Even if there is a valid scientific reason for this, it scares me. Hybrid animals a la Dr. Moreau? Will we create new semi-human species solely for scientific research or organ harvesting?
One central issue undoubtedly will be the question of consciousness in any "hybrid" animal. Those experimenting claim that animals are not self-aware, but is that true? If we are engineering new species from scratch, using human elements, how do we decide when an engineered "animal" becomes human? (And of course, human genetic engineering is not far off.)
I think most of us can accept using mice to study disease, but introducing a human element raises serious ethical questions. I don't think the scientists are unbiased. There is a HUGE amount of money in research and grants, not to mention patents on medicine. We are already using aborted fetuses for their parts. At what point do we draw the line?
posted on December 10, 2002 11:24:02 PM new
That's interesting twinsoft. I wonder why a line has to be drawn with any research. How would you ever know if something worked or not? In some ways I'm skeptical though because of the tons of money going into research that doesn't seem to amount to many cures. That makes me wonder if cures are the target at all sometimes.
posted on December 11, 2002 12:16:05 AM new
Why should a line be drawn? Because we shouldn't use human subjects the way we do animals. We assume (perhaps wrongly) that animals do not have consciousness. We use them to study the effects of everything from cosmetics to biological weapons. But we do know that humans are self-aware.
I think the dangers of genetic engineering are clear. By that, I mean the potential for abuse. We have all but discared religion. But today, science is our god. We have the power to create a race of supermen. Or a race of subhumans, to serve us and be our guinea pigs. Science alone can not lead. It merely finds facts. In short, our humanity is all we have left.
posted on December 11, 2002 04:45:34 AM new
OK a earth worm or a scallop may have very limited awareness that it exists as a individual - although both will seek shelter from a predator. But can anyone honestly say a cat is not aware of it's own existance and motivated to seek it's own safety and advantage?
posted on December 11, 2002 05:27:11 AM new
LOL! We'd better put a stop to this!
Nothing in this research indicates anything other than that human cells can survive in a mouse brain, and some seem to know their place.
The ethical limits certainly are not being tested by that, and as it seems that these people are on top of the situation both scientifically and morally, why waste good epidermus in handwringing now?
As to the questions: "``If you create a mentally augmented chimp, does it become a person? Can you keep it in a zoo? Can it apply for admission into law school?", I guess we'll all have to come to grips with our stance on the fateful day that the chimp posts a passing LSAT score.
Happily there is at least one person with some sense left in palo alto: Counters Laurie Zoloth, a San Francisco State University bioethicist: "We are a long way from creating human consciousness.......While it is tempting to engage in fantastic science fiction scenarios, science is highly regulated"
Science is too highly regulated by the wrong people. What an absurd concept to allow religion to control science. Even more ludicrous is to let the "ethical?" concerns of George Bush to slow important research.
posted on December 11, 2002 07:22:00 AM new"Thoughtful discussion of the issue is important, Weissman said. But he cautions that exaggerated ethical concerns should not slow important research."
Now THERE is a scary outlook... I am an athiest; no religious concerns color my outlook on this. The plain fact of the matter is that this can lead the way to other even more questionable "experiments."
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 11, 2002 09:13:30 AM new
[i]If you create a mentally augmented chimp, does it become a person? Can you keep it in a zoo? Can it apply for admission into law school? I guess we'll all have to come to grips with our stance on the fateful day that the chimp posts a passing LSAT score.[i]
Yes it's funny, but scary too, if indeed that day ever comes. We should be addressing these issues now, before science blindly begins constructing new types of species.
Excuse my misspelling above. I meant to say, "We have discarded religion. Science is our god."
I don't know where Bush stands, but I would certainly draw the line at growing human embryos to harvest their stem cells. Perhaps Science sees it differently.
Now THERE is a scary outlook... I am an athiest; no religious concerns color my outlook on this. The plain fact of the matter is that this can lead the way to other even more questionable "experiments."
Yes, exactly. What is an "exaggerated" ethical concern?
posted on December 11, 2002 09:17:11 AM new
bunnicula
I think that he was in favor of support and review by impartial organizations to determine unethical research...as he mentioned, "the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institutes of Health, as well as internal committees at universities."
People are dying right now and suffering from diseases that could be cured if research was not so tightly regulated. I would be more comfortable knowing that university committees were determining the ethical aspect of research rather than religious organizations.
Helen
Our electricity is out in Maryland because of an ice storm outage. Right now I'm using a small generator in the dark. At least we have heat.
posted on December 11, 2002 09:40:10 AM new
By exaggerated ethical concerns, I believe that he means ethical concerns that are overstated because of religious and political bias. Maybe the stem cell controversy would be an example.
Sen. John Kerry
"Compassionate conservatism could have meant lifesaving treatments for those suffering from Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases. Instead, (the decision) appears to be using words of compassion to mask efforts to keep a campaign promise to conservatives."
posted on December 11, 2002 09:42:16 AM new
Biological and medical developments regarding humans have already called into question and changed "what it means to be human".
Life support systems created the first changes.
It took a while for people to accept that people were dead when they were declared "brain dead", yet still were able with some level of support to breath and/or eat.
It also took a while for people to accept that babies born with only a brain stem probably should be allowed to die.
We struggle with what the definition of human is all the time.
Is the acid test now genetics and/or the state of consciousness ? There are many retarded people and brain injured people who have states of consciousness below that of animals.
