大象传媒

David Alton says,"..we will be crossing an important ethical line 鈥� crossing human and animal. But for what? For the sake of technology that we know will not be the future."

I thought that we crossed that animal-human line long ago when animal organs were used for transplants and animal hormones were used to treat human ailments. Surely it is no more problematic to combine human and animal genetic material, than to combine a human body with, for example, a pig's heart?

If stem cell research and work with embryos can enable scientists to find a cure for diseases like cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis, or a treatment for people who have suffered spinal cord or brain injury, then why should anyone object? Maybe if David Alton was lying with an incurable disease or paralysed after a serious injury, he would appreciate the purpose for which this research is carried out.

If he has religious beliefs which forbid him from using animal organs in a transplant, or embryonic cells in a treatment, that is his business. He can refuse such medical interventions. But he should not try to prevent other people having them. Then he is imposing his religious beliefs on others, which is arrogant and unethical.

His comment that this research is for a technology that "..we know will not be the future" is laughable. What is he? Some kind of clairvoyant? How does he know what direction science will take in the future? I just hope that it will not be obstructed by people like him insisting that their ancient religious beliefs have a veto on scientific progress.

I think Lord Alton is right to make us think about how technology can race ahead of what is right. We need to protect human life. Why don't humanists like Les Reid want to protect HUMANS!?

I agree with the general thrust of Les Reid's post, but to say that this issue is no more problematic than using animal organs for transplants shows ignorance of what this actually is. An animal organ is forever a foreign body after a transplant. But a human-animal hybrid created from scratch is like creating a different species altogether. It's very different.

S.

Helen,

Presumably you mean that an 鈥榚mbryo鈥� is human life, which is nonsense. It may be a potential life but it is not yet one because it is not self-supporting etc. Humanists are indeed concerned about human lives, which are being lost daily in Iraq, in Kenya, and wherever conflict is raging, and are also being lost daily through illnesses and disease that are often cured through scientific research. These issues of human life are of more concern to most Humanists than embryos. I am not saying that we are not concerned about embryos at all, but on the balance of priorities I think they come lower than real life as it is lived by humanity.

As for animals, Stephen G, we are animals ourselves and of course we evolved from other animals. There is not a fundamental difference between humans and other animals. There is a 99.5% match of our DNA with that of our fellow humans. There is a 98% match with chimpanzees, and we share 60% of our DNA with a banana! Moreover, the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees may have interbred and exchanged significant numbers of genes after the initial split between the species. In other words, in the span of evolution there can be quite a bit of exchange as species emerge and diverge.

Humanists, Helen, are usually also concerned about other animals. Thousands of cows are slaughtered every day to feed us. Does this concern you? And if it has to happen, then why not take advantage of this fact and use their eggs (from which nearly all the DNA is removed) to develop treatments for diabetes, Alzheimer鈥檚 etc? There is no question of creating a human-animal hybrid creature, Stephen. The embryos are destroyed when the stem cells are harvested and not implanted into the womb. The thin end of the wedge argument is ridiculous: it鈥檚 like saying that gas leads to gas chambers or that atoms lead to atomic bombs. Some people have watched too many science fiction films for their own good.

The religious keep telling us that there is no conflict between science and religion, but yet again we have proof that there is. Almost every major scientific development has been opposed by the religious: pasteurised milk; blood donations; post mortems. Today, for some, condoms lead to children because they 鈥榣eak鈥�; for others the polio vaccine is an anti-Islamic plot.

The fact of the matter is that nature is a bad designer in many ways. Some of us are almost obscenely healthy (so far, I am one of them, but no doubt the 'man with the mallet' is hiding and waiting to strike), while others have jerry-built bodies that break down regularly or were not formed 鈥榥ormally'. We interfere with nature every day with fully fledged living humans in hospitals, in doctor鈥檚 surgeries and in our entire living habits. So why shouldn鈥檛 we interfere with nature鈥檚 creation and try to improve our genome?

Brian:

I agree with what you say but my point was that Les, and perhaps yourself, are glossing over the importance and magnitude of mixing human beings with another species at the fundamental level of DNA. It's very different from the case that Les Reid mentions: that of a transplant of an animal organ into a human body. I'm not saying this makes it wrong: as you'll notice I agreed with the general point Les was making. But a human-other animal hybrid IS a crossed line.

Even though we are very close cousins to chimpansees in "percentage similar DNA" terms, we are a DIFFERENT species. In fact the percentages you quote don't actually show how close we are to chimpanzees but rather how such a small difference at the level of DNA makes a massive difference in that you get a completely different species by changing the DNA by just a couple of points. When we cross a human being with, say, a cow what sort of being are we dealing with? And, hypothetically, if it developed into a living breathing being should it have human rights? Or would it be OK to kill and eat it like we do with a cow?

Like it or not this DOES throw up ethical questions for us to ponder.

S.

Hi Stephen G,

To avoid the repetition of another lengthy debate in which you ask me or Dawkins to prove a negative while persistently avoiding any attempt to justify or even clarify your own position, it all depends on what you mean by 'fundamental', 'different', 'species' etc. I do not think that there is a fundamental difference between me and my mongrel dog Molly. It's a matter of degree. Moreover, as I have said:
(1) Modern humans possibly ARE a hybrid species;
(2) There is no question of creating a hybrid creature in the Bill, therefore;
(3) An ethical dilemma doesn鈥檛 really arise at the moment, or at any rate it is grossly exaggerated by some religious people like Alton.
This is not a syllogism, by the way.

Much of this so-called 鈥榚thical鈥� argument is really a camouflage for attempts to uphold the old biblical notion that we are a special creature created by God and above the animals which are here to serve us but not to 鈥榗ontaminate鈥� our genes (even though it鈥檚 ok to gorge them - would it really matter if there was even a minute bit of a cow in our genes and not just our stomaches?). That is all nonsense and poppycock.

Animals have rights too. Yes, sure, there is a hierarchy of rights in which we come first (so say us humans), but that doesn鈥檛 mean that we can treat animals in whatever way we like. Cruelty should be out and, as I say, if we have to slaughter them in millions every year to satisfy our basic food requirements (this is debatable), then it seems to me that using their eggs to help cure disease is a way of saying that they haven鈥檛 died just for our greed.

Brian:

When on earth did I ever ask you to prove anything let alone a negative? I'm not asking you to prove anything here. Nor have I ever done so. I take it your reference to Dawkins refers to a previous futile debate I had with you some time ago, but I don't recall ever asking you to prove anything negative or positive. What I do remember is your failure to provide one single good argument in "The God Delusion" that theists need to worry about, despite my asking you almost 10 times and you constantly dodging and fudging around. Admittedly a number of friends of mine thought it was funny.

There is nothing unclear about my position then or now. Did you miss the post above where I said - twice - that Les's post is generally correct and the only bit of disagreement was his claim that this has no more ethical implications than the transplant of an animal organ.

There are ethical questions to ponder - maybe not for you - but for many people - many of whom don't believe the Bible as you constantly harp on about. Many nonreligious people are uneasy with abortion generally and this in particular. So, in the minds of many there is plenty to think about in this issue. If you want to be so rock-headed as to ignore that then be my guest. It's black and white to you, but not to many (most?) other thinking people.

S.

Stephen,

You are right. It is true to say that a transplant using an animal organ is not the same as combining human and animal DNA. In the former case, the person remains largely intact and simply makes use of some animal tissue, in much the same way as someone eating a steak does. However, in the latter case, as you say, the mingling of human and animal DNA blurs the identity of the organism that has been created and so raises ethical problems. Your question about eating a hybrid cow-human puts the moral question in its most graphic guise!

Now I could reply in terms of the transplant patient receiving more and more animal organs - so that the person ends up 60% animal. But that would only get us into speculation about brain transplants, etc, and I don't think that would be much help in this discussion.

What I would say, however, is that an unfertilised human ovum has no moral value. A woman has her period and the unfertilised egg goes down the toilet. That is a fact of life. So we should be able to use the DNA from an unfertilised egg without raising any moral difficulties.

The next step is to use a fertilised human ovum. Some religious believers will object because they say that the fertilised egg has full human rights. They base that claim on the notion of the soul which they say the fertilised egg has acquired at conception. So their moral argument rests on a supernatural belief which many others do not share - Humanists and other believers alike. For the latter, the fertilised ovum has only the status of a human organ, like a kidney. It will acquire moral worth later, when it has grown. Just as it will acquire other attributes: physical independence, consciousness, mobility, language, etc.

So the arguments in favour of using human DNA in order to provide treatments for patients are very strong, in my opinion. Genetic research can bring hope to people suffering from a wide range of diseases and conditions.

But do we need to mix human and animal DNA? If there was a shortage of human embryos and stem cells, it might be a practical necessity. But there is no such shortage. So I can see no pressing need to use hybrids and I appreciate the moral objection that you have raised. The human-cow hybrid is a problem that we should avoid, if possible.

So my conclusion is: yes to stem cell research, yes to using human embryos, but no to human-animal hybrids. Which I think is the same conclusion that you came to, only faster. Quite right.

Les, Stephen G,

Les, what an amazing turnaround in the course of a few days! Having apparently supported the bill on the 28th, you now apparently oppose it on 3rd. You now DON鈥漈 agree with Stephen, though you think you do. He is presumably in favour of the bill, despite having some ethical problems with it, since he agreed with 鈥榯he thrust鈥� of your original post.

Les, you fail to realise the simple fact that scientists want to use animal embryos precisely because there IS a shortage of human embryos for research! A scientist can go into a slaughterhouse and acquire 200 good quality cow eggs in one day, whereas it would take a month to get just two human eggs for use in such research. You say that an unfertilised ovum has no moral value. I agree, but neither does an animal鈥檚. The question is about the use we make of them. The fact is that millions have a different opinion from us. That, and I suppose human apathy, is why there is a shortage of human embryos. Humans have a choice: to donate the embryo or not. The animal has no choice because we kill it anyway. Do you want to deprive humans of their freedom of choice, Les, and take the embryos whether they like it or not (a big ethical problem there, surely?) and avoid the readily available animal ones because it might lead to 鈥榗ontamination鈥�?

Les, you say there is no need to mix human and animal embryos (wrong, see above) and appreciate Stephen鈥檚 moral objection. But he didn鈥檛 raise any: he merely stated that it was, in his view, a moral dilemma. What are your moral objections, Les? Is it all right the other way round, to introduce human cells into an animal embryo?

Stephen, it is certainly true that many important ethical questions are not black-and-white. The question is whether this case is an important ethical question. I say it isn鈥檛. Les thought it wasn鈥檛 but has now changed his mind. Creating a human-animal hybrid being might be an important ethical question (which doesn鈥檛 necessarily mean that it would be wrong, of course), but the use of human- animal embryos in RESEARCH (not medicine), where the embryo is destroyed afterwards? Surely, there is a big difference here. Thousands of scientists like: Stephen Minger (see The Observer, 26th August 2007), and Chris Shaw at King鈥檚 College, London; Professor Sir John Gurdon of Cambridge University; Professor Iain Wilmut of Edinburgh (the Dolly the sheepman); or Lyle Armstrong at Newcastle University don鈥檛 think it poses any real ethical problem at all, and I think they are right.

If we return to the question of the difference between us and other animals, Stephen, as before, you are avoiding the issues. What do you mean by 'fundamental', 'different', 'species鈥�? Will you rock-headedly refuse to explain your understanding of these terms?

Much of the opposition to this measure IS religious, and many clerics are deliberately misrepresenting the scientists鈥� intentions in order to stir up opposition. Hybrid embryos, they say, are designed to create half-humans, half- animals, instead of the more modest truth that they are merely using stem cell research to treat human diseases.

As I said before, the slippery slope argument can be used to oppose progress in any field. But let us pose this other hypothetical question of creating a human-animal hybrid being. Would this in itself be so terribly wrong? Let me speculate. Suppose scientists could show that the hybrid would be more intelligent and more loving and caring than we are, and that it would only kill for survival and not out of pleasure or misplaced ideology, secular or religious. Would we not welcome it with open arms? Would we not say: go ahead, make our day and help to create a better and a happier world?

Les, Stephen G,

I wanted to add the following on your responses on this thread, but the previous entry of mine was quite long. So here it is.

What I find amusing is that you two claim to be students of philosophy yet both of you have so readily succumbed to the ought-is fallacy. Let us employ Hume鈥檚 guillotine against it

鈥淲e are a DIFFERENT species鈥� (Stephen G); 鈥渢he mingling of human and animal DNA blurs the identity of the organism that has been created鈥� (Les Reid).

These are positive statements of fact: they are either true or false (personally, I think the differences are exaggerated 聽鈥� too black-and-white, if you prefer, Stephen).

鈥淭his DOES throw up ethical questions for us to ponder鈥� (Stephen G); 鈥�...And so raises ethical problems鈥� (Les Reid).

These are normative statements, or statements of value. Stating something is an ethical problem does not make it so. Why does the alleged fact of this difference lead to ethical problems? In your view it does, but neither of you has provided the missing link between these statements. In other words, what is wrong with 鈥榖lurring the identity of the organism鈥�?
Perhaps one of you will tell us. It sounds like speciesism to me. Is it because animals are mentally and morally inferior and that our superiority would be compromised?

And, perhaps Les, the implication on Stephen鈥檚 part is that God created us as his pure creatures and the other animals as our servants.But he won鈥檛 tell us that because that鈥檚 his approach: to tell nobody what he actually believes himself but instead look for holes in their position. He spent aeons asking me to provide an argument from Dawkins that would convince him his theism was wrong while offering not a single reason why he was a theist in the first place or what kind of theism it was. The explanation of course is obvious: his reasons are even weaker than Dawkins鈥檚 counter-arguments, and they would have been torn to shreds, and he knows it.

Let me explain one reason why I am persisting on this thread.

The heading of this thread is: 鈥淧ro-Life campaigners raise a debate in Belfast鈥�. William writes that Lord Alton came to Belfast, as part of a UK-wide tour, 鈥渢o try to stimulate an ethical debate about the controversial Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill鈥�. So Alton was given various platforms to express his view, including a 20-minute interview in Sunday Sequence (I鈥檓 not blaming William, by the way) and a long article in the Irish News (24th January). He was also fully reported in the News Letter and the Belfast Telegraph. But where was the case for the bill presented in the local media? Echo answers: where? Maybe there was an odd letter or two somewhere that I鈥檝e missed. But, seriously, is this what passes for 鈥榙ebate鈥�? It鈥檚 all so pathetically one-sided (this blog excepted, of course).

The same thing happened over the 鈥楥reationism in Science classes鈥� controversy. The journalist in the Telegraph baldly stated that no scientist had spoken out against Lisburn Council鈥檚 decision to encourage Creation teaching. The question that immediately springs to mind is: had he asked any? (he was wrong anyway: one did write numerous letters to the Ulster Star).

The truth is that there are THOUSANDS of scientists throughout the UK who have an opposite view on these matters. Has any journalist in Northern Ireland asked them their opinion? Has any local newspaper asked a prominent scientist to write an article in support of this Bill? How can Lord Alton possibly be stimulating a debate when the other side of the argument is so ignored or marginalised in this way?

Maybe scientists should create a Media Group to put across their ideas, especially since Humanists and like-minded sceptics who might support them are largely ignored. But this is the point, isn鈥檛 it? We are now so media-obsessed that the media itself does not seek out the truth as we might have supposed was its essential job; instead it waits for groups to lobby it with their propaganda and then reports it largely unchallenged (though William himself questioned Alton not uncritically) or feeds off the other media. And of course, the biggest and most powerful groups therefore dominate. What a crazy world!

Exactly the same process occurred in the UK in the lead-up to the Iraq War. We were subjected to a deluge of articles, interviews, reports, speeches, dossiers, all telling us that Iraq had WMD. That was the official version. Opponents were given short shrift in the media, as every study since has shown. Yet it was all lies and, as the New Statesman reported last week, the Foreign Office has been ordered to release a secret early draft of the WMD dossier which will reveal a deliberate attempt by the government to exaggerate the danger.

It is any wonder nations can sleep walk into accepting myths, bad decisions, conflict, fascism or war when their sources of 鈥榠nformation鈥�, mostly the media, are so biased and one-sided?

In the Guardian the other day (4th February) Nick Davies wrote a revealing article (鈥極ur media have become mass producers of distortion鈥�) about how journalists are no longer seekers of the truth but passive processors of unchecked, second-hand material 聽鈥� 鈥榬ecyclers of ignorance鈥�, he calls them. Indeed, he says, the industry is now involved in the mass production of falsehood, distortion and propaganda.

An overstatement, perhaps. But, given the two local examples above, I am not sure that it is so way off beam. The difference might be the word 鈥榖ecome鈥� in his heading. Perhaps here it was ever thus.

Let me explain one reason why I am persisting on this thread.

The heading of the thread is: 鈥淧ro-Life campaigners raise a debate in Belfast鈥�. William writes that Lord Alton came to Belfast, as part of a UK-wide tour, 鈥渢o try to stimulate an ethical debate about the controversial Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill鈥�. So Alton was given various platforms to express his views, including a 20-minute interview in Sunday Sequence (I鈥檓 not blaming William, by the way) and a long article in the Irish News (24th January). He was also fully reported in the News Letter and the Belfast Telegraph. But where was the case for the bill presented in the local media? Echo answers: where? Maybe there was an odd letter or two somewhere that I鈥檝e missed. But, seriously, is this what passes for 鈥榙ebate鈥�? It鈥檚 all so pathetically one-sided (this blog excepted, of course).

The same thing happened over the 鈥楥reationism in Science classes鈥� controversy. The journalist in the Telegraph baldly stated that no scientist had spoken out against Lisburn Council鈥檚 decision to encourage Creation teaching. The question that immediately springs to mind is: had he asked any? (he was wrong anyway: one did write numerous letters to the Ulster Star).

The truth is that there are THOUSANDS of scientists throughout the UK who have an opposite view on these matters. Has any journalist in Northern Ireland asked them their opinion? Has any local newspaper asked a prominent scientist to write an article in support of this Bill? How can Lord Alton possibly be stimulating a debate when the other side of the argument is so ignored or marginalised in this way?

Maybe scientists should create a Media Group to put across their ideas, especially since Humanists and like-minded sceptics who might support them are largely ignored. But this is the point, isn鈥檛 it? We are now so media-obsessed that the media itself does not seek out the truth as we might have supposed was its essential job; instead it waits for groups to lobby it with their propaganda and then reports it largely unchallenged (though William himself questioned Alton not uncritically) or feeds off the other media. And of course, the biggest and most powerful groups therefore dominate. What a crazy world!

Exactly the same process occurred in the UK in the lead-up to the Iraq War. We were subjected to a deluge of articles, interviews, reports, speeches, dossiers, all telling us that Iraq had WMD. That was the official version. Opponents were given short shrift in the media, as every study since has shown. Yet it was all lies and, as the New Statesman reported last week, the Foreign Office has been ordered to release a secret early draft of the WMD dossier which will reveal a deliberate attempt by the government to exaggerate the danger.

It is any wonder nations can sleep walk into accepting myths, bad decisions, conflict, fascism or war when their sources of 鈥榠nformation鈥�, mostly the media, are so biased and one-sided? In a proper debate the opposing sides should have equal time and value, but the fact of the matter is that the media don't operate this way: they give the most weight to the biggest side (in numbers, wealth, power and influence). The result is that prejudices are reinforced, not challenged to any significant degree.

In the Guardian the other day (4th February) Nick Davies wrote a revealing article (鈥極ur media have become mass producers of distortion鈥�) about how journalists are no longer seekers of the truth but passive processors of unchecked, second-hand material 鈥� 鈥榬ecyclers of ignorance鈥�, he calls them. Indeed, he says, the industry is now involved in the mass production of falsehood, distortion and propaganda.

An overstatement, perhaps. But, given the two local examples above, I am not sure that it is so way off beam. The difference might be the word 鈥榖ecome鈥� in his heading. Perhaps here it was ever thus.

Brian,

You seem to think that changing one's mind is a sign of weakness. But a reasonable person should always be prepared to change their mind. Only an unreasonable person who claims some kind of dogmatic infallibility would never change their mind. So, yes, I have changed my mind in the light of Stephen's objection.

You say that we have ignored the Is/Ought distinction and that no moral conclusions follow from the research scenarios described. Once again you seem to be taking a dogmatic approach to any discussion of moral problems. Our moral reasoning has to take account of new facts, new discoveries and new developments. We adapt our moral code to new circumctances. It is only people who think that our moral codes come straight from the sky-god and should never be revised, who refuse to amend their moral rules. Which means that a change in the Is (the facts, etc) often entails a change in the Ought (our moral code). Treating the Is/Ought distinction as an absolute does not accord with our everyday practice of engaging in moral discussions, taking stock of new developments and being prepared to amend our moral code to fit new circumstances.

Then you contradict yourself by stating that there is no moral problem with hybrid embryos because they will all be destroyed after the required DNA has been extracted. So you argue that hybrids ought to be permitted because they will be destroyed. There you cross from an Is (will be destroyed) to an Ought. The irony is that your 'facts' are only hypothetical, since no-one knows for sure that the hybrids WILL be destroyed.

Somehow, although you answer at great length, you do not answer Stephen's original objection. He asked: if a hybrid human-cow is allowed to develop, will it have the rights of a human or of a cow? - specifically, would it be right to eat it?

Your reply is merely assertion. You say the hybrid should have the rights of a human being and you wax sentimental about peace-loving hippy human-cows. But assertion is not very persuasive. So you still have to explain how you decided that the human-cow has the rights of a human, rather than the inferior rights of a cow. Is there a line of reasoning here, or do we just have to take your word for it?

Did anyone else fall asleep reading all that?

pete

Les,

CHANGE OF OPINION
How obliging of you to inform us that you are a reasonable person. Of course we all change our minds in the light of new evidence and circumstances. The issue is not that you changed your mind but the basis upon which you changed it.

It is not rational or scientific to change an opinion as the result of a misinterpretation of one鈥檚 person鈥檚 argument. A good historian, for example, checks and cross-checks references and sources before making a final judgment or revising an earlier one.

DOGMATISM
Someone who flip flops from gleefully espousing one dogmatic extreme to its opposite in 3 or 4 days has a bit of a nerve accusing someone else of dogmatism (Stephen, I think, is rather more circumspect). Previously, using animal embryos was so obviously right, now it is just as obviously wrong.

Moreover, why it is so wrong is not explained, except that whereas Lord Alton was originally mocked as an apparent 鈥榗lairyoyant鈥� for speculating about the future, now Les Reid becomes the clairvoyant who doubts whether scientists will destroy the embryos! Good grief! Scientists have gone from being heroes to villains in a matter of days!

IS-OUGHT
I did not treat the is-ought problem as an absolute. But the only way out of the dilemma is to accumulate, elaborate and explain the facts and one鈥檚 system of values. But you have not even attempted to do this other than to state that animals and humans are fundamentally different and therefore it is wrong to mix them in any way for any purpose (except for humans to eat animals or use their parts).

I have tried to suggest some pointers to my own position: that I don鈥檛 think they are fundamentally different, that they can suffer and that they are intelligent. I have not argued for equality at all. I have said that we should not be cruel to them and that there is a hierarchy of rights (#6). So undogmatic am I on this issue that I have not myself worked out the extent to which I think animals should have rights and what is the nature of the hierarchy.

Do animals have ANY rights, Les? What are they? What does the fundamental difference to which you refer say about the extent and limits of their rights? If you think they don鈥檛 have any rights, then who鈥檚 being 鈥榙ogmatic鈥�?

And what does this difference imply about the use of their DNA in research? That it鈥檚 simply wrong for no apparent reason? If it鈥檚 so obviously wrong, then who鈥檚 being dogmatic?

ERMINTRUDE
My last paragraph in #9 where I refer to what you dismissively call 鈥榟ippy cows鈥� was no more than a tongue-in-cheek speculation. But would it be so bad if a such a creature replaced humans altogether? I pose that as a question, not as a dogmatic statement.

I personally think the whole concept of mixing human and animal is wrong I have been interested in this sort of thing for a while and still think it is wrong.
What is the point? For more animal testing? If this is allowed it is going to allow it to go further, e.g. humans way to evolution! I personally feel we should leave it while we are ahead before it gets out of control. There must be another way of solving the issue instead of using this way.
Biotechnology is getting way out of control already. It is affecting EVERYTHING in our lives, for better or worse, but this is one step TOO FAR!
What happened to the animal rights? We are just using them how we please, whether it鈥檚 for food, or just any old experiment.
It went a bit far when we used animal organs for transplants
This way of mixing animal and human DNA in embryos could follow through to another type of human, another species, stronger and better then the race that we have now. Human cloning is illegal, this is worse so why has this now become legal?
At the moment there are too many ethics to deal with for this sort of procedure to carry on.

I personally think the whole concept of mixing human and animal is wrong I have been interested in this sort of thing for a while and still think it is wrong.
What is the point? For more animal testing? If this is allowed it is going to allow it to go further, e.g. humans way to evolution! I personally feel we should leave it while we are ahead before it gets out of control. There must be another way of solving the issue instead of using this way.
Biotechnology is getting way out of control already. It is affecting EVERYTHING in our lives, for better or worse, but this is one step TOO FAR!
What happened to the animal rights? We are just using them how we please, whether it鈥檚 for food, or just any old experiment.
It went a bit far when we used animal organs for transplants
This way of mixing animal and human DNA in embryos could follow through to another type of human, another species, stronger and better then the race that we have now. Human cloning is illegal, this is worse so why has this now become legal?
At the moment there are too many ethics to deal with for this sort of procedure to carry on.