SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is planning to lift its moratorium on chimeric embryo research:
The National Institutes of Health is proposing a new policy to permit scientists to get federal money to make embryos, known as chimeras, under certain carefully monitored conditions. The NIH imposed a moratorium on funding these experiments in September because they could raise ethical concerns.
[...] [Scientists] hope to use the embryos to create animal models of human diseases, which could lead to new ways to prevent and treat illnesses. Researchers also hope to produce sheep, pigs and cows with human hearts, kidneys, livers, pancreases and possibly other organs that could be used for transplants.
To address the ethical concerns, the NIH's new policy imposes several restrictions. The policy prohibits the introduction of any human cells into embryos of nonhuman primates, such as monkeys and chimps, at their early stages of development. Previously, the NIH wouldn't allow such experiments that involved human stem cells but it didn't address the use of other types of human cells that scientists have created. In addition, the old rules didn't bar adding the cells very early in embryonic development. The extra protections are being added because these animals are so closely related to humans. But the policy would lift the moratorium on funding experiments involving other species. Because of the ethical concerns, though, at least some of the experiments would go through an extra layer of review by a new, special committee of government officials.
You can submit a response to the proposal here up until the end of the day on September 4.
Related: NIH Won't Fund Human Germline Modification
U.S. Congress Moves to Block Human Embryo Editing
China's Bold Push into Genetically Customized Animals
Human-Animal Chimeras are Gestating on U.S. Research Farms
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday August 05 2016, @12:09AM
Otherwise I will categorize this under 'the world is now being run by morons a full grade below the morons that ran it when I was a kid.'
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday August 05 2016, @12:23AM
I think at the end of the day, I think they believe it would be a lot easier to (accidentally?) "uplift" a largish primate than a mouse/rat, by adding human genes that control the growth and density of neurons and brain structures.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday August 05 2016, @01:50AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Funny) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday August 05 2016, @02:02AM
A saw a documentary [imdb.com] once!
Granted, time travel was also involved….
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 05 2016, @11:02AM
It's not though.
It would be easier to genetically modify a primate with a larger brain volume and more genetic similarities to humans in order to make it "sapient", or whatever you want to call it. There is some correlation between brain size and intelligence. It is unclear that a tiny mouse could ever be engineered to be as smart as a human, dolphin, chimp, etc.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @02:00AM
Need new moderation option; -1 gibberish.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 05 2016, @10:56AM
-1 ignorant
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday August 06 2016, @11:59PM
> [...] adding human genes [...]
That's not what a chimera is. A chimera is an organism in which the cells aren't all genetically identical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29 [wikipedia.org]
What this research is about is not introducing human genes into other species, but rather introducing human cells, tissues or organs into other species. With the kind of organisms they're contemplating, if one were to tease the organism apart, cell by cell, some cells would have an entirely human genome, whilst others would have the genome of the other species.
The article speculates that hybrids--creatures in which two (or more?) species are mixed genetically as a result of sex--might result. I find some plausibility in that, as I'd expect that a chimeric organism would have characteristics of both (all?) the species that are combined in it. Intermediacy might lessen obstacles to interbreeding.
It seems that ethical considerations are the raison d'être of this research. Killing a person to use the person's body as a source of organs for other people is (with the exception of Falun Gong practitioners) considered unethical. Killing a pig to use the pig's body as a source of organs for people is (mostly) accepted. Mixing human and pig cells, letting the resulting creature mature, then harvesting its organs may be accepted if it looks at all piglike and isn't overly erudite when it speaks.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday August 05 2016, @12:24AM
I believe testing on non-human animals should be outlawed and testing on human scum like Arabs and other criminally-predisposed humans should be encouraged.
Why raise a human heart inside a pig when you could grow it on the hairy ass of an Arab? And there will no doubt be a huge uptick of Black penis transplants to lily-livered, pasty-faced White boys. O' imagine the possibilities! Prehensile spotted cocks with talking meatuses! Vaginas with the kung-fu grip! Women lactating 24/7 throughout their lifetimes, opening up the possibilities for new and delicious cheeses that are both tasty and good for you!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @01:49AM
Why raise a human heart inside a pig when you could grow it on the hairy ass of an Arab?
Pigs are more sanitary?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday August 05 2016, @01:59AM
Not only that, but pigs even of different species are more socially cooperative and pragmatic than even Arabs of similar tribes.
At least with respect to their women. Arab beasts, by contrast, fly to Qatar to have sex with other men and praise Allah (PBUH) and snort the highest quality cocaine while doing so. Now, there's nothing wrong with that except that said Arab beasts have others executed for doing the same.
Wait, why are Americans and Europeans backing those filth up again?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @02:09AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 05 2016, @03:35AM
Eth, are you okay? I'm asking this in all seriousness; your earlier material was artful and hilarious, but lately you've just been cringe-y. Is something wrong?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday August 05 2016, @11:29AM
Perhaps a bit too close to home. There has always been something about Eth that is just not quite human. Chimera-ism would explain a lot.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 05 2016, @05:00PM
Don't give him an excuse by saying "oh the poor thing, he's probably not entirely human." Humans are capable of the basest evil, as we have seen. No, Eth is pure human, with all that this implies.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday August 05 2016, @12:25AM
If anyone has a rational explanation for why it's morally permissible to do x to a rat but not to a lemur please do speak up.
Two obvious ones are a) a rat doesn't have the capacity for suffering or intellect that a lemur does and b) we already accept orders of magnitude more deaths among rats than we do among lemurs.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday August 05 2016, @01:48AM
Absolutely irrelevant.
"a) a rat doesn't have the capacity for suffering or intellect that a lemur does"
And your evidence for this assertion?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 05 2016, @04:54AM
"b) we already accept orders of magnitude more deaths among rats than we do among lemurs."
Absolutely irrelevant.
This is starting to sound like your opinion on this subject is irrelevant. Recall you were allegedly concerned about whether or not it was more moral permissible to do "X" to a rat than a lemur. Well, one obvious measure is how morally permissible do we view what happens to these animals anyway. And the obvious note is that a lot of bad things happen to either animal which doesn't rise in our view to becoming morally impermissible - but a lot more of those bad things happen to rats.
"a) a rat doesn't have the capacity for suffering or intellect that a lemur does"
And your evidence for this assertion?
The known greater intellectual capacity of the lemur.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Friday August 05 2016, @12:49AM
If anyone has a rational explanation for why it's morally permissible to do x to a rat but not to a lemur please do speak up.
We also don't sell lemur poison and deathtraps in the store. The killing of rats is institutionalized in our culture because they are harmful to us and our environment, breed like rats, and so numerous that even killing billions doesn't dent the population.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday August 05 2016, @01:46AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 05 2016, @05:19AM
Lemurs used in experimentation (should there be any, I don't know of any personally) would be bred for this purpose specifically and not represent any diminishment of the natural population. Would you have any further objections?
Depends on the value of the research. I view the morality of harm to creatures as being mostly dependent on their intellect. We find for the most part cannibalism and torture of humans to be abominable while no one has similar concerns about vegetables. One can see varying degree of respect for the well being of an organism by both its intellectual capacity and how readily it tugs on our emotions (the cute trick).
I have no qualms about sufficiently valuable animal experimentation up to and including humans. But such research should be conducted with a sufficient level of respect for the organism. Needless to say, I have more respect for the intellectual capabilities of lemurs than I do of rats and thus, would advocate for constraints on research with lemurs than rats. Further, I see the considerable possibility that such organisms are over time made more intelligent and I would grant them increased respect and privileges as a result subject to certain constraints (such as requiring conversion of short lifespan, high fertility creatures into long lifespan, low fertility creatures).
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday August 05 2016, @06:49PM
I'm not sure you are justified in having more respect for the intellectual capabilities of lemurs. Rats are known to be quite intelligent, on some trials performing better than humans (you've got to pick the right test).
As for brain size, some lemurs are considerably smaller than some rats, and I wouldn't be willing to just assume that the rats have smaller brains.
The main reason that makes sense to me is that rats are traditional enemies of grain growing humans, and lemurs aren't. A secondary reason is that it a lot easier to grow a huge number of rats than a huge number of lemurs. Emotionally I am also bothered because (almost?) all lemurs are endangered species, but if this could be used to create independent colonies that emotion doesn't make logical sense.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 05 2016, @07:41PM
I'm not sure you are justified in having more respect for the intellectual capabilities of lemurs. Rats are known to be quite intelligent, on some trials performing better than humans (you've got to pick the right test).
Ok, you aren't sure. Well?
As for brain size, some lemurs are considerably smaller than some rats, and I wouldn't be willing to just assume that the rats have smaller brains.
Then we can consider those cases as they occur and how viable the lemur species are in question for animal research. Just because I made a generalization that isn't perfectly true doesn't mean that I can't apply the rule in question on a more refined level or as new information comes out.