Suppose a human is genetically engineered to have a significant number of genes derived from animals. Would this being be alienated from the human race? Would it have full moral rights?
Prof' Macgregor, this is a huge subject that we have to face from many different perspectives, as we look at this 'modern world' and we see that the lines between human and animal behaviour have been broken and one is not sure anymore who and what act worse.
Please find here just a first approach to this: It is clear to see that human beings got an 'x factor' that other living creatures have not; one of the 'genes' of this x factor is the free conscious choice. So, scientist as human being would be free to choose. However, because of this freedom of choice we were also granted with the 'genes' of conscience and moral instinct. Both genes; the freedom and the morality, in my view, should be working in harmonious balance and protect us and everything we do from taking the wrong way, or getting completely fixed. Therefore scientists can choose not to mixed the genes of one specie they didn't create with genes of another specie they didn't create in respect of the Creating they don't understand. On the other hand they can do what they like; for any reason they choose to adopt to substantiate it. That will not make it good or moral, or something else...
Prof' Macgregor, this is a huge subject that we have to face from many different perspectives, as we look at this 'modern world' and we see that the lines between human and animal behaviour have been broken and one is not sure anymore who and what act worse.
Please find here just a first approach to this: It is clear to see that human beings got an 'x factor' that other living creatures have not; one of the 'genes' of this x factor is the free conscious choice. So, scientist as human being would be free to choose. However, because of this freedom of choice we were also granted with the 'genes' of conscience and moral instinct. Both genes; the freedom and the morality, in my view, should be working in harmonious balance and protect us and everything we do from taking the wrong way, or getting completely fixed. Therefore scientists can choose not to mixed the genes of one specie they didn't create with genes of another specie they didn't create in respect of the Creating they don't understand. On the other hand they can do what they like; for any reason they choose to adopt to substantiate it. That will not make it good or moral, or something else...
Presumably we will at some point be growing human organs in host nonhuman animals such as pigs for transplant. Such animals will be human-pig chimera and the organs, once transplanted, will likely result in microchimerism (i.e. the permanent presence of cells from another organism). Microchimerism is already a common phenomenon, since most women who have been pregnant carry not only their own cells but some cells from their offspring. Should a few immigrant pig cells instead of immigrant human cells make a difference? I myself wouldn't care if my life depended on a replacement organ with a few pigs cells. In the future, if we colonize other planets, there might even be a need for more radical use of nonhuman genetic material to enhance fitness for survival in hostile environments. I think the real danger comes from the other direction, e.g. putting human cells into pig embryos that may start to form neurons resulting in humanlike consciousness. That could indeed result in alienated individuals or moral agents manqués.
Of course there are situations which are mandatory. But mixing gens foe the sake of it or to give humans capacity they were not born with as being more resistant to cold or heat. In that sense I do not agree with those experiments using plants only.
that's a good question,
Research and ethics are two elements that are often opposed. I would like to think that research is based on ethics but not always so. Research is sometimes subject to economic interests or the very ego of discovery.
My answer would be yes, as long as there is a previous and consensual reflection with more than one researcher, that is to say, I believe that it is good that science advances but that there is a supervision of ethical values. Otherwise we would enter a dystopian genus dangerous for the human species itself.
There are many ethical codes, I leave the link of one that seems to me quite relevant
http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan03/principles.aspx
Thank you for the question that is not allowed and I do not agree with that
Noooooo , we (all of us humans and all forms of living creatures) are beautiful and wonderful recipe of nature . It has bestowed us the essential mechanism for survival and growth ...
Don't tamper it , as it is we are.
As far as morality goes that certainly is not engineered Prof .
Again the beauty is our kids can be trained to "some" extent :(
excellent answers and insights given by Dr Erez Grinboim and Dr Karl Pfeifer.....have a great day!
It can be conditionally allowed as a STRATEGY FOR SURVIVAL....there are many people going blind or dying everyday because of lack of donors for organs....human-animal hybrid will address the problems by serving as generous donors.....please go through link below for more details....
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/human-pig-hybrid-embryo-chimera-organs-health-science/
By Erin Blakemore
PUBLISHED JANUARY 26, 2017
In a remarkable—if likely controversial—feat, scientists announced today that they have created the first successful human-animal hybrids. The project proves that human cells can be introduced into a non-human organism, survive, and even grow inside a host animal, in this case, pigs.
This biomedical advance has long been a dream and a quandary for scientists hoping to address a critical shortage of donor organs.
Every ten minutes, a person is added to the national waiting list for organ transplants. And every day, 22 people on that list die without the organ they need. What if, rather than relying on a generous donor, you could grow a custom organ inside an animal instead?
Irresponsibly and without following any Moral Standard, Ethical Principle or Humanitarian Law, scientists should not be allowed to do this type of experiments to create hybrids of Human-Non-Human Animal.
If the objective is to improve with scientific knowledge the characteristics of some Non-Human Animal species; or separately improve the health and genetic load of the Human Animal, perfectly controlled experiments could be carried out.
In fact, the last century was able to produce, with the scientific and technological advances available in the decade of the 80s, Hybrid-Human hybrid cells "Hybridomas" (Peter Medwar), which made discoveries of Histo-compatibility antigens (HLA) and the foundations of the Science of Transplants in Humans and Diseases for Self-immunity were laid.
En forma irresponsable y sin seguir ninguna Norma Moral, Principio Ético ni Ley Humanitaria, no se debe permitir que los científicos hagan este tipo de experimentos para crear híbridos de Animal Humano-No Humano.
Si el objetivo es mejorar con el conocimiento científico las características de alguna especie Animal no Humano; o por separado mejorar la salud y carga genética del Animal Humano, podrían realizarse experimentos perfectamente controlados.
De hecho, el siglo pasado se logró producir, con los avances científicos y tecnológicos disponibles en la década de los 80s, células híbridas Humano-Ratón "Hibridomas" (Peter Medwar), con lo cual se hicieron descubrimientos de los Antígenos de Histo-compatibilidad (HLA) y se sentaron las bases de la Ciencia de los Trasplantes en Humanos y de las Enfermedades por Auto-inmunidad.
It is not ethical. It's somehow dehumanizing to do that.
Thanks
Oluwaseun
What does this question even mean?
First, there is no difference between "human" and "animal" genes, except what is supposed to "naturally" occur in the respective gene pools of particular species. Even these genes are not fixed, but in constant (albeit slow) flux, due to mutations. Cross-species transfer of genes is something that can and does happen in the nature, see e.g. [1]. It's a well-known fact that modern human genome contents a significant amount of genes originating from the Neanderthals [2].
So, if the purposes and outcomes of such work are sane and beneficial, then the answer should be yes
Of course, it's possible to use this technology (as well as almost any scientific discovery) for unethical purposes, illustrated by popular plots in classic horror science fiction literature (e.g. [3]).
But this issue really doesn't have much to do with genetics. Indeed, one should understand that that sadistic "experiments" of creating horribly crippled beings are perfectly possible to conduct even with very primitive technology.
In particular, the question about someone being a moral subject/object should not be tied to the present/documented human genome, but to ones ability to do conscious decisions.
[1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28190-if-viruses-transfer-wasp-genes-into-butterflies-are-they-gm/
[2] http://www.nature.com/news/modern-human-genomes-reveal-our-inner-neanderthal-1.14615
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_of_Doctor_Moreau
There is a moral aspect to most of everything we human do and can even think of - even if sometimes it's not apparent if the first instance. The consequences of our actions have to be take into account before it's too late.
Whatever design us as human being: God, Creation, Evolution, Nature, a combination of some or all the above - whatever anyone would like to call it... And whatever of these has granted us with a special conscious awareness - I.e. a consciousness of our consciousness, has also given us the responsibility that comes with it. We can't say we didn't know.
We can't expect animals or other forms of life to behave like humans, but we can expect from ourselves not to behave like animal or other forms of life.
There are enough stories that illustrate that after a heart transplant a person gets some of the characteristics of the donor and sometime even recall some of their life experiences in details.
What would that say about the possible human/animal genetic mix? What would be the consequences of that mix? There is a growing movement that stand against genetic modification of different foods, shall we not consider very seriously our own 'genetic modification'...???
I think that there is already much commonality between human and non-human DNA, so I think too much is being made of this. MIght be one of those religious arguments that is begging to change, in the years and decades to come.
The human existence is full of examples of technologies invented, once questioned by many, and now depended upon for our survival. I mean honestly, people were afraid we were going to run out of whale oil at one point, because the whale population couldn't keep up with our demand for oil. Our history is full of examples like this, where technology saved the day at the 11th hour. There's no way we could go back to pre-petroleum times, relying only on whale oil. Why should genetic engineering be so fundamentally different? I'll bet it's not.
The question will be hotly debated, will keep us from advancing too recklessly, but eventually these techniques will become the norm. If human survival depends on genetic engineering, some accommodations will be found. Never say never.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics