Interspecies hybrids

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Catholic geezers deny biology - PZ Myers (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/catholic_geezers_deny_biology.php)

While anti-biological legislation as detailed in the above link is based purely on ignorance of what really happens in biological science, the underlying assumption of the proposed bill - that animal-human hybrids are bad - seems to have gone unquestioned.

Even if it we could create a viable hybrid between humans and other animals, why would doing so be bad? Sure, there would be ethical issues, but isn't it more sensible to try and resolve them rather than simple-mindedly attempting to apply the brakes to scientific progress?

[h0m0revolutionary]

I think there is real danger with this bill, and I readily admit that it potentially stems from my former strong pro-life disposition.

but i do think that blurring the bounadires between human and animal DNA has the potential to introduce to humans illnesses that are otherwise confined to cattle. (I say cattle because in most cases it is cattle eggs that are used and human DNA - comprising of at least 99.8% human DNA)

It's also noteworthy that this 0.02% aniaml DNA may well appear small enough to be insignificant, but we share 98% of molecular DNA with animals such as pygmy chimps, such small differences in genetic make-up have allowed us vocabulary, inteliigence above and beyond that of other animals etc. My concern is that although small, animal DNA will produce genetic abnormalities that will be truely horrific. Im thinking along the lines of past mistakes made in the name of scienetific progress such as the phalidomide case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Birth_defects)

Furthermore I don't see why this is being done at all? Perhaps someone could enlighten me, but as someone deeply interested in ethics and science I know that It would be impossible for any therapies to result from hybrid cells as the genetic structure would not resemble human cells. When 'frankenstein' cells are created then, they are soley for research purposes, i'm not sure what exactly constitutes such research? :/

My innate moral opposition aside, I think there are plenty of rational and biological imperitives driving the anti-hybrid campaign and I think the left needs to think this one out rather than viewing oppsoition to embryos as a purely theological phenomina (I am athiest for example) or reactionary one.. :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think there is real danger with this bill, and I readily admit that it potentially stems from my former strong pro-life disposition.

Could you elaborate?


but i do think that blurring the bounadires between human and animal DNA has the potential to introduce to humans illnesses that are otherwise confined to cattle. (I say cattle because in most cases it is cattle eggs that are used and human DNA - comprising of at least 99.8% human DNA)Diseases do not work that way, to my knowledge. Cattle diseases affect cattle, and human diseases affect humans, and certain diseases (such as anthrax) affect both. Any "species jumping" happens as a result of evolution on the part of the infectious organism, rather than genetic changes in the host.


It's also noteworthy that this 0.02% aniaml DNA may well appear small enough to be insignificant, but we share 98% of molecular DNA with animals such as pygmy chimps, such small differences in genetic make-up have allowed us vocabulary, inteliigence above and beyond that of other animals etc. My concern is that although small, animal DNA will produce genetic abnormalities that will be truely horrific. Im thinking along the lines of past mistakes made in the name of scienetific progress such as the phalidomide case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Birth_defects)We won't know that until we try. And when (not if) we try, we will in all likelyhood make many mistakes and produce non-viable zygotes/blastocysts/foetuses. That's nowhere near the same thing as deformities in viable organisms, which are produced when the genes or developing foetus are damaged, not purposefully altered.


Furthermore I don't see why this is being done at all? Perhaps someone could enlighten me, but as someone deeply interested in ethics and science I know that It would be impossible for any therapies to result from hybrid cells as the genetic structure would not resemble human cells. When 'frankenstein' cells are created then, they are soley for research purposes, i'm not sure what exactly constitutes such research? :/Because doing so will tell us more about the commonalities and differences shared by humans and animals at a genetic level, and will do so in a far deeper manner than the oft-quoted "we share 98% of our DNA with chimps" - which parts do we share and which do we not? What is the interplay between the similar and dissimilar parts?

When Ernest Rutherford first split the atom in 1917, he could have hardly expected the torrent of advances in nuclear physics that came soon afterwards.


My innate moral opposition aside, I think there are plenty of rational and biological imperitives driving the anti-hybrid campaign and I think the left needs to think this one out rather than viewing oppsoition to embryos as a purely theological phenomina (I am athiest for example) or reactionary one.. :)Yours are the only "rational" arguments I have come across, and suffice to say I do not find them at all convincing.

Rather, I think the main reason for the opposition to hybridisation is the religious idea that humans are somehow special - after all, nobody objects when fish genes are inserted into those of the tomato.

Yet the idea that we one day could be presented with physical proof, in the form of a living, breathing hybrid, that humans and animals are one and the same is an anathema to the religious. It would provide irrefutable proof that their claims of humans being of divine substance are the lies that they are.

[Hoxhaist]

what is the potential benefit of interspecies hybrid? there is no reason to waste time, effort, and money on just creating sideshow freaks

[Revy]

some info:


The Case of the Humanzee

In his 2006 book NEXT, the late author Michael Crichton tells the story of a scientist who crosses his own genes with a chimpanzee to create a human/ape hybrid: A Humanzee. Is such a thing possible? Has it already been done?

Man has been crossbreeding animals for longer than recorded history. Perhaps his greatest accomplishment is creating more than one-hundred and fifty breeds of dogs. In physical appearance dog breeds vary greatly from the tiny Chihuahua to the immense St. Bernard. Despite their differing sizes and shapes, however, all dogs are only one species: Canis lupus, the grey wolf. Over the centuries man has manipulated dogs by mating them in such a way as to give them shapes, sizes and temperaments that were useful, or at least pleasing to people.

Hybrid Species

While dog breeding takes place inside a single species, it is also possible to cross two closely related animals from different species. The resulting creature is known as a hybrid. Perhaps the most familiar of these animals is the mule. The mule is the result of crossing a male donkey with a female horse. This combination gives the hyrid some of the best characteristics of both parents: A mule is more patient than a horse, stronger than a donkey and more intelligent than either species.

Mules, like all hybrids between species, are almost always infertile and cannot produce offspring. Donkeys have 62 chromosomes (the structures that carry the animal's DNA), while horses have 64. This mismatch causes the infertility. Because most mules cannot birth offspring, the mule population must be maintained by constantly breeding donkeys and horses together.

Other hybrids between species exist, many created through the intervention of man. The liger is the hybrid of a male lion and a female tiger. (Breeding a male tiger with a female lion produces a tigon - the convention is to use the father's species name at the beginning of the hybrid name and the mother's at the end).
http://www.unmuseum.org/liger.gif

Ligers are a hybrid between a male lion and a female tiger. They have tiger stripes with a lion's tan fur.(Wikipedia Commons)

Since lions and tigers mostly exist on two different continents, these hybrids did not appear until man brought the animals together at zoos, animal parks or circuses. The resulting liger is much larger than either of the parent species and is considered the largest cat in the world. The combination of the two species chromosomes short-circuits the animal's natural mechanisms that limit size. Some examples of these animals weigh more than a thousand pounds and are over ten feet in length.

If equines and the great cats can be crossbred over different species, how about man? Is it possible to create a human hybrid with some other species?

Humanzee

In order to create a hybrid between two species, the species must be closely related as are horses to donkeys or lions to tigers. The closest living animal to Homo sapiens is Pan troglodytes, the common chimpanzee. According to recent studies, 99.4% of the functional parts of human and chimpanzee DNA is exactly the same. This is so close that some scientists are suggesting that the common chimpanzee and another close relative, the bonobo, should be reclassified to be in the genus Homo along with humans, not Pongidae, with the rest of the great apes.

While humans and chimps have very close DNA sequences, the DNA is arranged differently with humans having 46 chromosomes and chimps having 48. This is not necessarily a block to creating a hybrid, however. Horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys 62 but can be crossed to create a mule. In fact, it is possible to cross a horse with a zebra where the gap is even larger.

Scientists have also found evidence in our DNA that human ancestors and chimp ancestors interbred as recently as 1.2 million years ago. It may be possible that humans are actually the descendants of a hybrid of a chimp ancestor that crossed with another human line that has since died out.

The idea that it might be possible to create a human/chimp hybrid - a humanzee or a chuman - raises many legal and ethical issues. Chimps are animals that can be owned as property. Humans, in most modern countries that have outlawed slavery, cannot be owned. Into what category would a humanzee fall? If we choose to recognize a humanzee as having the same rights as a human, would that change the status of chimps? Even if the legal status of a humanzee could be ironed out, most people accord a special status to human beings and might find the existence of such a creature unnatural and repellant.
http://www.unmuseum.org/ivanov.jpg

Controvercial biologist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov tried to create a Humanzee in 1927.

Ivanov's Experiments

Despite these quandaries, at least one scientist has tried to create such a creature. The controversial Russian biologist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov was an early 20th century researcher that specialized in creating and studying hybrid creatures. Ivanov perfected the technique of using artificial insemination to create these hybrids and was well known at the beginning the century for his work in breeding horses.

In 1910 he presented a paper to the World Congress of Zoologists in which he suggested the possibility of creating a human-ape hybrid through artificial insemination. Fourteen years later while working at Pasteur Institute in Paris, he got his chance. He obtained permission from the Institute's directors to use its primate research station in Kindia, French Guinea, as the laboratory for his experiments and got $10,000 from the Russian Academy of Sciences to pay for them. In March of 1926 Ivanov arrived at the station only to find it had no sexually-mature chimpanzees to work with. So in November 1926, he traveled to the botanical gardens in Conakry, French Guinea, and set up shop there. Several adult chimpanzees from the interior of the country were brought to Conakry and Ivanov artificially inseminated three female chimpanzees with human sperm. None became pregnant.

Ivanov was also interested in trying to impregnate human females with chimp sperm, but officials in New Guinea balked at this idea. When he returned to Russian in 1927 he designed an experiment to try and impregnate 5 female volunteers, but was hampered by the lack of a male chimp to provide the sperm. In 1930 Ivanov fell out of favor with the government, was arrested and spent the rest of his life in exile in Kazakhstan where he died in 1932 without doing any additional ape/human hybrid studies.

Ivanov's work is the only acknowledged attempt to create a Humanzee, but rumors of other experiments persist. There are stories that an attempt was made in the 1920's at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Orange Park, Florida. University of Albany psychologist Gordon Gallup relates a story that as a young graduate student he had talked to a member of the research team who had been at Yerkes. The elderly scientist told Gallup that the experiment had resulted in a live birth, but the research team had decided to destroy the creature after only a few days. Another story from the 1960's has a female chimp at a laboratory in China being successfully impregnated with human sperm, but dying before giving birth.

The Case of Oliver
http://www.unmuseum.org/humanzeeoliver.jpg

Oliver shows his strange upright stance at a news event in the 1970s.

Perhaps the most well-known humanzee rumor is the case of "Oliver." In 1960 Oliver was one of several chimps imported from Africa to the United States for trainers Frank and Janet Berger. From early on the Bergers recognized that Oliver was different from other chimps they had trained. He had a flatter face and always walked in an upright position on two legs with his knees locked. The Bergers began to wonder if Oliver was some kind of human-chimp hybrid. Oliver didn't get along with other chimps and as he reached sexual maturity he showed a marked disregard for female chimps and an interest in human females.

In the late seventies the Los Angeles Times did an article about Oliver suggesting he was a "missing link" or a new sub-species of chimp. This eventually led to Oliver taking a trip to Japan at the behest of Japanese TV and being genetically tested by scientists there. If Oliver was a true human/chimp hybrid he should have had 47 chromosomes, halfway between the 46 possessed by humans and the 48 characteristic of chimps. Most of Oliver's samples showed 48 chromosomes. What's more, the chromosomes showed "banding" typical of chimps. A few of the samples showed 47 chromosomes, but this was attributed to testing error.

Oliver passed through a series of owners and was eventually bought in 1989 by The Buckshire Corporation, a Pennsylvania laboratory that leased animals for scientific testing. Oliver was never used for testing and was retired to an animal sanctuary called Primarily Primates in 1998. The director, interested in Oliver's genetic history, arranged for more testing which confirmed the earlier Japanese results: Oliver, despite his strange appearance and behavior, was 100 percent chimpanzee.

Creating a Chimera

Given the ease of doing the experiment, it is likely that creating a chimp/human hybrid has been tried unofficially in at least a few laboratories over the past century. Yet, no humanzee report has ever been confirmed. This might suggest that despite the similarity of our DNA to chimps, it is just not compatible enough to naturally produce a hybrid.

As scientists better understand how DNA works, the reason for this seems to be slowly emerging. There appears to be at least nine pericentric inversions in chimp chromosomes compared to our own. An inversion is when a section of the chromosome gets reversed end to end. If the inversion doesn't involve the center of the chromosome where the arms are joined it is called a paracentric inversion and seems to have little medical effect on the individual involved. A pericentic inversion, however, does involve the section where the arms of the chromosome are joined and can cause medical problems. It also makes it less likely that the individual can produce a viable offspring when they mate with someone who does not have the inversion. The fact that nine of these inversions separate humans from chimps virtually eliminates the possibility of a viable offspring, especially given the few times such an attempt has probably been made. Scientists are now investigating pericentric inversions as one mechanism that might enforce the separation of species during the course of evolution.

By better understanding why a natural humanzee birth is so unlikely, however, we also probably know how it could be achieved. If the chromosome inversions in a chimpanzee ovum could be reversed to match those in a human, a viable fetus might be created.
http://www.unmuseum.org/sheepgoat.jpg

A Sheep/Goat chimera. The term chimera comes from Greek mythology and was a monster composed of parts of multiple animals.(Wikipedia Commons)

Currently cutting and splicing DNA is at the edge of our technical abilities. As we get better at this, however, chromosome alteration will become commonplace and widespread. Even now scientists are inserting genes and cells into animals to create what are called chimeras - a mixture of two or more species in one body. These are used mostly to conduct medical research. Scientists think that the more human-like an animal is, the better research model it becomes for testing drugs or growing "spare parts," such as livers, that could be transplanted into humans. For example, scientists have already created pigs that can produce human blood.

While most of this work only creates animals that are a tiny percent human, the same techniques could be used to make a full chimp/human hybrid. Will someone in some far-flung laboratory attempt this experiment in the near future?

Perhaps a better question is, should someone attempt this experiment?

[Hoxhaist]

no one needs to try the experiment, just because we can do a thing it does not meant that we MUST do that thing. there is no benefit to creating freakshows

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

what is the potential benefit of interspecies hybrid?

You might as well have asked Rutherford in 1916 what the potential benefit of bombarding nitrogen with alpha particles was. The point is that you don't know until you try.


there is no reason to waste time, effort, and money on just creating sideshow freaksAu contraire, creating hybrids will teach us much about transgenic methods, telling us what works and what doesn't in the context of complex organisms. It will also teach us much about ourselves as humans by providing borderline cases.


no one needs to try the experiment, just because we can do a thing it does not meant that we MUST do that thing.And just because something upsets people doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. The Copernican model of the Solar System upset the Church, but greatly advanced our understanding of the cosmos. Likewise, Darwin's theory of evolution represented a superlative leap in our understanding of life on Earth, and Christians still bitterly fight it to this very day.


there is no benefit to creating freakshowsMaybe it would be an opportunity to teach people like you to be more tolerant and less judgemental.

[Hoxhaist]

Rutherford had a hypothesis on subatomic particles. I want to have at least some idea of the benefits to humans besides creating a subhuman underclass that can exploited for free labor like an ox-human or a chimp-human would be

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Rutherford had a hypothesis on subatomic particles.

And transgenic techniques are in regular use in bioresearch labs around the world, providing plenty of material to gather a hypothesis from. Not to mention that it will allow us to test hypotheses within the framework of evolution and genetics.


I want to have at least some idea of the benefits to humans besides creating a subhuman underclass that can exploited for free labor like an ox-human or a chimp-human would beWhat's wrong with that? we already use animal labour, with some pretty smart animals to boot, such as cats, dogs, dolphins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dolphin), horses, falcons, pigs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_hog), and so on and so forth. There's nothing stopping us from amending and/or expanding animal welfare laws to cover hybrids if they're sub-sapient (or even creating a whole new set of laws for the purpose if necessary), or granting them rights and responsibilities if they're fully sapient.

Besides, it would help to free up humans from jobs that they find distasteful, boring or unsuitable - a baseline human makes an inferior scout to a hybrid with eyes like that of an eagle, for example.

[Yazman]

I keep hearing people mention "ethical problems" with this. Even Noxion has mentioned it.

What ethical problems are there?

[Sean]

I keep hearing people mention "ethical problems" with this. Even Noxion has mentioned it.

What ethical problems are there?
You've obviously never seen planet of the apes.;) My issue is with putting stuff thats manmade out into the wild, which, no matter how hard you try, itll end up there is human error, not moral opposition. I'm not talking about zombie chickens firing guns at us or pigs that swear in Italian, I mean things that we have not been weathered against through the process evolution. You could create one hybrid that would ruin the human race simply through lack of foresight. A super successful crop of less nutritional value, for example.
However, if we put the transhuman fetishists or the religious to one side, certain cures for ailments may be worth the risk. But it IS a risk. Life might seen perfectly understandable in a lab, but it always finds a way. It has poured into every crevass on this planet and I don't think a clean room is complete protection.

[Communist Theory]

Hay everybody lets make some ape soldiers! -Stalin

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You've obviously never seen planet of the apes.;) My issue is with putting stuff thats manmade out into the wild, which, no matter how hard you try, itll end up there is human error, not moral opposition. I'm not talking about zombie chickens firing guns at us or pigs that swear in Italian, I mean things that we have not been weathered against through the process evolution. You could create one hybrid that would ruin the human race simply through lack of foresight. A super successful crop of less nutritional value, for example.

That already happens with traditional selective breeding (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=937), yet mutant seaweed has yet to choke the entire world's oceans. In the case of crops, anything that a human can eat, lots of other species can eat as well. Not only that, but the rogue crops would be facing competition from other plants in their respective natural environments. For example, a rampant strain of wheat would pose no threat to forests, since any that germinate on the forest floor would quickly sicken and die from lack of light as well as face competition from the undergrowth.

Plants and life in general have been on this planet for hundreds of millions of years, surviving flood, fire, and ice. I see no reason why they would suddenly be uprooted by a genetically modified upstart.


However, if we put the transhuman fetishists or the religious to one side, certain cures for ailments may be worth the risk. But it IS a risk. Life might seen perfectly understandable in a lab, but it always finds a way. It has poured into every crevass on this planet and I don't think a clean room is complete protection.I think the risk is worth it. While human-directed genetic alteration has the potential to be powerful to the point of being detrimental to life on this planet, said life has also had a multi-billion year head-start on human geneticists.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I think the risk is worth it. While human-directed genetic alteration has the potential to be powerful to the point of being detrimental to life on this planet, said life has also had a multi-billion year head-start on human geneticists.


This is off on a tangent slightly, but it is fact, that whilst stem cell research has secured massive medical advancements, for example stem cells from umbilical cord and placental blood have been used successfully to treat leukaemia and anaemia patients.. this is only the case for adult and umbilical stem cells.

Embryonic stem cell research has thus far achieved nothing. For all the hype, embryonic stem cell research has proven completely ineffectual, expensive and only in embryonic stem cells has it been found that unregulated growth can cause tumours. I worry that with limitied funding, science would be better progressed by spending its resources on proven methods of reserarch instead of branching out into fields unknown, especially when all early indications are that embryonic research not only carries ethical considerations (involving the destruction of a human embryo) but doesn't appear to provide any advancement in the treatment of illnesses - unlike it's adult and umbilical stem cell counterparts.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Embryonic stem cell research has thus far achieved nothing.

Even if that's true, which I very much doubt it is, it means nothing scientifically speaking. Science never gives immediately practical results, this is something that pen-pushers and bean-counters never seem to realise.


For all the hype, embryonic stem cell research has proven completely ineffectual, expensive and only in embryonic stem cells has it been found that unregulated growth can cause tumours.Something which they are doubtless working on.


I worry that with limitied funding, science would be better progressed by spending its resources on proven methods of reserarch instead of branching out into fields unknown, especially when all early indications are that embryonic research not only carries ethical considerations (involving the destruction of a human embryo) but doesn't appear to provide any advancement in the treatment of illnesses - unlike it's adult and umbilical stem cell counterparts.1) What ethical considerations? A human embryo is not the same thing as a human being. This is that "humans are special" thing I was getting at earlier. Why is it OK to conduct experiments on mice but not on human embryos, which are similarly developed?

2) Adult and umbilical stem cell research may be providing more immediate results for the time being, but that does not mean it will remain the case.

With regards to "branching out into fields unknown" that is one of the ways in which science advances.

[h0m0revolutionary]

1) What ethical considerations? A human embryo is not the same thing as a human being. This is that "humans are special" thing I was getting at earlier. Why is it OK to conduct experiments on mice but not on human embryos, which are similarly developed?


I somewhat agree with your basic sentiment so I wont detract this argument into one of pro and anti stem cell research. I remain of the opinion that the destructuon of a human embryo for medical research is something I have concern about. That dosn't mean I oppose it, i respect what I has the potential to bring to humanity. But right now, and please go look into the matter if you don't believe me, embryonic stem cell research hasn't provided cures for any illnesses, this is in spite of hype claming that cures for illnesses such as Parkinsons, Alzheimer's etc could potentially be discovered via embryonic research.

I'll readily admit that im stuck here between my own morality and my wish to see human advancement, i tihnk progress in this area, at present, would be best secured by investing in proven methods of research that have actually provided results.

As for the ethnical considerations, well the destruction of the human embryo isn't just an isolated occurance, along with that comes what they label 'therapeutic cloning' (to avoid the problem of rejection due to tissue incompatibility).

As for the last point, I am also against animal research :).
I believe in human creativity and scienetific progress but i'd much rather we pursued methods that didn't involve harm to animals nor the desruction of human embryos and I don't believe it's outside the realm of possibility, that cloning, human-animal hybrids and/or testing upon human tissue will bear worrying results.

I understand this position is reactive, but I dont hold that it is reactionary. I think it quite legitimate to have reservations about delving into research that bring into question the concept of 'human' and/or involves cloning.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I somewhat agree with your basic sentiment so I wont detract this argument into one of pro and anti stem cell research. I remain of the opinion that the destructuon of a human embryo for medical research is something I have concern about. That dosn't mean I oppose it, i respect what I has the potential to bring to humanity. But right now, and please go look into the matter if you don't believe me, embryonic stem cell research hasn't provided cures for any illnesses, this is in spite of hype claming that cures for illnesses such as Parkinsons, Alzheimer's etc could potentially be discovered via embryonic research.

Like I said, just because research in this area hasn't yet produced results doesn't mean it won't in the future.


I'll readily admit that im stuck here between my own morality and my wish to see human advancement, i tihnk progress in this area, at present, would be best secured by investing in proven methods of research that have actually provided results.What if it turns out there are no more gains to be had than what we've already got from umbilical and adult stem cells? What if advances in umbilical and adult stem cell research produce results pertinent to embryonic stem cell research?

I think it is scientifically irresponsible to close off our options simply in the name of short-term gains and shaky morals.


As for the ethnical considerations, well the destruction of the human embryo isn't just an isolated occurance, along with that comes what they label 'therapeutic cloning' (to avoid the problem of rejection due to tissue incompatibility).It doesn't matter if embryo destruction is an isolated occurance or not, the destruction of embryos is not morally valent.


As for the last point, I am also against animal research :).Animal research is one of biological science's most powerful tools. I fully support it.


I believe in human creativity and scienetific progress but i'd much rather we pursued methods that didn't involve harm to animals nor the desruction of human embryos and I don't believe it's outside the realm of possibility, that cloning, human-animal hybrids and/or testing upon human tissue will bear worrying results.Such as?


I understand this position is reactive, but I dont hold that it is reactionary. I think it quite legitimate to have reservations about delving into research that bring into question the concept of 'human' and/or involves cloning.Again, that begs the question - several actually - what is so "special" about being human? Why shouldn't we question and explore what it means to be "human"? Why shouldn't we clone animals - we do it with plants all the time (guess what a cutting is!)? Why shouldn't humans have the option of cloning themselves?

[Yazman]

I believe in human creativity and scienetific progress but i'd much rather we pursued methods that didn't involve harm to animals nor the desruction of human embryos and I don't believe it's outside the realm of possibility, that cloning, human-animal hybrids and/or testing upon human tissue will bear worrying results.

Worrying results? lol.

The destruction of human embryos? Dude its just an embryo. It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't DO anything. Dung beetles are more active mentally and physically than an embryo. I don't see why we should give a shit about what happens to an embryo.

[Yazman]

I believe in human creativity and scienetific progress but i'd much rather we pursued methods that didn't involve harm to animals nor the desruction of human embryos and I don't believe it's outside the realm of possibility, that cloning, human-animal hybrids and/or testing upon human tissue will bear worrying results.

Worrying results? lol.

The destruction of human embryos? Dude its just an embryo. It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't DO anything. Dung beetles are more active mentally and physically than an embryo. I don't see why we should give a shit about what happens to an embryo.

[Bitter Ashes]

what is the potential benefit of interspecies hybrid? there is no reason to waste time, effort, and money on just creating sideshow freaks
It gives them a supply of petri-dishes to play with.
There's very strict controls on how human life is used, but if you can claim that they're not human biengs, then can be free to do anything with them. Whether that bieng scientific experiments, or even progressing it to the point where you've got a little race of people that look a bit different to you, but are otherwise human, that you can use as a slave labour force with absolutly no rights.
Human workers are difficult to control because they can do all sorts of things to make a mess of bourgeois plans such as forming unions, demanding trial by thier peers, human rights and even outright rebellion and revolution. This circles around all that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Whether that bieng scientific experiments, or even progressing it to the point where you've got a little race of people that look a bit different to you, but are otherwise human, that you can use as a slave labour force with absolutly no rights.
Human workers are difficult to control because they can do all sorts of things to make a mess of bourgeois plans such as forming unions, demanding trial by thier peers, human rights and even outright rebellion and revolution. This circles around all that.

If the only difference between humans and hybrids is that they look a little funny, then what's to stop them following in the humans' footsteps?

Not to mention that not all humans will agree with their enslavement, just as not all free people agreed with slavery back in the day.

[Bitter Ashes]

If the only difference between humans and hybrids is that they look a little funny, then what's to stop them following in the humans' footsteps?

Not to mention that not all humans will agree with their enslavement, just as not all free people agreed with slavery back in the day.
Aye. I imagine that there would be a William Wilberforce type character for the hybrids at some point. Still took long enough though

[Yazman]

I think you guys are forgetting two major problems with the idea of "they will take over."

-They would be extremely limited in numbers - there's no need to produce thousands, millions, or more for the purpose of simple study.

-Interspecies hybrids are nearly always sterile and thus would be unable to replenish their numbers without us continually producing more (which is unlikely in and of itself).

[Revy]

I DOUBT very much that hybrids would be used for labor. Robots are already being developed for that.

If hybrids are created, they are created as "experiments" (I am myself an animal rights activist, so I don't approve much of animal testing), but do not go much further than that.

What's the question is, is it wrong to create them in the first place? And if they are created and do not seem to experience a great deal of pain or suffering from their situation, should they be allowed to have a full life? In the alleged human-chimpanzee birth in Florida, it was reported that they destroyed the "creature".

I second the idea that just because it can be done doesn't mean that it should.