Animal-human hybrid

One more example: scientists have made transgenic pigs carrying five human genes. The idea is to create animals that can be a source for xenografts — transplanted organs — in humans with a reduced level of rejection. These pigs would become illegal under the Brownback bill, because they mingle a blessedly human H-transferase gene with pig cells.

Then he asks:

I'd like Brownback to answer a simple question. Does putting the human insulin or growth factor gene into E. coli violate the dignity of the human person?  If it does, he's suggesting shutting down a good chunk of the pharmaceutical industry.

Let us actually look at the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2009 and see what it actually says.  This bill defines an animal-human hybrid as:

(1) HUMAN-ANIMAL HYBRID- The term ‘human-animal hybrid’ means--

‘(A) a human embryo into which a non-human cell or cells (or the component parts thereof) have been introduced to render the embryo’s membership in the species Homo sapiens uncertain;

‘(B) a hybrid human/animal embryo produced by fertilizing a human egg with non-human sperm;

‘(C) a hybrid human/animal embryo produced by fertilizing a non-human egg with human sperm;

‘(D) an embryo produced by introducing a non-human nucleus into a human egg;

‘(E) an embryo produced by introducing a human nucleus into a non-human egg;

‘(F) an embryo containing at least haploid sets of chromosomes from both a human and a non-human life form;

‘(G) a non-human life form engineered such that human gametes develop within the body of a non-human life form; or

‘(H) a non-human life form engineered such that it contains a human brain or a brain derived wholly or predominantly from human neural tissues.

‘(2) HUMAN EMBRYO- The term ‘human embryo’ means an organism of the species Homo sapiens during the earliest stages of development, from 1 cell up to 8 weeks.

Read this headline and study the picture and tell me that the world has not gone totally mad:

It Is Easier to Clone a Human Than to Blend One With an Animal

I have just posted a picture of a human-bovine embryo. You have just seen one. Let that marinate.

I am back.  I apologize to my readers for such a long absence.  The Taylor clan is considering a big move to another state to be near family and the weighing the pros and cons has been time consuming.  Thank-you to Monica for bringing me back.

Well, IVF has made a lot of children since Louise Brown in the 1970s.  Figuratively, IVF has also had some of her own children.  Embryo-destructive research and human cloning are two.  We are now becoming aquainted with another, the chimera.  What is a chimera?  It is an organism that is a mix of two species.  A chimeric embryo would be one that let us say part mouse and part human or part monkey and part human.

Now, it is important here to distingush between a chimeric embryo and a chimeric adult.  Placing animal DNA into a human embryo is entirely different from growing a human liver in a pig for transplantation into a human patient.  It is different because adding animal DNA to a human embryo at the embryo stage fundamentally changes the entire organism, not just one organ. 

The British Parliament is considering allowing the creation of such chimeric embryos as long as they are destroyed after two weeks.  From the Telegraph:

Under draft Government legislation to be debated by Parliament later this year, scientists will be given permission for the first time to create such embryos for research as long as they destroy them within two weeks.

The wide-ranging draft Human Tissue and Embryo Bill, which aims to overhaul the laws on fertility treatment, will include sections on test tube babies, embryo research and abortion. Ministers say that the creation of animal-human embryos - created by injecting animal cells or DNA into human embryos or human cells into animal eggs - will be heavily regulated.

They insist that it will be against the law to implant “chimeras” - named after the mythical creature that was half man and half animal - into a woman’s womb.

If you accept the creation of a human chimeric embryo for research purposes, then seems reasonable that the law mandate that they be destroyed.

Now, here is where things get interesting and we Catholics may need to reevaluate what we think we know.  In response to the possiblility of the creation and destruction of human chimeric embryos in the UK, Britian's Catholic Bishops have said that if they are created, chimeric embryos should be allowed to live.

How outrageous does that sound?  Allowing a human-monkey to be implanted and born to a human or monkey mother?  Have they lost their minds?  No, I do not think they have.

The Bishops are very clear.  Human chimeric embryos should not be made in the first place, but if they are they should be allowed to live:

The bishops, who believe that life begins at conception, said that they opposed the creation of any embryo solely for research, but they were also anxious to limit the destruction of such life once it had been brought into existence.

In their submission to the committee, they said: “At the very least, embryos with a preponderance of human genes should be assumed to be embryonic human beings, and should be treated accordingly.

“In particular, it should not be a crime to transfer them, or other human embryos, to the body of the woman providing the ovum, in cases where a human ovum has been used to create them.

“Such a woman is the genetic mother, or partial mother, of the embryo; should she have a change of heart and wish to carry her child to term, she should not be prevented from doing so.”

I know what you are thinking...your gut is telling you this is wrong, all wrong.  But, it is analogous to the reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning lesser of two evils scenario.  We are told that therapeutic cloning, the creation and destruction of acloned human embryo for research is a lesser evil than creating a cloned human embryo that is implanted and becomes a cloned infant.  But that is not true.  All human cloning is evil, but reproductive cloning is the lesser of the two evils because it does not mandate that a human life be destroyed for research.

Will we ever see a human-monkey born to a human woman?  Probably not.  The image is grossly disturbing.  But I think that is the point.  If everyone could really understand and see the horrors of abortion with their own eyes do you think it would be legal?  By bringing the possibility of the implantation of a chimeric embryo out from behind the laboratory doors the Catholic bishops have made us face the reality of what is actually going on:  Scientists want to create all kinds of inter-species embryos in the name of research without any of the consequences, devaluing human life even more in the process. 

The Bishops at first glance may seem like the crazy ones, but really they are a voice of sanity.

From Engalnd's Guardian:

Ban on human-animal embryos is unacceptable, MPs say

· Government plan is threat to UK science, says report
· Ministers accused of using flawed consultation

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Thursday April 5, 2007
The Guardian

Government plans to outlaw the creation of embryos which are part-human, part-animal are "unacceptable" and threaten to undermine Britain's leading position in stem cell science, MPs will say today.

A report by the Commons science committee calls on ministers to scrap the proposed ban and accuses the government of basing its opposition to the research on a "deeply flawed" consultation.

The committee's demands - which follow a letter to the prime minister signed by 223 medical charities and patients' groups supporting the research - leave the government increasingly isolated in its intention to prohibit the experiments.

Many scientists believe the research will pave the way for new treatments of diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and cystic fibrosis. They want to create animal-human embryos to understand the molecular minutiae behind such conditions. The researchers would pluck a cell from a patient and insert it into a hollowed cow or rabbit egg and stimulate it with a jolt of electricity. The two cells then fuse to make an embryo which is 99.9% human and 0.1% animal.

Stop and read that headline again, and again if need be.  Has the world gone crazy?  Even 10 years ago the above headline would have been unthinkable, absolutely unthinkable. 

But the slippery slope keeps getting steaper and more slippery.  So now instead if the headline reading that it is unacceptable to make animal-human embryos for research, some are saying that it is unacceptable NOT TO.

Is there any question where this is heading?  Once we get comfortable destroying existing human life for parts, we can start creating human life for the same purpose and now we will genetically engineer that human life anyway we see fit. 

But, it is all for curing disease so it is okay, RIGHT?  WRONG!  Creating an animal-human embryo to be used as a research subject cheapens the value of all human life.  I will quote some very forward thinking men who see the writing on the wall:

"People who oppose embryonic stem-cell research want a cure as much as you want a cure, but they do not believe that you can pick healthy fruit from a poisoned tree."  -- Rabbi Gellman

"Though curing disease is a noble cause, it can never take precedence over who the cause is attempting to cure. The end-game is not to merely cure diseases, but to improve human life. We cannot improve our lives if in the prevention of disease we have destroyed human dignity."  --Ric Olsen, Lead Pastor The Beacon

Update: Threat to science?  How about a threat to humanity?

Scientists in the UK are upset the government wants to prevent them from using cow or rabbits eggs instead of human ones in their cloning experiments.  After all human eggs are expensive and hard to get and a hydrid embryo would only be .1% animal.  From Scotsman.com:

VITAL research into devastating diseases could be put in jeopardy because of government opposition to plans to create part animal-part human embryos, it was claimed yesterday.

A white paper published at the end of last year voiced doubts about research involving chimera embryos - which would be 99.9 per cent human and only 0.1 per cent rabbit or cow.

But scientists hoping to use the technology to create treatments for serious illnesses such as Alzheimer's and motor neurone disease say they must be allowed to continue their work.

Professor Ian Wilmut, from Edinburgh University, leader of the team that created Dolly the sheep, was preparing his application for chimera research when the government said such work should be outlawed - at least initially. Yesterday, he joined scientists from London and Newcastle, who have submitted proposals for similar work, to call for a rethink by the government and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which issues licences for such studies.

Cures at any cost is the mantra these days.  Scientists "must be allowed to continue their work" or people will die.

What else can I say?  Although, one commenter on this article I thought was right on.  I'll let RF say what I couldn't:

So, when a group of mad scientists are peeved that they still have not convinced either the government or joe public that they are up to any good with their crack-pot experminents, what do they do? They complain about negitive press and respond with a load of extreme hype. Part-humans are needed to save the lives of millions? My a***! This news article only goes to prove that these guys are scarily desperate.

Hat Tip: Life Ethics

As I have written many times before some cloning researchers want to get around the human egg problem by creating embryos with SCNT using cow or rabbit eggs instead of human ones.  Animal eggs are cheaper, more abundant and don't have the whole "exploitation of women thing" attached.  Scientists in Britain have applied for permission to do just that. 

As creepy as that is, Pharyngula has a better idea.  PZ Myers, the blogger behind Pharyngula, wants to go even further.  He wants to see someone implant a human/cow embryo into a cow's uterus.  He thinks it would be great:

Don't terminate the experiment after a few days when you've got healthy, growing blastocysts. Slip the best looking ones back into the cow. Work out methods for gestating them in a non-human mammal.

I want to be there nine months later when the vet reaches into the cow's vagina and pulls out a slick, slimy, healthy human infant.

I want to see the Pope's head explode when he sees it. I want David Cronenberg there with a camera, cackling happily....

I want 100 million women to sit up and say, "What? I could outsource the nausea and bloating and pain and stretch marks and episiotomy to a cow? Sign me up!"...

I want gay men to rejoice, and become the primary market for this procedure....

When all this comes to pass, then I'll be content. We'll be ready to have a real discussion about the biotechnology. It will be fun and exciting.

Of course PZ is being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but just a bit.  What is apparent in his entry and in the comments is a complete abhorance for anyone that might want to stop and ask if this research is ethical.

See for PZ, and many scientist like him, the only time a "real discussion about biotechnology" can happen is after the fact.  It has to be accomplished first before we can discuss whether or not we should.  A bit "bass ackwards" no?

From the Guardian:

British scientists are seeking approval to create embryos by fusing human cells with animal eggs in controversial research which will boost stem cell science and tackle some of the most debilitating and untreatable neurological diseases.

Three teams in London, Edinburgh and Newcastle are to submit simultaneous applications to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority this month, requesting licences to create early-stage "chimeric" embryos that will be 99.9% human and 0.1% rabbit or cow. The HFEA has sought legal advice and encouraged the applications.

The licences will allow scientists to remove the nuclei from animal eggs and replace them with human cells, leading to embryos containing the complete set of human genes, plus dozens of animal genes that sit inside tiny energy-making structures called mitochondria.

99.9% human and 0.1% rabbit or cow huh?  I mean, what is .1% animal DNA among friends?  But wait, don't humans only differ from chimps by 1%?

Well, I suppose anything for research these days.  Seriously, what are ethics good for anyway, other than getting in the way of biotech progress?

Law-makers in Australia are considering allowing cloning for research purposes.  A new bill has been proposed that would allow for the cloning of embryos with human or animal eggs, but punish the implantation of those embryos in either humans or animals.  This is a great graphic from the Herald Sun that breaks it down for you:

Yes, you read that correctly.  Not only would it allow for cloning human DNA into animal eggs, but it would also allow for creating embryos with the genetic material of more than two people.  Only for research purposes you understand.  (Atleast the Australian media is giving Australians the truth instead of some bull about how cloning isn't really cloning and somatic cell nuclear transfer doesn't create embryos just "balls of cells".)

Even though some scientists have come out against creating animal-human hybrids, Senator Kay Patterson is still backing the legislation saying:

"It's not easy, but this is to enable Australia . . . to stay at the forefront of medical research."

Yes of course Senator Patterson, anything to stay at the forefront of medical research. Everybody knows that is more important than anything else, including ethics.

I am sorry that I have been scarce this week but an Internet goblin has prevented me from getting on the web. I am currently borrowing a computer to get this entry up.

Lifesite has a story on the reality of animal-human hybrids. The Scots have called for a ban on certain types of animal human-hybrids:

UK scientists are calling for a ban on some forms of experimentation, including the creation of animal-human hybrid “chimeras”.

The Scottish Council on Human Bioethics called for a ban on the grisly “science” in a report released Tuesday. According to the scotsman.com, council director Dr. Calum MacKellar said that “Most people are not aware that these kinds of experiments have been taking place in the UK and find it deeply offensive.”

“The fertilisation of animal eggs with human sperm should not continue to be legal in the UK for research purposes,” he added. “Parliament should follow France and Germany and prohibit the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos.”

Note that I say certain kinds of animal-human hybrids because not all are bad. Not all bad you say? How is that? Well, here is a great quote from Benjamin Carson, director of pediatric neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institution and member of the President’s Council on Bioethics:

I think it’s very important as a Council that we make sure that we distinguish between using human or animal parts across species, such as insulin, heart valves, things of that nature, and mixing the genetic material that has proliferative capacity . . . there’s a huge difference between those two things.

He is right. Using a pig heart valve is not the same as creating a pig with huge amounts of human DNA or a human with any amount of pig DNA. Those genetic changes are the kinds of changes that are proliferative, or in others words, passed on. So creating and animal-human hybrid embryo by fertilizing a pig egg with human sperm would be a big no-no.

So could there possibly be anyone who would be for such an experiment. Apparently there is, but only because it would put Christians and other religious in our place. David P. Barash, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington, advocated creating chimpanzee-human hybrids in an Op-Ed piece in the L.A. Times. According to Lifesite:

The psychology professor looks forward to the day when IVF facilities will create human/animal hybrids. He reveals, however, that his motivation is not a pure interest in advancing science, but his hatred for “know-nothing anti-evolutionism,” and “religious fundamentalists,” who hold human life to be sacred.

Barash says he advocates interbreeding humans with animals not because it would be a good idea in itself, but because it would offend believers. “In these dark days of know-nothing anti-evolutionism,” he writes, “with religious fundamentalists occupying the White House, controlling Congress and attempting to distort the teaching of science in our schools, a powerful dose of biological reality would be healthy indeed.”

“Should geneticists and developmental biologists succeed once again in joining human and nonhuman animals in a viable organism,” Barash writes, “it would be difficult and perhaps impossible for the special pleaders to maintain the fallacy that Homo sapiens is uniquely disconnected from the rest of life.”

Is there any doubt that the push for this kind of experimentation, and its first cousin embryo-destructive research, is about anything more than shoving the atheist "Homo sapien-hating" agenda down everyone else's throats? I am with Wesley J. Smith. This isn't about stem cells or cures. It is really a struggle about ethics and morality (dare I add: between those that have them and those that don't!)

This is a great article on the issue surrounding the animal-human hybrid or  chimera.  Pres. Bush's statement calling for a ban on the creation of chimeras has stirred a debate.  Unfortunately, this issue is not clear cut.  Here is why:

Backers of this brand of biotechnology say chimeras -- named for the mythical Greek monster with a lion's head, goat's body and serpent's tail -are used routinely by researchers who bear no resemblance to the mad scientist in the H.G. Wells classic "The Island of Dr. Moreau."

A typical chimera might be a mouse endowed with a few human brain cells to make it a better subject for experimentation on treatments for diseases like Parkinson's or Alzheimer's.

Another example is the addition of human cells into sheep and pigs in hopes they could be used one day as sources for organs transplanted into humans. Technically speaking, thousands of chimeras are walking around unnoticed: people whose faulty heart valves have been replaced by ones harvested from pigs or cows.

So chimeras have great promise to help cure disease, but:

...critics say the creation of man-beasts raises profound ethical issues and is the latest example of scientists running amok, trying to play God.

And believe you me, if left to their own devices, scientists will take the creation of chimeras as far as it will go.  Example:

At Stanford University, professor Irving Weissman has created a mouse with a 1 percent human brain and hopes someday to develop one whose brain is 100 percent human. Studying such a mouse could lead to a better understanding of how human brains develop and are affected by disease.

We need to address this issue instead of ignoring it until its too late. Some people say that scientists know what they are doing, just leave them alone and they will make the right desicions  I love this quote from Nigel Cameron on just letting scientists decide good policy:

"If people say `Trust the scientists,' what if we were talking about war and they were saying `Trust the generals'? Scientists defining science policy is terrifying."

So, where am I on this issue?  I definitely think a total ban on any animal-human hybrid is a mistake, but I also think strict guidelines need to be adopted to prevent The Island of Dr. Moreau.  Adding a few human genes or cells to an animal for research is one thing.  Adding animal cells or DNA to a human embryo is another.  I am with David Prentice:

David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences at the conservative Family Research Council, said banning human/animal hybrids should not apply to laboratory animals invested with a few human cells. But he said his group would object to tampering with human embryos by adding animal genes.

"The only reason to do that would seem to be to try and make that embryo less than human and make it available for research. It's science run amok. It's not a necessary direction that we want or need to go in," Prentice said.

"There should be a line fairly sharply drawn about how human you should make animals before you really start to think that the chimp is going to start talking with you," Prentice said. "We don't want to go to the Island of Dr. Moreau.

This story from Monsters and Critics is supposed to be funny, but I find it frustrating and sad.  It seems that this statement from Bush's State of the Union, has sparked a "craze":

"Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos."

It is an excellent statement that caught many Americans unaware because most Americans (Catholics included) are grossly ill-informed on what is going on in research labs all over the world.  I have written before on the use of animal eggs for human cloning and the creation of cow-human hybrids.  Apparently, some (dare I say ignorant) people think it is something to make light of:

The statement has provoked ridicule on the internet and on the popular television news spoof 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' - testimony to how closely the American public follows the annual speech.

Technorati.com, a website that measures Internet traffic, listed 'human-animal hybrid' as its second most popular search term. On the day after the speech, more people searched for the phrase than in the previous year combined, according to the site.

Only hours after Bush concluded his remarks, an online apparel store had already designed a T-shirt showing a monkey wearing a tie.

'Help President Bush raise awareness about these terrible half- man/half beast creatures by wearing this T-shirt and exposing the horrible truth about human-animal hybrids,' the come-on pitch says.

I am speechless.

As I have said before, because of the expense and the shortage of human eggs for cloning, researchers will push for the use of egg from animals like cows or rabbits.  Here is an article from the BBC that proposes using rabbbit eggs for cloning instead of human eggs.  Read this:

A Chinese team has already claimed to have created human embryonic stem cells using rabbit eggs which had had their genetic material removed.

UK experts said the option had to be considered because there were too few human eggs for research.

Comment on Reproductive Ethics impresses once again:

But Josephine Quintavalle, of the campaign group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: "The question is 'what would be created?'

"I think it is right to feel uncomfortable about creating some type of hybrid.

"And I have suspicions of how useful it would really be for research."

The governing UK body, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, looked into using rabbit eggs for cloning and concluded:

the resulting embryo would be almost indistinguishable from a human embryo.

Well, that is reassuring....