More

UK Considers Using Human DNA In Animals

MARIA CHENG   11/10/09 07:29 AM ET   AP

Dna

LONDON — British scientists begin a new study on Tuesday to consider how human DNA is used in animal experiments and to determine what the boundaries of such controversial science might be.

Though experts have been swapping human and animal DNA for years – like replacing animal genes with human genes or growing human organs in animals – scientists at the Academy of Medical Sciences want to make sure the public is aware of what is happening in laboratories before proceeding further.

"It sounds yucky, but it may be well worth doing if it's going to lead to a cure for something horrible," said Robin Lovell-Badge, a stem cell expert at Britain's National Institute for Medical Research, and a member of the group conducting the study.

At a media briefing in London, Lovell-Badge said there were two main types of experiments: altering an animal's genes by adding human DNA or replacing a specific animal sequence with its human counterpart. Several years ago, human genes were added to a mouse to create a model of Down's syndrome for scientists to study how the disease evolves, which could lead to potential treatments.

Scientists also have tried to grow human organs in animals that could one day be transplanted back into humans – like a mouse onto whose back scientists grew a human ear. "There are good reasons for doing this, but it may upset some people," Lovell-Badge said.

Two years ago, controversy erupted in Britain after scientists announced plans to create human embryos using empty cow and rabbit eggs. Critics condemned the mixing of human and animal genetic material, though scientists said the embryos would be destroyed after 14 days and would only be used to help them learn how to create human stem cells.

Scientists said they are now trying to determine where the line should be drawn on experiments that use human material in animals. At the moment, the regulation on how much human DNA can be put into an animal is vague.

"We are trying to work out what is reasonable," said Martin Bobrow, chairman of the group conducting the study. He and others said they recognized people might be nervous about experiments where animals were given human features or brain cells.

David King, director of Human Genetics Alert, an independent watchdog, said he was not convinced such experiments were warranted. "This is a classic example of science going too fast," he said. "If you cannot firmly say exactly what it is you're creating, you should not do it."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

LONDON — British scientists begin a new study on Tuesday to consider how human DNA is used in animal experiments and to determine what the boundaries of such controversial science might be. Tho...
LONDON — British scientists begin a new study on Tuesday to consider how human DNA is used in animal experiments and to determine what the boundaries of such controversial science might be. Tho...
Filed by Adam Taylor  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 21
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcwtts1
Elections have consequences
07:45 AM on 02/03/2010
I am pro science. But I feel like this article is the beginning of ever horror movie made for the last 30 years.
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
12:58 PM on 11/11/2009
GO FOR IT!
.
photo
deepintheheartoftejas
Middle o/t Road = Yellow stripes & dead armadillos
07:57 PM on 11/10/2009
Opposable thumbs for everyone! YAY!
05:17 PM on 11/10/2009
This is wrong. Why is it with every new technology/power, humans always have to abuse it. Why is creating a Frankenstein such a bright idea. What mor.ons...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jimboy17
10:58 AM on 11/12/2009
Frankenstein is actually the scientist in Mary Shelley's book...not the monster. It is the scientist who is monstrous in the end, as the monster ends up showing more humanity than the man who created it...interestingly enough.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CoronaDischarge
Fired Up! Ready to go!
03:07 PM on 11/10/2009
DNA is just chemistry on a grand scale. Trying to declare which is human chemistry and which is not is a mighty peculiar idea.

This is not to say that there are not some protocols that should be observed and some ethical boundaries that don't require caution.
02:28 PM on 11/10/2009
Not right at all!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nolabels
02:23 PM on 11/10/2009
Sounds like a lot of us are suffering from the yuck factor. Life is digital. We will only understand it biology we tinker and unravel its programming language. I am not sure how we can think that running a few experiments is going to yield disastrous results. The fear feels all too anthropocentric to me.
01:55 PM on 11/10/2009
I'm going to love seeing whatever critters from myth turn up in laboratories.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nolabels
02:17 PM on 11/10/2009
Minotaurs!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tulka2
Solidarity. Courage. Humor.
01:43 PM on 11/10/2009
Welcome to the brave new world where no one seems to have read the Island of Doctor Moreau. Hey... you cannot defend such experiments without explaining how this is not creating whole living creatures. Don't expect people to know it.
photo
living lightning
Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers.
04:40 PM on 11/10/2009
The Island of Dr. Moreau is what popped up in my head too. If this isn't sick already, you can be sure it will lead to some pretty sick stuff...
01:37 PM on 11/10/2009
When it comes to the UK these days why is anyone surprised? Their gov't is a joke.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:33 PM on 11/10/2009
Sounds like someone better rent a copy of The Island of Dr. Moreau or perhaps O Lucky Man!
05:53 PM on 11/10/2009
How about Soylent Green!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jimboy17
01:16 PM on 11/10/2009
This kind of chimerical science is the height of hubris and folly. Genetic traits in humans are frequently pleiotropic, which means that they are not the product of a single gene, but rather multiple genes in disparate locations. Genetic illnesses are frequently the product of several abberant mutations in different sequences. We don't yet understand exactly how most genetic illnesses come to be, and the recombinant possibilities over several generations of humans or animals are impossible to predict. Selection is the product of millions of years of refinement and co-evolution. It is a process we are only dimly beginning to understand. Because of this, the potential for great harm, either to ourselves or other species (and eventually ourselves) is huge. A good analogy is that of a child playing with a gun. The child knows it is a gun, but has no knowledge of how to use it, or the potential harm it can cause. Boggles the mind, really. This is the arrogance of capitalist science. This isn't about helping people, it is about making a few very rich.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tulka2
Solidarity. Courage. Humor.
01:48 PM on 11/10/2009
Perhaps the idea of human genome purity does not exist in reality. Perhaps our fellow earthlings who evolved right along beside us, are more closely related than we thought before we began to study genetics.

Your last two sentences nailed what i am worried about.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
deluk
hot mess...
05:09 PM on 11/10/2009
No, if this was in the US it would be about making people very rich, I'm British and I'd certainly trust our scientists (who were responsible for dna in the first place) over yours any day, just as I'd trust our pharmecutical and medical industries over yours.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jimboy17
05:52 PM on 11/10/2009
You are most certainly daft. To begin with, I'm not a yank. Secondly, British scientists are not "responsible for DNA". Crick, Watson, and Wilkins were British, American, and Kiwi respectively, and they shared the 1962 nobel for biology for their discovery of the double helix structure of DNA (and it was an American firm which finally mapped the genome a few years back). While Britain still enjoys relatively large amounts of public funding for research, don't kid yourself as to the extent of corporate involvement.

Besides, you completely ignore the crux of my argument, which is that there is simply not enough understood about how genetic diseases occur, and what the effects of transgenic science might be one, two, or many generations in the future. We cannot model any of this effectively, and that is the problem.