Human-animal embryos - What are the implications of this?

Hi Juan...Well I've tried the "significant other" thingy twice.

The first time created two wonderful children that I still dote upon when I have the chance. The second provided me with an opportunity to mentor a step son who turned into quite a good blues musician. But both marriages ended badly thru some very strange circumstances which I won't go into.

Now, if your highly hypothetical proposition had produced offspring for me that appeared to be an Afarensis child, I would have been very surprised and, at the least would have requested a paternity test for confirmation. If that proved conclusive and was confirmed through repetition, then yes...since it came from me my vested interest would have made it impossible for me not to be fully involved in raising him/her in the very best way that I could.

The point that I was trying to make in my previous posts was that when money drives the process of reproduction of life and not human love and compassion, it is then that we end up with "lab rats" and "pin cushions". But of course you realize that this is only a result of committed researchers when money and power control the processes of life reproduction. And right now, the reins of control, not to mention free and open discussion of the issues, has been taken out of the public forum and hidden away by those who have the most to financially gain in the process as it continues to exist.

The point I was also making was that this has been going on for better than twenty years now, and no one seems to really care about it yet very much. In fact this, obvious to me, lack of care by the public in general is what has largely motivated my writing and research activities for about twenty five years now. And conservative religious institutions have usually been the leaders, up until now, in the organized instruction of people in the fine art form of hiding their collective heads in the sand.

flow....:rolleyes:
 
flowperson said:
Hi Snoopy...At the time it was all just a job to me, and I was good at it. Of course one doesn't always realize, that even in middle age, what one is doing is really contributing to a larger problem instead of doing what we're all here for...finding the answers to problems.

Back then the "population bomb" was a very large perceived problem looming in the future and genetically modified food sources were successfully "sold" to us all as an answer. We went for the available answer instead of finding the roots of the "real" problems that humans must face collectively.

When you're staring across the table into the cold eyes of corporate attorneys and you've done a good job at attaining what your employer, a leading university in agricultural research, has stated as it's goals...and then the Dean of the Graduate College nudges you under the table and stares at you...you do the deal.

flow....:eek:
Click to expand...

Hey flow, you know I was only ribbing you...;)...We've all done some crap (there's that word again) in our time. Could still be doing it now, whether we realise it or not...

s.
 
Snoopy...I know that subtle humour is part of your ineffable charm and I am always appreciative of your ability to wield it with restraint and good taste. I was only making sure that others who might happen upon our exchange come to understand just what motivated me to act in the ways that I did in my misinformed former selfhood.

If you caught InLove's very prescient comment elsewhere about CR posts being read as history by those who, in the future, might wish to explore our reasons for doing what we did in the past, they will need to understand such things. I try to be ever mindful of that aspect in our exchanges. I view this as the older generation's primary obligation to future generations since books will likely eventually disappear, and knowledge will only be available on screens. And just to assure you of the timeless overabundance of crap in our lives (as if you need reminding)...it's about time again for me to clean my Indonesian Moustache Parakeet's cage...ugh !

flow....:p
 
"Prescient". I like that. And here I thought I was just being "hokey". :)
 
Kindest Regards, Flow!
flowperson said:
Now, if your highly hypothetical proposition had produced offspring for me that appeared to be an Afarensis child, I would have been very surprised and, at the least would have requested a paternity test for confirmation. If that proved conclusive and was confirmed through repetition, then yes...since it came from me my vested interest would have made it impossible for me not to be fully involved in raising him/her in the very best way that I could.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean specifically an Afarensis child; but that with genetic manipulation if the child came out to look something like an Afarensis child. It is good to hear on all counts that you have done what you could for those you have raised ("yours" and adopted), and that you would extend that grace to a modified child should the manipulation perhaps not go quite as planned. Dolly the sheep, as I recall, died way too young after suffering severely crippling arthritis and other chronic ailments. There is nothing yet to indicate we will not have to first surmount similar odds when dealing with human genomic manipulation. I fear the first generations of genetically modified humans will suffer overwhelming chronic ailments which previously will be unforeseen.

The book "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley was recently brought up in another conversation...seems fitting how such things tie in together. In that book, not only was the government the sole and only parent of all children, but that specific "races" were "engineered" to serve specific roles. Apartheid on steroids with government sanction to boot. Not only can I envision an Huxleyesque servant race, I can also envision a "super"-human race bred specifically for the military (looking not unlike the more recent version of "Planet of the Apes" or the Orcs in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy).

flowperson said:
The point that I was trying to make in my previous posts was that when money drives the process of reproduction of life and not human love and compassion, it is then that we end up with "lab rats" and "pin cushions". But of course you realize that this is only a result of committed researchers when money and power control the processes of life reproduction. And right now, the reins of control, not to mention free and open discussion of the issues, has been taken out of the public forum and hidden away by those who have the most to financially gain in the process as it continues to exist.
Click to expand...
I agree that business is a huge driver behind a lot of ethical issues, but it is not alone. A lot of people are under the misguided impression that President Bush has discouraged human genetic experiments...that's not quite true. Bush's "veto" on this was about government funding for research...absolutely nothing is stopping private corporate business from conducting human genomic research in the US. What got everybody's goat was that the government wasn't going to foot the bill for the university system. Perhaps you know a little about this?

I seem to recall a little incident going back some years now, where Monsanto spliced some genes of a flounder fish into a commercial strain of tomato to increase cold survival. Word got out, and the project was fairly quickly halted, at great loss of R & D capital. This is probably one reason why such projects have become rather hush-hush. The outcry in Europe far exceeded that in the states, with protests calling for the banishment of "Frankenfoods." Now, less than a generation later, we witness similar as starving countries in Africa are turning away genetically modified grains with similar cries of "Frankenfood."

We are far too near the beginning of all of this to fully realize the impact of what we are allowing to be done in the name of agribusiness. Human population explosion bedamned...what good is a hyperproductive crop that is ultimately deleterious to the human anatomy? And average joe US citizen is serving unwittingly as the guinea pig in all of this!

flowperson said:
The point I was also making was that this has been going on for better than twenty years now, and no one seems to really care about it yet very much. In fact this, obvious to me, lack of care by the public in general is what has largely motivated my writing and research activities for about twenty five years now. And conservative religious institutions have usually been the leaders, up until now, in the organized instruction of people in the fine art form of hiding their collective heads in the sand.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I have not witnessed conservative religious leaders organizing instruction of head burying. No, that head burying instruction I have seen has come directly from the Business and Intellectual (read that: University) world that stands so much to profit from the ethical redirection of attention. Raise a big stink over embryonic stem cells so nobody thinks to look at their frosted flakes. :D

Luv ya, Flow! Thanks for the insight, keep it coming! We all need to hear it!
 
Hi Juan...Love is a many splendored thing, and right back at'cha.

I guess my biggest beef with how all this is progressing is that secrecy has so much to do with it all. The truth of it all is that things may be more effectively hidden away in private companies and their privately funded institutes. Government laboratories are something else altogether as we've seen with the current administration's focus on the political controls imposed upon the reportage of national lab work. National lab scientists like to believe that they're more closely allied with university environments, but the truth is something environmentally quite different.

But in universities it is different. There is an obligation to publicly disclose the results of research and development for the benefit of the public. That is the entire point behind the world-wide collaboration among researchers and the publication of their results. Global organizations of scientists further this impetus. There is a degree of difference in the concealment of results between private and public universities, but in the main in these environments, the scientific community remains in control of the processes of moving science out of the labs and into the lives of ordinary people.

So in the first two scenarios above, scientists and engineers are naturally restrained in their disclosure and publications almost entirely for commercial or political reasons. In the university model, at least those who know the most about what is going on with the science have the most control over the final disposition of the results.

But even that began to change significantly in the 80's with the onset of innovative chip design/building techniques and biotechnology discoveries. Automatically, the time scale from development of basic science in university labs to the point of public utilization began to contract due to the "first to market" syndrome. The newest and most impactful discoveries make the most money, and universities were put into the market oriented rush in two ways. Access to public funds for basic research began to "magically" shrink, and legislation was passed at all levels of government to enable their closer relations with industrial partners...and the rest is what we now have, for better or worse.

So Juan, I suggest that we keep on eating our frosted flakes as they are and hope for the best. Of course they might cost three times as much in a few years because of the coming ethanol debacle. Everyone's piling on this bandwagon without realizing that it takes as much energy to make ethanol out of corn as it does to just pump more oil for gasoline. Ethanol is at best only a stopgap measure, but hundreds of millions are being spent on processing plants. Supply and demand pressures on corn crops is consistently pushing the price of corn sky high because of the demands imposed on the markets by ethanol manufacturers. Oh, what a wicked web we weave....

flow....;)
 
humans evolve, the planet evolves, and maybe this is just another step in the evolution of man/the world? okay, scientists don't quite yet know what they are doing, yet, but well... let's give it a go. If we can tinker with say, the genes of a pig which will allow us to use that pigs heart in a transplant which will save a small child's life, then why not try, if the child will die anyway?

If I can produce a crop which is locust resistant, or modify a plant so that I can grow say, oranges in scotland, then why not try? But yes! experiments like this are already up and running, and that's without even mentioning more contentious aspects of genetics such as stem cell research...

yes, maybe it seems a little scary, and yes, what if it all goes wrong? But you see, people have been attempting to cross breed differing animal species for thousands of years, and generally the creatures are not viable, they are miscarried by the animal, or born premature/underweight, malformed, and they die early.

now... doing this crossbreeding via the genetics lab is a different ballgame. It's not like mating a cow and a man, and it birthing a mancow. Instead, its more a case of...

each person/creature has a barcode. they all have that same length of barcode, but they have different numbers written underneath the lines, and the lines are differently spaced. Now, if in a cow, we realise that what makes them big and strong is line 2, number 1, then in theory we should be able to access this line 2 number 1 in man and somehow, activate it or turn it on, so that the man becomes big and strong like a cow. However, we are not up to that level of things yet, but we will be soon.

Of course, when we get to that stage then other problems will arise. If we meddle with the mans line 2 number one then maybe this will cause something on his line three number 4 to change, and the mancow becomes man-who-smells-of-cabbage.

Altering the dna sequence of human beings to eradicate disease will happen, eventually, when we are more sure of the specifics. If we could do the same for animals too, then maybe we would live in a kind of utopia... I am sick of every new change being viewed as dystopic by Luddites and the conspiracists, protesting from their cosy corners in their organic t-shirts with bellies full of lentil burgers.

Maybe instead of creating pigmen, or dogwomen, or scaly lizard children, we might use this new technology to save lives, and improve things? I mean, things to change to the good as well as the bad, don't they?

sometimes?
 
Francis...Yes very well said. What is going on will bring change to both the good and the bad things in life. However, the nature of the technological alteration of genomes is now being undertaken more on a mechanistic basis as opposed to an artistic basis.

Also, the automation of such alteration procedures speeds up cycles of change and the resultant needs for humans to adapt to resultant changes. So adaptation cycles that took us perhaps hundreds of years to assimilate may be required within a few decades. IMHO this is already going on before our eyes right now due to past oversights.

The problem with approaching all of this stuff about genomic alteration as a process similar to replacing a broken part in an automobile with a new one, is that there are really no interchangeable parts, even though it may appear to be that way. Even human genomes are only 99% compatable.

Instead, alteration of genomic structures must be approached similarly to rewriting an old song into a new song. In the old song every note, rhythm, melody, and harmony fits into a workable, wholistic entity that functions based upon exquisite timing mechanisms which brings functional life to inanimate chemical and atomic structures. These sort of approaches to genomic research should be adopted in time instead of the mechanistic genomic alteration processes mostly now in use, or we may risk episodes of chaotic repercussions within life processes.

But I believe your thinking to be sound in much of your statement Francis.

cheers....flow....:)
 
Ok maybe it is possible that it is evolution....and maybe we'll accidentally create intelligent, peaceful man with powers of compassion, caring and persuasion that will be able to stop wars.. and figure out global warming, poverty, population explosion, and turning waste into clean energy.

While they are at it, I'd like to fly, and have the eyes of an eagle by day and an owl by night, sonar like a bat, be able to breathe underwater, and the sense of hearing and smell of a dog. That last one just so I can sniff the air and find out who is in heat in the club or neighborhood.
 
Kindest Regards, Francis!

In general, I understand what you are saying, even if I might unfairly be perceived as a Luddite...

However, I did find a little bit of inaccuracy:
Francis king said:
each person/creature has a barcode. they all have that same length of barcode, but they have different numbers written underneath the lines, and the lines are differently spaced.
Click to expand...
In simple terms, this part I highlighted is not true. Using the barcode reference, the barcode is not the same length in every creature. Of some 3 billion base pairs in the DNA of a typical human, less than 100 thousand compose the genomic map, and far fewer still make up the genes. There is a difference between human genes and bonobo (and other simian) genes of one gene. Another example, the domestic horse has 64 genes, and the Przewalski's horse (wild horse of the Steppes) has 66 genes, yet the two can successfully interbreed with fertile offspring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przewalski's_Horse

Aside from the minor inaccuracy, I do understand what you are saying. I think we should begin our genetic experiments on the children of those people who most strongly advocate in favor of genetic experiments. Their children, afterall, are merely things to be experimented on, not really human people, not human children, not worthy of a mother's love and affection and concern. IOW, experiment all day long on your own children. Leave my children alone. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Juan...At the risk of repeating myself (which you know I detest) we are all already unwillingly/unwittingly participating in genome alteration experimentation by eating the food we eat, by drinking the water we drink, and by breathing the air we breath. A large amount of research data has shown the importance of the planet's environments ongoing effects upon the evolvement/devolvement of living genomes. Bar code length arguments and priorities concerning experimentation subjects are a specious distraction from the main issue.

The issue is, now we are accelerating and compounding the existing incidences of risk/change by directly and mechanistically altering the genomes of life in purposeful experimentation, and through the irresponsible release of the results of that experimentation into our common environments. I believe that your picking nits over just who should suffer such pin cushion/lab rat indignities are inappropriate.

THE COW'S ARE OUT OF THE BARN. THE TOOTHPASTE IS OUT OF THE TUBE FOR EVERYONE ON THE PLANET. AND NANOTECHNOLOGY WILL ONLY HASTEN THESE EFFECTS.

Rent copies of Gattica and AI-Artificial Intelligence for realistic societal longer term scenarios regarding this process.

There...I feel better at least.

flow....:eek:
 
Kindest Regards, Flow!
flowperson said:
Rent copies of Gattica and AI-Artificial Intelligence for realistic societal longer term scenarios regarding this process.
Click to expand...
No need to rent, I own both, and have for some time now. Enough so that I referenced GATTACA in a paper in a medical ethics class, an elective class I took, for my Associate's Degree, before my Bachelor's. Personally, I like these two movies, and agree they provide a great deal of food for thought *if* one takes the concepts to deeper levels. (Far more insightful was the roundtable discussion on PBS entitled "Our genes, our choices." I have referenced before here in another thread on genetics.) I was personally disappointed with AI, with all the hype about Spielberg it was not one of his better efforts. I do so wish Stanley Kubrick had directed instead, as was the original plan prior to his untimely death. Of course, I am not sure I see the direct association between the movie AI and genomic manipulation... HAL 9000, on the other hand, :D Besides, there are data mining AI robots in use by business that control our everyday lives and have for a few years now...perhaps that is what you were driving at?

Alas, perhaps I should be silent, and so promote open-minded discussion by allowing only those voices that are in agreement to continue discussions such as this... *shrugs* We all know the voice of dissent must be silenced, especially if it is the voice of conscience, yes?
 
No No Juan...without dissent there is never any forward progress. On the contrary... your concerns are valid and genuine. Sorry for my over use of Caps.

Here are a couple of links that bring these ideas into a more contemporary focus and reality. I just posted the second link on the "Nephilim" thread also to get the biblical side of this all perhaps moving again. I have been saying to myself for sometime now that "the past and the present are in the future, and the past is the future".

Roll with it all, and as you observed Gattica and AI were adequate artistic projections for their eras, but not as strange as it's all probably going to wind up. In order to get to a future that is viable for our children and theirs, we all need to debate and think deeply about all of these issues. It is all so huge it sometimes seems better to throw up our hands in despair, but the good of it all is there somewhere...we just need to discover it. But then again, maybe all we're doing is enabling those who wish to create Jurassic Park scenarios.

Peace, Love....flow....:)

Techies Ponder Computers Smarter Than Us | LiveScience

RaidersNewsNetwork.com – Breaking News, U.S., World, Science, and Mystery
 
Kindest Regards, Flow!
flowperson said:
Techies Ponder Computers Smarter Than Us | LiveScience

RaidersNewsNetwork.com – Breaking News, U.S., World, Science, and Mystery
Click to expand...

Interesting links. The cyborg stuff is actually pretty old thinking, just a matter of "when." At some point we are bound to try to merge HAL 9000 with the Six Million Dollar Man, at which point why bother with organics? Organics wear out, subject to disease and injury, etc. So why not simply build a robot that resembles a human? It would certainly short cut the process of building a super race of sub-servient morons all living in the artificial "peace" of conformity or else. Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Sounds like utopia to me...*not.*

The trouble I see, is that Asimov's three laws of robotics will be ignored in all of the AI and other artificial life processes, especially as these come into commercial application. The three laws should be hard wired programming that cannot be erased or countervented in all robotic applications, in my opinion. Even though this presents its own perils, I think the perils presented by this dilemma are far more tolerable than the alternative.

My favorite line from Jurassic Park, "just because we can, doesn't mean we should."

As for the Nephilim / chimera subject, first I thank you for supporting my long standing contention here that the line we call "species" is not so defined as we kid ourselves about. Transpecies genetic manipulation is again old news (the whole Frankenfood debate is at root this very thing), what is remarkable is that the technology has advanced to a point where we are beginning to seriously discuss application to human genetics with no really distinct reason. Sure, reasons can be invented, but what could we possible hope to gain by inserting dog or cat genes into the human genome? On the other hand, I can see inserting Gorilla genes in an effort to create an inordinately strong human...the challenge being creating such a creature that will still obey orders and not think for itself!

The ethical issue at root is about responsibility. Scientific responsibility. The technology exists, in both cases, or is so very close as to make these individuals believe they can attempt these efforts. But at what point does the detriment outweigh the benefit, and who then is to be responsible? I am not talking about financial responsibility, that is yet another smoke screen, the lawyers recommend throwing a few bucks around to cover the casualties...I am not speaking of this. I am speaking of the moral obligation to our fellow human beings to do ultimately what is best and right in and on their behalf...even and especially if that actually means ceasing in our tracks from careening down an uncharted path, at midnight, with no lights on, blindfolded, a stuck throttle and no brakes. I seriously question how well many of these adventurous technologists consider the ramifications of their activities. I really think that ego aggrandizement clouds better judgement, at least as well as the carrot of huge amounts of money and the stick of threat of loss of reputation and employment.
 
Hi Juan:

The singularity conference in SF was a significant event in that these people are now starting to confront, for real, what the moral and real world implications of what is coming and what they are doing. No more delaying tactics. No more rationalizations. No more obfuscating the issues with money inducements. What is to be done to deal with the stupendous repercussions of what they are creating ?

Bet you a few bucks that there weren't any theologians there because they would have said,"There's something profoundly wrong with a society that wants to build robots that are more like humans, and that attempts to coerce humans into behaving more like robots." I've been in meetings where these issues were seriously ventilated... 20 years ago...and here we are again...for real.

As far as brother Issac, yes he was a physicist, and a wonderful writer. But his three laws were only suggestions to the future which the real future is ignoring. I'm sure Asimov is spinning counterclockwise wherever he rests

I am firmly in the belief that the period for choosing an appropriate path to pursue these technologies was over sometime ago, and that power and the greedy lust for money and ultimate control of human life has already won the argument. The real issues are, how do people of moral foundation and sacred belief react in protest, for that must surely come ?

It's going to be quite a ride. Gotta go... the wireless receiver/transmitter biochip behind my right ear is starting to itch and my tinnitus is beginning to increase in intensity.

flow....:rolleyes:
 
Well, I thought that this thread would go on to die the lingering death that it so richly deserved, but it was a stimulating discussion while it lasted. And then...this little item popped up in the news today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070918/sc_afp/peruhealthoffbeat;_ylt=AsJIuzFOK2NgBW6HIGU0XD2s0NUE

Which all automatically reminded me of some of my misspent youth and the films that inspired some of us on to rewarding careers in science and technology *heh,heh*.

flow....:cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwHU3rCu2Yc
 
Tao_Equus said:
Over the pond here in the UK we do have a debate on the ethics of such issues but unlike the US it will not be a "pro-life" dominated demonstration of emotion over facts. The purpose of such research is to provide relief or even cure for some of the diseases that stubbornly resist any conventional treatments and if there is hope that they will work they should be tried. Creating Chimera stem cells may well be regarded as playing god but we have the ability to try such things and we should. Pushing the boundaries of the possible is what being human is all about.

Tao
Click to expand...

If we would collect the cord blood of every baby born- we would have plenty of stem cells without spending the money developing hybrid genetically engineered embryos or challenging any ethics. For every baby born, enough blood can be collected from the cord to treat 4 people on average........ however, we rarely do it. It should be standard procedure in every childbirth.
 
fourgrtkidos said:
If we would collect the cord blood of every baby born- we would have plenty of stem cells without spending the money developing hybrid genetically engineered embryos or challenging any ethics. For every baby born, enough blood can be collected from the cord to treat 4 people on average........ however, we rarely do it. It should be standard procedure in every childbirth.
Click to expand...

Good point, yes it should.
 
Time that we resurrect this thread I believe.

Now, I think I agree with this to some extent, but I think this guy's got the timeline all wrong. Looks to me more like 2,400 when the differences he predicts are so evident. Already, while the obesity epidemic is raging, children and young adults each generation in the Netherlands are getting very much taller than their parents on average.

Interesting stuff, but I think he may have watched too many HG Wells stories set to film while young.

flow....:rolleyes:

BBC NEWS | UK | Human species 'may split in two'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top