Why is the RW up in arms over human-animal hybrids?

[ck4829]

Just because it's a hybrid?

I've heard of a mouse with tissue from a human ear grafted on to it. Does that make it human?

If a person injects mitochondria from a cow into his cells, does that make him any closer to being a cow?

If a human-animal hybrid is created, I seriously doubt that it would have the sentience that a human has, and if it did I would be against any testing on it.

These hybrids could be used to cure many diseases.

So, what's the big deal?

[Homer12]

1. Religion

[whistle]

2. No I don't think so, it is because they don't own the rights yet

[RedStateShame]

3. Fears that sex with livestock may finally have repercussions.

[Lerkfish]

4. and that would affect their 33% base.

they could no longer hump the cows and sheep and not have to pay child support

:)

[zanne]

5. There is such a thing as "unnatural"

Frankenfoods are unnatural. I'm with the RW on this one.

[Crandor]

16. What is so sacred about "natural" DNA?

All it is is what the process of evolution pushed the species towards. If they had evolved under different circumstances, their DNA would be different. There's nothing special about "natural", unless you want to argue in favor of creationism.

[mike_c]

20. LOL-- the irony is that we're already hybrids anyway....

All eukaryotes-- including all animals-- are hybrids of prokaryotic bacteria. The mitochondria in every one of your cells? Prokaryotic symbionts.

I'm a biologist. The term "unnatural" is pretty meaningless, IMO. It's largely an accident of evolution that we don't exchange genes as easily as prokaryotes or some other eukaryotes. The fact that viable exchanges can be performed by technological means confirms to me that such hybridization is not "unnatural" at all.

[KittyWampus]

27. Technological Reproduction Lacks What Nature Provides In Her Methods Of Hybridization-

that necessary element of chaos and uncertainty which is what gives rise to the random mutant which ensures ANY species of survival in the event of a catastrophe.

The ILLUSION that scientists labor under, of having total control over Nature and natural processes, is definately nothing more than an illusion.

Example, when you use natural processes to cross pollinate and hybridize corn, you allow the genetic material some amount of unknown differentiation. It allows Nature to play a role in the end product.

An entire crop grown from the same genetic material, having no no genetic vairation, mutations or diversity at all, would be wiped out should it succumb to a virus, bacteria or whatever.

So Natural vs. Unnatural does have a meaning.

The World is NOT A CONTOLLED LABRATORY.

[Odin2005]

31. Not your anti-technology bullshit again.

you are confusing improper use of the technology by Monsanto & Co. and the technology itself.

[KittyWampus]

40. what the fuck are you talking about "not your anti-technology bullshit again"?

I have never spouted "anti-technology" anything.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Well, you're a creationist.

That's certainly anti-science.

[Crandor]

34. So GM crops can't mutate?

So they are magically transmitting their DNA to the next generation perfectly, without a single transcription error? I don't think so.

There is a modification called the "Terminator Gene" that makes second-generation plants sterile, but it's not in use yet and there is a lot of political opposition to it. Even Monsanto has said they won't use it.

[KittyWampus]

41. So you're saying GM crops aren't carbon copies? That there are the same genetic differences

on the same order as what would occur by man's traditional methods of hybridization?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Did you know bananas are all clones of each other?

Not GM bananas. Regular bananas.

O! The horror!

[Odin2005]

48. Excellent example.

[mike_c]

35. there are lots of animals that use clonal reproduction anyway....

Natural clonal reproduction in animals thru parthenogenesis-- at bit off topic in this thread but ecologically similar to reduced genetic diversity in agriculture-- is favored when there is a reproductive advantage to rapidly producing many copies of a successful genome. There is nothing "unnatural" about that. Plants do it all the time, and so do many animals.

That said, I agree with you about the dangers of ELIMINATING genetic diversity in agriculture. That's a recipe for disaster. But using GM technology to produce copies of highly productive or otherwise successful agricultural genomes? That's something that nature does all the time.

Regarding GM technology itself, what do you think of this: Golden Rice?

[KittyWampus]

43. They do it outside a labratory and thus with a certain of degree of diversity in genetic material

LACKING in labratory hybridization that I refer to.

and nature NEVER produces an entire field of crops where every single plant is genetically the same as occurs in GM farming.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. nature never does it?

Of course nature does.

Bananas... dandelions... blackberries... birches... methuselah lizards... whiptail lizards...

You're not very big on nature, are you?

[mike_c]

51. the list of insects that are parthenogenetic is VERY long, too....

And unlike the poster above maintains, clonal is clonal-- there isn't any source of "mystery variation." That rather defeats the point.

[Odin2005]

50. This shows you know absolutely jack about plants.

there are tens of thousands of plant species that clone themselves. Clusters of poplars that are genetically identical are very common. Typical of you anti-science fools who knows didly squat about what you guys are talking about.

[Odin2005]

28. Exactly

Lateral gene transfer is common in nature, but you wouldn't know that from the rhetoric of the people against genetic engineering.

[Odin2005]

26. Since when is "unnatural" bad?

Me using antibiotics to cure a strep infection is unnatural too.

Oh, and as a Biotech major I find offense to the term "frankenfoods," it belongs in the same category of words as "partial-birth abortion" and "surge." *dons flame gear*

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Obviously they believe "The Island of Dr. Moreau" is nonfiction. n/t

[C_U_L8R]

7. And we have a RW president who is half monkey

does that mean he is half human?
No i didn't think so either.

:-) :-) :-)

[Cabcere]

49. You read my mind. n/t

[Blue-Jay]

8. When do I get a pet koala-man?

[amitten]

9. I agree with them on this. Fooling with Mother Nature often

leaves you with more bad than good. Actually, I don't believe in hybrid anything (except cars). Even hybrid plants make me cringe. I don't believe in forcing something living to be something that it isn't.

[Crandor]

17. See post #16. nt

[amitten]

19. I did, and I still disagree. Evolution happens naturally over time

in a manner that best suits a given species. Forced evolution is never a good thing. Man-made global warming is a nice example of that, I think. Global warming over thousands of years is one thing...the same warming in only a century is quite another.

[zanne]

22. You said it better than I could have, amitten. Thanks. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. You're against artificial selection?

It's been used for thousands of years. That's why we have named varieties of plants and animals. Agriculture has always been based on it. It pre-dates civilisation.

[KittyWampus]

30. Vast difference between selecting variants via NATURAL methods where each seed has some diversity

and genetically engineered crops which have absolutely NO genetic diversity and are literally carbon copies of each other.

The unnatural seed crop lacks any of the minute genetic variances which are what help ensure any species' continued survival.

Trying to usurp nature's role in reproduction and developing a "master race" of anything is never a good idea.

[Odin2005]

33. *points to coment in post 31*

[KittyWampus]

42. your post is irrelevant because I have never said anything that can be construed as

as anti-technology.

And my point stands.

GMM crops do NOT have the genetic diversity necessary to ensure survival of a plant variety in the event of a catastrophe.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Actually, considering the number of species threatened with

extinction in the face of global warming, a little forced evolution might be called for. There are thousands of species of plants and animals that cannot possibly adapt naturally to this ecological pressure, but with our help we may be able to increase their chances of survival.

[Warpy]

10. It's a fantastic lie out of a science fiction novel that

some pompadoured fuckwit in a flashy suit has sold to his congregation of poor and desperate people as the truth.

These people are truly crazy. The only such hybrids I know of are heart patients who have had bad heart valves replaced by valves from a pig, something that isn't done as frequently now because they're only good for a decade or so.

It's gone so deep into the fundie community that it's become a code word for medical research.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Well, there are the examples the OP gave

The human ear on the back of the mouse was famous. There's also the injection of a human nucleus into a cow or rabbit egg:

Technically, a chimera is an organism comprised of a mixture of cells from two different species. In this case, however, all the DNA of the animal's cell nucleus has been removed prior to the insertion of the human cell nucleus. The only genetic material of the animal left is the DNA of structures outside the nucleus called mitochondria, which are the power-generating part of the cell. So the resulting animal-human embryo is neither a chimera nor a hybrid - the result of cross-breeding. Such embryos do not have a scientific name, although someone has suggested "cybrid" because it merges the cytoplasm of the animal egg with the nucleus of the human cell.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2140230.ece

which may or may not be what the OP meant by "If a person injects mitochondria from a cow into his cells ...".

And there's mice with some human cells in their brains:

Geneticist Fred Gage injected embryonic human cells into two-week-old fetal mice as they developed in the womb. When the mice matured, some human stem cells survived and became functional components of the mice's brains and nervous systems.

Less than one-tenth of one percent of the test mice's brain cells are human.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1214_051214_stem_cell.html

It seemed to me the 'mouse with human ear' was pointless, and possibly cruel to the mouse (though I suppose it may have been towards growing replacement organs for transplant in animals; I haven't heard if research continues in this area); the other examples I think should be allowed, and might be useful for research.

[Warpy]

39. Those aren't the things being sold to fundy congregations

it's more along the line of the science fiction stories of cow brains transplanted into humans to provide a perfectly docile work force, for example.

Human tissue grafted onto animals provides data on tissue rejection, and yes, it's very hard on the animal. However, this is also the way to test drugs that may allow Fluffy to receive a donor heart or kidney some day. They can already do blood transfusions.

Fundy congregations have no clue what mitochondria are. Most of those folks are so primitive in their scientific knowledge that they think they're solid inside, like potatoes, all packed around their bones. They only know they have bones because bones can break.

[Ian David]

11. We must not walk on all fours, for are we not men? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Because conservatives got up in arms over stem cells.

Which is an utterly phony controversy. So Republicans figured they might be able to engineer other phony controversies.

[dipsydoodle]

13. If you cross a sheep with a kangaroo

do you get a woolly jumper ?

[Ian David]

14. They're afraid that if they put human stemcells in a fruit fly's brain, it will have a human soul...

trapped in a fly's body.

Seriously.

[Crandor]

15. Well, that's slightly more plausible than the "it's unnatural" argument at least. nt

[fasttense]

18. It is the space alien- human hybrids that they are really worried about. n/t

[MilesColtrane]

21. We've seen, though out history, what happens when people question...

who (or what) exactly is "human".

Some used to use the outward appearance of race to classify others as less than human, with horrible consequences.

The discovery of DNA seemed to settle the question once and for all about what constitutes a human being.

Now that that definition is capable of being blurred it is necessary to have a debate of the ethics.

Just because science can do something doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, it seems that if something can be done, someone will do it eventually.

This makes me very pessimistic about the long term survival prospects of humanity. (especially with the advent of nanotechnology)

[ContraBass Black]

23. You weren't already pessimistec about the long-term survival prospects of humanity?

I sure was.

[MilesColtrane]

29. Yes, I was.

It's just reason #6,954, right behind the stupidity displayed in the popularity of "American Idol".

[tjwash]

25. Because it sucks for them...

...to think about things like the failure that their little crusade in the middle east is going through, and how the neo-cons came out and basically let it slip out that they are nothing more than a bunch of votes to them.

[librechik]

37. They're afraid the hybrids will compete too well against their own inbred children

or look too much like them...

[LeftishBrit]

38. Perhaps because the RW are human-animal hybrids ?

And don't want any competition?

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

47. I'd be concerned about disease vectors.

I am no expert, but I think it could be a major problem...