5 ms·

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 peop

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.

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.