It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Human-animal embryo study wins approval

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Human-animal embryo study wins approval


www.guardian.co.uk

Plans to allow British scientists to create human-animal embryos are expected to be approved tomorrow by the government's fertility regulator. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority published its long-awaited public consultation on the controversial research yesterday, revealing that a majority of people were "at ease" with scientists creating the hybrid embryos.

Researchers want to create hybrid embryos by merging human cells with animal eggs,...
(visit the link for the full news article)


Mod Edit: Removed copy paste over the 500 character limit and corrected headline.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Well now all those ancient statues with Bulls heads and men's bodies makes a little bit more sense..seriously though,.I understand they are using human genes in tomatoes..and I thought alchemy was a dead science?.I particularly enjoy the part in the article that the "majority" of people feel more at ease now..How do you feel about this?

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I really am not sure how I feel about this. They do have rules to make sure there isn't any abuse of this procedure, however does this open doors to other things that may be more unethical?

I am no scientist and don't know how such things work. Of course my mind goes to sci-fi movies and such where there are miserable clones in a pod or half animal/half human clones that are miserable.

I think toying with such things just doesn't seem natural, in my opinion. Just because we have the science to do such things, doesn't necessarily mean we should.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Well they already have a lot of pigs with Human DNA in them and are at present testing them to see if the rejection level for heart valves etc is lower so I dont see a problem with this

www.newscientist.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Animals almost get the same kind of illness's we get. Even diabeties. Doing this merging won't do anything for us. A cure for Alzheimer's? HAHA don't make me laugh...


There are things that should not be tampered with!

[edit on 9/4/2007 by Leyla]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   
One of my concerns besides the Yuck Factor..is that there are natural barriers that prevent diseases that coevolved with one species from jumping to another..someone with in implant or animal organ would then be susceptible to new virii and bacteria that they were protected from before the hybridization..are we curing one problem..but introducing a host of others

I read a disturbing article on bacteria in invertebrates that literally dump their entire genome into a cell and then its passed up the chain to offspring..perhaps that accounts for some of that junk DNA we have

I really have reservations about this particularly when we seem to be constantly goaded into approval by " possible cures" in the future.

SyS



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by closettrekkie
Just because we have the science to do such things, doesn't necessarily mean we should.


I believe the exact opposite; if we do not test this sort of thing, then how are we expected to progress, medically?
What if this leads to huge medical advances, and new ways to cure diseases genetically? Would you still be against it?

It's all very well people complaining on "ethical" grounds. I have a feeling you'd be agreeing with it wholeheartedly, if you, or someone close to you, had a disease that could be cured by this sort of research.

The only real objection I can see is religious, which in my opinion, has no right whatsoever to stop anyone doing anything. It's like saying that research can't be continued because you don't want it to.

And as for the "it's not natural" argument, well, nothing is, nowadays, it's something you have to live with. To be 100% natural, you'd have to live in the wild, in a natural way, and I can't see anyone here, in an internet forum, doing that.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
The Island of Dr. Moreau. We are going to see a day when there are real monsters. Here's where ethics comes into play; what percentage constitutes human in a chimera?



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Pk I understand your point however history has shown that its not the science its the misuse of it that is the problem Recently a doctor expedited a patients death to harvest his organs. In china organs from prisoners are a brisk business.., In India members poor populations routinely sell their kidneys and I am sure accelerated executions are not uncommon..So I think not to have some parameters or controls is the kind of cold and callous position the Nazis and Japanese did in their Germ warfare research with live people. That is an example of a society where moral / ethical considerations were off the table to pursue pure science. I really don't think you would want a return to that.

Sys



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sys_Config

I read a disturbing article on bacteria in invertebrates that literally dump their entire genome into a cell and then its passed up the chain to offspring..perhaps that accounts for some of that junk DNA we have


That happens in vertebrates too, but with retroviruses. In fact, it's been put forward that retroviruses were responsible for the evolution of the mammalian viviparous reproduction (i.e. growing in the mother's womb). Apparently the foetus is able to develop within the mother and survive her immune system because the retrovirus immunodepressed the mother. Incredible, isn't it?



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Yes it is Beachcoma ..and its precisely because of this uncanny ability of these viral/bacteria to invade and adapt and delicate pathways that stand to be opened that I forsee not a possible but probable danger. Just as a simple weed or a frankenfish from asia lut us say crossed over to this side and takes over the dominant forms here. The only defense being the distance of the ocean. Each treated person being a ground zero for receipt and then distribution to a general population.

SyS

[edit on 4-9-2007 by Sys_Config]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by pk1yen
 


100% agree with your whole post dude.
everyone has different ethics.
people are 'bound' by different things.

you are right with nothing is natural.
how can people be against this but not other things?

is chemo natural?
marrow transplants and such? thats not natural yet we do them every damn day....i say we keep going as far as medical research goes.
absolutely....can't learn unless you experiment



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Finally, a way to breed a generation of real Sheeple.

Sorry, couldn't pass it up. However, there are advantages to this research. Even some very advanced mammals lead a very long lifespan, hybridization could bring that same longevity to humans. As for the resistance to new disease, it doesn't take a lot for a disease "limited" to another mammal to cross to humans. Swine flu, anyone?



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Interesting comment ,Talisin..I liked the" sheeple" but yes but sadly yes, the same source that killed off 20 million during the the early 20 th century. Like aids that jumped from the simians to humans. It did not take long to spread, and millions are dying from it now. Lets not forget the dread Ebola either We are no longer talking "handling "of animals as was in the latter two examples. We are talking now sharing internally as if we were a hog or a bovine, all genetic vulnerabilities simultaneously. Its not the benefits I challenge but again as I stipulated before the consequential risks that are known and woefully prepared for, not in the first few cases but as the practice continues, and precautions are relaxed or neglected.

The following three links deal, albeit technically, with those risks from the point of transplant to the embryonic and transgenic chimeras.
www.eubios.info...

www.nature.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

findarticles.com...



They are all fascinating reads, at least the first 3

Regards

Sys





[edit on 5-9-2007 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 5-9-2007 by Sys_Config]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Bad idea. Terrible idea. Probably one of the worst ideas humans have ever had.

This is coming from the notorious Doctor Moreau, world famous master of vivisection. Because of my work, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection was founded. Check it out...

Seriously though, this is a terrible idea. We want to be 'God' so badly, that we will mess with nature because we can, not because we know what we are doing. Time and time again, throughout history, mankind has made advancements to science that have turned out to be more dangerous than we are able to imagine at the time. True, more advancements have been made that have turned out safely, but one mistake can have grave consequences for the future of mankind. Maybe thats the point with asinine experiments like this one.

Moreau's Law

Not to go on All-Fours; that is the Law. Are we not men?
Not to suck up Drink; that is the Law. Are we not men?
Not to eat Fish or Flesh; that is the Law. Are we not men?
Not to claw the Bark of Trees; that is the Law. Are we not men?
Not to chase other Men; that is the Law. Are we not men?

The Island of Doctor Moreau, H.G. Wells, 1896.

DocMoreau



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Sys_Config
 


I believe there are some number of ethical and moral hazards with this regulation that we are not prepared to deal with in the whole of human society. Two off the top of my head:

1. The article implies that this will be used to create and harvest stem cells by creating embryos with animal cells and human genes, "terminating" them within a couple weeks while they are still as small as the "head of a pin". These are viable human embryos. I think it should be obvious to anyone the moral and ethical questions which I do not believe would be accepted by any "majority" of the population after they fully understand it.

2. They are creating potentially viable "chimeras", as they call them. Yes, the regulation requires termination. How many will "slip through"? What if there becomes a black market for chimera emrbyos? How many cases over time would be too many? These things will be real very soon, and based on the stated plan, they will be produced and "terminated" in volume. How hard would it be to slip some through the cracks?

That first world countries are passing laws supporting this with the statements that the majority are comfortable with it is nonsense. Where was the education of the public? The discussion, socialization, debate? How many on this thread expected we would start a chimera industry in 2008?



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join