Plans to allow British scientists to create human-animal embryos are expected to be approved tomorrow by the government’s fertility regulator. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority published its long-awaited public consultation on the controversial research yesterday, revealing that a majority of people were “at ease” with scientists creating the hybrid embryos.
Researchers want to create hybrid embryos by merging human cells with animal eggs, in the hope they will be able to extract valuable embryonic stem cells from them. The cells form the basic building blocks of the body and are expected to pave the way for revolutionary therapies for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and even spinal cord injuries.
The consultation papers were released ahead of the authority’s final decision on the matter, which will mark the end of almost a year of intense lobbying by scientists and a fervent campaign by organisations opposed to research involving embryonic stem cells.
Using animal eggs will allow researchers to push ahead unhindered by the shortage of human eggs. Under existing laws, the embryos must be destroyed after 14 days when they are no bigger than a pinhead, and cannot be implanted into the womb.
Opponents of the research and some religious groups say the work blurs the distinction between humans and animals, and creates embryos that are destined to be destroyed when stem cells are extracted from them.
Good secular reasoning in which human life is nothing more than a commodity.
But very dangerous implications flow from this because if the commodity proves to have no value then it may be freely disposed of.
Well, some of us have warned you and warned you. It is probably too late now. THIS is religion’s crucial task; this is is what ANglicnism MUST pay attention to or become utterly irrelevant. TEC is of no importance any more. Let them die. But science and its religion, scientism, are the perfect threat to Christianity because they can do what they promise and show the results to the most skeptical. And we can’t. It’s that simple. What will it take to wake us up? The chatter on this blog should tell us all that this elephant in the room is being ignored in favor of the mice in the woodwork. LM
I find this to be a shocking act.
What a grotesque violation.
Wait a minuet, didn’t Micheal Fox and others say if we allowed use of human embryos all the ills of man would be cured? Well Britian does and there are still not enough embryos! Any one that has any opposition to any science is a knuckle dragging fundamentalist keeping people in darkness and disease. Research into adult stem cells has already produced some execellent results that are stunning but these advances are largely ignored by the lame stream media.
Incredible.
Science-fiction coming to life… no wait, even in those movies they grew replacements parts from human embryos, not animal-human hybrids !
They actually talk about animals eggs being fertilized by human sperm, and vice versa. Apparently it’s too late for the human race, nobody cares about the sanctity of their life, so maybe the animal rights activits can protest this ?!!
Paging Doctor Moreau . . .
John316…that is very funny!
I’m not at all at ease with hybrid embryos. I’d rather see more research done with embryonic stem cells, derived from blastocysts, and cord blood stem cells, which are found in the umbilical cord. In a developing embryo, stem cells can differentiate into all of the specialized embryonic tissues. In adult organisms, stem cells and progenitor cells act as a repair system for the body, replenishing specialized cells is my understanding.
I think every woman should be able to donate some of the cord cells from her newborn for research and then the rest would be stored safely in case the child needs them at some point [w/ certain diseases such as lukemia].
Well Revamundo, at least the work will be done in an island nation so there is at least that safeguard in case something escapes from the lab.
Seriously, wasn’t something like this tried in China a couple of years ago?
What time is it? Oop…1984 already.
I don’t find this any more shocking than people having doctors change their gender. . . .
YOu should, Jim the P, because the ramifications go far far beyond gender change. See #7 again. Beg pardon, #7, but your preference is at the least naive. It’s not that y our choice of direction is irrational, but rather that if you accept your preference, then you must also accept the rest of the r and d that goes into it. If you want the jelly, you have to get the whole doughnut. Mankind is simply unprepared for the kind of ethical dilemmas such r and d advances, and so we are not ready to say of these advances, “We will accept this but refuse that.” Science will do it anyway. ANd Americans are so thoroougly brainwshed by scientism that to refuse such r and d is to admit to being a mind-dead reactionary. What is more important and crucial, is that the churches – read Anglicanism here – have said and thought little of nothiing about these issues. If the church offers no guidance, if the scriptures do not speak to these issues, why should anyone refuse to let science do what it wishes and thank you very much sir as well?
Larry
Mr. Morse, I don’t believe you understood you can read my post two ways.
John316…I love literary references. I’m sure that it is obscure to many. 🙂
Larry…I don’t agree with your conclusion re jelly and doughnut. JMHO that throwing the baby out with the bath water doesn’t help anything either. Why can’t we learn and grow both ethically and scientifically? I believe there is a “via media” that can be found with this issue.
I wouldn’t worry too much about all this. Very soon the islamic fascists will take over England as it no longer seems to want to defend itself. Then the unnuanced muslims will make short order of this nonsense.
Ok Jim, instruct me in wht I have missed. I won’t be the first time I have misread.
Revamundo: The answer to your question is, “On the whole, no.” The reason is simple – well, simple to say. Science and technology present the ethical and religious problems after the work has been done, so the horse has been stolen when ethicists start talking about whether to close the doors or not. The up shot is that this case occurs so frequently that no one questions what the scientists are up to because it is always too late.
Second, the sciences present the public with only one face of their research and development, the part that it knows the public cannot help but agree too. This is the case with stem cell research,e.g.
But the hard part is left out until the fait accompli has been fait accomple-ed. So it is still too late. The result is always this, that the public wishes to see the part in which more and longer life is promised and does not wish to see the part in which the meaning of the above is questioned.
But the significance of the this particular blog is frightening in the extreme, esp. for Christians. So I ask you: If human and animal genetic material are fused, at what point does the construct become human, or even partly human? Is there such a thing as partly human? And when these cells are allowed to mature, to be implanted in a womb? Did I hear you say that this will never happen? Do you really believe this? Is there any sign that scientists will stop a fruitful line a research, esp. one tht is funded, for ethical reasons alone? Once again, I refer you to Kass et al., Beyond Therapy, the report from the Presidents Commission of bioethics. You MUST read it; every American must.
Why can’t we learn and grow ethically at the same time? Because science does not want it that way since it will interfere with their research and development. And we do what science wants us to do, because science promises us real benefits in this world, and it produces on those promises, while Religion talks about things that have no existence or whose existence cannot be demonstrated. Why bother with religion when science gets you all you want: more and longer life, extended youth, greater health, more and safer sex, fewer babies, countless thousands of well paid jobs, and the promise (now made again and again) of children who are of the sex you chose, brighter,stronger, handsomer, more blonde that you or I.
Can you not see Mustapha Mond and the Brave New World in front of you? REad the opening chapter again as you travel through the baby factory and the cloning process. Don’t you recognize this? Don’t you recognize the connection between scientific r and d and the consumer culture? Revamundo, we are half way there already, for you have seen a culture appear in which the individual is defined as one whose purpose in life is to consume, who must believe in consuming, and who must continue to consume if the Good Life is to continue. And so MUstapha Mond tells us that the secret is to create a society of slaves who WANT to be thus. Go into WalMart. What do you see? Look around at all the goodies technology has produced, including the pharmacy, all the fat fat people with endless cell phones (and BlueTooths) and what are they doing, and why? ARe they happy? And if some genetic material from hogs and dogs and the Banderlog will make them better suited to be more of what they already are, will they refuse? Remember that science, technology and the consumer society are utterly interlocked, and then tell me about how we are going to grow ethically at the same time.
At last, tell me how scripture will face the animal/human fusion. What can it say? Can it say, “No, you mustn’t do that because….” Because why? So to answer your question clearly, we must say that ethical solutions and understanding must PRECEDE scientific production. ANd here is an ethical question for you, if the fusion of animal and humane genome will produce a child for you that is healthier, longer lived, more intelligent, stronger, and handsomer than you – or any of this qualities – will you say “No, Christ does not wish us to be manufactured, to use the Tree of Knowledge to get at the Tree of Life?” Will you turn down the chance?
Are you content with being a Completely Trained Consumer? Did I hear you say that you are not?
Sorry to go on so long, but the issue is so vital and the American awareness so limited, so biased, that it is impossible to watch and say nothing. Larry
15: My point is that several generations ago people would be shocked at the idea of a doctor artificially changing a person’s gender throught surgery and drugs. Now not only is it accepted, I can get sued for discrimination if I make a negative comment about such a practice in the workplace.
This is merely continuing to travel down the slippery slope of playing God, now by making new artificial forms of life.
There was something in #7 that caught my eye…using stem cells from umbilical cord blood for research. While I am firmly against embryonic stem cell research, there is nothing wrong with using cord blood. I for one am planning on donating my baby’s cord blood to the Texas Cord Blood Bank (via the hospital) not for my own benefit but because it can be used to help another child or possibly for research. This is a free service (using a service such as ViaCord which stores it specifically for your child is what costs big $$), and no one is harmed or even at risk during collection. The cord blood (along with the placenta) is normally discarded after birth anyway.
[url=http://www.bloodntissue.org/texascordbloodbank.asp]For more info[/url]