COSMOS magazine

Get COSMOS Teacher's Notes
  • Add this story to stumbleupon
  • Add this story to Yahoo Buzz
  • Add this story to Digg
  • Add this story to reddit
  • Add this story to Slashdot
  • Add this story to newsvine
  • Add this story to facebook
  • Add this story to technorati
  • Add this story to del-icio-us
  • Add this story to furl

News

U.K. approves human-animal hybrids

Thursday, 6 September 2007
Agençe France-Presse
U.K. approves human-animal hybrids

Sunny-side-up: The research involves transferring DNA from human cells to animal eggs that have had nearly all their genetic information removed. The resulting embryos are therefore mostly human, with a small animal component and can be used to grow stem cells.

Credit: Wikipedia

LONDON: Britain's fertility regulator has decided in principle to allow scientists to create human-animal hybrid embryos for research purposes, as experts downplayed ethical concerns.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) gave the go-ahead yesterday to controversial plans to create "cytoplasmic" embryos, which merge a tiny bit of human DNA with eggs from animals such as cattle or rabbits. Scientists argue such research could pave the way for therapies for diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

Applications to proceed with such work from researchers at Newcastle University in northeast England and King's College London can now be appraised by a licence committee in November.

Public approval

An HFEA consultation out earlier this week found people were "at ease" with the proposals once the possible implications had been explained. An HFEA spokeswoman accepted public opinion was divided and said their decision was a tough one to make. "This is not a total green light for hybrid research, but recognition that this area of research can, with caution and careful scrutiny, be permitted," she said.

The use and destruction of embryos in research is a highly sensitive subject in the United States, for political and religious reasons. U.S. President George W. Bush has twice vetoed a bill seeking to allow federal funds for stem cell research, as it would involve human embryo destruction.

Some experts backed the decision, while a government minister welcomed it. "It does seem a little abhorrent at first analysis," said Newcastle University's Doctor Lyle Armstrong, who helped to create the world's first cloned human embryo in 2005. "But you have to understand we are using very, very little information from the cow in order to do this reprogramming idea.

"It's not our intention to create any bizarre cow-human hybrid, we want to use those cells to understand how to make human stem cells better."

The research involves transferring nuclei containing DNA from human cells to animal eggs that have had nearly all their genetic information removed. The resulting embryos are therefore mostly human, with a small animal component. Stem cells, which can grow into different kinds of tissue, are then formed.

The hybrids would only be allowed to survive to a very early stage so that they can be studied for therapeutic purposes, the scientists say, stressing that their goal is not to create a living animal. The embryos could give researchers a large supply of stem cells to work with.

Scientists have so far had to rely on human eggs left over from fertility treatment, which are in short supply and often poor quality.

"Best interests of science"

The government's minister for science and innovation Ian Pearson added that the decision was "in the best interests of science… The creation of cytoplasmic hybrid embryos offers an important experimental tool in the search for new treatments for currently incurable diseases such as Parkinson's Disease," he said.

Not everyone, however, was so pleased. Some "pro-life" and religious groups disagree with creating embryos with the intent to destroy them later.

Anthony Ozimic, secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said the "pro-life" group deplored the decision. "This is not just a case of the 'yuk' factor – there are grave ethical and moral objections. All the evidence suggests that these embryos are essentially human. Yet they will be cannibalised and killed for their stem-cell."

Archbishop of Cardiff, in Wales, Peter Smith also voiced concern. "The profound ethical question is: Is it right to transgress that species boundary and attempt to mix human and animal natures in however limited a fashion?"

Readers' comments

Human-animal hybrids

"God Shmod -I want my Monkey Man" - Bart Simpson

Bring on "Cow Man" I say.

Done Deal

I think this experiment was already done and I know what happened to the results.........I was married to IT !!!!
This work is definitely going to result in some very interesting "creatures" if allowed to progress past the embryo stage.
Go science !!!!

Future weapons?

Amazing how no one worries how this might be weaponized. One has to wonder if, in one hundred years, they'll have gorillas who understand battle tactics, how to use automatic weapons and who don't have any understanding of the meaning of death, or of the beauty of life. Very dangerous.

Given then nature of man, one must assume that the worst possible case hasn't just been planned for, but is likely to be the goal. Sure, they'll tell you that caution will be exercised, and that it'll only be used "for good" when in fact, expansion of power and bank role is likely to be the target. Then, years later, it will come out that the super-pests they accidentally created or the unexpectedly cancer causing omega-3 enhanced fish-beef they clone turn out to be merely a side effect of what has been really going on.

Furthermore, quoting a religious commentator does nothing to properly defend the counterpoint. This is an example of lousy journalism. Without a doubt, there are a good number of scientific ethicists who could point to real concerns as opposed to someone touting god-talk and thou-shalts, which substantial portions of the educated population has been programmed to ignore by labeling theological perspectives as extremism. Agree or disagree with theological points, fact is this issue needs to be properly debated before any green lights are given. Theological arguments are not sufficient by themselves in the scientific arena. They may work with some segments of the American, S. American and some middle-eastern populations, but cannot stand by itself and are only emotional supports or criticisms to any final say. Any serious article would find real points to present instead of those of some "pro-lifers" and a Catholic Bishop.

Don't be a bunch of cloned Dolly sheeple.

www.prisonplanet.com