Hybrid Embryo use under threat in the UK

[Aeternus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6230945.stm

 

Wondering what peoples opinions are on this? Are the people complaining simply religious nuts or is there actually a valid ethical argument (I don't see how "it is against nature !!" is really any argument at all)?

 

If you agree with this (ie with the research), any thoughts ? If you are an expert in the area, could you explain a little of the likely benefits and perhaps some of the potential downsides ?

 

If you don't, can you please explain why... (I honestly can't see it, although I will admit my understanding of the subject area is horribly inadequate).

[CanadaAotS]

"Opponents say the work tampers with nature and is unethical"

 

Hrm... so, I pop a few aspirin to get rid of a headache, Oh Damn! I'm tampering with nature, someone call the ethics police!

 

Josephine Quintavalle, of CORE ethics, said: "This is creating an animal-human hybrid..."

 

They make it sound like they are growing men with scales, or "The Fly"...

 

I think the real problem the general public would have with this is the fact that they believe the scientists will bring this hybrid to maturity (which I sure is impossible) rather then just using some microscopic tissue.

 

This has great scientific benefits (as does stem cell research, and most work with embryo's of any kind), but the general public and "ethicists" all have this big problem with it, problem stemming from lack of understanding.

 

Any hoo, thats my 2¢

[Dak]

i dont know for sure, but id assume that, in the cource of trying to pin down the location of a gene, we've forced human chromosomes and monkey chromosomes to co-exist within the same cell. we've grown pigs that have human genes, to increase organ compatability for transplant purposes, and we've put unmodified animal organs into humans. but try to put a complete human genome into a cow cell (pretty much making it a human cell) is a no-no?

 

as canada' said, the objections pretty-much stem from ignorance. ask an objector what a genome actually is, and wether the cell is human, cowish, or a hybrid, and why/to what extent, or why the above are ok if this is wrong, and i doubt they'd be able to answre; yet, this doesn't stop them from knowing enough to know its unethical?

 

aert: im certainly no expert, but iirc this experiment is to test a way of potentially curing people with a degenerative muscular disorder that is caused by mitocondria depletion -- i think the idea is to see how cells will tolerate 'mitocondria transplants', or something.

 

using a cow stem-cell is purely due to a shortage of human stem-cells.

[Aeternus]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I've been thinking, purely ignorance of the science behind what is going on, and the belief that we are somehow going to create hybrid children :\

[Ndi]

Not only ignorance, I believe this is cached behavior.

 

Some people actually listen for 4 minutes, get an idea then zealot it all the way regardless. Every time these people hear "genetic" "stem" "embrio" they immediately work against it as if it was the same damn thing. I could see the frown upon hearing the words themselves, way before the sentences, let alone ideas was finished.

 

Besides, what's this "public opinion" doing in the research? How many of these people understand what this is? How can you have a movement of people of such magnitude when not that many people know what the heck they are doing? I understand public opinion on widespread issues, like abortion. But medical procedures? Genetics?

 

This reminds me of political parties. Someone objects to a law or procedure and then millions agree for some odd reason. I'm sure there are a lot of people that object to words or because of other people's position. This is not public opinion IMO.