NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, not quite. And possibly not at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6230945.stm

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) is considering two research applications to use hybrid human-animal embryos as part of stem cell research. There's more info on how the embryos are created here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6233415.stm).

The government, in a white paper (first formal step towards legislation being passed), wants to prohibit the creation of these hybrid embryos.

I listened to a short debate about this on Radio 4 this morning, and I have to say the woman representing the oppostion to this (Joesphine Quintavalle, quoted in the story) came across as a knee-jerk reactionist, saying that it was 'repulsive' and was 'tampering with nature'.

Dr Harris (also quoted in the story), who was arguing for it, made some very good points - for example, that we should not necessarily allow our instincts to be yardsticks for whether or not a new scientific practice should be accepted or rejected. He gave the example that, objectively, removing an organ from a dead body and placing it into a living person is also quite repulsive, as is injecting live viruses into people, yet both of these are extremely common medical practices.

So, opinions? Is it 'tampering with nature'? Is it repulsive? And, these things aside, do you support the creation of hybrid embryos for stem cell research?

Oh, and one of the doctors quoted in the story is Dr Minger. :p

I also listened to that woman, but on Radio 5. I love the way that these self proclaimed protectors of our morality try and correct the science of noted neuro-scientists.
She came across very badly

And yet, the common layman is more likely to listen to the raving reactionaries as opposed to sensible science. :s

She seemed to be OK with having a valve from a pig used in heart surgery but was worried that 0.01% microcondial DNA may make us into giant mutant rabbits

She seemed to be OK with having a valve from a pig used in heart surgery but was worried that 0.01% microcondial DNA may make us into giant mutant rabbits
And she sounds even stupider when you read that

People think we are generating some sort of hybrid animal. This is just cells, just for science. No animal is ever going to be created.

(from the second link).

I love the enthusiastic amateurs they enlist to make these debates. There was another one on this morning about the economics behind shutting the Burberry plant in Wales and they had Max Boyce on to rubbish the figures.

I was half expecting to start his speach with a good old 'ogi ogi ogi'

unatural? i guess
Repulsive? a bit
Do I support it? yes.

She seemed to be OK with having a valve from a pig used in heart surgery but was worried that 0.01% microcondial DNA may make us into giant mutant rabbits

That would kick ass.

Anyway, it is inevitable that we will soon progress to the posthuman phase. It's nearly here now. Trying to stop it is just pissing into the wind.

One half of me wants to breed the perfect Master Race but the other says it'll take the fun out of being human.

If anyone is brave enough to lead a revolt against perverse science i'll follow them...

Mixing people and animals? Doesnt work according to genetics, i mean i dont wanna be born with a claw coming out of my chest. But alas, a pair of wings might be nice.:rolleyes:

Slartiblartfast...you were studying under Mike Robey weren't you?

Slartiblartfast...you were studying under Mike Robey weren't you?

I could answer that one if I knew who he was:cool:

I always thoughs some primates shared as much as 90% of their genes with us.

Well, I guess I was wrong. :rolleyes:

Trust me, there must be people who believe the world will explode if you tamper with "mother nature".

I for one await the propogation of Crab People.

I for one await the propogation of Crab People.
No!
That will just make people with Crabs feel better about their condition.
Dirty people, dirty dirty people.

And here I thought this was a shout-out to we unfortunates. Fine then, i'm going back into my cave.

I always thoughs some primates shared as much as 90% of their genes with us.

Well, I guess I was wrong. :rolleyes:

Trust me, there must be people who believe the world will explode if you tamper with "mother nature".

Actually, we share up to 97ish% of our DNA with certain primates.

We all really are monkies at heart.

Actually, we share up to 97ish% of our DNA with certain primates.

We all really are monkies at heart.I thought it was more like 99% with humans and bonobos. Anybody want to look that up? I've been up all night and am feeling way too lazy.

I can see her point. (Not supporting that woman tho.)

But government proposes prohibiting them from making human-animal hybrids or so-called "chimeras" - where genetic material is taken from humans and put into a host animal egg. now alot isn't mentioned...
1) What animal will they be using... a primate? Rabbit? Cat?
2) at what point will the embryo be removed and how?
2a) will such a practice fall under Cruelty to animals?
2b) what effect will there be on the animal to have this done and done repeatedly?

animal egg, thus the animal's DNA will be included in the embryo
1) will this taint the stem cells by introducing unknown variants into the DNA?
2) because they are introducing animal DNA via the animal egg, what effects will there be down the road... furries?

Let me be the first one to say...

CATGIRLS!!! :D

Let me be the first one to say...

CATGIRLS!!! :D
Meeeeeeooowwww! :p

Well, not quite. And possibly not at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6230945.stm

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) is considering two research applications to use hybrid human-animal embryos as part of stem cell research. There's more info on how the embryos are created here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6233415.stm).

The government, in a white paper (first formal step towards legislation being passed), wants to prohibit the creation of these hybrid embryos.

I listened to a short debate about this on Radio 4 this morning, and I have to say the woman representing the oppostion to this (Joesphine Quintavalle, quoted in the story) came across as a knee-jerk reactionist, saying that it was 'repulsive' and was 'tampering with nature'.

Dr Harris (also quoted in the story), who was arguing for it, made some very good points - for example, that we should not necessarily allow our instincts to be yardsticks for whether or not a new scientific practice should be accepted or rejected. He gave the example that, objectively, removing an organ from a dead body and placing it into a living person is also quite repulsive, as is injecting live viruses into people, yet both of these are extremely common medical practices.

So, opinions? Is it 'tampering with nature'? Is it repulsive? And, these things aside, do you support the creation of hybrid embryos for stem cell research?

Oh, and one of the doctors quoted in the story is Dr Minger. :p

The entire science of medicine is all about tampering with nature.

Meeeeeeooowwww! :p

Darkstalkers char... Felicia... Her clothes are her FUR... *Drools*

:D

I love science.

Let me be the first one to say...

CATGIRLS!!! :D

Oh hell yes!
Please tell me they're going to be classed as sub-human and therefore sold as pets! I would so buy one!!!!:p

chimpanzees share nearly 99% of their dna with humans

chimpanzees share nearly 99% of their dna with humans

And THAT is why chimpanzee scientists learned the hard way not to play God! Humans came about and took over the advanced chimpanzee civilization!

MUST WE LEARN THE LESSON THE HARD WAY TOO??? WITH CATGIRLS DOMINATING US AND... Wait... Catgirls dominating... Leather... And... And there's... whips... And... SOMEONE, PLAY GOD SOME MORE!!!

:D

And THAT is why chimpanzee scientists learned the hard way not to play God! Humans came about and took over the advanced chimpanzee civilization!

MUST WE LEARN THE LESSON THE HARD WAY TOO??? WITH CATGIRLS DOMINATING US AND... Wait... Catgirl... Leather... And... And there's... whips... And... SOMEONE, PLAY GOD SOME MORE!!!

:D

:rolleyes: great you jinxed it... now we will have Hippo-Girls or worse, Praying Mantis-girls dominating us...

I can see her point. (Not supporting that woman tho.)

now alot isn't mentioned...
1) What animal will they be using... a primate? Rabbit? Cat?

Does it matter? They will most likely achieve better results with a more closely related animal, because of the mitochondrial DNA. But, then again, they've managed to do this with animals as distantly related as bovines and mice and the use of primates would be horribly expensive.

2) at what point will the embryo be removed and how?

Embryo removed? Do you mean at what point will the cells be removed? If this is, as it sounds, meant to be embryonic stem cell research, the cells will be removed at the blastocyst stage - less than two weeks into development and before the embryo would, if placed in a uterus, be able to implant. The researchers made it pretty clear that they weren't intending to actually grow any fully formed humans this way.

2a) will such a practice fall under Cruelty to animals?

Why would it?

2b) what effect will there be on the animal to have this done and done repeatedly?

The same effect it would have if we were using animal DNA, rather than human DNA (a process which is not under attack). The animal from which the eggs will be obtained will either have to undergo hormone treatments similar to those used when women donate eggs, or the animal will be sacrificed and its eggs harvested.

animal egg, thus the animal's DNA will be included in the embryo

Incorrect. In this process, the animal's DNA would be removed from the egg and replaced with human DNA before division is induced. The only original DNA that would be left behind is mitochondrial DNA. Actually, in most of the attempts at this type of research that have been successful, and entire somatic cell was transferred, rather than only the DNA. Over time, the original mitochondria were pretty much completely replaced with those from "cloned" animal.

1) will this taint the stem cells by introducing unknown variants into the DNA?

The differences in mitochondrial DNA might alter the oxidative stress response of the cells. In some disease processes, that could be very important, while it would be less important in others. This is why the method in which an entire somatic cell is used would probably be more useful. At that point, even the mitochondrial DNA would, for the most part, be human.

2) because they are introducing animal DNA via the animal egg, what effects will there be down the road... furries?

From mitochondrial DNA? Hardly, espeically when you consider that there is no intent to use this for reproductive cloning. The intent is simply to overcome the shortage of donor eggs in order to study development and the genetic components of many disease processes.

:rolleyes: great you jinxed it... now we will have Hippo-Girls or worse, Praying Mantis-girls dominating us...

Awww, man... Sowwie. :(

She seemed to be OK with having a valve from a pig used in heart surgery but was worried that 0.01% microcondial DNA may make us into giant mutant rabbits

And Bloody Roar was bad enough as a game...

<snip>
More power to the researchers, say I.

I guess it is tampering with nature, but so is using pesticides in agriculture and selective breeding. I've always been a strong supporter of genetic biotechnology just because of how exciting is. It'll change our world in a way that supercedes any kind of change the microchip ever brought with it.

Wolf-boys... *drool*

This won't even result in a viable embryo. Stupid woman. She should attack the experiments that could result in viable embryos, like the time that scientists decided to see if they could cross a human and a gibbon successfully*. It'd still be stupid, but she could use arguments that have to do with the situation.


*Yes, up to a few hundred cellular divisions or so. I can't recall at what point it was destroyed.

Indeed. 'Ewww' is not a valid argument. No, not even 'errrgh'

I could answer that one if I knew who he was:cool:

A lecturer who always used your namesake in his worksheets for undergrad students.