Animal Human Hybrids

http://scienceray.com/biology/human-biology/
/the-first-creation-of-human-animal-hybrid-embryo/

Animal Human Hybrids

          Stem cell controversy is revisited recently as U.K. moves forward to proactively approach research in the form of human anima- hybrids.  Moral and ethical debates, typically based in religion, seek to draw the lines between the ethical and the unethical.  Meanwhile other scientists report that the research is dead in the water, due to differences in animal cell division.  "The Legacy of Doctor Moreau," featured in the editorial section of Nature, focuses on the need for research on hybrid embryos and chimaeric animals to collect information regarding the treatment and progression of diseases.  His main focus is to separate public perception of animal human embryos hybrids from popular science fiction's depictions of part human part beast monsters.  However he fails to address the real controversies and problems associated with research in human animal hybrids.  Ethical controversy over the loss of human dignity, opening the door for the manufacturing of embryonic cells for science and reproductive cloning, and scientific concerns make early discussions of laws governing human animal hybrids premature.
           The process behind the genetic mutation needed to create these human animal hybrid embryos is described in greater detail in Heidi Ledford's "Hybrid Embryos fail to live up to stem-cell hopes."  The process required for this scientific feat is known as somatic-cell nuclear transfer. The nuclei of animal eggs is replaced with nuclei from human somatic cells (Ledford 1).  The resulting cells contain aspects of both the human and animal cells.  As these cells reproduce, their growth could be modeled against human development to discern knowledge of progression of human development and the development of disease.
           A large ethics controversy has developed around the research of human animal hybrids.  The basis for this controversy lies in religion and in prolife politics.  Cardinal Rigali characterizes human animal hybrids as a misuse of technology and a degradation of human dignity.  In order to produce the animal human hybrids, human stem cells must be used.  The Catholic Church has condemned the harvesting of some types of stem cells for research.  The church considers all stem cells that result from the termination of a pregnancy to be part of a human life.  They further condemn any experimentation using these cells in human animal embryos. The condemnation of this research by the church is expected, but the controversy continues into the political world.  “Crossing lines: Breaching Human – Animal and Left – Right Boundaries,” by M. L. Tina Stevens and Stuart A. Newman, writes that little consideration of the ethics of the issue is done by liberals in fear of aligning with prolife conservatives.  Therefore the human animal hybrid research has completely aligned itself with prolife and prochoice campaign, and as long as the discussion of abortion is on the table in the United States, it will be difficult to make a concrete decision on the human animal hybrids.
    The reason for this major split among the parties for most types of stem cell research lies in embryonic stem cells.  Harvesting embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of the embryo (Holmes 6).  Therefore, the question becomes whether or not society is willing to consider that one life may be more valuable than another.  At this point in time, scientists have yet to discover a way to manufacture or reproduce the stem cells (Holmes 5).  Therefore, by continuing research using embryonic stem cells we are opening the door for production of stem cells through terminated pregnancies.  Markets could develop where women would earn money for the termination of child for embryonic stem cells.  This possibility is even more real if a cure to a major disease was found using stem cell research.  This would create a great demand for stem cells and strengthen a potential stem cell black market.  Additionally many men and women are concerned over the research it self, and what tomorrows controversy might be..  For example, if scientist are able to successfully conquer the principle of intentional genetic mutation of the human race.  Genetic manufacturing of human cells to grow and develop from embryos that are created to be free from disease is a major point of concern.  For many religious culture’s this would be overstepping man’s boundaries.  This may not be over stepping man’s boundaries for some, but how about selecting your child’s hair color before they are born.  While the goals of human animal embryos and the ideas that spark controversy are not alike, the research that will allow these practices in the future is,  The scientific process behind the creation of human animal hybrids is very similar to that of cloning.  The same nuclear transfer operations could be a major part of more controversial research in the future.
           Scientists researching human animal hybrids have suffered a major setback in countries where this research can be performed legally.  Embryos created using somatic cell nuclear transfer have failed to live past 16 cells (Monastersky 642).   Scientists have reported thousands of failed attempts over several years of extending the life of these unstable embryos (Monastersky 642).  Ledford expresses that other solutions are available, but that the research may be off the table until scientists have a greater knowledge of a skill known as cellular reprogramming (Monastersky 642).  With these failures in mind, decisions made about ethics and continuing human animal embryos may be immature.  If these embryos continue to fail, the practicality of advanced stem cell based human animal hybrids may make the controversies irrelevant.  Stem cell research is at its beginning stages and laws governing this research will need to adapt in the future as the science matures.   
          Preemptive discussion of human animal hybrids cannot be firmly decided with the state of the current knowledge.  To try to force legislation or discussion of this research which is in its early stages, will force the issue to align with pro life pro choice arguments and kill the research before it gets off the ground.  Stem cell research is a major debate in scientific communities and the possibilities that it brings need to be discussed by not only political leaders, but by the general public.  Animal human hybrid embryos are not a political issue but a humanitarian issue.

Citations

• Holm, Soren. "Going to the Roots of the Stem Cell Controversy." Bioethics 16.6 (2002): 1-15. Print.
• Monastersky, Richard. "Hybrid Embryos Fail to Live up to Stem-cell Hopes." Nature 457 (2009): 642-643. Print.
• Tina Stevens, M. L Tina, and Stuart A. Newman. "Crossing Lines: Breaching Human-Animal And Left-Right Boundaries." The Humanist Oct. 2007: 5-6. Print.
• Wells, H.G.. "The Legacy of Doctor Moreau." Nature 576.6 (2002): 423. Print.

Vaccine Controversy

The rise of science and technology over the decades as let to people living longer and healthier lives. The invention of vaccinations in late 18th century has greatly increased human longevity and has helped stopped epidemic outbreaks like the smallpox epidemic (Stern and Markel). However in a recent article published by the science journal magazine, Nature, says in parts of the country, the rate of refusal of mandatory childhood vaccinations for non-medical reasons stands at 25%. And unpublished data show that this rate is continuing to increase (“Nature”). The new statistic may in fact be valid, but the information the Nature article presented is skewed. For instance, the Nature article neglects to mention that people are refusing to get vaccines for less communicable and not as dangerous diseases. I’m taking aim at the Nature article argument because we’ve seen over the past one hundred years the rate of refusal of vaccinations has gone down. People have witnessed that vaccines are successful at preventing disease and are also very safe. Year-by-year the percentage of people not getting vaccines has typically gone down.

Although in the past two years there’s been an increase in refusal to vaccinate, there are more vaccinations today than there were ten years ago. Dr. Richard Besser, ABC News Senior Health and Medical Editor, stated in a Good Morning America article,

"While the percentage of parents delaying and refusing vaccines has gone up, we offered more vaccines in 2008 than in 2003," he said. "So there were more opportunities to delay or refuse getting them in 2008 than there were in 2003. It's important to note that vaccine coverage overall has increased during the study period" (Naaman). Dr. Besser’s statement explains that even if the rate of refusal of vaccinations has gone up recently, it may not be making that great of an impact on our population’s health because there are many more vaccinations today than there were years ago.

Even though the percentage of parents refusing or delaying vaccinations rose, there is data from the Centers for Disease Control and that indicates vaccination completion of the primary vaccines by age 2 increased overall between 2003 and 2008 (Naaman). Some of the newer vaccinations people are receiving today are helping to prevent potential diseases and cancers like HPV and cervical cancer. If a person refuses one of these newer vaccines but still receives an older vaccine like the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine there won’t be a big of an impact on the population’s health as there could be if they refused to receive a vaccination for a highly communicable disease. This is because the newer vaccinations are preventing illnesses that aren’t as communicable as other illnesses that older vaccinations protect us against. This coincides with Dr. Besser’s comment saying, “Today's study may indicate that more parents are spacing out vaccines and possibly refusing newer vaccines” (Naaman).

The Nature article also focuses on how politicians are impacting the rate of refusing vaccinations. The Nature article explained how Minnesota congresswoman, Michele Bachmann, made a claim on national television saying that the human papillomavirus (HVP) vaccine is a “potentially dangerous drug” and stated that it is linked to “mental retardation” (“Nature”). By writing this, Nature is showing that words and advice from high authority leaders may be persuading the population to stop getting vaccinations.

Being a Nursing major, I feel that politicians and celebrities should keep themselves out of the ethical issue of vaccination. In a recent article published by the NY Times and written by Timothy Egan also agrees with me. Egan wrote, “ill-informed politicians can set back vaccination rates for years, ultimately leading to more premature deaths” (Egan). People should not take the advice of a politician on such a personal and ethical issue. Politicians and celebrities are not trained and educated doctors they cannot accurately tell you that vaccinations are good or bad or what kind of potentials side effects they could have. Instead people should rely on doctors, health-care professionals, and researchers options if they need advice on whether to vaccinate or not. Politicians and celebrities options on vaccinations could potentially led to deaths if lots of people listen and believe what they’re saying are true.

It’s safe to say, vaccinations are very important and safe ways of preventing disease. Over the past one hundred years with the help of vaccinations we’ve eradicated

highly infectious diseases like smallpox and lowered the prevalence of many other diseases. Vaccinations in Europe helped led to the eradication of smallpox (Fenner and Henderson). Even if the percentage of people not getting vaccinated may have slightly gone up in the last few years it really is insignificant because over the last hundred years the trend of people not getting vaccinated has gone down greatly. The population went from losing quite a large percentage of the population from severe epidemic outbreaks to creating vaccines and saving many peoples’ lives. In order to bring the percentage of refusal of vaccination back down politicians and celebrities should keep their options out of the public eye, and people should make the executive decision to be vaccinated based on their personal beliefs and their health-care providers’ advice.





Works Cited:

Egan, Timothy. "Idiocy and Advocacy." New York Times 22 Sep 2011. n. pag. Web. 5 Oct. 2011. <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/idiocy-and-advocacy/?scp=2&sq=vaccination and politicians&st=cse>.


Fenner, F., and D.A Henderson. Smallpox and it's Eradication. (1988): n. page. Print. <http://whqlibdoc.who.int/smallpox/9241561106.pdf>.


Naaman, Laura. "Study: More Parents Refuse or Delay Vaccinations for Kids." Good Morning America. ABC, 05 May 2010. Web. 5 Oct 2011. <http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/study-parents-refuse-delay-vaccinations-kids/story?id=10545911>.


Stern, Alexandra, and Howard Markel. "The History Of Vaccines And Immunization: Familiar Patterns, New Challenges." Health Affairs . 24.3 (2005): n. page. Print. <http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/24/3/611.full>.


"The wrong message on vaccines." Nature. 22 Sep 2011: n. page. Web. 5 Oct. 2011. <http://www.nature.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/nature/journal/v477/n7365/full/477369a.html>.