Plan To Create Human-cow Embryos Plan to create human-cow embryos

[talktime 0]

I saw in the news today

Plan to create human-cow embryos
UK scientists have applied for permission to create embryos by fusing human DNA with cow eggs.
Researchers from Newcastle University and Kings College, London, have asked the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for a three-year licence.

The hybrid human-bovine embryos would be used for stem cell research and would not be allowed to develop for more than a few days.

But critics say it is unethical and potentially dangerous.

Stem cell research is one of the most promising areas of medical science. You may begin to undermine the whole distinction between humans animals and humans


It is this ability which scientists want to harness to treat diseases such as Parkinson's Disease, strokes and Alzheimer's Disease.

To do that, they need to have access to thousands of embryos for research.

I think they should allow the researchers but also make a policy of no misuse. Each and every technology can be used for good or bad both. Like Nuclear technology can be used to make nuclear energy or nuclear weapon. There should be safeguards against misuse for this technology too. But preventing a technology would be a bad decision. What do you think?
Edited November 13, 2006 by talktime (see edit history)

[beatgammit 0]

I don't like it. I don't like the idea of fusing human DNA with a cow's DNA. I am a very religious man, and I do not think that this is what we should be doing with the bodies we have been given. I think that there is something holy about the human body and that we should not tamper with it, even if we only allow it to grow for a few days. Aside from religious reasons, what would happen if one of these embryos was not killed off and it grew to adulthood? We would have HUGE ethical issues regarding what to do with such a creature. We could also have problems with the "cures" to our diseases, because the embryos are not entirely of our species and many unforseen side-effects could present themselves and hurt people.

[foolakadugie 0]

I doubt that they would ever be able to grow bast the state of an embryo. I think that they would be grown in a lab rather than in a cow. There wouldn't be any reason to let them grow any older than being a clump of stem cells. All stem cells are, are cells that have not yet been specialized to perform a certain purpose (muscle, skin, nerve, etc). I don't mean to be disrespectful of others beliefs, but I don't understand why a microscopic glob of cells is any more precious than an actual human life. The stem cells could be used to save many lives and cure so many diseases and problems. I think that an actual human's life is more important than a few cells.

[Bano97 0]

I doubt that they would ever be able to grow bast the state of an embryo. I think that they would be grown in a lab rather than in a cow. There wouldn't be any reason to let them grow any older than being a clump of stem cells. All stem cells are, are cells that have not yet been specialized to perform a certain purpose (muscle, skin, nerve, etc).
I don't mean to be disrespectful of others beliefs, but I don't understand why a microscopic glob of cells is any more precious than an actual human life. The stem cells could be used to save many lives and cure so many diseases and problems. I think that an actual human's life is more important than a few cells.

I agree with you. I think there is a distinct difference between little-formed stem cells and a human life. The cells would most likely be grown in a controlled lab and will not be developed into a humanlike cow creature. They will be "killed" before they grow into anything one might recognize as a human. Therefore, I think the researches should be granted permission, but with strict guidelines to prevent misuse, as talktime pointed out.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

just hearing that makes it scary ... what happens when one day your friend is a cow that knows how to speak English or your girlfriend is a mix, cow skin but human body?That's just freaky if it goes out of hand.xboxrulz

[webintern 0]

I have not read the original article, but I suspect the scientists plan to extract the cow DNA and replace it with human DNA as a source for stem cells. Given the highly politically-, religiously-, and ethically-charged debate surrounding the use of "human" embryos, this method would quiet a lot--but not all--of the concerns.A cow man is not possible ... at least not in the foreseeable future. Both bovine and human species are too different for successful [genetic] mating to occur. There are however other scary steps being taken by scientists who attempt to play god and ignore the ethical considerations / consequences. The United States has some laws to protect against unscrupulous human genetic manipulation and cloning. Other countries (such as Italy or Korea) may not hold the same view; so, there is a migration of such scientists to these countries to continue their research.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

Exactly, so I don't know if these may get out of hands in the future.xboxrulz

[Levis 0]

I have not read the original article, but I suspect the scientists plan to extract the cow DNA and replace it with human DNA as a source for stem cells. Given the highly politically-, religiously-, and ethically-charged debate surrounding the use of "human" embryos, this method would quiet a lot--but not all--of the concerns.
A cow man is not possible ... at least not in the foreseeable future. Both bovine and human species are too different for successful [genetic] mating to occur. There are however other scary steps being taken by scientists who attempt to play god and ignore the ethical considerations / consequences. The United States has some laws to protect against unscrupulous human genetic manipulation and cloning. Other countries (such as Italy or Korea) may not hold the same view; so, there is a migration of such scientists to these countries to continue their research.

Also, the chromosomes would not be able to match, hence life would not be possible. What the scientist might do it replace bad DNA sectors with good ones. When i studied bio, to make it simple, our DNA strucutres are quite similar to many animals. If we can properly decode atleat one RNA strand properly, then we might be able to cure many diseases. They will just rearrange teh codons.

[CaptainRon 0]

hey what kinda soul will the fused human-cow have? ;-)i mean i dont think that any religion will go well with that. protests are inevitable in such a case.

[Kardus 0]

This is definately scary, and I don't condone this. Whether you believe in a higher power,or not (i.e. evolution), humans are meant to be humans,and human genes areintended for humans. Humans have dominion over the world, and if you believe inevolution, evolution should occur over time and in natural course.

Edited December 3, 2006 by Kardus (see edit history)

[Punkcat 0]

I don't mean to be disrespectful of others beliefs, but I don't understand why a microscopic glob of cells is any more precious than an actual human life. The stem cells could be used to save many lives and cure so many diseases and problems. I think that an actual human's life is more important than a few cells.

It seems that the problem is what is the concept of human life. Something is human the moment it has the "essence" of humanity. From the moment of conception, this first cell has all the information that makes up for all a human being is. There isn't a stage later on in the whole process of embryo development that changes in essence so drastically to tell exactly -before this it isn't human; after this, it is. So tampering with cells, embryos, fetus, babies, adults or elderly people is exactly the same.
From all the advances and technology, I don't see any evolution or development in humankind: we may have the power to do anything, now is it correct to do it? For example, anyone has the means or the power to terminate another person's life. Does it mean that if we can do it, we have to?
So if we can play with cells and genes, does it mean that we have to do it? Does it mean that it's the only way we can deal with diseases?

[Chesso 0]

And what would you propose if the world was over populated beyond reasonable control, just let it happen?I should think not, come back to reality.(Yes I'm just making a point) :)As they say, you can't really gain without a sacrafice, and if the gain is worth more than the sacrafice, it's usually a straight out yes (good outweighing the bad), but it depends on the situation and what value you put on the comparison.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Chesso (see edit history)

[foolakadugie 0]

It seems that the problem is what is the concept of human life. Something is human the moment it has the "essence" of humanity. From the moment of conception, this first cell has all the information that makes up for all a human being is. There isn't a stage later on in the whole process of embryo development that changes in essence so drastically to tell exactly -before this it isn't human; after this, it is. So tampering with cells, embryos, fetus, babies, adults or elderly people is exactly the same. From all the advances and technology, I don't see any evolution or development in humankind: we may have the power to do anything, now is it correct to do it? For example, anyone has the means or the power to terminate another person's life. Does it mean that if we can do it, we have to?
So if we can play with cells and genes, does it mean that we have to do it? Does it mean that it's the only way we can deal with diseases?

I see what you are saying, but I guess I just don't really think of the essence of humanity being particularly precious over any other organism. I don't see humans as being any more important or higher in status than any other organism. We may be smarter, but the world wouldn't be the same without everything else. We share the same genetic code with most other animals on the planet (just different programming). Only about 2 percent of that programming separates us from other species.

If anything, I think that our technology and advances in science would stop us from evolving. Technology takes the place of evolution. Evolution works through the death and survival of organisms (survival of the fittest) from their environment, predators, etc. Bad genes are lost when individual animals with those genes cannot survive and just the opposite for those with good genes. We are removed from nature so natural selection really doesn't apply to us much anymore, except for maybe diseases (but even with many diseases we have medicine and such to help). There isn't much pushing the human race to evolve, since we live in a time when most of the human race live long lives and their survival isn't quite as difficult as it would be in nature.

[Punkcat 0]

I absolutely agree with you in that science and technology in fact prevent humanity from evolving. Actually I'm a firm believer that humankind is devolving from a higher state. But I don't agree with you in that we have no more value than any other being or thing. Of course we are all part of a system, with a delicate equilibrium, and one species cannot survive without the other. That is from a functional point of view. But that 2% difference in the genetic code that tells us apart from other beings is exactly THE difference. We as human beings are more than just a part of an ecologic system, in fact the awareness of being part of such thing is something only us are capable of having. We're not just a bunch of cells roaming the planet whose only purpose is feeding and breeding.

[Chesso 0]

If that's not our only or main purpose, why is it the most difficult part of us to ignore .We just happen to be a little more advanced in an overall scale than most other species.But the differences aren't that great, or should I say not great enough.Not a good example, but it's like saying the use of a 64-Bit CPU is an entirely different species compared to 32-Bit (and it really isn't *that* different).Were more complex than that of course, but so is other life on this planet (think in proportion) .E.G, most animals have a brain, that functions more or less the same (it's still a brain), many have limbs like ours, mouths, heads, feet, bodies, a heart, they eat, they sleep, grow, many can walk, run, learn, some can even learn to talk like us.Those are just the *I can see it* similarities, I don't know about under the hood.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Chesso (see edit history)