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?

 

[Furion]

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

You call this "medicine"?

Dr. Moreau is creating his Beast Folk, all in the name of science and ethics. lol

 

[inertia]

You call this "medicine"?

The idea is to generate functional tissues and even organs that may be used for transplantation to the human body.

- One method of discovery is to use Embryos. Embryo research helps to identify the active signaling pathways, structures, and biological processes that occur during the formation of organs.
- Another method is to use stem cells where researchers may be able to mimic processes in vitro. It's difficult.

Apparently understanding the processes is a lot easier with an embryo. By combining embryos at an early stage of development a single organism is formed called a chimera ( A chimera is an animal with at least two genetically distinct cell types derived from at least two zygotes).

I call it biological research that might be classified as experimental medicine. When human embryo cells are combined with macaque monkey embryos at what point is a chimera too human? Should we use chimeric animals for human organs? Is the 14-day human embryo rule too restrictive or is it too liberal?

Dr. Moreau is creating his Beast Folk, all in the name of science and ethics. lol

Dr. Frankinstein, I presume.

 

[Furion]

The idea is to generate functional tissues and even organs that may be used for transplantation to the human body.

- One method of discovery is to use Embryos. Embryo research helps to identify the active signaling pathways, structures, and biological processes that occur during the formation of organs.
- Another method is to use stem cells where researchers may be able to mimic processes in vitro. It's difficult.

Apparently understanding the processes is a lot easier with an embryo. By combining embryos at an early stage of development a single organism is formed called a chimera ( A chimera is an animal with at least two genetically distinct cell types derived from at least two zygotes).

I call it biological research that might be classified as experimental medicine. When human embryo cells are combined with macaque monkey embryos at what point is a chimera too human? Should we use chimeric animals for human organs? Is the 14-day human embryo rule too restrictive or is it too liberal?



Dr. Frankinstein, I presume.

Hopefully whatever biological creature they create decides to eat them, for the taste testing of the creature of course. A pathway to finding it's place in the food chain perhaps.

 

[inertia]

Hopefully whatever biological creature they create decides to eat them, for the taste testing of the creature of course. A pathway to finding it's place in the food chain perhaps.

 

[Cisco Qid]

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.

I think everybody is jumping the gun. This research will very likely play out, if not in one country than another and the results may not be as devastating as some would make.

 

[inertia]

I think everybody is jumping the gun. This research will very likely play out, if not in one country than another and the results may not be as devastating as some would make.

Bioethics counts. ( If it doesn't it should. )

As you probably know, the rule is a decades-long policy where experiments were limited to two weeks after fertilization because, after two weeks, the process of reorganizing one-dimensional cells ends and a transformation begins providing an individualized multidimensional cell structure. At this developmental point, the newly formed individual cannot become a twin. Other than providing a practical time limit the embryo at this point has:

a.) the potential of becoming a person

b.) might already provide a level of sentience

and

c.) further testing beyond this point risks the possibility of pain and suffering.

The rule was internationally recognized.
Is it even possible to calibrate embryo-research oversight internationally?

______

 

[evoguy313]

Darweenie "ethics"

Christian "standards"?

Years ago, I posted an article in German written by Haeckels

I can read German. Post it again.

Haeckels was the Darweenie who manipulated drawings to argue human embryos in early development were actual fish.

False. As is the norm, the creationist must distort and misrepresent the truth for their sorry creationism.

His mess was refuted 100 years ago and still were used to peddle Darwinism in textbooks.

Also false.

Haeckel interpreted the process of evolution as progressive and said evolution takes place in the stages of embryonic development.

You have never read Haeckel, that is for certain. He actually posited that during embryonic development, ancestral forms are recapitulated.

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)

It must make you feel special to so frequently engage in the promulgation of falsehoods in order to attack that which your supposed religion has demanded you hate.

Meanwhile, we see 300,000 children were molested by Christian clergy in France over the last few decades.

 

[evoguy313]

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.

Of note, in 1977, it was shown that human sperm was able to penetrate the corona radiata and bind to the zona pellucida of the ovum of a gibbon. This activity is not seen when human sperm was allowed to mingle with the ova of baboons.

 

[inertia]

Of note, in 1977, it was shown that human sperm was able to penetrate the corona radiata and bind to the zona pellucida of the ovum of a gibbon. This activity is not seen when human sperm was allowed to mingle with the ova of baboons.

I'll take your word for this. So, when evaluating a laboratory-produced chimera how does one decide if the chimera is more human than not and if the chimera should be afforded human rights?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nevermind.

 

[evoguy313]

I'll take your word for this. So, when evaluating a laboratory-produced chimera how does one decide if the chimera is more human than not and if the chimera should be afforded human rights?

Anat Rec
1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.

Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa​

J M Bedford

Abstract​

Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.


The experiments were scrapped once they got the binding.

 

[inertia]

Anat Rec
1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.

Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa​

J M Bedford

Abstract​

Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.


The experiments were scrapped once they got the binding.

Thanks. By today's standards, these researchers were relatively quick in their choice to scrap at the first sign of binding.

Not too long after, in 1979 the United States Department of Health and Education provided guidance that set a precedence that continues to this day where embryos will not be kept alive in vitro longer than 14 days after fertilization. This rule is currently recognized internationally in medicine and scientific research.

The rule might be interpreted as an old-wives guideline by some when it comes to publishing leading-edge research. As referenced in the journal Cell above, human embryo cells persisted within 132 six-day-old macaque monkey embryos ex vivo for 20 days in the quest to develop better approaches to study human chimerism in distant species.

________

 

[evoguy313]

Thanks. By today's standards, these researchers were relatively quick in their choice to scrap at the first sign of binding.

Not too long after, in 1979 the United States Department of Health and Education provided guidance that set a precedence that continues to this day where embryos will not be kept alive in vitro longer than 14 days after fertilization. This rule is currently recognized internationally in medicine and scientific research.

Aye.

The rule might be interpreted as an old-wives guideline by some when it comes to publishing leading-edge research. As referenced in the journal Cell above, human embryo cells persisted within 132 six-day-old macaque monkey embryos ex vivo for 20 days in the quest to develop better approaches to study human chimerism in distant species.

________

Yup.