November 27, 2004

NO NO NO

This reaches far beyond normal stem cell research and into a realm that resembles too closely that "Island of Dr. Moreau" movie. I do not support this. Not only do I think it is cruel to animals and humans alike, but I also think it pushes ethical bondaries too far and threatens nature on a profound level. What are we to do with all of these cross breeds of humans and animals once curious scientists have learned what they need to learn from them? And at what point do we decide they are more human than animal and they are entitled to the same rights as humans? At what point does the ratio of human outweigh that of animal? The whole idea just makes my hair stand on end.

The Pandora's box that is inherent in this kind of research seems just waiting to be flung open to unleash a wave of valid concerns and unknown consequences. Cloning sheep was one thing, but creating a hybrid of that sheep and a human being strikes me as a true abomination and an assault on natural evolution.

Scientists debate creation of hybrids of animals, humans

By Rick Weiss
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON - In Minnesota, pigs are being born with human blood in their veins. In Nevada, there are sheep whose livers and hearts are largely human. In California, mice peer from their cages with human brain cells firing inside their skulls.

These are not outcasts from "The Island of Dr. Moreau," the 1896 novel by H.G. Wells in which a rogue doctor develops creatures that are part animal and part human. They are real creations of real scientists, stretching the boundaries of stem cell research.

Biologists call these hybrid animals chimeras, after the mythical Greek creature with a lion's head, a goat's body and a serpent's tail. They are the products of experiments in which human stem cells were added to developing animal fetuses.

Chimeras are allowing scientists to watch, for the first time, how nascent human cells and organs mature and interact - not in the cold isolation of laboratory dishes but inside the bodies of living creatures. Some are already revealing deep secrets of human biology and pointing the way toward new medical treatments.

But with no federal guidelines in place, an awkward question hovers above the work: How human must a chimera be before more stringent research rules should kick in?

The National Academy of Sciences, which advises the federal government, has been studying the issue and hopes to make recommendations by February. Yet the range of opinions it has received so far suggests reaching consensus may be difficult.

During one recent meeting, scientists disagreed on such basic issues as whether it would be unethical for a human embryo to begin its development in an animal's womb, and whether a mouse would be better or worse off with a brain made of human neurons.

"This is an area where we really need to come to a reasonable consensus," said James Battey, chairman of the National Institutes of Health's Stem Cell Task Force. "We need to establish some kind of guidelines as to what the scientific community ought to do and ought not to do."

How human?

Chimeras (ki-MER-ahs) - meaning mixtures of two or more individuals in a single body - are not inherently unnatural. Most twins carry at least a few cells from the sibling with whom they shared a womb, and most mothers carry in their blood at least a few cells from each child they have born.

Recipients of organ transplants are also chimeras, as are the many people whose defective heart valves have been replaced with those from pigs or cows. And scientists for years have added human genes to bacteria and even to farm animals - feats of genetic engineering that allow those critters to make human proteins such as insulin for use as medicines.

"Chimeras are not as strange and alien as at first blush they seem," said Henry Greely, a law professor and ethicist at Stanford University who has reviewed proposals to create human-mouse chimeras there.

But chimerism becomes a more sensitive topic when it involves growing entire human organs inside animals. And it becomes especially sensitive when it deals in brain cells, the building blocks of the organ credited with making humans human.

Greely and many other philosophers have been wrestling with the question of why so many people believe it is wrong to breach the species barrier.

Many turn to the Bible's repeated invocation that animals should multiply "after their kind" as evidence that such experiments are wrong. Others, however, have concluded the core problem is not necessarily the creation of chimeras, but rather the way they are likely to be treated.

Imagine, said Robert Streiffer, a professor of philosophy and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin, a human-chimpanzee chimera endowed with speech and an enhanced potential to learn - what some have called a "humanzee."

"There's a knee-jerk reaction that enhancing the moral status of an animal is bad," Streiffer said. "But if you did it, and you gave it the protections it deserves, how could the animal complain?"

Research tools

The potential power of chimeras as research tools became clear about a decade ago in a series of dramatic experiments by Evan Balaban, now at McGill University in Montreal. Balaban took small sections of brain from developing quails and transplanted them into the developing brains of chickens.

The resulting chickens exhibited vocal trills and head bobs unique to quails, proving that the transplanted parts of the brain contained the neural circuitry for quail calls. It also offered astonishing proof that complex behaviors could be transferred across species.

No one has proposed similar experiments between, say, humans and apes. But the discovery of human embryonic stem cells in 1998 allowed researchers to envision related experiments that might reveal a lot about how embryos grow.

The cells, found in 5-day-old human embryos, multiply prolifically and - unlike adult cells - have the potential to turn into any of the body's 200 or so cell types.

Scientists hope to cultivate them in lab dishes and grow replacement tissues for patients. But with those applications years away, the cells are gaining in popularity for basic research.

The most radical experiment, still not conducted, would be to inject human stem cells into an animal embryo and then transfer that chimeric embryo into an animal's womb. Scientists suspect the proliferating human cells would spread throughout the animal embryo as it matured into a fetus and integrate themselves into every organ.

Such "humanized" animals could have countless uses. They would almost certainly provide better ways to test a new drug's efficacy and toxicity, for example, than the ordinary mice typically used today.

But few scientists are eager to do that experiment. The risk, they say, is that some human cells will find their way to the developing testes or ovaries, where they might grow into human sperm and eggs. If two such chimeras - say, mice - were to mate, a human embryo might form, trapped in a mouse.

Not everyone agrees that this would be a terrible result.

"What would be so dreadful?" asked Ann McLaren, a renowned developmental biologist at the University of Cambridge in England. After all, she said, no human embryo could develop successfully in a mouse womb. It would simply die, she told the academy.

True blends

But what about experiments in which scientists add human stem cells not to an animal embryo but to an animal fetus, which has already made its eggs and sperm? Then the only question is how human a creature one dares to make.

In one ongoing set of experiments, Jeffrey Platt at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., has created human-pig chimeras by adding human-blood-forming stem cells to pig fetuses. The resulting pigs have both pig and human blood in their vessels. And it's not just pig blood cells being swept along with human blood cells; some of the cells themselves have merged, creating hybrids.

It is important to have learned human and pig cells can fuse, Platt said, because he and others have been considering transplanting modified pig organs into people and have been wondering if that might pose a risk of pig viruses getting into patient's cells. Now scientists know the risk is real, he said, because the viruses may gain access when the two cells fuse.

In other experiments led by Esmail Zanjani, chairman of animal biotechnology at the University of Nevada at Reno, scientists have been adding human stem cells to sheep fetuses. The team now has sheep whose livers are up to 80 percent human and make all the compounds human livers make.

Zanjani's goal is to make the humanized livers available to people who need transplants. The sheep portions will be rejected by the immune system, he predicted, while the human part will take root.


Posted by Maria at November 27, 2004 12:40 PM
Comments

.
Come on, where's your sense of HUMOUR? A pig with a human heart? HA-HA-HAH! A monkey with a human brain? BWA-HAW-HWA! Porpoises with human reproductive organs? TEE-HEE-HEE! Lighten UP!

Jeez, it's not like we had SOULS, or anything!
.

Posted by: cosa nostradamus at November 27, 2004 04:55 PM

This is where I see the need for strict regulation on stem cell research. What these people have done is handed the naysayers the arguement they need for no funding. Is this the norm? No I would dare say it is not. This is just awful.

Posted by: pam at November 28, 2004 11:16 AM

hey -- why not! we already have a human with the brain of a monkey in the white house!

sorry to take the obvious joke but you just served that one up... :)

Posted by: P at November 28, 2004 10:12 PM

nothing in here that is worse than any of the other animal testing that goes on every day - unless you think a mouse with human brain cells is suddenly going to acquire a higher awareness of it's suffering.
are you prepared to completely give up the use of animal models in *all* medical research in order to alleviate their suffering? if not, what are you complaining about?

Posted by: guest at November 29, 2004 01:08 PM

Read the article again genius. It is not limited to a mouse with human brain cells. It is also reaching to putting human ovaries into animals and BEYOND. I do not support animal testing. I do not buy products if I know that they are tested on animals.

Perhaps if your brain cells had not been exchanged with that of a mouse, it would not be necessary for you to ask what I'm complaining about, because you already would have read my thoughts on the subject.

It is not only about alleviating suffering, it is also about fundamentally fucking up natural evolution.

Posted by: Maria at November 29, 2004 01:14 PM

The idea that these animals are somehow going to acquire human characteristics a la Dr Monreau just because they are used to host a few human cells or even a complete human organ, seems far fectched to me. The question is how is *this* kind of experimentation any worse than other animal experimentation?
Are you against *all* medical research involving amimals? That's a position I can understand if not completely agree with.

Your use of the word "evolution" also confuses me. Are you suggesting these animals are going to be bred?

and thanks, not everyone appreciates true genius. ;)

Posted by: guest at November 29, 2004 03:30 PM

.
The problem is, by banning everything, the Bushies are sending this stuff to the Third World, where there will be NO controls. Frankenstein's monster may turn out to be Chinese.

We should allow all but the most extreme stuff, under supervision. Then ONLY the most extreme stuff will go to places like China, and they'll have no legitimacy. Otherwise, it'll be we who have no legitimacy.

(I do support the testing of cosmetics on Republicans. Like Tammy Faye Baker.)
.

Posted by: cosa nostradamus at November 29, 2004 03:37 PM

"The idea that these animals are somehow going to acquire human characteristics a la Dr Monreau just because they are used to host a few human cells or even a complete human organ, seems far fectched to me."

Well you are obviously underestimating the extent to which some scientists wish to carry this research. As I understand the article, that is the greatest concern. And it may seem farfetched to you, but for some it is an ultimate goal and with stem cell research, many things that were once farfetched are possible. Extreme stem cell research of this kind ventures toward using those advancements not as steps forward in the medical world as much as some curious scientists' playground. To see how far they can push.

"Are you suggesting these animals are going to be bred?"

I am suggesting that the idea of implanting any kind of human reproductive organs or embryos inside of an animal would be opening that door. Do you understand the Pandora's box analogy? "If you do this, what will be the ultimate outcome or consequence?"

Finally, I was not putting this into the animal experimentation box that you would like to put it in. It is experimentation which reaches beyond the well being of just the animal. I believe extreme research of this kind threatens the natural progression of life since its conception. If you think that manipulating DNA and stem cells to form cross breeds of animals is not something that could eventually change the course of evolution in a frightening manner, then perhaps you are lacking rational foresight. For every action, there is an equal reaction.

As for animal testing, I do oppose it, except that which is vital to the advancement of medicine and does not constitute cruelty, i.e., can be done without causing the animal physical suffering or death. I know it's a tall order, but that's the way I feel about it. If there were to be a cure for AIDS or Cancer and the only way to find out if it is safe were to be to test it on a lab rat, I would say okay. If it is Loreal testing out their cosmetics by tormenting small dogs and rabbits, I view that differently. I guess it's all relative. Maybe that's hypocritical, but it's a tough subject.

Posted by: Maria at November 29, 2004 03:58 PM

Can I just say EEEEEEKKK!!!!!

Posted by: Connie at November 29, 2004 06:00 PM

Dr. Moreau aside, we've got bizarre hybrids in labs across the world right now - ever hear about the glowing lab rats or the earmouse (the latter is the one with a human ear growing out of its little mousy back for later use in transplanting)?

It's creepy science, to be sure, but let's not throw the chimera out with the primordial soup.

The advent of umbilical stem cell medicine (doing away with the embryonic debate) may make it less attractive to go into kooky elephant-dog land.

Nice bloggin'.

Posted by: Screwy Hoolie at November 29, 2004 06:17 PM

Maria- I am with you on this one.

Posted by: pam at November 29, 2004 07:22 PM