"Island of Dr. Moreau" !? Scientists create a sheep that's 15% human

"Scientists have created the world's first human-sheep chimera - which has the body of a sheep and half-human organs.

The sheep have 15 per cent human cells and 85 per cent animal cells - and their evolution brings the prospect of animal organs being transplanted into humans one step closer.

Professor Esmail Zanjani, of the University of Nevada, has spent seven years and 5 million perfecting the technique, which involves injecting adult human cells into a sheep's fetus.

Zanjani and his team from Nevada are hoping that "the animal-human chimeras they are creating will one day yield new cells genetically identical to a patient's own for repairing damaged organs, and perhaps larger pieces for transplantation."



So one day - they can transfer the whole organ to patient.

Zanjani start goal in research in the beginning, was to find a way to treat unborn child with genetic deformation by by   injecting healthy stem cells into the fetus.


"The first hint this might work came from work done by Flake a few years ago (Nature Medicine, vol 6, p 1282). He showed that when human mesenchymal stem cells extracted from bone marrow are injected into sheep fetuses, the human cells become part of the heart, skin, muscle, fat and other tissues. But the numbers of human cells were very low. Zanjani's team has now managed to produce sheep-human chimeras with a surprisingly high proportion of human cells in some organs. According to results presented at a conference earlier in December, in some cases between seven and 15 per cent of all the cells in the sheep's livers are human.
The human cells must be injected around halfway through gestation - before the fetus's immune system has learned the difference between its own and foreign cells, so that the animal does not reject them, but after the body plan has formed.

That ensures that the resulting animals look like normal sheep rather than strange hybrids like the "geep", created by fusing the embryos of a sheep and goat."



When asked if sheep with human brain cells is something more than sheep, he replied:

"There is no way for us to know," he says. "But at the level we're working with the animal, it's still a sheep."

Dr Patrick Dixon warned :

"But the development is likely to revive criticisms about scientists playing God, with the possibility of silent viruses, which are harmless in animals, being introduced into the human race.
"Many silent viruses could create a biological nightmare in humans. Mutant animal viruses are a real threat, as we have seen with HIV."


Are we going to far?
After all seems to me that Well's "Island of Dr. Moreau" wasn't a fiction at all.

www.dailymail.co.uk...



[edit on 25-3-2007 by blue bird]

What's you're point? "Playing god" is a statement people use to prevent the progress of science.

First of all -would never speak from that position , coz I am all for science (and an atheist).

This clearly:
*' violates integrity of species
* denigrates human dignity'


But do you call this science?

Do we know all implications of such 'science"?





* beside would you like to be that mouse in that picture? maybe someday some 'advanced' species ( in this manner) could come from space and do some research on us humans!?

[edit on 25-3-2007 by blue bird]

Originally posted by blue bird
First of all -would never speak from that position , coz I am all for science (and an atheist).

This clearly:
*' violates integrity of species
* denigrates human dignity'

Atheist or not, it's still stifling science.

Integrity of species? Laboratory animals at many institutions (especially those at universities) are usually treated with the greatest of care and respect. Typically, they will not and should not be released into the natural environment. Any suffering they might have to endure for the sake of research is minimized as much as possible. That rat quite likely had a very, very good life, especially compared to many of its wild cousins who may be swimming through sewers to find food.

But do you call this science?

Yes, absolutely.

Do we know all implications of such 'science"?

No, but that's why we have it, so that we can learn about the world around us, and how to manipulate to maximize our benefit it in such a way as to minimize any negative consequences.

* beside would you like to be that mouse in that picture? maybe someday some 'advanced' species ( in this manner) could come from space and do some research on us humans!?

[edit on 25-3-2007 by blue bird]

If I were that mouse, I probably wouldn't know any better. I probably wouldn't care that there's cartilage on my back in the shape of a human ear. I wouldn't have the mental capacity to care.

Maybe aliens will come and experiment on us, but that's not a good argument (besides, if their understanding of physics is advanced enough to cross the vast distances of space, I'd have no doubt that their biology is just as advanced). The animals we experiment on don't have art, culture, and science. Besides, as I already implied, most scientists treat the animals they experiment on with the greatest amount of respect. Most of them recognize the ethical dilemma of not doing so. Besides, a lot of this research will benefit a lot of animals outside the labs as well.

Well let's look closer to your position.
"Stifling a science' - so you don't think there is a need for any ethics here? Ok, then would it be 'stifiling' science if experiments are to be done over humans? You know, it would lift big 'opstacle' for research!

Laboratory animals at many institutions (especially those at universities) are usually treated with the greatest of care and respect........... That rat quite likely had a very, very good life, especially compared to many of its wild cousins who may be swimming through sewers to find food.

Is this a bizarre sense of humor?

If I were that mouse, I probably wouldn't know any better. I probably wouldn't care that there's cartilage on my back in the shape of a human ear. I wouldn't have the mental capacity to care.

Mouse is sentiment being...so he, like others cherish himself.

Maybe aliens will come and experiment on us, but that's not a good argument (besides, if their understanding of physics is advanced enough to cross the vast distances of space, I'd have no doubt that their biology is just as advanced). The animals we experiment on don't have art, culture, and science. Besides, as I already implied, most scientists treat the animals they experiment on with the greatest amount of respect. Most of them recognize the ethical dilemma of not doing so. Besides, a lot of this research will benefit a lot of animals outside the labs as well.

Here is what I just just replayed on thread:' Some aliens might be Evil! They have harmed us in the past" //aliens&UFO Forum//

blue bird
I just opened a thread on science "Island of Dr. Moreau" !? Scientists create a sheep that's 15% human . My position is that it : *' violates integrity of species and* denigrates human dignity'!

First replay was "Am I against 'progress?'

So my point would be ( and a question): if aliens can come here - they areno doubt very, very advanced in knowledge. What if they have a same notion on 'progress'? What if we humans are for them - as these poor sheeps are for us -'research' material, something not worth of including in ethics of highly 'progressed' species, as we do to animals?

Would you call them evil or advanced?

I am not so fast on statement : oh, sure they must be benevolent!

No, but that's why we have it, so that we can learn about the world around us, and how to manipulate to maximize our benefit it in such a way as to minimize any negative consequences.

You mean just small problem that could arise like:

Dr Patrick Dixon warned :

"But the development is likely to revive criticisms about scientists playing God, with the possibility of silent viruses, which are harmless in animals, being introduced into the human race.
"Many silent viruses could create a biological nightmare in humans. Mutant animal viruses are a real threat, as we have seen with HIV."


How about deeper reserch on artificial organs and support devices!? We have make progress here ( liver , kidney, heart, prosthetic extremities).


Or 'minimize any negative consequences' like performing lobotomy and for what Moniz received the Nobel Prize in 1949. Do you no the numer of this very 'progressive' method in patients? It was vey popular.




[edit on 25-3-2007 by blue bird]

When I read this on Drudge I felt both strangly repulsed by and attracted to this story.

I'm all for scientific and medical advancements, but this is a "slippery slope" situation if there ever was one.

I mean, what if they start reversing the percentages to mostly human, can you imagine the ghastly creatures that could result? I doubt it. And would they still be considered human? If the color of a person's skin can lead to all sorts of negative actions, what about this?

And what percentage of human cells does an animal have to have before killing it would constitute murder?

Originally posted by blue bird
Well let's look closer to your position.
"Stifling a science' - so you don't think there is a need for any ethics here? Ok, then would it be 'stifiling' science if experiments are to be done over humans? You know, it would lift big 'opstacle' for research!

My point isn't about throwing out ethics. It's about understanding them, and its limits

Laboratory animals at many institutions (especially those at universities) are usually treated with the greatest of care and respect........... That rat quite likely had a very, very good life, especially compared to many of its wild cousins who may be swimming through sewers to find food.

Is this a bizarre sense of humor?

Is that your only response to that? Some lame ad hominem? I stand by my point that most scientists give their lab animals the utmost respect and care that they are able under the constraints of their research.

If I were that mouse, I probably wouldn't know any better. I probably wouldn't care that there's cartilage on my back in the shape of a human ear. I wouldn't have the mental capacity to care.

Mouse is sentiment being...so he, like others cherish himself.

It's a sentient being, but it quite likely doesn't hold its self-esteem in how it looks.

Here is what I just just replayed on thread:' Some aliens might be Evil! They have harmed us in the past" //aliens&UFO Forum//

blue bird
I just opened a thread on science "Island of Dr. Moreau" !? Scientists create a sheep that's 15% human . My position is that it : *' violates integrity of species and* denigrates human dignity'!

First replay was "Am I against 'progress?'

So my point would be ( and a question): if aliens can come here - they areno doubt very, very advanced in knowledge. What if they have a same notion on 'progress'? What if we humans are for them - as these poor sheeps are for us -'research' material, something not worth of including in ethics of highly 'progressed' species, as we do to animals?

Would you call them evil or advanced?

I am not so fast on statement : oh, sure they must be benevolent!

Firstly, any advanced civilization that visited us would likely take note of our own advancements, even if it's not at the same state as theirs. If they don't or don't care, and try to take non-consenting advantage of us, then we as a species have a moral imperative to stop them. Survival of our species is the highest ethical value we could have, and we can do that either with or without the cooperation of ETs.

These days, most scientists are trying their damndest to prevent the extinction of any particular species, including non-animal species. Integrity of the species? Existence is the greatest amount of integrity any species has, including our own.

No, but that's why we have it, so that we can learn about the world around us, and how to manipulate to maximize our benefit it in such a way as to minimize any negative consequences.

You mean just small problem that could arise like:

Dr Patrick Dixon warned :

"But the development is likely to revive criticisms about scientists playing God, with the possibility of silent viruses, which are harmless in animals, being introduced into the human race.
"Many silent viruses could create a biological nightmare in humans. Mutant animal viruses are a real threat, as we have seen with HIV."

Yes, such problems are possible, but they've always been possible. Are the dangers greater? Of course, but that's because the tools available to us are that much more powerful. The industrial revolution brought with it its own host of problems, and people misusing biotechnology will likely bring similar such problems, but in the hands of responsible scientists, such risks are greatly minimized. We've been playing god ever since we invented agriculture (domesticated plants and animals are vastly different from their wild cousins all because of our hand in their evolution).

How about deeper reserch on artificial organs and support devices!? We have make progress here ( liver , kidney, heart, prosthetic extremities).

Or 'minimize any negative consequences' like performing lobotomy and for what Moniz received the Nobel Prize in 1949. Do you no the numer of this very 'progressive' method in patients? It was vey popular.


[edit on 25-3-2007 by blue bird]

Yes, people have made mistakes in the name of science and even committed horrible atrocities in its sake, but we don't stop doing science. We just try harder to keep it in the hands of those who will be responsible.

Besides, how do you think that we've advanced so far in our medical research? It's because of testing on animals. What's our alternative? Do all our research on humans? Stop all medical research? Sorry, but I won't concede to either of those points.

Originally posted by centurion1211
When I read this on Drudge I felt both strangly repulsed by and attracted to this story.

I'm all for scientific and medical advancements, but this is a "slippery slope" situation if there ever was one.

I mean, what if they start reversing the percentages to mostly human, can you imagine the ghastly creatures that could result? I doubt it. And would they still be considered human? If the color of a person's skin can lead to all sorts of negative actions, what about this?

And what percentage of human cells does an animal have to have before killing it would constitute murder?

Thank you centurion, that exact my point of view!

What about neurological development, which can gain a momentum of development of human brain?

How are we to relate to such being?

Originally posted by supercheetah
My point isn't about throwing out ethics. It's about understanding them, and its limit

And so is mine. But I don't see you here having any second thought which are to be consider if we are examining all possibilities.

Laboratory animals at many institutions (especially those at universities) are usually treated with the greatest of care and respect........... That rat quite likely had a very, very good life, especially compared to many of its wild cousins who may be swimming through sewers to find food.

Is that your only response to that? Some lame ad hominem? I stand by my point that most scientists give their lab animals the utmost respect and care that they are able under the constraints of their research.

If I were that mouse, I probably wouldn't know any better. I probably wouldn't care that there's cartilage on my back in the shape of a human ear. I wouldn't have the mental capacity to care.

It's a sentient being, but it quite likely doesn't hold its self-esteem in how it looks.

Sorry, but I am going again ask you is this some kind of bizzaro humor or do you totally lack any kind of compassion for living beings?

You are no mouse so you don't know - and are not research material locked in cages - again you don't know the feeling. But you are human being - and it is not very hard to imagine that 'living' that way is a picnic.

Firstly, any advanced civilization that visited us would likely take note of our own advancements, even if it's not at the same state as theirs. If they don't or don't care, and try to take non-consenting advantage of us, then we as a species have a moral imperative to stop them. Survival of our species is the highest ethical value we could have, and we can do that either with or without the cooperation of ETs.

These days, most scientists are trying their damndest to prevent the extinction of any particular species, including non-animal species. Integrity of the species? Existence is the greatest amount of integrity any species has, including our own.

We really are in no position to assume what the situation si gong to be - but I was talking in a line of your way of thinking: 'no limits on science'.

What do you mean 'we would cooperate with ET? Imagining scenario, where they are treating us like we treat animals!? No, thank you!

Yes,there are a lot of conscientiousness scientist out there doing their best, asking themselves about species integrity and how this kind of 'progress' is degenerating worth of animals and our own dignity.

And finally Is "social thinking has expanded to accept certain species crossings without leading to chaos?"

Creating subclasses of human but not quite?

No, but that's why we have it, so that we can learn about the world around us, and how to manipulate to maximize our benefit it in such a way as to minimize any negative consequences.

Yes, such problems are possible, but they've always been possible. Are the dangers greater? Of course, but that's because the tools available to us are that much more powerful. The industrial revolution brought with it its own host of problems, and people misusing biotechnology will likely bring similar such problems, but in the hands of responsible scientists, such risks are greatly minimized. We've been playing god ever since we invented agriculture (domesticated plants and animals are vastly different from their wild cousins all because of our hand in their evolution).

Yes, people have made mistakes in the name of science and even committed horrible atrocities in its sake, but we don't stop doing science. We just try harder to keep it in the hands of those who will be responsible.

Besides, how do you think that we've advanced so far in our medical research? It's because of testing on animals. What's our alternative? Do all our research on humans? Stop all medical research? Sorry, but I won't concede to either of those points.

No, but that's why we have it, so that we can learn about the world around us, and how to manipulate to maximize our benefit it in such a way as to minimize any negative consequences.

Yes, such problems are possible, but they've always been possible. Are the dangers greater? Of course, but that's because the tools available to us are that much more powerful. The industrial revolution brought with it its own host of problems, and people misusing biotechnology will likely bring similar such problems, but in the hands of responsible scientists, such risks are greatly minimized. We've been playing god ever since we invented agriculture (domesticated plants and animals are vastly different from their wild cousins all because of our hand in their evolution).

Yes, people have made mistakes in the name of science and even committed horrible atrocities in its sake, but we don't stop doing science. We just try harder to keep it in the hands of those who will be responsible.

Besides, how do you think that we've advanced so far in our medical research? It's because of testing on animals. What's our alternative? Do all our research on humans? Stop all medical research? Sorry, but I won't concede to either of those points.

Yes there is a strong possibility that danger is real and big one.

It is not the same as inventing Tv or radio or computer. We are to think here very, very hard and thoroughly before.

If we do not put some rules and some ethics - letting this on lose - I am imagining society from film "Island". Who is going to benefit? Will we have some half-humans, than 'normal' humans who do not (and here we are talking of majority of earth population) have naf money to 'prosper' from that and finally the completely new bread of super-humans, masters and rulers? After all, it's all about 'survival'! Price? - oh, we do not ask such questions!



[edit on 26-3-2007 by blue bird]

It may be unethical... but... how do you expect us to find (or have already) cures for cancer? smallpox? other diseases without some kind of experimentation? sure, this is different... no it's not... it's not like we're gunna walk up to you and ask to chop off your arm because little Billy over there was born without one.. these works are done to try and benefit human society...

people complain about the unethical treatment of animals, how bad it is to create 'clones' to use for experiments... but I don't see them offering themselves up as guinea pigs...

personally, I'd love to have a big set of wings organically welded to my shoulders so that I can fly.. or a set of artifical gills so that I can go scuba diving at will...

as I have said once.. sure, this science can be negative too (silent viruses mentioned here).. but geez... a paper cut can kill.. it's all up to the user...

they already have cures for everything. "THEY" being you know who.

Originally posted by x08
It may be unethical... but... how do you expect us to find (or have already) cures for cancer? smallpox? other diseases without some kind of experimentation? sure, this is different... no it's not... it's not like we're gunna walk up to you and ask to chop off your arm because little Billy over there was born without one.. these works are done to try and benefit human society...

people complain about the unethical treatment of animals, how bad it is to create 'clones' to use for experiments... but I don't see them offering themselves up as guinea pigs...

personally, I'd love to have a big set of wings organically welded to my shoulders so that I can fly.. or a set of artifical gills so that I can go scuba diving at will...

as I have said once.. sure, this science can be negative too (silent viruses mentioned here).. but geez... a paper cut can kill.. it's all up to the user...

Well here is my biggest concern:

- were are we going to draw the line?

- this could look like a 'small' problem now, mixing more % of genes of humans and animals, they are going to create new species that we shall exploit for research and organ transplant mercilessly, but what if they have a great % of human genes? do they have filings? what are they?

- is another step enhancing some humans with animal genes in military purposes for strength,better eyesight, accompanied with smaller brain - to not to inter fire with basic animal instinct?

_ not to speak of possible new diseases

- can we control countries with less restrictive regulations ? the implications for commercial interests for such biotech are far-reaching...

- do we really know what are we doing here?

That's all said nor to teaching a question are there limits on human activity with regard to animals.

(Same goes to weather modification and playing dangerous game with our ionosphere for exp.)



And yes, mouse is a backbone of medical, pharmaceutical and biotech researches - but a great deal of drugs are also tested on us -as a patients. So, mouse is not sufficient enough- so why not create little by little some slave , subhuman race to make a 'faster progress' in treating diseases ........ I am not to thrust them blindingly.



[edit on 27-3-2007 by blue bird]

Limiting scientific experimentation leads to science not progressing.
You doom your own species by doing that.


Mice are NOT sentient, they do not have higher cognitive abilities,
complex emotions self-awareness or complex thought.

To dat the only species that are classified as sentient are Humans,
higher primates, Dolphins (and most likely whales) and Elephants.

An individual mouse, without a great deal of manipulation on a level not
possible with todays science & technology, is not capable of sentience.


I do not have a problem with this research.

The "15% human" line is nothing but sensationalist journalism, I promise you. You have to keep in mind that mammals share a LARGE portion of DNA, and less than 3% of our entire genome actually codes for protein, the other 97% being structural, thus not related to the identity of an organism. Even if you made a sheep "50% human" by DNA, it would still be just a sheep. The main implication of this work is that you could replace receptors on the organs, which vary by a tiny tiny tiny margin between sheep and humans, thus preventing human antigen recognition cells from rejecting sheep organs.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Limiting scientific experimentation leads to science not progressing.
You doom your own species by doing that.


Mice are NOT sentient, they do not have higher cognitive abilities,
complex emotions self-awareness or complex thought.

To dat the only species that are classified as sentient are Humans,
higher primates, Dolphins (and most likely whales) and Elephants.

An individual mouse, without a great deal of manipulation on a level not
possible with todays science & technology, is not capable of sentience.


I do not have a problem with this research.

I can't agree with all that is said above. I agree that we need to experiment for scientific gain. I do not agree with the list of sentients. Where are dogs? And pigs? I personally believe that many animals can understand more than we think they do. I thought certain parrots had the intelligence of five year olds? The raptors I've had in the past were as smart or smarter than any dog I've ever seen. I don't see how this is not considered sentience.

What's your definition of sentience? I thought it had something to do with an animals ability to think over instinct. It almost sounds like your jumbling sentience and sapience together.

I do agree that genetic engineering needs to be pushed farther, though.

Originally posted by gtirlad2
they already have cures for everything. "THEY" being you know who.

One word, ormus.

15% sheep? Meh... I got an X girlfriend that is 30% sheep...



But interesting nontheless. Sounds great for future implants, since we are actually already using pig hearts.

Originally posted by Uplifted
I do not agree with the list of sentients. Where are dogs? And pigs? I personally believe that many animals can understand more than we think they do. I thought certain parrots had the intelligence of five year olds? The raptors I've had in the past were as smart or smarter than any dog I've ever seen. I don't see how this is not considered sentience.

I'm not saying that there are'nt other animals that are sentient, but
those just happen to be the few species that have scientifically been
proven to be sentient.

What's your definition of sentience? I thought it had something to do with an animals ability to think over instinct. It almost sounds like your jumbling sentience and sapience together.

My definition of sentience is based on a few deifferent traits;
-Complex emotions.
-Complex thought.
-Self-awareness.
-Long term memory.

Humans are the only creatures on this planet that have the ability to at turn something from being hostile to life to being more useful for life. These experiments will benefit more than just humans. It will benefit all of life under our care.

Originally posted by bsl4doc

The "15% human" line is nothing but sensationalist journalism, I promise you. You have to keep in mind that mammals share a LARGE portion of DNA, and less than 3% of our entire genome actually codes for protein, the other 97% being structural, thus not related to the identity of an organism. Even if you made a sheep "50% human" by DNA, it would still be just a sheep. The main implication of this work is that you could replace receptors on the organs, which vary by a tiny tiny tiny margin between sheep and humans, thus preventing human antigen recognition cells from rejecting sheep organs.

You're absolutely right about this. These sheep are 15% antigenically identical to humans. They're not 15% human. If anything, they're more than that because they are mammals, and most of us mammals share at least 50% or more of our genetic code.

You have voted bsl4doc for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

At least some species will be protected!

" Court to rule if chimp has human rights"

He recognises himself in the mirror, plays hide-and-seek and breaks into fits of giggles when tickled. He is also our closest evolutionary cousin.
A group of world leading primatologists argue that this is proof enough that Hiasl, a 26-year-old chimpanzee, deserves to be treated like a human. In a test case in Austria, campaigners are seeking to ditch the 'species barrier' and have taken Hiasl's case to court. If Hiasl is granted human status - and the rights that go with it - it will signal a victory for other primate species and unleash a wave of similar cases.

observer.guardian.co.uk...

*Mod edit. Use "ex" bbcode for external quotes.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by dbates]