UK Embryo Horror

You may have seen press stories recently about UK scientists pleading for the use of hybrid human-animal embryos in stem cell research.

Now the British press is reporting that it looks like the plan will be given the go-ahead.

If this were a matter of just splicing a few human genes into a clearly non-human organism, matters would be different, but it appears that the plan involves the creation of an organism that is 99.9% human (see diagram, left).

Basically, they're talking about eliminating the nuclear genetic information in an animal (most likely cow) cell and shoving in the nucleus of a human cell, then stimulating the result to develop into an embryo.

It's true that there is non-nuclear genetic material that is found in cells--in organelles besides the nucleus. For example, you may have heard of mitochondrial DNA (DNA found in the mitochondria, which are not part of the nucleus). The process as described would appear to leave that genetic material intact from the animal providing the ovum.

But I'm sorry, this really looks like creating a human being that has a slight admixture of cow genes, not creating a cow that has a slight admixture of human genes.

As a result, one must err on the side of caution and conclude that such embryos are human beings with the right to life and the British government is planning on murdering them or funding their murder.

The stories in the British press cite polling done of people suggesting that the British public favors the use of embryos in trying to find cures for Parkinson's and Altzheimer's.

I bet the pollsters didn't ask, "Are you in favor of research that involves killing something that might be a human being and that in fact has 99.9% human genetic material."

GET THE STORY.

HERE TOO.

Comments

[LJ]

They are out of control. The moral guard-rails have all been removed. I hate to even speculate what they might try next.

[My Cat's Name is Lily]

It's an obvious end run around the words "killing a human being".
Add just enough cow (or horse, or spider monkey, or tree frog), and say "It's not a human being, so of course, it's OK to kill!"
Doublespeak prospers. Blecch!

[Ed S]

New meaning for: "I'm sorry man, but your wife is a cow!"

[Ed S]

New meaning for: "I'm sorry man, but your wife is a cow!"

[Ed S]

It gives new meaning to: "Hey man, your wife is a cow!"

[Ed S]

Sorry about the above, but my computer had a cow as I was posting. Maybe Jimmy can remove two of the above.

[Francis Ocoma]

The All-New Soylent Green(TM) Light: only 99.9% human, but just as good!

[Mary Kay]

It won't work - God has a way of dealing with "end runs."

[bill912]

"Dr. Frankenstein, call your office."

[CatholicAudio]

FYI, this is already completely legal in the U.S. -- it's just not government funded...yet. I'm pretty sure that after the coming election it will be.

God Bless,
CatholicAudio

[Skygor]

I would think people would realize the wrongness of a situation when it turns into bestiality.

[BrianC]

Wow there must be a problem with my web browser, I type in JimmyAkin.com and it takes me to the sci-fi channel, oh wait.. This is one of the scariest things I have read in a long time. Why do people not see the danger of this. Many people forget that one of Einstein's greatest regrets was the work on the Manhattan Project. I fear that 20 years from now the scientist involved with this mess will be expressing the same regrets.

[Chris-2-4]

It seems fitting to use a cow's egg in the forging of science's new golden calf.

[Jamie Beu]

Actually, I think it's "Paging Dr. Moreau..."

So, at what point will mankind have messed up enough of God's creation that He will send His Son back to claim "game over"?

My friend just sent me an article about http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/how_brave_a_new_world/>the Brave New World 75 years later, and I told him I held out hope for the future generations. Now, I'm not so sure...

[Foxfier]

Wow.... I'm sad that they're cloning with animal eggs, but not really surprised..... I kind of guessed it when I started reading up on how dangerous and hard it is to get human eggs.

The next logical step would be to try animal eggs with human DNA. (I said logical, not "good idea.")

[DeeDee]

I don't think many people realize just what a horror this is. The justification for crossing all these lines is that we want to help people, cure the sick,ect. and of course we do- but the ends do not justify the means. This is a portal that should never be opened.

Has the Vatican issued any statements on this?

[DeeDee]

Brave New World- here we come. Lets create "subhuman"- but human beings of low intewlligence but lots of strength to do all the hard labor.

[JoAnna]

I feel sick.

[Esau]

Folks,

This is a bit more nuanced than how it is presented here.

No doubt, this is controversial; however, there is some ambiguity as to the ethics.

[Michael]

I must agree with Jamie--I am imagining the Island of Dr. Moreau or certain parts of a Brave New World.

[Esau]

What I allude to here, for example, is vaccine testing wherein during certain clinical trials, human cells are introduced into an animal in order to have an animal model that simulates a human being.

This is important since not performing such tests in a live model, there is great danger as to what ill effects the vaccine can have in an actual human being, which no computer simulated model can tell us as it requires a living organism that is a nearer model to that of the human organism.

[StubbleSpark]

A person from another planet arrives on Earth. Scientists determine his DNA matches only 85% of human DNA. Therefore, it is right to perform harmful and deadly experiments on him.

Obviously, these people have no idea what "human" means. 99.9% indeed.

[Leo]

For info, this has now been approved in principle http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6978384.stm
with online vote.

The remaining cow DNA of such organisms is the mitochondrial DNA, which codes for the energy-metabolism mechanisms of cells. These essential mechanism seem to have changed the least between species. But because other developmental cellular mechanisms are so finely balanced, it is unlikely that such an organism could develop very far or if born would be considered a disabled human.

Embryological research is fundamentally important, and cross-species studies might be illuminating. But we should not risk destroying humans as Jimmy explains.

The two issues which people find troubling are:

1. Destroying human or near-human embryos.

2. Blurring the distinction between humans and (other) animals.

Issue 1 is not a problem for those who have no scruples over the destructive use of human embryos. Acceptance of abortion has desensitized many. Destroying a not-quite-human embryo might seem less problematic for them.

But, Issue 2 is troubling for many more people, even those in the above camp and exposes some of their internal contradictions.

Why does it matter if the distinction is blurred? Only because we consider human status to be qualitatively (not just quantitatively-utilitarian) superior.

But if these are 'only' embryos, then why are even those who support destructive human embryo research troubled? Is it simply an aesthetic 'yuk' reaction eg seeing body fluids. Or is it an ethical alarm bell ringing, because deep inside themselves they suspect (know?) when human life begins?

[Ed Pie]

it is unlikely that such an organism could develop very far or if born would be considered a disabled human.

Probably more "disabled" than "human," so the more eugenically minded pro-choice types will have one more self-created problem to use to justify abortion. :(

A lot of the anecdotes I hear about homosexual or transexual people is that they spend much of their lives, at least until realizing what's going on, feeling like there's something inherently wrong, like God made a mistake when making them. While in their case it's not actually an anatomical problem, it would be (er, genetically, anyway) for any sentient chimeras. I wonder if the chimeras, too, would feel that their makers erred in bringing them into existence. I wonder if their makers would be sympathetic.

Cordwainer Smith much be rotating in his grave. Am I the only one thinking about C'mell the catgirl here?

[Fr. Terry Donahue, CC]

Has the Vatican issued any statements on this?

The closest thing I've seen to a Vatican statement on the creation of animal-human hybrids (usually called chimeras when genetic information is combined from zygotes of different species) is the article on The United Nations and Human Cloning in L'Osservatore Romano (bottom of the page).

One good Catholic resource for these issues is this section from the website www.marymeetsdolly.com - A Catholic's Guide to Genetics, Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center has good information also, but requires a subscription.

For the somewhat related issue of xenotransplantation (putting animal organs into humans), I'd recommmend Prospects for Xenotransplantation: Scientific Aspects and Ethical Considerations from the Pontifical Academy for Life.

[Fr. Terry Donahue, CC]

Whoops! A corrected link for the National Catholic Bioethics Center is here.

[Ed Peters]

Jimmy, is a creature that is 99.9% human, human?

[Marcel LeJeune]

Dr. Peters - How could it be anything less than human?

[Leo]

The Linacre Centre for health care ethics has some excellent bio-ethical resources and a recent paper on human-animal hybrids.

[Esau]

Jimmy, is a creature that is 99.9% human, human?

Again, this is more nuanced than is presented here.

For example, if I introduced human cells into an animal model, that organism's cells will be 99.9% human; however, is that animal/can that animal actually be called a "human being"?

Unfortunately, what is being rendered here is an oversimplification of the matter.

Please note, I am not saying I am for this; but that this is far from the "if it's 99.9% human, thus it is human" assumption some folks make it out to be.

[Esau]

Those familiar with vaccine testing and what not would be more familiar with what I am talking about here.

[Randolph Carter]

Like the National Socialists in Germany in the 1930's, who put Jews in tanks of frigid water, to measure the effects that hypothermia had on their bodies, and how long it took them to die -- all, of course, in the name of helping cure the Aryan Germans of all disease -- so too do these latter-day butchers perform ghastly experiments on human lives (in this case the most innocent of all human lives), meshing the flesh of man with the flesh of beast, creating human lives affected with an abominable curse -- their very human genes, the genes of a being made in the image and likeness of God, being replaced by the genes of brute animals -- before killing off the malformed child, before he can grow strong enough to rise up against his tormentors and, in a manner most befitting his animalistic half, kill the ones who so deformed him.

Dark days are upon us, indeed. The most consummate and total of all horrors that science is capable of producing -- those things that were once the sole purview of science-fiction -- have now become science fact. How long is it, I wonder, that the human race will continue on this wretched course toward self-annihilation; perhaps it is time for the people of fair Albion (and of all the world) to take measures against this sort of horror; to do as the scriptures says, and beat their plowshares into swords, and their pruning hooks into spears. I fear that perhaps, barring any kind of militant insurrection against the perpetrators of such crimes, such dastardly deeds will continue on unabated, and that new nightmares will be unleashed upon the world that will make the crimes of the Socialists look like acts of perpetual and purest God-fearing charity.

Yet we should not despair, for we are not without hope; no matter how great the darkness of the hearts and acts of men, there is a light greater still; a purifying radiance, luminosity unapproachable, that dissolves every shadow like wax before a flame, and can make of the most caliginous night a refulgent dawn. No matter what evil might afflict us at present, or might lie in wait ahead of us in the future, we need not be afraid; the powers of darkness are finite in strength, no matter how great in magnitude: and yet the One Who is Omnipotent has strength without end.

So, though I will lament that such evils as these exist in this world, and I will do everything in my power, through prayer and through action to put them to an end, I will not despair; for in the end, we are on the side of Christ, our God; and if God be with us, none can stand against us.

Still, for the sins of my race, I cannot help but weep.

[Esau]

Mr. Carter,

Be a man of your principle then and cease taking advantage of any of the benefits that have resulted from testing that is routinely done in terms of clinical trials of such things as vaccines wherein animal models are utilized to simulate the human immune system through introduction of human cells into animals.

I, thus, hope you will live up to your words and deny you and your family the benefits of such vaccines, either current or future, no matter how debilitating the disease you and your loved ones suffer, less you be a hypocrite who engages in nothing else but long-winded and verbose exchanges worthy of but a pittance of poop.

[Kara]

When did we start measuring humanness in percentages?

[Jarnor23]

Nuanced is apparently the new word for relativistic.

[Esau]

Wow, Jarnor23, that retort had such substance in it, I can hardly come up with a reply as adequate as yours was.

You've addressed the issue quite extensively and to-the-detail that one can help but wonder what an intellect.

[Kara]

I, thus, hope you will live up to your words and deny you and your family the benefits of such vaccines

Esau, I must have missed the words you saw which said it was wrong to use the vaccines. Can you show me where he said that?

[Esau]

Kara,

In order to test the efficacy of vaccines, one of the things that occurs in testing is inject human cells into animals in order to mimic the human organism.

Read what he wrote --

Much of what he has stated in his comments has already occured as far as vaccines are concerned.

[Kara]

I asked, where did he say it was wrong to use the vaccines?

[Esau]

Kara,

How do you interpret "meshing the flesh of man with the flesh of beast"?

Is not the introduction of human cells into animals this?

[Kara]

How do you interpret "meshing the flesh of man with the flesh of beast"?

Exactly as he said: "creating human lives affected with an abominable curse." He and his family are not doing that when his family gets vaccinated, nor was it done to create any of the vaccines his family has received.

Injecting an animal with a vaccine is not the same as "creating human lives affected with an abominable curse."

[Randolph Carter]

Esau,

Forgive me if I have worded my statement in such a way that makes my position unclear; I do not recall ever saying I had a problem with experimenting upon or modifying animal creatures, or their nucleic acids, in anyway; and I would certainly not object to injecting bits of human organic tissue into an animal's blood stream (which would seem about as harmless as letting a dog eat one's toenail clippings). I would perhaps even not object to the creating of animal embryos with human acids infused into their genetic sequences, provided that such research is approached with caution and a respect for the inviolable dignity of the human person.

Yet here we are not talking about any of those things. What we are talking about is the creating of a human embryo -- manufactured from a human seed and possessing of a human genetic sequence -- with animal acids infused into his own cells. Creating human life in a lab, removed from the sacred folds of a mother's womb, is a sin in and of itself; however, it may well be that directed application of animal acids into the structure of a human's cells, for the purpose of repairing some damage found therein, may have licit medical prospects.

We are not, however, talking about the limited application of animal genes for the use in repairing the damaged genetic sequence of a human life; rather, we are talking about the creation of a human life, cruelly afflicted with random animal genes for no reason other than that that human life may be destroyed (sundered, butchered, annihilated, obliterated, slain, killed, and murdered!), torn apart and atomised, its cells harvested for research purposes.

If that is what it takes -- if murder is what it takes -- to produce life-giving medicine, then I would much rather go without. After all, we are but mortal, and it is our curse to die; yet though life is preferable to death, and though it is better that we should live a thousand years, and go on living for ever, rather than perish, if we must cannibalise the living to go on living ourselves; if we must end the lives of innocents to prolong our own vitality; if we have need to murder so that we might endure, even if it means that we endure until the end of time; then it is better that we should fall down and die amidst the dirt, rather than sin.

Yes, indeed, murder is sin: and the wages of sin is death; though we might have the life of the body, and might go on living until the very Day of Judgement itself, yet on that day we would be found to have no life in us; we would be dead in spirit, and then inherit eternal death. Yet I would much rather die free from sin, and yet have life in my soul, and be raised up to life everlasting by the One Who Is Life.

No, the argument -- that the murder of the few can be justified if it prolongs the life of the many -- rings false. I have sinned and am cursed with death, and therefore I must die. Should I find a way to ease pain and quench grief, and perhaps stave off death for a time, then surely I will take advantage of it; provided that it does not require me to do any evil; for it is folly to try and stave of death by sinful methods, when sin is death itself.

[Jay E. Adrian]

Esau seems to have a pony in this show.

[Mary]

No, the argument -- that the murder of the few can be justified if it prolongs the life of the many -- rings false. I have sinned and am cursed with death, and therefore I must die. Should I find a way to ease pain and quench grief, and perhaps stave off death for a time, then surely I will take advantage of it; provided that it does not require me to do any evil; for it is folly to try and stave of death by sinful methods, when sin is death itself.

A knowledge which is known by natural reason.

"For neither in a trial nor in battle is it right that I or any one else should employ every possible means whereby he may avoid death; for in battle it is frequently evident that a man might escape death by laying down his arms, and throwing himself on the mercy of his pursuers. And there are many other devices in every danger, by which to avoid death, if a man dares to do and say every thing. But this is not difficult, O Athenians! to escape death; but it is much more difficult to avoid depravity, for it runs swifter than death. And now I, being slow and aged, am overtaken by the slower of the two; but my accusers, being strong and active, have been overtaken by the swifter, wickedness. And now I depart, condemned
by you to death; but they condemned by truth, as guilty of iniquity and injustice: and I abide my sentence, and so do they."

[Foxfier]

Esau- as Jimmy mentioned, this isn't injecting human cells into an animal, at any state of life.

This is identical to the cloning process via which Dolly was created, with two small changes-- the species of the DNA and the source of the egg.
http://www.synapses.co.uk/science/clone.html has a really easy to understand explanation. (I know it's been a few years since my last science class and I had no trouble following it.)

I honestly doubt that anyone here would have a huge ethical problem with this *except* for the source of the DNA-- which is human. I'm fairly sure that everyone here is objecting because this creates a human a) for the purpose of killing them and b) which will be greatly disabled if, somehow, they managed to survive the harvest.

Imagine for a moment that someone defines humans as the classic, perfect 46 chromosomes. (Not that hard to imagine.)
That would make kids with Down syndrome less human than these chimeras. (Really not hard to imagine this happening, giving the eugenics going on.)

We honestly don't *know* if these chimera clones would be able to develop-- and I really don't want to find out, do you?

[Eileen R]

This doesn't seem to be *our* Esau. He doesn't post like him, no caps, no big emphasis, or have the same ideas about following Church doctrine

Unless it's Esau on mind-altering drugs, I'd say we'd have either an innocent alternate Esau or an impersonator with a grudge.

[Foxfier]

Eileen-- oh, good, I thought it was just me.... It could be the real one, but he does seem to be a bit odd, no?

[Esquire]

I am reminded of what J. Bottum wrote in The Pig-Man Cometh:

It used to be that even the imagination of this sort of thing existed only to underscore a moral in a story...But we live at a moment in which British newspapers can report on 19 families who have created test-tube babies solely for the purpose of serving as tissue donors for their relatives -- some brought to birth, some merely harvested as embryos and fetuses. A moment in which Harper's Bazaar can advise women to keep their faces unwrinkled by having themselves injected with fat culled from human cadavers...In the midst of all this, the creation of a human-pig arrives like a thing expected. We have reached the logical end, at last. We have become the people that, once upon a time, our ancestors used fairy tales to warn their children against -- and we will reap exactly the consequences those tales foretold. Like the coming true of an old story -- the discovery of the philosopher's stone, the rubbing of a magic lantern -- biotechnology is delivering the most astonishing medical advances anyone has ever imagined. But our sons and daughters will mate with the pig-men, if the pig-men will have them. And our swine-snouted grandchildren -- the fruit not of our loins, but of our arrogance and our bright test tubes -- will use the story of our generation to teach a moral to their frightened litters.

Indeed. (Some things really are that simple.)

[My Cat's Name is Lily]

"I'm fairly sure that everyone here is objecting because this creates a human a) for the purpose of killing them and b) which will be greatly disabled if, somehow, they managed to survive the harvest".

That is certainly my objection.
My understanding--and I don't,admittedly, claim to be the most scientifically literate person on the planet--is, that the idea is to use human beings as the raw material for whatever "scientific advances" that scientists happen to decide to play with.
There are processes all ready in use, which do not involve creating human beings to turn into lab rats. But no, that seems not to be enough for them.
Most of us, upon hearing of "scientific experiments" carried out on Jews in concentration camps are horrified & sickened.
And then, there are others, wholook at one another, scratch their heads, and start planning--as I pointed out earlier--end runs.

[Marcel LeJeune]

Humans made in labs (at whatever percent) are human beings being used as objects. In and of itself this is wrong. Regardless of nuances or scientific mumbo-jumbo.

[Marcel LeJeune]

Looks like the Vatican has weighed in on the issue:
Archbishop of Cardiff Peter Smith also voiced concern.

"The decision as to whether or not our society allows the creation of part-human and part-animal creatures for scientific research is of profound significance," he said.

"The profound ethical question is: Is it right to transgress that species boundary and attempt to mix human and animal natures in however limited a fashion?"

The Vatican also weighed in on the debate, describing it as a "monstrous act directed against human dignity".
From - http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jh-IB0ZVw1WpYcIlbxcj8wYIeZ8A

[mrteachersir]

Hey, at least PETA will protect these humans. They don't care about humans anyway, but with the "animal acids" in these embryos, maybe they (and other animal-first groups) will finally show some sense and call this practice barbaric and inhumane. Which reminds me, why do animal-first groups want us to treat animals "humanely"? Doesn't that require humanness? Or did I just open up a whole new can of worms?

[Kara]

why do animal-first groups want us to treat animals "humanely"? Doesn't that require humanness?

Catholic teaching is that "it's contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly."

[labrialumn]

As far as we know, mitochondrial DNA does not code for building a human, it just provides for replicating mitochondria, which provide energy to the cell. It might also have bovine ribosomes, but I don't know if that would make a difference or not. The difference in the cell membrane might be medically significant, due to selective permeability.

As a result, as far as we presently understand things, the embryo would be a human being, and not part cow.

This sounds more like "Blade Runner" than "The Island of Dr. Moreau."

[Karina Fabian]

What amazes me is that this kind of stuff continues under the guise of "needed stem cells" when other scientists are proving we can do the same work as well or better with existing adult stem cells.

Sadly, the world will continue to pursue chimera technology regardless of the Church's admonitions. Right now, we are at a cellular and potentially embyonic stage--but what happens when actual living, thinking human/animal hybrids are a fact?

It's interesting this comes up just as Infinite Space, Infinite God comes into print. Three of the stories in this anthology of sci-fi about Catholicism deal with chimeras and the genetically altered and how society and the Church will deal with them. This is stuff we're going to have to think about, and not just in the realm of story.

Thanks for bringing this up, Jimmy, and thanks to those who posted links for more info.

Blessings,
Karina Fabian
editor, Infinite Space,Infinite God
www.twilighttimesbooks.com or from amazon or your favorite bookstore
http://isigsf.tripod.com

[Aristotle]

What if it were only 99% human? Then it would be like a monkey.

60%? Then it would be like mold.

Where do we draw the line? What percentage do we mark the cutoff?

[Foxfier]

Aristotle - the idea you're trying to riff on is actually 98.5%, and it's been discredited for a while.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp has a nice write up.
Chimps don't even have the same number of chromosomes.

As for the second one, it sounds like a version of the 75% of nematode worm genetics matches human genetics assertion.

Meanwhile, these fetuses would be genetically identical to the person they are clones of, with the exception of the mitochondrial DNA. Generally, mitochondrial DNA isn't included in a genetic description, since it's believed to be mostly useful for tracing the mother-line.

In addition, please read this article:
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90781/6254490.html
A new analysis suggested that the DNA of any two people is about 99.5 percent to just 99 percent alike, instead of what previous studies have indicated 99.9 percent identical

[Aristotle]

Foxfier, I am referring to active DNA, in which the similarity is 99.6% (confirmed in Wolfgang Enard, Svante Pääbo in the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, September 2004, Vol. 5, Pages 351-378).

If the best resource you can muster is AiG, that's pathetic. No peer-reviewed publications? Just anti-scientific nonsense?

Nonetheless, it is irrelevant. Let's say the difference is 30%. It's not, but let's say it is.

If we can produce 69% humans, would it be alright then to kill them? After all, they would be less human than the chimps.

Where is the cutoff?

[Foxfier]

Aristotle - newer research disproves that assertion.

If the best resource you can muster is AiG, that's pathetic.

If the best defense you can muster is three years old, that is pathetic. I did a quick google to find information that anyone with an eye on the recent news would have a vague memory of-- even NBC did a quick review of that news tidbit.

If you'd bothered to read the comments here, you'd know that our cut off is "don't do it." Don't screw with humans just to see if you can.

Oh, and on the anti-scientific slant-- this isn't a question of science. This is a question of morals.

[Aristotle]

Chickens are related to humans, genetically, at around 60% (depending on how you count).

If the moral is "just don't do it", then we can't kill chickens, because chickens are "60%-humans".

Now, as to the other issue, of bad references, can you come up with a peer-reviewed article that corrects what was stated in Enard and Pääbo (as well as many other places going back, such as Rozas and Rozas (1999) and Nei and Gojobori (1986))? NBC doesn't count.

[Aristotle]

BJ Stevenson, C Iseli, et Al., BMC Genomics, 2007

for a more recent reference to the information.

This was published May 23, 2007, and cites the same figures (confirmed by testing) of the 2004 article (and the earlier articles).

Where is the retraction?

[Foxfier]

Aristotle -- are you being willfully dense? No-one has said "ooh, they look similar to humans. We shouldn't kill them."

The topic is cloning a human using an animal egg. It really shouldn't be to hard to figure out that this is a bad idea. It's not a matter of "how close can we cut it before it becomes bad?" That's kind of like asking how many bones one is allowed to break before you should be charged with attempted murder, rather than assault. It's a bad idea. Just don't do it.

I repeat my request that you read the rest of the posts here.

For that matter, I really don't care what you think counts or doesn't count as a good scientific source. You can't even be bothered to give references on the information you cite-- something even the "unscientific" source manages. Hint: a date and a name isn't a reference. It's customary to actually include a title, and polite in on-line circles to include a link if one exists.

[Aristotle]

But that's what I don't get.

I'm not Christian, so that might be part of the problem.

But that's what I don't get.

Why is it such a bad thing to take cells that die all the time, that have no intrinsic moral value, and use them to make something non-human (which may have intrinsic moral value, but not value equal to that of a human)?

What's so bad about that?

[Aristotle]

Date and name, by the way, are the customary ways to reference properly when writing letters into Physical Review Journal.

If you want more information (including direct quotes, and links), however, I would be happy to supply it.

[Tim J.]

"Why is it such a bad thing to take cells that die all the time... and use them to make something non-human"

From a materialist perspective, that's all any of us are... a bunch of cells that die all the time.

[JoAnna]

From a materialist perspective, that's all any of us are... a bunch of cells that die all the time.

Yes, we're all just ugly bags of mostly water. ;) (Kudos to whoever gets that reference.)

[Mary]

Why is it such a bad thing to take cells that die all the time, that have no intrinsic moral value, and use them to make something non-human (which may have intrinsic moral value, but not value equal to that of a human)?

You are a bunch of cells, of a sort that dies all the time, and what makes you think you have intrinsic moral value?

[Aristotle]

Though it is true that I am a bunch of cells which die all the time, I am also a person (otherwise, one could not refer to a "single" combination, or even to "I", so this has already been admitted).

I will accept, axiomatically, that I have worth. "Why?" is an interesting question, granted. But let's just presuppose I have worth, and that my worth is greater than that of any non-human (groups of cells into a single object that is not defined as an human object).

Questions come to mind: If genetics is the basis by which we measure humanity, how much genetic material needs to be in common with human genetic material for an object to be considered human?

Now, simply stating that something is human does not give it worth. It must be a human person. After all, my skin cells are human, and I do not mourn them when they die.

So, assuming that a zygote is an individual of some species, how do we determine that its species is human? How much of it should be human for it to be considered human?

Otherwise, what other qualities, besides genetics, should be the basis of our judgment?

[Tim J.]

"I will accept, axiomatically, that I have worth. "Why?" is an interesting question, granted. But let's just presuppose I have worth..."

Tsk, tsk... You've skipped the difficult - and only really relevant - part.

Why we have more worth than animals is the entire question. We are different from animals, not quantitatively, but in kind. We are a different TYPE of being, not just a different species.

Thus, what distinguishes us from animals is FAR more than a matter of genetics - of counting DNA markers.

It takes no genius to see the yawning chasm that separates us from the apes, no matter how closely our DNA might resemble theirs. The two are not to be mixed. Period. "Similar" is not "the same".

Thing is, materialistic philosophy can provide no rationale as to why the two should not be combined. Why not? They're just cells of two different species... we blend species all the time.

[Aristotle]

Tim,

I am of the view that there is nothing wrong in blending the cells of two different species.

Why would it be wrong?

What is it that separates us from other species, if it is more than a matter of genetics?

How do we establish that humans have it, and that all non-humans do not have it?

And how should we legislate it?

[Tim J.]

"I am of the view that there is nothing wrong in blending the cells of two different species."

Nothing wrong with it, per se... so long as neither species is human.

"What is it that separates us from other species, if it is more than a matter of genetics?"

Well, animals don't entertain speculative questions about the nature of their existence, for one thing. That *might* be a clue. They don't hold debates on genetic engineering. They don't build even crude Cathedrals.

[Aristotle]

I am fine even if the species is human, so long as a human person isn't being sacrificed for the sake of producing this species (half of what would have been a human person is a different matter, entirely).

My question is purely one of curiosity.

Why does it matter that the cells be human or not?

How human must the cells be before they are human?

Your clues are nice. But what do they break down to, besides mere genetics? What about us makes us human?

[Tim J.]

"I am fine even if the species is human"

Color me unsurprised.

"My question is purely one of curiosity."

I'm sure the little genetic monsters that may emerge at the tail end of all this will be grateful to know that.

"How human must the cells be before they are human?"

Again, it is not a question of quantity, but quality. A being is either human or not.

"What about us makes us human?"

We are rational souls.

[Aristotle]

How much human genetic material does it take, as a ratio, in order to obtain a rational soul?

[Tim J.]

"How much human genetic material does it take, as a ratio, in order to obtain a rational soul?"

You really think there is an answer to that question? How do you suggest we try to find out? How would we know if we HAD found out?

Plus, that's a bit like asking "How many water molecules would it take to make water?". We don't "obtain" rational souls, we ARE rational souls. Your error, from where I sit, is in thinking that human beings are merely the sum of their parts.

There is no "semi-human" state. A being is either human or not. Is there a line, a demarcation somewhere? God forbid that we should even desire to discover such a thing. Mark Shea's "Two Stages of History" apply... First "What could it hurt?" and then "How were we supposed to know?".

[Kara]

You really think there is an answer to that question? How do you suggest we try to find out? How would we know if we HAD found out?

If these creatures were roaming about and you were a hunter, how would you decide which has a rational soul and which doesn't? Could it look like a deer and have a rational soul?

[Tim J.]

"If these creatures were roaming about and you were a hunter, how would you decide which has a rational soul and which doesn't?"

I wouldn't.

"Could it look like a deer and have a rational soul?"

Again, God forbid we should ever desire to find out.

[Kara]

Hunters decide everyday whether something is human or not.

[Tim J.]

Kara, I assumed you were posing a hypothetical question involving genetically modified deer/human hybrids...

Kara - think, now... can't YOU tell humans from animals? Don't you do it every day? Do you really need to see charts and diagrams to make this distinction? Do you need a formula?

[bill912]

I see our gnostic troll is back under another handle. I suggest we starve the troll.

[Kara]

Kara, I assumed you were posing a hypothetical question involving genetically modified deer/human hybrids

Yes, not a problem. Aren't all deer, in terms of evolution, already "genetically modified" and sharing some amount of DNA with humans? Is there a different test to see if they're human if the genetic modification happens in a lab? Maybe you have a copy of the test.

[Esquire]

Hunters, I would wager, have a nearly 100% success rate in determining that their prey is not human.

[Kara]

Hunters, I would wager, have a nearly 100% success rate in determining that their prey is not human.

Judging by external appearance, yes. Is that the criteria?

[Mary]

I will accept, axiomatically, that I have worth.

Then you can accept, axiomatically, that this poor chimeras have worth and work on from there.

[Esquire]

Judging by external appearance, yes. Is that the criteria?

Judging by the same criteria by which I know my pencil is not my sandwich, my dog is not my cat, and my toilet is not my television.

[Kara]

By that criteria, can you tell a bowl of cellular matter from a crowd of people?

[Tim J.]

Kara, can I just go ahead and ask "What's the sound of one hand clapping?" and get it over with?

"By that criteria, can you tell a bowl of cellular matter from a crowd of people?"

Can you? Is this a problem for you? Do you often find yourself, say, mistakenly eating your friends for breakfast? Do you shoot at old ladies and help Whitetail bucks to cross the street?

Do you assume I am communicating with you just by external appearances? Words on a screen?

[JonathanR.]

Yep. Pretty easy really. It is the forced density displayed by such inane inquiries that spawned a need for absurd sensualist philosophies.

[Kara]

Kara, can I just go ahead and ask "What's the sound of one hand clapping?" and get it over with?

How does that help you decide if something with X% human DNA is human?

Do you often find yourself, say, mistakenly eating your friends for breakfast?

They've started putting human genes in food crops. Does that count?

[Foxfier]

JoAnna -- *evil grin* Somehow, I don't think that Mr. R. expected his show to spawn a *defense*.

Bill-- Yeah, that's what I figured, and also why I went to bed once I was satisfied it was the same troll.

Esquire - Would you mind if I use that as a sig?

[ronan]

"Yes, we're all just ugly bags of mostly water. ;) (Kudos to whoever gets that reference.)"

It's from an episode of Startrek: The Next Generation!

[Jarnor23]

Now don't be too hasty, there are remarkable similarities between the contents of the average television and toilet. :)

[Tim J.]

"They've started putting human genes in food crops..."

Examples?

[Kara]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101495.html>USDA Backs Production of Rice With Human Genes
http://www.counterpunch.org/fitz05142005.html>Mommy, Is This a Finger in My Rice Puffs?

[Kara]

USDA Backs Production of Rice With Human Genes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101495.html

Mommy, Is This a Finger in My Rice Puffs?
http://www.counterpunch.org/fitz05142005.html

[Foxfier]

The grain in the linked article has been spliced to produce human proteins.

This is a lot different from cloning a human using an animal egg.

I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but it's not as clearly, horrifically wrong.

Oh, and those aren't food crops. They're for use exclusively as a way to mass-produce treatments.

[Tim J.]

Kara, thanks for the link. I actually took considerable time this afternoon composing a response and - on my honor - lost the whole thing when I errantly struck the wrong key on my laptop.

*Sigh*.

I'll get back to you Sunday, if time permits.

Long and short; appearances are mighty useful in making judgments of all kinds every day. You judge by appearances as much as anyone. The fact that appearances can *sometimes* mislead does not in any way nullify their usefulness the other 99.whatever percent of the time.

More later.

[Kara]

This is a lot different from cloning a human using an animal egg.

I don't see anyone who said it was the same.

Oh, and those aren't food crops. They're for use exclusively as a way to mass-produce treatments.

From the Washington Post article: "The Agriculture Department has given a preliminary green light for the first commercial production of a food crop engineered to contain human genes."

The company growing the rice has itself also described the products to be sold as food.

And regardless of the intent or how its described, history shows such things nonetheless have a way of ending up in the food supply.

appearances are mighty useful in making judgments of all kinds every day

No one said appearance isn't useful. Like I already said, hunters decide everyday whether something is human or not. They don't just stand there and go, "Gee, I dunno."

[Foxfier]

I don't see anyone who said it was the same.

You did ask why no-one was freaking out about it. I told you a reason why I wasn't.

The proteins are to be extracted for use as an anti-diarrhea medicine and might be added to health foods such as yogurt and granola bars.

They're being used to make medications. (Yes, I consider "medical" additives as medicine, even if they're stuffed in odd places.)

The reference to a food crop is because of the fear of accidental cross-pollination-- which is a very good worry, really. Rephrasing, rice is used as food-- even if this exact rice isn't going to be used for food. The class of the plant is "food crop." The only way you might call the *specific* crops in this case "food" is because of the possible plan to use them to create additives.