UK approves human-animal embryos
After what it calls "a series of detailed deliberative sessions", Britain's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority gave the go ahead Wednesday for the creation of embryos that would contain both human and animal cells. Such research is banned in Canada and President Bush has called for it to be forbidden in the US*. Here's more from HEFA's statement:
Having looked at all the evidence the Authority has decided that there is no fundamental reason to prevent cytoplasmic hybrid research. However, public opinion is very finely divided with people generally opposed to this research unless it is tightly regulated and it is likely to lead to scientific or medical advancements.
This is not a total green light for cytoplasmic hybrid research, but recognition that this area of research can, with caution and careful scrutiny, be permitted. Individual research teams should be able to undertake research projects involving the creation of cytoplasmic hybrid embryos if they can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of an HFEA licence committee, that their planned research project is both necessary and desirable. They must also meet the overall standards required by the HFEA for any embryo research.
There are already two applications for human animal chimeric embryo research before the regulatory panel. The applications include proposals to inject human DNA into the embryos of cows or rabbits, ultimately in an effort to produce stem cells.
The May 2007 AJOB Neuroscience featured a target article about the proposed human neuron mouse. This summer Hank Greely, one of the target article's authors, and Francoise Baylis, who authored a peer commentary, both appeared on a bioethics.net podcast to talk about the ethical implications of human-animal chimeras.
-Greg Dahlmann
*Or, at least, we think he did. In the State of the Union Address, Mr. Bush used the term "hybrid" which isn't the same thing as a chimera. US Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) has proposed legislation to ban human animal chimeras (the bill actually uses the word) and apparently the President supports this legislation.
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
As a citizen concerned with the implications this research will have in future policy and in future lives, I would like to share my thoughts on the research with those who survey this blog.
I believe those parties within Britain that have advocated the creation of chimeras for scientific research have, in both their desire to perform such research and fighting successfully for the ability to do so, violated not only the ethics of science but the ethics and sanctity of life.
I will not comment here on the issues of how life came to be or if life and morality are governed by the laws of a higher being or simply existential; I will say I feel the allowance of this research is disrespectful to life in that we are creating fusions of creatures unnaturally and then destroying those fusions.
Why create something with the potential for full life when it is not given the chance and created with the intention of its eventual termination?
And what of, as was mentioned in the Post's article today, the fear of many this research will lead to the abuse of its results by those who wish to create chimeras for whatever purpose. What then? Would the resultant creature have a mind able to comprehend human emotions and think at a suitable level of rationalism so as to be forever uncomfortable with itself in its form? If the creature's mind is predominantly of the animal other than the human, would this be as well a crime against that creature for plaguing it with harmful feelings and distraught emotions?
I feel the scientists calling for the creation of chimeras should be ashamed of the allowances they have given for the abuse of science in the name of scientific and social progress.
- by An American Citizen on Sep 6, 2007 at 6:09 PM | link
I respectfully disagree. I)va and sperm are wasted in the many billion every day. I do not see the meeting of the two as a momentous change in potential--or the existence of potential as morally requiring support. I would consider the 'potential for life' objection more consistent if fertility treatment centres that create and discard many thousand emryos a day got the same villification abortion doctors do. It seems that research does, at least, make some use of what potential exists in these embryos--which probably do not have the ability to become viable beings in most cases. Perhaos the need for this technology could be reduced or eliminated of wasted fully human embryos were donated to research to make some use of their discarded potential?
That is not to say the creation of deliberate chimera is morally neutral but I think the emotional reaction to this particular use wanes upon closer inspection.
- by emily on Sep 7, 2007 at 9:56 AM | link