Mix'n'Match: Shades of Mrs. Frisby and Rats of NIMH
Those of you who have read the children's book, Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH, may be suprised to find out that it is no longer merely in the realm of fantasy -- National Geographic News reports that animal-human chimeras are being created one more regular basis, including mice with human brains. This raises a slew of ethical concerns. To name just a few, what ethical, social, and legal controls or reviews should be placed on such research? Does the creation of chimeras inflict pain and suffering on them? Will the transgenic intervention cause the newly created beings to possess physical or behavioral traits that readily distinguish it from what is usually perceived to be “human”? Should these newly created beings be given moral respect and legal status?
The creation of such chimeras as been banned in Canada and several bioethicists in the United States, including George Annas and Cynthia Cohen, have called for a such ban. George Annas submits that by changing the notion of "humanness" we undercut our notions of human rights and dignity.
I submit that we should be looking to preserve and expand human rights and human dignity despite that fact our ‘humanness’ and human nature is changing.
- Linda Glenn
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
Part of the difficulty in developing an ethical standard for the creation of chimeras is that we cant agree on what exactly it is about ourselves that we value. If human dignity is really the dignity of a creature with our sophisticated ability to think and feel, then the only chimeric research that would be problematic would be research like Weissmans, which involves creating animals with potentially enhanced cognitive ability. On the other hand, if human dignity is the dignity of a particular species made in the image of God, then we are probably already trashing it by using pig heart valves.
Bioethicists have a professional bias toward papering over deep differences in ethical systems to create consensus rules, but I dont think this advisable here. Divisions about the nature of human dignity result from profound differences in ethical thinking. Those motivated by concern about human dignity as the dignity of a particular species made in the image of God see chimeras as true monsters, category breakers that should be cast out. Those motivated by concern about human dignity as the dignity of creatures that think and feel see chimeras as an object of sympathy. The general ethics textbook I am currently teaching from (Liszka 2002) makes a distinction between guilt-oriented and shame-oriented moral systems. The cleavage in conceptions of human dignity that Im talking about I think corresponds to shame-based and guilt-based systems. If so, then we shouldnt expect an easy unanimity.
The article quotes Rifkin as saying: "One doesn't have to be religious or into animal rights to think this [making human animal chimeras] doesn't make sense," implying that he at least represents the religious and animal rights communities. But I dont even see how you can get those two groups in bed together.
- by rob loftis on Jan 31, 2005 at 6:57 PM | link
What makes us think that tissue from a human makes a human? hasn't such materialism been laughed out of the world?
On the other hand, Cordwainer Smith rules.
- by Rob on Feb 1, 2005 at 8:56 PM | link
not easily, rob -- but the search for commensurablity is one can contribute to make these opposing groups bedfellows.
- by Linda MacDonald Glenn on Feb 5, 2005 at 1:06 AM | link