Moral Confusion: If Non-Human Animals are Made Partly Human
It all is about the ethics of the creation of non-human
animals but with human-derived parts. Should we leave non-human animals alone to go
their own way in the evolutionary pathway or should (in some cases, no longer
only "can") we put human cells and human tissues into non-human
animals to become subjects for human research or animals from which to recover
tissues compatible for use in human patients? The goals of these procedures may
be of great benefit to humans but the question is whether "crossing the
human/nonhuman species boundary introduces inexorable moral confusion that
warrants a restriction to this research on precautionary grounds" (Haber
and Benham, American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 12, issue 9, 2012)
The argument for caution is that confusion would occur in how
we looked at our existing relationships with non-human animals and in the
future our relationships with animals which have been made into part human and
part non-human either by some future method of creating a hybrid (through mixing
human sperm with animal eggs) or the current potential ability to create a
chimera such as placing human brain tissue into a non-human animal's body. Should or would we treat these creatures
differently than how we treat our current animals? Would these animals with part of
"us" in them become more "us"? What is your opinion about this real and no
longer esoteric philosophical and ethical issue? ..Maurice.
Graphic: Chimera from Google Images and modified by me with ArtRage 3
Graphic: Chimera from Google Images and modified by me with ArtRage 3
posted by Maurice Bernstein, M.D. @ 6:42:00 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
We haven't considered the concept of non-animal human
with animal derived parts. Consider the Galapagos turtles
which in captivity have lived 170 years. One such turtle
was thought to be over 300 years old when found, old
enough to have seen Christopher Columbus sail to the
new world. That would be one gene everyone would
like to have although not as simple as it sounds. I once
thought that entropy had a big part in cell longevity but
I think other factors are at play here.
Want an advanced sense of hearing, eyesight or
sense of smell. Bioengineering with animal parts just
might be the answer although I am completely against
the idea of slaughtering animals for this purpose.
PT
PT, for the non-human animals whose genetic parts have been inserted into humans, any ethical dilemma or confusion would be absent since the non-human animals would not have the intellectual understanding to realize that "oh my gosh! That human has part of me!"--or--would they?? Or maybe they would understand if they already had parts of our brains! The basic question is whether all this transferring of genes back and forth in the animal kingdom is really necessary. ..Maurice.
There will be many human-centric people that say yes, it is necessary. I ask...is it right?
It is a similar question to whether GMO crops are necessary. Again...is it right? Is it ethical to splice together such diverse genetics? Because those that are for GMO crops say they are saving the world from starvation, yet it is mostly politics that allows populations to starve, not the genetics of a crop.
Is it ethical to maim or kill one being to save or enhance the life of another? I don't believe it is. Death is a part of life. So is suffering. I understand that we do not want to see loved ones suffer, but I think we must accept that that is the randomness of life. It is the same as doing unwanted invasive procedures when the prognosis, in the long run, deems it probably futile.
The sum of the matter is whether to just let Nature carry on its work over the next millions of years as it has in the past or to stick our human fingers into the pot and add or subtract elements of evolution which we think will be of value. Even if humans on this Earth stop genetic manipulation of animals and ourselves, we have already produced significant human created changes in climate and acidification of the earth's waters which is and will interfere with Nature's work. On the other hand, maybe Nature does nothing but let its plants and animals set their own future...Maurice.
Companies involved in gmo's cite intellectual
property law. There will always be negative perceptions
from loss of genetic diversity within species to the
destabilization of entire ecosystems. I think we will see
a gradual decline in bio diversity as Maurice suggested
from the pollution of our rivers and oceans. All the more
reason to pursue genetic engineering for the good of all
species.
PT
Yes we have altered our environment with our actions. This is regrettable enough. But I do not think that is an argument for genetic engineering, rather than for preservation of what we already have, to attempt to prevent further loss. But even if we cannot do that, nature is a fluid system that has always changed, gaining and losing biodiversity dictated by natural selection.
I think there is a big difference between cross breeding two types of plants or animals and seeing whether they will 'take' within the bounds of natures laws, and the action of splicing together two completely different genes that would never otherwise meet in nature.
How can we be sure that genetic engineering is for the good of all? How can we foresee what problems may occur form this new frontier? Or that the people doing the engineering are 'good' as defined by a society?
If humans are an integral part of Nature, wouldn't it be then appropriate that human scientific exploration into creating new gene connections as well as cross breeding be part of the overall scheme of Nature. And if these scientific explorations of Man become harmful to all the creatures on this earth, then Nature as it has been doing all these many many years will find ways to close down on these man made changes and pick a different and more sustainable course. ..Maurice.
Post a Comment
<< Home