Comment (16)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggCrossing the species boundary
The possibility of creating a bewildering variety of human-animal combinations requires profound ethical reflection.
Amid much public debate and controversy, the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) recently authorised the creation of human-animal embryos for research. In the process, the nucleus of a cow ovum (egg) is removed and replaced with human DNA to create an embryo - the same cloning technique used to create "Dolly" the sheep. The resulting embryo will have mitochondrial DNA from the cow ovum and nuclear DNA from the human donor. Such embryos will not be allowed to develop beyond 14 days and must never be transferred into either a woman or an animal. They will be used for research, including embryo stem cell research.
Making a human-animal embryo -- for which the term "manimals" has been coined -- involves crossing the human-animal species barrier and authorising it sets a precedent that doing so is ethically acceptable. To understand the wider import of this development, we need to look at the full range of possible human-animal combinations and ask whether they also could be approved using the same line of reasoning, namely, that the science made possible by cow-ovum/human-nucleus cloned embryos has great benefits.
We are the first generation of humans ever to have to face such ethical issues. We hold life, itself, and the power to change it radically in the palm of our collective human hand.
Some definitions
There is some difficulty in defining the terms used to describe the various human-animal combinations researchers have created or might want to create, in part, because definitions long used in other areas - for instance, in plant biology - get misused and such misuse gets propagated; there is overlap between definitions which creates confusion; and because new possibilities for such combinations are continuously opening up. They include the following:
Chimeras: Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act defines a chimera as "an embryo into which a cell of any non-human life form has been introduced; or an embryo that consists of cells of more than one embryo, foetus or human being." Chimeras are organisms that contain genetically distinct populations of cells derived, for example, from more than one embryo -- whether an animal and a human embryo or two embryos of the same species. (Fully human chimeras occur naturally when two early embryos fuse.)
Transgenic organisms are those into whose genomes a piece of foreign DNA has been inserted and would include the transfer of one or more genes from an animal to a human embryo (which is prohibited by the Assisted Human Reproduction Act) or vice versa (which is not prohibited). For example, human complement genes are transferred to pig embryos for xenotransplantation purposes (using animal organs in humans) or, most commonly, mice are engineered with human genes and then are used to study human disease. The resulting animals are chimeras.
Hybrids are created by fertilising a human ovum with an animal sperm or vice versa, that is through sexual reproduction. The Assisted Human Reproduction Act prohibits such combinations for the purposes of reproduction, which means, for instance, that fertilising hamster ova with human sperm to check on sperms' viability and potency is allowed.
Cybrids, which the British HFEA has just approved, are a sub-category of hybrids: These embryos have the cytoplasm of one species and the nuclear DNA of another. They result from cloning (asexual replication) using an animal ovum and DNA from a human somatic cell nucleus to generate a cytoplasmic hybrid embryo. The prohibition on cloning in the Assisted Human Reproduction Act means such embryos must not be created in Canada.
Synthias are the "new kids" -- or, more accurately, possible "future kids" -- on the molecular biology-genetic-reproductive technoscience block. They result when synthetic biology is used to build or "engineer" life, including from the genes up, and could involve human-animal combinations.
A species is defined by the capacity to interbreed and produce fertile offspring; correlatively, different species cannot do that. Ian Wilmut, the scientist who created "Dolly," the first mammal cloned from an adult somatic cell, said that nature had never anticipated the possibility of crossing the species barrier between mammals and, therefore, has no safeguards against it.
Ethical principles
That means we must provide such safeguards through ethics. So, what are the ethics of these procedures?
First, we can make a distinction between "bringing a life into being" through a human-animal combination and "altering a life-in-being" by the transfer to it of genes from another species.
We can also make a distinction between transferring human genes to an animal "life-in-being" and animal genes to a human one. As well, we can distinguish altering the intrinsic genetic essence of human beings with animal genes and changing some of their extrinsic characteristics with animal tissues or organs. So, for instance, there's a major difference between adding pig genes to a human embryo and replacing a person's heart valve with one from a pig.
All human-animal genetic combinations raise enormously serious ethical issues, but they are not all the same ethically. I believe "bringing a life into being" through a human-animal combination is inherently wrong and must not be undertaken.
But within strict limits, some cross-species gene transfer may be ethically permissible.
Most people have an ethical "yuck" reaction to human-animal combinations, for instance, human-animal hybrids. Our moral intuitions tell us that using the human capacity to reproduce to reproduce with an animal is wrong. We must make sure that intuition is not repressed.
Might the long-standing crime of bestiality - having sex with an animal - be an expression of this intuition? Princeton University philosopher, Peter Singer, argues this crime is just one example of a strong disapproval of non-reproductive sex and that bestiality is morally acceptable as long as the animal does not suffer and there is pleasure for both the human and animal. (Singer believes that all animals are equal and distinguishing between human and other animals is "speciesism," a form of wrongful discrimination.)
But might the opposite be true? Might a fear that a mixed human-animal living being could result be at the heart of the prohibition on bestiality and our moral intuitions against it? If so, we must watch that in using science to realise that outcome, we don't suppress those moral intuitions.
Placing a medical or scientific cloak on our actions often results in such suppression. That cloak can disconnect us from the intrinsic nature of what we are doing, and the moral intuitions and emotions we would otherwise experience that warn us ethically. It allows us to focus just on the good we hope to achieve, at the expense of the ethical issues involved.
Ethically acceptable combinations
I propose that making, for instance, a human-animal hybrid or cybrid is inherently wrong, which means it cannot be justified ethically by good intentions or outcomes and must not be undertaken. Might, however, some human-animal combinations not be inherently wrong and, if so, which ones and why?
Let's look at transgenesis.
First, the direction of the transfer seems to matter ethically. Many people see transferring animal genes to human embryos as unethical and, as mentioned, doing so for the purposes of reproduction is prohibited by the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Transferring human genes to animals is not prohibited, but when is it ethical?
I propose at least three factors are relevant: The nature and function of the genetic material transferred from a human to an animal; the amount of that material in comparison with the animal's genome; and why the transfer is undertaken.
For instance, in "pharming," human genes are transferred to farm animals such as goats or cows, in order to recover drugs from the animal's milk to treat blood clots, anaemia, haemophilia, emphysema or cystic fibrosis.
In my view, that is ethically acceptable. The human genetic material transferred is strictly limited in kind and amount and is not of a "sensitive" nature, for instance, associated with human consciousness; it has a very specific, fully identified function; and it is being transferred to produce a life-saving therapy or one to treat a serious disease.
Leaving aside the host of other ethical issues raised by xenotransplantation, likewise, I believe that transferring human complement genes to pig embryos to make the pigs' organs suitable for transplantation to humans, when, otherwise, crossing the species barrier would elicit a hyper-acute rejection reaction in the human recipient and almost immediate rejection of the organ and possibly death, is ethical.
On the other hand, creating mice by injecting 100,000 human embryonic stem cells per mouse into the brains of 14-day-old rodent embryos raises serious ethical concerns, even among some scientists with liberal views on research ethics, because they could envision "nightmare scenarios" in which a human mind (or some level of human consciousness) might be trapped in an animal head.
We are the first generation of humans ever to have to face such ethical issues. We hold life, itself, and the power to change it radically in the palm of our collective human hand.
This is an amazing, unprecedented power. With great power comes great responsibility. We need deep ethical wisdom and unwavering moral courage in deciding what we may do with it and what we must not.
Margaret Somerville is director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, and author of The Ethical Imagination: Journeys of the Human Spirit.
Excellent article. It points out many issues which have been argued for decades. Serious thought must be brought to bare on the many ethical or pragmatic consequences of this Biotechnological phenomenon thing is certain: Pandora’s box has been opened in this arena of science. It cannot be (put back to a former state) the reality is materialized and as all reality it must be addressed.
What do you know of morals or ethics? A young child knows more. Twisted thoughts and cloning, especially human/animal is only going backwards. Humans are superior over animals - yet mad-scientists want to create something lower. They should not look to the innocent for basic parts supply. Go to http://www.myfoxny.com and search using words: organ donation controversy. But know this young man did NOT have strokes. Where is law and order in our world? Who is protecting true human life? The truth will be exposed. Are you comfortable with that? Science is imposing on the innocent.
“I believe in the K-Pax theory ... all creatures are born to know the difference between right and wrong. Everyone knows that”.”
I’m a little bewildered, because having looked up this said theory (which apparently is rather undeveloped and almost exclusively tied to the movie), it strikes me as more of a leap of faith than most organized religions. The aliens of K-Pax are fictional and completely non-human, so I do not see how any theory based upon such imagination can carry much practical weight.
I would agree that every person has a conscience, with which one determines what is right and wrong, and that there is a natural moral law, in which case people generally agree with each other upon first intuition. But, the position of the above quote strikes me as particularly Kantian, and appears to deny the subjectivity of the human conscience and freedom of will.
However, I also believe that conscience can be malformed - I mean, just look at the Islamic extremists who attacked the WTC. They apparently thought they were doing the “right thing,” but I should hope we all agree that in reality it was a terrible abomination that they committed. If human conscience was determined as dictated in the quote above and left at that, 9/11 ought never to have occurred.
Tangentially, one may argue that “organized religion” is the culprit of events such as 9/11. But similar atrocities have been committed on even larger scales by atheistic ideologies (Nazi-ism and communism), so clearly organized religion is not the culprit. Also consider the many BENEFITS offered by organized religions, which have produced such figures as Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Theresa, and John Paul II.
I guess in sum I want to remind certain individuals on this board that organized religion is not the world’s scape goat, and greater respect ought to be shown to those with whom you may not agree nor correctly understand. Do you not desire to be treated similarly
To Charlotte,
K-Pax, see the following link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0272152/
Help! I accidently hit the “remove me” buttom, not now...I want to hear the comments on this subject. I’m really not very sharp with computers so don’t know how to fix it.
Yesterday I attended a workshop on “Reconciliation”. It is a bit different than “conflict resolution” but hopefully ends up at the same place; common ground. My first reaction this AM to my email was “What on earth did I say wrong about what”. I don’t know what the K-Pax theory is but do care to learn. If two people begin on common ground to search they have the potential to end up on common ground. So, lets see, what is the common ground that I have with all the responders. I would like to say that we are all Children of God and call that our common ground but I feel I would have at least one objection. Even to say we all have the same main body parts might met with objection soooooooo....I am willing to give up my perception of truth and let you hang on to your perception of truth, as we reach beyond ourselves, in the search for a truth we can agree on. No truth? No reality! And I don’t think any of us want to go there.
To Keith Styles
Perhaps you may write with some more respect about Charlotte, whom I don’t know and whose ideas I don’t share.
I’m not convinced that humanity is beter off since the ‘god reason’ took the place of God, in spite of the fantastic achievements of science, which I fully support and with me many religious people.
Enrique Alonso de Velasco, PhD
Well said Keith Style.
I believe in the K-Pax theory. When Kevin Spacey was asked “how do the children of K-Pax know the difference between right and wrong if there is no families to raise them?”. Kevin replied, “well its simple, all creatures are born to know the difference between right and wrong. Everyone knows that”.
Its only when man uses religion as a method to control others that gets us into trouble. I can never understand how religious people seem to always claim the high ground with moral on one hand and go to war in the name of God on the other.
To Keith Styles,
Would you care to point out one single religious statement in this article? I’m afraid there is none and your posting is just a pretext to spread more atheistic hate.
“I, on the other hand do not agree with those thoughts. Religion and all the gods down through the ages have wrought misery and death on millions of people.
Even today, people like you are still unable to accept the diversity that exists in the human species. You spout moral judgements ad infinitum. It is repugnant!”
ROFLOL. In your world, words like “abomination” and “repugnant” have no meaning: you cannot use them, for nothing can be offensive or revolting in an amoral, utility-driven world.
Yet another “Bright” sounds-off like a mynah mimicking the history-selective bigotry of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al. And with the same intellectual inconsistancy that belies the claim of rational superiority.
To Charlotte:
Please oh! please, stop mixing moral and religious judgements with ethical judgements. The two are not related and should never be!
You may wish & hope there is a god who is almighty.
I, on the other hand do not agree with those thoughts. Religion and all the gods down through the ages have wrought misery and death on millions of people.
Even today, people like you are still unable to accept the diversity that exists in the human species. You spout moral judgements ad infinitum. It is repugnant!
I do agree we must think about the power we now have in the palm of our hands..figuratively speaking and we do need to think carefully and deliberately, about the outcome of those decisions. The ethical dilemmas and physical abominations we may create are mind boggling, if we do not make sure the safe guards we put in place protect us from these abominations we could create. I said..could! the outcomes are subject to all the vagaries of our present science, which is far from exact. Serendipity is still in charge of this process, unfortunately.
Religion AND the moral nonsense people like you impose on science are numbing, especially when the scientific outcomes provide many possible cures for so many of man’s illnesses and infections. If the peoples of the world know what our law makers are considering and are adequately informed of the outcome and safeguards, I have no problem with scientific experimentation in the hope of providing mankind with a better outcome and life.
We don’t need people like you spouting religious nonsense which only distorts those outcomes and history provides us with plenty of those distortions...thank you very much! NO THANKS TO RELIGION.
This is an excellently written article by Margaret Somerville and should be seriously read by all.
Yes, obviously there are ethical matters to be considered regarding this type of research, and also that of many other scientific and technological experiments currently being conducted around the world in many different fields. The researchers, apparently in self-serving fashion, proclaim their work must continue on the basis it will benefit humanity in the long or even short term and therefore receive funding.
It is this type of mindset that gave us nuclear energy, missiles, bigger and better conventional bombs and other war material and, as Jack Mahony hinted at, space solar power via intense microwaves as written about in David Kagan’s book Sunstroke. To Kagan’s credit, the controversial argument of Ethics vs. Scientific Breakthroughs was thoroughly delineated in Sunstroke, and is very applicable to any discussion of human-animal crossbreeding.
In essence, one must evaluate whether this or any new scientific research would become an indisputable vast boon to humanity, or could it possibly be a dangerous act against God and Nature - if abused in some way. Your comments would be most welcome.
It was science fiction & now it is reality. Humans will have to make decesions along ethical & religious lines. It may be even more difficult to decide where to draw the line in the near future.
Welcome to the island of Doctor Moreau! The fact that human-animal combos are not only seriously considered but actually manufactured is truly mind-boggling. The progressive types among us who are tolerant of everything as long as it is new must be really happy while the black reactionaries (like myself) can only scratch their heads in amazement while mumbling to themselves, “And what did possess them to do that?” The truth, as always, is somewhere in between - after all, the antiquity had its chimeras, centaurs and fauns, and gods in animal disguise bred with humans. One thing is certain - man always pays a price for messing with nature so that the payback is only a matter of time.
Where in the body is the soul? Because we don’t know we should treat the unknown with upmost respect. Ova and Sperm are holy and sacred ground because it is through this that God has created...I repeat, God has created His method for procreation. Remember in the Bible when God brought all the animals to the man and man could not find one suitable for a mate. What has happened to our logical thinking? We should never put animal cell material in man or man’s cell material in animals. If we respect animals so highly why don’t we give them a choice if they want to be involved? We don’t have to stoop to animal life in order to make scientific progress. Frist we broke the natural law of God with contraception....we took the pleasure and threw the responsibility of the act back in God’s face. Women selling their eggs? Will it lead to them selling their children? How gross can we become and still find our way back to God’s purpose for our lives.
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >