by frog
I am purposely not going to state my opinion on this subject, as some more sensitive frogblog readers always assume that I am speaking on behalf of the Green Party. Instead, I would like to have a discussion around the merits and risks of the UK decision, and compare those to the merits and risks associated with Ag Research´s application to do hybrid animal genetic research outside the lab in New Zealand paddocks. (As an aside, submissions on that application close Ocotber 31st. Go here to submit.)
The Associated Press reports this about the UK decision:
British plans to allow scientists to use hybrid animal-human embryos for stem cell research have won final approval from lawmakers in a sweeping overhaul of sensitive science laws.
The House of Commons also clarified laws that allow the screening of embryos to produce babies with suitable bone marrow or other material for transplant to sick siblings.
It was the first review of embryo science in Britain in almost 20 years.
The legislators voted 355 to 129 on Wednesday to authorize the proposals after months of sometimes bitter debate that has pitted Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government and scientists against religious leaders, anti-abortion campaigners and others anxious about medical advances.
Leaving politics aside, please, Do you think that mixing human and animal DNA is an appropriate thing to do? How about animal to animal or animal to plant DNA mixing?
I realise that these questions are generic and may not reflect exactly what is intended in either the UK law or the Ag research application. In the UK it is human DNA inside animal eggs. If you want to talk about specifics, great, do it when stating your opinion.
Does it make a difference to your opinion whether these things occur only within a proper containment lab versus out in the natural world? What do you think of the Ag Research application?
Again, I would like to leave the politics aside and just discuss the merits/risks of such research in as respectful an environment as we can muster here on frogblog.
Published in Environment & Resource Management | Society & Culture by frog on Sat, October 25th, 2008
Tags: Ag research, DNA, embryo, genetic, merit, modification, research, risk, UK
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
In NZ I would like to see any such research contained in a lab – if our scientists are absolutely sure the research has wide application and is secure in the lab.
Animal to animal within the same specie – ditto above.
Animal to human I am seriously uneasy about it. Do we really have to go that way?
Plants, contained, no outside field trials, prefer No GE food.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My personal opinion is very much in the same zone as yours, joy. I just didn´t want to colour the post with it and then distract all the wing nuts from the real point of my post!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well my opinion with animal GE is that if the GE is for medical purposes, eg growing organs or producing drugs or vaccines, then the modifications are perfectly justified (food is another matter entirly).
If the organism is contaied within a lab from which it is unable to excape under normal circumstances then i see no problem with it and if the organism is made sterile (easy with animals, not so much with other organisms) then i see no problem with feild trials so long as the organism is easily identifyable or is secure in their containments, and if that was the case it would pose no threat to biodeversity or our GE-free status.
I am strongly in support of this particular instance of human-animal genetic modification as the purpose of this modification is to allow human proto-cells to be produced within the animals and as such it is no longer neccacary to aquire them from aborted foetus’. proto/stem cells have shown near miraculous ability to heal the brain, and other parts of the body, and if we can get a plentyful supply then good bye degenerative brain diseases, and drug fu*ked individuals for that matter.
The donor babies thing is a whole other ethical matter though. though there are many methods of creating babies that are nothing more than husks, so that may get around some of the ethical problems. Personally i would much rather come up with a way to grow the limbs or marrow on animals, or preferibly in a lab environment without the need for animals in the first place. With the technology we presently have it would not be terribly difficult to create a mechanical arm or leg if we could experiment on primates more. I reckon i could do it if i had the money and afew years, the difficult part is the neural interface, but the younger the child the less of a problem that is as the brain can rewrite paths relativly easy, esspecially with stem cells
, lol.
[frog:] Approved without any alterations beyond improving the paragraph spacing. Fu*king moderation software!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
oh, where did my post disappear to? shouldint of used that verb…
frog can you post it? please? i even made a silly egotistical statement!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The potential to create vectors for animal diseases to enter the human population as well as to create cures from the animals to apply to the human population is difficult to quantify. I’d want it in the lab and locked up tight. If there would be exceptions they’d have to be compelling on a risk-benefit-analysis.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am strongly opposed to the technology mainly because it causes a great deal of suffering to other sentient animals. Most GM experiments on animals fail, and the foetus aborts in the third trimester when it is sentient, causing stress to mother and foetus. The few animals that are born often have to be delivered by Caesarian, and they are often deformed, in pain and do not live long.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m very concerned about engineering foetuses to provide transplants to siblings. This amounts to comodification of the human species using a form of engineered slavery and is only a few steps away from corporatized eugenics. The situation doesn’t as yet apply to NZ but it is very likely to become an issue.
The SF book “Cyteen” by CJ Cherryh explores some of the consequences of such activity.
I don’t object to growing individual organs in a bottle but gestating an entire foetus is a very different matter. (Parenthetically, a slice of vat grown steak is possibly less offensive than a slaughtered grain fed one).
There are also many intractable spiritual issues involved with the entire range of GE activity and these will need to be explored sooner or later. Frog, would it be better to have spiritual issues dealt with separately, initially at least?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
michaela Says:
October 25th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
> I’m very concerned about engineering foetuses to provide transplants to siblings.
I’m opposed to that if the foetus or baby is to be sacrificed to provide a transplant for the sibling. But I have no problem if the idea is to have a baby who will have the right bone-marrow that some of it can be transplanted to save the sibling’s life, with no long-term harm to the baby conceived for that purpose.
To me it doesn’t matter that this baby was conceived for an ulterior purpose, because parents usually come to love their kids as individuals anyway. In that sense it won’t work out any different from the situation of a child conceived by accident, and the child will probably end up being treated a lot better than a child that parents want to live out their own dreams through.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whether or not a genegineered child is loved or not is irrelevant. What matters is it has no say in the matter of being used for other purposes. An adult giving informed consent is one thing; an infant or child having its consent arrogated by others for purposes not connected to its own welfare is another matter entirely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We already have DNA in common with every organism on the planet, get over it. You make about as much sense as creationists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
.. and we are made up of atoms in much the same way as radio-active products are (or so the theory goes). To throw out the precautionary principle simply because of the existence of commonalities is over eager, don’t you think?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
HUman insulin is grown in bacteria.
Any problems with that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is just not necessary, It just opens up further aspects of our planet for exploitation and greed. GE is the enemy of true sustainability and every greenie should be totally opposed to it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How delightful to have some common ground, Shunda. I guarantee the vast majority of greenies are opposed, but not all for exactly the same reasons. There are a lot who feel, much as you apparently, that the very concept is bad, for the reasons you mention, but also due to what I’ll call “messing with Gaia”. It somehow just seems wrong. However, the official stance is much less dogmatic. This is where the precautionary principle comes in. While we don’t want to see GE exploited simply for profit, as it mostly is now, we also recognise that there are potential benefits that we might not want to forgo too. Hence the “keep it in the lab” chant of old. This generally comes with the caveat that mucking with humans is right out. The challenge there is finding away to allow the genuinely beneficial, without sliding down the slope into designer humans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis, it kind of reminds me of the manhattan project in world war 2, scientists excited by the fantastic energy potential of nuclear energy, then all of a sudden becoming aware of the full ramifications of their efforts.
I think GE is potentially more world changing than nuclear weapons have been, and possibly even more dangerous.
We should concentrate on learning about the resources we’ve got and learning how to manage them sustainably before we start inventing new ones.
GE seems like cheating and cutting corners to avoid addressing the real issue of an unsustainable life style.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sounds like you’re voting Green there Shunda. Certainly both National and Labour have made it clear they disagree with you on this entirely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nobody’s rights are interfered with. An embryo is not a sentient being, so it has no rights. As long as nobody is initiating force or fraud, there is no right for the state to interfere with science. Anything else is luddite like “ick factor” nonsense. The idea that anyone commenting here or governments could ever know whether such research could produce positive results or not is a nonsense as well. There is undoubtedly enormous potential to extend and enhance life. As long as people are protected from the initiation of force or fraud, then there should be no limits whatsoever. It is not about whether you like it or not, if nobody is being forced to participate then it isn’t your business.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Libertyscott
How does “force or fraud” exactly manage and mitigate the risks of a harmful organism escaping into the wild and infecting every sheep or every person in the country. Assuming we could tell the difference
In other words, no force is exerted BY A HUMAN, no fraud is committed (a strictly human concept) and yet people die or billions of dollars is forfeit.
Or assume the organism is not known to be harmful but we lose our perceived/real GE free status ( This does assert that “GE free” is something we may be able to use to promote our goods ) and the loss of this additional selling point costs our export industry money. Who gets sued?
I am not sure there are effective answers to those questions, but I am willing to listen. I reckon that if someone has them you will.
Risk and the precautionary principle must not be ignored.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As a talking frog, frog, I would have thought your opinions on human-animal hybrids were rather biased…?
=)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)