In Search for Cures, Scientists Create Multispecies Embryos
npr.org
npr.org
Is this vague sense of humanity worth more than a loved one's life? Out of curiosity, how did it survive antibiotics, in vitro fertilisation, and industrialisation?
Can you imagine being born a half-pig, possessing a consciousness with full human resolution, and suffering the full, rich palette of human fear as you're being harvested for the sake of another, more "worthy" life form?
It's a worthwhile thought experiment. The point is, wouldn't you want to feel like you'd taken reasonable precautions to prevent this kind of suffering from taking place?
Maybe it's just me, but I find these kinds of ethical considerations to be meaningful. Ironically, I think this is one of the main things that makes us "human".
<adverb> but not <adverb>. You speak of <noun> and <noun> of this <noun> <present participle verb> <noun> as if it were a given, but under our present day <noun>, it would require <present participle verb> the perceived <noun> or <adjective> <noun> of man's design. Look at <noun>, for chrissakes.
I'm serious.
We need to prevent these people from making decisions for society.
They are so incredibly ignorant. How can they look at humans and animals and believe that one is different than the other? How can they look around this world and believe that any of this could have been created by a higher being? This ignorance cannot be tolerated. This world will not be right until we get rid of them altogether.
By pretending that this meaning of the word does not exist (or is not obvious), you're being intentionally obtuse to try to score points. That is, of course, the most generous interpretation of your comment, there are other less flattering ones.
By the way, I believe you were attempting to 'score points' by pointing out the op's intentionality.
No, it is not. Communication is not about being correct, but about being correctly understood. Also, if we are being technical, "animal" was a word used prior to the development of modern biology, and it means what the article means when it uses the word, i.e. non-human animals.
The fact that scientists decided to reuse the same word to mean something slightly different is if anything a flaw on their part. They could have come up with a more precise term to disambiguate (e.g. "neural mobile multi-cellular organisms (NMMCOs)" or some such) but they didn't. As this article is aimed at the lay-person, it is perfectly reasonable (I would say obligatory) to use the meaning that is expected by that audience.
The headline as it shows up in HN was renamed to "In Search for Cures, Scientists Create Multispecies Embryos". This is a ridiculous act of pedantry that completely obscures the rather important fact that one of those species in "multispecies" is human.
This is like saying we should have used different terminology when Copernicus published his work on planetary bodies. Or science should have used a different name for Earth when it proven that our planet round? No, if people are inaccurate, you don't keep on using old outdated definitions and invent new nouns for the new meanings. You update the old inaccurate definitions.
People used to think humans were distinctly different than anything else on the planet. We are not and we are not special. We are animals. At the root of this debate is the fact that this idea deeply offends a select few, mostly religious zealots . The same groups were offended that the Earth was still Earth even though it's round. Animals are still animals even thought people are animals too. Gravity is still gravity as our definition of what it is and how it works changes.
But "chemistry" was coined to distinguish from alchemy.
Regarding humans as animals, I should probably have stated more accurately that since at least the time of Aristotle, the term animal has also been applied to humans (i.e. "man is the rational animal"). Animal, in this context, refers to anything that is animate (moves around, eats, etc.). However, we often (primarily) use the term to refers to those organisms which are merely animate, as opposed to those that also possess sentience (humans).
> We are not [distinct] and we are not special.
Empirically we are distinct. Our lack of specialness remains unproven.
> We are animals.
Both in the sense of biological taxonomy and that we have an animus, that is true. That does not entail your previous statement.
It's also still perfectly correct to use the term to refer non-human animals.
> The same groups were offended that the Earth was still Earth even though it's round.
What groups are these, specifically? As far as I know, these people never existed except in the modern imagination. The West has been aware of the Earth's roundness since BC. It is a central aspect of the Ptolemaic cosmology.
(edit to add: if it were written for me, the article would have used "chimera" in the title)
a. A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and a nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli; any living creature, including man.
b. In ordinary or non-technical use: any such living organism other than a human being.
In a technical context, such as a scientific journal, I expect that "animal" would include humans. In the headline of a science-focused mainstream media article, I think it's ambiguous. Given that the context, I think it's clear they're using the non-technical definition of the word.
- how will the affect the propagation of diseases from other species to humans?
- How will intellectual property concerns play into this research?
- How do we prevent chimeras from having severe health issues as a result of incompatible physiology?
- Are there health concerns from chimeras mixing with livestock?
- What is the likelihood of creating "sentient" chimeras (for some value of sentience)?
- How might sentience work differently in chimeras ("If a lion could talk, we would not be able to understand him" as the old quote goes) and how could we detect sentience?
edit: list formatting
For one thing, these chimeras are being grown specifically for organ-harvesting. I don't see a medical purpose for harvesting human brains (and in any case, they would run afoul of the same ethical issues as if they were growing those brains in human bodies).
For another, there is encephalization to deal with. A pig's body certainly couldn't hold a human brain. Nor (I don't think) could any primate body. Any species that could might be too incompatible in other ways.
Besides, who knows what the experience of a sentient chimera might have? Being cognitively capable of communication (speech or sign) yet unable to do so? Being capable of using tools, but (potentially) not having the necessary appendages? Being born with an infants mind, craving human affection and interaction, yet unable to express that need? Being unable to mimic human adults in their behavior (a rather critical aspect of child development)? Being fundamentally alienated in their existence? I don't think we should take such a risk merely for curiosity's sake.
Like I said, I don't find the scenario of sentient chimeras very likely, but it troubles me not because of how it might redefine what it means to be human, but because I am concerned about how traumatic the experience may be for this sentient being. The reality would probably be less "Ed the Talking Horse" and more "an infant trapped in a pig's body". As a parent, it's an unsettling idea.
edit: spelling
Unlike these fictional explorations, however, the NPR story focuses on pig embryos which have been modified to grow human organs such as the pancreas. These creatures, if allowed to develop, would still be pigs, just with a very unusual pancreas.
The eventual solution to growing in vivo organs is to create a human embryo that has just enough of a nervous system to stay alive, but no higher brain function.
Ultimately, all children will donate a few cells in the embryonic stage to this purpose. As you grow up, your brainless clone will also grow and provide a backup set of organs, nerves, etc. that are 100% chromosomally compatible. Perhaps the aging process in a clone can also be slowed down -- cool the body to slow metabolism -- and then we'll be able to transplant younger parts, younger skin, etc.
Bioethicists will debate this for decades, but it's going to happen; the benefits are too great. Of course, eventually we may have in-system cures for many of the problems that today require organ transplants, so perhaps a clone will become unnecessary.
How does this work in the US? Sounds like they talked about the idea and NIH reacted with a moratorium until ethics questions are considered.
I have to submit research to an ethics panel before I get funding. Not everything but pretty much everything in medicine or involving humans and possibly animals but I've never ventured into that realm. Even when writing a proposal in say human-computer interaction there's always a need to have all tests/evaluations involving human subjects approved by an ethics board first. It's typically a short description and checklist a la "will the subjects be compensated", "will the subjects be informed about the research agenda" etc. It's good form but I don't think you'll get penalized if you do a quick mockup-test with some people but formally/theoretically the requirement is there.
Actually, Comic Book Guy, you're incorrect. In Webster's dictionary, the first definition for "animal" is: "a living thing that is not a human being or plant".
As Webster's or any other English dictionary in the world will attest, colloquially and very commonly when people use the term "animal" they mean "non-human", and there is nothing wrong with colloquialism in headlines. The intent of the original headline is crystal clear, it is not misleading, and it is not unserious or unethical.
Of course, this fact doesn't stop HN's legions of nit-picking boobs from descending on this title like a pack of leg-humping chihuahuas... but again, that's what Comic Book Guy voice is for :p
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Animal&utm_so...
a. A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and a nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli; any living creature, including man.
b. In ordinary or non-technical use: any such living organism other than a human being.
The etymology from OED shows that its origins are both a borrowing from French (which excludes man) and Latin (which includes man), which explains the confusion a little I think.
So technically, the people claiming humans are an animal are correct. In common parlance however, distinguishing humans from animals is totally acceptable.
Both sides have an argument but I don't see how it's appropriate to describe other HN users as "nit-picking boobs" or compare them to "leg-humping chihuahuas". That's the kind of childishness I'd expect from Reddit or 4chan.
Also, the claim on which the "headline is wrong" claims are based (i.e."human" == "animal", always and forever and if you disagree then you're some sort of creationist throwback) is also incorrect.
There is no two sides here. The people insisting that a) "animals" are always considered a superset of "humans", therefore b) the headline is wrong, are just plain wrong on both counts.
technically, humans are a subset of animals, not the other way around.
In this case I believe the "human != animal" definition is clearly what was intended but those who wish to argue that it shouldn't have been used have an argument, as in technical contexts (such as scientific journals), "animal" usually encompasses humans.
> Of course, this fact doesn't stop HN's legions of nit-picking boobs
Dissing a community that you're part of, as a rhetorical status move, is particularly associated with low-quality comments.
Dog hybrid probably trustworthy until act 3, but hyena hybrid trustworthy never. Don't let them find out about the pain implants, they'll remove them. If you make an anti-regression serum, don't let your grad student fall in love with the cat hybrid because he'll destroy the serum.
If you're going to do the experiment on an island (vs e.g. a biohazard facility), keep ships with helicopters circling so you can evac as needed. Carry EPIRBs and lots of radios.