20 replies to this topic

[walpurg]

In January, an informal ethics committee at Stanford University endorsed a proposal to create mice with brains nearly completely made of human brain cells. Stem cell scientist Irving Weissman said his experiment could provide unparalleled insight into how the human brain develops and how degenerative brain diseases like Parkinson’s progress.

Stanford law professor Hank Greely, who chaired the ethics committee, said the board was satisfied that the size and shape of the mouse brain would prevent the human cells from creating any traits of humanity. Just in case, Greely said, the committee recommended closely monitoring the mice’s behavior and immediately killing any that display human-like behavior.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7681252/

[JMorgan]

The committee recommended closely monitoring the mice’s behavior and immediately killing any that display human-like behavior.

This seems the most unethical of all. If we discover something this profound, why kill it? Shouldn't the link be studied so we could learn all we can about it?

One aspect of this I haven't seen discussed is what we could learn about the ANIMALS. Making a mouse smarter would help us understand how they interact with each other. I'd love to give a dolphin the ability to speak so we can finally understand what they're thinking.

[John Schloendorn]

he has no immediate plans to make mostly human mouse brains, but wanted to get ethical clearance in any case.

disappointing.

If we discover something this profound, why kill it? Shouldn't the link be studied so we could learn all we can about it?

If such a creature were to develop behaviors and communication skills that reflect human-like sentience (it won't [wis]), I would rather make her or his remaining life as comfortable as possible, in an environment that allows suicide if she/he wishes to and if she/he seems to suffer ban further experimentation.
What if she/he asked me to make some mates to play with?

[walpurg]

Aside from the ethics of animal experimentation and stem cell research, is it not strange that the committee decided to immediately kill any mice that display human-like behaviour? First of all, it seems very unlikely to me that any mice would do this, but then I realised - do what?

How did the ethics committee decide what human-like behaviour is exactly? I assume they are not including animal behaviour that humans do (eating, sleeping, running, twitching our noses), or including normal mouse behaviour that can be seen as human (standing on hind legs, solving puzzles, grooming and parental relationships, eating human food, setting traps for cats)?

If these behaviours don't count (and I hope not because the experiment will be wasted), then what exactly is the "human-like" behaviour the committee is so afraid of? And why kill these chimerical creatures with such qualities? Does the committee fear that the animal will be tortured by its existence (a human mind trapped in a mouses body seems a naive fear)? Or is the committee afraid that they and the rest of humanity will be affronted by an animal "uplifted" to our level of consciousness?

This decision seems bizarre to me.

[wraith]

How did the ethics committee decide what human-like behaviour is exactly? I assume they are not including animal behaviour that humans do (eating, sleeping, running, twitching our noses), or including normal mouse behaviour that can be seen as human (standing on hind legs, solving puzzles, grooming and parental relationships, eating human food, setting traps for cats)?

That was my question, too.

And there's this: would the researchers even notice that their animals were behaving differently, anyway?

I was talking to a scientist once about his research. He had created a knockout mouse; he was studying one aspect of the gene but then went to a conference and spoke with another researcher who was studying the same gene in humans. Turns out, a defective version of the gene is responsible for a particular form of blindness in humans. So the researcher asked me, 'well , we examined our mouse and found - what do you suppose? ' He must have thought me terribly stupid, because I just stared at him. So he answered his own question, 'They were blind!'. Well, yeah, duh... The question in my mind was (I didn't ask him since it would have seemed rude; not that that usually stops me), 'you spent all this time and money to create a strain of knockout mouse and you never even noticed they were blind? My tax dollars at work!!!' I thought then, don't they have standard protocols for testing the phenotypes of all new mouse strains? Someone should write some up. As it turns out, there IS a phenotype assessment protocol, the SHIRPA protocol, already well-established before this guy had even started his research. If the guy hadn't had that conversation with that other researcher, how long would it have taken him to figure this thing out, I wonder?

The most sensitive, delicate, important piece of lab equipment is the experimental animal. Yet the way researchers/lab workers treat them... ugh. I'm not even talking about ethical handling and such (that's a whole 'nother can of worms), just the science part. The stuff made out of metal, plastic, and circuits is maintained, calibrated, endlessly fussed over, - but not the critters.

[John Schloendorn]

Few scientists can stand the pure evil that they become during animal experimentation. The idea has that it may be sentient creatures that suffer has to be suppressed to maintain a positive self-image, that's why they are often handled with unnecessary disrespect, imo.

If the guy hadn't had that conversation with that other researcher, how long would it have taken him to figure this thing out, I wonder?

It sounds to me like he created his mice long after the human disease was described and blindness was the first thing he suspected and checked, could that be?

This decision seems bizarre to me.

Hey, it's from an "ethics committee"! So what did you expect? Something reasonable?!

[123456]

Creepy, very creepy. [sick]

[vortexentity]

This reasearch concerns me in so many ways. I am not certain at this point just what is the best course of action to take on this. This is certainly wrong from many different ethical points of view.

I think in another time the very large angry group with the pitchforks and tar and feathers would be showing up at the lab about now.

We are much more evolved now. They will likely receive complimentary IEDs in the near future instead. This is a bridge too far I think.

[:o]

[John Schloendorn]

Vortex and 123456, can you elaborate on the reasons for your reservations? If your disagreement is more emotional than rational, could you still try to convey some sense of it with words?

[123456]

I believe it is not right to do this sorth of stuff. Why? because it may run the risk of creating a human type personality, mental capacity etc. (As a result of the Human DNA constructing the Brain Structure) or at least partially human type personality etcetera which may cause suffering to the organism. Furthermore, I am against Human DNA mixing with Non Human organisms, to me, that is highly repugnant. Now John Schloendorn, tell us why this is ethical?

[John Schloendorn]

1 (suffering): I agree. If I saw that risk, then (as I already said), I would be against it.
2 (repugnance): That's where I was asking for more info. I honestly don't feel that repugnance at all, so how would you communicate it to me from scratch?

Now John Schloendorn, tell us why this is ethical

Well, I cannot see any overriding good that would come from this research, so I do not postulate a moral imperative to do it. But I also do not expect such a creature to develop any sentience that goes beyond murine (I expect that these embryos will not develop very far). Thus, I see no reason to ban this research and restrict the freedom of the researcher to pursue his creativity in his own way. In my opinion, doing so would be a very strong and authoritative move, that cannot be justified by what I know as the personal feeling of "repugnance".

Specifically, I see no stronger reason to ban this research than to ban any medical animal experimentation. But such research should not be banned because some of it yielded and plausibly will continue to yield huge relief for suffering humans. Then a logical step would be to ban only the type of animal research that cannot be expected to yield huge medical benefits. But we're talking about huge unknowns here. Who should draw the line and how? I opt to trust the decision of the one who should be the most informed: The individual researcher who plans to do the respective work.

[wraith]

Few scientists can stand the pure evil that they become during animal experimentation. The idea has that it may be sentient creatures that suffer has to be suppressed to maintain a positive self-image, that's why they are often handled with unnecessary disrespect, imo.

a plausible explanation

It sounds to me like he created his mice long after the human disease was described and blindness was the first thing he suspected and checked, could that be?

Nope. After learning the gene he was studying was involved in human blindness (I think it was a particular form of retinitis pigmentosum), he then checked his mice. I did mention something about, well, didn't you notice the mice were blind before? and he explained that with routine handling, no. And to be fair, I think mice rely a great deal on the sense of smell and their whiskers. On the other hand - my tax dollars at work! again - the phenotype of all new strains should be thoroughly checked using a standard protocol. The results should also be entered into a freely accessible database (and I think there is one for knockout mice).


~~~
As for mixing human and animal DNA...

What about inserting specific genes into dairy cows so that human proteins can be produced in milk ('pharming')?

How 'bout the insertion of human genes into bacteria for the same purpose?

[123456]

John Schloendorn Said;

"2 (repugnance): That's where I was asking for more info. I honestly don't feel that repugnance at all, so how would you communicate it to me from scratch?"

It depends on the individual, if you do not feel sickened by it nor believe in it, how can I make you?; I cannot. [tung]

[John Schloendorn]

I'm pretty confident you can't make me too, but maybe you can try to help me undestand you, and especially others who feel alike? I haven't ran into an imminst member who feels like this before, but I know the phrase mainly from hard core bioconservatives, so I thought you might understand enough of both sides to mediate.

[vortexentity]

Science meddling and mixing human and animal DNA just to see what they can do with no moral compass to guide them is likened to some bad teenage kid burning the hair off of his sisters cat just because he wanted to see what the cat would do.

If anyone can not see how this would be repugnant and morally bankrupt then they likely share in having a lack of even a basicly functioning moral compass. It is not about emotion. The reaction is one of humane moral reasoning. A native inborn trait and basic functioning of the species Homosapien.

People who lack this basic trait are likely another species entirely. They are likely from another phylum at least. Perhaps from the species

Homovitiosus

or perhaps

Homoscientiavitiosus [glasses]

We should name this species and give it further study.
Maybe even a preserve where they can be observed more closely but their creations can not harm the rest of the world. [thumb]

Edited by vortexentity, 11 May 2005 - 03:47 AM.

[John Schloendorn]

Hmm Vortex, not sure if you fully understand the impact of mixing animal and human DNA in our society... As Wraith pointed out, this is routinely being done in a vast number of medical, industrial and research applications already. If you count bacteria as "animals" then it's safe to say that there would be no molecular medicine or molecular biology at all without it. We would not have much of a clue what DNA is in the first place.
But if we want to explore this further, we should better move to a new thread, since this one was originally not about mixing DNA, but rather about mixing cells, with each of them retaining their respective original DNA.

And Wraith, heh ok then that is funny ;-) If you meet him again, he might in the end deserve that tax-dollar question!

Edited by John Schloendorn, 11 May 2005 - 08:22 AM.

[wraith]

Yup. The gene in question is Mer; I was hestitant to give many details because I didn't want it getting back to him, but the chances of that are slim, right?

[vortexentity]

I guess I should have been more specific. I think that higher mammals and human DNA should not be mixed in order to grow human brains in animals. Using bacteria as nanofactories using specific DNA to produce hormones and the like is perfectly reasonable.

[DJS]

VE

I guess I should have been more specific. I think that higher mammals and human DNA should not be mixed in order to grow human brains in animals. Using bacteria as nanofactories using specific DNA to produce hormones and the like is perfectly reasonable.

A) How do you make a distinction between "higher mammals" and bacteria? What is your defining criteria?

B) Excluding the creation of an actual human consciousnes (which is Impossible when considering the experimental techniques being discussed here) what, specifically, is your ethical objection to mixing human biological components with "higher mammal" biological components? [Note: Specifics please. No, illogical yuck reactions or amateurish attempts at impugning your perceived opposition's moral integrity.]

[vortexentity]

A) How do you make a distinction between "higher mammals" and bacteria? What is your defining criteria?

The distinction is quite apparent in logic and of course is not required as any fool can see the difference between a horse, or pig, and a bacteria. An animal who is brainless by natures design who is given a part of human NDA can not effect the growth of the brain of a human within the amimal.

This can not be said of the horse or the pig. When given the better part of human DNA which would allow it to grow within it a human brain it just well might, and then be a chimera with the potential of aquire certain rights of a human as the human wit is what provides a person with his rights under the law. If the chimera is possessed with speech his case must by heard and his rights established or denied by the law.

It would be foolish in the extreme to gamble with the potential of creating such an intelligent chimera that it might then seek protection under the law for its survival. No longer would it be a lab experiment to be terminated at the conclusion of the experiment. It would in effect become something which the scientist would not dare to ever face. If by some chance it could argue for its life would it not sway the heart not hardened against its existance?

Such a potential outcome should not ever come to pass on this Earth.

[Note: Specifics please. No, illogical yuck reactions or amateurish attempts at impugning your perceived opposition's moral integrity.]

My statements were made in general tense and not directed at anyone here as is clear in their form.

I spoke of a cruel child's dark spirited attentions on a poor cat as a comparison to the poor moral judgement among scientist and experimenters which is clear to see for anyone who but reads the journals of science. I will not give this thread more of my valuable time.