Half man, half chimp - should we beware the apeman's coming?

[Unicorn]

A LEADING scientist has warned a new species of "humanzee," created from breeding apes with humans, could become a reality unless the government acts to stop scientists experimenting.
In an interview with The Scotsman, Dr Calum MacKellar, director of research at the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, warned the controversial draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill did not prevent human sperm being inseminated into animals.

He said if a female chimpanzee was inseminated with human sperm the two species would be closely enough related that a hybrid could be born.

He said scientists could possibly try to develop the new species to fill the demand for organ donors.

Leading scientists say there is no reason why the two species could not breed, although they question why anyone would want to try such a technique.

Other hybrid species already created include crossed tigers and lions and sheep and goats.

Dr MacKellar said he feared the consequences if scientists made a concerted effort to cross humans with chimpanzees. He said: "Nobody knows what they would get if they tried hard enough. The insemination of animals with human sperm should be prohibited.

"The Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill prohibits the placement of animal sperm into a woman The reverse is not prohibited. It's not even mentioned. This should not be the case."

He said if the process was not banned, scientists would be "very likely" to try it, and it would be likely humans and chimps could successfully reproduce.

"If you put human sperm into a frog it would probably create an embryo, but it probably wouldn't go very far," he said.

"But if you do it with a non-human primate it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it could be born alive."

Dr MacKellar said the resulting creature could raise ethical dilemmas, such as whether it would be treated as human or animal, and what rights it would have.

"If it was never able to be self-aware or self-conscious it would probably be considered an animal," he said. "However, if there was a possibility of humanzees developing a conscience, you have a far more difficult dilemma on your hands."

He said fascination would be enough of a motive for scientists to try crossing the two species.

But he also said there was a small chance of scientists using the method to "humanise" organs for transplant into humans. "There's a desperate need for organs. One of the solutions that has been looked at is using animal organs, but because there's a very serious risk of rejection using animal organs in humans they are already trying to humanise these organs.

"If they could create these humanzees who are substantially human but are not considered as humans in law , we could have a large provision of organs."

He wrote to the Department of Health to ask that the gap in the draft legislation be addressed.

The department confirmed that the bill "does not cover the artificial insemination of an animal with human sperm".

It said: "Owing to the significant differences between human and animal genomes, they are incompatible and the development of a foetus or progeny is impossible.

"Therefore such activity would have no rational scientific justification, as there would be no measurable outcome."

Dr MacKellar disagrees. He said: "The chromosomal difference between a goat and a sheep is greater than between humans and chimpanzees."

Professor Bob Millar, director of the Medical Research Council Human Reproductive Sciences Unit, based in Edinburgh, agreed viable offspring would be possible. He said: "Donkeys can mate with horses and create infertile offspring; maybe that could happen with chimpanzees."

But he said he would oppose any such attempt. "It's unnecessary and ridiculous and no serious scientist would consider such a thing. Ethically, it's not appropriate.

"It's also completely impractical. Chimps would never be a source of organs for humans because of the viruses they carry and the low numbers."

Professor Hugh McLachlan, professor of applied philosophy at Glasgow Caledonian University's School of Law and Applied Sciences, said although the idea was "troublesome", he could see no ethical objections to the creation of humanzees.

"Any species came to be what it is now because of all sorts of interaction in the past," he said.

"If it turns out in the future there was fertilisation between a human animal and a non-human animal, it's an idea that is troublesome, but in terms of what particular ethical principle is breached it's not clear to me.

"I share their squeamishness and unease, but I'm not sure that unease can be expressed in terms of an ethical principle."

A Department of Health spokeswoman said: "It's just not a problem. If you inseminate an animal with human sperm, scientifically nothing happens. The species barriers are too great."

HYBRIDS ARE AT CROSS PURPOSES

EVEN though hybrids of humans and animals have never been created, many other creatures have been crossed successfully.

Lions and tigers have been bred to create ligers, the world's largest cats.

And there are also zorses (zebra and horse), wholphins (whale and dolphin), tigons (tiger and lion), lepjags (leopard and jaguar) and zonkeys (zebra and donkey).

As well as these hybrid mammals, there are also hybrid birds, fish, insects and plants.

Many hybrids, such as mules, are sterile, which prevents the movement of genes from one species to another, keeping both species distinct. However, some can reproduce and there are scientists who believe that grey wolves and coyotes mated thousands of years ago to create a new species, the red wolf.

More commonly, hybrids mate with one of their parent species, which can influence the genetic mix of what gets passed along to subsequent generations.

Hybrids can have desirable traits, often being fitter or larger than either parent.

Most hybrid animals have been bred in captivity, but there are examples of the process occurring in the wild.

This is far more common in plants than animals but in April 2006 a hunter in Canada's North-west Territories shot a polar bear whose fur had an orange tint.

Research showed that it had a grizzly bear father, and it became known as a pizzly.

In 2003, DNA analysis confirmed that five odd-looking felines found in Maine and Minnesota were bobcat-lynx hybrids, dubbed blynxes.

[Dimentio]

Link?

I felt inclined to move this to Chit-Chat and reply with a picture of "W", but I give it as shot.

[Unicorn]

Link?
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Exclusive-Should-we-beware-the.4028970.jp

[Chom]

I'd say that's silly. Apes (or chimps) will not evolve at such a rate as humans did. They do talk about chimps starting to use instruments to gather food and other needs for survival (like using a stick to check out how deep the water is in a lake) and that their intelligence when it comes to memory tests and exercises are far more capable of evolution that the actual human intelligence was or is. This is silly; when it comes to the intruments, behavioral psychologist Thorndike and Skinner have proved the effects of conditioning and latter psychologists have argued that this is not a matter of evolution, but just pure conditioning and a matter of adapting animals to differents contexts. And about the intelligence issue: if you give a chimp a cookie (or whatever) for each excercise well done, it will, in the end, become better at this since it will get a compensation that it enjoys, and will want to get more.

I prefer to believe in the theory of extinctions (don't know if it's called like this, wiki it) that postulates that there have been huge extinctions throughout history, wiping out 99.99% of life, and that evolution of surviving life is free up to a certain point and it won't move on until the next extinction.

Something like that...

Apes and chimps cannot be compared and therefore are not capable of giving birth with a human to a hybrid.

[piet11111]

this essentially comes down to the "playing god" argument.

but i have not read the entire article so i might be wrong.

[Chom]

this essentially comes down to the "playing god" argument.

True.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

PLANET OF THE APES!
But seriously, I don't want an apeman walking around.

[TC]

Seems silly to claim it raises 'new ethical issues' since chimps are already way closer to the lockean definition of personhood than say, infants, severely mentally compromised humans and those in a vegetative state.

[Bluetongue]

Apes and chimps cannot be compared and therefore are not capable of giving birth with a human to a hybrid.

uh, what? Chimps are inferior therefore they can't hybridize with humans? I assure, the amoebas living in your intestine have been evolving just as long as you have, and they are just as well adapted to their surrounding as you are.


if you give a chimp a cookie (or whatever) for each excercise well done, it will, in the end, become better at this since it will get a compensation that it enjoys, and will want to get more.

Newsflash: this works just as well on people. It's how you were potty trained, as a matter fact. That was the whole point of Skinner.

Actually, scientifically speaking, a human-chimp hybrid would probably work. Chimps have an extra chromosome, but the two they have are almost identical to the one that humans have in the same "position" - that is to say, they have two halves where we have one whole. There are cellular mechanisms that take care of that kind of thing, and similar crosses with other species have worked. If it wouldn't work just with in vitro fertilization, we certainly have the biotechnology to make it happen.

Politically speaking, it would give the fundies an apoplexy, which would be amusing, but then they'd shut down biotech research, which would suck.

[Devrim]

I'd say that's silly. Apes (or chimps) will not evolve at such a rate as humans did.


Since the human-chimp split about 6 million years ago, chimpanzee genes can be said to have evolved more than human genes, a new study suggests.
The results, detailed online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org/), contradict the conventional wisdom that humans are the result of a high degree of genetic selection, evidenced by our relatively large brains, cognitive abilities and bi-pedalism.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266809,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution

Devrim

[thejambo1]

surely this has already happened, witness the bnp in britain and many others!! total apemen!!!:)

[Kami]

Surely I'm not alone in actually finding the possibility of a human/other ape hybrid absolutely fascinating?
Also, is it just me, or reading this, is no actual argument against the idea put up in this article be boiled down to "we don't know what would happen, it'd create moral dilemmas"?

[Unicorn]

Surely I'm not alone in actually finding the possibility of a human/other ape hybrid absolutely fascinating?
Also, is it just me, or reading this, is no actual argument against the idea put up in this article be boiled down to "we don't know what would happen, it'd create moral dilemmas"?
The first human/chimp individuals would likely suffer from various illnesses. Their life would be short and agonizing. A lot of trial-and-error experimentation would be needed before healthy hybrids could be produced. That is the reason why the research would be unethical.

[Chom]

uh, what? Chimps are inferior therefore they can't hybridize with humans? I assure, the amoebas living in your intestine have been evolving just as long as you have, and they are just as well adapted to their surrounding as you are.

Well, that, my dear friend, is a symbiotic realtion. I was talking about humans having sex with chimps, having chimp-man babies. That would be quite impossible I believe, but if you take and mess with genes, then alright, you can get your apeman easily.



Newsflash: this works just as well on people. It's how you were potty trained, as a matter fact. That was the whole point of Skinner.

Just what I said. And so it is.


And concerning the fact that these hybrids would be great for organ donation, well yeah, but it would be unethical... Just like that "The Island" movie with Ewan McGregor... Scary stuff...


Devrim...

Well, if you would read what I said about the conditioning of the chimps during training, you would understand that it can easily improve their capacities during those experiments... just for the cookie... or whatever. Normal, living-out-in-the-jungle chimps don't.

You could say the conditioning has improved their capacities in greater mesure than it would in humans, that's really more interesting formulation (and you probably meant that, sorry). Anyway, I don't think chimps will evolve since they don't have the required... enviroment? Humans evolved because they, literally, happened to be lucky in surviving. I mean humans can't be compared to a chimp in matters of physical survival when left without the usual instruments of dominion over nature, alone in the wilderness. So forget about the chimps surviving and get to live an evolutionary miracle; no chance in this world.

[Kami]

The first human/chimp individuals would likely suffer from various illnesses. Their life would be short and agonizing. A lot of trial-and-error experimentation would be needed before healthy hybrids could be produced. That is the reason why the research would be unethical.
All the more reason to advance our research in this area. If trial and error is required, better it be done sometime than never.
I note, however, you do not explain why it is unethical. might you elaborate?

[Cult of Reason]

Kami, consider the possibility that hybrid might justifiably (just maybe) be considered a person. Perhaps it would have the capacity to understand the concept of "rights", to communicate etc.? This would then be, in effect, trial and error experimentation, without consent, on another sapient. Possibly.

If that was the case, then the very act of creating him/her is trial and error experimentation without consent and with probably being condemned to a miserable and/or painful life (and short!).

[Unicorn]

All the more reason to advance our research in this area. If trial and error is required, better it be done sometime than never.
I note, however, you do not explain why it is unethical. might you elaborate?
Suffering should be prevented, not deliberately caused. The scientists who created the experimental ape-man hybrids would be responsible for their suffering. Such experimentation should thus be illegal.

If the scientists could assure that it is possible to create healthy apemen I wouldn't have a problem with that. However, succesful hybridization very likely requires trial-and-error experimentation and extensive modification of the DNA. Scientific progress does not justify unethical conduct. Medicine would certainly advance much faster if human testing was possible without any ethical guidelines but that does not justify Nazi-like experiments which disregard the value of human life and health.

[Kami]

Kami, consider the possibility that hybrid might justifiably (just maybe) be considered a person. Perhaps it would have the capacity to understand the concept of "rights", to communicate etc.? This would then be, in effect, trial and error experimentation, without consent, on another sapient. Possibly.

If that was the case, then the very act of creating him/her is trial and error experimentation without consent and with probably being condemned to a miserable and/or painful life (and short!).
I see your point; I am wary about rejecting a possiblity for such a leap on "maybe"s though.

[Devrim]

Devrim...

Well, if you would read what I said about the conditioning of the chimps during training, you would understand that it can easily improve their capacities during those experiments... just for the cookie... or whatever. Normal, living-out-in-the-jungle chimps don't.

You could say the conditioning has improved their capacities in greater mesure than it would in humans, that's really more interesting formulation (and you probably meant that, sorry). Anyway, I don't think chimps will evolve since they don't have the required... enviroment? Humans evolved because they, literally, happened to be lucky in surviving. I mean humans can't be compared to a chimp in matters of physical survival when left without the usual instruments of dominion over nature, alone in the wilderness. So forget about the chimps surviving and get to live an evolutionary miracle; no chance in this world.

I don't think that you understand evolution. Which would you say evolves more quickly, humans, or cockroaches?

Devrim

[TC]

The first human/chimp individuals would likely suffer from various illnesses. Their life would be short and agonizing. A lot of trial-and-error experimentation would be needed before healthy hybrids could be produced. That is the reason why the research would be unethical.

You base this on what exactly? Mules live longer than horses, animal crosses have a phenomenon of 'hybrid vigor' where hybridized species like mules tend to have fewer, not more, health problems.

Seems like (as with a lot of the moral questions that trouble liberals issues) you're using a convenient rather than accurate false ethical issue so as to avoid the issue.

[Unicorn]

You base this on what exactly?
Based on how little scientists know currently about the effects of specific genes and how they would work in hybrids.



Mules live longer than horses, animal crosses have a phenomenon of 'hybrid vigor' where hybridized species like mules tend to have fewer, not more, health problems.
Hybrids are usually also sterile. The apemen would likely be smart enough to be considered moral subjects and thus it would be unethical to produce sterile apemen. Involuntary sterilization is a criminal act. It is not acceptable to create a class of people which cannot reproduce.

[Kami]

Hybrids are usually also sterile. The apemen would likely be smart enough to be considered moral subjects and thus it would be unethical to produce sterile apemen. Involuntary sterilization is a criminal act. It is not acceptable to create a class of people which cannot reproduce.
Okay, pain and suffering I could accept, but sterility? With the fertility treatment we're getting thesedays (bone marrow to sperm sort of stuff), is that really a worry?

[AGITprop]

Interesting.

I wouldn't consider them to have more rights than an animal unless they are capable of self-reflection and self awareness.

But thats my opinion. And the questions is whether or not we could measure this. But I assume it would be possible.

[chimx]

unless they are capable of self-reflection and self awareness.

Lots of animals are self-aware, and I don't know how you could possibly gauge self-reflection.

[Chom]

I don't think that you understand evolution. Which would you say evolves more quickly, humans, or cockroaches?

Devrim

Having in mind your question, I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "evolution".

Let's see, humans were barely capable of survival in the moment of evolution. There are plenty (millions) of species that were created by evolution from another specie that didn't make it on a basis of survival. Humans were lucky to get pass this. I believe you think of evolution as some sort of progress towards some absolute, ideal, supernatural state which all species strive for. Cockroaches have and will survive on a stronger basis than humans on let's say a nuclear holocaust, but you could of course take far more simpler examples.

That's what I meant...

[Devrim]

Having in mind your question, I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "evolution".

I believe you think of evolution as some sort of progress towards some absolute, ideal, supernatural state which all species strive for.

No, I don't at all though that seems to come across from you. I think that cockroaches are more probably more evolved.

Devrim

[AGITprop]

Lots of animals are self-aware, and I don't know how you could possibly gauge self-reflection.

Not to the extent humans are. Humans have a more profound understanding of their relationship with nature and natures influence on them, whereas animals act on instinct based on their interaction with nature.

[RNK]

One could argue that man's profound understanding is simply the result of an incredibly advanced and highly-evolved set of instincts, which are so superior that they develop the ability to counter-act one another.

But droves of human behaviour is spurred by ancient instinct; the way you interact with your surroundings is in large part decides by the millions of years of evolution which have shaped our brains. An analogy would be a computer program so sophisticated and so thoroughly programmed that it essentially mimics cognitive abilities and sentience. It is possible, though it would take decades to program, and would probably require more memory and storage space and processing power than exists on the entire planet.

But it depends on the definition of "self-aware". Beavers are aware that piling up large amounts of wood and other material along a river will create an artificial lake, showing an ability to not only understand its environment but shape it to its needs. Elephants have shown the ability to mourn the dead, chimpanzees and other animals are able to craft basic tools, etc. They are all very limited and restricted forms of intelligence but it goes to show that supreme intelligence, beyond even our own at times, exists in the animal kingdom.

We're just the most highly-evolved animals on this planet. Nothing more.

[Vanguard1917]

But it depends on the definition of "self-aware". Beavers are aware that piling up large amounts of wood and other material along a river will create an artificial lake, showing an ability to not only understand its environment but shape it to its needs. Elephants have shown the ability to mourn the dead, chimpanzees and other animals are able to craft basic tools, etc. They are all very limited and restricted forms of intelligence but it goes to show that supreme intelligence, beyond even our own at times, exists in the animal kingdom.

We're just the most highly-evolved animals on this planet. Nothing more.


Human beings are able to consciously alter their surroundings. That's what makes humanity special and unique.

'A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.'
- Marx

[AGITprop]

Human beings are able to consciously alter their surroundings. That's what makes humanity special and unique.

'A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.'
- Marx

I'm going to have to agree. We are not animals. WE have, through our interaction with nature, over millions of years, developed consciousness that allows us to alter nature around us to suit our needs.

[Chom]

I think that cockroaches are more probably more evolved.

Devrim

Yes... but what do cockroaches have to do with the apes and humans? What my original point was that apes, in this world, will not reach the speed of evolution as we humans had. I would dare to say that they won't be as lucky to pass the test of survival as we did when we had our great evolutionary stage.

I'm quite confused over what we really are debating here... :confused:

[Bluetongue]

Having in mind your question, I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "evolution".

Let's see, humans were barely capable of survival in the moment of evolution. There are plenty (millions) of species that were created by evolution from another specie that didn't make it on a basis of survival. Humans were lucky to get pass this. I believe you think of evolution as some sort of progress towards some absolute, ideal, supernatural state which all species strive for. Cockroaches have and will survive on a stronger basis than humans on let's say a nuclear holocaust, but you could of course take far more simpler examples.

That's what I meant...

All currently living things are equally evolved. Luck has nothing to do with it. What is the "moment of evolution"? As to who or what is evolving faster, that would involve a full genome comparison from past and present - *geological* past, which isn't possible. Anyway, I'm even sure that question makes sense. Then again, the organism with the fastest reproduction rate might be said to "evolve faster".

[Devrim]

Yes... but what do cockroaches have to do with the apes and humans? What my original point was that apes, in this world, will not reach the speed of evolution as we humans had. I would dare to say that they won't be as lucky to pass the test of survival as we did when we had our great evolutionary stage.

I think apes evolved faster than humans. The genetic differences between chimps would tend to suggest this. I am not sure what you mean by the term,' great evolutionary stage'.

It does seem to have lost the track though.

Devrim

[Bear MacMillan]

This is kind of off topic, but Soviet biologist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov tried to produce humanzees all the way back in the 1920's (he failed because he had a hard time finding any sexually mature Chimps)

[AGITprop]

This is kind of off topic, but Soviet biologist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov tried to produce humanzees all the way back in the 1920's (he failed because he had a hard time finding any sexually mature Chimps)

I thought he tried with Gorillas.

[Bear MacMillan]

I thought he tried with Gorillas.
Gorillas, Chimps and an Ourangoutang.

[Wanted Man]

This is kind of off topic, but Soviet biologist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov tried to produce humanzees all the way back in the 1920's (he failed because he had a hard time finding any sexually mature Chimps)
Yeah, I remember reading about that. The newspapers turned it into: "Stalin tried to create an army of invincible half-apes."

[Bluetongue]

Seriously, if a woman in a first world country WANTED to have a chimp hybrid, and could purchase some chimp sperm, is there anything to prevent her from having an artificial insemination and giving birth?

[Devrim]

Gorillas, Chimps and an Ourangoutang.

Did they have any success?

Devrim

[piet11111]

Did they have any success?

Devrim

well we do have national-bolsheviks now so uhm yes ?

[Bear MacMillan]

Did they have any success?

Devrim

No, he had to leave the gorillas in Africa to return to the Soviet Union before he could do any experiments, none of the chimps he got were sexually mature, and the ourangoutang he was going to use died in the zoo.

He was one unlucky prick.