Lab-made embryos produced by combining human and monkey cells

[inertia]

The ethics of using laboratory-produced chimeras using different species presents a question concerning the moral status of properly distinguishing between a Homo sapiens or a new species that is currently used for research.

"Some fear the introduction of animal cytoplasm into the human body. Others fear that what was previously only an animal might take on human characteristics. Might the placing of human cells into a mouse brain lead to human-like cognitive functions? If so, would the line between us and them blur? Would theologians ask whether a humanized mouse or gorilla would grow a soul? This confusion is culturally discomforting."

- Should human/nonhuman chimeras should be allowed to breed or not?

Note: A bill in one country forbidding the practice due to ethical concerns doesn't apply in other countries.

- On what theological grounds would one want to protect the line between species?

- How do theologians approach “kinds” (Genesis 1:10) as commonly interpreted in the Bible?

Current research provides unique exploration opportunities where human stem cells are injected into genetically close primates to provide tissue, any kind of tissue, even tissue into an embryo of another primate.

 

[Whateverman]

I'm not suggesting a move, but this topic is actually more about ethics than science.

Science fiction writers have been exploring the topic for decades, and it's a thorny one. It could dwarf abortion some day, depending on how the science develops and is used. To wit:

• What are the precise metrics used to determine if something is human or not?
• Are the human labels for various species accurate enough, or do they attempt to over-simplify a complex genetic phenomenon?
• How do we handle the rights of/for these individuals?
• While we're trying to figure out the above three questions, how do we regulate the scientific evolution of this technology? The bottle's been opened and the genie is out; criminalizing research-into or use-of these technologies wont stop either, especially since the military/intelligence ramifications are obvious.

This is a massive issue...

 

[inertia]

I'm not suggesting a move, but this topic is actually more about ethics than science.

Science fiction writers have been exploring the topic for decades, and it's a thorny one. It could dwarf abortion some day, depending on how the science develops and is used. To wit:

• What are the precise metrics used to determine if something is human or not?
• Are the human labels for various species accurate enough, or do they attempt to over-simplify a complex genetic phenomenon?
• How do we handle the rights of/for these individuals?
• While we're trying to figure out the above three questions, how do we regulate the scientific evolution of this technology? The bottle's been opened and the genie is out; criminalizing research-into or use-of these technologies wont stop either, especially since the military/intelligence ramifications are obvious.

This is a massive issue...

Because science and ethics here are so closely related, I want to keep it as a general science thread. Discussion of nuclear weapons, for example, has an ethical and scientific foundation too that might properly belong to either category. As linked in the OP, the scientific publisher Nature also provides an article about the scientific and ethical debate and recognizes this discussion in the scientific community.

Philosophers love to jump in.

 

[Komodo]

The ethics of using laboratory-produced chimeras using different species presents a question concerning the moral status of properly distinguishing between a Homo sapiens or a new species that is currently used for research.

"Some fear the introduction of animal cytoplasm into the human body. Others fear that what was previously only an animal might take on human characteristics. Might the placing of human cells into a mouse brain lead to human-like cognitive functions? If so, would the line between us and them blur? Would theologians ask whether a humanized mouse or gorilla would grow a soul? This confusion is culturally discomforting."

- Should human/nonhuman chimeras should be allowed to breed or not?

Note: A bill in one country forbidding the practice due to ethical concerns doesn't apply in other countries.

- On what theological grounds would one want to protect the line between species?

- How do theologians approach “kinds” (Genesis 1:10) as commonly interpreted in the Bible?

Current research provides unique exploration opportunities where human stem cells are injected into genetically close primates to provide tissue, any kind of tissue, even tissue into an embryo of another primate.

Haven't the labs stated that the chimeras will only be allowed to develop into the earliest embryonic stages, before cell specialization takes place? If that's the case, there's no prospect of a humanized gorilla, and so (at least for now) no issue about whether such a being would have a soul, or generally what would be the ethics of dealing with that kind of hybrid.

 

[inertia]

Haven't the labs stated that the chimeras will only be allowed to develop into the earliest embryonic stages, before cell specialization takes place? If that's the case, there's no prospect of a humanized gorilla, and so (at least for now) no issue about whether such a being would have a soul, or generally what would be the ethics of dealing with that kind of hybrid.

Unlike experiments performed in France where the human embryo cells died, three to four percent of the human embryo cells remained in 132 six-day-old macaque monkey embryos and they were alive for 20 days according to this report.

Combining human cells with other species is controversial.

- At what point is a chimera too human?
- Is it okay to drop the internationally recognized 14-day human embryo rule in experiments?
- Should we "farm" chimeric animals for human organs?

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Darweenie "ethics"

Years ago, I posted an article in German written by Haeckels
Haeckels was the Darweenie who manipulated drawings to argue human embryos in early development were actual fish.
His mess was refuted 100 years ago and still were used to peddle Darwinism in textbooks.
Haeckel interpreted the process of evolution as progressive and said evolution takes place in the stages of embryonic development.

So he wanted to have an ape get a black woman pregnant as an "experiment" <<<<that is the kind of people in Camp evo.

(interpreted is like invented)

 

[inertia]

Darweenie "ethics"

Years ago, I posted an article in German written by Haeckels
Haeckels was the Darweenie who manipulated drawings to argue human embryos in early development were actual fish.
His mess was refuted 100 years ago and still were used to peddle Darwinism in textbooks.
Haeckel interpreted the process of evolution as progressive and said evolution takes place in the stages of embryonic development.

So he wanted to have an ape get a black woman pregnant as an "experiment" <<<<that is the kind of people in Camp evo.

(interpreted is like invented)

Okay. How does the historic manipulation of drawings relate to chimeras in advancing the goals of regenerative medicine?