Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong?

Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

RealityLicks -> Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 8:40:28 AM)
I'm wondering what your thoughts are on scientific research using cow cells fused with human embryonic material. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/02/medicalresearch.ethicsofscience The University of Newcastle has started this work with the aim of curing things like Parkinson's and motor neurone disease. Owing to the shortage of human ones, they are taking eggs from cows and putting in a nucleus taken from embyronic human cells. The Catholic church is against it, calling them "Frankenstein" creatures, which leads you to think that they could grow into -- what? Minotaurs? Hellboy lookalikes? More seriously, wondered what the views are on the ethics of this - the churches say its wrong to create human life in a petri dish which intersects with pro-life debates - but what if you have a loved one whose life is threatened by disease? Should there be limits on research and if so, what should they be?

Crush -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 8:43:55 AM)
Think of the teats on that thing!!

RealityLicks -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 8:55:32 AM)
I know, the jokes around this are deadly - especially the low-hanging fruit if its' a male [;)]. Joking aside though, I can't quite work out where I stand on the ethical side of it all and yet the Gov't are handing out licenses to do the research already.

aviinterra -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 9:16:54 AM)
I have a family member who has been diagnosed with Parkinson's years ago, and we are all left to watch him basically decline. But when it comes to hybrid human/animal embroys, I think the question is not if we can find a cure for some awful disease, it is how far are we willing to go to attain that cure. I saw once a silly sci-fi series where everyone wore an electronic bracelet. If someone in the community needed an organ or such, a computer randomly selected a healthy individual who would then be sacrificed. My point is that we have to decide where we cross the line of healing the unhealthy through sacrifice of the living. The article mentions the scientists wanting to push the lenght the embryo lives further, but how far are they willing to go? Will we end up 'farming' a class of lesser humans who are fed just to provide organs to the rest? That, I think, really gets the Church's knickers in a bunch, and I can understand it. Also, there is the whole matter of overpopulation to consider- some disease must be left if we are to surivive as a whole, no matter how unpleasant the thought is.

RCdc -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 9:21:17 AM)
This is Darcy I'm not religious so I have no theological objections to this kind of research, but from a moral point of view I find it all very interesting. As has been said a thousand times, there is the obvious Frankenstein element to this, but there's a part of me that is not so secretly fascinated by the potential here, and (though it will never happen) what could be created if some of these hybrids were allowed to grow to maturity. Perhaps one of them might get out of the lab and we'll find ourselves living our very own Cloverfield, or running from armies of Jeff Goldblum-esque creatures....[;)]

Termyn8or -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 9:23:18 AM)
Trying to set the record for the longest running thread ? Semi-joking, but really this issue is not going to be resolved easily. I am not going to put forth my personal views as to what exactly should be allowed and what should not, rather the issues that such decisions need to be predicated upon. Religion should stay out of it, in fact religion should stay out of everything. Ironically I think common sense should stay out of this one. It will take uncommon sense to really sort it out. There are alot of factors to weigh. One of which is the motive for the research. Another good one is the possible risks.I don't care if they work in a level 5 or 6 lab, there is always the chance of producing a fast mutating deadly microbe. Can you imagine the movie "Andomeda Strain" opening before your eyes ? They mention Parkinson's. That is a degenerative disease, so they should focus more on the root causes rather than repairing it after the fact, throwing good cells after bad so to speak. I think many forms of research have gravitated towards gathering more information, rather than the stated goal. Sometimes they do say they just want to learn more, but when it comes to certain things the pull the "cure disease" story out of a hat to get it to pass a general ethical muster, that I believe does exist. But it is as perverted as the morals of alot of people, of course it is, because the scientific community is made up of people. And not least are personal motives. In other words if the Pope got a new eyeball grown from a chicken liver, a pinto bean and a rat's brain, I bet his views might change a bit. Or would the eye offend him, requiring him to pluck it out ? Or the CEO of a research facility has a bunch of family members with a certain disease, for the hell of it use Parkinson's as an example. If a bunch of family members have it, they already have it, there is alot more impetus to find a cure rather than prevention. Yes, prevention down the road, but a cure now. And of course money rears it's ugly head again. Research must usually be sponsored. Research is not free. So when you go off telling people what kind of DNAs they are allowed to mix together, keep it objective. Or try. Very few even try. T

LadyEllen -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 9:38:40 AM)
Without getting into the details of this particular instance, the real issue it raises is one which is more widely applicable to our future. And that issue is, whether we are in fact anything more than animals, and if as science demonstrates we're not, then whether there is any need to show one another any more respect than we show to other animals - lots of respect (as in the case of our pets) or none whatsoever (as in the case with the cattle and pigs at the slaugher house), depending on our motivations and aspirations in each case. Individually I feel most of us would choose to maintain the current way of dealing with one another. But governments and other powerful groups and individuals, let loose with the idea that a human being deserves no consideration whatever if he/she is of no use is a very dangerous thing. E

RealityLicks -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 9:46:54 AM)
(Checks to see if the Prince Charles is showing Cloverfield anytime soon.)

Rule -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 10:31:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks I'm wondering what your thoughts are on scientific research using cow cells fused with human embryonic material. The University of Newcastle has started this work with the aim of curing things like Parkinson's and motor neurone disease. Owing to the shortage of human ones, they are taking eggs from cows and putting in a nucleus taken from embyronic human cells. I am opposed. Pan was abhorred and rejected by his own mother. quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks what if you have a loved one whose life is threatened by disease? Let them die in dignity. If one is lucky a psychopath will murder them.

philosophy -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 10:47:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks what if you have a loved one whose life is threatened by disease? Let them die in dignity. If one is lucky a psychopath will murder them. ..i know you have said some things i don't agree with....but this? This is insensitive to the point of inhumanity.

sirsholly -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 10:51:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks what if you have a loved one whose life is threatened by disease? Let them die in dignity. If one is lucky a psychopath will murder them. ..i know you have said some things i don't agree with....but this? This is insensitive to the point of inhumanity. i second that

kittinSol -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 10:58:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ..i know you have said some things i don't agree with....but this? This is insensitive to the point of inhumanity. Brrrrr... I'm not that surprised, Rule says the most bizarre things [:(]. According to him, I am evil incarnate, just as an other example. I doubt ethics have any influence on medical research, but it makes for a fascinating discussion. In the end, science will always lead the way, and ethics follow, trying to play catch-up.

Rule -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 10:59:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ..i know you have said some things i don't agree with....but this? This is insensitive to the point of inhumanity. i second that It is a quick and dignified death instead of months or years of degrading, abject suffering. I suppose that when a zebra is old, has two broken legs and has to drag itself across the savanne, and teeth that are so worn that it cannot eat grass any more and consequently has to starve to death, and is riddled by diseases, that you will scare off for months, extending the zebra's suffering, the lion that would honorably kill it within half a minute? Sure, I am insensitive - but you bleeding hearts are far worse, horrendously worse. I would rather meet the lion any time of the day than fall into your sweaty hands.

kittinSol -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 11:03:14 AM)
Perhaps you could donate your body to science after the lion kills you [:D] . We can't all be useful in life, but we can all be in death.

RealityLicks -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 11:23:42 AM)
This is less a question of choosing between a slow death and a quick one - although I find it odd that you suggest a psychopath would necessarily make it quick - it's more a choice between a long debilitation in health on one hand and a cure, on the other. For example, Terry Pratchett has Alzheimers and is not quite sixty. He could be looking at decades, over which he would lose the ability to write, when this research could halt or reverse this decline. Its a totally different issue, in ethical terms, to consider dispatching him immediately to prevent his suffering, one which applies to any deadly illness not just those offered a hope of a cure by this research.

RealityLicks -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 11:27:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aviinterra Also, there is the whole matter of overpopulation to consider- some disease must be left if we are to surivive as a whole, no matter how unpleasant the thought is. The diseases affected by this research would tend not to directly impact on population numbers, moreso quality of life. Would you also suggest that other research which could improve quality of life should cease, or only that which relies on human embryonic material?

sirsholly -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 11:31:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ..i know you have said some things i don't agree with....but this? This is insensitive to the point of inhumanity. i second that It is a quick and dignified death instead of months or years of degrading, abject suffering. I suppose that when a zebra is old, has two broken legs and has to drag itself across the savanne, and teeth that are so worn that it cannot eat grass any more and consequently has to starve to death, and is riddled by diseases, that you will scare off for months, extending the zebra's suffering, the lion that would honorably kill it within half a minute? Sure, I am insensitive - but you bleeding hearts are far worse, horrendously worse. I would rather meet the lion any time of the day than fall into your sweaty hands. we are not zebras, Rule

kittinSol -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 11:33:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks quote: ORIGINAL: aviinterra Also, there is the whole matter of overpopulation to consider- some disease must be left if we are to surivive as a whole, no matter how unpleasant the thought is. Would this also mean that other research could improve quality of life should cease, or only that which relies on human embryonic material? Plus, this idea that "diseases must be left in" completely contradicts the idea of medical beneficience: Salus aegroti suprema lex (to do what's in a patient's interest - I hardly think that saying "Oh, you've got TB, mate, but we need TB in order to fulfill our Malthusian's ideal" would go down too well).

Rule -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 11:37:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks I find it odd that you suggest a psychopath would necessarily make it quick For example, Terry Pratchett has Alzheimers and is not quite sixty. If they do not do it as quick and painless as possible, then may they be reincarnated as flies. As for mr Pratchett: I warned him about such diseases when I spoke with him about five years ago. It must have been too late then already. (I must have been precognitive.) quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks He could be looking at decades, over which he would lose the ability to write, when this research could halt or reverse this decline. I am all for a cure, but not by this unethical research. I agree with Termyn8or: research the cause. quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks Its a totally different issue, in ethical terms, to consider dispatching him immediately to prevent his suffering, one which applies to any deadly illness not just those offered a hope of a cure by this research. When and where did I say immediately?

sirsholly -> RE: Human Hybrid Research - right or wrong? (4/2/2008 11:39:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aviinterra Also, there is the whole matter of overpopulation to consider- some disease must be left if we are to surivive as a whole, no matter how unpleasant the thought is. which diseases would those be, and who makes that decision?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125