicable people and followers according to my processing ability of what I believe is factual data, where I take emotion entirely out of the equation."
I must say, you're a strong conversationalist.
btw, I li
Re:wouldn't be allowed to develop? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what IS the cost if an 80 year old billionaire is funding the research for treatment that will benefit everyone else, except a billionaire's money?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No more or less so than a white blood cell. But we don't define cutting yourself as mass murder.
The relevant question is whether it's a "person", not whether it's technically alive or technically human. The embryo has substantially less claim to being a "person" than does a brain-dead body.
Invalid arguement (Score:4, Insightful)
First, you lump all religious people (hint: this is most of the planet) into the category of "people who cause genocide." Second, you offhandedly pronounce that, on the whole, the effects of religion are evil. Then, you conclude that religious viewpoints should not be heard. I say that you can't back up any of those statements.
It would be just as easy to out-of-hand dismiss Slashdot users (the only group I can knowingly lump you into) as incapable of reasonable political debate.
The fact is, this is an ethical question. It presumes that human life is valuable, and asks whether embryos qualify, and then asks how their interests balance against the other considerations.
The idea that human life IS valuable is just as much a belief as the idea that embryos do or don't qualify as humans. Whether you call that belief "religious" or not, it's still a belief.
I happen to believe that human life is valuable because we "are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." I make no argument about the faith of the Founding Fathers, but they did start with that premise. If you toss out the Creator, I assume you have some alternate rationale, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that any religious basis for valuing human life is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Point out where I said this wasn't an ethically ambiguous question? Granted my comment was made hastily; I was splitting my attention between 3 things. Given the detailed history of religious followers to shoot first and refuse to ask/answer questions later, I personally give little value to their opinions.
It would be just as easy to out-of-hand dismiss Slashdot users (the only group I can knowingly lump you into) as incapable of reasonable political debate.
I'm not here to have re
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People who are allegedly not religious (as in practicing a religion) are usually just as religious as anyone else, or even more so, when it comes to the issues they care about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What constitutes stupid and backwards? Religion does not necessarily mean lack of rational thought, it can serve as a container for a value set that have rational backgrounds. Rational ideas like human equality and fundamental rights in the US grew out of the religious belief in nature's God. Also progressive opinions do not necessarily result from rational thinking - for example the idea
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There are already too many people on the planet as it is, and thousands of them die on a daily basis. There is no "magic" to creating life and the resources (Sperm and Eggs) are plentiful. Might as well get something from the resources via scientific study, instead of just letting them go to waste.
Re: (Score:2)
This is where I was coming from with my original comment. Ones religion is between them and their God(s). Leave the rest of the world out of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
what's with the link (Score:5, Informative)
Why not allow them to be implanted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not allow them to be implanted? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why not allow them to be implanted? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why not allow them to be implanted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not allow them to be implanted? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why not allow them to be implanted? (Score:5, Funny)
scientific experiment > mommy was drunk
for a lot of people. YMMV.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not allow them to be implanted? (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Brown [wikipedia.org] (first in the world)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Jordan_Carr [wikipedia.org] (first in the US)
Re:Why not allow them to be implanted? (Score:5, Insightful)
That would depend on how I turned out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dunno how I feel about this. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dunno how I feel about this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Right and wrong are not cultural (Score:5, Interesting)
If right and wrong are culturally defined (not just specific application, but the general principles), I would argue that they don't exist. There is a big difference between "I/we prefer you don't do X" and "X is wrong."
Imagine that you're walking down the street and trip on someone's foot. You're annoyed, right? Now imagine that you realize the person tripped you on purpose, and is laughing. Now you're indigent. Tripping people is wrong!
Clearly your anger has less to do with the pain of falling than with your deep-seated feeling that "it's wrong to harm others." You would not describe this as a preference.
Whatever we say about the source of morality, I think everyone feels that certain things are simply wrong. To deny this removes an important aspect of what it means to be human.
I know that someone will say that different cultures have different concepts of morality, but I don't buy it. There are different applications, yes; but no culture values cowardice and treason and murder. Some cultures defend their genocide and slavery by arguing that the victims aren't human, for example, but they do this because they must justify their actions against the standard that genocide and slavery are wrong. Our instinct to make excuses shows that we agree with the standard.
Cool! I have a list of human mods already! (Score:5, Funny)
Number 1: More intelligence. Hoo boy do we need this one implemented ASAP.
Number 2: Respiratory bypass system. No more choking to death on pretzels.
Number 3: Two hearts. Works for the Time Lords, howzabout it working for us?
Number 4: Reinforced cerebral circulatory system. No more strokes.
Number 5: Smarter immune system. Get rid of cancer and AIDS before they start, no more auto-immune diseases.
Number 6: Smart metabolism. Good-bye unwanted pounds, save your ass if you crash in the Andes without making your co-survivors menu items.
And so on. Look, we can stand some species improving. Save the default in the genes as a backup and let's get splicing here.
Re:Cool! I have a list of human mods already! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Cool! I have a list of human mods already! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are many things we do not know, but many we do. Why not make beter people? I see it no different that giving antibiotics for strep throat, or immunizing against the flu.
We have upset normal genetics with life saving medicine so as to prolong the life of beings that really shouldn't be from a strict Darwinian sense.
If we can make stronger, smarter
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> of humans? Why wait millions of years for evolution to fix things that
> are obvious?
Because we are currently clueless. When it comes to understanding how biology actually works we aren't even close to being ready to do more than randomly tinker and watch what happens. That is fine for plants and unless you are a PETA member you are probably OK with that for aminals up to some point where most people go YUCK! The exact poi
Could Be Worse (Score:5, Insightful)
There are parents who know they have medical problems related to their genetics, and yet are still selfish enough to "try for one" instead of adopting one of the 50,000+ or so that die of starvation somewhere in the world.
There are people out there who believe that having a baby can help save their relationship / marriage, and so create a whole human being just so they don't have to face up to the fact that they don't belong with somebody.
There are a host of ethical issues about this genetically modified human embryo, but nothing worse than already exists in the world today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Before trying to create a master race, name me one person that doesn't have some genetic medical problems. Where do you draw the line?
- High blood pressure?
- Flat feet?
- Short or far sightedness?
- Hearing difficulties?
- Sleep apnea?
- Cancer in the family?
- Heart disease in the family?
- Obe
If they are not self aware, why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
At this age they are not self aware. Basically they don't know they exist. I don't see the difference between studying an embryo of that age and studyng plants.
We are already using animals that are aware of their existance in labs. Apes can recognise themselves in front of a mirror and we are using them so I feel this is really not a big issue and we should let science go ahead.
Now I'm going to start a very heated debate. We know that babies start to be self aware around the age of 2 so if you really want to test my logic I'll tell you my opinion. We could logically use babies to make tests. Why this horrifies people is because they are attached to their own babies but since these newborns are not sentient yet, where is the harm in using "lab babies"? They would have to be grown in artificial wombs and all that to dehumanize them but logically it shouldn't be stopped.
I might be modded down for opening a can of worms but try to have fun with this ethical puzzle.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, assuming wild swings in opinion over time (as tends to happen), would you be more concerned about chimpanzees being granted full human rights (something I consider overly drastic), or about the severely retarded (and I mean severely - minimally functional vs a funny-looking slow guy who can't make it on his own) having their rights downgraded due to missing critical elements of a human mind
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And once we're there, it's only a stone's throw to cloning complete organisms for organ harvesting for transplants - and vat-grown beef, pork, lamb and even long-pig.
Actually, on the subject of cloning for organ harvesting, I see no reason why that couldn't be done provided brain development was suppressed...and maybe the reproductive system t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We know that babies start to be self aware around the age of 2
Citation needed. We don't give rights based on ability, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a world where what you were capable of determined your legal status. We tried that once [schoolnet.co.uk] or twice [hnn.us], wasn't pretty. Even if babies weren't sentient, that still wouldn't make it ethical.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't create a law purely from logic. You can try to create a system of laws derived from as few subjective value judgments as possible, but then you end up blindly overriding some concerns with others, ala Libertarianism.
That's kind of a tangential debate, so we don't have to beat each other up on that.
Making irrelevant (is there a verb for that?) the emotional link between mother and child would definitely crucial in infant experimentation. I don't thi
After market upgrade genome (Score:2, Informative)
If pets look like their owners... (Score:2)
LIES (Score:2)
Just because you can doesn't mean you should (Score:4, Interesting)
Few people would object to using genetic manipulation to eliminate diseases or birth defects. What about homosexuality? Or dark skin? Or some other socially marginalized trait that has no bearing on the genetic fitness of the individual? What effect would "enhanced humans" have on a society built by "mundane" humans?
I personally believe we don't yet have the wisdom or foresight necessary to manipulate our genes. Until we can reach some sort of ethical consensus on the how, why and when of human genome manipulation we should collectively say no.
Re: (Score:2)
Or turn it around:
We will never know if we are wise enough for something until we try. We have no outside source to consult, no oracle to give guidance, no teacher to give us passing marks. Internally there will always be those who are not ready, who will not want it.
In fact, I will disagree with myself slightly and say we
You're a couple thousand years too late (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. What do you think the thousands-of-years-old practice of arrangement marriages was all about? Not strictly village economics. Parents also sized up prospective mates for their kids based on the health, history, and talents of thei prospective mate and his/her family. Yeah, yeah, eugenics. Except, that's exactly what it is, and was for a long time.
We can (the old fasioned way) make new specialized
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The steady flow of which, in a particular vein, causes different populations to adapted over time. There's a reason that Inuits look the way they do. I guarantee that if you take someone with a sub-Saharan diet and available nutrition, but raise them in Norway eating herring cold weather root vegetables, they will not become pasty pale, and grow blond hair. Neither will the Norwegian, transplanted to Papua, take on the local look - no matter what she
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we can reach a consensus on ethical issues. After all, we've done it before. How many cultures used to sanction slavery as part of a viable economic model? I think we've pretty much rejected that today. In the same way I think we can reach a consensus on specific ways to use genetic engineering in humans. It won't be easy. Nor should it be. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees. Bu
I, for one, welcome our glow-in-the-dark overlords (Score:2)
I am sick and tired of the word "embryo" (Score:5, Informative)
There are *2* stages of development before the blob of a few hundred cells is considered an "embryo". First, there's the formation of the zygote after fertilization, and then there's the formation of the blastocyst. The blastocyst is basically a hollow fluid filled sphere consisting of an outer layer of trophoblast cells which eventually become the placenta and an inner blob of cells called the embryoblast which eventually forms the embryo after the blastocyst phase.
When talking of "embryos", scientists are usually talking about the extracted embryoblast cells which are pluripotent stem cells. These cells are *NOT* viable and are just that : cells -- they're not going to grow into a baby, or an "embryo" for that matter. Even I would be upset if it were found out that the real embryo, after the start of cell differentiation, had been tampered with.
To conclude, stem cells are not embryos -- they're just a multiplying blob of undifferentiated pluripotent Human cells and as such, they should be put in the same class as pond scum, although pond scum is actually far more highly developed -- the aforementioned stem cells cannot survive outside of a Petri dish (unless they're implanted into another nutrient source, such as the Human body for purposes of healing)
jdb2
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no problem with stem-cells being collected from an embryoblast to create a culture. However, if the cells of a zygote or embryoblast are genetically modified in place without disrupting its structure so that it would develop into an embryo if allowed to proceed along its current course then it falls into a gray area. The article doesn't make it clear exactly what was d
Re:I am sick and tired of the word "embryo" (Score:5, Insightful)
Many would accuse you of dodging the issue with that definition. The problem is that to get those stem cells, a fertilized human egg is, at some point, stopped from developing farther. If life begins at conception, trying to tell people you only killed a blastocyst, not an embryo, isn't going to do much for you.
Re:I am sick and tired of the word "embryo" (Score:4, Insightful)
I would be against genetically modifying a viable human fetus, or even something that would normally develop into one. However, I wouldn't be against culturing human cells, and would love to hear that they're growing kidneys in a lab someday.
But when you're doing experiments on individual stem cells, it becomes hard to tell those two situations apart, and our common-sense notions of morality get befuddled. It's like an ethical version of quantum mechanics.
Axolotl Tanks (Score:2)
Re:WHAT HAS SCIENCE DONE? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:WHAT HAS SCIENCE DONE? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:WHAT HAS SCIENCE DONE? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:WHAT HAS SCIENCE DONE? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Like when and where they are produced.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahahahahahaha, oh the flamewars this will cause!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So does god send unborn yet dead people to hell or heaven?
If he sends them to heaven then its sweet deal for the person involved.
If he sends them to hell... Well... I'm not sure if that is a kind and loving god. Could you worship something like that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:'Ethical Issues' (Score:5, Insightful)
Genetic modification holds the promise and the threat of changing the face of humanity. Literally in some ways. But the real problem isn't just making green people but people that are not human and do not share humanity with the rest of the people on the planet. This is a fundamental point; we can have a society because of a shared heritage. Messing around with things that at this point we have little knowledge of is an open invitation to creating a branch of the human species which shares no common heritage.
What would we, meaning the current humans on the planet, do with someone that was both human and not human? Not human because they, for example, believed and acted like they were a superior form of life and that all others were placed within their view for their own amusement? OK, one such being would be a curiosity. 100 would be a threat and 1000 would be a war. What part of the Star Trek episode "Botany Bay" did you not understand?
I'm not sure I would say this is an "ethical" problem, but it certainly is a problem that we do not have to address. We can choose not to go down this road. We, as the humans on the planet, must not go down this road as it stands a really good chance of leading to disaster, potentially on a global scale.