Human and Animal Embryo & Animal Testing

[Haruspex]

Now, I just came across an Act of Parliament (UK) generally governing Embryology, and 3 (2) (a) and 3 (3) (b) of the act prohibits the placing of a human embryo into an animal (wait just a sec, aren't we animals as well?) and vice versa.
Now my opinion is that there can only be one obstacle here, the so called "sanctity of life" idea, or one of its variants.
What I can't seem to digest is this idea that animal testing is a totally common thing, whereas, solely because humans (again, we have to come up with some pseudo-idiocy to differentiate us from animals, yeah, gg) are involved the sort of practice mentioned above is entirely prohibited.

I know its just wikipedia, but please, before forming your opinion (which would be the whole point of this topic) please take a look here: Animal testing - Wikipedia

I don't wish to "attack" animal testing, rather, I only want to point out the hypocrisy and the inconsistency here, because there's plenty of it.
My opinion is: "either or"
Either allow human embryo to be transplanted into animals and vice versa (clearly the latter would not occur too often, in fact, I think it wouldn't occur at all in reality, not for the coming decades, or rather it would be secret entirely) or discontinue animal testing.
Either play according to "good" morality, or don't bring morality into the picture at all.

Obviously the act mentioned is just an example, im sure there's a whole army of similar legislation.

 

[ShadowSpirit]

I'm not a savant on the topic of animal research, though the 'morality' issue of it does bring a few guesses I'd like to contribute. Since this seems like a fun topic and I'd like to jump right into it. Perhaps the reasoning behind this embryo swapping prohibition could be...

1) To stifle the progress of animal testing. Yes, animals do get tested on, but that in itself raises much protest. Permitting more methods of testing would be counterproductive in erradicating this practice.

2) The issue could be more with the involvement of human testing as a taboo that they're trying to control. Whether voluntarily or not, it can be conceived as cruel. If the experiments didn't require the use of humans in any manner, then it is a possibility that the ban wouldn't exist.

3) There is also the perversion that many feel when human genes are tampered with. It is that great biblical barrier between what we were born to be and what we may force ourselves to become. This option doesn't really have a point so much as a philosophical outlook that could deter the hand of many.

By the way. I'm not an animal rights activist or anything. I do pity the animals that are experimented on. Though I also acknowledge that many times it is a necessary evil we conduct.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I think the most likely motivation is to prevent ill-informed laypeople going into apoplexy at the thought of a human-animal hybrid.

 

[Mars Man]

As with so many things, animal testing has to be kept within bounds of reasonable consideration for as many sides issues as possible--in other words, the point of excess and efficiency of testing, will be tempered by ethical concerns. Wild, free-rein testing would surely be of a negative-in-outcome, and less productive result, whereas, on the other hand, wild, fee-rein censorship and banning, will do the same.

The PETA has done some very stupid things in the past--to the point of showing greater concern for non-Homo sapien life, than that for humans. Of all the cases of animal testing that I come across (and I come across a fair amount) the cause is presently balanced enough. A number of institutions and guidelines are followed (as well as getting approval for studies from the ethics committees of the universites where animal testing is done). I only come across testing for scientific research, however, none for product testing.

There is a mouse bipolar model, a schizophrenia model, an alzheimer model. There are studies using mice with a knock-out trait (a genetic inhibitory additive), or knock-in models (a genetic or enzyme excitatory additive) that are used in order to search for medications for the illinesses that humans face. The fruit fly's brain activity process is relatively close enough to the human, and so it is very much used.

However, as far as taking animal life goes (leaving H.sapien on the side for now), much more is happening around the world by various means with much less increment in knowledge that can help any one--road kill would be one.

Animal testing within bounds and reason is a necessary activity (to avoid value-judgement laden words) that should be understood to be needed only as long as the need is real (and of course reasonable and practical). Animal activists who go too far with their unreasonableness, should be put under stricter law.

 

[Haruspex]

I've truly nothing against animal testing if truth be told. It may seem that way, but I don't really mind any form of it (ok maybe just one sort, stay away from cats though, those who hurt cats will be taken away by the black KGB car overnight). And I think, following the same justification we use for animal testing, the necessary evil, as ShadowSpirit put it, we can easily justify human experiments as well. Obviously unrestricted human testing would be out of the question, that would result in chaos and havoc largely by pressure groups and such.

As for non-scientific uses... I could suggest people human salami or human stir fry, and most certainly I would try them, but most of us wouldn't even consider it. - ok that might have been a joke, the first part at least

As I see things, if we're gonna dance the danse macabre, lets dance it properly, as its the last thing we're going to do, I mean, humanity as one. Especially considering how many neat things could be done with humans + a bit of lab work. I mean surely, many terminally ill people would volunteer for experiments in hopes of finding a cure for themselves or the future, or hey, it may be low, but tell some animal rights activists that they can substitute animals, and im sure they'll jump at the offer too.
And there has to be someone on this Earth who wants to have a wolf kid just for the sake of science... or simply just for the hell of it, either way, humanity benefits.

The first ever experiment on humans should be one where we take away all medicine from moral crusaders, and see if their ethics will cure them.
And if they still remain berserk, well, ignore them, and when they "make steps" offer them luxurious cell in the slippery soap prison.

 

[ShadowSpirit]

I think the most likely motivation is to prevent ill-informed laypeople going into apoplexy at the thought of a human-animal hybrid.

Exactly. Sort of reminds me of the classic, Island of Dr Moreau. Granted it is fiction and heavily embellished on hypotheticals. Though its symoblism demonstrates your point in practice. That whole question of when will it end?

Also I can't help but wonder what new diseases or offspring it will bring even with the slightest of cross-embry experimentation.

 

[MadamePapillon]

Sometimes these people that experiment on animal/human embryos confuse the heck out of me. What do they expect will be accomplished by implanting a cow (or any other animal) embryo into a human or vice versa? What is the scientific gain? Where is the betterment of society on all that?
Seriously, if and when animal testing of any kind is needed it should be done solely for a real scientific need, not for random, nonsensical testing to satisfy the curiosity of some individuals, or experimentation for it's own sake. I wonder how many animals have suffered needlessly and how much money has been spent on useless experimentation that benefits nobody when there is such a need for dedicated people trying to cure cancer or diabetes.
Anyways, I'll grant that sometimes animal experimentation is needed but there are alternatives and whenever possible animal testing should be only done as a last option.

 

[Kinsao]

Personally I find one of the most puzzling things about human-animal 'cross' (not sure what to call it if not 'hybrid') is the questions it raises about how we treat animals as well as how we treat humans. For instance, I dislike animal testing, but recognise that it is necessary for some things (I can tolerate it for medicine, but not for cosmetics). However, my reactions would be different if the same tests were being run on human beings at a similar level of sentience (i.e. fully developed, able to feel pain).

With a human-animal cross, okay at the start of such experiments I am assuming that the proportion of human genetic material would be pretty small, so there can be a convincing argument that these are the same as animals (only 0.whatever% human genetic material...) and can be treated the same as animals for the purpose of testing, with the same ethical objections (or not, as the case may be).

However, there isn't a restriction on the proportion of human genetic material that is allowed to be used, therefore there could be created something with a higher proportion, e.g. 50/50. The ethical issue for me personally then, is how should such creations be treated, in terms of research for science? (Don't tell me "this will never happen". The human curiosity is too strong. If it is permitted by law, it will be done; maybe not soon, maybe not even in my lifetime, but it will be done.)

If something looks and behaves like we expect an animal to, do we treat it like an animal? That is how white people used to treat African people, as they did not recognise their kinship in appearance or understand their language! (I don't mean this as a racist comment in any way and hope it is not interpreted like that.) How do we treat the human-animal 'cross' - despite that it most probably won't look like a 'monster' at all!

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Anyways, I'll grant that sometimes animal experimentation is needed but there are alternatives and whenever possible animal testing should be only done as a last option.

John Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) tries to ensure that this is the case.

human-animal 'cross' (not sure what to call it if not 'hybrid'

Apparently, the term is "chimera". There are a few cases of natural human chimeras, for example, when fraternal twins are fused at an early stage of development and grow into one individual with two sets of DNA. Despite the British ban, scientists in other countries have created animal-human chimeras.

If something looks and behaves like we expect an animal to, do we treat it like an animal? That is how white people used to treat African people, as they did not recognise their kinship in appearance or understand their language! (I don't mean this as a racist comment in any way and hope it is not interpreted like that.) How do we treat the human-animal 'cross' - despite that it most probably won't look like a 'monster' at all!

This is a very astute analogy, which has also been made by Richard Dawkins. He compares meat-eating to slavery:

What I am doing is going along with the fact that I live in a society where meat eating is accepted as the norm, and it requires a level of social courage which I haven't yet produced to break out of that. It's a little bit like the position which many people would have held a couple of hundred years ago over slavery. Where lots of people felt morally uneasy about slavery but went along with it because the whole economy of the South depended upon slavery.

My personal view is that any attempt to draw an arbitrary distinction between humans and other animals is just speciesism, which in my opinion is no better than other forms of discrimination, such as racism, sexism or homophobia. I have reached this conclusion not through sentimentality, but by logical consideration. Bonobos pass the mirror test for self-awareness; they communicate with each other through vocalisation and can communicate with us using lexigrams; they can use tools; an adult bonobo is more intelligent than a human baby. Given these facts, under what criteria is it unacceptable to experiment on a human baby, but acceptable to experiment on an adult bonobo? Pure chauvinism.

I'm not suggesting we ban animal experiments or start experimenting on babies. In each case, we have to consider the greater good; CAAT works to ensure that animal experiments take place only when there is no alternative, and that those experiments that do take place are done in such a way as to minimise suffering. At the same time, I think we should openly acknowledge that we are committing speciesism, which although morally wrong, is sometimes necessary.

 

[3003030]

Thanks. for this maessage