These articles made me sick to my stomach.  Does this sicken anyone else?

Http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6534243

In Minnesota, pigs are being born with human blood in their veins.
In Nevada, there are sheep whose livers and hearts are largely human.
In California, mice peer from their cages with human brain cells firing inside their skulls.
These are not outcasts from "The Island of Dr. Moreau," the 1896 novel by H.G. Wells in which a rogue doctor develops creatures that are part animal and part human. They are real creations of real scientists, stretching the boundaries of stem cell research.
Biologists call these hybrid animals chimeras, after the mythical Greek creature with a lion's head, a goat's body and a serpent's tail. They are the products of experiments in which human stem cells were added to developing animal fetuses.
Living test beds
Chimeras are allowing scientists to watch, for the first time, how nascent human cells and organs mature and interact � not in the cold isolation of laboratory dishes but inside the bodies of living creatures. Some are already revealing deep secrets of human biology and pointing the way toward new medical treatments.
But with no federal guidelines in place, an awkward question hovers above the work: How human must a chimera be before more stringent research rules should kick in?
The National Academy of Sciences, which advises the federal government, has been studying the issue and hopes to make recommendations by February. Yet the range of opinions it has received so far suggests that reaching consensus may be difficult.
During one recent meeting, scientists disagreed on such basic issues as whether it would be unethical for a human embryo to begin its development in an animal's womb, and whether a mouse would be better or worse off with a brain made of human neurons.
"This is an area where we really need to come to a reasonable consensus," said James Battey, chairman of the National Institutes of Health's Stem Cell Task Force. "We need to establish some kind of guidelines as to what the scientific community ought to do and ought not to do."
"Chimeras are not as strange and alien as at first blush they seem," said Henry Greely, a law professor and ethicist at Stanford University who has reviewed proposals to create human-mouse chimeras there.
But chimerism becomes a more sensitive topic when it involves growing entire human organs inside animals. And it becomes especially sensitive when it deals in brain cells, the building blocks of the organ credited with making humans human.
In experiments like those, Greely told the academy last month, "there is a nontrivial risk of conferring some significant aspects of humanity" on the animal.
Greely and his colleagues did not conclude that such experiments should never be done. Indeed, he and many other philosophers have been wrestling with the question of why so many people believe it is wrong to breach the species barrier.
Does the repugnance reflect an understanding of an important natural law? Or is it just another cultural bias, like the once widespread rejection of interracial marriage?
Many turn to the Bible's repeated invocation that animals should multiply "after their kind" as evidence that such experiments are wrong. Others, however, have concluded that the core problem is not necessarily the creation of chimeras but rather the way they are likely to be treated.
Imagine, said Robert Streiffer, a professor of philosophy and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin, a human-chimpanzee chimera endowed with speech and an enhanced potential to learn � what some have called a "humanzee."
"There's a knee-jerk reaction that enhancing the moral status of an animal is bad," Streiffer said. "But if you did it, and you gave it the protections it deserves, how could the animal complain?"
Unfortunately, said Harvard political philosopher Michael J. Sandel, speaking last fall at a meeting of the President's Council on Bioethics, such protections are unlikely.
"Chances are we would make them perform menial jobs or dangerous jobs," Sandel said. "That would be an objection."
A research breakthrough
The potential power of chimeras as research tools became clear about a decade ago in a series of dramatic experiments by Evan Balaban, now at McGill University in Montreal. Balaban took small sections of brain from developing quails and transplanted them into the developing brains of chickens.
The resulting chickens exhibited vocal trills and head bobs unique to quails, proving that the transplanted parts of the brain contained the neural circuitry for quail calls. It also offered astonishing proof that complex behaviors could be transferred across species.
No one has proposed similar experiments between, say, humans and apes. But the discovery of human embryonic stem cells in 1998 allowed researchers to envision related experiments that might reveal a lot about how embryos grow.
The cells, found in 5-day-old human embryos, multiply prolifically and � unlike adult cells � have the potential to turn into any of the body's 200 or so cell types.
Scientists hope to cultivate them in laboratory dishes and grow replacement tissues for patients. But with those applications years away, the cells are gaining in popularity for basic research.
The most radical experiment, still not conducted, would be to inject human stem cells into an animal embryo and then transfer that chimeric embryo into an animal's womb. Scientists suspect the proliferating human cells would spread throughout the animal embryo as it matured into a fetus and integrate themselves into every organ.
Such "humanized" animals could have countless uses. They would almost certainly provide better ways to test a new drug's efficacy and toxicity, for example, than the ordinary mice typically used today.
But few scientists are eager to do that experiment. The risk, they say, is that some human cells will find their way to the developing testes or ovaries, where they might grow into human sperm and eggs. If two such chimeras � say, mice � were to mate, a human embryo might form, trapped in a mouse.
Not everyone agrees that this would be a terrible result.
"What would be so dreadful?" asked Ann McLaren, a renowned developmental biologist at the University of Cambridge in England. After all, she said, no human embryo could develop successfully in a mouse womb. It would simply die, she told the academy. No harm done.
But others disagree � if for no other reason than nothing else out of fear of a public backlash.
"Certainly you'd get a negative response from people to have a human embryo trying to grow in the wrong place," said Cynthia B. Cohen, a senior research fellow at Georgetown University's Kennedy Institute of Ethics and a member of Canada's Stem Cell Oversight Committee, which supported a ban on such experiments there.
How human?
But what about experiments in which scientists add human stem cells not to an animal embryo but to an animal fetus, which has already made its eggs and sperm? Then the only question is how human a creature one dares to make.
In one ongoing set of experiments, Jeffrey L. Platt at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., has created human-pig chimeras by adding human-blood-forming stem cells to pig fetuses. The resulting pigs have both pig and human blood in their vessels. And it's not just pig blood cells being swept along with human blood cells; some of the cells themselves have merged, creating hybrids.
It is important to have learned that human and pig cells can fuse, Platt said, because he and others have been considering transplanting modified pig organs into people and have been wondering if that might pose a risk of pig viruses getting into patient's cells. Now scientists know the risk is real, he said, because the viruses may gain access when the two cells fuse.
In other experiments led by Esmail Zanjani, chairman of animal biotechnology at the University of Nevada at Reno, scientists have been adding human stem cells to sheep fetuses. The team now has sheep whose livers are up to 80 percent human � and make all the compounds human livers make.
Zanjani's goal is to make the humanized livers available to people who need transplants. The sheep portions will be rejected by the immune system, he predicted, while the human part will take root.
"I don't see why anyone would raise objections to our work," Zanjani said in an interview.
Mice and men
Perhaps the most ambitious efforts to make use of chimeras come from Irving Weissman, director of Stanford University's Institute of Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine. Weissman helped make the first mouse with a nearly complete human immune system � an animal that has proved invaluable for tests of new drugs against the AIDS virus, which does not infect conventional mice.
More recently his team injected human neural stem cells into mouse fetuses, creating mice whose brains are about 1 percent human. By dissecting the mice at various stages, the researchers were able to see how the added brain cells moved about as they multiplied and made connections with mouse cells.
Already, he said, they have learned things they "never would have learned had there been a bioethical ban."
Now he wants to add human brain stem cells that have the defects that cause Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease and other brain ailments � and study how those cells make connections.
Scientists suspect that these diseases, though they manifest themselves in adulthood, begin when something goes wrong early in development. If those errors can be found, researchers would have a much better chance of designing useful drugs, Weissman said. And those drugs could be tested in the chimeras in ways not possible in patients.
Now Weissman says he is thinking about making chimeric mice whose brains are 100 percent human. He proposes keeping tabs on the mice as they develop. If the brains look as if they are taking on a distinctly human architecture � a development that could hint at a glimmer of humanness � they could be killed, he said. If they look as if they are organizing themselves in a mouse brain architecture, they could be used for research.
So far this is just a "thought experiment," Weissman said, but he asked the university's ethics group for an opinion anyway.
"Everyone said the mice would be useful," he said. "But no one was sure if it should be done."

<a note from monastic>

I found another site talking about this sci-fi-like experimenting with these poor half human life forms - these Scientists seem to see no value in their subjects horribly mutated lives, as if, their life has no real value.  This link brought up their supporter's name which, explained a lot to me.  I don't know why it surprised me to see the Major Contributer of Funding  for this type of experiment... Is CAN (Cure Autism Now).

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/autism/abstracts/goldowitz.htm

I share your disgust. Just because scientists CAN do something, doesnt mean that they SHOULD do it. They seem to have the attitude that all life is there to be experimented on, with no moral thoughts whatsoever.

I'm very curious to know what CAN's supporters and fund contributors would think about CAN and their "autism research" which involves not only stem cell research but research by experimenting and mutilating half human beings.  The total lack of disregard for any human being (be it fully or only half human) would, I think be very disgusting to many organizations.  I wonder if any catholic or religious organizations that contribute to CAN are aware of these facts?  I wonder who I can write to make aware of these atrosities done which de-values all human life neurotypical and AS alike?

I have posted information on christian and specifically catholic forums, and also contacted pro life groups (who are generally against human experimentation, stem cell research etc) and I get a very half hearted response.
They seem to repsond as if autism is not an issue that they are involved in, so its not relevant. Or even argue against me on the issues. :roll:
Maybe if there was a movement to cure christians they would care...

Perhaps I'm a contrarian, but I strongly support this type of research. Like any omnivorous species, we are creatures that are genetically geared to exploit other creatures for our own benefit, largely by killing and eating them. I don't see how conducting medical research on animals genetically engineered to have human organs (with the notable exception of a highly developed human brain) is significantly different.

Jay,

That's kind of the problem.  We have not even properly defined what rights should be acknowledged for humans that are different from the normal populace at present (such as those that cannot speak for themselves because of disabilities or perhaps neurological differences.) let alone opening a new chapter (can of worms) on just how human is a mouse with a human brain or a child born of genetically altered 1/2 human 1/2 bovine parents.  The latter has not happened yet, but without any lines drawn, it's a matter of time.  

I do not like to think of a "humanzee" being made to perform menial jobs or dangerous jobs without a thought regarding such a unique being with human thoughts and feelings.  If we expect humanity to respect us for our unique abilities and wiring how can we turn around and deny other humans or even 1/2 humans the same respect just because we deem them less human and therefore more expendable for our own selfish needs.  We've got to think of the long-term implications of such actions.

Half human isn't a very good description for the vast majority of chimeras, in my opinion. The only feature that would make a chimera materially human is a highly developed human brain. I touched upon this in my prior post.

So Jay, help me understand what you are saying here.  If a chimera is created and their human brain is not a highly developed brain, this makes them less human that a chimera with a highly developed brain?  Does this difference/rule also apply to humans with highly developed brains as opposed to a human with say less activity and development?  

Where do we draw the line?  How can we determine/test the measure of brain development/activity on a totally new species linked to humans?  These are things that should be thought out before jumping into genetic mutation and experimentation - just because we can do it, should we do it?

The answer to your question was already detailed in the original article, as highlighted above. It should be relatively easy for neurobiologists to determine whether an embryo is beginning to develop a humanlike brain.

Perhaps it would be easier to avoid attempting to mess around with brain cells in general. My argument is more in favor of the type of research that involves other types of human cells and organs, anyway. Messing around with brain cells is a grey area, but I don't see any moral ramifications for replicating any other type of cells.

I agree very much with Jay, the difference between human organs and mouse organs is a matter of a few chemicals being different, there is no inherent human-ness in these organs, it is entirely possible that such animals could have come about on their own anyhow.  Besides, there is nothing unusual about sharing genetic material, bacteria do it all the time.  If bacteria can do it, why not us?  What makes us so damn special?  Did we just get up one day and decide that our DNA is sacred and cannot be disturbed by virtue of our divine origins?  Get down off your high horse.  Being conscious (which still isn't settled) does not necessarily confer status as sacred cattle!  I personally aspire to be more than a cow, even if im not a sacred cow!  In my admittedly-not-very-humble opinion, declaring our DNA and the workings of our bodies so very sacred as to be beyond reach is nothing less than the most fantastic hubris!

on a side note, this research is NOT going to lead to a prenatal test for ASDs.  you can take that to the bank.  they might consider developing a treatment based on this research, but even that is quite far fetched.  That would not be possible without a thorough understanding of the physiological pathology of ASDs, if indeed there is any at all (we dont know!), as well as rather sophisticated surgical techniques which might not even exist yet, im not sure.  opposition to ASD research is no justification for opposing this research.

I hope that you were not making an attack on me, personally.  That I know of, I have no "high horse" and since you don't know me, you wouldn't be able to fairly decide such a thing, either.

I think the thing that bothers me the most about this subject is the idea of creating a new species and possibly using it in the future to "perform menial jobs or dangerous jobs" as a sort of servant.  Other future plans may be Patenting a genetic engineered species and selling this species to an interested buyer.  It just sounds wrong to me somehow.

Some of the chimeras have had surprising results where some of the cells themselves have merged, creating hybrids.  Whether this would be a good thing or a bad thing for transplant recipiants, it is unknown.


As for the near future, a mouse has already been created with what is reported to be a 100% human brain.  It has been said that if this genetically altered mouse (mice?) seems to think in seemingly human-like ways (such as human problem solving abilities) it will be destroyed, all we have is their word on this, though.  

I don't think of humans as sacred but I do wish this could be talked over and thought out a bit longer being this is such a new frontier.  It may be easier to alter genes today than to undo the effects later.

The problem i can see with this type of research is the risk of producing a creature human enough to want to be more then what they are, but not human enough to actually be there. This obviously applies only to creatures who have a part-human brain. The other ethical problem i can see is to do with the possibility of a human embryo developing in an animal womb. Suppose a human was born from a monkey for example - what kind of pyschological effect would that have on the child? And what are the risks of genes hopping across the species barrier in this way?
Personally, i do support the idea of pig organs being adapted for use in humans as one benefit of this research, but this is because the pig would not suffer anymore then a pig raised for meat and there is not risk of genes hopping cross-species. It should be looked at very carefully though.

As for CAN's involvement - i find this slightly disturbing but not surprising. CAN are interested in finding a cure for autism - to do this they need to perform experiments involving the human brain, and perhaps they see less ethical issues with experimenting on a human (or part human brain) that is not inside a living human. This is the exact kind of behaviour that many autism organisations are guilty of though - they take funding or support from people who believe they're "helping children" and their money is used to support research they do not agree with. I know of one autism organisation here who have had a lot of support from aspies, some of who may be pro-cure, but what about the ones who aren't and don't realise what they are supporting? That is a major ethical issue.

I'm a big sci-fi fan so my imagination runs wild with thoughts of animals with human emotions.  Just think of it.  A mouse is caught in a mouse trap.  It's mate watches the whole gristly scene and then watches you pick up the trap, mouse and all and throw it in the trash can.  The living mouse begins to feel the human emotion of hatred swell in it's mind and then begins to plot revenge against the human that caused the beloved mate to die.  Hey, I think I have the beginnings of a Dean Koontz novel  LOL.

Hmmph.  I think this is a somewhat different line of reasoning than that which I earlier objected to..  I apologise though if my repsonse was overly enthusiastic.  It is the notion that human DNA should not be experimented with with that I take issue with.  Of course, any createures which arise as a result of such experimentation should be carefully judged to determine what human moral standards apply to them, I do agree that should any such species be judged to have a human mind (not just a brain, the mind too!) then they should be entitled to humane treatment, and (depending on their numbers) possible formal representation in human society.  I do not think however that this is likely to happen, I suggest that the probable use for such animals is limited to studied on brain development.  An animal such as a mouse, while capable of developing a human-like brain, cannot dvelop an actual human brain due to size limitations.  it is quite unlikely therefor that it can reach the same level of complexity, although it will be quite different from a normal mouse.. just keep in mind that using human brain cells does not necessarily confer a human brain arrangement.  are these mice growing brains which are scale miniatures of a humn brain?  I doubt it.  human brain growth is influenced by many environmental signals which may be present at different intervals or not at all in mice.  the resulting brain will be quite unique, i assure you.

We're probably all chimeras >>

There is growing evidence that chimerism in one form or another may not be so unusual at all. In fact, some researchers now think that most of us, if not all, are chimeras of one kind or another. Far from being pure-bred individuals composed of a single genetic cell line, our bodies are cellular mongrels, teeming with cells from our mothers, maybe even from grandparents and siblings. This may seem a little shocking at first. The thought of playing host to cells from other people may offend your sense of individuality. But you may have those outsiders to thank for keeping you healthy.

During pregnancy, the blood of the mother and fetus are kept separate, but some cells manage to slip through, meaning that you will have picked up some cells from your mother, and she some from you. In fact, some 80 to 90 per cent of women carry their children's cells or DNA in their blood during pregnancy and up to 50 per= centcarry them for decades after giving birth, a condition called microchimerism (New Scientist, 24 April 1999, p 4). If your mother then had more children, some of your cells could in principle slip back through into your younger sibling's body. And twins can end up swapping cells in the womb, especially if they share a placenta. So a single person can be a veritable menagerie of different cell types from different generations. "Women harbour cells from both their mother and their children," says J. Lee Nelson, an immunologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

The fact that fetal cells persist in their mother's bloodstream for decades has been known since the mid 1990s. But only recently has anyone investigated how common it is for cells to move the other way - from mothers into their children. To investigate this, Nelson and her colleague Natalie Lambert have been searching for maternal cells in the blood of adult women.

In a forthcoming paper in the journal Arthritis & Rheumatism, they describe how they took blood samples from 32 healthy women and found that 22 per cent of them were carrying white blood cells from their mothers. These maternal cells were relatively rare - at most there were 50 per million blood cells - but Nelson suspects that more extensive tests of blood and other tissues such as bone marrow would reveal microchimerism in a far greater percentage of women. And the same goes for men too. "Our guess would be that it is probably universal," she says.

New Scientist vol 180 issue 2421 - 15 November 2003, page 34

http://www.katewerk.com/chimera.html

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_838...y.genetics