Mythic fear
We mentioned this several days ago — before the latest regulatory affirmation.
The possibility of British scientists creating human-animal embryos for medical research moved a step closer…
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the regulator for embryo research, decided that using the hybrid embryos for research into diseases such as motor neurone, Alzheimer’s and diabetes is legal under current legislation.
The HFEA met…to discuss whether it had the remit to licence and regulate the proposed research, deciding that it did have the authority to do so.
Lots of political hemming and hawing continues, of course — outside the scientific community charged with advancing the wellbeing of the nation.
The idea itself doesn’t bother me, but you have to wonder if this is really being done just to see if it can be done, or with a specific goal in mind.
#1
Face it, the next big leap for mankind is most likely in genetics. If it helps us, do it. A lot of people fear change. Remember the idiots who attacked computers with axes etc because they saw them as evil?
The work appears to be grounded in availability and cost considerations — with a near term potential of reducing both at least 75%.
Of course, the “deferring” bit is guaranteed to last beyond Blair’s resignation, this summer — the Labour Party getting disentangled from lapdog status with Bush — and probably a General Election without adding yet another complex issue for politicians in the UK to avoid.
#2 – I’m not saying it isn’t… I agree that it is. But when we start seeing stories like this they can only be out there for one of three reasons.
A. Shock value: Gets people thinking about genetics.
B. Mad scientist: Someone’s gone nuts and has become the freak show people will point at as a negative.
C. Actual value: As #3 points out, there is some cost savings involved… maybe. Is this needed?
Jag, there’s a big difference between “If it helps us, do it” and “If it helps us, throw money at it”. Which does this story point to?
I am fine with it so long as people can’t patent genetics. The next Monsanto owning the rights to a animal human hybrid could turn out bad. Just look at the damage they done with plant genetics in terms of using the government as a legal strong arm. They sued some farmer because his farm land became contaminated with Monsanto’s crop pollen.
#4 – not sure of your point (are you talking about the research or the news reports about it?) but it seems to me the real danger, aside from #5’s point about irresponsible companies patenting chimeras, is that researchers will adopt a “because I can” approach. Oh, wait – you already covered that under the “mad scientist” option. Sorry. But that 75% cost reduction is pretty compelling, if other ethical questions about creating human-beast chimeras can be settled.