Catholic bishops oppose human-animal hybrids but say that if one is created, it should be considered a full human.
As Britain prepares to debate a provision in Parliament to allow the creation of chimeric hybrids of humans and animals (see blog of May 24, 2007), the Catholic bishops of England and Wales have told a joint committee in the British legislature that these chimeras should be allowed to go to term and be born.
What these Catholic prelates object to is the proposed destruction of chimeric embryos after 14 days. They believe that embryos that are partially human should be implanted in human mothers, and that they should be afforded all the rights of a 100 percent human. According to a recent article in London's Telegraph,
The bishops, who believe that life begins at conception, said that they opposed the creation of any embryo solely for research, but they were also anxious to limit the destruction of such life once it had been brought into existence.
In their submission to the committee, they said: "At the very least, embryos with a preponderance of human genes should be assumed to be embryonic human beings, and should be treated accordingly.
"In particular, it should not be a crime to transfer them, or other human embryos, to the body of the woman providing the ovum, in cases where a human ovum has been used to create them.
"Such a woman is the genetic mother, or partial mother, of the embryo; should she have a change of heart and wish to carry her child to term, she should not be prevented from doing so."
In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, astronomers sanctioned by the Catholic Church, such as Christopher Clavius, labored to create a scientific cosmological framework that conformed to both church dogma and the latest observations and data coming from astronomers, such as Nicolas Copernicus, that contradicted the dogma that the earth was at the center of the universe. Attempts to reconcile the two positions led to convoluted and bizarre justifications that were eventually abandoned by nearly everyone.
Arguing that hybrid species with human components deserve to be born requires similar leaps of logic. For instance, if one truly believes that a partially human embryo is a full human, then what about all the animals that share a preponderance of DNA with us humans already, such as other primates, dogs, and mice? What percentage of "human" DNA, which is not exclusively human anyway, makes an organism truly "human"?
Figuring out what is human and what is not is an intriguing question as scientists begin to create human-hybrid embryos, but that's a separate issue from what the bishops are discussing. What they really oppose is human embryos being used for research or treatment, and then destroyed. For now, almost no one wants these bundles of inter-species DNA to go to term. That's not the point. The idea is to develop therapies using hybrid embryos to treat and cure disease. Creating a dog-person is not on anyone's agenda.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
You are saying, "How far can we go before it is human?" They are saying, "We don't know, and it is unethical to use this method to try to find out." You are comparing them to silly medieval theologians. They could, in turn, compare you to Nazi doctors experimenting on Jews. Both accusations are over-the-top, and do not help. You make some good intellectual points, but ruin your argument with ad hominem and misrepresentation.
By the way, I'm not Catholic.
dmm
07/02/2007
Posts:191
As for rights, yes, we should extend them to animals/chimeras but not for superstitious reasons. We should extend many rights to animals, simply because they are sentient beings who feel joy, sorrow, pain etc. just like we do. Due to our ego we appointed ourselves as the center of the universe, and as such we allow ourselves to do whatever we like to helpless animals. But science has shown us several times how our anthropocentric world view was flat out wrong. Then perhaps we should also redefine how we relate to other species.
But having rights does not equate a ban on experiments. We also experiment on humans (FDA trials). The 'rights' define a moral framework within which we have to operate. In fact, the NIH already enforces 'animal rights' - rules and conditions on how researchers can treat animals. Animal experiments must be pre-approved by 'ethical committees' (each institution has a different name for these committees). Labs that violate these rules face steep fines, loss of funding and punitive disciplinary action.
Finally, it is interesting how the Catholic church makes its business where it has no business. Catholic dogma states that animals do not have souls. Animals do not go the heaven/hell. Yet they want to claim that chimeras are 100% human. So what are the rights of animal which has one spliced human gene in its system? You could take a dog embryo, and introduce a single human human gene into it. Let's say you change the dog's alpha-hemoglobin subunit to a human alpha-hemoglobin. Obviously, this dog would be just like any other dog. But according to the Catholic church, this dog would now be a HUMAN...
Obviously, the Catholic church (or any other church/religion) is not qualified to make such moral judgments. They simply don't know what they are talking about. Go back to your medieval rituals and incantations, and leave science alone.
gabrielg01
07/02/2007
Posts:396
You claim we should extend rights to animals merely because they are like us, then go on to blast anthropocentrism as unscientific. Please be consistent.
Experimenting on humans without their informed consent is considered to be unethical by nearly all non-Nazis. Yet NIH guidelines and 'ethical committees' allow experimentation on animals, even to the point of maiming and killing them. Clearly, most scientists are anthropocentric.
If you read the article carefully, you will see that the Catholic bishops were referring to chimeras with a "preponderance" of human DNA. So your point about chimeras with one human gene is bogus. That is called a "straw man" argument. Blowing away a gross misrepresentation of your opponent's position is loads of fun, but it generates lots of heat and no light.
You should probably keep in mind that the Catholic church hierarchy (like most religions) gets advice from scientists of their faith before making pronouncements on moral issues involving technical matters. So they probably know what they are talking about, but they are approaching the subject with very different pre-suppositions from you.
It is really quite amusing how you think that no religions are qualified to make moral judgments, especially since you don't seem to realize that atheism/materialism is a religion.
dmm
07/03/2007
Posts:191
Apes have somewhere around 98%-99% the same genome as we do. Most people do not consider them human, neither does the Catholic church. But a few people, including me, consider that they should be extended human rights. How much more "human" you need to get than 99%?
This percentage counting is also reprehensible, because it harkens back to nazi-styled pedigree laws. One may start doing it for animals and chimeras, but it's a sliding slope you don't want to step on. What would happen if this detailed genetic analysis showed that certain human populations are closer/farther to/from the apes? The logical way out of this conundrum is to "upgrade" the apes' legal status to human.
And back to religions - I flat out deny that religions have a special insight into morals and values. They only act like they do, but they don't.
gabrielg01
07/03/2007
Posts:396
Believe it or not, even though I am what you would probably call a "Bible-thumper" (with a PhD in physics and a lot of training in biology), I think we are finding some common ground.
I agree that defining "preponderence" in practical terms may get tricky, but I disagree as to why. One has to be careful when using facts such as "[a]pes have somewhere around 98%-99% the same genome as we do" in order to draw the conclusion that they are nearly human. Keep in mind that humans only have about 50% more genes than roundworms, and that roundworms have only a small percentage of genes that we do not also have. So roundworms have around 67% the same genome as we do. That's not what most people would call a "preponderance" but it is certainly a strong majority, and yet nobody infers from this that roundworms are 67% human and so should be given 2/3 of the rights that humans have.
The problem is, that we mostly don't yet know which sets of genes do what. We don't even know if that 2% ape/human genome difference is the main reason for the ape/human phenome difference. It may be that the crucial differences are in expression rather than content, and this may be regulated by a very tiny fraction of the ape/human genome. Heck, the switch might not even be genetic -- it might be epigenetic, and sensitive to the environment. What happens if we find out how to "throw the switch?" Yet, on the other hand, if the crucial difference is only 0.01% of the genome, then even 99% genetic similarity is not enough to make an ape "human." All genes are not created equal.
Let's be honest: Apes are most certainly not human, so they can't be given "human" rights. The question instead is, how sentient are they, and should this qualify them for "sentient being rights?" I think that most people are coming to the conclusion that apes (along with cetaceans) are at least partly sentient, and that this qualifies them for some special rights we don't accord to animals such as rats. And rats have more rights than roundworms, which have more rights than paramecia.
As an aside, you might wonder how religions that believe humans have souls (e.g., Christianity) could handle genetically-modified apes that were undeniably fully sentient. The Catholics have already given you their practical response: they would baptize them and teach them the Rosary. The theoretical response is that God made humans to be co-creators with Him, giving us the power to create eternal souls. (I freely admit that there is no scientific explanation for this, so let's just agree to disagree about this.) The point is, that as we humans advance, it is possible that we may eventually learn to make other things "in God's image" besides our own offspring. We might make sentient animals and sentient machines. The possibility of such acts of sub-creation should terrify us and only be pursued with the utmost caution, mindful of the enormity of what we are attempting. But the difficulties are practical; there aren't any insurmountable theological difficulties. Personally, I think people should be more cautious, even terrified, when making an eternal soul in the "normal" way, through sex. We are too cavalier with infinities.
Getting back on topic, I totally agree with you that one can't simply base "sentience rights" on a simplistic percentage of genomic similarity. Using that method, a person with Down's Syndrome (who has an extra chromosome) would have fewer rights than a gorilla. But I really don't think that the Catholic bishops were proposing such a scheme. I think that as we learn more about genetics and "evo-devo" and the brain and behavior we will be able to come up with reasonable schemes (which, I grant you, probably won't use the word "preponderance").
I don't agree that the 'logical way out of this conundrum is to "upgrade" the apes' legal status to human.' That is squashing a bug with a sledge hammer. We manage to legally protect all sorts of things all the time -- even inanimate objects like the Grand Canyon -- without such extreme measures.
Lastly, about religions and their insight into morals and values: Your latest statement is much more reasonable than your initial claim. I still think, though, that you are unreasonably denying that you yourself have a religion. Did you know that many U.S. state and federal courts have decided, over and over, by wide majorities, that atheism/humanism/materialism is a religion (and is for that reason entitled to protection under the First Amendment)?
dmm
07/03/2007
Posts:191
But if we are made humans only because a few switches, that to me is a very humbling reason to reconsider our "superiority", and consequently reconsider our rights and attitudes towards animals.
We are facing unknowns, and it is impossible to draw moral rules out of the unknown.
What would happen if say, we found out that to make a human being you could rely on the genes of a pig, and you would only need to use a few human genetic switches that would constitute 0.000001% of this creature's genome? It is just a thought experiment.
What I am getting at are the two possible extremes:
1) you could have a chimera with 99% human genes - and this could be a completely 'unsentient' animal.
2) you could have a chimera with very few human genes, maybe only 2% or less human genes, but due to the 'switch' nature of these genes you would obtain a highly sentient being.
My final point is that we should seek truth from the facts, not from pre-ordained religious dogma.
gabrielg01
07/05/2007
Posts:396
Does it have any business poking its nose into matters concerning morality? I don’t think so. It is the same church that burned thousands at stake during the inquisition, that sanctioned the division of the world between Spain and Portugal and the conquistador’s destruction of the civilisations of Mexico and South America. Does it have any authority to rule even on Christian morality? I don’t think so. It is the same Church that banned the reading of the Bible by laymen for over a 1000 years, that has committed the most cardinal sin preached by Jesus, that of hypocrisy. The church whose popes have borne illegitimate children, including one pope from his own daughter and who have personally committed murder (besides sanctioning murder and genocide). The present pope was a member of the Hitler youth.
To be fair to the Catholic Church, there are some other religions that are much worse. But the bottom line religions rely on faith and dogma. When science, reason, logic, facts get in the way of that faith or dogma then, as we can see in the world today religion exhorts it followers to use force, violence and intimidation to try and bring people around to its way of thinking.
Now onto chimeras. Here the Catholic Church wades into something it knows precious little about and so apparently do the people discussing it here. A heated discussion about the human rights of chimeras without defining what chimeras are. The catholic church and apparently most other people have an idea of perhaps a cross between a human and a chimpanzee or gorilla or orang-utan. The zoological definition of a chimera is an animal that has two or more different populations of genetically distinct cells that originated in different zygotes. In Genetics an organism composed of two or more genetically distinct tissues, as an organism that is partly male and partly female, or an artificially produced individual having tissues of several species.
There are wholly human chimeras also, as came up in the case of a parent who discovered at the age of 52 that two of “its” children were not “its”. Now normally this would lead to recriminations and divorce, but fortunately the parent in this case happened to be the mother. It was eventually discovered that the woman was a chimera where two ova were fertilized by spermatozoa. The two fertilised eggs then fused to form one baby with intermingled cell lines. This is the rare case of what is known as a tetragametic chimera. There are also blood chimeras where 8% of fraternal twins share some portion of the same placenta. Each twin is genetically separate except for their blood, which has two distinct sets of genes, and even two distinct blood types. Now should we deny these chimeras, who cannot be distinguished from other humans except by genetic testing, human rights?
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1545
rajnz
07/08/2007
Posts:25
The issue is about animal-human mixes. We already have mice with about 1% human brain cells, sheep with 80% human livers, and pigs with human blood cells. This brings up what it means to be an animal, and what it means to be a human? Beyond the philosophical issues, it also brings up legal issues.
As for the Catholic church, indeed they have no business in this. If they are so worried about morals, they better look out for their pedophiles.
gabrielg01
07/08/2007
Posts:396
However it is conceivable that Humans and Apes could cross breed. The chimpanzee, Gorilla and Urangutan all have 48 chromosomes compared to the human 46.
The Horse has 64 Chromosomes and the Donkey has 62. The mule is the offspring of a female horse and a male donkey and has 63 chromosomes and so is generally sterile as it has an odd number of chromosomes which cannot evenly divide.
Zebras have 44 chromosomes and the horse has 64. The offspring should have 54 chromosomes and would possible be fertile, having an even number of chromosomes.
When cross species breeding takes place the smaller number of chromosomes should belong to the male and the larger number to the female. This is generally so – though the opposite type of pregnancies can also take place, but much more rarely. Thus possibly a male human could crossbreed with a female great ape and produce an offspring with 47 chromosomes, which would generally be sterile.
To me the idea seems repulsive and I would feel that any such zygote or foetus should be aborted if it ever takes place. According to the logic of the Catholic Church however, though initially such an insemination would be an abomination but once taken place, the foetus would be declared sacred and required to proceed to term! Not only that, but would also declare such a hybrid 100% human, which it is not.
By the same logic it declares that it is a sin to abort a pregnancy caused by rape or one where it is known that the child would be severely retarded or disabled. This is not always the case though. A “special dispensation” was given to nuns in Zaire when they were raped to flush out any potential offspring. After all the Catholic Church must look after their own, unlike the general populace. They also want children to be produced ad lib by poor parents who are unable to provide for their children thus perpetuating their poverty.
I would ask the most venerable bishops that if such an offspring were 100% human then should it not also stand an equal chance of becoming the Pope!
Human genes have been added to bacteria and farm animals to make those organisms to make human proteins such as insulin for use as medicines and for drug testing. The whole controversy has started because of genetic engineering, the purpose of which is research, to help in the understanding and treatment human disease etc and not to produce bizarre human-animal chimeras.
rajnz
07/09/2007
Posts:25
The real answer is both dmm and gabielg01 are right, even though they are diametrically opposed. We need to have this debate. Human knowledge has come to the point where we can do things that maybe we shouldn’t. The only way we will ever know if we are doing the right thing is to debate the issue, and find the common ground. Besides, if we exclude a group of people from the decision process because of their faith sounds quite a bit like the afore mentioned Mr. Hitler’s approach to problem solving.
kelchme
07/11/2007
Posts:1
Why we should exclude people whose religious beliefs cloud their scientific judgement is precisely because of that. They are not in a position to make an impartial judgement. I would not go to an organisation for scientific opinion, who burned people at the stake for daring to say the Earth was not flat, that it in fact moved around the Sun instead of the other way round and forced one of the greatest scientists in the world, namely Galileo, to recant on what he knew, because of evidence, to be true.
Whereas I would exclude the Catholic Church's opinions in any matter scientific or moral, the said Mr Hitler did not. On the 20th of July 1933 the Catholic Church under Pope “Pius” (sic) XI signed a Concordat with the Nazi Party in which it was written :
Before bishops take possession of their dioceses they are to take an oath of fealty either to the Reich Representative of the State concerned, or to the President of the Reich, according to the following formula: "Before God and on the Holy Gospels I swear and promise as becomes a bishop, loyalty to the German Reich and to the State of . . . I SWEAR AND PROMISE TO HONOUR THE LEGALLY CONSTITUTED GOVERNMENT AND TO CAUSE THE CLERGY OF MY DIOCESE TO HONOUR IT. IN THE PERFORMANCE OF MY SPIRITUAL OFFICE AND IN MY SOLICITUDE FOR THE WELFARE AND THE INTERESTS OF THE GERMAN REICH, I WILL ENDEAVOUR TO AVOID ALL DETRIMENTAL ACTS WHICH MIGHT ENDANGER IT."
It was ok to work with the Nazi’s and indeed be a Nazi. In keeping with that there was nothing wrong with the present Pope being a member of the Hitler youth.
You can do a search on the net to see pictures of the most “pious” Catholic Bishops giving the Nazi salute (and no doubt shouting Heil Hitler – though that couldn’t be recorded on photographs), along with Joseph Goebbels and Wilhelm Frick
In doing so at the very least the Catholic Church bore complicity in the atrocities committed by the Nazi’s. But it went further than that. His successors’ ambassador hosted a Gala reception for Hitler on his 50th birthday in Berlin. The Yugoslav Embassy in Washington sent a report that the Croatian Catholic Archbishop Stepinac helped the Ustashi Catholic terrorists create their pro-Nazi state. There were forced conversions and whole Serbian villages were massacred for refusing to convert to Catholicism. After the war, the Vatican sheltered Croatian Nazi war criminals. Hitler referred to the Ustashi as "Our Nazis.
The bottom line is - religion is no position to “debate” anything as it relies on faith rather than reason for its arguments. All religious people have done incalculable harm because of their rigid stance, totally impervious to reason.
This includes your president on his stance on stem cell research. A Presidential veto is neither consensus nor debate. He would rather prevent fetuses or even zygotes from being destroyed which would never proceed to term anyway rather than use them to help prevent human disease and sickness in those already alive.
I have said enough on this matter and will no longer respond in this blog. However I would like to ask you “Catholic bishops oppose human-animal hybrids but say that if one is created, it should be considered a full human.” – I think that’s ridiculous not really worth a debate, but do you agree?
rajnz
07/11/2007
Posts:25
And also when talking about the inquisition did you not say thousands were killed. Well didn't Hitler kill millions?
Just a few thoughts that I would like a response to that is all.
radterra
04/27/2008
Posts:2
hellofu
07/03/2007
Posts:6
With respect to TMS, the magnitude and versatility of the effect seem stunning, but what is known about safety? Are there studies where mice, or preferably larger brained animals, are given continuous or frequent TMS over months or years and then studied for behavioral changes or brain damage? (or brain growth for that matter?).
Also, why didn't you try out the cartooning effect that Alan Snyder demonstrated a few years ago and which received the incredibly impressive NY Times write up? Did you try it with little effect?
Why not try an IQ test and/or some simple tests of physical function such as balance or aim with a ball?
In the later part of the article, I'm curious as to why you went to a celebrity doctor like Steven Lamm. Does he actually seem to be unusually smart or knowledgeable? Is he into a wide variety of enhancement tech, or just Provigil?
michael vass...
07/04/2007
Posts:1
In addition, it's all well and good that God loves all living creatures, but mortal beings do need the love of other mortals, and chumming up to a half-man, half-goat may challenge even the most humane among us. I presume the bishops are prepared to open their hearts and homes to such unprecedented lifeforms.
I can only hope that God, in His infinite wisdom, chooses not to allow such beings to develop at all.
regfelt
07/05/2007
Posts:1
Just a small thought.;)
radterra
04/27/2008
Posts:2