Posted on 06/04/2010 2:30:34 PM PDT by nickcarraway
In the new movie "Splice," a human-animal hybrid terrorizes people. In real life, scientists argue mixing human and animal cells could save lives.
Dren, the half-human, half-animal hybrid set to terrorize Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley in the new movie "Splice," is pure science fiction, but politicians across the country aren't taking any chances.
In the last month Ohio and Arizona have both passed laws forbidding research of animal human hybrids.
Proponents of the laws fear Dren-like creations and object morally to the combining human and animal cells. But scientists say the research could lead to cure for AIDS, immunize people against cancer, or grow replacement organs.
The potential for medical cures or advances is huge, said Esmail Zanjani, a scientist at the University of Nevada Reno who has created sheep that produce livers that are up to 20 percent human.
"But just because we can do something doesn't mean we should," said Zanjani. "We need to have a full discussion with the public," about this kind of research.
In a recent interview, "Splice" director Vincenzo Natali said that his inspiration for "Splice" was the earmouse, a 1995 experiment where scientists grew a large, human-shaped ear from cow cells grown on the back of a hairless mouse.
Despite the fact that no human cells were used in the ear mouse (the scientists placed cow cells on a polymer shaped like the human ear), the research sparked controversy and raised hopes that replacement organs would soon be available.
Since then research into animal human hybrids, or chimeras (after the lion, goat, and snake creature from Greek mythology) has exploded. Over the last 15 years scientists have created sheep with human livers and pancreas cells, mice with human immune systems, and many other combinations of human and animal cells.
None of the modern chimeras look like something out of Dr. Moreau's menagerie. They look like normal animals. The difference is on the inside.
The blood flowing through their veins could be human. The liver or kidneys could contain discrete human liver or kidney cells. These are not transgenic animals, said Zanjani. They are discrete cells, either animal or human. The DNA is not mixed.
If a human had, say, hepatitis, and their liver was dying, scientists could extract liver cells from that person, insert them into a developing sheep, and then harvest a human liver, made from a person's own cells (to reduce the chance of organ rejection), and replace the old liver.
Infected cells can't fight off an infection, whether it is HIV or some other disease. But if uninfected human stem cells were placed in an animal's body, scientists could train those cells to recognize and fight off the infection.
Once they are ready, the cells would be harvested from the animal and introduced back into the original human's body. There the retrained immune cells would fight off the infection.
The same technique could work for cancer, said Jeffery Platt, a scientist at the University of Michigan exploring this very scenario.
Millions of lives could be saved using human-animal hybrids, say scientists, but some people have strong moral objections to mixing human and animal cells. Earlier this week the Ohio Senate passed Senate Bill 243, which prohibits "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."
Anyone who violates the new law could spend five years in prison and face up to a quarter million dollars in fines. Other states, including Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arizona have also banned research into chimeras.
National governments have also stepped in. The United Kingdom approved chimera research in 2008, when it granted a Newcastle University stem cell scientist Lyle Armstrong a permit to use cow eggs filled with human DNA to develop therapies for Parkinson's disease and stroke victims. (All cow DNA would be removed before the human DNA would be inserted.)
Canada bans all chimera research, but the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2009 failed to pass the U.S. Congress.
Fears about new technology are nothing new, said Platt; the advent of railroads sparked controversy about how fast the human body was meant to travel. Nor are they unnatural; people fear what they don't know. But the potential of chimera research to save millions of lives should also be added to the equation.
"Where it becomes a problem is if government responses with undue constraints that are not justified," said Platt.
The plain language of God’s word is sound doctrine.
You have dismissed God’s word in favor of man’s foolishness.
Taking insulin, or any other man made drug does not provide health, nor healing. Drugs shorten lives, while following the word provides healing.
You embrace failure by following a denial of the word.
And that brings us back to the question of the morality of men devising and using a new technology, Not the most trustworthy compass.
count-your-change: “That doesn’t make it right but it does mean it is an area left to my own conscience, which I shall answer for, good or ill.”
EXACTLY! Now let’s say you were adamant that insulin use is evil. If you told a diabetic Christian it’s a sin to use insulin and scripture doesn’t back you up, then you are placing an unnecessary burden on them. Isn’t that what the Pharisees did? It’s what I call legalese Christianity.
I think you summed it up very well in your last post. If scripture doesn’t provide a clear answer, then you are free to do as the Holy Spirit leads. If you’re led to do something (or vice versa) and scripture is silent on the matter, BY ALL MEANS, follow God’s direction. That’s between you and Him. On the other hand, don’t plant these non-scriptural requirements as stumbling blocks for others.
Agreed?
valkyryl: “All they have it seems is circular reasoning and strwmen.”
Where do you see straw man arguments and circular reasoning? My points aren’t “straw men” simply because metmom declares them so. Keep in mind I’m engaged in two distinctly separate discussions.
Discussion #1: concerning whether the use of man-made medicines is evil and prohibited by scripture (to include medicines NOT made by genetic engineering, like acetaminophen).
Discussion #2: concerning whether or not genetic engineering, specifically mixing portions of human and non-human DNA, is evil.
Point out my circular reasoning and straw men. Seriously. I doubt you can.
There are a lot of things that are considered evil that aren't specifically mentioned in Scripture.
Smoking is one but is determined to be wrong on Scriptural principles.
Porn isn't mentioned in Scripture, but is generally recognized as wrong, again based on Scriptural principles.
Setting fire to animals isn't mentioned in Scripture but is considered wrong based on Scriptural principles.
Sheesh, saying that anything that is NOT specifically mentioned as prohibited in Scripture is OK is just asking for trouble.
Sure God could have specifically set down a whole long list of do's and don't's to keep up with technology, but He also gave us the brains and enough guidance through Scripture to discern that for ourselves without dictating volumes of do's and don't's to follow.
Mixing genetics doesn't work. Whether it's through natural mating, which produces sterile hybrids, or through deliberate manipulation with genetics which is beyond our ability to really understand and control.
The principles for keeping species genetically pure are found throughout Scripture and several of them have been given you, which you have off handedly dismissed.
Don't go complaining about lack of Scriptural support if you're going to choose to ignore it. It isn't that you haven't been given any, it's that you apparently don't like what you HAVE been given.
The apostle Paul made the statement that while a thing may be lawful it may not be advantageous and that further we shouldn’t use our freedom to act (or not act) to the full if it proved to be a stumbling block to others in matters left to individual conscience.
Should you skip your insulin because it might offend me?
No, but you might choose to use it out my sight and we both can preserve our conscience unsullied.
Paul used the example of meat left over from sacrifices to idols at 1 Cor. chapter 8 but the principles he discussed are applicable to other situations too.
Again, prudence. Others are not required to follow their brother’s conscience when there is no clear Scriptural direction but neither are they free to ignore how their actions will impact it.
editor-surveyor: “You embrace failure by following a denial of the word.”
I’m trying very hard to be respectful of my fellow Christians. Suffice it to say that I have absolutely no clue where you get the idea that I’m denying the Word.
Are any of you even reading my posts?
If this thread typifies contending for the faith and a search for sound doctrine backed by scripture, then I’m really at a loss. I’ve tried everything possible to engage in reasoned debate backed by scripture. All I get in return seems to be...
“IT’S EVIL!”
“GREAT JOB REFUTING CITIZEN USA!” (!?!)
“GENESIS 6 SAYS IT’S SO!”
“STRAW MAN! STRAW MAN!”
The apostles carefully studied the Word and diligently prepared themselves to defend the faith with sound doctrine based on scripture and Christ’s teachings (which are now also recorded in scripture).
If you are trying to rebuke and correct me as one Christian to another, then you better prove your points with scripture, actual quotes and explanations. If you aren’t Bible-believing Christians, then say so and we can all move on.
Either way, God bless you all!
//Don’t go complaining about lack of Scriptural support if you’re going to choose to ignore it. It isn’t that you haven’t been given any, it’s that you don’t like what you HAVE been given//
Aint that the truth.
I think complicated, in having happen exactly what is intended.
The law of unintended consequences is dominant in nature and life is tenacious.
Nature has tried to kill all life here many times. It just won't die.
Yet we cannot condemn something new simply because of its ‘newness.’ Rather we are enjoined to “Forsake the foolish” and “go in the way of understanding.” Not always an easy task.
Agreed. Never easy! Like pushing water up a string.
Is that similar to 0bama’s “positive” rights versus The Constitution’s “negative” rights? It strikes me that the Holy Bible is neither a cookbook nor can it be looked upon as strictly speaking an operator’s manual.
It just seems that any time Man begins to think he is God, or believes he can begin to take on some of the attributes of God, then that is about the time Man gets slapped down pretty hard.
Just an impression . . . don’t know that there is any hard data.
What is? A lot of things, I guess. Did the grafting of that human ear on the back of a mouse involve the sacrifice of a human life? If it did, then that’s quite evil, IMO. What’s the endgame? That is the focus of the quandary.
“GREAT JOB REFUTING CITIZEN USA!” (!?!)”
Was it (a great job)? Refuting him on what? Guess I didn’t get the beeps on that part. Don’t trouble yourself with an extensive recap. Just some post numbers will do.
“STRAW MAN! STRAW MAN!”
There are a lot of those. Which ones? Guess I didn’t get beeped on those either.
May you enjoy God’s blessings too.
You have failed to present a single scripture relevant to the discussion; what is to read?
You try to equate applying the benefits of following the gifts in the word with the law. there is no connection, yet you repeat that like a jackhammer.
Its not a question of evil, but of consequences. The word tells us in detail how to stay healthy, and how to get healed. The consequences of not doing so is disease and early death, not because God wants it that way, but because consequences flow naturally from actions, and inactions.
The curse promised in Jeremiah 17 is not the will of God; it is invoked by the individual upon themselves by disbelieving God. It is a natural consequence.
Actions have inevitable consequences.
.
Going to college and having to pay financial aid and to be without work due to jealousy was not meant to be a career choice either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.