
In Search for Cures, Scientists Create Multispecies Embryos - taylorbuley
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/18/478212837/in-search-for-cures-scientists-create-embryos-that-are-both-animal-and-human
======
JumpCrisscross
> _" You're getting into unsettling ground that I think is damaging to our
> sense of humanity," says Stuart Newman, a professor of cell biology and
> anatomy at the New York Medical College._

Is this vague sense of humanity worth more than a loved one's life? Out of
curiosity, how did it survive antibiotics, _in vitro_ fertilisation, and
industrialisation?

~~~
davesque
True, although let me play the devil's advocate here:

Can you imagine being born a half-pig, possessing a consciousness with full
human resolution, and suffering the full, rich palette of human fear as you're
being harvested for the sake of another, more "worthy" life form?

It's a worthwhile thought experiment. The point is, wouldn't you want to feel
like you'd taken reasonable precautions to prevent this kind of suffering from
taking place?

Maybe it's just me, but I find these kinds of ethical considerations to be
meaningful. Ironically, I think this is one of the main things that makes us
"human".

------
stepvhen
If AI research is approaching the grand question of "what makes us human" from
one side, then situations like this are approaching it from another. Somebody
with a strict definition of "human" must be feeling their views and ethics
very attacked right now.

~~~
o_____________o
I'm afraid the progressive perspective you describe will turn to ash against
that kind of person's reality shield

~~~
r00fus
I'm not clear how @stepvhen's is comment is a "progressive perspective". It
seems entirely factual.

~~~
o_____________o
Mechanically but not ethically. You speak of objectivity and acceptance of
this paradigm obliterating change as if it were a given, but under our present
day dogma, it would require eschewing the perceived divinity or naturalistic
infallibility of man's design. Look at GMO, for chrissakes.

~~~
ctvo
This looks like such a smart reply. I wish I knew what it actually meant.

~~~
o_____________o
Damn, I thought this was the last place I could bloviate freely

~~~
greydius
I just learned a new word. Thanks!

------
tremon
Are there any known cases of embryos that were human yet not animal?

~~~
nutheracc
Is there a term for non-human animals?

~~~
xuhu
Just google-translated the word for them from my language ( _dobitoaca_ ) to
english, and it came out as 'beast'.

------
lliamander
Questions to address other than whether the article used the word "animal" in
the correct sense:

\- how will the affect the propagation of diseases from other species to
humans?

\- How will intellectual property concerns play into this research?

\- How do we prevent chimeras from having severe health issues as a result of
incompatible physiology?

\- Are there health concerns from chimeras mixing with livestock?

\- What is the likelihood of creating "sentient" chimeras (for some value of
sentience)?

\- How might sentience work differently in chimeras ("If a lion could talk, we
would not be able to understand him" as the old quote goes) and how could we
detect sentience?

edit: list formatting

~~~
lliamander
To answer one of my own questions, I honestly don't think that creating a
"sentient" chimera (one with a human brain / cognitive awareness) is very
likely.

For one thing, these chimeras are being grown specifically for organ-
harvesting. I don't see a medical purpose for harvesting human brains (and in
any case, they would run afoul of the same ethical issues as if they were
growing those brains in human bodies).

For another, there is encephalization to deal with. A pig's body certainly
couldn't hold a human brain. Nor (I don't think) could any primate body. Any
species that could might be too incompatible in other ways.

Besides, who knows what the experience of a sentient chimera might have? Being
cognitively capable of communication (speech or sign) yet unable to do so?
Being capable of using tools, but (potentially) not having the necessary
appendages? Being born with an infants mind, craving human affection and
interaction, yet unable to express that need? Being unable to mimic human
adults in their behavior (a rather critical aspect of child development)?
Being fundamentally alienated in their existence? I don't think we should take
such a risk merely for curiosity's sake.

Like I said, I don't find the scenario of sentient chimeras very likely, but
it troubles me not because of how it might redefine what it means to be human,
but because I am concerned about how traumatic the experience may be for this
sentient being. The reality would probably be less "Ed the Talking Horse" and
more "an infant trapped in a pig's body". As a parent, it's an unsettling
idea.

edit: spelling

------
JoeAltmaier
Humans already have mostly 'animal dna' meaning of course, we share 99% with
animals. Including worms. Other than religious or anti-evolutionary rhetoric,
this made-up dilemma serves no purpose.

------
blisterpeanuts
Michael Crichton explored the chimera idea extensively in the novel "Next".
However he was more interested in "manimals" and how society would react to
them. The novel also touches upon the idea of patents and ownership of
biological organisms including human-like hybrids. The TV series "Orphan
Black" also touches upon patents.

Unlike these fictional explorations, however, the NPR story focuses on pig
embryos which have been modified to grow human organs such as the pancreas.
These creatures, if allowed to develop, would still be pigs, just with a very
unusual pancreas.

The eventual solution to growing _in vivo_ organs is to create a human embryo
that has just enough of a nervous system to stay alive, but no higher brain
function.

Ultimately, all children will donate a few cells in the embryonic stage to
this purpose. As you grow up, your brainless clone will also grow and provide
a backup set of organs, nerves, etc. that are 100% chromosomally compatible.
Perhaps the aging process in a clone can also be slowed down -- cool the body
to slow metabolism -- and then we'll be able to transplant younger parts,
younger skin, etc.

Bioethicists will debate this for decades, but it's going to happen; the
benefits are too great. Of course, eventually we may have in-system cures for
many of the problems that today require organ transplants, so perhaps a clone
will become unnecessary.

------
kriro
"""The experiments are so sensitive that the National Institutes of Health has
imposed a moratorium on funding them while officials explore the ethical
issues they raise."""

How does this work in the US? Sounds like they talked about the idea and NIH
reacted with a moratorium until ethics questions are considered.

I have to submit research to an ethics panel before I get funding. Not
everything but pretty much everything in medicine or involving humans and
possibly animals but I've never ventured into that realm. Even when writing a
proposal in say human-computer interaction there's always a need to have all
tests/evaluations involving human subjects approved by an ethics board first.
It's typically a short description and checklist a la "will the subjects be
compensated", "will the subjects be informed about the research agenda" etc.
It's good form but I don't think you'll get penalized if you do a quick
mockup-test with some people but formally/theoretically the requirement is
there.

~~~
Thriptic
In the US there are also review boards (IRBs) to which you need to submit
proposals for research involving human subjects. These can be intra-university
boards, or third parties. These review boards look at both the safety and
ethical implications of the work.

------
basicplus2
This is the perfect way to allow viruses to cross species and get to humans.

~~~
DanBC
The perfect way is what already happens in many parts of the world - have
humans and livestock in close proximity with poor controls over biosecurity.

------
ckluis
Robin Cook’s “Chromosone 6” is a book about using monkey/human hybrids as
organ-matched sources. Crossing “the line” with this type of research is not
something I wish to be a part of.

------
yyhhsj0521
My first thought: technically, isn't human a subset of animal?

~~~
vagabondvector
well, speciesism elevates us a little bit from the rest. so do other
aggressive isms. I believe the author just made a wording mistake.

------
mikx007
One possible dystopian scenario... Some time in the future chimera animals are
mass produced in special farms and any surpluses sold as food. Basically
humans start consuming human meat. In a few years cannibalism becomes
acceptable ...

------
mulle_nat
"In Search for Cures" I ate two Big Macs today.

------
RoutinePlayer
A very serious piece that should start with a more serious title, like "In
Search for Cures, Scientists Create Multispecies Embryos". Dancing around the
political correctness on the fact we're also animals is just as bad, and
obtrusive, as the moral questions on the research itself.

~~~
dang
OK, we'll use your suggestion above.

------
jonstokes
Oh yes! Bust out the Comic Book Guy voice for half of the posts in this thread
if you want max lulz. <comic book guy>Technically, humans are also animals.
Worst. Headline. Ever.</comic book guy>

Actually, Comic Book Guy, you're incorrect. In Webster's dictionary, the first
definition for "animal" is: "a living thing that is not a human being or
plant".

As Webster's or any other English dictionary in the world will attest,
colloquially and very commonly when people use the term "animal" they mean
"non-human", and there is nothing wrong with colloquialism in headlines. The
intent of the original headline is crystal clear, it is not misleading, and it
is not unserious or unethical.

Of course, this fact doesn't stop HN's legions of nit-picking boobs from
descending on this title like a pack of leg-humping chihuahuas... but again,
that's what Comic Book Guy voice is for :p

~~~
Veratyr
To expand this with quotes a little, OED (using the paid OED.com so can't
provide links unfortunately) defines "animal" as:

a. A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having
specialized sense organs and a nervous system and able to respond rapidly to
stimuli; any living creature, including man.

b. In ordinary or non-technical use: any such living organism other than a
human being.

The etymology from OED shows that its origins are both a borrowing from French
(which excludes man) and Latin (which includes man), which explains the
confusion a little I think.

So technically, the people claiming humans are an animal are correct. In
common parlance however, distinguishing humans from animals is totally
acceptable.

Both sides have an argument but I don't see how it's appropriate to describe
other HN users as "nit-picking boobs" or compare them to "leg-humping
chihuahuas". That's the kind of childishness I'd expect from Reddit or 4chan.

~~~
jonstokes
No, actually both sides are not correct. It's not correct to say that the
headline is wrong because a human is a type of animal. The claim that is being
made is that headline is wrong/misleading/unethical, and that specific claim
is nonsense.

Also, the claim on which the "headline is wrong" claims are based (i.e."human"
== "animal", always and forever and if you disagree then you're some sort of
creationist throwback) is also incorrect.

There is no two sides here. The people insisting that a) "animals" are always
considered a superset of "humans", therefore b) the headline is wrong, are
just plain wrong on both counts.

~~~
Veratyr
I didn't say both sides are correct, I said both sides have an argument.

In this case I believe the "human != animal" definition is clearly what was
intended but those who wish to argue that it shouldn't have been used have an
argument, as in technical contexts (such as scientific journals), "animal"
usually encompasses humans.

------
bitwize
Was the lead scientist behind this project named Moreau?

~~~
osmala
No it was Dr. Frank E. Stein.

~~~
curiousgal
_Whoosh_

------
j-pb
I for one welcome our new minotaur overlords.

------
awinter-py
I worked for the IRB in college and we cooked up some safety tips for doing
hybrid research:

Dog hybrid probably trustworthy until act 3, but hyena hybrid trustworthy
never. Don't let them find out about the pain implants, they'll remove them.
If you make an anti-regression serum, don't let your grad student fall in love
with the cat hybrid because he'll destroy the serum.

If you're going to do the experiment on an island (vs e.g. a biohazard
facility), keep ships with helicopters circling so you can evac as needed.
Carry EPIRBs and lots of radios.

~~~
knodi123
Oh, were you working on one of Dr Moreau's projects?

