First human-monkey chimera raises concern among scientists

[FfFfFfFF 58,135]

 

Lovell-Badge added that if chimeras were allowed to develop further, it could raise concerns. “How do you restrict the contribution of the human cells just to the organ that you want to make?” he said. “If that is a pancreas or a heart or something, or kidney, then that is fine if you manage to do that. [But] if you allow these animals to go all the way through and be born, if you have a big contribution to the central nervous system from the human cells, then that obviously becomes a concern.”

Lovell-Badge said it is very unlikely the animals, if brought to term, would take on human-like behaviour, but said the animals might not behave like “normal” rodents.

“So there are some animal welfare issues as well as the ‘yuck-factor’ ethical issues from making something more human,” he said. “Clearly if any animal born had aspects of human appearance, their faces, their hands, their skin, then I suspect, while scientifically very interesting, people might get a little upset with that.”

“In theory, for diseases where primate models are not good enough, making human-monkey chimeras could provide a better model of brain diseases,” he told the Guardian, adding that in the case of Alzheimer’s more than 150 trials have failed in 20 years, possibly because of a lack of a good disease model.

[Didymus 34,380]

We can't even cure a simple cold yet, and these people are creating fantasy animals? What is this planet.

[Didymus 34,380]

A reminder of why they're doing this ****:

"Scientists believe organs genetically matched to a particular human recipient could one day be grown inside animals."

[SHALLOW 16,469]

6 minutes ago, Didymus said:

We can't even cure a simple cold yet, and these people are creating fantasy animals? What is this planet.

They’re doing it to cure some diseases which still have no cure. They wouldn’t invest millions in research just for fun.

[RAMROD 117,144]

If this isn't Umbrella and Zombie apocalypse foreshadowing

[SHALLOW 16,469]

4 minutes ago, Didymus said:

A reminder of why they're doing this ****:

"Scientists believe organs genetically matched to a particular human recipient could one day be grown inside animals."

I mean, i’m sure they know better than you.

[DelusionalGaga 29,717]

Those cells be like

[Didymus 34,380]

5 minutes ago, SHALLOW said:

They’re doing it to cure some diseases which still have no cure

False. It's to combat organ rejection. The article addresses this:

"Chimeras are seen as a potential way to address the lack of organs for transplantation, as well as problems of organ rejection. Scientists believe organs genetically matched to a particular human recipient could one day be grown inside animals. The approach is based on taking cells from an adult human and reprogramming them to become stem cells, which can give rise to any type of cell in the body. They are then introduced into the embryo of another species."

The reason they're testing human cells in animal embryos is to check if this is actually possible. In normal language: say you need a new liver, doctors just take some cells from you, introduce them into an embryo specially made for your medical salvation (disgusting) and these animals will develop a liver perfectly designed to be compatible with your genetic system.

It's pure medical animal slavery and as a vegan and an animal lover I detest that Maybe focus on getting rid of all the toxic substances that cause organ failure. Ban sugar, alcohol, processed meat,... Why do (unborn) animals have to pay the price first?

3 minutes ago, SHALLOW said:

I mean, i’m sure they know better than you.

That is a ridiculous logic to follow.

You're giving me

teas.

[FfFfFfFF 58,135]

1 minute ago, DelusionalGaga said:

Those cells be like

You should've posted those Mariah Carey/ Celine Dion edits with this pic. 

 

[DelusionalGaga 29,717]

Just now, FfFfFfFF said:

You should've posted those Mariah Carey/ Celine Dion edits with this pic. 

 

Skskksk I was actually looking for them but couldn't find the edits 

[SHALLOW 16,469]

6 minutes ago, Didymus said:

False. It's to combat organ rejection. The article addresses this:

"Chimeras are seen as a potential way to address the lack of organs for transplantation, as well as problems of organ rejection. Scientists believe organs genetically matched to a particular human recipient could one day be grown inside animals. The approach is based on taking cells from an adult human and reprogramming them to become stem cells, which can give rise to any type of cell in the body. They are then introduced into the embryo of another species."

The reason they're testing human cells in animal embryos is to check if this is actually possible. In normal language: say you need a new liver, doctors just take some cells from you, introduce them into an embryo specially made for your medical salvation (disgusting) and these animals will develop a liver perfectly designed to be compatible with your genetic system.

It's pure medical animal slavery and as a vegan and an animal lover I detest that Maybe focus on getting rid of all the toxic substances that cause organ failure. Ban sugar, alcohol, processed meat,... Why do (unborn) animals have to pay the price first?

That is a ridiculous logic to follow.

You're giving me

teas.

I know they’re doing this for organs but it could also be good to study diseases. 

Unless you’re a scientist too, i think they do know better. Maybe it’s against your ethics but they know what they can do to improve research.

Also i don’t see where’s the problem if the animals are unborn and they’re not left to live like that. I assume you’re pro life too then

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, SHALLOW said:

I know they’re doing this for organs but it could also be good to study diseases.

Don't even bother lol. Your first quote to me was that they were doing it to study diseases which is objectively false and shows you didn't even bother to read the related articles before trying to criticize me

1 minute ago, SHALLOW said:

Unless you’re a scientist too, i think they do know better. Maybe it’s against your ethics but they know what they can do to improve research.

When did I ever claim I knew more about organ donation, disease, lab research,... though? This is an animal rights issue for me

It's exactly that "well, if it improves research they're entitled to do anything" logic that offends me. What if they decide to test on humans in a few years? Use prisoners or mentally diseased persons to test on as if they're worthless? Can't wait for your replies then

[SHALLOW 16,469]

8 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Don't even bother lol. Your first quote to me was that they were doing it to study diseases which is objectively false and shows you didn't even bother to read the related articles before trying to criticize me

When did I ever claim I knew more about organ donation, disease, lab research,... though? This is an animal rights issue for me

It's exactly that "well, if it improves research they're entitled to do anything" logic that offends me. What if they decide to test on humans in a few years? Use prisoners or mentally diseased persons to test on as if they're worthless? Can't wait for your replies then

I was talking about it generally. I read an article about Japan legalizing this few days ago so i looked up for things online and so i bothered to find what was that all about.

Also i’m not criticizing you, i’m just saying that to me that’s ok and only cause it’s not ok to you, it doesn’t mean that scientists don’t know s***

Well bioethics will play their part when it comes to that. They’re already playing it. 

I just think that if they’re not left to live like that then it’s ok. And remember nothing is black or white. We can get a lot of benefits from this studies. 

[Didymus 34,380]

1 minute ago, SHALLOW said:

I was talking about it generally. I read an article about Japan legalizing this few days ago

They only legalized it for research about organ transplantation so... again, this is not about diseases that currently have no cure

3 minutes ago, SHALLOW said:

Also i’m not criticizing you, i’m just saying that to me that’s ok and only cause it’s not ok to you, it doesn’t mean that scientists don’t know s***

I never claimed those people were amateurs. I exaggerated in my first post to highlight an interesting contrast.

But I detest the "the general public gets no voice because scientists know what they're doing" logic. Can you imagine scientists abducting people's pets to do this ****? It is morally questionable to say the least and we're not even stimulated to care. I find that problematic.

[SHALLOW 16,469]

4 minutes ago, Didymus said:

They only legalized it for research about organ transplantation so... again, this is not about diseases that currently have no cure

I never claimed those people were amateurs. I exaggerated in my first post to highlight an interesting contrast.

But I detest the "the general public gets no voice because scientists know what they're doing" logic. Can you imagine scientists abducting people's pets to do this ****? It is morally questionable to say the least and we're not even stimulated to care. I find that problematic.

I mean, we do have to push some boundaries in order to find new cures etc... and if that means testing on animals that won’t suffer then i’m ok with that 

I’m sure no scientist will ever abduct people’s pets