Of Science and Satyrs

A couple of weeks ago, the British government gave tentative approval to Britain's Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to review scientific licenses to create "cybrids," or hybridized human-animal embryos, for stem cell research. Cybrids, also known as cytoplastic hybrids, are created by injecting a human nucleus into an animal egg emptied of its own nucleus.

Scientists say this interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer technique, and the cybrids that result, would dramatically increase the dwindling supply of stem cells needed to study degenerative disease. They also say the cybrids mimic human embryos to an astounding degree. In fact, since their DNA is 100 percent human, their totality would be 99.9 percent human and 0.1 percent animal, sort of like a person dressed in head-to-toe suede.

As Dr. Stephen Minger of Kings College London, one of the applicants for a cytoplastic hybrid embryo license put it, "What we do when we take an animal egg, is we remove the nucleus from the egg. We remove not only the genetic identity but we remove the species identity. What makes a cow egg a cow is its nuclear DNA. And we take that out -- it's no longer a cow."

Opponents argue that mixing even the tiniest amounts of human and animal genetic material is unnatural and wrong. Scientific advance and potential strides toward a cure for Alzheimer's or Parkinson's aside, they worry that interspecies genetic concoctions overstep acceptable ethical boundaries. They envision the technique, and the resulting embryo mutts, as entrée into the land of chimeras, organisms composed of cells from two or more animals. They worry it will inevitably lead to dangerous experimentation with growing new sorts of creatures, whether human or animal or something in between. So far, the only animals on the laboratory menu are cows and rabbits, so the Frankenstein scenarios have centered around "cowumans" and "humabbits."

But there is absolutely no evidence that scientists are interested in creating "true hybrids," those made by fusing a human sperm and an animal egg, or "human chimeras," in which human cells are injected into animal embryos. The HFEA has not yet made a decision on these techniques, and there is no cause to assume researchers are interested in anything other than regular old stem cell research, the sort of research that holds such promise in finding cures to excruciating diseases.

In his 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush called "human-animal embryos" one of "the most egregious abuses of medical research." In fact, Bush supported legislation to imprison scientists for creating cellular chimeras. But chimeras have been an indispensable scientific tool for decades. In 1988, for example, scientists used mice with human immune systems to prove that HIV causes AIDS.

There are several reasons to applaud Britain's first steps and to permit this sort of research here in the U.S. Putting aside the sheer importance of scientific advancement and reestablishing the United States as a leader in the field, research using cybrids is not the slide down the slippery slope that concern religious leaders and Bush.

First, the differences between humans and animals are such that it would be nearly impossible for anybody, even the most atheistic and monomaniacal mad scientist, to actually concoct man-bunnies. Second, there is no animal nuclear DNA involved, restricting the animal function to mere casing for the human ingredients within. The HFEA also specifies that licensees adhere to strict regulations and promises intense oversight. For example, cybrids would have to be destroyed after 14 days development, which gives the scientists enough time to extract stem cells but ensures that growth would stop before they could develop into anything even remotely fetal. In addition, the cybrids wouldn't be transferred into any uterus, whether human or bovine, volunteered or not.

Finally, as part of the initial approval, the British government questioned 2,000 people, gauging their opinions on the ethics of human-animal embryos. The survey found that a majority, 61 percent, support the research if the hybrids promise insight into diseases. This is significant, for we, all of us, are our own best moral watchdogs. We hurt ourselves and our own futures -- spiritual and physical -- if we allow fear about abstract potentials get in the way of scientific advancement and potential medical benefit.

I realize, of course, that it is the human component of cybrids that is the greatest cause for concern, the fact we're talking not about mixing dog breeds to come up with something fluffy and hypoallergenic, but about mixing species, our own among them. But researchers seeking to use cybrids do not intend to develop new and improved pets or people. Rather, they're seeking cures for those that are already around.

Comments

[wiseferret]

Umm, the utter silliness makes me laugh.
Nature has already done this (not the same way, but she's mixed up genetic material all along the evolutionary path).
Its part of how virus spread. How do you think the avian flu is adapting to human hosts? Its already adapted to birds (and picks up bird DNA bits and pieces) then once in a human host, mixes this in trying to survive in the new host. Most of the time it fails, but when it works, the virus has a new code that helps it adapt to new hosts.
But the host, if they survive, also gains new DNA fragments- as part of its immune system.
Ok, not a perfect explanation before coffee, but that's the general gist.
In short, quit freaking out. Nature's been there, done that.

[jvarga]

No. Seriously.

[wiseferret]

Seriously. Look into "lateral gene transfer" "Lateral DNA trasfer" . Add evolution to it, you will have much to read through.

[jvarga]

While I don't necessarily disagree with this technology, it really irritates me that we have to go to the trouble of making almost-human stem cells. I say almost human because these cells, while containing human nuclear DNA, will not contain human mitochondria. Mitochondria contain their own DNA and these cells will have the host-animal MT-DNA. I'm sure that the scientists in charge of this are comfortable with it, but again, it is just another layer of difficulty being added.

I do, however, find it amusing that we're putting so much faith in the rules. Imagine the immoral scientist / government / science fiction villain / dumb artist / whoever saying "oh my plan to make a half human half tiger army of clones has been foiled because of the standard operating procedures calling for destruction of the embryos after 14 days"

I know that all you can do is make and enforce rules as best you can, but it does make me chuckle when we think compliance is a given.

[drblack]

Phase change...Humans did not invent Nuclear Fission, cocaine, growth hormones or steroids. We simply harnessed them.
The greed of business is where these things go wrong. Science is a method...and the only one that works as far as determining reality.
That said a great deal of caution should always be exercised with uncharted territory.

[phasechange]

You've misconstrued what I've said, please re-read my comments. I did not say we should stop this line of science but that we should control its commercialization, especially since this unchartered territory is likely to hold wonders far beyond what we might expect.

[unitron]

Perhaps I only reveal my poor knowledge of the science of biology, but from where will these human nuclei come, and won't the anti-abortionists consider it a distinction without a difference?

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

Rick Santorum must be frothing at the mouth about this.

Seriously though, you're never going to convince the Rabid Fundies on this issue. For them life begins at conception and every sperm is sacred.

[dadw5boys]

Passing laws here won't change what businesses do else where. A strict code of ethcis for research and business is what is needed.
The human egg and sperm is where you have to start with the protections.

[phasechange]

Sorry, no, you can't merely draw the line at the egg and sperm, we're well past that already. Moreover, it's an irrational line that has no relation to the deeper problem. What if you insert modified DNA into an already living organism? Additionally, as I stated above, we need laws. No code of ethics can be very "strict" unless you have some means to enforce it.

[anfractuous]

Not only will it happen, you can be sure it's already happened. Any abomination you can conceive, has been attempted or is on the drawing boards by governments with plenty of money to funnel into projects free of any accountability.
Readers of the Huffington Post, and other less sentient creatures, are last year's model. Between the mutative forces of pollution operating on several billion beings, and the irresistable urge to upgrade the genome, Homo Sapien's reign is coming to a close. Whatever replaces us, I hope does not find us delicious.

[larry278]

Wait a minute-are you hinting that mad scientists created the sports which are part of we call the Bush family? A creationist might not buy your arguments. Nature, without the aid of science, has produced a number of creatures which could be called abominations for a few thousand years or so as you allowed. Why do you worry about the creatures which may replace humans having a taste for dead humans? The corpse as a sentient being is a belief of some faiths. You may be right.

[avicenna]

I doubt any species that replaces homo sapiens could be as blood thirsty for human blood as we are for ourselves. We are probably our best enemy in that regard (so much for intelligence). It is a tad ironic that we actually think of ourselves as being nonanimals (at least the author of the article differentiated between human and animal cells - when in reality we are as much an animal then the next mammal). As a scientist, I know that our exuberance for experimenting with the unknown parallels that of a child - and often time with the same level of immaturity and lack of forsight when it comes to taking responsibility for the consequences. Genetic engineered food, nuclear fusion and fission, etc - all have tremendous potential on both ends of the spectrum - potential for harm and help. We have little control over the negative impact all new information and technologies eventually - so it is best to gauge the opinion of an educated population - who know the depth of problems that can arise - and have a game plan to put into action when devastation strikes.

[phasechange]

How can you be so sanguine about our ability to control this technology? Isn't it more likely these techniques will follow the same path as the invention of nitroglycerine, cocaine, nuclear fission, steroids, and growth hormones? It seems more likely that our collective imagination will quickly outrun your views as we witness anime-like kitten cuties being offered for sale in Thailand to western tourists.

Shouldn't you be worrying about where we might draw the line on intelligence since we'll have to deal with a dog-like creature that has faster reaction times than the average human, a creature well-adapted to military purposes for whom the human body count won't apply?

Shouldn't we begin to develop a strict regulatory framework to control such developments? I'd guess we're also going to have to reconstitute multiple laws, ranging from the definitions of animal cruelty to euthanasia. We'd probably better get going on these things pretty quickly.

[bethkohl]

If you knew my cousin Burt, the brilliant, innately athletic and graceful Burt, you'd likely understand my perspective. Burt, still graceful and brilliant, has Parkinson's and can barely utter his name, let alone his genius ideas. At heart and in the quiet of his thoughts, he is still the person he has always been. He still parses the day's events, still has incredible insights, still fathers his children and somehow manages to get through the day. But he is far too young to have a hopeless disease ruin his one life. So if there are technologies that can help him and that harm no other living being, human or animal, bring them on. I'm begging you. We can't pretend to be able to control how some folks misuse or abuse technology. But to not pursue innovation because of a fear of abuse is foolhardy and the likely death not only of my cousin Burt and his brothers-in-trembling arms, but of scientific advancement, particulalry in the U.S. Let us be the ones to come up with the cybrids, and the strict regulations. That way, we won't be playing catch up, either moral or in a chase after patents, follwing the introduction of the Thai critter you've imagined.

[phasechange]

Perhaps I was unclear, but I do not think we should halt such innovations. To the contrary, I have friends in the same situation as your cousin Burt and I agree that we should pursue some of these techniques despite the extreme risk we might face from uncontrolled commercialization. I personally hope to benefit from such advances, although I expect I'll miss some of the ones I'd really like, including an increase in my IQ of another 100 points.

Nonetheless, after again reading your essay I do think you downplayed the extraordinary results this line of research may trigger and the equally extraordinary effort we now should be making to establish worldwide controls over the use and commercialization of the results.

You're probably familiar with Ray Kurzweil's recent book "The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology". While we might argue with some of it, it presciently predicts a "Moore's Law" for genetic manipulation advances. Can you imagine what some of us are likely to create if we have such complete control over DNA? Thai hybrid strumpets are the least of our worries.

Unfortunately, I think he also fails to warn us of the risks we face and the kinds of legal steps we should take to rein in uncontrolled applications. I'd guess Marie Curie didn't conceive of Hiroshima during her endless nights refining radium and you and I should not rein in our imaginations on what these techniques might deliver.

Once again, I urge you to consider how to advocate worldwide controls over the social utilization and commercialization of these techniques before they become widespread. Such controls should be built into the WTO, NAFTA, and other similar agreements. It's not that I want to preclude the fruits of this work but to assure that, like Chinese lead paint on our children's toys, we try to control worldwide use by constraining commercialization.

[cliffprice]

I can strongly emphasize with Beth Kohl"s comment and concern for her cousin. I"ve helplessly watched relatives and friends endure horrible suffering from terminal illnesses that could benefit from stem cell research. Of all of Bush"s idiotic, reprehensible, ill-conceived blunders, his veto of embryonic stem cell research is by far his most flagrant.

Both times Bush vetoed stem cell research, he ranted and raved about preventing "murder" of innocent but inconsequential lives for the sake of "depraved" scientific research, yet he totally ignored millions of real humans afflicted with painful terminal diseases that science is so desperately trying to find remedies for. This is the same blatantly over-exaggerated "mushroom-cloud" scare tactics the Bush administration used to mislead us into his preemptive war on Iraq and in his vetoes of stem cell research. Using over-extended hypothetical religious dogma to impede research that could alleviate or cure terminal illness in millions of suffering humans is egregiously immoral. As one whose family has an extensive hereditary background of diseases stem cell research cold alleviate or even cure, I am deeply offended by these baseless, weak-minded, over-exaggerated arguments that are used to impede stem cell research.

Albert Einstein said it best: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."