Scientists Are Making Human-Monkey Hybrids in China (technologyreview.com) 210
glowend shares a report: In a controversial first, a team of researchers have been creating embryos that are part human and part monkey, reports the Spanish daily El Pais. According to the newspaper, the Spanish-born biologist Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, who operates a lab at the Salk Institute in California, has been working with monkey researchers in China to perform the disturbing research. Their objective is to create "human-animal chimeras," in this case monkey embryos to which human cells are added. The idea behind the research is to fashion animals that possess organs, like a kidney or liver, made up entirely of human cells. Such animals could be used as sources of organs for transplantation. The technique for making chimeras involves injecting human embryonic stem cells into a days-old embryo of another species. The hope is that the human cells will grow along with the embryo, adding to it. Izpisua Belmonte tried making human-animal chimeras previously by adding human cells to pig embryos, but the human cells didn't take hold effectively. Because monkeys are genetically closer to humans, it's possible that the new experiments could now succeed. To give the human cells a better chance of taking hold, scientists also use gene-editing technology to disable the formation of certain types of cells in the animal embryos.
Geez... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Geez... (Score:5, Funny)
They could become slashdot editors?
Or Congressional reps (Score:2)
Pretty sure a couple of these are already in Congress.
Wrong is one of two ways it could go (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about it. We cloned Dolly the Sheep in 1996, and it was widely reported that a Chinese scientist cloned monkeys a year and a half ago.
That's just what we know has happened. Genetic splicing and dicing could be the end of us; or, perhaps the adaptations necessary for life off planet will be created from it.
I know one thing. Don't bet against the life form so encumbered with its own mortality that it has a doomsday clock. Wait until we're splicing human DNA with the tardigrades.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of things could go wrong. None of them sufficiently interesting to make a movie about.
The vast majority are of the form: And then the monkey died.
But possibly you were thinking something more Michael Bay'ish.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of things could go wrong. None of them sufficiently interesting to make a movie about.
The vast majority are of the form: And then the monkey died.
But possibly you were thinking something more Michael Bay'ish.
And then the monkey EXPLODED!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You might be interested in how this process produced "unexpected" cellular fusion events when performed with porcine/human chimeras some years back. This resulted in transfer and humanization of Porcine endemic retrovirus, which is normally not possible.
https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
The same is likely to occur here as well.
The risk of creating new zoonotic pathogens is very high, as is the risk of introducing unwanted genetic material.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know this is kinda late as a reply but still--
Cloned gonads are kinda a needed thing for people who have had sex change operations, since once organ manufacture is a thing, "correct" replacements become possible.
There is also the whole "Uterine transplant" phenomenon for women who have had emergency hysterectomies from sustaining injuries, or who have congenital defects that require such measures for their fertility.
It's not really so far fetched to look a little further into the future, and see that as a
Do you want Planet of the Apes? (Score:4, Funny)
This is how you get Planet of the Apes.
Not really (Score:5, Informative)
So far, no part-human part-monkey has been born. Instead, the mixed embryos are only being allowed to develop for a week or two in the lab, at which time they can be studied. That is according to Estrella Núñez, a biologist and administrator at the Catholic University of Murcia, in Spain, who told El País her university is helping to fund the research.
and
Pablo Ross, a veterinary researcher at the University of California, Davis, who previously worked with Salk on the pig-human chimeras, says he doesn’t think it makes sense to try to grow human organs in monkeys. “I always made the case that it doesn’t make sense to use a primate for that. Typically they are very small, and they take too long to develop,” he says. Ross suspects the researchers have more basic scientific questions in mind. Injecting human cells into monkey embryos could address “questions of evolutionary distance and interspecies barriers,” he says.
Is China running out of political prisoners? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought they had all the organs they need from all those folks who've been tossed into prison for disagreeing with the government. Maybe they figure it will be cheaper to grow-to-order so they can just kill the prisoners and save the cost of incarceration.
Also displaying their corpses to educate children (Score:5, Insightful)
At the time, I idly thought it was odd that all of their eyes looked east asian; I thought maybe it was some artifact of the preservation process. Then I went online and looked it up.
The funny part is the truly relentless capitalism of it all. Sorry, I meant "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The organs tyou refer to might not be compatible with human-monkey hybrids. What do you do, for example, if you're Jack Ma and you need a new liver?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you do, for example, if you're Jack Ma and you need a new liver?
Search on Alibaba perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that is an american myth.
Organs are only harvested from people who face the death penalty, and that are:
a) government corruption at high scale
b) gang crime
c) murder
d) rape - depending on the case
Disagreeing is not a crime, protesting might be, and the penalty is "schooling detention", not "organ harvest".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that is an american myth. Organs are only harvested from people who face the death penalty, and that are: a) government corruption at high scale b) gang crime c) murder d) rape - depending on the case
Disagreeing is not a crime, protesting might be, and the penalty is "schooling detention", not "organ harvest".
Do the Uyghurs and Falun Gong members whose organs have been harvested [wikipedia.org] fall under any of your categories a), b), c), or d)? I rather suspect that most of them do not. Besides, in China the only qualification for a citizen to face the death penalty, is for that citizen's death to be useful or convenient for the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike popular believe, China has independent courts of law.
Your link is about _illegal_ death penalties and potential harvesting, not about a standard practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we that far out on the tech tree already? (Score:1)
"My gift to industry is the genetically engineered worker, or Genejack. Specially designed for labor, the Genejack's muscles and nerves are ideal for his task. And the cerebral cortex has been atrophied so that he can desire nothing except to perform his duties. Tyranny, you say? How can you tyrannize someone who cannot feel pain?" -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang, "Essays on Mind and Matter"
Is one of those organs a human brain? (Score:1)
Monkey with four asses? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I just hope to see Manbearpig soon.
Re: Monkey with four asses? (Score:2)
Haven’t we seen this before? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Bring on the future (Score:5, Informative)
Ethics and morality are the calculus of human happiness vs. suffering or, more generally, the suffering vs. happiness of conscious creatures. In this case, one lesson to be learned (or rather, highlighted) might be that hundreds of thousands of people die every year because our laws and culture are not properly incentivizing organ transplantation. Is anyone going to read this story and try to address that? Are they going to brainstorm about various ways to culture cloned human organs without risking the suffering of other conscious creatures, or at least minimizing that suffering?
Or, you know, are people just going to retreat into their neo-Luddite caves and spew Planet of the Apes / GATTACA / Jurassic Park quotes all day long and pretend that the real problem is that this feels icky and strange and new, and that the proper response to the fear of the unknown is to simply avoid progress?
We were predicting this would probably unfold in China or Russia even before CRISPR came along, for this very reason. And this is what scientists are doing *openly*. Imagine what they are planning to do, or are already doing, clandestinely. There are millions of rich parents in the world who are not opposed to the concept of having kids that are smarter or otherwise gifted. What's your plan of action for dealing with these people? Just keep wagging your finger and feeling "disturbed"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In case you did not know, Hedonistic is basically maximal happiness. So the ethical decision is driven by the result (where the result is one that maximises happiness.)
Of course one of the main problems is it does require seeing the future as some decisions intended to bring happiness d
Re: (Score:2)
And all of them are wrong. Or more accurately so mypoic as to be useless in any practical way.
It's not "hedonism" to talk about happiness (Score:3)
Deontology however simply says there is right and wrong the ethical decision is to do what is right regardless of the consequences.
With arbitrary whims used to set those rules. I don't say that we can directly quantify happiness or suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no God. Therefore what is or isn't ethical is entirely up to us to decide. We don't have the luxury of ducking responsibility for our decisions "because God".
Throwing God into the mix is a cowardly way of avoiding ultimate responsibility for deciding what is and isn't right. And that would still be true is god did exist.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that's total bullshit. No one has yet invented an ethical system of any significa
Re: (Score:2)
There is no God, we therefore create meaning, and then have a responsibility to that meaning that we made up, in an already known to be meaningless world? Your meaning is as meaningless as your statement.
Smart enough to deny meaning comes from God but dumb enough to stand by the one you made up, in his absence.
Re:It's not "hedonism" to talk about happiness (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no great need to rush human-monkey hybrids without understanding and accounting for risks.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Hundreds of thousands of people dying every year on transplant lists is a need to rush. This need directly motivates both the families involved and the scientists.
And I *specifically* mentioned two ways in which we might try to avoid ethical/moral problems involved with such hybrids: figure out how to overhaul our laws and culture so more people become organ donors, or else figure out how to culture organs without creating hybrids that are capable of whatever suffering we fear they might endure (or might inflict on the humans, for the Planet of the Apes fans out there.)
Creating new life forms, hybrid genes, bioforming essentially is playing God with Nature in ways humanity has failed, MULTIPLE TIMES, with disastrous consequences. Cane toads on down, you disregard this all.
It's succeeded MULTIPLE TIMES as well. We fixed the ozone layer. We've decontaminated at least some areas. We've successfully wiped out some introduced species. The luddite option is the non-option for people who care about getting shit done. You began by denying the urgency and suffering for the millions of people who lost a loved one because they couldn't get an organ transplant From this foundation of profound ignorance/dismissiveness , you've built a tower of moral idiocy.
I don't advocate one particular course of action here. (Beyond "progress, done as safely as feasible.") I advocate being able to correctly perceive and reasonably discuss the issues at hand. Because if you don't, others will. The Chinese oligarchs will not give a shit about your queasiness.
Re: (Score:2)
We fixed the ozone layer
Well, it's fixing itself, slowly, I should've said.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese aren't affected by your fawning either way, nor apparently are they concerned with western medicine's ethical concerns. So it's moot.
This is a thesis I've repeated like 4 times in this thread alone. This is absolutely central to fucking everything I've said. I'm advocating people try to figure out sane/ethical progress (because progress is coming whether we want it to or not), and repeatedly offered alternatives people should be thinking about advocating in light of stories like this, including reforming transplant law to decrease the demand for this tech.
Your reading comprehension is abysmal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or just continue wasting your life as a blithering AC trying to put words in my mouth. I'm sure history will look very fondly on the highly productive outrage an
Re: (Score:3)
That's not really a refutation of what he said. His point was that human meddling can produce positive results. The resurgence of the problem doesn't imply that our failure to meddle would have produced better results, or that further meddling won't produce a positive result.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with his argument is that all of the examples he provided were problems created by man's meddling to begin with. I still largely agree with his point, I don't believe that our "playing God" is inherently bad, I just think his examples unintentionally show both ends of the problem, which speaks to the argument I'll be making...
Err, you want me to give you an example of us improving the earth/biosphere on an ambitious scale, excluding any case of our fixing damage that we've previously caused? Well... I could come up with some arguable examples, but pretty much any such example would be dismissed out of hand by most greens, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Growing organs in animals using this technique has issues.
https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
Rushing something that has yielded such strange fruit in the lab is not sensible. Understanding how these cellular fusion events have transpired is essential if this is to become a valid technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Understanding how these cellular fusion events have transpired is essential if this is to become a valid technology.
Right. I await your explanation as to how we can better understand these events without doing more experiments.
If this isn't seeming like a likely avenue of success, that's another argument entirely but the underl
Re: (Score:2)
In my mind, we are right on the cusp of GATTACA. The commoditization of the requisite technology is happening right now in the labs of a multinational company near you. The cultural ideology of forcing children to excel at all costs grows stronger every day.
In fact, the movie showed a rather mild version of what is possible, with doctors fertilizing 50-100 eggs in Petri dishes and a genetic counselor helping the parents review the portfolios of the most promising 5 or 6 to decide which to implant. It is
Re: (Score:2)
The cultural ideology of forcing children to excel at all costs grows stronger every day.
Giving someone genetic advantages and "forcing them to excel" are two very different things. It may turn out to be true that "tiger parents" will be more drawn to "genetic enhancement" than the rest, but that doesn't mean that the technology is inherently cruel to the offspring.
Will there be medical side effects and nasty social issues and mountains of lurid headlines along the way? Of course. I mean, *of course* the technologies will be rife with unforeseen issues and social tensions. The point is... we
Re: (Score:2)
Most genes have side effects. ... that is a 7. myth.
Nope
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your citations first please ... unfortunately you can not proof a negative :P
Re: (Score:2)
And this is because you choose impotent (ig
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they do, if they only concentrate on genetics when they try to avoid progress, they can still lose. There are plenty of other horsemen of the Partial People Apocalypse:
* Genetic engineering to get actual
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The argument should be about how to make progress in that area while avoiding whatever pitfalls you're afraid of. If you begin by denying that there is any progress at all to be had in experiments like these, you've cut yourself out of the real. debate that's going on and allied yourself with the ultimately impotent finger-waggers. People won't stand by at the sidelines and suffer in sile
Re: (Score:3)
I already presented potential alternative solutions, several times. My thesis is that you need to stop sticking your head in the sand. My thesis is people like you are cutting yourself (and by extension, most of the western world) out of this debate entirely by refusing to engage with the actual problems that these solutions are
Re: (Score:2)
What you call "refusing to engage" might simply be waiting, animal.
You are advocating destroying -all- means of differentiating yourself from the "monkey-human hybrids", and that line of reasoning ends with there being no reason to save research time and simply harvest your organs as-is, voluntary or not.
If "monkey-human hybrids" don't have rights, neither do you. Show me the line of demarcation in the DNA between rights-having and non-rights having organisms.
Ultimately, somebody will accept how you "self-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My strongest attack would be to just eat the bipedal animals.
"Eat", or something equivalent in personal discretion.
To be fair, I understand you'd need much more contemplation of inevitability and a certain metaphysical perspective to get this.
Re: (Score:2)
So no, it's not my job to Google for you. Rather, it's my job to tell you're exhibiting moral idiocy and ostensibly advocating we hamstring ourselves while the Chinese do whatever the fuck we want, comforting ourselves with warm b
Re: (Score:2)
My spouse wouldn't accept an organ that came as a result of a "harvested" creature's suffering.
That's always easier to say than to actually do when you're staring down real consequences, but nonetheless, it is every person's right to make that choice for themselves, and themselves alone. Me, if I needed a new organ, I'd have zero qualms about getting one that was grown from human stem cells inside a monkey or pig. You can live how you want, and I don't care, that's your call and you're free to make it, so long as no one is blocking the research via legal means, funding cuts, ect. that could help th
Re: (Score:3)
The animal rights activists will have this shut down in a heart beat if it ever got down to that level.
Holy SHIT, how many times do I need to say this: The Chinese do not give a fuck what we think. This isn't incidental; this is an absolutely core point of my argument that I've been making for years now. We do not hold a technological or social monopoly here. The no-Confucian paternalism, corruption, and straight-up envy of the west in China all make them more susceptible to encouraging tech like this. There's a lot of quasi-religious superstition and pushback as well, to be sure, but if you think that ani
Re: (Score:2)
It would probably be easier and a lot less risk of rejection to just replace the heart with a pump. We've come a long way in terms of portable energy storage density , which is the big limitation in artificial hearts.
You also ignore the fact that often people in serious decline are better off pulling the plug on themselves rather than enduring al
Re: (Score:2)
We have been using pig heart valves for decades because they're closer to human valves than monkey valves are. We won't be using monkey hearts for transplants.
This tech would apparently be for growing human hearts in monkeys, not using monkey parts on humans. The human heart growing in the monkey wouldn't necessarily be the heart keeping the monkey alive (I dunno; I haven't read up on the details yet because I'm more interested in the senseless non-discussions that always spring up when genetics comes up.)
You also ignore the fact that often people in serious decline are better off pulling the plug on themselves rather than enduring all sorts of shit for a shitty quality of life for a limited time.
What "fact" am I ignoring? There are 7 billion people. Millions of them rich. Plenty will not want to pull the plug. This will be an in-demand tech if it turns
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I don't know whether you're the same AC or not, but you sound a little less sophisticated so I'd like to make the same suggestion to you that I did to him: if you really have grave ethical concerns about experimentation with *human* DNA, I strongly urge you to consider using the grass mud horse to experi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
holy shit, just use humans for organs... (Score:1)
I mean if you are ethically OK with gen-mo human/monkey hybrids then why not just eliminate all the incompatibilities and other technical issues with making a chimera and just grow humans. I mean the Matrix already showed us the basic architecture for creating human farms. It will solve our global energy issue and our apparent organ issue.
WHAT IN THE ACTUAL FUCK!
need to do pigs instead of monkeys (Score:1)
Planet of the Apes (Score:3)
Epic Garbage Article. (Score:2)
This is golden-era-yellow-journalism level web garbage.
The kind that both takes effort to hit those hot buttons of ignorance, but shows zero regard for the subject.
Here's the text:
Re: (Score:2)
Better than TFA (Score:2)
This Q&A with Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte [scientificamerican.com]
In it he describes success in growing mice with rat parts, and vice versa, and uses a car analogy to explain how gestation times determine the suitability of a host species. He also makes an interesting point:
"If you look on the Internet you see images of chimeras between human and animal. And I feel that that’s a little bit of exaggeration."
Bio-Engineering (Score:5, Informative)
Research Hospital (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right now there is a clear gap between human and non-human, with many countries / societies recognizing a basic set of rights for everything in the "human" category. I don't want that gap to close to the point where it is not clear what rights hybrids should have.
Think of the very valid (on both sides) controversy about abortion - the question of the status of something that can grow into a human. I think arguments over chimaras would be far worse.
Re: (Score:2)
What an idiotic thing to worry about. The real worry is if you make a living creature and a lawyer establishes that it's human and hurt, then you're going to prison for assault.
Yeah, I'm sure the Chinese oligarchy is shaking in their boots about that prospect. You should tell the Uyghurs about this brilliant idea of yours. You'll be a hero.
Years behind (Score:2)
We've had monkey men in the U.S. for years. Mostly they run for political office here.
I'm sure I have seen those hybrids giving speeches (Score:2)
There is a word for this... (Score:2)
... and it's a word that I don't use very often:
Evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if the organ is superfluous to the animal and can be surgically removed without killing it? What if the animal's nervous system remains unaffected, so mentally it is still non-human?
Then again, I suppose this *is* still the Trump era, where gut feelings are supposed to trump everything else, so you're right. Fuck rational inquiry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is not to say that biotech does have some very serious hidden dangers. Anything involving microbes in particular (especially microbes with generalist lifestyles / cosmopolitan distributions) should at minimum be given tons of scrutiny. But I don't think any such dangers exist here. The dangers here are ethical, if animals are give
Song & Dance (Score:2)
Don't monkey, with the monkey
Don't monkey, with the monkey
Those Chinese scientists made a monkey out of me!
Human-monkey hybrids making (Score:2)
Humans later on. The path has been laid out!
Phew! Sigh of Relief (Score:2)
4 assed monkey (Score:2)
Ooook? (Score:2)
Orange monkeys^h^h^h^h^h^hApes?
Why did they begin with humans? (Score:2)
Misleading (Score:2)
Stop the Planet of the Apes. I want to get off! (Score:2)
Oh my God, I was wrong. It was Earth, all along. You finally made a monkey-
Yes, we finally made a monkey-
You finally made a monkey out of meeeeeeeeeeeeee! I LOVE you Dr Zaius!
-Troy McClure, Planet of the Apes: The Musical