8 ms·

These chimeras pave the way for more accurate models of human biology and disease The goal, the team says, is to make better models for studying biological dev

by themgt 6y ago

These chimeras pave the way for more accurate models of human biology and disease The goal, the team says, is to make better models for studying biological development, evolution, disease progression and treatments. "As we are unable to conduct certain types of experiments in humans, it is essential that we have better models to more accurately study and understand human biology and disease," Interestingly, the review paper suggests that perhaps the creation of human-animal chimeras might help people realize that humans don’t necessarily have any higher moral status than any other creature. Yeah sorry but fuck off with this. If your explicit goal is to create living organisms for medical research / donor organs that would be unethical to perform in humans, don't turn around and justify it with "maybe our monkeyman will increase people's concern with animal welfare!" If it did then we would turn around and ban your research and/or just do it in humans directly. Frankly I'd find it a lot more ethical to figure out how to grow a brainless human clone for these purposes than a sentient hu-monkey that can be tortured in a lab.

xupybd 6y ago
Thank you for pointing this out! I also think it's a dangerous point to try and make. We should put human life first.
caconym_ 6y ago
It seems contradictory to suggest at the same time that a) these hybrids might teach us that the line between humans and animals isn't as stark as a lot of people think, and b) these hybrids will not be human and therefore will be suitable for medical research that could not be ethically performed on "real" humans. If you buy the former, it seems to suggest we should be going in the opposite direction with the latter.
- duxup 6y ago
  I think you can think the line is closer than we think, but still believe there is a line.
- Aeronwen 6y ago
  You're assuming they're opposed to human testing, so you see the first statement as, "animals are people too" instead of "humans are just animals." From there, the second statement a solution to a legal problem they have, and not the moral one they don't have.
  - caconym_ 6y ago
    > so you see the first statement as, "animals are people too" instead of "humans are just animals." You're assuming a lot yourself by telling me how I interpret the point about the line between humans and animals, and (in fact) you have assumed incorrectly. The article includes a quote about how they intend to follow "all the ethical, legal, and social guidelines in place". So I don't think the point I made about their stance being contradictory is way off base. Of course, they could actually be aliens from the planet Omicron Persei 8 with zero genuine concern for human or animal life. Or whatever.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  It's not a contradiction if you believe experiments on human embryos should also be deemed ethical. In formal logical, that means it's not a contradiction, unless you've already ruled out that premise.
  - caconym_ 6y ago
    Yes. So the point of my comment was to illustrate that either they haven't thought their position through very well, or they're being disingenuous in their claimed intent to follow "all the ethical, legal, and social guidelines in place". If they want to start rocking the ethical boat, it's at best a lie of omission. Generally, I think bioethicists will look askance at attempts to skirt current guidelines around experimenting on human specimens by creating human/monkey hybrids that are human enough to be useful to science but not enough for the letter of the law to call them human. That's the context.
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      That's fair but I don't think it's quite disingenuous to follow the letter of the law, and the spirit of what the person thinks the law should be.
      - caconym_ 6y ago
        To me the disingenuous part would be claiming they’re going to follow the prevailing ethical guidelines (paraphrased) when in fact they disagree with those guidelines and have essentially hatched this whole monkey/human hybrid scheme to sidestep them. (hypothetically) I’m not necessarily attaching a value judgement to this. I’m just pointing out that their public position is either poorly thought out or not entirely honest.
mullingitover 6y ago
Did you finish reading the article? > After 10 days, there were 103 of these chimeric embryos remaining, but by day 19 only three still survived. After that, the embryos were terminated before they developed any further. Clusters of cells can't be 'tortured in a lab,' there are plenty of legitimate problems in the world to be outraged about but this really isn't one of them.
- PostOnce 6y ago
  Okay, on day 19 three of them are clusters of cells, how about day 280? How about year 5? I think the argument is that a majority of people would find it unethical to continue to develop viable embryos, and even more unethical to conduct research on them were they to mature.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - brbsix 6y ago
    Research is already performed using human fetal tissue obtained from aborted fetuses. How is this significantly different? "A majority of people would find it unethical to continue to develop viable embryos" seems contradictory to the current legal status of abortion in the US. Perhaps it is unethical but worth doing regardless?
    - warent 6y ago
      Just how many women create a fetus and abort it in the name of science? Human embryos are not manufactured for experimentation. What you're talking about is completely orthogonal. Now, breeding/manufacturing animals for experiments is awful and morally complex--ethically unclear (at least to me). But the line must be drawn somewhere, and we can very easily draw it at manufacturing human-monkeys, human-pigs, or human-anythings.
      - scoopertrooper 6y ago
raybon 6y ago
People need to have the freedom to do research. If Galilio agreed to stop researching due to protests, we wouldn't be here today.
- ganafagol 6y ago
  You may want to look up the works of Dr. Josef Mengele and then re-evaluate your first sentence.
elif 6y ago
The review paper[0] you are referring to is not the chimera lab paper. Is it the embryonic researchers or the ethicists who should "fuck off"? I am personally grateful for the work of both, and believe you would be too if you understood who is doing what and why. [0] https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/6/1/37/5489867 https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/6/1/37/5489867
Ericson2314 6y ago
I'm with the paper. I've e.g. hoped we start cloning neanderthals and whatnot to erase these artificial boundaries too.
echelon 6y ago
You're a layperson forming opinions about a topic you didn't even take the time to read about. First, they didn't develop infants. This is a cell culture. There is no animal to "torture". Second, we use animal models to understand critical problems in biology. This is sometimes the only way to conduct research. There are protocols in place to keep it as humane as possible. Please don't step on the science for failing to see the big picture.
brobdingnagians 6y ago
The other disturbing thing is that it can be read two ways and the reverse is implicating that because they think they can do live experimentation on animals, they think doing the same experimentation on humans would be fine. Maybe their experimentation on monkeyman will lead to atrocities on people. That seems more likely than having people accept experimentation on monkeypeople and then deciding to stop abusing animals. I think animals have enormous intrinsic worth, emotions, and value; I think humans have even more. Maybe we should stop doing this type of testing on either one.

by themgt 6y ago

xupybd 6y ago

Thank you for pointing this out! I also think it's a dangerous point to try and make. We should put human life first.

caconym_ 6y ago

It seems contradictory to suggest at the same time that a) these hybrids might teach us that the line between humans and animals isn't as stark as a lot of people think, and b) these hybrids will not be human and therefore will be suitable for medical research that could not be ethically performed on "real" humans. If you buy the former, it seems to suggest we should be going in the opposite direction with the latter.

duxup 6y ago
I think you can think the line is closer than we think, but still believe there is a line.
Aeronwen 6y ago
You're assuming they're opposed to human testing, so you see the first statement as, "animals are people too" instead of "humans are just animals." From there, the second statement a solution to a legal problem they have, and not the moral one they don't have.
- caconym_ 6y ago
  > so you see the first statement as, "animals are people too" instead of "humans are just animals." You're assuming a lot yourself by telling me how I interpret the point about the line between humans and animals, and (in fact) you have assumed incorrectly. The article includes a quote about how they intend to follow "all the ethical, legal, and social guidelines in place". So I don't think the point I made about their stance being contradictory is way off base. Of course, they could actually be aliens from the planet Omicron Persei 8 with zero genuine concern for human or animal life. Or whatever.
Ericson2314 6y ago
It's not a contradiction if you believe experiments on human embryos should also be deemed ethical. In formal logical, that means it's not a contradiction, unless you've already ruled out that premise.
- caconym_ 6y ago
  Yes. So the point of my comment was to illustrate that either they haven't thought their position through very well, or they're being disingenuous in their claimed intent to follow "all the ethical, legal, and social guidelines in place". If they want to start rocking the ethical boat, it's at best a lie of omission. Generally, I think bioethicists will look askance at attempts to skirt current guidelines around experimenting on human specimens by creating human/monkey hybrids that are human enough to be useful to science but not enough for the letter of the law to call them human. That's the context.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    That's fair but I don't think it's quite disingenuous to follow the letter of the law, and the spirit of what the person thinks the law should be.
    - caconym_ 6y ago
      To me the disingenuous part would be claiming they’re going to follow the prevailing ethical guidelines (paraphrased) when in fact they disagree with those guidelines and have essentially hatched this whole monkey/human hybrid scheme to sidestep them. (hypothetically) I’m not necessarily attaching a value judgement to this. I’m just pointing out that their public position is either poorly thought out or not entirely honest.

mullingitover 6y ago

Did you finish reading the article? > After 10 days, there were 103 of these chimeric embryos remaining, but by day 19 only three still survived. After that, the embryos were terminated before they developed any further. Clusters of cells can't be 'tortured in a lab,' there are plenty of legitimate problems in the world to be outraged about but this really isn't one of them.

PostOnce 6y ago
Okay, on day 19 three of them are clusters of cells, how about day 280? How about year 5? I think the argument is that a majority of people would find it unethical to continue to develop viable embryos, and even more unethical to conduct research on them were they to mature.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- brbsix 6y ago
  Research is already performed using human fetal tissue obtained from aborted fetuses. How is this significantly different? "A majority of people would find it unethical to continue to develop viable embryos" seems contradictory to the current legal status of abortion in the US. Perhaps it is unethical but worth doing regardless?
  - warent 6y ago
    Just how many women create a fetus and abort it in the name of science? Human embryos are not manufactured for experimentation. What you're talking about is completely orthogonal. Now, breeding/manufacturing animals for experiments is awful and morally complex--ethically unclear (at least to me). But the line must be drawn somewhere, and we can very easily draw it at manufacturing human-monkeys, human-pigs, or human-anythings.
    - scoopertrooper 6y ago

raybon 6y ago

People need to have the freedom to do research. If Galilio agreed to stop researching due to protests, we wouldn't be here today.

ganafagol 6y ago
You may want to look up the works of Dr. Josef Mengele and then re-evaluate your first sentence.

elif 6y ago

The review paper[0] you are referring to is not the chimera lab paper. Is it the embryonic researchers or the ethicists who should "fuck off"? I am personally grateful for the work of both, and believe you would be too if you understood who is doing what and why. [0] https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/6/1/37/5489867 https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/6/1/37/5489867

Ericson2314 6y ago

I'm with the paper. I've e.g. hoped we start cloning neanderthals and whatnot to erase these artificial boundaries too.

echelon 6y ago

You're a layperson forming opinions about a topic you didn't even take the time to read about. First, they didn't develop infants. This is a cell culture. There is no animal to "torture". Second, we use animal models to understand critical problems in biology. This is sometimes the only way to conduct research. There are protocols in place to keep it as humane as possible. Please don't step on the science for failing to see the big picture.

brobdingnagians 6y ago

The other disturbing thing is that it can be read two ways and the reverse is implicating that because they think they can do live experimentation on animals, they think doing the same experimentation on humans would be fine. Maybe their experimentation on monkeyman will lead to atrocities on people. That seems more likely than having people accept experimentation on monkeypeople and then deciding to stop abusing animals. I think animals have enormous intrinsic worth, emotions, and value; I think humans have even more. Maybe we should stop doing this type of testing on either one.