Chimaera embryos: right or wrong?

[hyena]

From The Financial Times online (www.ft.com)


Lobby wins backing for hybrid embryos

By Clive Cookson, Science Editor
Published: September 5 2007 03:08 | Last updated: September 5 2007 03:08

The power of scientific lobbying to change public and political opinion will be underscored on Wednesday when the fertility regulator is set to approve the controversial principle that human-animal embryos can be created for research.
Wide-ranging public consultation by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority showed that many people who initially found the idea of hybrid embryos repugnant changed their minds once they were told what the research actually involved.
If the HFEA meeting in London on Wednesday confirms that hybrid embryos are acceptable in principle, the regulator will later consider two detailed proposals – from researchers at King’s College London and Newcastle University – to make hybrid embryos by removing the nucleus from a rabbit or cow egg and replacing it with that of a human cell.A “cytoplasmic” hybrid of this sort, with 99.9 per cent of its genes from the human cell donor, could be an extremely useful source of stem cells for scientists investigating incurable diseases such as Parkinson’s and diabetes. In effect the animal eggs would substitute for human eggs, which are in extremely short supply, in therapeutic cloning research.
There has been a remarkable turnround in public opinion over the issue since last winter, when the government proposed banning the creation of hybrid embryos in its forthcoming human tissue and embryos bill and the HFEA placed the King’s and Newcastle applications on ice.
Julian Hitchcock, senior life sciences lawyer at Mills & Reeve, said: “The government’s original proposals were based on a public consultation which researchers tended to leave to their employing organisations, while a largely uninformed public was simply (and improbably) asked, ‘whether the law should permit the creation of human-animal or chimera embryos’. This complacency and failure to engage with the public led the government to its proposed ban.”
Opinion started to change when scientists, realising belatedly what was at stake, started campaigning on the issue.
In particular they persuaded the House of Commons science committee to hold an inquiry, which came out unanimously in favour of regulated research using hybrid embryos.
The government then reversed its position, saying that new human tissues and embryos bill, which parliament will debate in the autumn, would permit the creation of human-animal embryos in some circumstances.
“The thoroughness of the HFEA’s consultation, which differed from the government’s in providing an explanation of the work involved, has reached a very different – and welcome – result which augurs well for stem cell research and enterprise,” said Mr Hitchcock. “It will hopefully persuade the chief medical officer [Sir Liam Donaldson], who has previously voiced doubts about chimera/hybrid research, that the public truly is on board.”
Chris Shaw, a neurologist at King’s College London who wants to use hybrid embryos in the search for cures for brain diseases, said: “This is a lesson for all scientists that they need to be open about their work and communicate it at every level. They will not win people’s trust if they stay hermit-like in their cages.”
Fiona Fox, director of the Science Media Centre in London, agreed: “The HFEA consultation on public attitudes to human-animal embryos shows that when the public feel they understand the science and can see which diseases the researchers are trying to tackle, support swings strongly in favour of allowing research.
“Over 60 per cent of those in favour of embryo research were also in favour of the HFEA licensing the creation of human/animal embryos.”


-----------



Opinions?

 

[ishkur]

wtf
o.o
can you really imagine those embryos??????
in my opinion it is not about right or wrong but about what is natural (or meant to be) and what is an aberration!!
it is just simply not meant to be those human-animal embryos... :S

 

[Siren]

What bothers me most is the fact that everyone is trying to manipulate the public in order to get what they want. The one side poses the question ‘whether the law should permit the creation of human-animal or chimera embryos’, which naturally makes people imagine unearthly human-animal babies, and of course they're going to answer "no". The other side mentions stem cell research and a bunch of horrible diseases they're trying to fight, and naturally the people will say "you go, beat that disease down!".
There is clearly a need for strict regulations on the issue, for example to ensure that this practice will be allowed only for stem cell research. In that case i think it would be ok since the embryo is killed at the blastocyst stage, when it's only a ball of cells. Of course this will open the door for allowing other things later, and a human-animal baby, a real chimaera, would be gross. Or with some other technique the result could be an animal bearing a human heart from your cells, still a human-animal cross, but in this case it would save your life and i'm not sure if you'd still think it's gross.
But, no matter how many regulations you make, a mad scientist could pop up anytime anywhere in the world, try to make a weird baby like that, and then let the world know. If he/she is at all successful, of course.

 

[hyena]

@siren: yes, i think regulation's the key as well. the problem of course is that these techniques could be used for mass destruction (ie creation of an army of clones and half-orcs on the part of the next hitler), but that's not the only purpose they can be put to. we're used to regulating discoveries whose sole use is in war, like atom bombs, and we managed to do pretty well so far, since the world is still here and we've had the ability to blow it up for about fifty years now. but we're helped in our regulations by the fact that there is no peaceful use of atom bombs.

i read something on the Telegraph that left me pretty much aghast - apparently, a couple of months ago the vatican said that it's still wrong to kill the chimaera embryos, and if a woman donates genetic material for them she should be entitled to carry them to term. now, i certainly hope that the journalist got it backwards, which could be possible in the light that if i am not mistaken the reason why these embryos are being produced is exactly because human eggs, not sperm, are scarce. so women are not involved in the process at all: if i understand correctly, it's female rabbits and cows, and male humans. however, if the report was right, i need to steer clear of the st peter's area because there must be LSD in the air. or they're trying to play the paradoxical strategy, which would be risky but at least not completely up the wall.

 

[marduk1507]

I think the Pandoras box was opened long ago, and this is just one of the obvious results. It does not really matter, if we ban this or not, or whatever regulations we adopt. The truth is we are already able to do that, and that means it will be abused sooner or later. The mention of atomic ceasefire really comes to mind (as for the "abusal management"), but I think this is totally different in terms of "getting out of hand".

 

[rahvin]

I don't think the regulations are irrelevant. I see the truth in the statement "if we can do it we will", but not punishing abuse would be pretty foolish. We can shoot people with a gun since guns have been invented, and I know no system of rules that at some point just went and said "oh, what the heck, now that you know how to do it you might as well go ahead and shoot each other all the time, I'm never gonna be able to stop you anyway!".

 

[QRV]

As long as history goes, it seems people don't understand the consequences of their stupid actions until something terrible happens (and even so they can be unhumanly stubborn). So I agree with marduk: if those things haven't been abused much yet, they will. Only later a significant regulation may come (and that's arguable).

 

[loveMikael]

But the tv news said,these embryos are useful for treating disease or some stuff llike that... so what's wrong with this??

 

[Dark_Silence]

But the tv news said,these embryos are useful for treating disease or some stuff llike that... so what's wrong with this??

of course, this aspect is very good, but some people could use it in a wrong way. Thats why we need laws to control its use, or maybe to ensure that it is only permitted to do so in order to cure diseases/research for new treatments for disease that are now incurable.

 

[hyena]

now for the ethical aspect.

again, a question that wants to be a true, as opposed to rhetorical, question.

we wouldn't condone experiments on babies, even if it were to save millions from cancer.

we do, however, look benignly upon experiments on embryos.

is the difference just visual?

before sounding immoral, and even if it doesn't sound immoral, it sounds depressingly stupid. we tell alive from non-alive from how it looks. hyperbolic achievement.

 

[marduk1507]

Well, this is pretty much the same as the question "had nazis discovered the cure for cancer by experimenting on people in concentration camps, would it justify their actions?" There is no answer but the fact they did not discover that cure, and they did experiments on people in concentration camps. And this is what I was trying to point out in my previous post. Holocaust with all its horrors was basically enabled by the modernity itself - it was pure logistics. I am the last person to say that I dont want the cures for all those diseases, but I am against those experiments. I absolutely agree with rahvin on the regulations issue, all I wanted to say is I have absolutely no illusions about their enforcement. Without getting into stupid conspiracy theories, I believe there are circles beyond all regulations, who would abuse this knowledge after all.

 

[Siren]

@hyena: Of course an embryo is alive, even if it's just one cell. In the same manner, cancer cells are alive too, but we don't have a moral problem killing them, do we? I'm not saying that cancer cells and babies are the same, since the first kills you and the latter doesn't, but they're both alive after all.
And since you mentioned visual difference between embryo and babies, it depends on which stage you're talking about. When it's a blastocyst, can you really tell it's the same as a baby or even an embryo that has some basic organ formations?

 

[Salamurhaaja]

But the tv news said,these embryos are useful for treating disease or some stuff llike that... so what's wrong with this??

Well, there is this problem with people living too long as it is and this is not
only cos I feel all people should be dead, if the population keeps growing at
this rate and people live longer thanks to new drugs and treatments, well,
something has gotta to give.

There is a reason we have diseases and wars, population control.

This is one reason why I think finding a cure for cancer or AIDS or anything
else that kills people is a stupid waste of time. Of course I would like to see
most humans dead anyway, but thats a whole different matter.

So, as far as I'm concerned my dislike of this kind of research is not due to
some moral dilemma like "ooh, ooh, but they are like killing babies, cos once
the sperm hits the embryo, instant baby and life and killing that for research
is wrong and against 10 commandments and shit" but rather due to, extended
human life = bad.

Why do you think diseases are here in the first place?
Cos the Planet Earth only wants humans for plastic and now that it has that,
it needs to get rid of us.

Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” Plastic…asshole.

George Carlin - The Planet Is Fine

 

[hyena]

@siren: well, the thing is - i don't think that aesthetics should be a good criterion to differentiate disposable from non-disposable. an embryo has the potential of becoming a baby, and if we have to decide that it can be killed, i think that we need a reason that is stronger than "it doesn't look human". i see what you mean about cancer cells, and sorry for using the word "alive" inappropriately. i didn't mean that.

on a strictly personal note, abortion is one of these things that make me go "how people did ever think of that?". there are things i don't approve of but can perfectly understand, such as taking hard drugs: i can see myself imagining substances that numb you out or project you in a different state of consciousness, if they didn't exist. but i don't think i would imagine killing the unborn as a way to handle an unwanted pregnancy, if the possibility wasn't available already. it just seem too much of an easy way out, such as pretending to be sick when you don't want to go to work, only magnified.

 

[marduk1507]

Coincidentally, this morning, on our way to work, me and my wife have seen a really discgusting billboard of a pro-life campaign. A huge hand is holding a mutilated 11-week old (or so they imply - I dont know how it is - can abortions be performed only within the first 11 weeks?) embryo covered in blood. It could very well be the next Cannibal Corpse album cover. It hasnt only made us sick, but also pretty angry. Is this terrorising really necessary? I must admit it has made me think, but at the same it has filled me with disgust towards the authors of this campaign and the whole idea.

http://www.pravonazivot.sk/

Thats the picture. Imagine it on a billboard.

 

[Salamurhaaja]

That is pretty disgusting and really has nothing to do with the issue either.
Stupid fucking pro-life fuckers. I'm pro-death when it comes to anyone
who is pro-life. What fucking business is it of theirs what people do with
their damn bodies, if a woman wants an abortion, they should be entitled
to it no matter how it "kills babies".

 

[hyena]

@marduk: i don't know about your country, but here abortion is legal until the 12th week.

terrorizing is in bad taste and i personally do not like it, but it's a legitimate tactic, if only because the other side keeps on churning out sob stories of women who are gang-raped by immigrants and teenagers who renounce school to have a child, when even a superficial look at the data shows that abortions are very concentrated, ie most abortions are traceable to a limited number of "hard-core" women who use abortion as yet another form of contraception. buy a condom already.

also, it may be bloody, scary and disgusting, but it's true.

 

[marduk1507]

I dont know. To be totally honest, my attitude has been that of personal rejection of abortion in most cases, with the exception of extreme cases like rape, incest etc., and I would also agree if such a bill would be passed (meaning banning abortions with some exceptions). This campaign will only make people sick and avoid the debate/ignore the issue even more, so I cant really see the point. What I would like to see is a complete set of proposals, an entire family policy campaign, which would also embrace the abortion issue. But the third sector and politicians seldom do that.

EDIT: It has just occurred to me that my attitude towards chimaera embryos would probably be the same. However, my original point remains the same as well - no regulations can stop the black marketing neither for abortions nor for the chimaera embryos. The solution lies in the willingness of the governments to create such environment where these things would be unlikely to happen. You need a vision, zeal and support to do that, things that most governments lack. It is mostly typical for left-wing governments to think that regulations and money can solve everything - these are important, but without proper environment they have no value and get violated and embezzled. But it is easier and way more popular to spread populistic bullshit and redistribute money than to create an environment (of which regulations are an essential part) for the people and let them do things their own way.

 

[loveMikael]

Coincidentally, this morning, on our way to work, me and my wife have seen a really discgusting billboard of a pro-life campaign. A huge hand is holding a mutilated 11-week old (or so they imply - I dont know how it is - can abortions be performed only within the first 11 weeks?) embryo covered in blood. It could very well be the next Cannibal Corpse album cover. It hasnt only made us sick, but also pretty angry. Is this terrorising really necessary? I must admit it has made me think, but at the same it has filled me with disgust towards the authors of this campaign and the whole idea.
Thats the picture. Imagine it on a billboard.

I'm sorry I can't read these words cause it's not English...also,I didn't get the idea of the campaign.Hope you could give me a clue,Thx.

Maybe "Pro-life" focus on something about unresponsalbe abortion,like teenage pragent and somewoman who don't take having sex seriously,which should have been had after the marriage,also with only one beloved man in her whole life. This can be seen as serious social probloms,and hard to solve,no matter the social problom experts,teachers,even parents say thousands words to these girls.Pity on them.The ridiculous "love",which is aslo very unmarture,made them became idiot,without thinking the outcome of this kinda shot "relitionship".The outcome of this is many abortions and disrespect of life.

Then someone came out and print a bloody 11-weeks embryo on a billboard.It's much more clear and useful than any other words-NOW,you(the girls) take a look at the pic,it's your upcoming baby,it's the outcome of your unresponsable sex,you kill a life,you kill your own baby.

A better tool to envoke the "stupid" Girls and Women.although It's a little bloody and ...

 

[loveMikael]

Well, there is this problem with people living too long as it is and this is not
only cos I feel all people should be dead, if the population keeps growing at
this rate and people live longer thanks to new drugs and treatments, well,
something has gotta to give.

There is a reason we have diseases and wars, population control.

This is one reason why I think finding a cure for cancer or AIDS or anything
else that kills people is a stupid waste of time. Of course I would like to see
most humans dead anyway, but thats a whole different matter.

So, as far as I'm concerned my dislike of this kind of research is not due to
some moral dilemma like "ooh, ooh, but they are like killing babies, cos once
the sperm hits the embryo, instant baby and life and killing that for research
is wrong and against 10 commandments and shit" but rather due to, extended
human life = bad.

Why do you think diseases are here in the first place?
Cos the Planet Earth only wants humans for plastic and now that it has that,
it needs to get rid of us.

Har...relax mate,Almighty Peter Tagtgren has already told us that we live to die.The only things you saw is that scitie do thier best to extend the human life,by doing unbelievable research.But remember the vrius are still fight back by changing their constructions of genes.

Yes, I agreed with you that human are needed to be get rid of,only becasue there are certain People who deadly ruined the peace and raped the earth.(id est US prisident Bush,PM of Japan,ect).

Why I take disease in the first place?It's just because disease is the only threat that can be solved by human.we have nothing to do with any other natural disasters,right?But actaully,Nature has her own way to get rid of us,regardless what kinda researchs we do.We find a way to cure cancer,but there has to be another new vrius threaten our life.No one could break the life circle.