21 ms·
In Search for Cures, Scientists Create Multispecies Embryos
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago> "You're getting into unsettling ground that I think is damaging to our sense of humanity," says Stuart Newman, a professor of cell biology and anatomy at the New York Medical College. Is this vague sense of humanity worth more than a loved one's life? Out of curiosity, how did it survive antibiotics, in vitro fertilisation, and industrialisation?
- c2340596 10y agoI am jealous of you having a loved one.
- davesque 10y agoTrue, although let me play the devil's advocate here: Can you imagine being born a half-pig, possessing a consciousness with full human resolution, and suffering the full, rich palette of human fear as you're being harvested for the sake of another, more "worthy" life form? It's a worthwhile thought experiment. The point is, wouldn't you want to feel like you'd taken reasonable precautions to prevent this kind of suffering from taking place? Maybe it's just me, but I find these kinds of ethical considerations to be meaningful. Ironically, I think this is one of the main things that makes us "human".
- tremon 10y agoAre there any known cases of embryos that were human yet not animal?
- kashkhan 10y agoiirc all humans are animals.
- nutheracc 10y agoIs there a term for non-human animals?
- greydius 10y agoThat depends on who you ask. I've met people that hold firmly to the belief that humans are not animals. Explanation? God created Adam in his own image, so humans are somehow special and better than animals. We need to prevent these people from making decisions for society.
- doulos 10y agoI agree. These people shouldn't be allowed to vote, or own a business either. If only there were a way we could identify them more easily just by looking at them so we could avoid them. They are such a nuisance. What would be really great is if we could just create a certain section of our cities to keep them separate so we don't have to worry about them screwing things up anymore. They are so incredibly ignorant. How can they look at humans and animals and believe that one is different than the other? How can they look around this world and believe that any of this could have been created by a higher being? This ignorance cannot be tolerated. This world will not be right until we get rid of them altogether.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- lliamander 10y agoHave you considered the possibility that "your people" and "these people" should just form separate societies, or is it your preference to keep them within a common society as permanent second-class citizens?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 10y agoThis is where reading comprehension kicks in. Given the context with "human" and "animal" juxtaposed, one would assume they are using the word "animal" in the sense of "(non-human) animal". By pretending that this meaning of the word does not exist (or is not obvious), you're being intentionally obtuse to try to score points. That is, of course, the most generous interpretation of your comment, there are other less flattering ones.
- headShrinker 10y agoScoring points, or not. Humans are in fact technically animals. To write about a scientific endeavor in nontechnical/ambiguous or inaccurate terms is disingenuous or worse, negligent. By the way, I believe you were attempting to 'score points' by pointing out the op's intentionality.
- lliamander 10y ago> To write about a scientific endeavor in nontechnical/ambiguous or inaccurate terms is disingenuous or worse, negligent. No, it is not. Communication is not about being correct, but about being correctly understood. Also, if we are being technical, "animal" was a word used prior to the development of modern biology, and it means what the article means when it uses the word, i.e. non-human animals. The fact that scientists decided to reuse the same word to mean something slightly different is if anything a flaw on their part. They could have come up with a more precise term to disambiguate (e.g. "neural mobile multi-cellular organisms (NMMCOs)" or some such) but they didn't. As this article is aimed at the lay-person, it is perfectly reasonable (I would say obligatory) to use the meaning that is expected by that audience. The headline as it shows up in HN was renamed to "In Search for Cures, Scientists Create Multispecies Embryos". This is a ridiculous act of pedantry that completely obscures the rather important fact that one of those species in "multispecies" is human.
- headShrinker 10y ago> The fact that scientists decided to reuse the same word to mean something slightly different This is like saying we should have used different terminology when Copernicus published his work on planetary bodies. Or science should have used a different name for Earth when it proven that our planet round? No, if people are inaccurate, you don't keep on using old outdated definitions and invent new nouns for the new meanings. You update the old inaccurate definitions. People used to think humans were distinctly different than anything else on the planet. We are not and we are not special. We are animals. At the root of this debate is the fact that this idea deeply offends a select few, mostly religious zealots . The same groups were offended that the Earth was still Earth even though it's round. Animals are still animals even thought people are animals too. Gravity is still gravity as our definition of what it is and how it works changes.
- Veratyr 10y agoDuplicating my comment below for the the sake of visibility, the OED defines "animal" as: a. A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and a nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli; any living creature, including man. b. In ordinary or non-technical use: any such living organism other than a human being. In a technical context, such as a scientific journal, I expect that "animal" would include humans. In the headline of a science-focused mainstream media article, I think it's ambiguous. Given that the context, I think it's clear they're using the non-technical definition of the word.
- tremon 10y agoYet, I think "animal" was the worst word they could have chosen, because (as I said in another comment) the latter definition is directly from the Bible. Given that genetic manipulation evokes strong religious sentiment, the word is not neutral in this context.
- ada1981 10y agoTrump.
- ada1981 10y agoI came here to critique the same thing... Reminding people that humans are animals and thus, part of, connected to and dependent on nature is important.
- j-pb 10y agoI for one welcome our new minotaur overlords.
- bitwize 10y agoWas the lead scientist behind this project named Moreau?
- osmala 10y agoNo it was Dr. Frank E. Stein.
- curiousgal 10y agoWhoosh
- basicplus2 10y agoThis is the perfect way to allow viruses to cross species and get to humans.
- ckluis 10y agoRobin Cook’s “Chromosone 6” is a book about using monkey/human hybrids as organ-matched sources. Crossing “the line” with this type of research is not something I wish to be a part of.
- kriro 10y ago"""The experiments are so sensitive that the National Institutes of Health has imposed a moratorium on funding them while officials explore the ethical issues they raise.""" How does this work in the US? Sounds like they talked about the idea and NIH reacted with a moratorium until ethics questions are considered. I have to submit research to an ethics panel before I get funding. Not everything but pretty much everything in medicine or involving humans and possibly animals but I've never ventured into that realm. Even when writing a proposal in say human-computer interaction there's always a need to have all tests/evaluations involving human subjects approved by an ethics board first. It's typically a short description and checklist a la "will the subjects be compensated", "will the subjects be informed about the research agenda" etc. It's good form but I don't think you'll get penalized if you do a quick mockup-test with some people but formally/theoretically the requirement is there.
- Thriptic 10y agoIn the US there are also review boards (IRBs) to which you need to submit proposals for research involving human subjects. These can be intra-university boards, or third parties. These review boards look at both the safety and ethical implications of the work.
- RoutinePlayer 10y agoA very serious piece that should start with a more serious title, like "In Search for Cures, Scientists Create Multispecies Embryos". Dancing around the political correctness on the fact we're also animals is just as bad, and obtrusive, as the moral questions on the research itself.
- dang 10y agoOK, we'll use your suggestion above.
- mizchief2 10y agoNot so impressive considering Humans are a type of Animal. That's like saying you created a Honda Civic that is also a car.
- awinter-py 10y agoI worked for the IRB in college and we cooked up some safety tips for doing hybrid research: Dog hybrid probably trustworthy until act 3, but hyena hybrid trustworthy never. Don't let them find out about the pain implants, they'll remove them. If you make an anti-regression serum, don't let your grad student fall in love with the cat hybrid because he'll destroy the serum. If you're going to do the experiment on an island (vs e.g. a biohazard facility), keep ships with helicopters circling so you can evac as needed. Carry EPIRBs and lots of radios.
- knodi123 10y agoOh, were you working on one of Dr Moreau's projects?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoHumans already have mostly 'animal dna' meaning of course, we share 99% with animals. Including worms. Other than religious or anti-evolutionary rhetoric, this made-up dilemma serves no purpose.
- yyhhsj0521 10y agoMy first thought: technically, isn't human a subset of animal?
- vagabondvector 10y agowell, speciesism elevates us a little bit from the rest. so do other aggressive isms. I believe the author just made a wording mistake.
- blisterpeanuts 10y agoMichael Crichton explored the chimera idea extensively in the novel "Next". However he was more interested in "manimals" and how society would react to them. The novel also touches upon the idea of patents and ownership of biological organisms including human-like hybrids. The TV series "Orphan Black" also touches upon patents. Unlike these fictional explorations, however, the NPR story focuses on pig embryos which have been modified to grow human organs such as the pancreas. These creatures, if allowed to develop, would still be pigs, just with a very unusual pancreas. The eventual solution to growing in vivo organs is to create a human embryo that has just enough of a nervous system to stay alive, but no higher brain function. Ultimately, all children will donate a few cells in the embryonic stage to this purpose. As you grow up, your brainless clone will also grow and provide a backup set of organs, nerves, etc. that are 100% chromosomally compatible. Perhaps the aging process in a clone can also be slowed down -- cool the body to slow metabolism -- and then we'll be able to transplant younger parts, younger skin, etc. Bioethicists will debate this for decades, but it's going to happen; the benefits are too great. Of course, eventually we may have in-system cures for many of the problems that today require organ transplants, so perhaps a clone will become unnecessary.
- jonstokes 10y agoOh yes! Bust out the Comic Book Guy voice for half of the posts in this thread if you want max lulz. <comic book guy>Technically, humans are also animals. Worst. Headline. Ever.</comic book guy> Actually, Comic Book Guy, you're incorrect. In Webster's dictionary, the first definition for "animal" is: "a living thing that is not a human being or plant". As Webster's or any other English dictionary in the world will attest, colloquially and very commonly when people use the term "animal" they mean "non-human", and there is nothing wrong with colloquialism in headlines. The intent of the original headline is crystal clear, it is not misleading, and it is not unserious or unethical. Of course, this fact doesn't stop HN's legions of nit-picking boobs from descending on this title like a pack of leg-humping chihuahuas... but again, that's what Comic Book Guy voice is for :p
- tillinghast 10y agoAs a human who is also apparently a leg-humping chihuahua, I just wanted to chime in to say that Noah Webster is a dumbass.
- jonstokes 10y agoYeah, you win. All of the definitions in this popular online dictionary are some variant of "animal == nasty type of human", so this must be a better source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Animal&utm_source=search-action http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Animal&utm_so...
- Veratyr 10y agoTo expand this with quotes a little, OED (using the paid OED.com so can't provide links unfortunately) defines "animal" as: a. A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and a nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli; any living creature, including man. b. In ordinary or non-technical use: any such living organism other than a human being. The etymology from OED shows that its origins are both a borrowing from French (which excludes man) and Latin (which includes man), which explains the confusion a little I think. So technically, the people claiming humans are an animal are correct. In common parlance however, distinguishing humans from animals is totally acceptable. Both sides have an argument but I don't see how it's appropriate to describe other HN users as "nit-picking boobs" or compare them to "leg-humping chihuahuas". That's the kind of childishness I'd expect from Reddit or 4chan.
- stepvhen 10y agoIf AI research is approaching the grand question of "what makes us human" from one side, then situations like this are approaching it from another. Somebody with a strict definition of "human" must be feeling their views and ethics very attacked right now.
- o_____________o 10y agoI'm afraid the progressive perspective you describe will turn to ash against that kind of person's reality shield
- r00fus 10y agoI'm not clear how @stepvhen's is comment is a "progressive perspective". It seems entirely factual.
- o_____________o 10y agoMechanically but not ethically. You speak of objectivity and acceptance of this paradigm obliterating change as if it were a given, but under our present day dogma, it would require eschewing the perceived divinity or naturalistic infallibility of man's design. Look at GMO, for chrissakes.
- ctvo 10y agoThis looks like such a smart reply. I wish I knew what it actually meant.
- Tagbert 10y agoI think its a MadLib. Let's all play: <adverb> but not <adverb>. You speak of <noun> and <noun> of this <noun> <present participle verb> <noun> as if it were a given, but under our present day <noun>, it would require <present participle verb> the perceived <noun> or <adjective> <noun> of man's design. Look at <noun>, for chrissakes.
- mikx007 10y agoOne possible dystopian scenario... Some time in the future chimera animals are mass produced in special farms and any surpluses sold as food. Basically humans start consuming human meat. In a few years cannibalism becomes acceptable ...
- mulle_nat 10y ago"In Search for Cures" I ate two Big Macs today.
- lliamander 10y agoQuestions to address other than whether the article used the word "animal" in the correct sense: - how will the affect the propagation of diseases from other species to humans? - How will intellectual property concerns play into this research? - How do we prevent chimeras from having severe health issues as a result of incompatible physiology? - Are there health concerns from chimeras mixing with livestock? - What is the likelihood of creating "sentient" chimeras (for some value of sentience)? - How might sentience work differently in chimeras ("If a lion could talk, we would not be able to understand him" as the old quote goes) and how could we detect sentience? edit: list formatting
- lliamander 10y agoTo answer one of my own questions, I honestly don't think that creating a "sentient" chimera (one with a human brain / cognitive awareness) is very likely. For one thing, these chimeras are being grown specifically for organ-harvesting. I don't see a medical purpose for harvesting human brains (and in any case, they would run afoul of the same ethical issues as if they were growing those brains in human bodies). For another, there is encephalization to deal with. A pig's body certainly couldn't hold a human brain. Nor (I don't think) could any primate body. Any species that could might be too incompatible in other ways. Besides, who knows what the experience of a sentient chimera might have? Being cognitively capable of communication (speech or sign) yet unable to do so? Being capable of using tools, but (potentially) not having the necessary appendages? Being born with an infants mind, craving human affection and interaction, yet unable to express that need? Being unable to mimic human adults in their behavior (a rather critical aspect of child development)? Being fundamentally alienated in their existence? I don't think we should take such a risk merely for curiosity's sake. Like I said, I don't find the scenario of sentient chimeras very likely, but it troubles me not because of how it might redefine what it means to be human, but because I am concerned about how traumatic the experience may be for this sentient being. The reality would probably be less "Ed the Talking Horse" and more "an infant trapped in a pig's body". As a parent, it's an unsettling idea. edit: spelling