Brits go ahead with hybrid Human-Animal Embryos

Scientific marvel

 

anyone ever read the novel "Sims"?


i don't think this is such a good idea...

 

Why not ?

 

great can they make me glow in the dark? I own some glow in the dark fish and am trying to purchase a glow in the dark rabbit. I dont like mice and my aim is to have a bright orange glow in the dark pig that I will call "Knacker of the Yard" or knacker for short

these animals have dna from jelly fish implanted - wonder if they will allow humans to have snakes for hair etc that would be cool

DNA chaos would or might be fun

 

I think you may want to investigate the sciece involved - before you make any humour about it.

 

why ? I like the idea of genetic chaos so what theres no god to stop us fucking up genetics we are, in the abscence of a higher being or a god, free to go in any direction

I like glow in the dark animals if you like vanilla flavours bully for you - but either stop this outright or let it march forward to a full conclucion stop moralising all the time like we owe some god some kind of purity

 

I was only trying to keep this in the realms of the here and now.

I absolutely agree with you - I don't think we should have the church or any ''god botherers'' making their moral and ethical judgements - barring us from ''marching forward''.
There does need to be some controls and a limit though - imho.

The problem is the many morale and ethical hurdles - that are thrown up in this field - are shared by the majority of scientists and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
Not too mention the public who to a degree are a guide [through consultation] to what is and is not ''acceptable''.

I don't think we owe a god ''some kind of purity'' - but we are not likely to see the kind of genetics you envisage any time soon.
Not in the US or EU anyway.

The science being mooted here is NOT some kind of freakish human animal offspring or making you glow in the dark [unfortunatly for you].

You might want to go visit a small island in the middle of know where - then you may find a scientist willing to give you gene therapy - too make you glow in the dark.

 

^ they can make pigs glow in the dark... why not humans?

 

I know -
I never said they could not -
Animals are not humans [hypocrisy] -
This is not what this research is about -

 

Well whats your point then? why cant someone develop a pig with a cows head if they want or have their human eye genetics replaced with eagles eye genetics?

I dont see why people cant accept that life is life and that as the brightest sparks in the known universe we inherit the title "god" !

we could do anything we wanted with it !

 

Like I said I was attempting to keep this in the realms of the here and now.

Nobody is talking about doing anything like you are suggesting.

It is at the moment practically impossible to alter a persons DNA so they have ''eagle eyes'' or snakes coming out of the hair follicles

Keep it in the real worl Mr MacDonald.

 

you can call me ronnie -

Ok so whats real world about this thread is what I am asking, so they cure breast cancer by making sure all newborn girls have genetically altered dna somehow and they carry some kind of spider gene. How is that different from making me glow in the dark?

Thats what theyre proposing is that with stem cell research you can take people who have lost their teeth through dental decay and get the body to grow new ones etc

so it is real world its you that needs to read up on it !

 

Ok Ronnie it is -

There is not a big difference between possibly curing cancer through the means you highlight and making somebody glow. The science might be the same but the consequences are very different.
You did not say: A side effect to curing cancer - you would also have a few extra legs and be able to climb walls - did you ?.
However nice that would be. One is realistic the other is fantasy and fundementaly alters who and what we are - I did say there should be constraints and there IS. Thank fuck.

No you can't at the moment pump somebody with altered stem cells and make their teeth grow back - though I did read they were able to improve some lab rats vision.
One step at a time Ronnie.

I'm only disagreeing with your flights of fantasy not your fundemental understanding of the issueand possibilities that are - well ! - possible..

 

If science allows people to grow ears on the backs of rodents, I don't really see how this is any different.

 

Was that a response too the OP ?.

It is possibly implanting HUMANS and tampering with OUR genetic make up.
Ethicaly speaking there is a big difference - though you may have noticed Ronnis and Is ethics are a little erm lax.

 

At times like these, I just have to ask myself: "What can I trust more? Millions of years of evolution, or less than a century of scientific research?"

Besides, rather than using genetics for a solution, why not simply employ nanotechnology? Once material constructs are able to be modified on the atomic level... Well, lets just say that anything is possible

 

Will they [nanobot] STILL not need to know what and how they are going to alter the DNA or whatever they are doing in a humans body ?. That still takes research - This proposed research is because of the lack of useable human material. If you don't like this idea - science still needs to find a way to do research. I don't think you can whisper in their [nanobot] ear and say : Go fetch that cancer cell Fido.

 

They're not going to be implanting humans for a long while yet. It takes years for research like this to actually be tested on humans, especially after the whole drug trials gone wrong incident!

 

Yeah no doubt this research will take time -
1 high profile drugs test ''gone wrong'' is not going to slow progress.
Hundreds upon hundreds of ''drugs tests'' go right every single year.