from the things-are-not-always-what-they-seem dept.
(Andy's note: pretty sure it's only "radical" if you discount ideas from science fiction - Technovelgy points out it's been as an idea from at least 2002, and I'm pretty sure earlier examples could be found if one went looking.)
Braving a funding ban put in place by America's top health agency, some U.S. research centers are moving ahead with attempts to grow human tissue inside pigs and sheep with the goal of creating hearts, livers, or other organs needed for transplants.
The effort to incubate organs in farm animals is ethically charged because it involves adding human cells to animal embryos in ways that could blur the line between species.
Last September, in a reversal of earlier policy, the National Institutes of Health announced it would not support studies involving such "human-animal chimeras" until it had reviewed the scientific and social implications more closely.
The agency, in a statement, said it was worried about the chance that animals' "cognitive state" could be altered if they ended up with human brain cells.
[Wikipedia helpfully has articles on Chimera (mythology) (the source of the name) and Chimera (genetics) (the topic of this research). -Ed.]
Related Stories
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
Francis Collins will remain the director of the National Institutes of Health, for now:
Ending weeks of speculation, President-elect Donald Trump has asked National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins to remain in his position. It is not clear for how long. "We just learned that Dr. Collins has been held over by the Trump administration," an NIH spokesperson said in a statement. "We have no additional details at this time."
Collins, a geneticist who has headed the $32 billion NIH for the past 8 years, has been campaigning to keep his job and met with Trump last week. On Wednesday, he told a reporter at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he still didn't know what his fate would be. But although Collins had the support of key Republicans in Congress, he has been one of several candidates for the NIH post, including Representative Andy Harris (R–MD).
Related: NIH Won't Fund Human Germline Modification
Group of Scientists and Bioethicists Back Genetic Modification of Human Embryos
Human-Animal Chimeras are Gestating on U.S. Research Farms
NIH Plans To Lift Ban On Research Funds For Human-Animal Chimera Embryos
Neuroscientists Stand Up for Basic Cell Biology Research
Major Biomedical Research Funding Bill Sails Through US House
Breakthrough as scientists grow sheep embryos containing human cells
Growing human organs inside other animals has taken another step away from science-fiction, with researchers announcing they have grown sheep embryos containing human cells.
Scientists say growing human organs inside animals could not only increase supply, but also offer the possibility of genetically tailoring the organs to be compatible with the immune system of the patient receiving them, by using the patient's own cells in the procedure, removing the possibility of rejection. [...] "Even today the best matched organs, except if they come from identical twins, don't last very long because with time the immune system continuously is attacking them," said Dr Pablo Ross from the University of California, Davis, who is part of the team working towards growing human organs in other species.
[...] Ross and colleagues have recently reported a major breakthrough for our own species, revealing they were able to introduce human stem cells into early pig embryos, producing embryos for which about one in every 100,000 cells were human. These chimeras – a term adopted from Greek mythology – were only allowed to develop for 28 days.
Now, at this week's meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Austin, Texas, the team have announced that they have managed a similar feat with sheep embryos, achieving an even higher ratio of human to animal cells. "About one in 10,000 cells in these sheep embryos are human," said Ross.
Japan is expected to lift a ban on growing human organs inside of animals.
Here's another article about pig-to-human organ transplants.
Also at The Telegraph.
Related: Surgeons Smash Records With Pig-to-Primate Organ Transplants
Human-Animal Chimeras are Gestating on U.S. Research Farms
Pig Hearts Survive in Baboons for More than Two Years
NIH Plans To Lift Ban On Research Funds For Human-Animal Chimera Embryos
Human-Pig 'Chimera Embryos' Detailed
Rat-Mouse Chimeras Offer Hope for Diabetics
eGenesis Bio Removes PERV From Pigs Using CRISPR
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Tuesday March 01 2016, @12:21PM
I for one welcome our furry overlords.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Tuesday March 01 2016, @12:38PM
Just you wait until they start growing human genital organs on other animals. Apart from being furry heaven, would it even qualify as bestiality any more?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday March 01 2016, @05:34PM
Typically the modernist(i.e. neither primitivist or religious) objections to bestiality are due to the fact that it separates sexual intercourse from both sapience and consent, which tends to be troubling as far as legal precedents go.
Hot-swapping some body parts isn't about to create a reform movement in that school of thought, and the other two will never change under any circumstances(i.e. primitivists will always say "eww that's just wrong" and the religious will say "The bible says that's just wrong")
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday March 01 2016, @05:38PM
Though, as an afterthought, an artificial womb might appeal to some due to the pragmatic difficulties of pregnancy. That seems like an inevitable culture war after the luddite/regressive/religious side loses this one, once animal grown organs end up saving thousands to millions of lives, and there ceases to be such a thing as a donor waiting list.
(Score: 2) by patella.whack on Tuesday March 01 2016, @06:10PM
The artificial womb is inevitable, as you say. Yes, it has implications for curing us of diseases. We shall be cured! But there is going to be no need for men. You probably know that it doesn't take a man to create a baby anymore. Perhaps we will keep the military model going for awhile because we want to fight.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday March 01 2016, @08:20PM
Where are they getting the sperm from then? They growing that in a testube now, too?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Tuesday March 01 2016, @10:04PM
I guess they could eventually grow a set of cock and balls on a pig? If you can do a womb why not?
Although this is the oddest conversation I have had in a while, I have to admit.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday March 01 2016, @10:35PM
Perhaps, but what did they start with? All roads lead to Rome or in this case Men.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday March 02 2016, @03:40AM
Frozen semen. When you need more, grow a pair.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Wednesday March 02 2016, @05:15AM
Well, if the artificial womb is inevitable, there won't be any need for women anymore either.
Just insert your chemicals, and wait for the baby to extrude from the other end.
Sounds like an old song from Zager and Evans [youtube.com]....
So... is Zager and Evans the new Nostradamus?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 01 2016, @02:30PM
They tell us that we gained our minds
Evolving up from porky kinds
I say it's all genetic lines
Are we not men? We are Devo!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Tuesday March 01 2016, @03:51PM
https://catgirlcare.org/ [catgirlcare.org]
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday March 02 2016, @03:43AM
http://www.twilightasylum.com/manual.htm [twilightasylum.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Tuesday March 01 2016, @12:44PM
Look, I'm all for pushing the boundaries of science, nature and what is possible and whatnot. But? No, that's all. What were you expecting? ヽ(*⌒∇⌒*)ﾉ
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FunkyLich on Tuesday March 01 2016, @01:30PM
What is the 'no' about? That you don't agree with the (American) National Institute of Health, or you think these experiments are a bad idea?
David Brin and his 'Uplift' storyline & universe can be a good starting point for the uninitiated.
All these fears about blurring lines between species, or changes in animal's cognitive states... Well what about it? Things like this are direct implications of genetic technology. But one must always keep in mind that it is not technology that what harms people. It is people those who harm people. The existence of sword is not iron's fault.
Blurry interspecies lines and altered animal cognitive states are quite natural goals to reach and if you show me someone who didn't think of such when told about genetics, and I'll show you a liar. So instead of this "But think of the children!" it is best to understand that there's an entire world out there which is NOT the National Institute of Health. The ostrich burrying the head in the sand now, aren't we?
If anyone thinks that humans will ever go to live elsewhere besides Planet Earth, it is most probable that these will be altered and modified to physically fit and survive the non-Earth environment. The classic and the spacefaring humans will be mentally the same, but I don't bet much on them being physically the same.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01 2016, @03:51PM
As long as we do not treat humans the same as other animals blurring the lines between species is a bad idea.
At what percentage of human does it become illegal to harvest a human/animal for organs against its will? How do you define "percentage of human"?
If someone has lots of animal parts we can harvest that person's organs against his will? No? Why not? What if that person is or becomes mentally impaired? There are some dogs and chimps that are smarter than some very stupid humans. What if the animal's stem cells start appearing in the human recipient's brain? This sort of thing is not impossible: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain/ [scientificamerican.com]
I don't think the benefits are as great as the problems and costs (all the legal issues etc). There are other alternative technological paths we can work on to grow or build/print replacement organs without requiring human-nonhuman hybrids and the potential issues and problems. There don't really appear to be obvious show-stoppers with the alternatives (printing/building or growing)- we just need to develop the science and tech more.
Saying we should try all paths just because we can is very stupid and shortsighted. Our resources are not unlimited. The paths we choose have consequences beyond just effects of the first step.
(Score: 1) by FunkyLich on Tuesday March 01 2016, @04:28PM
But a lot of what you have described happens today already since a long time, we just treat it differently because it suits us so.
You mention organ harvesting against an animal's free will, but we grow them in farms so we can slaughter them for food against free will. All individuals of the human race have an awful lot of animal-compatible parts in them, otherwise we wouldn't be using pig blood-plasm for human medicine. We better start to think about these pigs too if we're to worry about smart dogs and chimps. Mentally impaired peope.... well you see, at its twilight zone lies euthanasia and a lot of people hate that too. I humbly don't agree with them.
I think the benefits greatly surpass any problems there might be. The problems are moral and ethical while the benefits are factual simply technological. Alongside farms for food animals, why not have farms for human organs animals? How many heart needing patients would be saved? Or livers? Or kidneys? Or his own new spare half leg for that war veteran? Will you explain morally to someone with diabetes why they can't grow a new pancreas in a pig if technology makes it feasible?
Morals and ethics change among cultures, places, time of existence - ancient Greece did have democracy that some admire, but in that time it was not a mistake morally and ethically to kill human slaves for fun, they even cost less than a dog. Yes, we must be careful in our steps, but no, we should not let paranoia be our guide.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01 2016, @06:09PM
You mention organ harvesting against an animal's free will, but we grow them in farms so we can slaughter them for food against free will.
You completely miss the point and problem of _blurred_ lines read the entire post again:
If someone has lots of animal parts we can harvest that person's organs against his will? No? Why not?
We don't grow humans in farms to slaughter for food or parts _yet_. But soon we might or not... but it would be harder and harder to tell when the lines are blurred more and more.
Remember there are plenty of fools like the one who said: "All these fears about blurring lines between species, or changes in animal's cognitive states... Well what about it?".
You even say:
Ancient Greece did have democracy that some admire, but in that time it was not a mistake morally and ethically to kill human slaves for fun, they even cost less than a dog.
Now think about what you just wrote in a future of blurred lines and enlighten yourself. As history has shown humans are capable of enslaving humans and considering it fine and good.
We don't even have to go down this path yet. There are other paths that achieve much of the same things without as much potential for evil and bad stuff.
(Score: 1) by FunkyLich on Wednesday March 02 2016, @09:51AM
It is interesting to see how you dread these blurred lines between animals and humans like the plague and you seem to focus on how we humans might be fooled enough to eat our own because of this blur. And seem to be convinced that humans tend to regress.
But fear not I say. Advancements of technology have always caused the progress of the human race and has served as the way out from deadlocks caused by absurd beliefs and paranoid fears like I read here. This is obvious to anyone able to process information and not awaiting instructions from above the clouds somewhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01 2016, @12:50PM
These must be the "sheeple" who post stuff on Internet forums that people on the right disagree with.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by pTamok on Tuesday March 01 2016, @12:54PM
Cross species transplantation has been a goal ever since organ transplantation became a reality. One big issue (apart from ethics) has been immune response, which is easier to mediate if you are dealing with human tissue than, say, pig tissue. Use of pig-derived heart valves has been common for some time. http://www.heart-valve-surgery.com/heart-surgery-blog/2007/09/19/pig-valve-replacement/ [heart-valve-surgery.com] , and use of pig corneas is being actively investigated: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081421/ [nih.gov]
My view is that if you are happy to eat a pig, cow, or sheep, you'd be happy to use organs derived from such animals.
I think there is a lot of interest in producing new pancreases for transplantation to help dealing with diabetes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167044/ [nih.gov]
and also kidneys: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946635/ [nih.gov]
One thing that people are worried about is porcine retroviruses. If you managed to grow human organs in porcine hosts, it should be less of an issue. As for cognitive changes in the hosts, unless brains are specifically targetted for modification, I don;t think it will be a problem. But I can always be surprised.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01 2016, @02:32PM
Its not just rejection. Many recipients of organ transplants personality changes afterwards. This is something routinely monitored while in the hospital. Not sure how much literature there is on it but for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1299456 [nih.gov]
It makes sense if you think about it, your personality can be changed quite drastically by altered blood alcohol levels. In the same way, a new liver/kidney/heart/etc will lead to chronically different concentrations of various blood factors and thus brain function.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by opinionated_science on Tuesday March 01 2016, @04:48PM
sorry AC , going to call you out. That's a puff piece you put a link to. Asking transplant patients their opinions is deeply misleading. It is not possible to have a blind trial, therefore the opinions might be empirical, but are certainly not objective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01 2016, @05:07PM
Sure it is something difficult to study. The anti-rejection drugs have cognitive effects, etc. I don't see how that invalidates the conjecture that the transplant itself can alter personality. Someone more interested in the issue than I would have to come up with a list of possible explanations and some precise prediction that distinguishes between these to be checked.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 02 2016, @06:59PM
I'm not the other AC. But fetal cells can migrate to their mother's brains ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain/ [scientificamerican.com] ). So I wouldn't be surprised if organ stem cells could migrate to people's brains too (bone marrow cell migration to brain does happen for mice: https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bone.html [washington.edu] http://news.stanford.edu/news/2003/october22/marrow.html [stanford.edu] ). Whether this would cause significant changes and those changes are "negative" are different questions.
I personally wouldn't rule out the possibly of changes given what I know. Things tend to be rather messier in the bio world.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday March 02 2016, @08:36AM
Sorry, I didn't give links for porcine (endogenous) retroviruses (PERVs) in the context of xenotransplantation. Here are a couple:
Since swine are a potential source of organs for xenotransplantation, the risk of PERV transmission is a major concern. The breeding of specific-pathogen-free swine has eliminated many pathogens likely to be transmitted with pig grafts, but this does not apply to endogenous retroviruses which are inherited as part of the germ line (3, 9, 22, 38, 44). PERV transmission from swine to humans would be a zoonosis that would convert PERV from an endogenous status in swine to an exogenous status in humans. Endogenous retroviruses are considered in the “not too harmful” category of retroviruses (10), as most of them do not cause disease in their natural hosts. Could the loss of endogenous-PERV status in humans be associated with a pathogenic potential similar to that associated with exogenous gammaretroviruses, close relatives of PERV, such as feline leukemia virus, murine leukemia virus (MLV), and gibbon ape leukemia virus, which are able to induce tumors and immunodeficiencies in the infected host (1, 24, 30, 39), or will the PERV remain in the “not too harmful” category?
Porcine Endogenous Retrovirus Integration Sites in the Human Genome: Features in Common with Those of Murine Leukemia Virus - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1642138/ [nih.gov]
and
Porcine endogenous retroviruses in xenotransplantation--molecular aspects. - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24828841 [nih.gov]
...and yes, they are abbreviated as PERVs. Snigger away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01 2016, @03:56PM
I heard of this many times before, but today that just seems really gross. I like the "3d printed" organ path better, but I guess since no technology has yielded replacement organs, all ends must be investigated. Still, a soup of my own cells, reconstituted into a functioning organ seems like it would have a number of advantages, like not having to wait for an animal to grow up, and a lot less risky from the rejection standpoint.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Tuesday March 01 2016, @05:01PM
Organovo are selling 3D printed human liver tissue for research.
http://www.organovo.com/tissues-services/exvive3d-human-tissue-models-services-research/3d-human-liver-tissue-testing-services/ [organovo.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01 2016, @05:17PM
How about going all the way - eating steaks grown from ones own butt?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday March 01 2016, @05:31PM
Organs grown in pigs are grosser than your own insides?
Watch a few liveleak car crashes or surgical videos, you'll get over it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01 2016, @08:59PM
Some are born pig and some are born human. Some self-identify as pigs but may not fit the preconceived stereotypes of the white man. The correct way to address a trans-speciesed individual is "officer." Don't be a bigot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01 2016, @09:12PM
I just read Chromosome 6 by Robin Cook, published in 1998, I think. Pretty much covers this very concept, and addresses the potential to deal with immune rejection by transferring portions of chromosome 6 to a fetus, in this case Bonobo fetus, to create a genetic double for insurance(a living set of spare organs), kind of like a chimp version of The Island http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/ [imdb.com]
Some of the implications mentioned here are addressed in the book. Attributes (intelligence being the key) were transferred to the Bonobo's, creating a new race of proto-humans. Accidentally creating a new human like race is one thing, but the idea of sentient pigs or sheep being a side affect is a tad disturbing.
(Score: 1) by Osamabobama on Tuesday March 01 2016, @09:21PM
How much more training are butchers going to need now that their job has gone from "chop it up for steaks" to "cut lots of steaks but salvage a working kidney and liver?" The average butcher hasn't spent a day in med school, let alone surgical training.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday March 01 2016, @10:32PM
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should / shouldn't. Thought about the entire process needs to occur, before continuing in this kind of research. "Genetic engineering of animals: Ethical issues, including welfare concerns" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078015/pdf/cvj_05_544.pdf [nih.gov] I'm assuming the funding ban is due to serious concerns. As opposed to, we have the money, do what we want.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"