chimeras

[kronas]

scientists and the national stem cell task force in america are attempting to reach an agreement over whether stem cells can be inplanted in to foetuses, the final outcome of this technique can create a species which can have internal characteristics to a human such a neurological brain network, the animals are known chimeras.

source: MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6534243

i for one am against the tampering of cells being injecting in to mice, to create human distinction or in a foetus, the argument is that this will be help us bring cures for diseases such as parkinsons, but its tampering with nature and thats something im very much against.

[homealone]

I'm all for the human stem cell research, which seems to be a potential cure for conditions like Parkinson's Disease, etc, but not this cross-species stuff, it doesn't seem right??

[Ramrod]

I am all for it. We are all the same family of life anyway. We are 95% similar genetically with horses and apparently we share 50-55% of the same genetic information with bananas!
Taken from here.... a good, accessible read.

[bopdude]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I am all for it. We are all the same family of life anyway. We are 95% similar genetically with horses and apparently we share 50-55% of the same genetic information with bananas!
Taken from here.... a good, accessible read.

Well depending on your outlook / views, we all came from the same big bowl of porridge

And I would be in favour of just about any form of experimentation as long as it is for the good of man, and didn't create some form of 'monster'

[Earl of Bronze]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I am all for it. We are all the same family of life anyway. We are 95% similar genetically with horses and apparently we share 50-55% of the same genetic information with bananas!
Taken from here.... a good, accessible read.

Wow, 50 - 55% genetically similar to bananas', must be why so many humans have the common sense of a tropical plant.

On a more serious note......

Stem cell research, fine by me. Adding human genetic material to the genetic material of completely different species, No Way. Seeing as most governments with the money to fund this sort of research would happy give it a military application, then you are gonna be lookin at governments secretly trying to build 'Super-Soldiers'.

[Maggy J]

I'm all for scientific research and I understand about trying to cure genetic disease and repair accidental damage.I'm also a complete athiest but I feel that we need to really try not to behave like 'Gods' just because we can do so.Just because something is feasable does not make it 'right' to do so.


Incog.

[kronas]

the reason im against the cross linking of human genetics to animals is the potential for a new breed of viruses and animals, the risk for abusing such technology is too high, nature should not be meddeled with in this manner.

simalaritys in genes between humans and other species does not make it right to inject human cells, the diffarences are there for a reason, i believe.

[Ramrod]

Depends how you see it.....nature herself 'cross pollenises' different species sometimes.....where do you think mules come from?
There is also a theory that neandertals never died out, they just became one with humans through interbreeding......but human and Neanderthal dna was not the same when there were two distinct species.
All we are doing now is what nature has been doing since it all began.

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Depends how you see it.....nature herself 'cross pollenises' different species sometimes.....where do you think mules come from?
There is also a theory that neandertals never died out, they just became one with humans through interbreeding......but human and Neanderthal dna was not the same when there were two distinct species.
All we are doing now is what nature has been doing since it all began.

Still don't see why we should do this just because we can.I can stick my hand in the fire but it's not necessarily the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by kronas

i for one am against the tampering of cells being injecting in to mice, to create human distinction or in a foetus, the argument is that this will be help us bring cures for diseases such as parkinsons, but its tampering with nature and thats something im very much against.

I suppose you've never owned, or never wish to own, a domesticated pet. Equally, (assuming you're not vegetarian) you hunt all your own meat exclusively from wild animals, and all the vegetables/fruit that you eat are natural wild breeds that haven`t been farmed. And when you get ill and the doctor prescibes modern pharmaceuticals you decline. No? All of the above are examples of "tampering" with nature, so I find your argument against "tampering" with nature to be shallow at best.

You're argument about potential side-effects and bad consquences is equally flawed as you enjoy the benefits of modern society which pose equal risks. All forms of electricity production have potential for adverse consequences, be that pollution, nuclear meltdown, even extreme examples like the theft of nuclear fuel to use in a terrorist weapon. Better ditch any electrical equipment you own.

I`m grateful that arguments such as yours don't hold sway otherwise we'd still be living in caves.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Still don't see why we should do this just because we can.I can stick my hand in the fire but it's not necessarily the right thing to do.

Neither is stepping out into traffic whilst blindfolded.......what has that got to do with my argument?


Or to reiterate my argument......I was arguing that nature has been doing it for millions of years......why can't we?

[Seti]

Unfortunately I don't agree with either and I would probably benefit from it. Cross pollunation happens afaik because species are dying out or they are very closely related to one another ie. donkeys, horse, mules.

Flowers cross pollinate mostly within their own species. I can't really see the benefits of injecting human stem cells into a mouse. Medical science has said that drug trials with mice are far different to the ones done with humans. Are we supposed to subject animals to more research to further our course. It's not evolutionary and to be honest I see a lot of harm happening if the US takes this approach. In fact it stuns me because recently they withdrew research funds fo stem cell research into neurological conditions such as Parkinsons, MND, Alzheimers and MS.

To Dr Wadd: We may all eat meat, we may not. We may use antibiotics such as penicillin (developed from natural mold and fungus) we may not. Many drugs are derived from natural sources such as aspirin from willow and digoxin from fox gloce. however, users of NSAID's are finding fault with the drugs they are prescribed such as Vioxx which is now known to induce liver failure. They aren't natural they are chemically produced. When they were tested on our animal friends mice showed no sign of liver failure. It's the same with the argument regarding anti depressants. Seroxat had no chemical adverse affects in mice but it does in humans. Therefore although you find Kronas's arguement regarding tampering with human evolution flawed, and you will probably find mine flawed also, I am afraid that some tampering is not always for the good of human or animal life.

The argument you used regarding electricity and its sources is a good one. But although nuclear facilities provide a threat to us as planet inhabitants as does pollution we should by now understand those risks. The Kyoto agreement is in place nearly everywhere apart from America who don't see the risk of Co2 ommisions to life that we do. Therefore HUMANS created this and humans have to live with the consequences. Humans did not create life, evolution or God or whatever side of the debate you believe in did. Tampering with it to produce Chimeras that we know little about brings far more risks to the life of this planet than even war.

It's morally wrong to abort a foetus. I belive its also morally wrong to use that foetus to test mutant animal production.

SeTi^

Originally Posted by Seti

To Dr Wadd: We may all eat meat, we may not. We may use antibiotics such as penicillin (developed from natural mold and fungus) we may not. Many drugs are derived from natural sources such as aspirin from willow and digoxin from fox gloce. however, users of NSAID's are finding fault with the drugs they are prescribed such as Vioxx which is now known to induce liver failure. They aren't natural they are chemically produced. When they were tested on our animal friends mice showed no sign of liver failure. It's the same with the argument regarding anti depressants. Seroxat had no chemical adverse affects in mice but it does in humans. Therefore although you find Kronas's arguement regarding tampering with human evolution flawed, and you will probably find mine flawed also, I am afraid that some tampering is not always for the good of human or animal life.

Animal models of drug effects do indeed only go so far, that is why we also test drugs on human subjects now before they reach market. The company I work for supplies specialist services for use in clinical trials and there is a lot more rigour in the clinical trials now than there were in the past.

I agree with you that some "tampering", as it is some emotively put in this thread, may result in undesirable side-effects, but that isn`t an argument in and of itself to abandon all research in this area. Emotion and fear simply shouldn`t be considered as limits on scientific research. There may be valid ethical reasons why some research shouldn`t go ahead, but fear of the unknown is not a valid reason.