Human animal hybridization, are the risks worth the possible gains?

I don't want to get too far off-topic, but this is a really good article about "designer babies - ethical?" .... if anybody's interested.

www.cbsnews.com...

reply to post by Exuberant1


Here is an excellent point. Where do we draw the line. As I mentioned in the OP some claim the first human clone at 99% human. What are the lines and then who gets to draw them?

The quote you posted is excellent. Would some be listed as animals or maybe a mentally handicapped human?

Raist

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


That is on topic, as that link is actually in my OP. Thanks for making sure it gets noticed though

As you work, your way down you will see how I progress into related issues as well. I believe they are linked and there is no separating the issues fully.

Raist

Man / Ape hybrid soldiers?

en.wikipedia.org...

www.experienceproject.com...

This is nothing new. I remember reading somewhere that the Romans messed with the idea way back years ago.

The fact that there laws banning it means that people are doing it and someone might just get it to work. It is a scary time we live in.

Who knows, a few hundred years from now the whole world may be one big Furcon.
en.wikipedia.org...

Well,this goes right along with all the life extension research that is being wasted.

Why would you want to?

6 billion people occupy this earth.

Why would we want to hybrid them?

Same goes with extending life.

Why would you want to?

We don't need people living forever nor do we need half human either.

Just because we can does not mean we should.

reply to post by fixer1967


I had read a small amount about that but never really put much thought to it. But then again I guess I could not link every article, though I wish I could. I did add quite a few to cover all the venues I touched on. Some are just duplicate in the sense it is the same article just a different source reporting it. Others I felt could add to my thread but did not have room to touch on the article.

I very much appreciate the link though.

I cannot imagine why they could not find a female to agree to such a thing. However, I have to wonder if today they might get a few takers on said project. I think I would certainly shy away from any woman who has done anything with an animal. Somehow, I would think of her as tainted, I just could not get past that.

Raist

reply to post by Oneolddude


I think that could be where the designer babies’ thing I mentioned goes. Think of how they could make the perfect child that would produce a perfect child.

Love will have left the earth; child building will become a sterile room in a lab. Welcome to a brave new world.


Raist

reply to post by renegadeloser


Sorry I waited so long to respond to you. I had to find a way to put this without bringing in the religious debate of it. Though I certainly feel it is wrong on that level as well, I wanted to put it out in a way that all could see it as, sort of a level playing field. I would certainly think that God would find this to be an abomination. I of course cannot answer for God but I feel that it would fall along those lines.

Even if we look at it in just a secular way though the ramifications of genetic modification of this type certainly has far greater risks than any of the possible gains.

Raist

In the future when we can more accurately predict the outcome of genetic manipulation then it wil become mainstream. Gattaca was a truly fantastic film about the subject, although it didn't involve human animal crosses. Still i think the hybridization won't be necessary, we will simply adapt ourselves with the qualities we think are best, intelligence and fitness.

Genetic engineering will lead us to a future where humans lie a great deal longer, genetic disease is destroyed, infectious diseases are less of a threat and generally the entire population wil be better off. However it probably won't be the entire population, it will only be for those who can afford such treatments.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


That is another question though. Should we allow any to have access to that type of genetic manipulation? Think of many of those who are in power and have been in power throughout history. Do we really need some or any of those people to live longer, or produce clones of themselves?

The clones might turn out with a different personality unless they are nurtured to be like their parent. Though I think people are a product of who they are due to both nurture and nature.

Raist

I keep mentioning people in power and such that could use this for their own needs that could if allowed be devastating in ways.

While not necessarily devastating or even dangerous (at least that I can see) there is evidence of such an occurrence taking place in history. My evidence for this is known as “Twin Town” and it is located in Brazil. Some will know exactly what I am talking about just from that, others will see evidence that genetics have been played with in recent times.

I will offer one more hint before proceeding with the links and quotes.

Ever heard of the Nazi angel of death? How about Josef Mengele?

If you have you know this man (and I use that term lightly only on the basis of his sex) was notorious for his experiments on humans. He in my opinion committed some of the most tragic criminal acts in recent history. After the war (WWII) this criminal made his way to Brazil where he claimed to be a vet and later offered medical treatment to women.

For years scientists have failed to discover why as many as one in five pregnancies in a small Brazilian town have resulted in twins – most of them blond haired and blue eyed.

While the twins birthrate varies widely in different countries, it is typically about one in 80 pregnancies – a statistic that has left Mr Camarasa certain in his claim that Mengele was successfully pursuing his dreams of creating a master race, a real-life Boys from Brazil.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Here is proof that cloning and designer babies can lead to someone trying to create the perfect race.

This of course was early work into such feats but it is evidence of what was possible and how much greater the dangers are with today’s technology that we know about. What sort of technologies are governments testing in these areas? You can bet the government run experimentation is further along than the civil scientists testing is simply due to funding if nothing else.

But this herd of 13 bulls, cows and calves known as Heck cattle is the product of Nazi genetic engineering, an attempt to reintroduce the extinct aurochs, the last of which died of old age in a Polish forest nearly four centuries ago.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

While not the exact species this has shown to be the closest thing since the Aurochs first went extinct.


Raist

Edit to add photo from Twin Town.
[edit on 6/6/10 by Raist]

[edit on 6/6/10 by Raist]

I still have to ask about the point of this sort of thing. Why glow in the dark?

Eduardo Kac, a professor at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago,
has teamed up with French geneticists to produce a rabbit that glows in
the dark by injecting rabbit zygotes with a fluorescent protein gene
derived from jellyfish.

www.organicconsumers.org...



Strange things aside this brings up very good points both for and against.

Our culture teeters on the edge of a steep and dangerous precipice. New technologies will soon allow us to change, radically and permanently, the world in which we live. Indeed, we will hold in our hands the capability of directly and purposefully changing who we are as human beings. The technology I am speaking of is genetic engineering.

www.leaderu.com...

No longer is mankind changing things through interbreeding (which yes admittedly is a form of genetic manipulation) but at a more direct and until in recent years unattainable ways. Never before has man been able to mix the genetics of more than at the most basic and common level. Now you can cross the genetics of spider and goat for instance (referred to in the OP).

This does not mean that someone, somewhere, won't use biotechnology to produce a superbug intentionally. Certainly this technology can be used to produce even more powerful and resistant agents of biological warfare. Some even speculated that HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), the virus that causes AIDS, was intentionally produced. Though this hypothesis has been successfully refuted, the prospect remains that DNA recombinant technology has opened up a new field that can be used for evil.

I am not saying we should not outright ban genetic engineering, but it certainly must be watched very closely. We should take every precaution necessary to make sure the technology does not make its way into the wrong hands. This is one of the most serious threats to mankind at this moment. Nuclear weapons aside, I believe our biggest threat is the genetic experiments that could be created. There should be some serious regulations put into place on all forms of GE.

This link have a small video explaining one of the first genetic experiments using frog and bacteria. It is pretty interesting and shows this level of GE has been in the know for nearly 40 years.

highered.mcgraw-hill.com...


This is yet another good article that stresses both the pros and the cons of such experimentation.

Genetic engineering is going to become a very mainstream part of our lives sooner or later, because there are so many possibilities advantages (and disadvantages) involved. Here are just some of the advantages :
• Disease could be prevented by detecting people/plants/animals that are genetically prone to certain hereditary diseases, and preparing for the inevitable. Also, infectious diseases can be treated by implanting genes that code for antiviral proteins specific to each antigen.
• Animals and plants can be 'tailor made' to show desirable characteristics. Genes could also be manipulated in trees for example, to absorb more CO2 and reduce the threat of global warming.
• Genetic Engineering could increase genetic diversity, and produce more variant alleles which could also be crossed over and implanted into other species. It is possible to alter the genetics of wheat plants to grow insulin for example.
Of course there are two sides to the coin, here are some possible eventualities and disadvantages.
• Nature is an extremely complex inter-related chain consisting of many species linked in the food chain. Some scientists believe that introducing genetically modified genes may have an irreversible effect with consequences yet unknown.
• Genetic engineering borderlines on many moral issues, particularly involving religion, which questions whether man has the right to manipulate the laws and course of nature.

www.biology-online.org...


Digging into this subject can make a person’s head spin. The possibilities to be able to help people and fix things seem almost endless. On that same note though things can turn into the most tragic of nightmares in the second anything is altered.

While things might seem fine at first it is highly likely nature will again take over and turn the good thing man brought about into mans destruction. Nature is a stronger force than mankind ever will be. To hope to control nature completely is a fools quest. Genetic engineering could be the proverbial “Pandora’s Box” that should have been left alone.

Raist

Want to beef up on your understanding of how all of this stuff works as well as the lingo to know? Well good news here is a place that can help you understand the basics at least. Because face it, unless you are going to school for GE or already working in the field you will not know the real details of the matter.

www.scienceclarified.com...


Here you can find the stages of GE. Again, this is the basics but it gives us (the common person) a better understanding of the process. Having that gives us a chance to better put arguments either for or against into the ring.

txtwriter.com...




Remember how I mentioned the bad side of GE in many posts? Well again I am going to bring about a point for the negative side.

Remember hearing in the news about the genetic engineering of smallpox? Most likely not. It got little play time with the media. I recall hearing about it hear on ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Yep you have to love ATS, I can always get the breaking story here before I can anywhere else it seems.

Reject genetic engineering of smallpox, NGOs urge WHO

www.twnside.org.sg...

Rapid developments in biotechnology, genetics and genomics are undoubtedly creating a variety of environmental, ethical, political and social challenges for advanced societies. But they also have severe implications for international peace and security because they open up tremendous avenues for the creation of new biological weapons.

www.nature.com...


It fails (yes the modern idea of Fail is being hinted at here) on a greater level than they know.

Many other genetically engineered mouse models are proving unreliable. Retinoblastomas are tumours of the developing retina and occur exclusively in children. They arise when a cancer-suppressing gene is disabled in some way. However, when a similar gene is disrupted in mice, the animals do not develop retinal tumours.32 Robin Holliday of the CSIRO Laboratory for Molecular Biology in Australia points out that such differences should not be surprising since ‘….tumour-suppressor genes and onco-genes (cancer genes) behave very differently in mouse and man.’33

www.iaapea.com...

Okay the reasoning here is that “well we expect it to fail, but we will do it any way just because we can”. Not surprising to me. It seems we are seeing a god complex appearing throughout mankind. Man striving to be like a god when they do not believe in a god.

I will leave this for now on one more final note.

As we saw in our series on genetic engineering of food crops,
genetic "engineers" are now moving genes around among plants,
animals, and bacteria on a regular basis, but with very little
understanding of the possible consequences, and almost no safety
testing. Now genetic engineers are starting to modify the genes
of humans, using three approaches: 1) cloning, 2) somatic cell
manipulation, and 3) human germline manipulation.

online.sfsu.edu...


Raist


[edit on 6/6/10 by Raist]

Just when you thought the jungles would be dark at night science introduces “glow in the dark monkeys”. Be the first on your block to get your glow in the dark pet today. You want a pet to glow we can make it happen. You want to have kids who glow to amaze partygoers; we might even do that also. No more need to search for batteries for that pesky flashlight when you could just create your own light by glowing in the dark.

The more I read the more I am convinced this form of science is nothing more than today’s party favor.

The designer marmosets carry a gene that causes their skin, hair roots and blood to glow green under ultraviolet light.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

These are glo fish, the first genetically modified animal to be sold as a pet. They are bred from the offspring of genetically engineered fluorescent zebra fish.
(photo courtesy of www.glofish.com)

www.wildaboutpets.net...

A Dutch biotechnology company call Pharming has genetically engineered cows, out fitting females with a human gene that causes them to express high levels of the protein human lactoferrin in their milk.

www.oddee.com...

So, it seems we are producing animals that contain human genes in them after all. Should this animal have the same rights as a normal human because they now more closely related to us?


When it comes down to it I keep saying it is about the prideful “just because we can” attitude. That I would say is a major factor as well as money and power, that has been mentioned throughout also.

It is vitally important that we, as a society, protect ourselves and future generations against the dangers of irreversible gene pollution. The policing of such research will not be done by the biotech industry, who are strongly incentivized to experiment with and commercialize their gene mutations. Nor is the government, which has close economic ties with the biotech industry, monitoring such research. Therefore, we must do it.

istpp.org...

What has this sort of attitude done for us over the span of human existence? Just throw all caution to the wind in hopes of making a profit, sounds very reminiscent of many of our troubles today.

Putting the matter plainly: when foreign genes are introduced into an organism, creating a transgenic organism (commonly called a genetically modified or genetically engineered organism), the results for the organism and its environment are almost always unpredictable. The intended result may or may not be achieved in any given case, but the one almost sure thing is that unintended results - nontarget effects - will also be achieved.

www.natureinstitute.org...

What do they mean by unexpected effects? Well here is a great example of moving forward without attention to detail.

Just because Weed Nemesis™ unexpectedly emits a bio-luminescent glow after animals have repeatedly urinated on it is no cause for alarm. The plants in Avatar glowed and that wasn’t a problem for anyone. Scientists just never bothered to turn the lights off during testing, and as a consequence they just failed to notice this inexplicable photonic effect (which is usually a soft pink hue, but which can also be found in a variety of consumer-friendly colors).

futurismic.com...

They are working on a yard grass that is the enemy of weeds. The created the above not knowing the side effects created in the process.


You think the hybridization of humans and animals is as far as they would take it? Think again. The what I will now deem mad scientists are also creating human plant hybrids. Not in the sense of talking, walking plants yet but it is only time before you and you plants can hold a conversation.

The plant in question is rice, but it has been spliced with human DNA that will make it grow a protein found in both human breast milk and saliva. Ventria Bioscience, the California-based firm behind the crop, says the protein can be used to treat children with diarrhoea

www.theregister.co.uk...

Raist

If you were in the position of being the top provider of a service how much funding do you believe you could pull in?

Under the new laws, British scientists will get the right to conduct the most far reaching research into hybrid embryos in the world..

www.telegraph.co.uk...

The U.S. took step in this direction at one time of course. This has both worked for those backing this type of research as well as backfired on some occasions.

There are pigs with human blood, and rabbit eggs fused with DNA to help crippled mice walk.
The American Anti-Vivisection Society, which staunchly abhors animal patenting, estimates that up to 50 million animals are used in genetic engineering experiments annually in the United States alone — all in a bid to create what the group calls “unnatural new animals.”
The government has rejected some of the most controversial proposed patents, including the “humanzee,” a half man, half chimp. It was denied in 2005 because it was too human.
The patent office’s 1987 decision said the government “now considers non-naturally occurring nonhuman multicellular living organisms, including animals, to be patentable subject matter.”

www.wired.com...

Strangely enough though the above is linked to a well known company that I am sure is only out for the betterment of mankind and with no intention of making huge profits no matter the risks.

Testing Methods Using OncoMouse® Transgenic Models of Cancer

dupont.t2h.yet2.com...

Some states seem to have had enough federal government influence. These states are taking a stand applying their own laws to the research. This stand falls to the side of being against it.

The list of states banning are Louisiana, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Ohio.
www.nola.com...
www.care2.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...
animals.change.org...

Even the U.S. takes steps to deny a patent on the idea of some things being to human.

But in an age when science is increasingly melding human and animal components for research -- already the government has allowed many patents on "humanized" animals, including a mouse with a human immune system -- the decision leaves a crucial question unanswered: At what point is something too human to patent?

www.washingtonpost.com...

It seems even Canada has banned the chimera research, but a similar bill failed to pass in the U.S.

Canada bans all chimera research, but the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2009 failed to pass the U.S. Congress.

news.discovery.com...


Many want to blame the “religious right” for such bans and being behind the banning of human animal hybrids. That is not entirely true though. Even from the secular stand point you can look at the risks involved that have nothing to do with this being a moral issue based on religion.

The prospect of chimeras has alarmed the religious right, which has sought to ban such research outright. In March 2005, Senator Brownback (R-KS) introduced a bill to prohibit human chimeras. That goes way too far.

www.frumforum.com...

Some seem more than willing to jump in and toss aside any form of restraint while throwing caution to the wind.

The other lesson to carry away is that Adolph Hitler and his Nazi cohorts were absolutely wrong about the best way to produce superior human beings.

A friend from India told me many years ago, that if America survived as long as India had, everyone here would be some shade of tan. That is something I believe we should look forward to. Hybrids rule!

www.charlevoixcourier.com...

Even aside from our biological passengers, we have to accept that we're all genetic mongrels, having gradually accumulated the same genetic material as millions of fellow creatures, including viruses, bacteria and houseflies, during the course of our evolution. Doubtless this sharing of our genetic heritage with our biological forebears, is what confused Edward Leigh when he declared having been told "by a scientist" that he was "80% mouse" and "30% daffodil". I'm not sure if either is true, but we do share half our DNA with the humble banana!

www.newscientist.com...

So does that mean bananas should have the same rights as humans?



The best though is this.

While cinematic scientists such as those in "Splice" unwittingly unleash horrific monsters, real genetic scientists strive to help create hardier and healthier plant and animal hybrids. Drs. Frankenstein and Moreau need not apply.

www.livescience.com...

Yes, they are so right. All the stuff I have shown in this thread can just be tossed out as pointless. There are not and never have been scientists who are out to do something that would be along the lines of creating a monster. Oh, wait. They did say hardier right? Guess that would work for soldiers would it not? A perfect army or perfect slave.

Raist


Edit to add Oklahoma to the list of states banning the practice.

[edit on 6/7/10 by Raist]

There exist rumors and urban legends of supposed human/chimpanzee hybrids ("humanzees"), and though humans and chimpanzees are more genetically alike than not, no evidence of such a hybrid exists, and scientists doubt it is possible.

www.csmonitor.com...






Raist

Originally posted by Raist
And…

All of those images are real, but how long before we have this?

While not quite at the exact same level, I know for a fact that Glow In the Dark Tattoos is already a growing trend in the tattoo world... supposedly made popular due to the glow in the dark tattoos unique ability to be "invisible" during the day, and only show up when you go out partying.
Glow In The Dark Tattoos
worst still, this quotes that "The oldest studies date back only 10 years. In that time they have still not approved the original idea of a glow in the dark tattoo, but developed an alternative. That doesn’t sound to safe to me."

I definitely don't understand the need for glow in the dark animals though, and this concept is both entirely new and completely disgusting to me. I wouldn't exactly be happy if some species decided for whatever reason they were more intelligent then me and based off that conclude it would be a good idea to alter me so drastically without my approval. I don't think those cats will be so happy about being so much moreeasy to spot.


[edit on 8-6-2010 by anothersilentobserver]

reply to post by Raist

Excellent thread and OP.

When I was little I fantasized about creating hybrid animals. But after seeing "The Island of Dr. Moreau" I realized how creepy that idea could become.

We probably shouldn't go there but some people aren't going to be able to resist trying.

Science fiction has many examples of genetic experiments who are not quite human, not sure if anyone mentioned the genetic mutants in "Seaquest DSV" yet.

I don't really object to growing spare body parts, but I think it's wrong to use other animals to do it. Ideally we can figure out how to grow spare body parts WITHOUT using animals to do it.

If we can't stop genetic experiments/modifications completely, maybe one "cutoff" would be any genes that affect development from the neck up...brain, head, face etc. At least for me personally, having human DNA which affects the head in any way on a non-human creature should be completely forbidden.

If it's got the head, brain and face of a pig but a human foot growing out of its back, I can deal with that personally..to me it's still a pig. But I know some people would want to assign human rights to that pig because of the human foot...not me.

Playing God is kind of scary, right? It can get us in all kinds of trouble.

reply to post by anothersilentobserver


While the tattoos might not be created the same way as the glow in the dark animals, it does show an important point. At what time will people be asking for designer babies that will glow in the dark? I am sure this would violate the rights of the human to be but soon that might change.

I am not sure they can make an adult glow in the dark but they certainly can create a future adult who would.

There are so many possibilities this sort of technology opens up. I believe we have only scratched the surface of such technology and that is can become very dangerous very quickly.

Raist

reply to post by Arbitrageur



Thanks.


The thing though about the growing body parts (which I really have no problem with) is that at some point the creature has to be called human. How much of a percentage will that take? In addition, even though we are harvesting parts from creatures is that overstepping our rights to interfere with the rights of another? If they are seen as nothing more than farm animals then at what point do they stop being that and become human?

As I said in many posts this opens up a whole new world of possibilities. It opens up a new world of dangers. This is a brave new world.

I totally agree with the playing God. I wonder at what point the animals might rebel and rise up against the humans just as the apes did in Planet of the Apes. That movie had nothing to do with the technology but it could open up the possibility of it happening.

Raist