In Search for Cures, Scientists Create Multispecies Embryos(npr.org)
npr.org
In Search for Cures, Scientists Create Multispecies Embryos
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/18/478212837/in-search-for-cures-scientists-create-embryos-that-are-both-animal-and-human
65 comments
True, although let me play the devil's advocate here:
Can you imagine being born a half-pig, possessing a consciousness with full human resolution, and suffering the full, rich palette of human fear as you're being harvested for the sake of another, more "worthy" life form?
It's a worthwhile thought experiment. The point is, wouldn't you want to feel like you'd taken reasonable precautions to prevent this kind of suffering from taking place?
Maybe it's just me, but I find these kinds of ethical considerations to be meaningful. Ironically, I think this is one of the main things that makes us "human".
Can you imagine being born a half-pig, possessing a consciousness with full human resolution, and suffering the full, rich palette of human fear as you're being harvested for the sake of another, more "worthy" life form?
It's a worthwhile thought experiment. The point is, wouldn't you want to feel like you'd taken reasonable precautions to prevent this kind of suffering from taking place?
Maybe it's just me, but I find these kinds of ethical considerations to be meaningful. Ironically, I think this is one of the main things that makes us "human".
I am jealous of you having a loved one.
If AI research is approaching the grand question of "what makes us human" from one side, then situations like this are approaching it from another. Somebody with a strict definition of "human" must be feeling their views and ethics very attacked right now.
I'm afraid the progressive perspective you describe will turn to ash against that kind of person's reality shield
I'm not clear how @stepvhen's is comment is a "progressive perspective". It seems entirely factual.
Mechanically but not ethically. You speak of objectivity and acceptance of this paradigm obliterating change as if it were a given, but under our present day dogma, it would require eschewing the perceived divinity or naturalistic infallibility of man's design. Look at GMO, for chrissakes.
This looks like such a smart reply. I wish I knew what it actually meant.
I think its a MadLib. Let's all play:
<adverb> but not <adverb>. You speak of <noun> and <noun> of this <noun> <present participle verb> <noun> as if it were a given, but under our present day <noun>, it would require <present participle verb> the perceived <noun> or <adjective> <noun> of man's design. Look at <noun>, for chrissakes.
<adverb> but not <adverb>. You speak of <noun> and <noun> of this <noun> <present participle verb> <noun> as if it were a given, but under our present day <noun>, it would require <present participle verb> the perceived <noun> or <adjective> <noun> of man's design. Look at <noun>, for chrissakes.
Damn, I thought this was the last place I could bloviate freely
I just learned a new word. Thanks!
Are there any known cases of embryos that were human yet not animal?
This is where reading comprehension kicks in. Given the context with "human" and "animal" juxtaposed, one would assume they are using the word "animal" in the sense of "(non-human) animal".
By pretending that this meaning of the word does not exist (or is not obvious), you're being intentionally obtuse to try to score points. That is, of course, the most generous interpretation of your comment, there are other less flattering ones.
By pretending that this meaning of the word does not exist (or is not obvious), you're being intentionally obtuse to try to score points. That is, of course, the most generous interpretation of your comment, there are other less flattering ones.
I understood the title perfectly well. I was pointing out the use of the Christian definition of "animal" in a story about genetic manipulation. With signaling like that, I really don't need to read the article to know what it's trying to say. It's also clearly signaling that I'm not the intended audience for the article.
(edit to add: if it were written for me, the article would have used "chimera" in the title)
(edit to add: if it were written for me, the article would have used "chimera" in the title)
Scoring points, or not. Humans are in fact technically animals. To write about a scientific endeavor in nontechnical/ambiguous or inaccurate terms is disingenuous or worse, negligent.
By the way, I believe you were attempting to 'score points' by pointing out the op's intentionality.
By the way, I believe you were attempting to 'score points' by pointing out the op's intentionality.
> To write about a scientific endeavor in nontechnical/ambiguous or inaccurate terms is disingenuous or worse, negligent.
No, it is not. Communication is not about being correct, but about being correctly understood. Also, if we are being technical, "animal" was a word used prior to the development of modern biology, and it means what the article means when it uses the word, i.e. non-human animals.
The fact that scientists decided to reuse the same word to mean something slightly different is if anything a flaw on their part. They could have come up with a more precise term to disambiguate (e.g. "neural mobile multi-cellular organisms (NMMCOs)" or some such) but they didn't. As this article is aimed at the lay-person, it is perfectly reasonable (I would say obligatory) to use the meaning that is expected by that audience.
The headline as it shows up in HN was renamed to "In Search for Cures, Scientists Create Multispecies Embryos". This is a ridiculous act of pedantry that completely obscures the rather important fact that one of those species in "multispecies" is human.
No, it is not. Communication is not about being correct, but about being correctly understood. Also, if we are being technical, "animal" was a word used prior to the development of modern biology, and it means what the article means when it uses the word, i.e. non-human animals.
The fact that scientists decided to reuse the same word to mean something slightly different is if anything a flaw on their part. They could have come up with a more precise term to disambiguate (e.g. "neural mobile multi-cellular organisms (NMMCOs)" or some such) but they didn't. As this article is aimed at the lay-person, it is perfectly reasonable (I would say obligatory) to use the meaning that is expected by that audience.
The headline as it shows up in HN was renamed to "In Search for Cures, Scientists Create Multispecies Embryos". This is a ridiculous act of pedantry that completely obscures the rather important fact that one of those species in "multispecies" is human.
> The fact that scientists decided to reuse the same word to mean something slightly different
This is like saying we should have used different terminology when Copernicus published his work on planetary bodies. Or science should have used a different name for Earth when it proven that our planet round? No, if people are inaccurate, you don't keep on using old outdated definitions and invent new nouns for the new meanings. You update the old inaccurate definitions.
People used to think humans were distinctly different than anything else on the planet. We are not and we are not special. We are animals. At the root of this debate is the fact that this idea deeply offends a select few, mostly religious zealots . The same groups were offended that the Earth was still Earth even though it's round. Animals are still animals even thought people are animals too. Gravity is still gravity as our definition of what it is and how it works changes.
This is like saying we should have used different terminology when Copernicus published his work on planetary bodies. Or science should have used a different name for Earth when it proven that our planet round? No, if people are inaccurate, you don't keep on using old outdated definitions and invent new nouns for the new meanings. You update the old inaccurate definitions.
People used to think humans were distinctly different than anything else on the planet. We are not and we are not special. We are animals. At the root of this debate is the fact that this idea deeply offends a select few, mostly religious zealots . The same groups were offended that the Earth was still Earth even though it's round. Animals are still animals even thought people are animals too. Gravity is still gravity as our definition of what it is and how it works changes.
>This is like saying we should have used different terminology when Copernicus published his work on planetary bodies.
But "chemistry" was coined to distinguish from alchemy.
Regarding humans as animals, I should probably have stated more accurately that since at least the time of Aristotle, the term animal has also been applied to humans (i.e. "man is the rational animal"). Animal, in this context, refers to anything that is animate (moves around, eats, etc.). However, we often (primarily) use the term to refers to those organisms which are merely animate, as opposed to those that also possess sentience (humans).
> We are not [distinct] and we are not special.
Empirically we are distinct. Our lack of specialness remains unproven.
> We are animals.
Both in the sense of biological taxonomy and that we have an animus, that is true. That does not entail your previous statement.
It's also still perfectly correct to use the term to refer non-human animals.
> The same groups were offended that the Earth was still Earth even though it's round.
What groups are these, specifically? As far as I know, these people never existed except in the modern imagination. The West has been aware of the Earth's roundness since BC. It is a central aspect of the Ptolemaic cosmology.
But "chemistry" was coined to distinguish from alchemy.
Regarding humans as animals, I should probably have stated more accurately that since at least the time of Aristotle, the term animal has also been applied to humans (i.e. "man is the rational animal"). Animal, in this context, refers to anything that is animate (moves around, eats, etc.). However, we often (primarily) use the term to refers to those organisms which are merely animate, as opposed to those that also possess sentience (humans).
> We are not [distinct] and we are not special.
Empirically we are distinct. Our lack of specialness remains unproven.
> We are animals.
Both in the sense of biological taxonomy and that we have an animus, that is true. That does not entail your previous statement.
It's also still perfectly correct to use the term to refer non-human animals.
> The same groups were offended that the Earth was still Earth even though it's round.
What groups are these, specifically? As far as I know, these people never existed except in the modern imagination. The West has been aware of the Earth's roundness since BC. It is a central aspect of the Ptolemaic cosmology.
Duplicating my comment below for the the sake of visibility, the OED defines "animal" as:
a. A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and a nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli; any living creature, including man.
b. In ordinary or non-technical use: any such living organism other than a human being.
In a technical context, such as a scientific journal, I expect that "animal" would include humans. In the headline of a science-focused mainstream media article, I think it's ambiguous. Given that the context, I think it's clear they're using the non-technical definition of the word.
a. A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and a nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli; any living creature, including man.
b. In ordinary or non-technical use: any such living organism other than a human being.
In a technical context, such as a scientific journal, I expect that "animal" would include humans. In the headline of a science-focused mainstream media article, I think it's ambiguous. Given that the context, I think it's clear they're using the non-technical definition of the word.
Yet, I think "animal" was the worst word they could have chosen, because (as I said in another comment) the latter definition is directly from the Bible. Given that genetic manipulation evokes strong religious sentiment, the word is not neutral in this context.
That depends on who you ask. I've met people that hold firmly to the belief that humans are not animals. Explanation? God created Adam in his own image, so humans are somehow special and better than animals.
We need to prevent these people from making decisions for society.
We need to prevent these people from making decisions for society.
I agree. These people shouldn't be allowed to vote, or own a business either. If only there were a way we could identify them more easily just by looking at them so we could avoid them. They are such a nuisance. What would be really great is if we could just create a certain section of our cities to keep them separate so we don't have to worry about them screwing things up anymore.
They are so incredibly ignorant. How can they look at humans and animals and believe that one is different than the other? How can they look around this world and believe that any of this could have been created by a higher being? This ignorance cannot be tolerated. This world will not be right until we get rid of them altogether.
They are so incredibly ignorant. How can they look at humans and animals and believe that one is different than the other? How can they look around this world and believe that any of this could have been created by a higher being? This ignorance cannot be tolerated. This world will not be right until we get rid of them altogether.
[deleted]
Have you considered the possibility that "your people" and "these people" should just form separate societies, or is it your preference to keep them within a common society as permanent second-class citizens?
I came here to critique the same thing... Reminding people that humans are animals and thus, part of, connected to and dependent on nature is important.
iirc all humans are animals.
Trump.
Questions to address other than whether the article used the word "animal" in the correct sense:
- how will the affect the propagation of diseases from other species to humans?
- How will intellectual property concerns play into this research?
- How do we prevent chimeras from having severe health issues as a result of incompatible physiology?
- Are there health concerns from chimeras mixing with livestock?
- What is the likelihood of creating "sentient" chimeras (for some value of sentience)?
- How might sentience work differently in chimeras ("If a lion could talk, we would not be able to understand him" as the old quote goes) and how could we detect sentience?
edit: list formatting
- how will the affect the propagation of diseases from other species to humans?
- How will intellectual property concerns play into this research?
- How do we prevent chimeras from having severe health issues as a result of incompatible physiology?
- Are there health concerns from chimeras mixing with livestock?
- What is the likelihood of creating "sentient" chimeras (for some value of sentience)?
- How might sentience work differently in chimeras ("If a lion could talk, we would not be able to understand him" as the old quote goes) and how could we detect sentience?
edit: list formatting
To answer one of my own questions, I honestly don't think that creating a "sentient" chimera (one with a human brain / cognitive awareness) is very likely.
For one thing, these chimeras are being grown specifically for organ-harvesting. I don't see a medical purpose for harvesting human brains (and in any case, they would run afoul of the same ethical issues as if they were growing those brains in human bodies).
For another, there is encephalization to deal with. A pig's body certainly couldn't hold a human brain. Nor (I don't think) could any primate body. Any species that could might be too incompatible in other ways.
Besides, who knows what the experience of a sentient chimera might have? Being cognitively capable of communication (speech or sign) yet unable to do so? Being capable of using tools, but (potentially) not having the necessary appendages? Being born with an infants mind, craving human affection and interaction, yet unable to express that need? Being unable to mimic human adults in their behavior (a rather critical aspect of child development)? Being fundamentally alienated in their existence? I don't think we should take such a risk merely for curiosity's sake.
Like I said, I don't find the scenario of sentient chimeras very likely, but it troubles me not because of how it might redefine what it means to be human, but because I am concerned about how traumatic the experience may be for this sentient being. The reality would probably be less "Ed the Talking Horse" and more "an infant trapped in a pig's body". As a parent, it's an unsettling idea.
edit: spelling
For one thing, these chimeras are being grown specifically for organ-harvesting. I don't see a medical purpose for harvesting human brains (and in any case, they would run afoul of the same ethical issues as if they were growing those brains in human bodies).
For another, there is encephalization to deal with. A pig's body certainly couldn't hold a human brain. Nor (I don't think) could any primate body. Any species that could might be too incompatible in other ways.
Besides, who knows what the experience of a sentient chimera might have? Being cognitively capable of communication (speech or sign) yet unable to do so? Being capable of using tools, but (potentially) not having the necessary appendages? Being born with an infants mind, craving human affection and interaction, yet unable to express that need? Being unable to mimic human adults in their behavior (a rather critical aspect of child development)? Being fundamentally alienated in their existence? I don't think we should take such a risk merely for curiosity's sake.
Like I said, I don't find the scenario of sentient chimeras very likely, but it troubles me not because of how it might redefine what it means to be human, but because I am concerned about how traumatic the experience may be for this sentient being. The reality would probably be less "Ed the Talking Horse" and more "an infant trapped in a pig's body". As a parent, it's an unsettling idea.
edit: spelling
Humans already have mostly 'animal dna' meaning of course, we share 99% with animals. Including worms. Other than religious or anti-evolutionary rhetoric, this made-up dilemma serves no purpose.
Michael Crichton explored the chimera idea extensively in the novel "Next". However he was more interested in "manimals" and how society would react to them. The novel also touches upon the idea of patents and ownership of biological organisms including human-like hybrids. The TV series "Orphan Black" also touches upon patents.
Unlike these fictional explorations, however, the NPR story focuses on pig embryos which have been modified to grow human organs such as the pancreas. These creatures, if allowed to develop, would still be pigs, just with a very unusual pancreas.
The eventual solution to growing in vivo organs is to create a human embryo that has just enough of a nervous system to stay alive, but no higher brain function.
Ultimately, all children will donate a few cells in the embryonic stage to this purpose. As you grow up, your brainless clone will also grow and provide a backup set of organs, nerves, etc. that are 100% chromosomally compatible. Perhaps the aging process in a clone can also be slowed down -- cool the body to slow metabolism -- and then we'll be able to transplant younger parts, younger skin, etc.
Bioethicists will debate this for decades, but it's going to happen; the benefits are too great. Of course, eventually we may have in-system cures for many of the problems that today require organ transplants, so perhaps a clone will become unnecessary.
Unlike these fictional explorations, however, the NPR story focuses on pig embryos which have been modified to grow human organs such as the pancreas. These creatures, if allowed to develop, would still be pigs, just with a very unusual pancreas.
The eventual solution to growing in vivo organs is to create a human embryo that has just enough of a nervous system to stay alive, but no higher brain function.
Ultimately, all children will donate a few cells in the embryonic stage to this purpose. As you grow up, your brainless clone will also grow and provide a backup set of organs, nerves, etc. that are 100% chromosomally compatible. Perhaps the aging process in a clone can also be slowed down -- cool the body to slow metabolism -- and then we'll be able to transplant younger parts, younger skin, etc.
Bioethicists will debate this for decades, but it's going to happen; the benefits are too great. Of course, eventually we may have in-system cures for many of the problems that today require organ transplants, so perhaps a clone will become unnecessary.
"""The experiments are so sensitive that the National Institutes of Health has imposed a moratorium on funding them while officials explore the ethical issues they raise."""
How does this work in the US? Sounds like they talked about the idea and NIH reacted with a moratorium until ethics questions are considered.
I have to submit research to an ethics panel before I get funding. Not everything but pretty much everything in medicine or involving humans and possibly animals but I've never ventured into that realm. Even when writing a proposal in say human-computer interaction there's always a need to have all tests/evaluations involving human subjects approved by an ethics board first. It's typically a short description and checklist a la "will the subjects be compensated", "will the subjects be informed about the research agenda" etc. It's good form but I don't think you'll get penalized if you do a quick mockup-test with some people but formally/theoretically the requirement is there.
How does this work in the US? Sounds like they talked about the idea and NIH reacted with a moratorium until ethics questions are considered.
I have to submit research to an ethics panel before I get funding. Not everything but pretty much everything in medicine or involving humans and possibly animals but I've never ventured into that realm. Even when writing a proposal in say human-computer interaction there's always a need to have all tests/evaluations involving human subjects approved by an ethics board first. It's typically a short description and checklist a la "will the subjects be compensated", "will the subjects be informed about the research agenda" etc. It's good form but I don't think you'll get penalized if you do a quick mockup-test with some people but formally/theoretically the requirement is there.
In the US there are also review boards (IRBs) to which you need to submit proposals for research involving human subjects. These can be intra-university boards, or third parties. These review boards look at both the safety and ethical implications of the work.
This is the perfect way to allow viruses to cross species and get to humans.
Robin Cook’s “Chromosone 6” is a book about using monkey/human hybrids as organ-matched sources. Crossing “the line” with this type of research is not something I wish to be a part of.
My first thought: technically, isn't human a subset of animal?
well, speciesism elevates us a little bit from the rest. so do other aggressive isms. I believe the author just made a wording mistake.
One possible dystopian scenario... Some time in the future chimera animals are mass produced in special farms and any surpluses sold as food. Basically humans start consuming human meat. In a few years cannibalism becomes acceptable ...
"In Search for Cures" I ate two Big Macs today.
A very serious piece that should start with a more serious title, like "In Search for Cures, Scientists Create Multispecies Embryos". Dancing around the political correctness on the fact we're also animals is just as bad, and obtrusive, as the moral questions on the research itself.
OK, we'll use your suggestion above.
Oh yes! Bust out the Comic Book Guy voice for half of the posts in this thread if you want max lulz. <comic book guy>Technically, humans are also animals. Worst. Headline. Ever.</comic book guy>
Actually, Comic Book Guy, you're incorrect. In Webster's dictionary, the first definition for "animal" is: "a living thing that is not a human being or plant".
As Webster's or any other English dictionary in the world will attest, colloquially and very commonly when people use the term "animal" they mean "non-human", and there is nothing wrong with colloquialism in headlines. The intent of the original headline is crystal clear, it is not misleading, and it is not unserious or unethical.
Of course, this fact doesn't stop HN's legions of nit-picking boobs from descending on this title like a pack of leg-humping chihuahuas... but again, that's what Comic Book Guy voice is for :p
Actually, Comic Book Guy, you're incorrect. In Webster's dictionary, the first definition for "animal" is: "a living thing that is not a human being or plant".
As Webster's or any other English dictionary in the world will attest, colloquially and very commonly when people use the term "animal" they mean "non-human", and there is nothing wrong with colloquialism in headlines. The intent of the original headline is crystal clear, it is not misleading, and it is not unserious or unethical.
Of course, this fact doesn't stop HN's legions of nit-picking boobs from descending on this title like a pack of leg-humping chihuahuas... but again, that's what Comic Book Guy voice is for :p
Please don't comment like this here. It makes the signal/noise ratio even lower.
> Of course, this fact doesn't stop HN's legions of nit-picking boobs
Dissing a community that you're part of, as a rhetorical status move, is particularly associated with low-quality comments.
> Of course, this fact doesn't stop HN's legions of nit-picking boobs
Dissing a community that you're part of, as a rhetorical status move, is particularly associated with low-quality comments.
As a human who is also apparently a leg-humping chihuahua, I just wanted to chime in to say that Noah Webster is a dumbass.
Yeah, you win. All of the definitions in this popular online dictionary are some variant of "animal == nasty type of human", so this must be a better source:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Animal&utm_so...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Animal&utm_so...
To expand this with quotes a little, OED (using the paid OED.com so can't provide links unfortunately) defines "animal" as:
a. A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and a nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli; any living creature, including man.
b. In ordinary or non-technical use: any such living organism other than a human being.
The etymology from OED shows that its origins are both a borrowing from French (which excludes man) and Latin (which includes man), which explains the confusion a little I think.
So technically, the people claiming humans are an animal are correct. In common parlance however, distinguishing humans from animals is totally acceptable.
Both sides have an argument but I don't see how it's appropriate to describe other HN users as "nit-picking boobs" or compare them to "leg-humping chihuahuas". That's the kind of childishness I'd expect from Reddit or 4chan.
a. A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and a nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli; any living creature, including man.
b. In ordinary or non-technical use: any such living organism other than a human being.
The etymology from OED shows that its origins are both a borrowing from French (which excludes man) and Latin (which includes man), which explains the confusion a little I think.
So technically, the people claiming humans are an animal are correct. In common parlance however, distinguishing humans from animals is totally acceptable.
Both sides have an argument but I don't see how it's appropriate to describe other HN users as "nit-picking boobs" or compare them to "leg-humping chihuahuas". That's the kind of childishness I'd expect from Reddit or 4chan.
No, actually both sides are not correct. It's not correct to say that the headline is wrong because a human is a type of animal. The claim that is being made is that headline is wrong/misleading/unethical, and that specific claim is nonsense.
Also, the claim on which the "headline is wrong" claims are based (i.e."human" == "animal", always and forever and if you disagree then you're some sort of creationist throwback) is also incorrect.
There is no two sides here. The people insisting that a) "animals" are always considered a superset of "humans", therefore b) the headline is wrong, are just plain wrong on both counts.
Also, the claim on which the "headline is wrong" claims are based (i.e."human" == "animal", always and forever and if you disagree then you're some sort of creationist throwback) is also incorrect.
There is no two sides here. The people insisting that a) "animals" are always considered a superset of "humans", therefore b) the headline is wrong, are just plain wrong on both counts.
I didn't say both sides are correct, I said both sides have an argument.
In this case I believe the "human != animal" definition is clearly what was intended but those who wish to argue that it shouldn't have been used have an argument, as in technical contexts (such as scientific journals), "animal" usually encompasses humans.
In this case I believe the "human != animal" definition is clearly what was intended but those who wish to argue that it shouldn't have been used have an argument, as in technical contexts (such as scientific journals), "animal" usually encompasses humans.
> "animals" are always considered a superset of "humans"
technically, humans are a subset of animals, not the other way around.
technically, humans are a subset of animals, not the other way around.
Was the lead scientist behind this project named Moreau?
I for one welcome our new minotaur overlords.
I worked for the IRB in college and we cooked up some safety tips for doing hybrid research:
Dog hybrid probably trustworthy until act 3, but hyena hybrid trustworthy never. Don't let them find out about the pain implants, they'll remove them. If you make an anti-regression serum, don't let your grad student fall in love with the cat hybrid because he'll destroy the serum.
If you're going to do the experiment on an island (vs e.g. a biohazard facility), keep ships with helicopters circling so you can evac as needed. Carry EPIRBs and lots of radios.
Dog hybrid probably trustworthy until act 3, but hyena hybrid trustworthy never. Don't let them find out about the pain implants, they'll remove them. If you make an anti-regression serum, don't let your grad student fall in love with the cat hybrid because he'll destroy the serum.
If you're going to do the experiment on an island (vs e.g. a biohazard facility), keep ships with helicopters circling so you can evac as needed. Carry EPIRBs and lots of radios.
Is this vague sense of humanity worth more than a loved one's life? Out of curiosity, how did it survive antibiotics, in vitro fertilisation, and industrialisation?