Scientists Give Human Organs to Lamb 589
TK Interior writes "Myrtle Beach Online reports the existence of a lamb-human chimera-- a blend of two different species. Not only has a lamb been given a human liver and heart, but mice are sporting human brain cells. At what level is a chimera 'too' human? Where do you draw the line between human and animal? How will this affect evolution?"
Seen them before (Score:5, Funny)
Making Chimeras is dangerous... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the greatest nightmare of the Centers for Disease Control. They strongly discourage experimentation and research involving chimeras, even (and especially) research using animal organs for human transplant.
This is not a joke, or poorly written science fiction.
I don't like it. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't like it. (Score:5, Funny)
Some animals are more equal than others.
Re:I don't like it. (Score:5, Informative)
" 1. Whatever goes on two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes on four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal.
7. All animals are equal. "
After a few revisions it ends up as; "
1. "Four legs good, two legs better!"
2. No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
3. No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.
4. No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.
5. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Re:But the Scotsmen will..... (Score:5, Funny)
Or so the Scots would have it. ;)
Never heard this old saw?: "Why do Scotsmen wear kilts? Because sheep can hear a zipper a mile away...."
And yes, I have Scotch blood, so I'm allowed to poke fun. Or is that Scotch in my blood? Bother....I can never remember.
Re:But the Scotsmen will..... (Score:5, Funny)
-For Canadians, I've heard it's the "Newfies" (Newfoundlanders)
-In England it's the Welsh
-The Irish think it's the Scottish
-The Scottish think it's the Aussies
-Aussies and New Zealanders accuse each other having intimate relations with Lamb Chop on a regular basis
-and, apparently South Africans think we Aussies are the sheep-fuckers...
If you think about it, it's really the sheep who are the sluts.
Too human? (Score:5, Insightful)
A disease that affects sheep maybe can gestate over years in a flock of sheep and then suddenly because they have many human organs its affecting humans too. It opens a door of potentials not all of which are good
The nets biggest nude anime gallery's [sharkfire.net]
Re:Too human? (Score:4, Informative)
Cheers,
Richard
Re:Too human? (Score:2)
# Can you see the ree-eeal flu-uuu?
# Can ya? *CAN* ya?
Dangerously human (Score:4, Insightful)
As it stands asia is the source of virtualy all flu and africa the source of all Ebola. In both cases it's believed to be because of the biological conditions that put animals and humans in close contact where the viruses can jump between species. In the case of flu the host animal is birds which then jumps to mamals via pigs. Pigs are close enought o human that the jump to human is easy. and then it's flu season. In the case of Ebola no one knows what the host animal is. Apparently its not harmful to its host since it would slauter it wholsesale if it were as deadly as it is in humans. When it jumps to human's the only good nes is that it is so lethal it tends to kill it's host quicker than it spreads in rural africa. NY city might be a different story.
Some people think that ebola's natural host is a monkey or an ape.
Apes get many diseases we dont. For example Simian Aids. What would happen if we were to put human cells in an ape, then simian aids learned how to infect these cells. Then it jumped to the human population.
We are porting disease from the antire animal kingdom to our own without considering the consequences
Re:Dangerously human (Score:4, Insightful)
I hear a gargling sound.
I suggest you have a look at _Guns, Germs, and Steel_. Most, if not all, of our diseases have come from herd animals that we domesticated. We've gotten this far after 6,000 years with the filthy beasts; I hardly think we'll become extinct now, especially with our new-fangled medical technology.As far as simian AIDS infecting humans, human AIDS is probably the exact same thing -- a bug some human picked up from an ape around 70-100 years ago in Africa. What would happen if simian AIDS jumped again? Probably what's going on now with regular AIDS.
"We are porting disease from the antire animal kingdom to our own without considering the consequences." This is nothing new. We've done fine so far.
Re:Dangerously human (Score:3, Insightful)
What if the sheep with such a transplant managed to adapt it's antibody to protect it's implant?
I'm not a doctor so i have no idea if it's possible, but i'm thinking along the lines of how we produce snake anti-venon with the aid of horses.
Re:Too human? (Score:5, Insightful)
But why do this?
With the massive shortages of organs for transplantation, we need to do somehing.
Using stem cells to grow new organs or repair damaged ones was a good idea until Bush nipped that in the bud.
So instead of that relatively safe research, scientist are looking to alter animals to grow the organs for us.
But, as you point out, there are many risks involved. Transpecies pandemics is just one of them.
~X~
"If ignorance is bliss then Bush must be living in a fucking paradise."
Re:Too human? (Score:3, Informative)
This is the problem: The Law of Unintended Consequences [wikipedia.org]. As complexity of an endeavor increases so do the amount of unintended consequences.
I'm not saying that there aren't compelling reasons for pursuing this type of thing, I'm just saying that the downside risk is just too great. Like any other great catastrophe, this potential one would come from an unforeseen unknown/error.
Re:Too human? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Too human? (Score:3, Informative)
It's such a strange debate, this "rights of the zygote" stuff. The rest of the western world got over this years ago, and continues to progress. The U.S., with its constant, energy-sapping moral debates fueled by religious irrationality, is so anachronistic. And the religious right has more in common w
Re:Too human? (Score:5, Funny)
You heartless bastard. What about the rights of the sperm? Are we just going to sit by idly as millions- billions of sperm are mercilessly slaughtered, as if somehow a single flagellated cell was worth less than an entire human being? We need a constitutional ban on masturbation! Masturbation is MURDER!
Re:Too human? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking as an evolutionary biologist, I'd say the above post was the work of someone who has the higher brain functions of a chimp with a botched lobotomy. Lemme put that in small words so you can understand it: you're a fuckin' idiot. Plus, anyone who would "me too!" it is a moron.
Darwin did say life was tough, and that therefore those least fit to survive the struggle, tend not to survive. This is a statement about how the world is. It does not logically follow that the world oughtto be this way. It's simple, morals = how the world ought to be, science = how the world is, so the two do not have a lot to do with each other. Jesus fucking Christ. Read a philosophy book once in a while. For that matter, read a book once in a while.
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:3, Interesting)
Now you are perfectly right... the way things _are_ and the way things _ought_ to be are often two completely different things. What is interesting is that we have actually evolved to becoming a species that perceives that things ought to be somehow different from what they actually are. The way things _are_ is that only the fit survive. But this is not how most people think things ought to be. We
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Two things here:
lamb with a human liver is no more human... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:lamb with a human liver is no more human... (Score:5, Insightful)
Such thinking is behind all the current nonsense concerning abortion and stem cells research.
If you believe DNA is what determines human-ness, then all the cellular detritus that you leave scattered about every day is just as human as you are. You would have to claim that the snot you pick out of your nose has the same human rights as your mother. It's just daft.
What counts as human is not the DNA.
What constitutes human then? The sensible answer is my view (and others) is that it depends upon the thing's ability to be part of a society with other 'humans', and to have qualities such as empathy, self-consciousness and the like which are regarded as human qualities. Without those, a thing is no more human than its DNA might be.
I imagine that every time I sneeze, I eject more 'human' than there is in a 3-day old embryo -- by the DNA line of reasoning. It's just silly.
DNA is simply something that current humans have in common. Given how unimportant it really is, it seems quite possible in the future that there will be (human-constructed) things which are human in all the important senses, even if they don't have the same DNA as my toe-nail clippings.
What constitutes human then? The sensible answer.. (Score:2, Insightful)
And this portion, ability to be part of a society, probably disqualifies half of the people reading this message.
Re:What constitutes human then? The sensible answe (Score:2)
Re:What constitutes human then? The sensible answe (Score:3, Insightful)
People in comas who have relationships with other people, are definitely part of the network of human society, even though it may be passive. You can make a case for them being human in some senses but not others. Same applies for infants.
Even if you disagree with
Re:lamb with a human liver is no more human... (Score:3, Informative)
That point is entirely irrelevent. We're talking about whether a baby of snot as a lifeform has the capability of sustaining itself. Enviornmental concerns are of no consequence to a biological discussion, it's about capability. A child has the capability to grow into an adult and reproduce, it is a living organism. Snot is not a living organism, it cannot grow into bigger snot and make
It's about one body part (Score:2)
Of course, there could be ethical problems other than whether we should create or how we should treat "humanimals" - perhaps it's just my ignorance of biology, but human organs growing up in animal bodies sounds like the perfect "bo
Yay! (Score:5, Funny)
Not really a Chimera? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not really a Chimera? (Score:2, Funny)
Should I stop my Monkey-Man experiments then?
Um exact same article as a couple of days ago? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep. It's reprinted from the Post (Score:2)
One doesn't ordinarily expect to see major scientific news break in the Myrtle Beach Online. I'm sure it's a fine paper, but nearly every local newspaper gets its national news from a wire service like AP, or a "national" paper (Washington Post, New York Times, occasionally the LA Times or Chicago Tribune or a handful of others).
I grew up with the Washington Post as my daily newspaper, in which local news rarely makes the front page, or ev
The new Lamb... (Score:2, Funny)
Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Many things effect evolution... Medical science has been effecting evolution for a very long time as people who would have died because of genetic illness have lived on through medical science. The human species has not had real natural selection for a long time because we do not die from genetic problems as often.
The only evolution humans are likely to undergo is a scary one. Stupid people are having more children than smart people, therefore people are going to get stupider. Maybe it's already happened
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. You might as well claim that birds don't face natural selection because their parents feed them as babies instead of letting them starve or that that they don't face natural selection because their nests help keep them warm.
A bunch of people helping each other to survive is a product of natural selection, not its absence.
Part of our environment is now the existence of hospitals and scientists. Some people thrive in that environment who would die childless in other environments. Again, this is natural selction at work.
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Birds
Re:Evolution (Score:2, Informative)
Pretty much right, to refine it slightly more, rather than "fails to breed" you mean "fails to produce viable offspring". Might as well drop the bit about the individual dying first, it adds nothing.
Among humans pretty much everyone lives long enough to breed, and thus genetics that do not select for survival are passed on.
I'm not sure what proportion of the population fails to
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Informative)
OF COURSE it affects evolution. It's part of the environment that the chicks are born into.
Scenario as outlined so far: Birds lay eggs. Eggs hatch. Parents feed offspring. Parents eject less viable offspring, enhancing the food and other resources devoted to the more viable offspring, and thus enhancing their chances of survival.
How does can you say that this doesn't affect evolution? By your standard
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe this is the major difference between birds with natural selection/evolution, and what you procure as human "evolution." The bird has no qualms ejecting less viable offspring, while a human baby born with any defect is treated to the maximum extent of avaliable medical attention, usually regardless of cost. In this sense, rather than eject the less viable offspring, more resources are spent keeping it alive than would otherwise be spent on other healthy offspring. Thus natural selection in it's purest form is circumvented- the weak, unable to care for themselves, or worthy of parental care, die off before they can pass their weakness on to offspring. Modern medicine defeats the process by saving as many lives as possible, regardless of weakness or genetic deficiencies (which I'm not saying is a bad thing at all, just differing from common knowledge of natural selection).
Re:Evolution (Score:2)
Wasn't that Hitler's reason for eliminating the disabled/ill?
>Stupid people are having more children than smart people, therefore people are going to get stupider.
You can't generalize like that - some smart (and/or rich) people have a bunch of kids. But at least they provide for them, whereas taxpayers have to pay up for "breeders" (weird term, saw it somewhere on the Net) who
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Fears of genetic disease increasing because of treatment prolonging survival are largely misplaced. Unless people with the disease have more children than people without it (i.e. if the "disease" is in some sense beneficial in a fitness sense) their reproduction will not contribute to an overall increase in disease frequency. So if the treatment is perfectly effective, then the frequency of the disease will only increase at the rate at which new carriers of the disease allele arise by spontaneous mutation. However, most treatments are not perfectly effective (i.e. people with diabetes are still a lot more likely to die young than people without it) and the mutation rate is low. So increase in genetic disease frequency due to medical treatment is unlikely--at worst, it will decrease more slowly.
And eventually, it will be possible to correct all identified genetic diseases at the DNA level, and the problem will become moot.
Re:Evolution (Score:2)
Until they put human testicles on a mouse it won't affect it.
Psst... Evolution is Dead (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Interesting)
not only have we evolved to match our envir
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Not at all since the reproductive cells are not affected.
-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
Evolution (Score:2, Interesting)
But back to the topic at hand, I don't think we have anything to fear from inserting human genes into non-human subjects. As long as the resulting creatures are kept isolated from the general population of creatures, such a "mutation" is highly unlikely to infect the general population with abnormal genes.
But then again, this all throws in the trash the whole idea of genetic enginee
Re:Evolution (Score:2)
That's the whole problem - they said that about genetically modified corps and couple years later they've discovered that isolation is impossible.
>The problem is a philosophical one, because we can't offer these advances to everyone. We must decide who is important and who is not.
That decision should not be made (e
Re:Evolution (Score:2)
no scientific experiment ever proved anything. they are set up to disprove theories. nothing has ever disproved the theory of evolution is what you are trying to say I think.
Re:Evolution (Score:2)
By the way, I'm not saying there isn't evidence supporting evolution, there's plenty of it, I'm just cor
Re:Evolution (Score:2)
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, no species has ever been shown to evolve into another species. No scientific experiment has ever proved this.
Actually, species have been OBSERVED evolving into other species. Bacterial species. You may have experienced the result yourself: antibiotic resistance.
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Funny)
Where do you think E.coli came from, the ether?
SB
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
You must have been reading Creationist propaganda. Beware. Those guys lie a lot (it's OK--it's all in the service of the Lord). In reality, there are lots of examples [talkorigins.org]of speciation being observed. For that matter, some of the products of artificial selection, such as Great Danes and Chihuahuas, would unquestionably be classified as different species if discovered in the wild. This isn't evolution (because the selection is artifi
How will this affect evolution? (Score:2)
Let me ask you this - how will this affect OUTSOURCING?
Gives a whole new meaning to "code monkey"....
too human (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdotter:
Goat: Not tonight honey, I have a headache.
Goat Sheep (Score:5, Informative)
-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
Evolution (Score:2)
Assuming that you meant to say "effect", unless you mix our DNA this will have absolutely no effect on evolution.
You aren't talking about the conscious subjective aspect of an emotion considered apart from bodily changes [m-w.com] by any chance, are you?
Re:Evolution (Score:2)
Re:Evolution (Score:2)
Re:Evolution (Score:2)
Not at all. Valuable time which could have been spent passing our genetic information to future generations has been wasted.
Damn you Slashdot!
How will this affect evolution? (Score:2)
I think the ability to spray my scent on something(one) would come in handy during arguments.
"Yea well you're stupid!"
Psssssssst
"Yuck! I concede!"
You don't draw the line... (Score:2, Insightful)
Lambs are animals.
Humans are animals.
Simple as that. Humans are not some special exemption - they are animals, and so to say "when do you draw the line between humans and animals" is just plain wrong. Go take a basic high school Biology course.
Perhaps what was meant to be said was "species" - a spe
Re:You don't draw the line... (Score:5, Informative)
Although humans could technically breed with sheep (and living near Wales, I should know...), the offspring would be sterile...
Technically, no they couldn't. The sperm-egg recognition factors (proteins that stick out of the egg) have specific receptors on the sperm. Most animals will not recognize the receptor-ligand interaction of other animals. Additionally, the egg secretes molecules that the sperm uses to find the egg and these are also not conserved between species.
Additionally, I'll let the other posters explain to you the many many differences that separate humans from animals. Sorry bud, but you're way off on this argument. There's a lot more to life than biology when it comes to distinguising animals and humans. Not my field though...biochemistry is.
Re:You don't draw the line... (Score:2)
Re:You don't draw the line... (Score:2)
George? Is that you?
silence those lambs, (Score:2)
When the animal says.... (Score:2)
Re:When the animal says.... (Score:2)
why? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:why? (Score:3, Funny)
Evolution. (Score:2)
Or I could just be
Imagine... (Score:2, Funny)
You know lambs, wolves... oh, just forget it.
That lamb gave its liver for my sins (Score:3, Funny)
"Yes, that lamb really did die for my sins, in this case, donating its liver to redeem the rampant alcoholism I developed trying to wrap my head around why you Fundies voted for four more years of Bush."
Ah-Ha! That explains it! (Score:2)
Human brain cells make mice dumber (Score:2, Funny)
Aren't they the smartest species on Earth (followed by dolphins)?
no-fly zone (Score:2)
It would be funny if life wasn't so sacred.
Only Objection (Score:2, Insightful)
The only real problem I see is illustrated in the following quote: If two such chimeras - say, mice - were to mate, a human e
Re:Only Objection (Score:3, Insightful)
That is an entirely different kind of 'life' and 'death' to the kind you're talking about, which is to say, a kind of autonomous human life--a life of its own (which a toe does not have). At that point you are talking about a matter of definition--is the embryo a separate life form yet, or is it merely an extension of the mother, in th
Re:Only Objection (Score:2)
According to the New York Times, sir, you shouldn't exist. If they are wrong about that... maybe they are wrong about...
Norman! Please coordinate.
Wrong reseach direction... (Score:2)
Of course, then you would have to worry about cross-species dieases (AIDS is a known one) and the social stigma of such a transplant.
Virus Exposure (Score:2)
That is the primary way of allowing a virus to adapt and cross-species jump.
How long (Score:2, Funny)
(I've been watching too much Fullmetal Alchemist lately and all these chimera stories are giving me the heebie jeebies)
I hereby draw up the rules (Score:2)
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol in excess.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.
7. All animals are equal.
Mice with human brain cells? (Score:3, Funny)
Will the Anti-Christ ever come? (Score:2)
It is time for Scientists to put down their petty differences! If we do not alow ourselves to start human lives inside animals how will we ever bring forth the Armageddon? HOW?! Its very clear from sctripture and popular film that we need to have human babies born from jakels. And until that happens the Liberals just don't have a shot
an important question (Score:2)
I am not sure this is good for survival of our species, even though it may save some individuals.
Then again, I am for anything that makes the highways go faster, so if ha
stupid (Score:2, Funny)
And as far as evolution is concerned... that's just another pile of horseshit. The only difference
All women are chimerae... (Score:3, Interesting)
Since one of the x chromosomes in every female is "deactivated" [rcn.com] and turned into a Barr body (to avoid aneuploidy) and which one is chosen is completely random, it can be said that all women contain two separate genetic makeups, resulting in a genetic mosaic: a chimera.
Re:All women are chimerae... (Score:3, Informative)
Definition of a chimera (Score:3, Informative)
I guess the story is true... (Score:3, Funny)
All in the name of science ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The question isnt about evolution, the question is about ethics. Should we as humans be "playing god"?
I believe so. Thats not to say that I am correct though.
Was this a waste? Looking at the rate of organ rejection and other complications not to mention the recepient already being in bad health, it could have easily failed inside of a human and worked in a sheep.
There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people waiting for organs who go without everyday because people don't sign their organ donor cards or because family members refuse to let them be a donor.
If anything let this article serve as a beacon of hope for the future and a reminder to let your family know if you are an organ donor.
Even with the rate of failure of transplants, you don't need them when you're dead.
Answers: (Score:3, Insightful)
At what level is a chimera 'too' human?
When it is sentient.
Where do you draw the line between human and animal?
In the current definition "human" means species homo sapiens. The only significant distinctive feature of humans, is sentience, that is a result of a particular advanced structure of human brain, that, among other distinctive features, provides capability for development of abstract thought, structured language and production of tools. First never develops in animals or machines (machines can perform operations that are part of abstract thinking process, however only humans are currently capable of developing abstract structures from external stimuli without pre-existing knowledge of their structure, so development is still specific to humans), second and third are not developed by anyone but humans except in the simpliest forms possible. In theory, there may be, or will be other sentient beings that should be considered human, even if they do not share the same origin, and some creatures that have the same or close origin, yet lack sentience, and therefore can never be considered human.
How will this affect evolution?
Not at all. Evolution happens only through hereditary changes in organisms.
Can we go home now? I mean, didn't humans develop a better definition for themselves than "Two-legged, without feathers"?
Re:The line? (Score:2)
Ask and you shall receive (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Damn it (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps this [tarmo.fi] will hold you over in the mean time.