LONDON - A mouse that can speak? A monkey with Down's Syndrome? Dogs
with human hands or feet? British scientists want to know if such
experiments are acceptable, or if they go too far in the name of medical
research.
To find out, Britain's Academy of Medical Sciences launched a study on
Tuesday to look at the use of animals containing human material in
scientific research.
The work is expected to take at least a year, but its leaders hope it
will help establish guidelines for scientists in Britain and around the
world on how far the public is prepared to see them go in mixing human
genes into animals to discover ways to fight human diseases.
"Do these constructs challenge our idea of what it is to be human?" said
Martin Bobrow, a professor of medical genetics at Cambridge University
and chair of a 14-member group looking into the issue.
"It is important that we consider these questions now so that
appropriate boundaries are recognized and research is able to fulfil its
potential."
Using human material in animals is not new. Scientists have already
created rhesus macaque monkeys that have a human form of the
Huntingdon's gene so they can investigate how the disease develops; and
mice with livers made from human cells are being used to study the
effects of new drugs.
But scientists say the technology to put ever greater amounts of human
genetic material into animals is spreading quickly around the world -
raising the possibility that some scientists in some places may want to
push boundaries.
"There is a whole raft of new scientific techniques that will make it
not only easier but also more important to be able to do these
cross-species experiments," Bobrow said.
A row erupted in Britain last year over new laws allowing the creation
of human-animal embryos for experimentation.
The row drew interventions from religious groups, who said such
experiments pervert the course of nature, and scientific leaders, who
say they are vital to research cures for diseases. One Catholic cardinal
branded such work "Frankenstein science."
Bobrow said he and his colleagues were keen to avoid such frenzied
debate again and hoped that by acting now they would be able to inform
discussion rather than react to it.
But they said the discussions over human-animal embryos, which involve
putting human DNA into cells derived from animals to produce stem cells,
were "only half the conversation" and did not look at animals altered
with human cells.
"They really didn't deal . . . with a much broader range of issues like
how far is it reasonable to try to mimic important human traits in
animals," Bobrow said. "There are problems there in terms of social
acceptance."
Bobrow said there was a "sort of understanding" within the scientific
community that "as you get close to 50/50 mix" of human and animal
material, the boundaries are near, but he said laws were vague at best.
"Do most of us care if we make a mouse whose blood cells or liver are
human? Probably not," he said. "But if it can speak? If it can think? Or
if it is conscious in a human way? Then we're in a completely different
ballpark."
� Copyright (c) Canwest News Service
No it's NOT fucking acceptable. Why don't they experiment on themselves
or their kids instead. Fucking humans.
> $Scientists want debate on animals with human genes
> $By Kate Kelland,
> $Reuters
> $November 9, 2009 6:02 PM
> $
> $LONDON - A mouse that can speak? A monkey with Down's Syndrome? Dogs
> $with human hands or feet? British scientists want to know if such
> $experiments are acceptable, or if they go too far in the name of medical
> $research.
It's already an issue that's raising its ugly head, and the
ethics and legal people may be playing catch up to what
researchers are doing.
If they can insert chicken homeobox genes into fruitflies
(which has been done BTW) without problem, and jellyfish
genes into cats (which has also been done), I figure it's
only a matter of time before someone tries inserting human
genes into something else. For all I know, it's already
been tried.
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
I think Aggy tried inserting something into a cat.
Who do you think pilots dem der flying saucers?
I can guess what he tried inserting, and I think I need a
good stiff drink or two to kill the image.
Good point.
IS Zarbitroll an animal rights nut?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
For the latest World News go to http://www.cuttingedge.org/ - Lest we forget 2009 .
I tell ya John, it all started with that Disney fellow and Mickey ....
<grin>
I wanna see a human/T-rex hybrid.
They are called trolls.
Problem is, it just might look like an oversized chicken.
That is your troll.
Well yeah, except for the teeth.
Heh.
I can just see it now. An oversized chicken going to the
dentist to get a root canal and its wisdom teeth removed.
Anyway, the chicke idea is based on the theory that birds
are related to therapod dinsaurs, wich include T. Rex. There
is evidence to support the theory.
<snippity-do-dah>
The bit about the sci-fi television show featuring a time traveling
smart aleck was......where?
LOL!!!...........yeh he did but kitty refused it as it was too small.
Now THAT would be a sight to see.
> Anyway, the chicke idea is based on the theory that birds
> are related to therapod dinsaurs, wich include T. Rex. There
> is evidence to support the theory.
Yes, there is and I tend to think it's correct. Just watch a crow for
example.