First Human-Monkey Chimera Raises Concern Among Scientists 175
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Efforts to create human-animal chimeras have rebooted an ethical debate after reports emerged that scientists have produced monkey embryos containing human cells. A chimera is an organism whose cells come from two or more "individuals", with recent work looking at combinations from different species. The word comes from a beast from Greek mythology which was said to be part lion, part goat and part snake. The latest report, published in the Spanish newspaper El Pais, claims a team of researchers led by Prof Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte from the Salk Institute in the U.S. have produced monkey-human chimeras. The research was conducted in China "to avoid legal issues," according to the report.
Chimeras are seen as a potential way to address the lack of organs for transplantation, as well as problems of organ rejection. Scientists believe organs genetically matched to a particular human recipient could one day be grown inside animals. The approach is based on taking cells from an adult human and reprogramming them to become stem cells, which can give rise to any type of cell in the body. They are then introduced into the embryo of another species. Details of the work reported this week are scarce: Izpisua Belmonte and colleagues did not respond to requests for comment. However Alejandro De Los Angeles, from the department of psychiatry at Yale University, said it was likely monkey-human chimeras were being developed to explore how to improve the proportion of human cells in such organisms. De Los Angeles pointed out that, as with previous work in pigs and sheep, the human-monkey chimeras have reportedly only been allowed to develop for a few weeks -- ie before organs actually form. Prof Robin Lovell-Badge, a developmental biologist from London's Francis Crick Institute, agreed with De Los Angeles. "I don't think it is particularly concerning in terms of the ethics, because you are not taking them far enough to have a nervous system or develop in any way -- it's just really a ball of cells," he said.
But Lovell-Badge added that if chimeras were allowed to develop further, it could raise concerns. "How do you restrict the contribution of the human cells just to the organ that you want to make?" he said. "If that is a pancreas or a heart or something, or kidney, then that is fine if you manage to do that. [But] if you allow these animals to go all the way through and be born, if you have a big contribution to the central nervous system from the human cells, then that obviously becomes a concern."
Chimeras are seen as a potential way to address the lack of organs for transplantation, as well as problems of organ rejection. Scientists believe organs genetically matched to a particular human recipient could one day be grown inside animals. The approach is based on taking cells from an adult human and reprogramming them to become stem cells, which can give rise to any type of cell in the body. They are then introduced into the embryo of another species. Details of the work reported this week are scarce: Izpisua Belmonte and colleagues did not respond to requests for comment. However Alejandro De Los Angeles, from the department of psychiatry at Yale University, said it was likely monkey-human chimeras were being developed to explore how to improve the proportion of human cells in such organisms. De Los Angeles pointed out that, as with previous work in pigs and sheep, the human-monkey chimeras have reportedly only been allowed to develop for a few weeks -- ie before organs actually form. Prof Robin Lovell-Badge, a developmental biologist from London's Francis Crick Institute, agreed with De Los Angeles. "I don't think it is particularly concerning in terms of the ethics, because you are not taking them far enough to have a nervous system or develop in any way -- it's just really a ball of cells," he said.
But Lovell-Badge added that if chimeras were allowed to develop further, it could raise concerns. "How do you restrict the contribution of the human cells just to the organ that you want to make?" he said. "If that is a pancreas or a heart or something, or kidney, then that is fine if you manage to do that. [But] if you allow these animals to go all the way through and be born, if you have a big contribution to the central nervous system from the human cells, then that obviously becomes a concern."
Don't they ever learn (Score:4, Insightful)
This never goes well in sci-fi
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
So, it's like our elections of late.
Re:Don't they ever learn (Score:4, Funny)
How dare you insinuate that! An Orangutan is NOT a monkey!
Re: (Score:2)
I just wanna be like you-ou-ou
I wanna walk like you, talk like you, too
You'll see it's true someone like me
Can learn to be like someone like you
Re: (Score:2)
Great, now you've offended those that consider King Louie a racist stereotype.
Re: (Score:2)
How dare you insinuate that! An Orangutan is NOT a monkey!
Not in English, we have a seperate laymans term for apes and monkeys. In many other languages though there is not a seperate word for ape and monkey (sure using the lineaus system you can seperate them but using common language they're all just species of monkey in other languages).
FYI. In some languages "Turtle" and "Tortoise" share one word as do "Goat" and "Sheep" in others, and "Frog" and "Toad" in other languages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Only because you have different words for them.
In Dutch we have different words where English uses "move": verplaatsen, bewegen or verhuizen.
In Dutch we also have different words for things that the English call "a canal": kanaal or gracht.
In dutch we have different words for what ing English is called a "ditch": sloot or greppel.
These are all very different things, and it confuses Dutch speakers when they try to use English.
This is what I find time and time again for people who haven't really studied a for
Re: (Score:2)
Only because you have different words for them.
No, we have different words for them precisely because they are different things. So you have more words for canals than we do? It'd be just like just having the waterway and no more.
Preach on, brother (Score:1)
I swear, this partisan shit is going to be the death of my karma. Slashdot should take a page out of the pay-to-win apps and let us buy more karma points.
Either that, or add a new moderation option: -1 political view I disagree with and have it not affect karma.
Re: (Score:2)
So, it's like our elections of late.
Maybe we should vote for the chimera?
Re: (Score:1)
Why are you so sure you haven't already?
Re: (Score:2)
Something something Splice (the movie). Something something genocide.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody was all that concerned when it was a human mouse chimera: https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody was all that concerned when it was a human mouse chimera: https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
To be fair that article references a process which involves modifying cells externally and ensuring they are specialized in growing a specific tissue (an ear) before implanting them into the animal. There is control over what is being grown, and the tissue does not endow the mice with advanced intelligence and awareness of being above the level of the currently living and otherwise unaltered mouse. With human/monkey chimera process mentioned here they are growing a mixture of human/monkey cells from "conc
Re: (Score:2)
Not much does go well in sci-i since most of it is morality plays and success isn't as dramatic as disaster.
Re:Don't they ever learn (Score:5, Interesting)
I love sci-fi, but I hate the 'science gone wrong' trope. I miss the days of optimistic sci-fi, things like exploring the stars, eliminating want and hunger, and improving health & extending life. Instead, there's so many cheap monster movies that everyone bleats out 'what could possibly go wrong' every time something like this comes up. And I don't mean cheap in terms of the visual effects, I mean cheap in terms of the moral. It's just senseless contrarianism. You always looks smarter opposing something than you do agreeing with it, and this is the ethical variant of that. "Hey look, I'm opposing something newish & vaguely icky in the uncanny valley, that means I'm moral." No, it doesn't, not until you can give me a concrete reason as to why it is immoral.
If anyone wants to point out actual technical problems or risks (ex breaking the species barrier of some monkey pathogen), that of course is fair game and should be given due discussion, but ethically? Come on, this is just growing non-neural human organs in an animal. Where's the ethics issue there? If you want to take the vegan style approach of no animal use at all, I disagree but fair enough, just be consistent about that come dinnertime. What's the other issue, that globs of human cells are somehow sacred? Gag me with a spoon. I've heard that one before, in several different contexts, all of them equally absurd. Keep that nonsense in your pews.
You don't want a monkey derived organ? Fine, your body, your health, your call. But if I ever need an organ as a matter of life and death, I want a monkey organ, and I'm sure a lot of other people would too. Anyone who wants to deny themselves something potentially lifesaving is free to do so, just as long as none of these captious pearl-clutchers block research that might help the rest of us. Which, seeing as how this must be done in China, has clearly already happened.
Re: (Score:3)
Quite. Also on the dystopian side it will happen and you cannot stop it. If Amazon wants a monkey with a higher IQ then that is what they will get and you will not be consulted. If Putin wants a radiation proof warrior cockroach with an IQ of 150 then you will not be consulted. The faster public research works on chimera the better.
Science gone wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
I’m sure someone has compiled a list somewhere of all the science that has had unintended negative consequences. Off the top of my head:
Fossil fuels
Nearly anything involving radioactive elements
Thalidomide
Leaded gasoline
Whale oil (well, it was bad for the whales)
Asbestos
Lobotomies
DDT
CFCs
PCBs
Cryptocoins
Yeah, I’m gonna say the reason it’s a common sci-fi trope is that fiction is just taking a page out of reality.
Re:Science gone wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I just really HATE living in modern society, with machinery to help grow abundant food, Air Conditioning, allowing free travel over great distances....electricity, the computer age....
Yeah, we should have stuck to the simple life, back before we had fuels to run machinery.
That old feudal system really had it going....ahh, the good old days!!
And hell, considering the dearth of good content to watch on TV these days, I think we all long for a good town witch burning!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that hydro electric does so many of our cities in the country that are land locked and not anywhere near a moving large enough body of water for this type of power.
Hey, nothing says we can't MOVE to more sustainable energy resources, but if it were not for oil, we would not have made it to the point we are today where we CAN look for more renewable resour
Re: (Score:2)
Our modern culture and society is direct result of us using fossil fuels to this point today.
And this is the double edged sword. Yes, we have made many advances and most of us live much more comfortable lives than people 100 years ago. However, we've also started wars over fossil fuels and people profiting from the industry do their best to downplay any research showing the kind of environmental damage unfettered use of fossil fuels cause to the point where people are constantly making idiotic arguments claiming that pretty much the entire scientific community is making up climate change or perform
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why but every time when fossil fuels are discussed I remember this:
Fossils fuels in the last century reached their extreme prices because of their inherent utility: they pack a great deal of potential energy into an extremely efficient package. If we can but sidestep the 100-million-year production process, we can corner this market once again.
-- CEO Nwabudike Morgan ,"Strategy Session"
Re: (Score:2)
Everything has unintended side effects and consequences.
Even simple animals influence their ecosystems with their behaviours.
It's just that as humans, we can choose and understand the results of our actions.
It's one of the reasons science is really useful to us: A better understanding allows better choices.
It's why we don't do some things any more that used to be popular, like using lead-based white paints.
It's often when greed and profit get involved, that our judgement gets clouded, especially if the cons
Re:Don't they ever learn (Score:4)
H.G. Wells "The Time Machine",
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein,
Orson Welles' War of the Worlds,
Re: (Score:1)
Captain Kirk did not try to make a Human-Gorn hybrid.
I should note if that particular Gorn were female, he'd probably mate with it. However, the offspring likely wouldn't be viable. Although, Gary Busey makes me wonder.
Actually it goes quite well... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This never goes well in sci-fi
Something goes bad with every futuristic concept in every sci-fi movie. They'd be pretty bad sci-fi movies otherwise. We'd be stuck in the 1920's if we decided to stop progress based on sci-fi movies.
My take on this though is: why is experimenting on chimeras bad but experimenting on monkeys not bad? What makes humans so special that a few drops of our DNA makes a monkey untouchable? Monkeys are already highly intelligent, sentient (not fully sapient like us) beings. They experience emotion, fear, an
Re: Don't they ever learn (Score:2)
It's Zira, not Vera. Toldja, she's already lying to you. Bail now!
Re: (Score:1)
You're just not used to their food, that's all. We all smell like what we eat. Get out more.
Name the 1st one 'Caesar' (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Younger Slashdotters come here to bury Caesar, not to praise him."
"Et tu, Brute?"
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, Caesar comes to bury YOU!
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, Caesar comes to bury YOU!
The word "Czar/Tsar" derives from "Caesar" so... even the Soviet Russians buried Caesar.
Re: (Score:2)
We Will Call them Cornelius and Zira (Score:2)
Careful of Witchcraft! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Careful of Witchcraft! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Careful of Witchcraft! (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case though, there's more to it. The scientists in TFA aren't so concerned if the monkey has a liver of pancreas made of human cells. The concern is when the brain takes on a human like form. Obviously, it won't have room to be a full human brain, but how close might it get? How close does it have to get before it has rights and is perfectly well aware that it is effectively a created monster? How close is too close for comfort?
Those questions need to be answered in advance.
Or the flip side, are we absolutely certain that the techniques used absolutely eliminate the possibility of humanized neural development?
Re: (Score:2)
Those questions need to be answered in advance.
Or those questions can be posed in advance but an honest and informed answer can not be obtained in advance.
You can theorize on the consequences based on what you know or think applies to the upcoming situation. But you will only know for sure only once it happens. Remember that experience can not be taught or transmitted.
When your parents told you as a child that: fire burns. You were not sure it was real until you could feel a burn for real. And you could not not develop safe handling of hot stuffs until
Re: (Score:2)
If you cannot answer the questions in advance, then you must answer the flip side (make sure the situation cannot arise) unless you are prepared to commit murder in pursuit of your research or be responsible for the worst case of deliberate human mutilation in history.
Re: (Score:2)
The brain is already 98-99% there in an ape vs a human. The question is thus, what makes us human/special and how do you quantify it.
Re: Careful of Witchcraft! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hehehe...in Saudi Arabia, they don't need to G-d to strike you down, they do his dirty work for Him.
Re: (Score:3)
Says something about the omnipotence of a god when he needs humans to do his dirty work.
Re: (Score:2)
God-schmod, I want my monkey man!
Re: (Score:1)
This is excellent because all the other volunteers were inching toward the door.
When is a human not a human? (Score:5, Insightful)
How much DNA do you need to change before a living thing is no longer classified as human and loses basic human rights?
By basic I mean the right to their life without being euthanised for organs.
If say Chimps share 99% of DNA with humans and you create a Chimera human-chimp/chimp-human how close to 100% do you need to get before euthanisation=murder? 100? 99.999999...etc?
There is a danger here of the creation of a sub-human class which is essentially human but without human rights.
Humanity has had a long and very sad history of repeatedly resorting to slave labour.
We also have had a long and very sad history of doing the worst with new technology.
Re:When is a human not a human? (Score:5, Interesting)
Tech should dispose meatbag labor long before viable chimera workers exist. The natural goal of technology is to make human labor purely optional so our species need not labor to survive. Livestock are expensive to breed, feed and maintain. Slaves are inefficient and unruly. Like horses, you have to feed them when you don't need them. Machines constantly improve.
The fewer life forms humanity needs to exploit the better.
Re: (Score:3)
The natural goal of technology is to make human labor purely optional
So why have we been working more and more (including our undocumented working from home hours) in the last 30 years?
Re: (Score:1)
Because capitalism does not guarantee the best outcomes for all people, despite constant reassurances from the richest people on earth. (Would you believe they lied? The nerve!)
Capitalism does what it does very well-- it allows people to exploit the work and effort of others. This makes it extremely efficient. A democratically controlled company (like a workers cooperative) will likely never grow as quickly or efficiently as a single proprietor one. There are simply too many competing voices and concerns
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism is like the lottery. Anyone can get rich.
But not everyone.
And just like with the lottery, the more money you have in the game, the higher your chances of winning.
Re: (Score:2)
"We" haven't.
An increasing number of people is working more and more while an also increasing number of people has no work. Coincidence?
Re: (Score:2)
Because AI isn't yet good enough. When it is, expect a rapid shock to the system. 30 years ago is ancient history in tech terms. Anyone who remembers 30 years ago, self included, is aging out of or gone from the workforce.
Meat workers are paid to think and act. Robots can act. Soon AI will think as we understad it, then develop superior AI. At that point why pay a meatbag when AI can run 24/7/365 without interruption?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, if the slaves are human-monkey chimeras, with no civil rights of any kind, then when you don't need them, you can destroy them. After all, you can make more....
Re: (Score:2)
Slavery is inefficient. Mammalian labor is inefficient. Have you examined why any sane employer would prefer meat to machine, especially primitive meat? Where do you see a use case for chimera vs machines + AI?
Meat workers exist to operate machines. They are a cost center. Chimera would need food, water, rest and all the other negatives life requires. You can shut down a machine and it doesn't die.
Slavery was an economic institution. Erase the economic argument for meatbags, chimera or otherwise, and you so
Re: (Score:3)
How much DNA do you need to change before a living thing is no longer classified as human and loses basic human rights?
Well if history has taught me anything, then the answer is none. You just need to change the classification to exclude whoever you intend to persecute.
These percentages aren't as straight forward as they first appear. In a chimera, different parts of the body have different DNA. You might even be one yourself without knowing it, taking DNA from four parent cells. What weight are we giving to DNA of the brain, and what to other parts of the body in our metric? Also how is this percentage derived? A
Re: (Score:2)
How much DNA do you need to change before a living thing is no longer classified as human and loses basic human rights?
None. You just need to lead people in a chant of a derogatory term aimed at "them" not "us." Works for full 100% DNA people.
Western Supremacy (Score:1)
The so-called 'ethical concerns' are nothing much more than an expression of Western Supremacy
Just because the Westernized people don't eat dogs doesn't mean other people cannot eat dogs.
Just because creating human-monkey chimera is opposed by the Westernized ideology doesn't mean people who do not subscribe to the Westernized thinking must oppose it.
The world we live in is much bigger than the Westernized world, and no one gives the Western people the right to tell everyone what to do or how to live.
Re: Western Supremacy (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly.
3rd Reich cleanses were non-western business, and they should not intervene.
Communism directly killing 150 million people in Eastern Europe and Asia was, by the very definition, not a western business. They should allow communism to progress even further.
You are an imbecile.
Re: (Score:2)
No tot be needlessly obnoxious but the West did let the commies alone. I don't remember the US tanks rolling through Eastern Europe to liberate us. We were hopeful, you know...
Re: (Score:2)
Put it on the pile of other labels, I'll ignore later.
Once you've been called a commie AND a nazi for essentially the same comment, you stop caring.
Heinlein Settled This 70 Years Ago (Score:3)
What's the status of human/primate chimeras? Robert Heinlein settled this matter 70 years ago.
"Jerry Was A Man".
Re: (Score:2)
What's the status of human/primate chimeras? Robert Heinlein settled this matter 70 years ago.
"Jerry Was A Man".
I would go with intelligence and sentience not genetics for "human" rights.
For reference Bicentennial Man by Isaac Asimov it also then takes in clones and alien species should we ever meet them
Re: (Score:1)
What's the status of human/primate chimeras? Robert Heinlein settled this matter 70 years ago.
"Jerry Was A Man".
I would go with intelligence and sentience not genetics for "human" rights.
Cats are intelligent and sentient, and human rights set in before an infant reaches the intelligence and sentience level of an average cat. An objective measure is the ability to experience pain and fear (as in having hormonal responses to injuries with long-lasting behavioral consequences) but that would lead to drawing the lines in Buddhist more than Christian manner. The more subjective measure is just what entities we are prepared to pay respect to in a manner not fundamentally different to fellow hum
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason we have human rights is that we are humans.
Re: (Score:1)
Catgirls when? (Score:1)
CATGIRLS WHEN.
Use domestic pigs to grow organs (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The simpler and more likely explanation is they were domesticated and bred for a steady supply of bacon. That is all.
I am Going to the Island! (Score:2)
God schmod (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer the term "hairless ape".
Do you... (Score:1)
Do you want planet of the apes? Cause this is how you get planet of the apes...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You're operating under the flawed presumption that "maintaining the planet" is or should be a primary consideration in the validity of a species existence. This planet if fucked regardless of human action; we could keep it in pristine condition with an environment unpolluted and not a person killed by ill will for the whole of human existence and, ultimately, the planet will still be decimated and all life on it will still be destroyed by interstellar factors... that's an incontrovertible fact of the cosmos
Smarter? (Score:2)
The end result of the splice is either a dumb human or a smarter monkey.
wait a minute... (Score:2)
Why not just grow brainless humans and harvest their organs?
Imagine the factories.
It's not creepy at all.
Imagine staring into the eyes of a brainless person, perhaps lying naked on a table. hooked up to machinery that continuously reads out its vital information - ensuring that the body is fully functional and ready for harvest.
Re: (Score:2)
You've gotta love China and their culture (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I do not agree that religion has any authority in this matter. Religion is just belief organized to keep those in power at the top. Anyone ruling in name is just abusing the unpredictability of nature to divine an invisible actor that they can interpret to rule over the believers. Religions are like cultural DNA.
I do agree morals and ethics are needed, and I consider them a good thing. But we can have those without trying to see an invisible hand in the randomness of nature.
What's a chimera? (Score:1)
A chimera is an organism whose cells come from two or more "individuals", with recent work looking at combinations from different species. The word comes from a beast from Greek mythology which was said to be part lion, part goat and part snake.
Ahh, you mean a manbearpig.
Re: (Score:2)
somebody already done it (Score:2)
Outsource illegalities (Score:2)
The research was conducted in China "to avoid legal issues," according to the report.
This kind of thinking opens a lot of doors.
Psalm 8:4: (Score:2)
"What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him?"
I doubt the Chimaeras will ask themselves before killing us all off.
People here assume that it will be _us_ deciding.
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2)
This sort of cavalier attitude towards science ethics sort of reminds me of how scientists were concerned that the first atomic bomb might set the atmosphere on fire if they set it off. Of course we now know that didn't happen, but someone, somewhere was like: "Fuck it, light that shit up". Same thing with all this genetic tinkering, but we don't know what could happen if some scientist looking for some limelight goes off the ranch and wrecks up something horribly. What do you do in that case. "Ooops I
Stop The Planet Of The Apes I Want To Get Off (Score:2)
You'll never make a monkey out of me!
(I love you, Dr. Zayus!)