I am a very liberal in my thoughts, But I think that putting human genes into animals is very dangerous.To make an animal almost human is going to engender sympathy for them .This will allow aa compassionate scientist to free that creation into the outside world and possibly shift the path of evolution. We could create our future successors and a war of species. It is tinkering.
There are no such entities as humans and animals, humans are primates, all primates are animals thus humans are animals, this is not a biological technicality but a very important distinction, language employed in a culture affects attitudes and attitudes in history has shown immense cruelty to non human animals that experience pain and immense suffering identical to the human primate as non human animals have the same central nervous system that transmits this suffering, can we arrogantly consider ourselves civilized ?
2
I see your point. But we have this thing, like a Constitution and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which make the distinction of humans as more than just hairless apes. This issue, thus many implications, legak, ethical, philosiphical, etc.
I understand the concerns, which is why there should be medical ethicists weighing in with some decision-making power. But let me ask some of the posters, if the only thing standing between your life and death was an organ transplant based on the research discussed in this article, would you still be against it? (Please do your research on the complications of transplants and the life of a transplanted organ before responding.)
Yes. Not all of us want to live at any cost. Some people live and die for their values. To live at any cost reflects a very selfish and narcissistic orientation to life and to society.
4
It's simultaneously fascinating and scary. When we start to put animal cells into humans, is the day far when we next start to research putting in humans: turtle cells for longevity, elephant cells for memory, eagle cells for sight, and Cheetah cells for speed?
So disgusted by this. Really? Treat "human" disesases? Anyone take a look at population numbers lately? Time to thin the herd.
7
I'm sure you'll be lining up for the thinning, right? And if you won't, how do you know you won't be one of the unlucky ones selected for such a glorious "rebalancing". There is no major problem with the number of humans currently on the planet. Yes, the population continues to grow, but it's not growing exponentially and it is predicted to top off.
4
JB Agnes is correct the eminent EO Wilson should be listened to re half earth, future generations will suffer unknown horrors if we ignore the words of intellectual giants who speak from their conscience
Exactly who, Anthony, do you propose to "thin", or to what entity do you suggest giving the power to "thin", and by what method? Population growth is nearly a standstill in Western countries, so we encourage immigration. Do you propose "thinning" in India for example? And by what criteria would persons be judged as valuable or valueless? Do we "thin" the disabled and elderly? No, sir, what you suggest is the height of man's cruelty to man.
1
“N.I.H. May Fund Human-Animal Stem Cell Research”
Growing up hearing stories from my elders about the technology back in their day, it is so amazing how far we’ve come in just a few decades! From the creation of the television, to new medicines, technology has truly blossomed. Scientists are now wondering if it would be too much of a controversy to put human stem cells in the embryo of a non-primate and non-human animal to further medical research. With the great possibilities that scientists would be able to find cures for many death-ridden diseases, they ask, “would it be acceptable to put human cells inside an animal embryo.” This question really opened my eyes to all the great advances in all directions that the world has yet to come.
Growing up hearing stories from my elders about the technology back in their day, it is so amazing how far we’ve come in just a few decades! From the creation of the television, to new medicines, technology has truly blossomed. Scientists are now wondering if it would be too much of a controversy to put human stem cells in the embryo of a non-primate and non-human animal to further medical research. With the great possibilities that scientists would be able to find cures for many death-ridden diseases, they ask, “would it be acceptable to put human cells inside an animal embryo.” This question really opened my eyes to all the great advances in all directions that the world has yet to come.
1
Whether or not NIH funds the research has only a small bearing on whether it will happen. IMO there is the potential for lots of money to be made so the research will occur privately regardless of federal funding.
2
Hate to say it folks but we have been incorporating bits and pieces of bacterial genes into ourselves for some time. Further, we have been adjusting our genes (drift and sexual selection) and those of animals for a shorter time. Most recently, plant breeders have been bombarding seeds with radiation to force mutations. This seems to be only more of the same.
Frankly, its best to let the research go forward under strong regulation to build up a "culture" of ethical conduct than try to suppress it Otherwise, only practitioners will be cultures and individuals without ethical restraints.
Frankly, its best to let the research go forward under strong regulation to build up a "culture" of ethical conduct than try to suppress it Otherwise, only practitioners will be cultures and individuals without ethical restraints.
2
This is insane, and it is just another indication of how far removed the medical system is from knowing how to actually heal a disease rather than just suppress its symptoms. Nature contains all the cures we need, if we only find them and understand them. Scientists should be working on studies with megadoses of vitamins and minerals to get at the root causes of diseases, not engaging in monstrous ideas like this!
2
Seems to be that eating them is far more "monstrous" than using some of their stem cells..
But whatever.
But whatever.
Uh, megadoses of vitamins and minerals are toxic
BE Vegan. You have several choices. Eat vegetarian, eat Field Roast from your friendly Whole Foods (etc. You will live longer, especially if you follow a daily routine of exercise.
2
The pig growing an appendage experiment I first heard that Chinese scientists were doing. The Chinese have been doing alot of research banned in the West -- with good reason. Just because you can do something -- doesn't mean you should. Harvard has been at the fore of watering this ban down as well and they got their way.
These guys are living in the realm of 'could' and the profits potentially connected. The laws are already vague about what happens with our cells when we undergo procedures -- or do inocuous things like the National Geographic geneology project. It's business interests driving this, not humanitarianism. As it is, they should focus on diminishing the potentially deadly side effects transplants and transplant medicine causes -- and that is human to human transplant. They aren't even ready for what they are telling the public and you know their eye is really on their banking balances
These guys are living in the realm of 'could' and the profits potentially connected. The laws are already vague about what happens with our cells when we undergo procedures -- or do inocuous things like the National Geographic geneology project. It's business interests driving this, not humanitarianism. As it is, they should focus on diminishing the potentially deadly side effects transplants and transplant medicine causes -- and that is human to human transplant. They aren't even ready for what they are telling the public and you know their eye is really on their banking balances
4
"As it is, they should focus on diminishing the potentially deadly side effects transplants and transplant medicine causes".
Kyzl, that is the most obvious immediate benefit to this. You got it!
Kyzl, that is the most obvious immediate benefit to this. You got it!
Thank god there are people out there that see the cruelty and warped sensibility involved in such an endeavor. Are animals not sentient? Do we really need to extend the human lifespan beyond what is natural? Are there not enough of us already and haven't we done enough harm?
Read E.O. Wilsons HALF EARTH - we are capable of much greater.
Read E.O. Wilsons HALF EARTH - we are capable of much greater.
9
Thank you for that. I keep looking for something in these articles about the animals that will be enslaved and exploited for human use, but am not finding it. I had hoped we had evolved more, but apparently not.
3
Yes.
Yes.
No.
The only reason we have problems is because we have done things in a non-sustainable fashion. We should be using the low-hanging fruit of fossil fuels to develop the sustainable alternatives.
The planet can sustain many, many more if we just do things wisely. Most of America is empty space.
Yes.
No.
The only reason we have problems is because we have done things in a non-sustainable fashion. We should be using the low-hanging fruit of fossil fuels to develop the sustainable alternatives.
The planet can sustain many, many more if we just do things wisely. Most of America is empty space.
Animals are sentient aware, but they are not self aware, which is vastly different.
Just think about what you would probably have if, by introducing human brain cells into animals or human stem cells that turn into brain cells in an animal and they become self aware, chimpanzees, rats, & pigs may decide they want to run the world. BIG rebellion & war! Chimpanzees swinging through the trees with an AK 47 They are able to hear & see better than we do.The gestation period for rats is 19–22 days, for mice it is 17–21 days. Rats and mice average 8–12 babies in a litter, but can have as few as 1 or as many as 20. Rats are weaned at 6 weeks, mice at 5 weeks. Talk about taking over the world. BTW, I grew up on a farm. Pigs will eat anything. Do you want to be their dinner? Sounds like a really bad idea. We are messing with things that we don't know enough about. Besides, I did not come from an ape.
Just think about what you would probably have if, by introducing human brain cells into animals or human stem cells that turn into brain cells in an animal and they become self aware, chimpanzees, rats, & pigs may decide they want to run the world. BIG rebellion & war! Chimpanzees swinging through the trees with an AK 47 They are able to hear & see better than we do.The gestation period for rats is 19–22 days, for mice it is 17–21 days. Rats and mice average 8–12 babies in a litter, but can have as few as 1 or as many as 20. Rats are weaned at 6 weeks, mice at 5 weeks. Talk about taking over the world. BTW, I grew up on a farm. Pigs will eat anything. Do you want to be their dinner? Sounds like a really bad idea. We are messing with things that we don't know enough about. Besides, I did not come from an ape.
Perhaps I am wrong but didn't Margaret Atwood kind of lay out some scenario like this in "Oryx and Crake"?
I know it's fiction, but still...
I know it's fiction, but still...
4
Another reason humans must be regulated for the selfish dangers they pose to the survival of the planet, themselves and the animals they lord over. Science is as replete with narcissism and self-serving ambition as any other profession. This planned use of animals is wrong AGAIN! As some of the comments made clear, there is the blueprint for life: birth, life and death. We have yet learned to respect that blueprint in our zest to over ride the rules and, as such, we risk more overpopulation that will hurtle us to non-existence. And don't get me started on the morality of using animals in our growing and unearned entitlement to live past our due dates.
19
When Adam and Eve were tossed out of the Garden of Eden and had to suffer the consequences of being human the god that western civilization worships also condemned the vegetation and animal life to a similar fate and all they did was be created by this monster. It has been the "Western Mind", if that's what it is, that has chosen, not to live with nature, but to control it. Rivers are dammed , mountains removed, animals slaughtered, nature destroyed, the planet made into aa overheated cesspool. Though we are but animals ourselves we consider ourselves "thinking" animals and above the rest. Maybe they already are. Humanity has always been done in by one animal or another mostly it's the ones we can't even see. No matter how hard we try we can't seem to control everything and surprisingly we die.
2
In the future we may see dyadic and triadic combinations of human animals, nonhuman animals, and computers!
Wow! That'll be great! Maybe there will be even better comic books! And candy! and television shows! And amusement parks! And even less aware parents! And more debt! Wow! What might the future bring? I can't wait!
Science, and its technological uses that include biomedical research such as this, is increasingly moving society into ethical conflicts. Finding cures for human diseases appears to be a wonderful anthropocentric goal, yet our democratic system has not figured out how to define what is "human" and how to accommodate racial, sexual, or ideological differences on a crowded planet that it also heating up and running short on natural and financial resources. Furthermore, public money should NOT support such science, especially until controls on the private sector are put into strict confinement and the shrinking funds for environmental research and EPA regulation fully restored.
8
Scientific experimentation doesn't only extend life but makes it so more people can enjoy what little time we have on earth. But for those who really want to live forever on earth (whatever happened to heaven?!) there's always cryogenics which will work only if they can find we put Ted Williams' head.
Star wars, here we come! I am already imagining a future where I am bar hopping in my personal space craft, going from planet to planet, and chatting with strange creatures, some all brains, some all muscle and bones, some red, some blue and green... exhilarating and frightening at the same time!
2
A space drunk? What makes you think there's no bouncers in space?
Maybe if we eat the all brains one we'd get smarter... :)
How about we take a proactive approach and try to prevent diseases before they begin? How about cleaning our everyday environment of all the plastics and toxic chemicals that permeate everything we touch, breathe, wear and eat? Every living thing is a sentient being and we have no supreme right to use animals at will. You know these experiments will not end well.
13
Gloria - in order to prevent diseases, we need to understand what's going on at the molecular and cellular level, which means cell and animal models. And it would be utterly unethical to forgo all animal testing and go straight to human testing on any sort of new drug.
Going on a chemophobic cleaning spree isn't going to cure much of anything.
Going on a chemophobic cleaning spree isn't going to cure much of anything.
1
They more likely to end up with a more resilient plastic or survival of the fattest!
1
You assume the conclusion- i see no proof that we must understand what goes on at the molecular level. Hippocrates didnt understand what goes on at the molecular level.
And so far your HMGB1, SASP, Beclin1, sonic hedgehog proteins research has enriched researchers and done next to nothing for the public good. Again the big lie technique is used by researchers t further their occupational strategies- which they claim are for the public good.
And so far your HMGB1, SASP, Beclin1, sonic hedgehog proteins research has enriched researchers and done next to nothing for the public good. Again the big lie technique is used by researchers t further their occupational strategies- which they claim are for the public good.
1
I doubt the likelihood of inadvertently (or even intentionally) creating sentient animals. Sentience is far more than simply having a more human brain. The real ethical issue I see is simpler. I was raised to believe that it is wrong to waste any life. When we butchered animals, we used as much as we could. Now, say a human pig chimera was developed to farm organs for transplant. A realistic and even worthy cause. But what about the rest of the pig? How human would it's flesh be? I'm not just talking about the morality of cannibalism, but the legitimate health concerns associated with it. Prion diseases are the result of prolonged cannibalism. Mad Cow disease originally stemmed from sheep that were given feed with protein derived from sheep(makes you wonder what sort of person thought that was a good idea). A disease called Kuru effects cannibal tribes in New Guinea. Human pig organ farm chimeras could also pose a risk for creating such diseases if the leftover flesh were used as food.
7
Nobody's planning on eating them...
As a medical science enthusiast, these experiments excite me in that there will be many more advances in research and medicine just in my short life span. However, we have a moral obligation as mankind to do what's right and putting human stem cells into animal ones is just not it. We can not keep putting ourselves before all the other organisms in the world if we want to keep a prosperous and healthy earth. We are only putting ourselves at greater risk of extinction the more we put humans over any other animal.
17
I strongly suggest before further beginning, that all concerned be obligated to watch "The Island Of Lost Souls" (1932), and both subsequent releases of "The Island Dr. Moreau" (1977) and (1996) and reading H.G. Wells' grotesquely telling novel of jungle beasts turned into half human abominations who chant: "Are we not men ?!"
3
Friends of animals aside, the implications of this research go way beyond the impact on furry pets. NIH even suggesting this area of research is acceptable means the floodgates open up everywhere. Basically, this means that human-animal genetic engineering will happen. At some future date, there will probably be people with genetic inheritances leveraged from the animal kingdom, for specific advantage. Denser bones and musculature, like apes. More acute smell, hearing and agility, like felines. Imagine the capabilities a future society can breed into 'assigned populations', created to 'fill niches' in their countries geopolitical bag of tricks. We all thought communications and information tech would be the big game changer' not so much anymore. The big changes in the next decades will come from biology.
7
Have you read "Brave New World", by Aldoux Huxley, mid 1930s? All predicted. Human embryo a la fetus a la new-born in a bottle, on a 278 day conveyor belt. And much more. Science will out.
2
Wow. Sounds horrible. I'm sure we'll all be glad I'll be dead.
We are animals already. We just think we're different but the idea of devolution is intriguing. Good luck convincing religions that we're going to devolve back into monkeys which they never thought we came from in the first place.
Science will not be deterred by 'moralistic' policies. Better to publicly fund this research now with strong oversight by the scientific community than to let it fester in back-alley labs. The stem cell genie is out of the bottle, best to keep it where it can be observed and controlled.
16
Best to oppose this mad science and the mad scientists behind it who have too much freedom and too little virtue. And frankly, this type of research reflects the need to go to posthuman extremes for very uncertain outcomes. Its poor science and poor taste. As Kant wrote- permissive laws of reason allow injustice ripe for overhaul. The scientific community has no moral compass- so we who do need to lend them our morals. Failing that we will create strict rule of law- how do you like them apples baby
6
Nice idea, but what happens when companies like Monsanto decide to make sure the "carefully controlled labs" are "properly funded" or "have adequate resources"?
1
Ah, moralistic policies? It's morals that would have prevented, I don't know, Dr. Mengele's experiments, the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment and who knows what else. The idea that science should have free-rein to do whatever is what got us eugenics in the Holocaust you know.
Until a human can create an animal life form using their superior intellect which sadly to this day remains doormant within all magnificent scientific achievements unabled by the unwillingness to acknowledge, to afford what we subsist upon a humble respect - has the time not come yet to sink our minds into how we would not be here without them, here, just maybe is the answer to all our problems that resilient nature will recycle and hands us?? - the ground, the ones we see as below our feet- the place we endow with our spittle continually absorbing, learning adjust, the becoming of what we make it - Please leave the beauty of our world, to flower, fruit, return soil so again we get to see the beauty of its innocent face.
2
It's amazing to me that a stem cell researcher would think that only humans have conscious thought. Once again, man is shown to be the only animal that thinks he is the only animal that thinks. More serious to me is the ethical enormity of using animals as organ farms for humans.
22
Exactly. Animals are not ours to experiment on, abuse or use for our own entertainment. Why the ethics of this particular issue are not addressed in this article as a counterpoint is exactly as Pat points out above.
13
Actually, yes, they are. We do it all the time; it's kinda like us or them, you know?
At least, that's certainly how it started.
At least, that's certainly how it started.
Mankind once gain exploiting animals, now to "harvest" them for organs. We are so desperate to live that we would experiment on and kill other creatures. I'm at the point where I believe we should stop all such testing for cures to human ailments, and let nature take its course as it did before modern science and medicine contributed to the increase in human longevity. It certainly would help bring the world population back to manageable levels. And no, I won't take a life saving procedure if it involved mutilation to another creature. I am not more valuable than any other living thing.
22
Strange, you ancestors ate animals fish and eggs. When you eat grain or vegetables you are eating food grown on land that used to support wildlife. It doesn't anymore. Thus you are putting yourself ahead of the animals, insects and birds that used to live on that ground.
1
Tell that to a family which has lost loved ones to the same disease over generations.
These fears about injecting human cells into animals producing a Frankenstein mix of a human-animal creature is just silly superstition and fear. If major medical advances are to be gained from this procedure, then it should proceed.
5
The ends doesn't always justify the means. Its unfortunate there is too much self serving selfishness in the U.S. and little regard for others.
7
It's true there will be advances made in curing disease from this research. But there will also be 'Frankensteins" as well. It's the nature of things that once a capability is reached, it is then exploited by people, of greater or lesser moral character. Not everyone is a healer, and not all paths lead to Utopia.
3
I think that's called the naturalistic fallacy-and its often used to defend most anything. Because we have crime we should just accept that there will be more crime. Its an argument with no point and no moral- its a dead end- Pyrhhinism writ large.
1
It's fascinating there are so many overly emotional comments here somehow claiming to represent the interests of the entire animal kingdom. Yet, the people who are complaining the most here, are the first to line up for a new kidney when something goes wrong.
2
The Lab is Humming, 'Cause Something Good Is Coming....
We're rolling up our sleeves and getting down to business... genetics that can change things for the better...in a good way. Don't believe that's possible? Read on, dear friends!
Biotasking Laboratories is working on a brand new mass produced hybridisation: Chatterley, the world's first talking dog!
Use the form below to reserve your very own Chatterley Model A. The waiting list will fill up quick, so don't delay. The Model A will retail for $9,998.00. A deposit of $995.00 is required to secure your reservation.
"Want to go out?"
"Why yes, that sounds delightful. Let me get my leash and we'll be on our way."
The first Chatterleys will emerge from Biotasking Laboratories in the spring of 2019. Be the first on your block to walk and talk with your Model A.
We're rolling up our sleeves and getting down to business... genetics that can change things for the better...in a good way. Don't believe that's possible? Read on, dear friends!
Biotasking Laboratories is working on a brand new mass produced hybridisation: Chatterley, the world's first talking dog!
Use the form below to reserve your very own Chatterley Model A. The waiting list will fill up quick, so don't delay. The Model A will retail for $9,998.00. A deposit of $995.00 is required to secure your reservation.
"Want to go out?"
"Why yes, that sounds delightful. Let me get my leash and we'll be on our way."
The first Chatterleys will emerge from Biotasking Laboratories in the spring of 2019. Be the first on your block to walk and talk with your Model A.
2
If the science writers had checked with their compeers in Books they might have included a mention of Margaret Atwood's novel "Oryx and Crake" about just such a future. Chilling indeed.
Depending on your views about the sanctity of life, all life, not just human life, this article is an amazing look at the future or a step down a very dangerous slippery slope with unknown and dangerous consequences at the bottom. The ability to generate human organs for transplant sounds like a magnificent accomplishment. The ability to infuse, or the accidental infusion of, human characteristics, possibly even intelligence, into non-human species is potentially frightening. The latter is an area where we must proceed with great caution until we are fully satisfied that we are not sowing the seeds of our own destruction by previously unknown creatures of our own creation.
4
Animals depend on us to take care of them. We have an ethical responsibility to take the higher ground and do them no harm. Just because we CAN do this horrific science experiment doesn't mean we SHOULD. They can't speak for themselves.
8
It might serve us to accept that we get sick and die - like all animals. Perhaps, in the search for ways to grow human parts at the expense of other creatures, we can recognize that our assumed human superiority (over animals) is responsible for the destruction of the planet.
10
In a democratic society, this type of ethical and moral issue should not be left up to un-elected bureaucrats. The citizens and/or their elected representatives should be making these kinds of decisions.
2
Unfortunately, it often the elected bureaucrats who provide the worst possible advice. Think Todd Aikins and "legitimate rape".
The article doesn't make a case that transplanting stem cells from one species in embryos (or "birthed" animals) is the best tool to learn about biology.
Indeed, the entire article focuses on the development of therapeutics for human disease, rather than increasing our understanding of how normal organisms "work".
In addition, no justification is offered for the value of whole animal studies rather than using cells. The latter would not necessarily require continuing sacrifice of multitudes of animals.
Indeed, the entire article focuses on the development of therapeutics for human disease, rather than increasing our understanding of how normal organisms "work".
In addition, no justification is offered for the value of whole animal studies rather than using cells. The latter would not necessarily require continuing sacrifice of multitudes of animals.
2
Does anyone else find this simultaneously terrifying and morally objectionable? Just because it is something we can do doesn't mean it is something we should do.
11
A practical question: isn't the ban on federal funding for stem cell research put in place by the Bush administration in 2004 still in effect? If so, how can this research move forward when so much of it requires stem cell use? Are they only using adult stem cells?
Because they are not destroying an embryo to culture the cells
I thought that was repealed within about 30 days of Obama taking office, correct me if I'm wrong? I wonder how many human lives that ridiculous policy cost us?
Am I the only one that finds the writing in this article somewhat impenetrable? For example, the paragraph that begins, "Two types of experiments that are being considered for funding..." I don't understand why the fact that nonhuman primates are so genetically close to people, that means that researchers have to wait till the embryo is further developed.
And in describing some of the work researchers had been doing, I don't understand the significance of seeing if cells turn into a placenta "as well as every cell type".
Slightly more explanation would be helpful.
And in describing some of the work researchers had been doing, I don't understand the significance of seeing if cells turn into a placenta "as well as every cell type".
Slightly more explanation would be helpful.
2
Please provide more information about why these experiments are being planned. It's not just mad scientists conniving to do crazy things just to see if they can. You could study mutations that impact embryonic development. You could create tissues for transplants. You could even learn how to create better in vitro stem cell culture environments to mimic animal hosts.
My impression is that these types of experiments will circumvent a lot of the difficulties that occur when you try to grow stem cells outside of an embryo. You wouldn't have to worry about controlling every single culture parameter--instead, allow the normal, physiological milieu to influence the cells as it will. If that's correct, what a huge advantage that would be.
My impression is that these types of experiments will circumvent a lot of the difficulties that occur when you try to grow stem cells outside of an embryo. You wouldn't have to worry about controlling every single culture parameter--instead, allow the normal, physiological milieu to influence the cells as it will. If that's correct, what a huge advantage that would be.
2
You could accomplish the same, with rapamycin and calorie restricted diet- at a fraction of the cost. The body produces its own stem cells and heals itself under the right circumstances- when macroautophagy is stimulated. Its a figment of economics that external stem cells are needed. And frankly its not very dissimilar from autohemmotherapy or progressive autosanguis therapy. Its unfortunate that greedy scientists dream up byzantine and costly methods to accomplish things and use the big lie technique to promote them.
1
If anyone is interested there is some pretty chilling stuff about Malaria and Typhoid "research" and experimentation carried out by the Nazis in 1945-6, I think. There is some conjecture that the results were somehow gathered by NATO countries, obviously including the USA.
None of it has anything to do with more than an ongoing, tiresome scroll of savagery, cruelty and psychopathy.
It comes down to not letting mosquitoes bite you. Best way to do that is DEET.
But you need fresh running water around, because you have to get it off of you every now and then.
A lot of people on the planet have not been able to get it together to do that.
None of it has anything to do with more than an ongoing, tiresome scroll of savagery, cruelty and psychopathy.
It comes down to not letting mosquitoes bite you. Best way to do that is DEET.
But you need fresh running water around, because you have to get it off of you every now and then.
A lot of people on the planet have not been able to get it together to do that.
Many of my fellow commenters speak down to scientists from the armchair of good health. I'm glad they live such easy lives. Perhaps it would be instructive to their support of scientific research-- especially molecular biological research dependent on animals-- to remove all the medical luxuries they currently enjoy which have been developed using what they consider distasteful animal-dependent methods. These things include: all pharmaceuticals invented after the 1950s, most contemporary medical knowledge, technologies allowing surgeries, most contemporary vaccinations, and managements for many chronic conditions when possible.
I think we would find that in the absence of such technology, many of my fellow commenters would be dead.
It is too bad we cannot record the names of opponents of this research today, opposed in the name of ethics, so that we may withhold this work's fruits from them in the future in their most desperate hour, when their body and soul so needs it as their last hope. Alas, that would be un-ethical.
So many people's imaginations are so limited, their understanding of science so juvenile and frail. Yet many are prepared to speak confidently about it, as if their faux-folksy aw-shucks ignorance granted them superior technical knowledge to support their heavy conclusions. Big on talk, small on intelligence: irresponsible, and only human. I implore you all, let us base our weighty actions on more than an ignoramus' knee-jerk morality.
I think we would find that in the absence of such technology, many of my fellow commenters would be dead.
It is too bad we cannot record the names of opponents of this research today, opposed in the name of ethics, so that we may withhold this work's fruits from them in the future in their most desperate hour, when their body and soul so needs it as their last hope. Alas, that would be un-ethical.
So many people's imaginations are so limited, their understanding of science so juvenile and frail. Yet many are prepared to speak confidently about it, as if their faux-folksy aw-shucks ignorance granted them superior technical knowledge to support their heavy conclusions. Big on talk, small on intelligence: irresponsible, and only human. I implore you all, let us base our weighty actions on more than an ignoramus' knee-jerk morality.
N.I.H. May Fund Human-Animal Stem Cell Research by Gina Kolata
This article caught my attention this week due to its intriguing topic. The article is stating that the National Institutes of Health plan on changing the policy for funding. Therefore, they will be able to conduct experiments using both animal and human stem cells. Researchers want to conduct these experiments with the purpose to grow human tissues or organs in animals. The reason they want to do this is so they could understand diseases and find out how to treat them. The article states that ''researchers have long been putting human cells into animals.'' So they have input pieces of tumors in mice to test different drugs, so they could find out which one was more efficient. If the funding ban is lifted, patients could benefit. What this means is that, a transplant could be easier to do. The researchers would be encouraged to input human cells into a pig or different animal to grow a kidney for a transplant. Despite all of this the N.I.H. is considering two types of experiments. One experiment is to have the researchers who are working with primates wait until the embryo is fully developed in order to add the human stem cells. The other experiment is to introduce stem cells into embryos of different animals other than just rodents. The N.I.H. wants to do an experiment where they check ''if human stem cells can be used to grow human organs in animals for transplants.'' This will arise many questions and doubts.
This article caught my attention this week due to its intriguing topic. The article is stating that the National Institutes of Health plan on changing the policy for funding. Therefore, they will be able to conduct experiments using both animal and human stem cells. Researchers want to conduct these experiments with the purpose to grow human tissues or organs in animals. The reason they want to do this is so they could understand diseases and find out how to treat them. The article states that ''researchers have long been putting human cells into animals.'' So they have input pieces of tumors in mice to test different drugs, so they could find out which one was more efficient. If the funding ban is lifted, patients could benefit. What this means is that, a transplant could be easier to do. The researchers would be encouraged to input human cells into a pig or different animal to grow a kidney for a transplant. Despite all of this the N.I.H. is considering two types of experiments. One experiment is to have the researchers who are working with primates wait until the embryo is fully developed in order to add the human stem cells. The other experiment is to introduce stem cells into embryos of different animals other than just rodents. The N.I.H. wants to do an experiment where they check ''if human stem cells can be used to grow human organs in animals for transplants.'' This will arise many questions and doubts.
Let's remember that no federal law ever did ban stem cell research in the United States, but only placed restrictions on federal funding and limited the number of embryonic stem cell lines that could be used for research.
This moratorium happened under the beloved President George W. Bush in 2001: “My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs,” he said. “I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator.”, which is kind of odd coming from a reborn Christian who had no problem with killing hundreds of thousands of human life in Afghanistan and Iraq or torturing human life to death in secret prisons.
But we should be grateful that the secular United States is finally trying to get "the Jesus" out of federal funding for scientific research, I guess.
While this is, no doubt, a positive development for a reborn atheist like myself, the article does not address the moral problem of our continued cruel and abusive relationship with animals as the human species, where we either kill, eat, exterminate, subjugate, or in this case use them for scientific experiments (without any kind of consent, obviously).
And what is the endgame here? Help people with terrible diseases or do we need more hearts grown in swine for heartless war criminals like Dick Cheney? I for one can imagine a future where the Billionaires and 1% class get to replace their rotten cores with freshly grown organs in abused animals while the rest of us are dying without adequate health care.
This moratorium happened under the beloved President George W. Bush in 2001: “My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs,” he said. “I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator.”, which is kind of odd coming from a reborn Christian who had no problem with killing hundreds of thousands of human life in Afghanistan and Iraq or torturing human life to death in secret prisons.
But we should be grateful that the secular United States is finally trying to get "the Jesus" out of federal funding for scientific research, I guess.
While this is, no doubt, a positive development for a reborn atheist like myself, the article does not address the moral problem of our continued cruel and abusive relationship with animals as the human species, where we either kill, eat, exterminate, subjugate, or in this case use them for scientific experiments (without any kind of consent, obviously).
And what is the endgame here? Help people with terrible diseases or do we need more hearts grown in swine for heartless war criminals like Dick Cheney? I for one can imagine a future where the Billionaires and 1% class get to replace their rotten cores with freshly grown organs in abused animals while the rest of us are dying without adequate health care.
7
If you want to to get a glimpse of where this horror show ends, just watch the movie Splice, you will be thoroughly disturbed.
1
Do these people ever learn? This is pure bastardization in the name of science.
To think that having a virulent strain of Zika V fluttering around, would give these folks pause. Nature has provided us with an abundance of ilixers, and, it has also limited us to certain extent (no limb regrowth, etc). So this whole Dr. Moreau thing, is just plain advanced quackery.
Let's get back to basics.
As sick as this may sound, we have more than enough terminally ill human beings, who are more than willing to participate in these things. That's the legislation that needs to be looked at. Further, we should be focusing on prevention (I realize that prevention is not profitable), as opposed to chasing malidies.
The human body and genome, are equipped to handle a lot of extreme trauma, the thing is, we don't empower our bodies. We essentially use the next "pill" as a crutch.
To think that having a virulent strain of Zika V fluttering around, would give these folks pause. Nature has provided us with an abundance of ilixers, and, it has also limited us to certain extent (no limb regrowth, etc). So this whole Dr. Moreau thing, is just plain advanced quackery.
Let's get back to basics.
As sick as this may sound, we have more than enough terminally ill human beings, who are more than willing to participate in these things. That's the legislation that needs to be looked at. Further, we should be focusing on prevention (I realize that prevention is not profitable), as opposed to chasing malidies.
The human body and genome, are equipped to handle a lot of extreme trauma, the thing is, we don't empower our bodies. We essentially use the next "pill" as a crutch.
This cracks me up. People do not want to eat GMO food but they clamor for GMO but they demand GMO drug products that they inject their bodies. You gotta love this a
American ride :)
American ride :)
N.I.H. May Fund Human-Animal Stem Cell Research by Gina Kolata
This article by Gina Kolata caught my attention this week due to its intriguing topic that has risen. According to the article, the National Institutes of Health want to change the policy for funding experiments which mix human cells and animal cells. Therefore, the experiments would be using both human and animal stem cells. N.I.H. is wanting to do this because it would help them understand the diseases found in humans, and the way to treat these diseases. The article states ''researchers have long been putting human cells into animals...'' Therefore, researchers have put pieces of tumors into mice so they could be able to test different drugs to see which drug would be more efficient to destroy the tumor. Nevertheless, if the N.I.H. would lift the funding ban, patients would benefit. This would make a transplant much easier. Despite this, there are still two experiments that would be considered for funding. The first experiment according to the article would be ''the addition of human stem cells to embryos of animals before the embryos reach a stage when organs are starting to develop.'' This experiment would leave researchers who work with primates waiting until the embryo was developed before adding the human stem cells. The second experiment would want researchers to put stem cells in other animals besides rodents where the cells could get into and modify the animals' brains. This topic remains questionable.
This article by Gina Kolata caught my attention this week due to its intriguing topic that has risen. According to the article, the National Institutes of Health want to change the policy for funding experiments which mix human cells and animal cells. Therefore, the experiments would be using both human and animal stem cells. N.I.H. is wanting to do this because it would help them understand the diseases found in humans, and the way to treat these diseases. The article states ''researchers have long been putting human cells into animals...'' Therefore, researchers have put pieces of tumors into mice so they could be able to test different drugs to see which drug would be more efficient to destroy the tumor. Nevertheless, if the N.I.H. would lift the funding ban, patients would benefit. This would make a transplant much easier. Despite this, there are still two experiments that would be considered for funding. The first experiment according to the article would be ''the addition of human stem cells to embryos of animals before the embryos reach a stage when organs are starting to develop.'' This experiment would leave researchers who work with primates waiting until the embryo was developed before adding the human stem cells. The second experiment would want researchers to put stem cells in other animals besides rodents where the cells could get into and modify the animals' brains. This topic remains questionable.
1
Prove that patients would benefit from this type of research. There is now an anti-hype inititiative in stem cell research and a reproducibility crises in medical research. Im sure youve heard of Ben Goldacre and JP Ioannidis.
What I found most interesting in the New York Times this week is the article titled, “N.I.H May Fund Human-Animal Stem Cell Research”. I found this article very interesting because if the scientists who study these types of advances in technology make a discovery; it could lead to animals being able to grow human organs. This discovery would make finding donors and being able to transplant organs for sick and dying people much easier. There is a scary thought of being able to grow organs outside of the human body, so many people would be against this type of knowledge and would never agree to participate in the science. Many animal rights activists will also be very against this type of testing. One thought I think is interesting would be if humans began killing more animals when they become adults so they can take their organs if this type of research is successful. In this article it also talks about how the N.I.H will still not allow scientists to put human sperm or egg cells into an animal. This could maybe lead to some mix of a human and an animal. I believe that this process would need to be explored in great detail before any strides towards mixing a human and an animal can be made. The N.I.H also has made sure that no stem cells from a human are made to be put in the brains of any animals because this could lead to animals possibly having human-like thoughts or having human brains that would give them the brain function of a human.
But if you listen to the piece on NPR regarding this research, the scientists say they cannot predict where these stems cells may end up in the animal body. They could well end up in the animal's brain.
This matter could have been approached in a different manner. Rather than disrespecting animals and fearing the possibility of becoming an inferior species (that is if animals develop humanlike brains and humanlike thoughts). This innovative technique could be put to use but I believe that there is an obstacle standing between the medical use of human-animal stem research and the animals. For hundreds of years we have disrespected animals by treating them like objects. We mindlessly slaughter them, manipulate them, and harass them on a daily basis for our own benefit. If we can attempt to reverse a fraction of the harm that we have done to innocent animals then maybe we can be worthy or using their bodies for medical purposes.
4
What Dr. Moreau would have given for a computer and software...
2
I cannot state this strongly enough, human beings have absolutely no moral authority or ethical right to enlist sentient creatures for the benefit of seeking better medical treatement for same. We have no right. It is not our right. @PETA @foany @aldf @uwc_nyc @johannaclear We have NO right.
9
What could possibly go wrong?
We know so little about brain development and embryo development in a single species. To mix species, seems like we are just increasing the size of the haystack. I see no benefit to this at our current level of knowledge.
We know so little about brain development and embryo development in a single species. To mix species, seems like we are just increasing the size of the haystack. I see no benefit to this at our current level of knowledge.
7
There is no possible way that this could go horribly, horribly wrong....
3
I'll be PETA is overjoyed by this one!
Horrific. Shut this whole thing down and arrest these NIH people and so called scientists for animal torture. These people are no better than dog fighters. Shameful.
6
May I reccomend Margret Atwood's "Maddadam" trilogy for an in depth look at issues that might arise. And of course, "Animal Farm", allegorical, but still.
1
What's up with the 30 day comment period? I jumped over and there's a form to complete, but it is unclear what impact it will have.
Here's my public vote: No funding for this research. It's perverse. And dangerous. And not a response to a specific need but rather a scientist's ultimate plaything. And it absolutely won't stop where this article says it will. Please. Just imagine the sick scientists all over the world drooling over the chance to create a new creature. All in the name of what lie? It just makes me angry. Spend the energy within a human realm and stop playing God.
Here's my public vote: No funding for this research. It's perverse. And dangerous. And not a response to a specific need but rather a scientist's ultimate plaything. And it absolutely won't stop where this article says it will. Please. Just imagine the sick scientists all over the world drooling over the chance to create a new creature. All in the name of what lie? It just makes me angry. Spend the energy within a human realm and stop playing God.
4
Reading more of these comments and shaking my head. The same arguments were made against the dissection of human bodies. And the notion that we are obligated to protect the life of an animal over that of a human being is absurd from a moral perspective.
Science has, from the Church's persecution of Galileo to the Bush Administration's ban on stem cell research, had to contend with such primitivism. It proceeds from a reliance on raw emotion rather than intellect. Emotionally, people are disturbed to see life used in this manner. But imagine now someone you love unnecessarily of kidney disease, and the slaughter of a pig. If you favor the life of the pig in this circumstance, you are not behaving morally or with compassion.
There are real concerns here, such as the possibility that zoonoses could be transmitted to the human recipient of an organ, but they are very different than what people are saying here, which seems to be a vague combination of "I don't want to be a predator" and "if I mess with this I'll have my liver pecked out."
Science has, from the Church's persecution of Galileo to the Bush Administration's ban on stem cell research, had to contend with such primitivism. It proceeds from a reliance on raw emotion rather than intellect. Emotionally, people are disturbed to see life used in this manner. But imagine now someone you love unnecessarily of kidney disease, and the slaughter of a pig. If you favor the life of the pig in this circumstance, you are not behaving morally or with compassion.
There are real concerns here, such as the possibility that zoonoses could be transmitted to the human recipient of an organ, but they are very different than what people are saying here, which seems to be a vague combination of "I don't want to be a predator" and "if I mess with this I'll have my liver pecked out."
4
"Morality" is a human construct that exists nowhere in reality. The desire to equate/value animal life with human life is "absurd from a moral perspective" only if the determining perspective is the (artificially constructed) human one. In the great scheme of the universe, Josh Hill has no greater moral significance or importance than the 'lowliest' mouse. Just ask the mouse.
I guess you never heard of moral particularism- and my such discursive imperialism and eliminative imperialism. Your views are selfish and self serving. I certainly would not use posthuman medicine- even if it cost me my life. Its a shame some people conflate their opinions as being what all should think. Try again.
Of course it exists in reality or else there would be no speaking about it. Youre notion of it being artificial is artificial.
It is indeed a complex issue both scientifically and ethically. I tend to favor proceeding with scientific experiment, but with caution. The conversations about ethics must continue even being stepped up in order to keep pace.
That said, there is a vast difference between an animal whose brain has a few human cells and an animal with a human brain.
The use of the word "chimera," while technically right, evokes truly hybrid creatures, mythological monsters, out of horror stories. I find the use of the word unnecessarily alarmist at this time. It makes a better news story, but does it serve the public well?
That said, there is a vast difference between an animal whose brain has a few human cells and an animal with a human brain.
The use of the word "chimera," while technically right, evokes truly hybrid creatures, mythological monsters, out of horror stories. I find the use of the word unnecessarily alarmist at this time. It makes a better news story, but does it serve the public well?
4
Chimera is technical scientific term in this situation. We use it in the field all the time, by the way! Though I completely understand your point.
2
While I applaud advances in research to save human lives I can't stop wondering about the cost.... to animals. What makes us so sure that we are superior? What gives us the right to experiment with any form of life ?
38
We're "superior" because we're a darn site smarter than the animals are. Do you think that the lion worries about whether it's superior when it sees a juicy lamb? We're part of nature, red in tooth and claw. Who give the lion the right to eat? We're all part of evolution, self-replicating nucleic acids competing for available energy, and evolution isn't known for being warm and fuzzy.
4
It isn't only that aspect which bothers me. What also is somewhat disturbing is the thought that we may be creating animals with human genes in their germline, or perhaps, the other way around. Our so-called Junk DNA may have been established by viral infections caused by close contact with animals, but deliberate additions? I love genetics and the life sciences in general, but some thesholds must be respected.
By the way, for an entertaining view of this question, read Maragate Atwood: Oryx and Crake, The Year of The Flood...
By the way, for an entertaining view of this question, read Maragate Atwood: Oryx and Crake, The Year of The Flood...
1
Every time a person, including yourself, is treated for any illness animals have been sacrificed during the research to create the treatment.
If it saves one child; If your child was dying of kidney failure; keep your God out of government spending. Pretty much covers the philosophical debate these days so I guess its on the lab - let the money flow!!
7
I'm an Atheist. Keep ethics in government spending!
1
Ill keep my God in my views- thankyou very much for your soulish views on morality.
Unfortunate: that the animals involved in this macabre exercise don't get a vote.
36
It is very far past the time when humans should stop referring to everything else alive as "animals."
We humans are animals. Period.
Stop the absurd linguistic interference.
We humans are animals. Period.
Stop the absurd linguistic interference.
27
Technically we are all animals and the term we want here is "beasts." But that distinction has been dropped in modern usage, so we're pretty much stuck with the term "animal" to describe something that is warm, fuzzy, and legal to eat.
Oh, so you really think the technology will be available to ALL humans. For Christ's sake, Florida has 400,000 people NOT covered by health insurance. There are 6 billion people on the planet. Let's make immortality a birth right when we can't even sustainably support the people we have.
How about we use the money to get rid of Malaria or do some of you think that that's one way not to have to give people these "New" organs. As a species we are so effed up it is pathetic.
How about we use the money to get rid of Malaria or do some of you think that that's one way not to have to give people these "New" organs. As a species we are so effed up it is pathetic.
36
So the pig who built the brick house should give it up and move into a house of straw like his unfortunate fellow? Better, I think, to build a brick house and invite the other two pigs to do the same.
1
I think it's more like 7.4 billion.
That's about three to four billion too many, given the behaviors of the specie and the available science.
Most humans can't even figure out how to protect themselves regularly from sunshine, bugs, insane violence or addictions.
Your suggestion is money?
Team up with a Trump wife. Or daughter. Then go to an open mike night somewhere and try to make someone laugh.
That's about three to four billion too many, given the behaviors of the specie and the available science.
Most humans can't even figure out how to protect themselves regularly from sunshine, bugs, insane violence or addictions.
Your suggestion is money?
Team up with a Trump wife. Or daughter. Then go to an open mike night somewhere and try to make someone laugh.
1
I agree with you on malaria, we have the knowledge and the ability to rid that disease from the world. And I agree that, although it's slowly getting better, too many people still don't have access to health insurance.
The point of this article is that using stem cells to grow human organs in animals can make it more affordable. Please don't compare it with immortality, which is something humans are (fortunately) not even remotely close of being able to realize.
The point of this article is that using stem cells to grow human organs in animals can make it more affordable. Please don't compare it with immortality, which is something humans are (fortunately) not even remotely close of being able to realize.
For those expressing horror at this "development": NIH is lifting a ban on funding. There has never been a ban on the research, providing federal funds were not involved.
9
In America, all issues of morality are determined by funding. If there is money for doing anything, it is by definition, 'moral.' ;-)
We are slowly (the US government and businesses) opening another Pandora's Box and letting the chips fly where they will within a scientific 'box' with no absolutes. As much as one can be excited about such research and the abilities for our satiating desire to learn and conquer a knowledge we lack as a participant in this life/living program the ability to be the 'god' of our creation and being. Not faulting the desire to reach out and learn and do in a quest for knowledge, but what we do with this knowledge and more importantly, how it will effect us all. And will it be used as a contol? And this we do not know, but learn.Living on an edge, and is it a positive step for the future living? I've not decided for myself - should the scientific research field decide this for me to accept.
Unless they are utter hypocrites, those who abhor the use of animals in research should avoid all medical care that was based experiments in animals. In other words, all medical care.
5
What about the well being of the animals? They feel pain and have emotional experiences, as recent NYT articles have pointed out. At what point do we as a society decide that animals aren't here for our experiments or for our amusement? (Or for our food, for that matter.) We've already grotesquely genetically modified animals for food, and now we're going to grow human organs in them? What an awful existence.
19
I don't like the sound of these experimental practices at all.
My mother died last year of Progressive Supra-Nuclear Palsy at the age of sixty-three. I cared for her. It was awful. I don't know how she would have felt about it, but *I* feel that I wouldn't have wanted another long, terrible trail of generations of tortured animals propping up her possible (but not guaranteed) health improvement. Would *my* human life be worth all that damage, waste and harm to other lives, even animal lives? I don't feel so. (Do you all think I'm nuts? I'm just speaking from my gut here. I can absolutely appreciate that a parent of an ill child would feel otherwise). It's just that I suspect that we brought this and other diseases upon ourselves with our unique human practices, and maybe we shouldn't be dragging other lives (yes, animal lives) so deliberately and awfully and directly into our disasters.
Now could be a good time to stop and reassess across the board. The world feels extremely strange these days. Maybe we need to do some radical evolving ourselves, as humans -- reconsider the massive damage that we cause, and change our practices. A LOT of our practices. Won't happen, but I wish that we could.
My mother died last year of Progressive Supra-Nuclear Palsy at the age of sixty-three. I cared for her. It was awful. I don't know how she would have felt about it, but *I* feel that I wouldn't have wanted another long, terrible trail of generations of tortured animals propping up her possible (but not guaranteed) health improvement. Would *my* human life be worth all that damage, waste and harm to other lives, even animal lives? I don't feel so. (Do you all think I'm nuts? I'm just speaking from my gut here. I can absolutely appreciate that a parent of an ill child would feel otherwise). It's just that I suspect that we brought this and other diseases upon ourselves with our unique human practices, and maybe we shouldn't be dragging other lives (yes, animal lives) so deliberately and awfully and directly into our disasters.
Now could be a good time to stop and reassess across the board. The world feels extremely strange these days. Maybe we need to do some radical evolving ourselves, as humans -- reconsider the massive damage that we cause, and change our practices. A LOT of our practices. Won't happen, but I wish that we could.
17
So, if "we lack an understanding of at what point humanization of an animal brain could lead to more humanlike thought or consciousness,” then will we wait until the "thing" looks us in the eye and says "hey, that's my kidney"?
Sometimes a good idea in theory is a really bad idea in practice.
Sometimes a good idea in theory is a really bad idea in practice.
2
There are so many problems with this. First off is the idea of growing human organs in animals is so we can kill the animals to harvest the organs. We kill animals for food, so I guess there's no moral issue there. But what if the animal becomes "more" human? What if it begins to speak, unexpectedly to the surprise of the scientists who did not fully appreciate the power of stem cells? Is it still eligible for slaughter?
2
There is ample evidence that research of this nature is well underway! How else do we explain Donald Trump phenomenon?
8
"If the funding ban is lifted, it could help patients by, for example, encouraging research in which a pig grows a human kidney for a transplant."
The NIH will approve. We [also] should know by now- Stem- cell research won't stop with a human kidney. We've used animals to *test* the effects of human diseases and chronic ailments; causing some of the most horrendous unethical suffering. Lest we forget, we've also *experimented* on unsuspecting humans all- in the interest of science & wellness:
Can we ever forget the inhuman racist and criminal 40 year (1932-1972) *Experiment* conducted by our U.S. Public Health Service- on the lives of unsuspecting black men; aptly titled: "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male." ? Most Americans have no memory (or knowledge ) of this criminal endeavor.
I am a staunch supporter of scientific study, however, the line between ethics, science research and outcomes- continues to become thinner and thinner.
The NIH will approve. We [also] should know by now- Stem- cell research won't stop with a human kidney. We've used animals to *test* the effects of human diseases and chronic ailments; causing some of the most horrendous unethical suffering. Lest we forget, we've also *experimented* on unsuspecting humans all- in the interest of science & wellness:
Can we ever forget the inhuman racist and criminal 40 year (1932-1972) *Experiment* conducted by our U.S. Public Health Service- on the lives of unsuspecting black men; aptly titled: "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male." ? Most Americans have no memory (or knowledge ) of this criminal endeavor.
I am a staunch supporter of scientific study, however, the line between ethics, science research and outcomes- continues to become thinner and thinner.
16
Human society will never advance as long as we show no regard to other sentient creatures. People that experiment and abuse animals in the name of scientific achievement are a throwback to the 20th Century.Today's scientists of repute have many, many ways to simulate biological experimentation without the use, and resulting cruelty to living creatures.
30
This sounds like a lot worse than that. This isn't experimenting on animals as an analog to humans. This is USING animals directly to help humans. I think Deep Blue Sea started with something like this being done to sharks. Suddenly, Richard Dreyfus' line from Jaws morphed to "The swim, they eat, they make baby sharks, and they contemplate Carl Jung."
As a taxpayer and U.S. citizen I think this is definitely an issue all Americans should weigh in on.
Any science that results in the potential for new species of creatures to arise, let alone ones that could lead to modified human DNA (and really a new human species) should be something we all discuss and agree to before any science moves us in that direction.
What is really the goal here? We have enough of a hard time understanding the meaning of our existence - I think extending life longer and longer, if not infinitely, will only lead to more people questioning the point of it all. Death at least lets you appreciate life.
These are huge questions and not ones to be left up to a few people who may think they know better.
And yes, I also think humans should respect the life of other animals more than they do, too.
Any science that results in the potential for new species of creatures to arise, let alone ones that could lead to modified human DNA (and really a new human species) should be something we all discuss and agree to before any science moves us in that direction.
What is really the goal here? We have enough of a hard time understanding the meaning of our existence - I think extending life longer and longer, if not infinitely, will only lead to more people questioning the point of it all. Death at least lets you appreciate life.
These are huge questions and not ones to be left up to a few people who may think they know better.
And yes, I also think humans should respect the life of other animals more than they do, too.
8
I agree with you, but how many people actually have any understanding of that work at all? Most just repeat what they have read in tabloids or in chat rooms, but know next to nothing about the processes involved in these experiments. I'm not being highbrow here, but I was taught to first gather all the objective information I can before pronouncing judgement on a point under discussion.
1
There seems to be some blanket fear and concern about crossing an imaginary threshold. But we are not talking about a change in the DNA of the patient. We are talking about growing organs for transplants. So let's put it plainly: You can either accept a kidney grown from your own cells in a pig or die. Before you answer, do you ever eat bacon? If so, is there not some profound hypocrisy in blanket criticism of this potentially revolutionary platform? I only hope our next president has the vision to vastly increase NIH funding, and hopefully engender many more remarkable advances like the one described in this article. Money spent on our future health is money well spent.
6
My answer to your question is no - I do not eat any meat, poultry or fish. That is a deeply moral issue for me, full stop. There goes your "hypocrisy" argument.
2
As of just recently, NIH has crossed the major threshold of being granted the opportunity to continue their scientific research of animal/human embryo comparisons. In my opinion, I am against their techniques and believe that all scientific study affecting the lives of any animals should be put to a halt. The idea of possibly growing a human kidney inside a pigs stomach is definitely absord. Although this may lead to new scientific study and important information that could possibly help cure/ help doctors and scientists enough is enough. As other commenters have stated, let us do what we can to avoid cruelty and endangerment of nature. The NIH group needs to evaluate their decisions and think about the comsequences and mistake they would be making by hurting these innocent animals for the betterment of the human species.
16
I have no qualms with this line of research, mixing and matching parts from existing models can serve many useful purposes on the road towards reverse genetic engineering and the capacity to build what we need "from scratch." The sooner we get there the better.
Along the way I predict, however, that despite application of the most stringent regulations mandating the cremation of the pig chimera after the harvesting of human organs, someone will fake the paperwork and, to make a buck, ship the carcass off to the hot dog factory, at which point you will be eating bits and drabs of human at the ballpark. Bon Appetit!
Along the way I predict, however, that despite application of the most stringent regulations mandating the cremation of the pig chimera after the harvesting of human organs, someone will fake the paperwork and, to make a buck, ship the carcass off to the hot dog factory, at which point you will be eating bits and drabs of human at the ballpark. Bon Appetit!
5
Actually that's an interesting prospect. After all, there's no more complete human food, nutritionally, than human flesh. Advanced societies do their best to minimize cannibalism, probably with good reason. But is there any reason other than aesthetic, not to grow and consume it? I can think of a few arguments against it, but they mostly have to do with leaned food avoidance behavior that is not innate in us, as witness that cannibalism has occurred in many societies and continues to occur e.g. in regions of Africa where pygmies are considered a form of bush meat.
Prion maladies like Kuru come to mind, and consent/labeling issues, e.g. similar to if you secretly stuck meat in food marketed as vegetarian. Given the revulsion against cannibalism, psychological damage would ensue once the truth was out.
2
"What hath God wrought". As a scientist (microbiologist), I truly hope the unintended consequences are being thoroughly considered for these types of experiments. I am a staunch progressive both in my political and scientific outlook, but I am also a cautious person. This is an area of scientific research that should be approached with all due circumspection, and all ethical considerations should be thoroughly discussed before research proceeds.
I was against lifting the ban on H5N1 birdflu virus research, because of how deadly the virus is, and the real possibility that there could be a catastrophic accident resulting in a pandemic, or the prospect that the virus could be mutated to become weaponized. While this proposed research of injecting human stem cells into animal embryos is for improving human health, if this does go forward, there must be safeguards built in, and the research has to be carefully regulated and monitored.
The question "just because we can, should we" must be answered before the research begins in earnest.
I was against lifting the ban on H5N1 birdflu virus research, because of how deadly the virus is, and the real possibility that there could be a catastrophic accident resulting in a pandemic, or the prospect that the virus could be mutated to become weaponized. While this proposed research of injecting human stem cells into animal embryos is for improving human health, if this does go forward, there must be safeguards built in, and the research has to be carefully regulated and monitored.
The question "just because we can, should we" must be answered before the research begins in earnest.
5
This type of experimentation is immoral, barbarous and extremely dangerous as we have no comprehension of unintended consequences. And they could set in effect changes in both humans and animals that could not be reversed in heredity and evolution. Best I can say is that it is a sick idea.
18
We are all born in "Gene jail", forever stunted by the natures of mating humans who slam us with their least/most desirable traits.
All power to research scientists who will someday give us the power to self evolve....to avoid major diseases, to improve our mental health and capacity, improve competency and social interactions, become less.hostile, defensive, and territorial and warlike. About time that gene replacement enables us to improve ourselves without waiting a hundred generations with the hope that Darwinism will produce something positive for humanity.
All power to research scientists who will someday give us the power to self evolve....to avoid major diseases, to improve our mental health and capacity, improve competency and social interactions, become less.hostile, defensive, and territorial and warlike. About time that gene replacement enables us to improve ourselves without waiting a hundred generations with the hope that Darwinism will produce something positive for humanity.
4
The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If your dreams of breaking from the gene jail comes true, I can bet that the first beneficiaries will be elite soldiers with enhanced abilities of killing. Don't believe me then study the history of 19th and 20th century science.
Good lord. Such a primitive emotional reaction. Let us be sure that a animal doesn't develop a human level of intelligence -- while remembering that animals such as chimpanzees and gorillas already have the intelligence of a human child. Let us avoid cruelty and suffering. But it is primitive and absurd to suppose that we shouldn't grow a human kidney in an animal, and given the benefits of this kind of research it would be morally wrong not to try. We are already willing to make animals into shoes, wallets, and evening dinner; surely, saving someone's life is a higher calling?
4
Avoiding cruelty and suffering includes recognizing animals lives are lives worth living. You use a lot of judgmental words like primitive and absurd. Such discursive imperialism isnt convincing to me. And frankly I dont want to destroy an animal to be used in a treatment for my own life. I dont eat meat and the leather i purchase is already used. Maybe you should work on perfecting your own morals-that is if youre sincere about concerns with suffering.
8
We are already willing to make animals into shoes, wallets, and evening dinner;
perhaps we shoudnt be so willing to that either
perhaps we shoudnt be so willing to that either
4
As humans, we have exceptional responsibility, rather than exceptional rights, with regard to tinkering with evolution. Our parasitic selfishness has wiped out enough life on this planet of ours. Time to stop. Please, all read "The Sixth Extinction." Let's not make it even worse by altering and corrupting Nature any further. I would choose to die rather than utilize other species to grow and replace my failing limbs or organs.
11
And so it begins. Dr. Frankenstein, or should I say Dr. Moreau, you have brethren.
9
Isle of Dr. Moreau again. Hopefully it makes for a better movie this time.
14
This is one heck of a threshold being crossed here. I'm not so sure.
28
I don't like where this is going. I understand the reasoning but we should go very slowly . I don't think we understand enough about what can go wrong.
20
How slowly shall we go? How many humans will die or suffer while we inch along towards finding treatments and cures?
Let's not ride with abandon, but see where the initial steps take us.
Let's not ride with abandon, but see where the initial steps take us.
2
Dear Dale Reid,
Sorry, but all humans will die and suffer. There is no avoiding that.
Sorry, but all humans will die and suffer. There is no avoiding that.
Dr. Wolinetz comments, “There is a lot we don’t understand about the brain,” she said, “ which is one reason the possibility of these animal models is really exciting.” I would submit, Dr., that those innocent animals who will become innocent victims of your "experiments," would beg to differ with you. What we do know is that most animals have far more capacity for emotions, for social interactions, for experiencing grief (e.g. elephants), and other complex emotions, not to mention experiencing pain, terror and abject trauma. I'm sure many will disagree with me, but I believe we have no right to subject animals to your "experiments." We already know that the military is, mercifully, moving away from grotesque assaults upon and savage torture of goats, pigs, and other animals, in favor of using far better simulator models; ditto for medical schools. I would counsel you to read the inestimable late Henry Beston, renowned naturalist, in his sentinel work, "The Outermost House." You should take special note of perhaps the greatest commentary ever, about the unique plane occupied by animals: " ...the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we will never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations........" I can only pray that you manage to summon a conscience, Dr. Wolinetz.
70
"I can only pray that you manage to summon a conscience, Dr. Wolinetz."
Er, the same thing could be said of someone who places the welfare of goats and mice above that of human beings.
Er, the same thing could be said of someone who places the welfare of goats and mice above that of human beings.
13
Truly, a caring empathetic comment.
Long ago, I concluded that real savagery is practised only by human beings, against other humans, and against animals of all kinds.
Because of humanity's existence, entire species become extinct, each and every day.
Long ago, I concluded that real savagery is practised only by human beings, against other humans, and against animals of all kinds.
Because of humanity's existence, entire species become extinct, each and every day.
2
Long live frankenstein science and the frankenstein scientists! Scientists always claim their research is for some good and if the public only understood just how caring and wonderful their research truly is and how close we are to incredibly wonderful breakthroughs. Nothing like the big lie technique in medical research. The truth is the rates of cancer, diabetes, arthritis, chronic pain have been on the rise -as has the costs in the past generation. Science has grown more careless- to the point where even NIH has had to act to do something about the reproducibility crises in science and widespread fraud.
Science has become too much like a bad B movie from the 1950's. And the new truths to science= much stranger then fiction. Science and scientists have lost their way and they lack the humilitas, the caritas and the sinceritas to properly serve society. They have become increasingly far removed from democratic concerns and increwasingly dogmatic and authoritarian. THey routinely claim the public is not qualified to have an opinion about their arcane work. I say lets reform science and scientists-and the sooner the better.
Science has become too much like a bad B movie from the 1950's. And the new truths to science= much stranger then fiction. Science and scientists have lost their way and they lack the humilitas, the caritas and the sinceritas to properly serve society. They have become increasingly far removed from democratic concerns and increwasingly dogmatic and authoritarian. THey routinely claim the public is not qualified to have an opinion about their arcane work. I say lets reform science and scientists-and the sooner the better.
21
But this is completely absurd. Where did you get your information, Fox News? A web page? None of what you say is true. Do you ever even read a research paper? There is an astounding abundance of good work being done and science continues to benefit us daily.
13
Q: How many "scientists" does it take to do crazy research if no one is promising potentially insane amounts of money?
A: There'd be some dude, but no one would really like him/her because he/she has all these weird ideas and is, well, scary.
(Profit trumps scary/weird/unethical.)
A: There'd be some dude, but no one would really like him/her because he/she has all these weird ideas and is, well, scary.
(Profit trumps scary/weird/unethical.)
Really? Only certain people benefit; PLU.
As a scientist I have mixed feelings.
Certainly there is much that could be learned by such studies.
But the basic problems of medicine are:
1) It will always be profit for people, which means most people will always be denied new medical treatments; and
2) Each person still has to die. If we ever do defeat death, we will all die soon after due to overpopulation.
Certainly there is much that could be learned by such studies.
But the basic problems of medicine are:
1) It will always be profit for people, which means most people will always be denied new medical treatments; and
2) Each person still has to die. If we ever do defeat death, we will all die soon after due to overpopulation.
14
Isn't science wonderful? What we might ask is whether scientists are so wonderful, and even further, whether the society which uses the results of science is quite so wonderful.
The "dark ages" in Europe lasted a thousand years, from 500 AD to 1500 AD. I wonder if they were quite so dark - after all they did not cause global warming, or practice racism or colonialism.
Will WE last a thousand years? What are the odds of that?
The "dark ages" in Europe lasted a thousand years, from 500 AD to 1500 AD. I wonder if they were quite so dark - after all they did not cause global warming, or practice racism or colonialism.
Will WE last a thousand years? What are the odds of that?
9
Good lord, do you have any idea what life was like in the Middle Ages? Brutish and short isn't the half of it.
If you really want to be a serf in a world with open sewers, Viking raids, and bubonic plauge, you're welcome to it, but count me out!
If you really want to be a serf in a world with open sewers, Viking raids, and bubonic plauge, you're welcome to it, but count me out!
7
I grant all your points. But my question stands. Their world lasted a thousand years, are you sure ours will?
It reminds me of a skit about two Martians in a space ship above the earth and one of them said,
"These earth people must be pretty smart - they have developed missiles."
"True", said the other, "but they have aimed them at themselves! "
It reminds me of a skit about two Martians in a space ship above the earth and one of them said,
"These earth people must be pretty smart - they have developed missiles."
"True", said the other, "but they have aimed them at themselves! "
4
Oh, I don't deny the possibility that we may blow ourselves up, or otherwise destroy ourselves with technology. In fact, I'm not sure how we can avoid it! But I'm not sure I'd want to go back to the Middle Ages, one of the beastliest eras in human history, to avoid that possibility. Perhaps I'll think differently if we blow ourselves up. But even then, what is the alternative? The suppression of science as in the original Planet of the Apes? That isn't going to happen. And, really, the problem isn't with science per se, it's with the primitive human beings who use what it devises. Emotionally, we are still animals that throw spears at one another in the jungle, except that we now have nuclear and biological weapons rather than spears.
It may be that the only solution to this lies in science, in changing outselves or how we are governed. Women don't typically start wars; perhaps we could engineer ourselves to eliminate our primitive male instincts. Religion and ideology lead to conflict; again, perhaps we could engineer ourselves to remove the primitive emotional mechanisms that cause faith. Psychosis and psychopathy are also dangerous and now that we are beginning to understand their physiological causes perhaps we can eliminate them. Or perhaps we'll just blow ourselves p and the survivors will pledge to do better.
It may be that the only solution to this lies in science, in changing outselves or how we are governed. Women don't typically start wars; perhaps we could engineer ourselves to eliminate our primitive male instincts. Religion and ideology lead to conflict; again, perhaps we could engineer ourselves to remove the primitive emotional mechanisms that cause faith. Psychosis and psychopathy are also dangerous and now that we are beginning to understand their physiological causes perhaps we can eliminate them. Or perhaps we'll just blow ourselves p and the survivors will pledge to do better.
The NIH has been torturing animals for too long, with little to show for it. When you hear the phrase "brain research" think of primates with electrodes in their brains suffering unimaginable horrors in tiny cages behind closed doors. When you hear the phrase "basic research" think... applicable to nothing. Now, they're playing god by trying to mix human and animal species. This is a big money making machine for the vivisectors who control the NIH. Shame on the government for funding this medieval nonsense!
51
It seems to me the only medieval nonsense is what you've just said. Little to show for it? Do you have any idea of how far medicine has advanced?
6
I love comments like this. I am sure the writer is sincere, until they need one of the many medical miracles that has come out of animal research. It has been and continues to play an important role and while the commenter makes no distinction between a human and an animal life, I do.
3
Do you have any idea how much medical knowledge was gained by Josef Mengele's little experiments. Tie off a person's bladder and time how long it takes to die. Shall I go on. Pathetic sense of morality.
2
I guess the idiom, "when pigs fly", will cease to be used, after the first few glide in to land in Central Park, NYC.
New laws will come into being as well; consider it being illegal to consume pork, as in ham and bacon, and flying talking pigs, marching, actually flying around the White House, demanding civil rights apply to pigs.
Methinks this planet is going to become a very interesting place to live on, during the next 50 years.
And imagine the first fully articulate pig, running for President, far-fetched ??
Come to think of it, the current leading candidates already possess certain pig-like traits, insatiable avarice being the most obvious ...
Ah well, I guess pigs will fly before we see that !!
New laws will come into being as well; consider it being illegal to consume pork, as in ham and bacon, and flying talking pigs, marching, actually flying around the White House, demanding civil rights apply to pigs.
Methinks this planet is going to become a very interesting place to live on, during the next 50 years.
And imagine the first fully articulate pig, running for President, far-fetched ??
Come to think of it, the current leading candidates already possess certain pig-like traits, insatiable avarice being the most obvious ...
Ah well, I guess pigs will fly before we see that !!
12