Only gamers and nutballs should fear minotaurs
Britain’s leading scientists have made a final plea for the right to create the first animal-human embryos for medical research using eggs taken from dead cows.
The issue is controversial because it involves scientists taking an animal egg, removing its genetic material and putting DNA from a human cell into it. This can be used to create lines of stem cells which can then be made part of studies into incurable genetic diseases such as motor neurone disease.
However, it has caused controversy as some campaigners and religious groups argue that it is unethical to mix human and animal cells in this way.
The Catholic Church has made clear its opposition. Bishops told the parliamentary committee scrutinising a draft bill to allow the research to go ahead, that they opposed the creation of any embryo solely for research – they believe that all life begins at conception. In a submission to the committee, they said: ‘At the very least, embryos with a preponderance of human genes should be assumed to be embryonic human beings, and be treated accordingly.’
The legality of the procedure was affirmed in January. The predictable confrontation between science and the warriors of one or another god is now at full thunder and brimstone.
Hopefully, reason, objectivity and science shall prevail.
#29 bobbo presumption and logic both fail you.
No I’m not drinking this fine morning. Nor did I claim “all animals are just the same”.
You sure do try hard though, E for effort.
14 In fact, were I president of the world, I would outlaw all genetic research because of where it is going to eventually wind up, as stated above.
Good one!
Just like outlawing murder, rape, using drugs, etc has caused them to be eliminated from our world. đ
Reminded me of a stand-up comic’s [old] joke about New York banning smoking in bars: She busts-out laughing… “They can’t even enforce the murder laws in NewYork, and they’re going to stop people from smoking?”
31–Nightstar==since you can’t understand what you post yourself, repeating “exactly” what you say won’t help at all will it? So, I tried to coax you along, but I have faild. E for effort. F for accomplishments.
32–Mike==”I didn’t say—blah, blah, blah.”==no, I will not seek the idiot’s refuge. Will outlawing genetic research stop genetic research? Of course not. Now, lets be relevant and hold an idea for 3 seconds???–Might outlawing it avoid genetic manipulation from becoming a desktop plaything for children? – – Maybe. So, best case outcome in my scenario might only be “a delay” in the end of the world. A worthwhile goal no?
#33 I understand what I post. I understand what you post even when it’s nonsensical or contradictory. It’s you purpose that eludes me.
WTF are you driving at here bobbo?
Fearmongering… Is there anything it can’t do?
3 I donât see how making a human/animal hybrid is more ethical than experimentation on human embryos.
It depends on what your definition of “is” is…
No, wait…
It depends on what your definition of “embryo” is.
And, what your definition of “soul” is.
As I understand it, the ethical dilemma regarding using human “embryos” [even if it is just a grouping of 20-30 cells] has two, intertwined arguments:
1. Human life begins at conception.
2. All humans have a soul – which God [who else?] places in the fertilized egg at conception.
By that reasoning, any mucking-about with an embryo [even if only a cluster of cells] formed after a human sperm fertilizes a human egg – as God intended – is mucking-about with a Human. Letting the cells in the “embryo” die is therefore negligent homicide of that Human.
Since massive numbers of beef cattle are slaughtered daily, the plan is to “rescue” the butchered cow’s ovaries from being ground-up into “beef by-products” – and use those eggs to produce embryos with predominately human genes.
The questions:
1. Do the Human genes being introduced into the cow egg have a soul attached to them?
2. Is God placing a soul in the cow egg when the Human genes are introduced?
3. Is letting a group of cells die, that developed from a cow’s egg, considered negligent homicide of a Human?
28 – Nightstar
Not to attack, but I don’t recall that “the mark of Cain” was specified, if that is what you were talking about. Some decided that negro features were the mark of Cain, but, AFAIK, that was dreamed up some time after 1500. Before 1500, the Romantic Utopians were still drawing and painting all the primitives, including negros, as the personification of Purity and Innocence.
# 36 well stated.
If one doesn’t believe in god the ethical questions change somewhat. We can’t as a society achieve consensus on when human life begins, if theres a god or multiple gods or if we have souls.
#37 I was disparaging the veracity of dictionaries as a source of credible information on taxonomy regarding the question of “are humans different than animals”. It seems we revise our definitions every so often and rewrite our dictionaries and encyclopedias to reflect this. The mark of Cain is an excellent example of how contemporary views define a societies understanding of ethics and terms.
Simply put, it’s the religious left f**king with science again. Scientists should just ignore them, and when cures for everything that’s nasty begin to be discovered at a rate similar to discoveries enabled by the computer…. the religious left can opt out of using any of it.
Of course they’ll be hypocrites as usual.
34—Nightstar–you and I seem to honestly be not connecting. Maybe it has to do with what you just said, that as there is no god, there is no difference between a human embryo and other animal embryos? That is my position. – – – – – so – – – – I feel I am half way to whatever our misconnect is. Probably “me” interweaving cold science, with court decisions, with my faulty understanding of most religious positions.
and rereading, maybe this is it===you and I agree there is no ethical difference, but the question arises in trying to appease the religious right. Now, I believe the religious fundies do/ or potentially do/ see a difference and THAT is what the original posting was all about?
So, our misconnect may be simply one of different contexts==yours and mine personally, verses, the original posting?
Anyway–lets drop this particular issue, and disagree again in the very near future?
#40 bobbo I believe you are correct on our disconnect. I have to admit after rereading #4 I thought perhaps we were in agreement which is why I corrected myself in #6(or thought I had).
My second line in #5 probably set the tone: “Itâs right above your comment, so try not to misquote me so obviously.” I shouldn’t have been so confrontational.
Anyway consider it dropped, we’ll butt heads later.
#41, nightstar,
Thank you for clarifying your position earlier. I think we agree pretty well.
#30 American Holocaust looks like a good read. Loan it to me when u finish đ
A) Because people declared that blacks were not human does not make it so any more than me claiming a wristwatch is an airplane. It’s a falsehood. It also has nothing to do with some idiot arbitrarily declaring a 99% human hybrid not human. It is, by actual scientific defintition – wait for it ……. not human. A chimpanzee is OVER 99% human – and quite obviously is NOT a human. Therefore that 99% hybrid would be LESS HUMAN THAN A CHIMP – WHICH IS ALREADY NOT A HUMAN.
X on a stick, already. More friggin’ Logic-Free ReasoningÂŽâ˘.
B) And with the bit about “…a highly contagious new virus that kills all humans in hours…”
Oh, crikey. You need to quit watching those goddamn ‘B’ sci-fi movies.
A mammal / mammal hybrid resulting in a VIRUS???? What the flying fuck do they teach in science class these days????
The (pop-culture-inspired) scientific illiteracy, fear & superstition around here would do the religious-loony antievolutionists proud.
⢠⢠⢠â˘
#7 – Wayne Bradney
“…we should just be using human cells. Why take that 1% risk just to mollify the religious.”
Damn right, Wayne. Capitulation to the forces of antiscientific superstition won’t stop once it’s started. The only way of avoiding the slippery slope that’ll result from bowing one inch to the enemies of reason is to refuse to do so from the git.
– All of which is completely apart from the socially corrosive and regressive encouragement of superstition that said capitulation would give. A black eye to science, caving in to them, and it would only encourage more of the same…
#29 – bobbo,
ROFL!!! Hack cough … sorry … furball … mmm balls.
In other words, humans are animals. Humans are not special. As for your argument about 99% of people thinking people are special, so? Eat shit, a billion flies can’t all be wrong. Your argument is very funny, especially the line about licking balls and fur. But, it’s completely wrong and irrelevant.
In other words again, what we-the-idiots en masse believe, especially with respect to science has no bearing on its correctness. In fact, if it mattered what 99% of people believe, then you’d have to admit that, simply because so many people believe it, on or more gods must exist.
Humans differ from other animals only in magnitude, not in kind. The few things on which we are truly unique, include things like menopause. Oops, I thought I had another example or two, but I don’t. Oh wait, maybe having separate species of lice to infect our head and body hair is unique. Other species have just one species of louse to infest them. Perhaps that makes us uniquely lousy.
As for the issue here of implanting human DNA in cow cells. I really don’t much care. I’d rather keep it simple and just use the many readily available human cells created by in vitro fertilization just because I think the success rate will be higher. Remember, when they do in vitro fertilization, they fertilize many more eggs than will be used. These get thrown away every day. And, the religious wackos don’t seem to object to IVF. Personally, I do not ascribe “being human” to something that has fewer cells in total than are in a single mosquito brain.
Let’s get real here. A fertilized egg is just that. It has no brain, no thought processes, no ability to feel pain, and no rights. It does, however, have the ability to truly save human lives. So, if you want to claim to be pro life, truly pro life, stem cell research is something that you should very strongly support. If this is a way around the religiose among us, good. Let’s bypass that loud annoying amoral minority at every possible point.
#36 – Mike Voice,
I think it’s up to you to define “soul” in nice scientific terms. For me, I suspect that when I see your definition, I will simply say, “I don’t recall ever having one of those. I don’t see much use in them either.”
It sounds to me as if you are trying to legislate from religion. That is a truly evil position to take. If you want to see what happens when government uses religion for it’s laws, look to Iran. If you like what you see, please move there. Don’t turn the U.S. into a theocracy.
#44 – Lauren the Ghoti (aka Dr. Moreau),
“Oh, crikey. You need to quit watching those goddamn âBâ sci-fi movies.”
I bow to your superior experience and knowledge when it comes to what will result when lowly humans insert DNA from a human cell into a dead cow egg, the first step onto a possibly very short, slippery slope.
Oh, wait a minute, it’s never been done because people are a little bit worried about what might happen as a result – because it’s never been done and they don’t know what might happen! Obviously, they should simply have asked your opinion.
I do appreciate your perfect prescience. Certainly it relieves any anxieties I may have had. By all means, they should experiment away with no further thought or concerns!
If that was sarcasm, I think it may need a little more salt.
Thank you for projecting your obvious total lack of bioscience knowledge onto the rest of us, including yrs trly. There indeed are reasons for it not having been done as yet; however, your uninformed speculation on the specifics is just that.
Speaking as a person who, unlike yourself, does possess some small degree of knowledge in the life scineces, I’m here to inform you that while the fine details are not known, the net result of any such hybridization is not known to a certainty, what is known is that the “B”-movie scenario you suggest as a possibility is not a possibility.
Apparently you have no concept of how radically different vertebrate life is from viral life. Let me make an analogy that may help you grasp the impossibility of what you have suggested: When the process of making an airplane was merged with the process of making an orbital manned spacecraft, the result was the Space Shuttle – not a pencil.
My sincere advice is to let the people who, unlike yourself, actually know how such things work, in great detail, because they spend their lives doing it, analyze the possible consequences, since they – again unlike you – do not make uninformed, preposterously impossible guesses out of fear and ignorance.
Every generation has it’s superstitious peasants, ‘little old ladies’ of all ages and genders, who imagine, egotistically, that they are somehow magically qualified by their ignorance to question the judgements of those who actually know the science.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
William Shakespeare
#47 – Cinaedh,
Please specify exactly what in this worries you? Are you worried that we might produce humans with thicker leathery skin that might excel at pugilism? Are you worried that we might produce humans with a higher capacity to produce methane thus causing global warming?
Either way, I think we’re talking about trying to grow replacement organs. I don’t see how a pancreas is going to go on a murderous rampage.
Further, probably the only real difference between a cow stem cell and a human stem cell is the DNA. I think once the DNA is replaced, it’s human. I don’t imagine that each cell would have leather for the cell wall instead of a human cell wall.
The only concern I’d have about this is: Does this lead to a higher percentage of rejected organs due to antigens on the cell wall or some such than we would have if we started with human stem cells, which are readily available, as noted in my post #45 above.
I personally prefer to start with human cells, as our bodies do naturally, but see no real danger of Attack of the Killer Cows resulting from using beef stem cells, except for the danger of getting a movie that isn’t quite as funny as Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.
#49 – Cinaedh,
Oh Shakespeare, now it all makes sense. Please remind me though of the particular branch of science for which Shakespeare won the Nobel Prize. Thanks.
#46 It sounds to me as if you are trying to legislate from religion.
Have no fear. I am god-less. A Pat Condell “ditto head”, as it were.
http://www.patcondell.net/
I stated the argument “as I understand it” – not in defense of it. Throwing in a gratuitous ” – as God intended – ” as a bit of sarcasm.
I used the phrase “By that reasoning…”, because it is not my reasoning on the issue.
I think it is rather telling that the answer to the last three questions I ask must be “No” – because none of the religious arguments against using this procedure claim a “Human” is created, or that the hybrid has a “soul”.
Those in opposition to the procedure are left with just their claim that a “preponderance” of human genes means the hybrids should be given the benefit of the doubt – an argument which was nicely torn-to-shreds by Lauren the Ghoti in #44
#50 – Misanthropic Scott
I can’t believe you don’t get it that I can’t specify what worries me because what worries me are things I can’t specify.
I hope they know what they’re doing and I hope, as Lauren assures me, there is no chance for unexpected consequences but like most humans, I just naturally fear the unknown.
Unlike most humans, I don’t trust ‘scientists’ any more than I trust ‘religious fanatics’, although I do think scientists have at least something to offer for the betterment of humanity.
By my ignorance, I am reduced to Shakespeare, whom I’ve always found wise and disquieting.
“I hope they know what theyâre doing and I hope, as Lauren assures me, there is no chance for unexpected consequences but like most humans, I just naturally fear the unknown.”
Well, that’s honest. Points for that.
“…I donât trust âscientistsâ any more than I trust âreligious fanaticsâ…”
And there you’ve hit the nail on the head so to speak. Value relativism, ‘he said / she said’ “journalism” and the myth of democracy have combined over the last 50 years or so to give us a society where the judgements of experts, the very people who possess the greatest knowledge on a given subject, who have brought civilization to humanity, is given no more credence by laymen than the ignorant, superstitious irrationality of religion, which has done more to retard and undermine civilization than any other social factor.
What you say is, you give equal weight to the statements of both the people who know the most about it – and the people who know the least.
Don’t you think there’s something fundamentally wrong about that??
#52 – Mike Voice,
Thanks for clearing that up. Sorry, my inner geek interprets things too literally at times. But, now you’ve caused me to re-read #44.
#44 – Lauren,
While I certainly agree with your overall statement, I question the logic of bringing chimps into this. I believe chimps are human enough to have a lot of rights. I think they should not be used in drug testing, for example. I think that by the time we are ready to test medications on great apes, we should test on the great ape that has something to gain, us.
Your statement about chimps being definitively on the side of non-human makes me reasonably confident that you have not looked into the eyes of a chimp. I have been fortunate enough to look into the eyes of chimps in the wild. They are human. They’re every bit as evil as we are. They’re just not as good at it. They also have a tremendous capacity for good, as many individual humans do.
What chimps don’t have is the species level evil and destructiveness that we do.
I don’t go that extra step you do, Scott. I, to use a word I generally avoid, “worship” life – on a highly prioritized basis.
Any creature that possesses a distinct personality, for me, is a de facto person. And that means I accord them rights and respect I do not grant to nonsentient lifeforms. That said, there a fuzzy, but still extremely bright line, on one side of which is humanity (and possibly cetacea, with dolphins and porpoises having a similar relation to whales as we do to apes and monkeys), on the other, all other sentient life.
We do need formal, legal recognition of primates’ rights, but I don’t agree that those rights should ever equal those of homo sap.
As they say in country music, ‘It ain’t braggin’ if it’s true.’ Likewise, it’s not species-centric to say that humans are superior – because we are. Demonstrably so.
54—Lauren, very nicely stated. Gonna copy and paste that into my “fine reads.”
55–Common Scott!!!! Not everything “worthwhile” needs to be called human. That itself is speciest. Dogs should not be fought to death for fun and profit, (save that for bull rings?) one can argue. THAT argument is based on OUR humanity NOT the dog’s percentage of humanity.
But that is an interesting question, why we “feel” so close to chimpanzees or even other actual humans? What is this thing called empathy?
#53 – Lauren the Ghoti
“What you say is, you give equal weight to the statements of both the people who know the most about it – and the people who know the least.
Donât you think thereâs something fundamentally wrong about that??”
Well, it appears you’ve got me there.
Unfortunately, due to a couple of my former professions, it’s true I don’t believe anything said by anyone until I’ve verified it personally. I do NOT give more weight to the statements of say, a good citizen as compared to the statements of a pure and simple asshole. That’s mostly because both categories of people lied to me every time they opened their damned mouths.
That could be considered a lack of judgment or it could be considered scientific skepticism, neh?
As for the following:
“… the judgements of experts, the very people who possess the greatest knowledge on a given subject, who have brought civilization to humanity…”
Obviously, your doctor hasn’t tried to kill you yet.
#44, Lauren,
Oh, crikey. You need to quit watching those goddamn âBâ sci-fi movies.
Aahh, c’mon. Some of those âBâ movies are classics.
#56, #57, LtG & bobbo,
OK, perhaps human is the wrong term. However, since humans are human-centric, we have failed to come up with a correct term. I think the three of us are mostly in agreement. I just don’t feel a hard or definitive line between humans and other sentiences on the planet.
I think in some cases, the rights of other sentiences should exceed our own. For example, where do you place the rights of mountain gorillas? There are fewer than 700 in the world. They are sentient. They are far less violent and annoying than humans. And, their small numbers make them far more precious than humans, which are about 10 million times more numerous.
As for us being demonstrably superior, at what? If you define superior as the ability to use radio, true. Sonar, false. Language, indeterminate. Dolphins understand us. They understand when we speak. They understand when we gesture. They understand when they view our gestures on a television screen (pretty damn impressive, IMHO). They understand when we request difficult concepts like “be creative.” As an aside, they also pass the mirror test.
On the other side, they obviously communicate. They have a wide range of vocalizations and are highly social. They form relationships with their trainers in captivity. They rescue divers from sharks in the wild. And, when they communicate to us, we understand precisely zero. Which of us is smarter at language? The jury is still out until we can understand what they are saying.
So, maybe human enough was a poor choice of wording. Perhaps I should have said sentient enough, or some such. I would like a term that would convey the intelligence and also conjure the emotional affinity suggested by the term “human.” Any suggestions?