I'm so hip I can't see over my pelvis.
5 pages, double spaced
Overlooking the Next Step: Chimeric Potential
For many years scientists have developed an ongoing multitude of research and exploration for the human genetic structure. From cosmological advances to medical necessities, genetics has been a huge market for human needs. Many studies have intertwined themselves to help push the progress in such fields as immunology, biochemistry, cellular chemistry, structural biology, and the like. All of these areas of research play such an important role in each other’s improvement; that, until recently, they could not help but be constrained by their lack of possible expansion outside of the human genetic code. Using animals for the advancement of human genetic evolution is becoming a major “next step” in the near future. Chimeras, organisms with tissues of two or more different genotypes from the introduction of cells from a genetically distinct individual, are looking to be the stage-point for new human evolution (Hickman, 2004). Several questions come to mind when thinking about such a pivotal movement. What are the ethical ramifications of such research? Does the human species need genetic alterations? How valid does becoming human become? In terms of human progression, are these kinds of advancements too fast for where our population is at?
Cloning is one of the biggest technological humps that scientific community has not been able to get full public consent for. It also has almost the same magnitude as chimeras in the sense of acceptance. With chimeras, we may face a new segregated class of people. Through the American process of legislation, a company that builds new life through DNA manipulation is able to patent the genetic information and that patent is now considered property (Walters, 2005). Perhaps a company would wish to create more workers that are genetically obligated to be loyal, compliant, and/or submissive. These genetically engineered workers are considered property under law, and as property they would not have to be paid. Are they human or are they animals with human appearance? The same could be said with an animal genetically programmed to have human intelligence.
Not all chimeras are considered as questionable. For example, a common surgery practice is to replace defective human heart valves with valves from pigs and cows. By definition that person is a now a chimera, an organism with two different genotypes. Pigs are harvested for food so why not utilize their bodies for organs as well? How do we determine what line is not to be crossed? There are few who would argue that there would never be significant breakthroughs in medical research from animal testing. Scientists have recently been able to have male mice produce sperm cells for different species. By transplanting tissue from the testicles of other newborn pigs and goats on to the backs of laboratory mice the tissue was able to produce viable sperm of the donor species (Mayell, 2002). Not that the human species itself is in dire need of such research, but this type of genetic construction would be very helpful with the continuation of certain endangered species. Suppose a species has so little variation in its genetic code, either by natural causes or human environmental recklessness, faces extinction. There are two very obvious alternatives to this, both with consequences. The first, being from an environmentalist point of view, would be that the population is allowed to die and we no longer have their existence on the planet. The second is through human intervention. There are ways that with the introduction of that new viable sperm to enhance and “fill in gap” to help the species overcome its lack of diversity. Yet, by saving this species we have now altered its genetic code. Would saving a species be an acceptable enough reason to maintain a chemeric population? Alternatively, consider that chimera research is used to benefit human needs in at desperate time. Lab mice are frequently used for disease study. The more human-like scientists can make their test subjects, the greater benefit and understanding they will have in their research of overcoming human ailments or disease. Stanford University has created a way to introduce human fetal neural stem cells into the brains of newborn mice. The goal of this project is to allow examination of how fetal cells develop and to some day be able to generate networks of neural cells for treatment of brain disorders such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease (Cohen, 2003). Surely, human needs fit the criteria for chimeric studies, but fears of inhumane acts will keep a lot of this type of study bogged down. A major worry is that we will create a “sub-human” class that will be used for tissue and organ transplants. Doubts of this type of renegade “harvesting” is held by the scientific community. Considering that chimeric-humans would fall under the protection of a normal society, they would not be harvested any more than people are today (May, 2000).
Does the human species need genetic alterations to become more animal than man? Much of “our” human DNA is shared with various other creatures that are some how distantly related to us such as mice, yeast, and worms (Robert, 2003). Perhaps if we humans were the species that had very little genetic diversity we might consider allowing ourselves to have more animal-like genetic structure. Right now the major issue for turning humans into more animal-like species is the debate over “why?” Arguing over if humans can naturally breed with a coyote can give a person very curious looks, because everyone is aware that crossing the species boundary does not happen so easily without use of technology. Although it does happen just as easily, take for example a mule. A mule is a sterile hybrid species that comes from the mating of a male donkey and a female horse. The species boundary has been crossed even though the offspring are unable to reproduce. Humans, by the same standard, who need technology to reproduce, are not a different species because they are not able to have offspring. The offspring are undeniably human. So by using a non-natural means to cross species is no reason to discount the validity of off-spring of as human. Even if it becomes safe to have chimeric children, there still arise unique problems. Identity, at least for the first generation, will become a key role in determining how these productions of children are incorporated into society. There are several possibilities to the reaction of public opinion, allowing for breakthrough technology if people are for or against chimeric introduction. Fearing of losing what makes an individual “human” would be the most focused attention. Yet, humanity certainly would not lose the “classic” ways of reproduction, but have a boost in the way the human body works. Where does this lead? Increased functionality, prolonged life, improved quality of life, and ease of suffering are the principles of medicine. This is truly the principles of chimeric initiation into this society, not to make an aberration to the social order.
Right now on earth we are standing at about 6.4 billion people. Do we really need more? We could discredit technology enough to where we do not have to use it in the reproduction. Most people would consider moving away from technology like “stabbing yourself in the foot”; while others would say that this is an appropriate route. There are many fears about technology that deal with reproduction. Most conventional people would argue that there are many places to adopt children or that using technology to “build” an individual would be more damaging to the earth than helpful. With new techniques there are new risks that develop. How would we introduce new genetic material into the “human code” with focused observation of how the being would result? The best way right now is through in vitro fertilization, but still comes at a cost. Side effects to in vitro fertilization, IVF, that have yet to be eliminated are premature births, an increased rate of multiple births, elevated risk for low birth weight, a high percentage would have birth defects such as chromosomal and musculoskeletal abnormalities (Henig, 2003). Creating chimera and IVF are both reasonably the same idea. Commonly, they share the principle of creating a genetically unique individual. Let us now go beyond the now familiar process of IVF and move to the life itself. Scientists may have created immortal cells. These “immortal cells” are developed from cow embryonic cells; the nucleus of the cow cell is replaced with a human nucleus, it is then genetically altered to be accepted by an individual’s immune system, and allowed a somewhat natural growth (May, 2000). The growth of this particular cell culture has lasted for over a year.
So where do we place the future of chimeras? The moral structure of what makes us human is under scrutiny with various methods while others go unchallenged. No one argues that we should advance medicine to ease suffering. Though, in that process, we have prolonged and increased human life to where it is seen as a burdening drain on the environment. Because of human interference we can no longer establish that letting a species die naturally is the natural cause of death. So it must become our duty to protect that species through human interaction to help continue the groups that we have harmed. Consider it fair and balanced that if we consume resources (birds, fish, plants, etc), we help to improve those resources to enrich the earth from losing invaluable species. This ecosystem is for all species, in a world that we all depend on each other.
Picture update soon
Overlooking the Next Step: Chimeric Potential
For many years scientists have developed an ongoing multitude of research and exploration for the human genetic structure. From cosmological advances to medical necessities, genetics has been a huge market for human needs. Many studies have intertwined themselves to help push the progress in such fields as immunology, biochemistry, cellular chemistry, structural biology, and the like. All of these areas of research play such an important role in each other’s improvement; that, until recently, they could not help but be constrained by their lack of possible expansion outside of the human genetic code. Using animals for the advancement of human genetic evolution is becoming a major “next step” in the near future. Chimeras, organisms with tissues of two or more different genotypes from the introduction of cells from a genetically distinct individual, are looking to be the stage-point for new human evolution (Hickman, 2004). Several questions come to mind when thinking about such a pivotal movement. What are the ethical ramifications of such research? Does the human species need genetic alterations? How valid does becoming human become? In terms of human progression, are these kinds of advancements too fast for where our population is at?
Cloning is one of the biggest technological humps that scientific community has not been able to get full public consent for. It also has almost the same magnitude as chimeras in the sense of acceptance. With chimeras, we may face a new segregated class of people. Through the American process of legislation, a company that builds new life through DNA manipulation is able to patent the genetic information and that patent is now considered property (Walters, 2005). Perhaps a company would wish to create more workers that are genetically obligated to be loyal, compliant, and/or submissive. These genetically engineered workers are considered property under law, and as property they would not have to be paid. Are they human or are they animals with human appearance? The same could be said with an animal genetically programmed to have human intelligence.
Not all chimeras are considered as questionable. For example, a common surgery practice is to replace defective human heart valves with valves from pigs and cows. By definition that person is a now a chimera, an organism with two different genotypes. Pigs are harvested for food so why not utilize their bodies for organs as well? How do we determine what line is not to be crossed? There are few who would argue that there would never be significant breakthroughs in medical research from animal testing. Scientists have recently been able to have male mice produce sperm cells for different species. By transplanting tissue from the testicles of other newborn pigs and goats on to the backs of laboratory mice the tissue was able to produce viable sperm of the donor species (Mayell, 2002). Not that the human species itself is in dire need of such research, but this type of genetic construction would be very helpful with the continuation of certain endangered species. Suppose a species has so little variation in its genetic code, either by natural causes or human environmental recklessness, faces extinction. There are two very obvious alternatives to this, both with consequences. The first, being from an environmentalist point of view, would be that the population is allowed to die and we no longer have their existence on the planet. The second is through human intervention. There are ways that with the introduction of that new viable sperm to enhance and “fill in gap” to help the species overcome its lack of diversity. Yet, by saving this species we have now altered its genetic code. Would saving a species be an acceptable enough reason to maintain a chemeric population? Alternatively, consider that chimera research is used to benefit human needs in at desperate time. Lab mice are frequently used for disease study. The more human-like scientists can make their test subjects, the greater benefit and understanding they will have in their research of overcoming human ailments or disease. Stanford University has created a way to introduce human fetal neural stem cells into the brains of newborn mice. The goal of this project is to allow examination of how fetal cells develop and to some day be able to generate networks of neural cells for treatment of brain disorders such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease (Cohen, 2003). Surely, human needs fit the criteria for chimeric studies, but fears of inhumane acts will keep a lot of this type of study bogged down. A major worry is that we will create a “sub-human” class that will be used for tissue and organ transplants. Doubts of this type of renegade “harvesting” is held by the scientific community. Considering that chimeric-humans would fall under the protection of a normal society, they would not be harvested any more than people are today (May, 2000).
Does the human species need genetic alterations to become more animal than man? Much of “our” human DNA is shared with various other creatures that are some how distantly related to us such as mice, yeast, and worms (Robert, 2003). Perhaps if we humans were the species that had very little genetic diversity we might consider allowing ourselves to have more animal-like genetic structure. Right now the major issue for turning humans into more animal-like species is the debate over “why?” Arguing over if humans can naturally breed with a coyote can give a person very curious looks, because everyone is aware that crossing the species boundary does not happen so easily without use of technology. Although it does happen just as easily, take for example a mule. A mule is a sterile hybrid species that comes from the mating of a male donkey and a female horse. The species boundary has been crossed even though the offspring are unable to reproduce. Humans, by the same standard, who need technology to reproduce, are not a different species because they are not able to have offspring. The offspring are undeniably human. So by using a non-natural means to cross species is no reason to discount the validity of off-spring of as human. Even if it becomes safe to have chimeric children, there still arise unique problems. Identity, at least for the first generation, will become a key role in determining how these productions of children are incorporated into society. There are several possibilities to the reaction of public opinion, allowing for breakthrough technology if people are for or against chimeric introduction. Fearing of losing what makes an individual “human” would be the most focused attention. Yet, humanity certainly would not lose the “classic” ways of reproduction, but have a boost in the way the human body works. Where does this lead? Increased functionality, prolonged life, improved quality of life, and ease of suffering are the principles of medicine. This is truly the principles of chimeric initiation into this society, not to make an aberration to the social order.
Right now on earth we are standing at about 6.4 billion people. Do we really need more? We could discredit technology enough to where we do not have to use it in the reproduction. Most people would consider moving away from technology like “stabbing yourself in the foot”; while others would say that this is an appropriate route. There are many fears about technology that deal with reproduction. Most conventional people would argue that there are many places to adopt children or that using technology to “build” an individual would be more damaging to the earth than helpful. With new techniques there are new risks that develop. How would we introduce new genetic material into the “human code” with focused observation of how the being would result? The best way right now is through in vitro fertilization, but still comes at a cost. Side effects to in vitro fertilization, IVF, that have yet to be eliminated are premature births, an increased rate of multiple births, elevated risk for low birth weight, a high percentage would have birth defects such as chromosomal and musculoskeletal abnormalities (Henig, 2003). Creating chimera and IVF are both reasonably the same idea. Commonly, they share the principle of creating a genetically unique individual. Let us now go beyond the now familiar process of IVF and move to the life itself. Scientists may have created immortal cells. These “immortal cells” are developed from cow embryonic cells; the nucleus of the cow cell is replaced with a human nucleus, it is then genetically altered to be accepted by an individual’s immune system, and allowed a somewhat natural growth (May, 2000). The growth of this particular cell culture has lasted for over a year.
So where do we place the future of chimeras? The moral structure of what makes us human is under scrutiny with various methods while others go unchallenged. No one argues that we should advance medicine to ease suffering. Though, in that process, we have prolonged and increased human life to where it is seen as a burdening drain on the environment. Because of human interference we can no longer establish that letting a species die naturally is the natural cause of death. So it must become our duty to protect that species through human interaction to help continue the groups that we have harmed. Consider it fair and balanced that if we consume resources (birds, fish, plants, etc), we help to improve those resources to enrich the earth from losing invaluable species. This ecosystem is for all species, in a world that we all depend on each other.
Picture update soon