Perhaps it is best to make sure that lab technicians feel a great deal of empathy for the animals they work with.
The lab technicians will after all be the experts on the subject; not academics on an ethics board.
I think that once we've reduced our meat consumption by 99.9%, then it might make some sense to spend energy coming up with alternatives to animal testing for medicine. For now, it's hard for me to see animal testing as the key bottleneck. If you profiled your code and found that one badly-implemented function was taking up 99.9% of your execution time, why would you ever waste any time optimizing the 0.1% function?
Beyond that, I'm afraid it'll be business as usual.
Counties have done unethical experiments on humans before, and maybe they do it now. Why should we hold ourselves to a standard, if other groups do not? I couldn't possibly think of a reason why the scientific community would hold themselves accountable, rather than think they know best and act as if they were superior to the larger community they work to improve. I mean, that mindset has never gone wrong.
Personally, I like seeing a community doing some attempt at self regulation. Maybe it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.
Why not? That's how we got vaccines, isn't it? (Stated completely without any ironic intent.)
It probably is. You'll have to buy them from North Korea in secret though.
In my opinion this kind of research crosses some ethical lines that shouldn't be crossed. If one considers an embryo as an independent life, what species the embryo belongs to? Wouldn't be the ones in this experiment half humans with human rights? After all, the scientist doesn't know all, and the cells he put in could evolve to a chain reaction of the hybrid developing human conscious.
Just my opinion tho, as I know nothing about genetics and biology.
I think the line of inquiry into replacement organs can be researched ethically but the how of the research may cross ethical lines if not done carefully. Given diseases we have, I think we need to do the research and find an ethical way to make this kind of organ production happen, if we want to extend human lifespan.
About the research, I hope I am wrong and the advances that came out of it help save lives and extend the human life. I just wish they take those ethical questions in consideration too.
When an issue will not be settled no matter how reasonable the first party is the second party is either motivated by tyranny or just principles. The former requires force to suppress. The latter cannot be suppressed forever without destroying the goods the first party wishes to preserve.
Arguments from ignorance are rarely helpful.
Becker, "The Body Electric" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_Electric_(book)
But then he died and most research dried up, but now there's Levin: https://ase.tufts.edu/biology/labs/levin/
If those morals say people should die instead of getting the organ transplants they need, maybe we are better off ignoring such morals.
Viability matters here. I realize you see that differently. Realize others will ALWAYS differ on this. ALWAYS.
Frankly, this will absolutely be done. There probably will be wars over it too.
And it still will be done.
And then it will be done sans an embryo, using stems.
Right now, powerful, wealthy people are paying full attention. The one thing they cannot buy will end up for sale. More time.
Buckle up. It is going to get super ugly.
There is not a wrong, just grave differences, IMHO, unresolvable ones. At least for a considerable time.
That was the intended point.
People are going to really struggle over this area of tech.
Not so much an argument as it is, look out. Incoming!
This research is part of a larger trend in biology where things once thought to be impractical are rapidly becoming possible. Extend these trends decades into the future; are you okay with a world where people can select the quality/type/number of organs for other people? What about the intentional creation of deadly viruses that select for subsets of the population? What about organizations intentionally modifying embryos to create people fit for menial labor? What about people making involuntary clones of others? And so on and so forth with the presently sci-fi topics.
Whether or not most people would generally agree to do such things, the fact is that they become possible. Without accurately projecting the economic factors in play 50, 100, 200 years from now, you can't actually confirm that people won't exploit biological research in this way.
Consider the atomic bomb as a case study. There are immediate positive side-effects that particle physics has brought to the world; but it doesn't simply cancel out the negative effects, nor can anyone alter their severity. After the creation of the 1st atomic bomb, the world is now left in a position where any of the major world super powers can _literally_ wipe out all human life on earth. Millions of man-hours per year have to be dedicated to preventing terrorist groups from acquiring atomic weaponry, and the stakes of political action have been permanently raised.
Similarly, if producing viable human-animal embryos becomes possible, the status quo of biology is permanently altered. Is it for the better? Maybe, but it's glib to just _assume_ it's better.
When it comes to biological sciences, we are on the forefront of some very big questions that do need consideration, especially because other populations (in advanced first-world countries) are deciding to move forward.
If Japan had just approved involuntary human experimentation on political prisoners, and it eventually lead to a breakthrough on cancer research, every person who argued against it would still immediately use that research to save their kids.
People are (broadly speaking) usually hypocritical when their individual needs conflict with their social ideals. Productive discussions about social moral standards should usually ignore that hypocrisy.
(Philosophical question I suppose)
I'm sure you would disagree, of course, because you probably only see this principle applying to certain moral issues--namely, the ones you've already carved out as exceptions because you don't perceive them as injustices.
note that many parts of the US enthusiastically adopted stem cell technology (https://www.cirm.ca.gov/about-cirm/history) but unfortunately federal-level policies set by conservative leaders have ameliorated the ambitious plans of that project.
The opposition was/is entirely to the death of embryos in order to obtain some stem cells for research. It's not as if it's some anti-science policy.
It's simply a continuation of anti-abortion politics, which a lot of people feel very strongly about and invokes a ton of ethical questions. As long as there can be a perception that someone was killed in order to provide the stem cells to save someone else, that's not going to go away.
Find ways to research stem cells without doing that and all of those concerns vanish.
"All the embryos used in CIRM-funded research were donated from IVF clinics. They had either been rejected for implantation and were going to be destroyed, or the couple had decided to stop storing the embryos for future use. The embryos used to create embryonic stem cell lines were already destined to be destroyed."
You're also making the assumption that this is moving "forward" and that there won't be ramifications outside of external influence by other countries.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
As in, "you're having all these debates about how to defend your front door but you don't even have a lock on your back door."
While that's their prerogative, the US could still enact trade sanctions.
On the other hand, DARPA is probably already working on the next generation of hybrid human/gorilla soldier.
(Personally... I think this tech is amazing and I can't wait for it to be available worldwide!)
I don't see any good comments downvoted.
That's quality content, unlike a the South Park reference drawing a simile between serious research and the (humorously) exaggerated potential disasters of combining human DNA with other species.
Obviously the second was made by some common peasant lacking the intelligence to engage with the audience here. The first, clearly being the work of an intellectual powerhouse the likes of which we stand in awe of, has rightly collected the praise and votes they deserve.
A toast to the manpig that shall grow my future replacement liver!
By the way, my neutral explanation above doesn't mean that I approve of doing such things. Honestly, I'm quite torn about the issue.
We already eat bacon and use large mammal heart valves in surgery.
I mean we wear the skin of cows, grease things with their rendered fat and use them for glue.
This seems like a strange point to be torn on.
If they didn’t block this stuff they wouldn’t have a job.
Artificial womb experiments are going well , as well as tissue synthesis for cultured meat (which is just animal muscle), so...maybe?
maybe an impossible burger?
Definitely not saying it shouldn't be that way; I'm kind of glad that we have some level of ethical rules for handling animals.
Pigs are big enough and apparently quite similar to us. And also the slaughter of hundreds of millions of them every year is already well accepted...
I hope this changes eventually. It is one of humans archaic traditions that is highly unethical.
I think the wikipedia page helps understand this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell although the part where you can actually make a rat/human hybrid is still undefined science.
You pacified the German psyche so thoroughly that the Germans do it themselves now.
Japan is currently sanctioning Samsung because it wants to avoid responsibility for WW2 sexual slavery.
There's a separate case which was decided in SK courts claiming in short that Japan should give SK more reparations, because of course a court is going to consistently find in favor of their own country versus a luke-warm neighbor over a historical tension.
This is flat out bullshit. Photoregist, hydrogen fluoride, fluorine polyimide are all together mainly used for photolithography/OLED. It is not a coincidence.
It is very obvious that Japan targeted Samsung and their primary goal is to ruin the Samsung and hynix's(SK semiconductor industry) business, ultimately to harm SK economy(semiconductor industry is significant to SK economy).
They do this because of the recent SK courts' verdict and Japan don't like to admit nor apologize horrendous war crimes they committed in WW2.
Just repeating Japan's specious pretexts(that to avoid potential WTO issues and get plausible deniability) that they are doing this because of NK is disingenuous.
I don't understand. Are you making a (false) allegation that I'm the user ETHisso2017? How is it relevant here? I don't often comment, but I created an account solely to reply your comment because the level of (un)ethical implication of your comments is intolerable to me.
> Hydrogen flouride is used directly in weapons manufacturing.
Japan's trade sanctions include photoregist, hydrogen fluoride, fluorine polyimide, all critical to photolithography, not just hydrogen flouride. It never is a coincidence. You can't take the only one that's easy to criticize and pretend as if it is all of the points. It is misleading by omission at best.
The purpose of the sanction is to spoil the SK semiconductor industry in response to the WW2 sexual slavery verdict. Anyone who have looked into SK-JP news or with basic knowledge in semiconductor industry would know it. It's as simple as that.
It's not up to you.
You are absolutely right; what Japan wants to do in their own country is their own decision.