Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

UK Moves To Allow Human Hybrid Experiments

Posted by kdawson on Tue Oct 09, 2007 02:17 AM
from the be-afraid-oh-never-mind dept.
Biotech Government Politics Science
penguin_dance writes "The UK is apparently rethinking its ban on human hybrid experiments. If approved by regulators, '[t]he move opens the door to experiments involving every known kind of human-animal hybrid. These could include both "cytoplasmic" embryos, which are 99.9% human, and "true hybrids" carrying both human and animal genes.' Previous calls for an outright ban on all human-animal embryos outraged scientists, according to the article, who believe that 'work on human-animal hybrid embryos will greatly speed up progress in stem cell research.' The report claims there will be a provision for regulation of the research to incorporate any 'unforeseen developments.' Let the Island of Dr. Moreau comparisons begin!"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Good Science or Playing God? by penguin_dance (536599)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

UK Moves To Allow Human Hybrid Experiments 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • It will happen (Score:5, Funny)

    by ebusinessmedia1 (561777) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @02:19AM (#20908203)
    Woof! er..... I meant "Hi"

  • There's no need (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @02:20AM (#20908209) Homepage
    Given my experience on most Friday nights, animal-women hybrids already exist.

    I'm such a bitch...

    • Re:There's no need (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2007, @02:41AM (#20908323)
      Given my experience on most Friday nights, animal-women hybrids already exist.

      Yeah, well, the average non-slashdot-reader spends his Friday nights in a bar, not in the MMORPG where you live.

      • It'd be awful hard to explain to the kids too.

        Naw, they'd be too busy clawing the curtains.

      • Re:Instant dates. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by CmdrGravy (645153) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @10:57AM (#20912565) Homepage
        Sounds ideal although you equally well find your new pet spent all day crouched in a box hissing at you and all night howling in the garden and screwing your neighbours only to turn up in the morning dragging a half eaten child into the kitchen to play with for a while.

        It could all go horribly wrong !

  • Transhuman critters for all? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AHuxley (892839) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @02:25AM (#20908235)
    Reminds me of Patricia Piccinini, an Australian artist who made a a set of sculptures called "The Young Family".
    http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/31/Patricia_Piccinini/249/ [roslynoxley9.com.au]
  • That comment from G.W. Bush on human-animal hybrids was kind of dismissed as whimsical religious paranoia. However, maybe the man had a point after all.

    The next generation of terrorists may have tentacles.

       
  • When the X5s are ready.

  • There goes the animal metaphors. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Solokron (198043) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @02:27AM (#20908259)
    He is hung like a horse! No, I really mean it Tiffany!

  • Coo Coo Cachoo (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tablizer (95088) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @02:29AM (#20908273) Homepage Journal
    Yoko Ono's dream of having an octopus child may become a reality.
  • At last the species-dysmorphic among us will have some way of making things right. Plus it would be neat for those of us [wikia.com] who like the idea of anthropomorphic animals.

  • Better late than never (Score:4, Informative)

    by jeremyp (130771) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @03:02AM (#20908413) Homepage Journal
    I think kdawson needs to find a better news source. The BBC reported this story more than a month ago.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6978384.stm [bbc.co.uk]
  • "Behold days are coming, says the Lord, and I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with seed of man and seed of beasts."

  • The furry are coming. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ash-Fox (726320) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @03:58AM (#20908631) Homepage
    The furry are coming.

    Resistance is futile.

  • You know it's true (Score:5, Insightful)

    by suv4x4 (956391) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @04:29AM (#20908771)
    1. We're already experimenting with animals, including almost-humans (apes). They have similar self-appreciation, feelings, pain and confusion like you. We're only less sympathetic since they're not EXACTLY like us. But they are, in fact, more like us than we suspect.

    2. Experimenting with human embyos, experimenting on people will dramatically further science and improve life for the rest of us (billions). It means we need to come to terms with the fact that humans are animals as any, and experimentation is required. But how do we do that without allowing for genocide? Not simple problem, but unless we solve it, we'll all be victims to save the few from being victims.

  • Obligatory Quote (Score:3, Funny)

    by MikShapi (681808) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @05:45AM (#20909197) Journal
    "I'm Barf, half-Dog and half-Man. I'm my own best friend!"
  • The report claims there will be a provision for regulation of the research to incorporate any 'unforeseen developments.'

    It's Ripley with a flame thrower.

  • Hello, I'm a human/animal hybrid... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2007, @08:52AM (#20910719)
    ...since 60% of my genes are the same of those of a drosophila (fruit flies). BTW I also share 90% of my genes with mouses, not to mention that 98% with chimpanzees. I also have 30% of the genes of yeast, which makes of me a human/fungi hybrid I guess.

    No really, people using terms like "human/animal hybrid" or "chimera" when talking about DNA modifications are probably trying to scandalise more than inform.
    • I'm curious now, what sane place have you found to hide?
    • Let me get this straight.....I can fuse a human with a shark

      I'm really curious to find out what your conception of a "human-animal hybrid embryo" is in this context.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Frogbert (589961)
        Furthermore once the biological hurdle is overcome would it then be possible graft some sort of "Freaking Laser" to the shark/human hybrid?
    • The standard of science reporting is now so low that journalists should be deprived of access to modern medicine and technology until they do better, though given the usual standard of their education they would just end up banging rocks together and trying to brew cider from windfalls till the end of time.

      One of the funniest comments I've ever seen on slashdot. I've thought the same thing myself, if a bit less eloquently, far too many times to count.

    • Re:What on Earth does it mean (Score:5, Insightful)

      by glwtta (532858) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @02:58AM (#20908399) Homepage
      In common speech the word "animal" is used to refer to animals that are not humans. There is really no way that anyone did not understand what they meant.

      You really are just trying too hard.

      • Does it occur to you (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Flying pig (925874) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @05:02AM (#20908989)
        That in fact the description is intended to be sensationalist? That it plays to the religious fundamentalists who want to stop biological research? That it is NOT an accurate description of what is being done? And that some of us actually are of have been working scientists or heads of research departments, and care about accuracy of reporting because we don't like having our work, or that of others, misrepresented?

        Recently we had the case of journos talking up Craig Venter's research as producing "artificial life". I had to read his own original comments to see that he never made that claim, and in fact his own comments agreed with my own Slashdot posting on the subject.

        Science is not common speech, and attempts to make it so result in misunderstanding and sensationalism. I don't know who modded this "informative" (presumably the same people who moderated me "overrated" because that doesn't get metamoderated, but whoever you are, you clearly know diddly squit about biology.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by glwtta (532858)
          Science is not common speech, and attempts to make it so result in misunderstanding and sensationalism.

          I'm confused. You are saying that the strict technical meaning of "animal" includes humans - fine. So how is "human-animal hybrids" more sensationalistic than "hybrids of humans and other animals"?

          To me, the description seems to be technically accurate, if likely to be misinterpreted by some of the non-biologically-inclined readers. Really doesn't seem like they are trying to purposefully obfuscat
    • The goal of a science journalist is to communicate information. "Human-animal hybrid" pretty much perfectly describes what is going on here to the majority of people, and I'm sure nobody who isn't trying damn hard to be pedantic would bat an eye at the slightly non-technical definition.

    • Re:Hybrids (Score:4, Interesting)

      by qc_dk (734452) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @02:49AM (#20908357)
      >But allowing a human hybrid to come to term (If possible) I am against.

      I will never understand that point of view. If that being is secured a place in a good family (as pet or child), then what is the ethical problem?
      Why is it more moral for a child to be created by rape? A crack whores illicit child? A drunken chance encounter? a one night stand?

      What is it people abhor so much about a child or a new species created on purpose?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Joe Tie. (567096)
        Same here. It always struck me a bit like someone who'd prohibit minorities from having kids because they might face the hardships of racism. A kinder, gentler, eugenics movement. Though, even above that it always strikes me when people even think it's possible for it to happen in the conceivable future. The kind of hybrid's we're talking about aren't exactly the most viable fish in the sea.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Broken scope (973885)
        Who gets to decide what is a pet and what is a child?

        Who gets to decide what is human and what is not?

        Who gets to decide if its okay to use hybrids for testing purposes since they resemble humans so closely?

        Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I don't think humanity is currently ready to answer those questions. Maybe i'm just so cynical that I expect people to fear anything that is near human but not quite.

        A child borne of a rape/one night stand is still a human.

        • Re:Hybrids (Score:4, Insightful)

          by n dot l (1099033) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @05:00AM (#20908963)

          Who gets to decide what is a pet and what is a child?

          Who gets to decide what is human and what is not?
          I hate these arguments. I mean, who gets to decide whether the unusually intelligent should be given freedom or forced to invent things to service the rest of us? Who says the unusually strong shouldn't be forced to do manual labour? Who says slavery is wrong? Who gets to decide that people that suffer from deformities shouldn't be put on display and exploited for public entertainment? These are all things we've already worked out the answers to.

          The real question should be: who gets to decide that a trait which has been added to the genome by scientists purposefully rearranging DNA is unnatural and makes something inhuman (and thus not subject to existing moral codes), while the odd mutations that have been caused by exposure to radiation, or pollution, or bad drugs, etc. are natural, and that those that bear said mutations are clearly still human?

          Who gets to decide if its okay to use hybrids for testing purposes since they resemble humans so closely?
          I always want to add, "Right. Who gets to decide that death row inmates, or the mentally retarded, or people who's skin color varies from our own should not be used for medical experiments?" to that one. This isn't anything new in terms of moral issues. Next!

          Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I don't think humanity is currently ready to answer those questions.
          Humanity could answer those questions just fine if it could assert reason over the urge to declare everything an us or a them, often over the most trivial of differences...but I'm really not arguing with you because I don't have any faith in the general public's ability to think clearly about this.

          Maybe i'm just so cynical that I expect people to fear anything that is near human but not quite.
          Yeah. With you on the cynicism.

          For the record, I don't think avoiding the issue is right either - regardless of the fact that, yes, we're going to screw things up no matter how we approach this (or any other) new field. I mean really, imagine where we'd be if mankind had just sat around discussing the ethical issues of fire, as opposed to learning what it is and how to harness it. True, we'd never have burned all those people at the stake, but...

          A child borne of a rape/one night stand is still a human.
          Obviously, I think this only gets dragged into the discussion to counter the argument that we shouldn't create creatures that could only face a life of pain and misery - because it's kind of obvious that we're already perfectly capable of taking care of even the most unwanted of our own, though we don't always choose to do so.

      • Re:Hybrids (Score:5, Insightful)

        by stranger_to_himself (1132241) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @04:46AM (#20908863) Journal

        What is it people abhor so much about a child or a new species created on purpose?

        There are lots of good reasons to be worried about this. First, there's no way of knowing what the long term medical, biological, psychological etc outcomes would be for the child. There's clearly no medical need at the individual level for this sort of thing (there might be at the social level, but that doesn't count in medical ethics). There's also no notion of consent, you couldn't retrospectivly ask the child whether they agree to be an experiment. So ethically, at the moment at least, it's a non-starter, even within the existing rules of medical ethics.

        I agree though that the "ewww" reaction and the 'abhorrence' is a bit irrational and is not a good basis for policy.

        Having said all this, medical and biological sciences will advance, and one day we're going to have to deal with this sort of thing as a real possibility. We should be starting to get the ethics sorted out now.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by lgw (121541)

        In the U.S. stem cell research and cloning are perfectly legal. The ban is on federal funding because it is morally questionable.
        And the ban on funding is only on embryonic stem cells, and not because the research itself is (rationally) seen as morally questionable, but because to make a medical product using embryonic stem cells, one would have to deliberately create a human embryo for purposes of harvesting, which should give one pause.
    • >What is this research for?
      Might help find a cure for:
      Elephantitus
      Dog Breath
      Catalepsy
      Hare loss (work with me here)

    • a) Rare diseases. Many people die in poor countries because there is no proper health care. Why fund research with possibly far reaching ethical dilemmas that might one day cure some rare disease when there are millions to be saved?

      That argument doesn't hold a lot of water. The reasons people die in poor countries are economic, not due to a lack medical knowledge, so by your logic, all medical research should stop until we've solved third world economics?

      b) Common causes of death. We now reach an av

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hey! (33014)
          But admitting this, your argument becomes circular: research is unethical if it wastes money that could go to solve social problems. Money on research is wasted if the research is unethical.

          If you want to bring the effects of research on the poor into this, you must either treat all research equally, or show why this research has effects on the poor that are peculiar to it.

          Alternatively, you need to come up with a definition of "useful" that includes pure science but not applied science that may provide n

            • Furthermore, I don't expect any great insights from research where the basic target is mixing up genes just for the heck of it and see what comes out.

              Um.. That's bascially all that conventional plant breeders do, and you benefit from that every single day.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by hey! (33014)

                Furthermore, I don't expect any great insights from research where the basic target is mixing up genes just for the heck of it and see what comes out.

                Um.. That's bascially all that conventional plant breeders do, and you benefit from that every single day.

                Actually, I think plant breeders have a pretty good idea of what they are doing: they cross plants with desirable characteristics. Your argument would actually apply more to certain kinds of pharmacological research where they generate new compounds and

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by hey! (33014)

              No, by unethical I mean amoral. The research starts without knowing what good it is going to do, takes risks, manipulates things people don't want manipulated and will put us up with its outcomes. Furthermore, I don't expect any great insights from research where the basic target is mixing up genes just for the heck of it and see what comes out. Hey, perhaps we can patent it.

              The promise of this kind of research is always something medical (treat some disease, basically), never fundamental knowledge.

              Your pos

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jtheletter (686279)
      Wow, glad you summed up a complex argument, moral dilemma, and vast as yet un-explored research field in two points. I'm hoping you were being sarcastic. If not then you, as a scientist, shift your area of research to only the most massively-important topic of the year every time it changes right? So which cancer are you curing? Or are you working on AIDS research? No? How about increasing crop yields for harsh-climate strains? Hm, inventing cheap potable water conversion techniques, or desalination? Or I g

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tgv (254536)
        a) Increasing scientific knowledge can be done in a different manner and scientific knowledge is not the highest goal. Complying with Godwin's law: remember the experiments in WWII. They got us a lot of scientific knowledge, e.g. about safe diving depths, but you'll agree that the price wasn't worth it.

        b) Faust is not someone to fuck with unless you're Mephistopheles.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by tgv (254536)
            Until someone argues that there could be a great, big promise when we let them develop a little bit more. Just to see where the specialization sets in, how it is different from normal human embryo's. Perhaps we can cure some fashionable disease with it then!

            Repeat 17 times and congratulations, you're the proud father of the first Chimera(TM) and my God, will you feel sorry for it.

            So stop it, before it's too late. We can always start the investigation again if we stop now, but if we continue, we can't undo i

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.