Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OH Senate Passes Bill Banning Human-Animal Hybrids

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the no-centaurs-allowed dept.

Biotech 197

An anonymous reader writes "The sci-fi movie Splice seems to have scared the Ohio's State Senator Steve Buehrer. The Ohio Senate has passed Sen. Buehrer's bill banning 'the creation, transportation, or receipt of a human-animal hybrid, the transfer of a nonhuman embryo into a human womb, and the transfer of a human embryo into a nonhuman womb.' So much for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Here comes the boycott (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32445908)

... From upset sheep farmers in Wyoming.

Re:Here comes the boycott (5, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446032)

Anyone know why you screw a sheep on the edge of a cliff?

Makes the sheep push back harder.

Re:Here comes the boycott (3, Funny)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447626)

A traveling salesman was driving along a country road.
As he passed a sheep farm he saw a man out in the field with his trousers down having sex with one of the sheep.
Shocked, he pulled into the farm driveway, walked up to the farmhouse and knocked on the door.
A beautiful young woman answered the and asked if she could help him.
The salesman told the young lady "I don't mean to shock you, but there is a man out in your field doing inappropriate things to your sheep!"
The young lady sighed, rolled her very large brown eyes and said;
"Oh, that's just D-a-a-a-a-a-a-ddy." :)

Re:Here comes the boycott (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447920)

A new addition to the joke repertoire! Thanks for that:-)

Re:Here comes the boycott (1)

GarryFre (886347) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446486)

LoL! I dunno, I've seen some pretty good natured dogs in my life. I've never had an animal try to steal my wallet. I dunno depending on what animal is involved it might be an improvement!

Re:Here comes the boycott (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32447822)

And raging protests from furries who will miss their chances at Dr. Moreau's brothel.

Hybrids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32445918)

would be friggin awesome

Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (4, Funny)

uncoveror (570620) | more than 4 years ago | (#32445922)

While they are at it, why not ban cloaking devices and disruptors.

Re:Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (4, Informative)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446256)

Too bad its not science fiction. I personally know a group of scientists that create rabbit human embryos [google.com] . Also there has been a lot of research in growing human organs in pigs" [nationalgeographic.com] . So we are already producing animal-human hybrids. Hell we even grow human ears on mice [google.com] .

Re:Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (5, Funny)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446424)

That just makes me hopping mad!

Re:Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (4, Funny)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446992)

Forget the Rabit-human hybrids. What about the Catgirls [nocookie.net] ?

NOOOOOOO!

;)

(Sorry I just couldn't help myself)

Re:Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447098)

I guess it just goes to show how quickly a field is progressing when 2/3 of the comments on a slashdot story ignorantly assume it's still science fiction and couldn't possibly require legislation. However, I hope this is defined very carefully not to preclude important medical research. Growing a human ear on a mouse [pbs.org] , for example, might seem like a gross waste of time, but perhaps not if you're a soldier whose soft tissue was burned off by an IED. (That image is from way back in 1997 BTW).

Re:Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447300)

The above link is still relevant but I meant to post this better image [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32447402)

So bye bye the medical research and treatments which would be possible by creating hybrids and particularly, that always shimmering hope of creating an artificial womb. First it was the stem cells, now its the carrying of a child to term in a facility other than a human womb. Just brilliant!

Re:Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (0, Troll)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446298)

Just think of this law as a way of keeping Al Gore out of Ohio... ;)

Re:Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32446320)

You can have my disruptor when you take it from my cold, dead, pseudopod!

Re:Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (1)

arekusu_ou (1344373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446342)

When is the time to pass laws prohibiting people from doing bad things? After someone does it already and he gets a freebie cause oh well it's not against the law YET.

Genetic manipulation, chimera, and cloning aren't out of the realm of scientific possibility.

Hell, they ARE working on cloaking devices and disruptors.

Re:Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446610)

So you think using the metabolism of animals to grow human organs for desperate, mortally ill transplant candidates is 'bad'?

Re:Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (1)

arekusu_ou (1344373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447724)

It's not up to me to decide what's legally right or ethically right or morally right, which is different.

Hell, I would be willing to consider cloning body parts if it was possible to be worthwhile.

I would be willing to consider genetic manipulation to eliminate genetic disorders to be worthwhile.

I would even be willing to consider genetic cloning of super soldiers to be worthwhile.

But I am not in a position intellectually to say what is or is not best for society. And hell, our politicians probably are not either, though they have the responsibility and obligation to do so properly.

But I do know, you pass laws restricting things BEFORE someone does it, if you want it kept from being done. Not sweep it away because people think it's not possible yet.

On your question specifically. I'm torn between natural selection and humanitarianism. I truly believe at some point, letting nature take its course is for the best. I would not want to be a vegetable on a machine. I would not want to spend hundred of millions to extend my life another month. The question is, where to draw the line, and luckily, that is also not my worry.

Reminds me of two sayings.

1. "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

2. Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

Though Jack Sparrow stole this line.

Re:Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446430)

While they are at it, why not ban cloaking devices and disruptors.

How long can you guarantee Sci-Fi tech will remain Sci-Fi?

Stealth technologies? Energy weapons?

They exist today.

Re:Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (1)

jayme0227 (1558821) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446810)

Besides, with the creation of synthetic genomes recently, wouldn't scientists just create a human or animal genome to splice with the other? If they were doing this they'd only be looking for a small section of a particular species genome to splice with a humans, so synthesizing it wouldn't be too difficult*. At that point, they are only inserting synthetic genes and, while they are violating the spirit of the law, I seriously doubt they would be violating the letter.

My next question is what happens when they find that they can use pig DNA or whale DNA to combat heart disease or AIDS? Are they going to repeal the law for life saving purposes or are they going to run scared and continue to suppress life-saving sciences because their concept of reality is distorted.

*Obviously, difficult is a relative term.

Re:Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32447196)

Michigan already banned "Directed Energy Weapons" a few years ago.

Re:Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447758)

Exceeding the speed of light on public roads is now punishable with a fine of up to three times ten to the power of eight dollars.

But, but, but! (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32445928)

Can we still develop monkeys with three asses?

Re:But, but, but! (1)

AffidavitDonda (1736752) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446020)

As long as they are monkey asses or horse asses...

Re:But, but, but! (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446818)

Somehow I doubt the market for monkey and horse asses is all that much in need of additional supplies.

Most countries already have very large supplies available within their political structures. It's one of the few things that government excels at; Generating monkey's and horses' asses.

Re:But, but, but! (2, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447746)

But, but, but! Can we still develop monkeys with three asses?

Sadly, we still have to have politicians and lawyers.

No Cowabunga for you! (2, Insightful)

xystren (522982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32445936)

Perhaps he should be watching V from the early 1980's and then he would have reason to be scared.

Public spending (1)

Sta7ic (819090) | more than 4 years ago | (#32445948)

Why was taxpayer money spent making and passing such a bill?

Sheep herding (1, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446016)

Why was taxpayer money spent making and passing such a bill?

Because when you can't tackle real problems, you have to be able to point out how you're "defending traditional values", no matter how absurd the legislation.

Re:So true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32446460)

"Because when you can't tackle real problems, you have to be able to point out how you're "defending traditional values", no matter how absurd the legislation."

As someone who grew up in Ohio and recently escaped that life sucking black hole...I completely agree. This is just one of the "way out there" legislation that happens there. Heaven forbid they actually do something to attract business back. All this going on while the governor and other state level politicians are robbing the Taxpayers blind, buying a massive coin collection with taxpayer money for example, and don't see jail time.

Re:Sheep herding (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447742)

Actually it's not that absurd- at least the human-animal hybrid part.

Most humans want to have special rights that other animals don't have. Despite what PETA and the rest think, we're going to be eating animals, experimenting on them, killing them.

So the problem is then: what happens when you have a human-animal hybrid?

At what percent do we regard the entity as human? And how do we calculate that percentage?

After all I see people talk about ripping organs out from a human-animal hybrid and then putting them into a human.

So the recipient becomes a human-animal hybrid too right? Does the recipient then lose rights to be considered human? Why not? If not, why doesn't the source human-animal hybrid have human rights too?

What if the "animal" human-animal hybrid turns out to be a bit more human than expected and just can't talk as well?

Or what if a bunch of hybrids turn out to be "better than human"? And use our example to justify killing or enslaving us?

Prohibiting the creation of such hybrids will reduce the scope of such problems (it won't get rid of them totally).

Don't get me wrong I'm not against progress. But we really should consider the long term consequences. Is society ready? Are our laws ready?

We're at the stage where "doing stuff just because it can be done" can have greater and more serious long-term consequences.

p.s. on the subject of transplants see:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VM8-416C9CR-3&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1358101317&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=43ba4a34044b04938f90894d2e7e2c25 [sciencedirect.com]

Those are anecdotal and perhaps skewed, however I won't be surprised if some stem cells from the transplanted organs float around and start changing things a bit.

After all see:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=baby-to-brain [scientificamerican.com]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fetal-cells-microchimerism [scientificamerican.com]

Re:Public spending (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446028)

A) For your protection
B) So they get paid
C) It makes it sound like they do work

Politics is fun, isn't it?

Re:Public spending (2, Insightful)

Xveers (1003463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446036)

Because it presents the appearance of doing something to "protect the children" while not actually having to -implement- anything. It's warm conservative-feel-good legislatural mush.

Re:Public spending (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446216)

Because voters are stupid and can't choose the best candidates.

To keep the issue as simple as possible, I encourage people to simply vote for politicians who are fiscal conservatives (lower taxes, balance the budget).

The less money they have to spend, they less they can waste.

transplants? (5, Insightful)

Scribbler'sEmporium (1310863) | more than 4 years ago | (#32445984)

No pig heart valves for you then when your own stops working.

Re:transplants? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32446066)

From TFB:

        (1) "Human-animal hybrid" means any of the following:

        (a) A human embryo into which a nonhuman cell or a component of a nonhuman cell is introduced so that it is uncertain whether the human embryo is a member of the species homo sapiens;

        (b) A hybrid human-animal embryo produced by fertilizing a human egg with a nonhuman sperm;

        (c) A hybrid human-animal embryo produced by fertilizing a nonhuman egg with a human sperm;

        (d) An embryo produced by introducing a nonhuman nucleus into a human egg;

        (e) An embryo produced by introducing a human nucleus into a nonhuman egg;

        (f) An embryo containing at least haploid sets of chromosomes from both a human and a nonhuman life form;

        (g) A nonhuman life form engineered with the intention of generating functional human gametes within the body of a nonhuman life form;

        (h) A nonhuman life form engineered such that it contains a human brain or a brain derived wholly from human neural tissues.

A human with a pig heart valve would not meet any of those qualifications.

Re:transplants? (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447772)

(h) A nonhuman life form engineered such that it contains a human brain or a brain derived wholly from human neural tissues.

Great. So we've just outlawed cyborgs huh?

Re:transplants? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447852)

Laws seldom stay fixed. One amendment to the definitions, and our hypothetical porcine-hearted individual is no longer "human", and can be stripped of the rights and privileges enjoyed by the pure.

Re:transplants? (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446166)

Looking at the bill, it appears to me to be crafted to not affect things like animal tissue transplants, but whether or not it may inadvertantly affect some other currently accepted practice I can't say (as I'm neither an expert at the nuances of legalese, nor an expert in the terminology and possibilities of medical sciences).

Would.. (2, Insightful)

malkavian (9512) | more than 4 years ago | (#32445990)

Having a pig's valve in the heart count as a hybrid? What about anyone born elsewhere who's had animal genome spliced into them to give advantageous traits in the future?
Silly..

Re:Would.. (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446096)

No. The manipulation has to be done at the level of one of these (quick summary): embryonic "fusing" or engineering; engineering non-humans to produce human gametes; or using any human neural tissue at all in an animal (animal-to-human brain-matter transplants are OK).

source: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_SB_243 [state.oh.us]

Re:Would.. (1, Insightful)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446316)

this isn't silly at all. if it wasn't made illegal, a lot of pretty sick things would be done openly pretty quickly. I guess lots of sick things can happen in underground labs either way (urrrgh), but the scale would be vastly different.

Re:Would.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32447576)

Grafting != hybridization.

In a more serious direction.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32446006)

What about the use of animals to grow human organs such as ears, hearts, limbs... to replace those lost due to accident, or birth defect?

also, captcha win: "extras"

Re:In a more serious direction.. (2, Insightful)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447568)

I agree with you, this is far from a 'silly' law that has no real impact. This is in fact a completely misguided fear-driven law that will eliminate research into a promising technology because of some poorly defined moral yuck-factor.

Kinda like the eight year delay in embryonic stem cell research, but that has got to make some voting group pretty happy. I just can't wait to see if their opinion changes when they are on an organ donor waiting list.

Ban Sci-Fi (1)

Grokko (193875) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446010)

I always find these utterly useless laws funny at the state level. What prevents a gene-splicer from creating, transporting, or receiving a human-animal hybrid in neighboring Michigan?

While they're at it, and worried about Sci-Fi possibilities:

- Ban aliens from invading.
- Ban research into Warp Drive or Teleportation
- Ban Stargates from being used
- Ban Zombies

This list could go on forever, unless they ban Infiinity in Ohio.

Re:Ban Sci-Fi (4, Funny)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446208)

What prevents a gene-splicer from creating, transporting, or receiving a human-animal hybrid in neighboring Michigan?

Nothing... but figuring out which are hybrids and which are "normal Michigan residents" could be a problem... ;)

Re:Ban Sci-Fi (1)

arekusu_ou (1344373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446462)

Laws aren't only there for prevention.

They are there to punish. Without laws, you can't punish people for doing something society deems wrong.

And yes.....they SHOULD ban zombies since zombies are popularly created by bio-warfare gone wrong. And there are international treaties against bio-warfare. Since zombie rampage IS an apocalyptic event...all good efforts should be put to preventing it.

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32446038)

The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles came about not from the hybridization of humans and (other) animals, but from exposure to the mutagenic compound known as "the ooze".

I can't believe I let an Idle summary troll me.

To be banned (1)

Noitatsidem (1701520) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446040)

Alien-human hybrids.

it's not science fiction. (2, Informative)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446054)

Whether you agree with the bill or not, it will have an effect:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html [nationalgeographic.com] ; link from wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) [wikipedia.org]

The rabbit/human embryo mentioned there falls under 3701.95.A.1.e. of the bill: "an embryo produced by introducing a human nucleus into a nonhuman egg".

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? (3, Insightful)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446070)

So much for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

The ninja turtles were mutants, not hybrids!

Re:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446162)

You left off "you insensitive clod!!"

Manimals! (1)

Rob Riggs (6418) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446088)

Don't ban manimals [wiktionary.org] !

!TMNT (2, Informative)

uncledrax (112438) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446090)

Weren't the TMNT caused by an accident (radioactive spill from a truck) anyway?

Unless this law also prohibits the transportation of mutantigenic compounds, then it wouldn't outlaw a legally produced TMNT.

I was under the impression that the spill was due to an illegal cargo anyway, so realistically, a law wouldn't do much anyway.

accident is cover up for Toxic waste dumping (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446288)

accident is cover up for Toxic waste dumping.

Re:!TMNT (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447170)

Love it. A detailed correction on an 80s comic book gets modded informative. BTW, what about the Pre-pubescent Slightly-microwaved Karate Hamsters?

Re:!TMNT (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32447424)

Not sure if you were simply kidding, but there was a double-parody called Adolescent Radioactive Black Belt Hamsters [wikipedia.org] .

There are practical reasons for doing a ban (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32446108)

It's not only moral reasons that make a ban wise. A hybrid species can become a bridge species for disease. Imagine diseases like bird flu that never entirely crossed the species barrier? A bridge species would make it easier for it to adapt. Diseases that humans are resistant to could adapt to humans potentially leading to millions of deaths and an ongoing threat since few diseases go extinct they simply keep evolving until the next outbreak. The moral issues should be enough for most people even ignoring Hollywood horror films but practical reasons like disease are a serious concern.

Re:There are practical reasons for doing a ban (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446272)

Care to cite any source where a human and animal were artificially spliced that created such an occurrence? Unless there is a specific use case or real risk then this remains fiction and a waste of taxpayer dollars. There is a difference between reaonable legislation (say for instance, safety laws where a 'real' risk exists) and paranoia.

Re:There are practical reasons for doing a ban (1)

metacell (523607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446482)

It must be nice to be so sure of the right answers.

Did the senator even watch the movie? (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446136)

A living womb, human or animal, was never involved. It was created in a dish and grown in an artificial incubator.

Re:Did the senator even watch the movie? (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447210)

DIdn't watch the movie, didn't read the legislation. Haha.

This is bad (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446154)

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of furries suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

Re:This is bad (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446340)

Actually that's a possible problem with this bill.

What if someone pulled this off and made a Lola Bunny clone, but for real? Think about it for a second. With a functional human brain and supporting systems, it--sorry, she--would definitely be sentient... and intelligent... and capable of survival. But the genome would be different, and the physical form would be as well. The skeletal structure may be largely similar to a human's-- especially the pelvic and spinal structures, allowing fully upright bipedal motion. The hands may possess the trait of opposable thumbs. In all manner, a sentient, capable, useful being.

That is, in all manner a person, in the same way that black people are in all manner persons. Some of the details are different (black skin vs white skin vs ears/tail/fur), and the origin is different (evolution vs lab animal), but we're still talking about a person.

This bill thus becomes a rights issue. A "Human Rights" issue with the word "Human" suddenly becoming a matter of semantics-- we don't care to protect "Humans" because they look like us, we care to protect them because they think and feel like us.

Maybe the politicians just don't want to wake up one day and realize they have a political shitfest on their hands dealing with sentient beings that aren't humans and aren't even natural? The court of public opinion would be divided between "abomination" and "person" for these individuals....

Re:This is bad (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446510)

Well, I think the existing rules are clear enough. A human is conceived via sex between a man and a woman. Anything else isn't human, doesn't have human rights. That's why in-vitro children are, legally speaking, pets belonging to their parents.

Re:This is bad (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447168)

Anything else isn't human, doesn't have human rights. Unless, of course, it legally registers as a corporation.

Re:This is bad (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447264)

Well, I think the existing rules are clear enough. A human is conceived via sex between a man and a woman. Anything else isn't human, doesn't have human rights.

Yes, and that in itself is a huge problem. At a time, we didn't consider black people to have rights. At a time in a country, Jews didn't have rights. At times in various countries, non-nationals didn't have rights.

If at any time in the future we encounter something that can be described as a "person" (i.e. an alien race or a human artificial life with capacity for human-like thought and feeling), there will be a huge political battle over the establishment of rights for said beings.

Borg still ok? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446186)

But human-machine hybrids are still perfectly legal, right? Otherwise I'm going to have to give up my corrective lenses...

Re:Borg still ok? (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446538)

But human-machine hybrids are still perfectly legal, right? Otherwise I'm going to have to give up my corrective lenses...

No, but some of the lawmakers might have to give up their pacemakers...

Hyperion (1)

sherriw (794536) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446190)

You know... there was a time when I would have thought this bill was a no-brainer and should be passed in every country. But recently, reading the Hyperion 4 part series by Dan Simmons changed my mind about that. Well, it at least got me thinking a little deeper about this.

not so simple... (4, Interesting)

martyb (196687) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446204)

Sounds pretty simple at first; but what about transplants?

For example, would this ban using a pig's heart valve from being transplanted into a person?  I had a family member who had this done!

Where do you draw the line? A whole heart?  A heart AND a liver AND a lung?

Who decides where the line is?  And what's to keep the line from moving?  And do we even want to keep it from moving?

I can think of arguments for all of these.

Re:not so simple... (1)

Camann (1486759) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446776)

Here, I'm not copying it. [slashdot.org] None of that goes against this law.

Discrimination (1)

roguegramma (982660) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446246)

I guess banning the creation is ok, but banning the transportation is clearly against the human rights of such manimals.

Lab 5 (1)

siride (974284) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446332)

Guess they're going to have to shut down laboratory 5.

Re:Lab 5 (1)

zero_out (1705074) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446730)

Is that a FMA reference?

Be open minded (2, Funny)

abbynormal brain (1637419) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446344)

What guy wouldn't want a horses dick? Yeah - you would limit who you can date but talk about a show stopper at a meeting when you whip it out and slap it on the table when you don't have an answer.

It's too late anyways... (1)

ringmaster1982 (1817772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446368)

.. I bet IBM already has a patent on it.

Ban animal-human hybrids? (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446454)

In a pig's eye!

What about an artificial uterus? (1)

andrewagill (700624) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446470)

I'm frankly horrified that this would seem to outlaw an artificial (non-living) uterus that could save the life of an embryo.

Why focus on how the chromosome got meddled with? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446488)

Surely the issue is recognizing and protecting the distinction between pure humans and all genetic freaks [wikipedia.org] ?

Hint to the Legacy Media: that's a question you should be asking the namby-pamby wishy-washy liberal OH Senate.

No clear definition of human (2, Insightful)

Lvdata (1214190) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446542)

The law does not define what is human, other then by the generic description of "homo sapiens" How about a fully artificial set of chromosomes from a computer database created in a lab? Without a VERY clear definition of human, that we currently don't have, these type of laws are useless. Is someone with downs syndrome human? they have a extra whole chromosome. How about someone who gets infected with a retrovirus. They now have a mix of human and virus DNA. How about people who are XXY, XXYY, XYY or other sexual genetic abnormalities? We share a LARGE portion of our DNA with everything from monkeys, dogs, mice, insects and even flowers. First define "Human", and by then many humans will be mixed with "animals" to make the laws worthless and conflict with the bill of rights along with many other laws. People, mostly the very religious, just don't want the understanding that "human" is just another kind of specialized animal.

Catwomen? (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446604)

This is a form of specism against cat-women :-(

But maybe is a good idea :-/

nonhuman womb (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446728)

"transfer of a human embryo into a nonhuman womb"
Good Job, Steve. You must not want future human fertility treatments.

That's odd (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446778)

I thought humans were animals. Are humans not allowed to breed anymore?

One question (5, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446796)

...prohibits...the transfer of a nonhuman embryo into a human womb...

Does this include baby Jesus?



just askin'

Re:One question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32447606)

There can be only one!

Just sayin'

Re:One question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32447704)

Human-Diety hybrids are okay, if anyone objects they will be smited from above.

The Senator may disagree if it is not HIS diety.

Ooh ooh (1)

dandart (1274360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446812)

Sorry, my monkey man. You'll have to wait.

I want.. (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 4 years ago | (#32446814)

Human/machine hybrids.

Mommeee, I wanna be a cyborg!

What about human-Neanderthal hybrids? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32447104)

Does this bill cover human-Neanderthal hybrids? If so, it basically outlaws white people.

monkey man (2, Funny)

big whiffer (906132) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447270)

God, schmod. i want my monkey man!

Before chuckling and writing off the idea... (2, Insightful)

TrentTheThief (118302) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447348)

While it is probably not yet possible to create a breeding animal-human hybrid, the idea should be considered seriously. There are numerous implications for society as a whole. Would such a person be treated a sub-class without rights? What purpose would they have?

Science fiction writers, as is the norm, have dealt with such issues for many years, exploring various outcomes, both good and bad.

I suggest for your edification:

Human/animal hybrids created for combat - what happens after the war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moreau_series [wikipedia.org]

Gene-modified humans designed for work in zero gravity (four arms and no legs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkosigan_Saga#Falling_Free [wikipedia.org]

Gene-modified humans designed to work on very high gravity worlds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Pirates_Series [wikipedia.org]

Yes, the stories are science fiction. However, science fiction isn't just test tubes and electronics. It is the interaction of people in a futuristic environment. Consider the fact that 30 years ago, no one thought it would be possible to create a replicating cell from scratch. 60 years ago, the double helix of DNA was unknown.

What is science fiction now, might be reality next week.

humatoes (3, Insightful)

cluemore (1617825) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447426)

... leaving the door wide open for human-vegetable hybrids.

the law seems to forbid human hybrids with other mammals. That leaves a huge area of potential nobel prize research for human hybrids with funguses, reptiles, invertebrates (bugs, jellyfish, worms) and plants, without even having to put out the call through seti for extraterrestrial volunteers.

this cups not half empty, it's half full!

ManBearPig - illegal (2, Informative)

Petron (1771156) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447768)

Victory for Al Gore!

I'm super serial!

Good for them (0, Troll)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447780)

This is not a cat-dog or a flying gerbil, but a cross between a sentient being and another animal. If you can't get over the "gee, wouldn't it be cool to create anime-style cat girls" and see what you're really doing, you are morally stunted at the level of a small child. In the best case scenario, you end up with a mostly human (in appearance) hybrid that has some chance of a normal life. In the more likely scenario, you are purposefully creating a deformed, damaged sentient life form that has no hope of a normal life, including no mate of its own kind.

But, it's done in the name of science, so somehow that makes it more noble than it really is and automatically negates the arguments of those who call it playing God...

Let people suffer because you're stupid. (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447828)

What if the cure for cancer was found and based on a rat gene? (Rats are so cancer prone, I doubt it, but you never know.)
What if an artificial womb was developed that can deal with extreme medical emergencies? (Mother dying of car crash and baby/embryo way too premature, or mother infected with horrible disease, or going to die of cancer without treatment that would abort the pregnancy, etc) (ie, not convenient party slut excuse)

Just because some stupid politician got freak out by a distillation of "The Island of Doctor Moreau", he scares up support for a bill to ban what he feels is the worst thing possible (even though there's no way it'll happen in less than a 160 years), with no regards to everything else he's banning, and the lives he's dooming to pain/death because of his irrational fears.

Unless he's just afraid of furries, in which case he's still a douche that should be buried under a yiff pile. (That is what they call it, right?)
Heck, I'd pin on a tail and ears everytime I was near him just to see him freak, or get pissed. The stupid with power need to be dealt with.

Looking God in the Eye (1)

SMACX guy (1003684) | more than 4 years ago | (#32447834)

Why do you insist that the human genetic code is "sacred" or "taboo"? It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter -we- are chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself.

ohio = new conservative state (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32447884)

They are more concerned about passing this law than passing medical marijuana.
It's a shame DC has passed the law and Ohio is still dragging their feet on the issue.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?