Human-animal embryos for research.

[Sassafras]

Green light for hybrid research:
Regulators have given scientists the green light to create human-animal embryos for research.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority granted permission after a consultation showed the public were "at ease" with the idea.

Experts said it was vital for research into life-threatening diseases.

Two centres, King's College London and Newcastle University, will now be able to begin their work under one-year research licences.

Any other centres wishing to do similar work will have to apply to the HFEA for permission, which will make a decision on a case by case basis.

Hybrids

Scientists want to create hybrid embryos by merging human cells with animal eggs in a bid to extract stem cells. The embryos would then be destroyed within 14 days.

The cells form the basic building blocks of the body and have the potential to become any tissue, making them essential for research.

At the moment, scientists have to rely on human eggs left over from fertility treatment, but they are in short supply and are not always good quality.

Critics say they are repulsed by the idea and there must be no creation of an animal-human hybrid.

They say it is tampering with nature and is unethical.

It is already illegal to implant human-animal embryos in the womb or bring them to term.

Go-ahead

Dr Stephen Minger and colleagues at King's College London want to create hybrids to study diseases known to have genetic causes - such as Alzheimer's disease, spinal muscular atrophy and Parkinson's disease.

And Lyle Armstrong's team at Newcastle University are hoping to use the technique to help understand how stem cells develop into different tissues in the body.

In the distant future this information may lead to scientists to be able to grow new tissues in the laboratory.

Dr Armstrong said: "Now that we have the licence we can start work as soon as possible.

"We have already done a lot of the work by transferring animal cells into cow eggs so we hope to make rapid progress."

John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said: "The HFEA decision represents a disastrous setback for human dignity in Britain.

"The deliberate blurring of the boundaries between humans and other species is wrong and strikes at the heart of what makes us human."

On a purely emotional level my reaction is one of repulsion (shades of 'Island of Dr. Moreau') but logically I see no reason why such research should not be permitted.

Any thoughts?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7193820.stm

[Primula Baggins]

This is one of those things that sounds alarming but literally can't result in anything viable, and that isn't even the point: all they want is stem cells.

It doesn't produce a "hybrid." It's human genetic information introduced into an animal egg that has been cleared of the animal's genetic information. The egg is just a matrix that allows the human DNA to replicate for a while, long enough to produce stem cells. This means that it is no longer necessary to use nearly-expired human eggs for the same purpose. The unused human eggs can once again be destroyed, as they used to be.

The fact is that humans have practiced genetic manipulation for thousands of years, producing, for example, breeds of dogs that would be bitterly denounced if a lab had created them—bulldogs that can only give birth by C-section, other breeds that commonly have terrible congenital diseases or a high rate of stillborn or defective puppies—and all this just for esthetics, so show dogs can win prizes.

This kind of research offers real hope of helping people, and it harms nothing.

[MithLuin]

I agree that Island of Dr. Moreau came to mind. I mean, I realize that no one is talking about growing these things past day 14 (it's illegal to try to actually create a hybrid, anyway), but it does seem a 'blur' of what is okay and what is Frankenstein-like research.

I know that stem cells are useful. But can't we find more ethical ways of getting and developing them? I mean, there are thousands and thousands of placentas that are just thrown out all the time...if we could get just a few left-over stem cells from that, it would be a win/win situation. (And so, if it were easy, it would have been done already...I get that.)

It's pretty traumatic for a cell to go through the procedure they're discussing. It's similar to what is done in cloning (you swap out the nuclei). While you may end up with a healthy cell line, you may also end up with weird stem cells . I guess they'll find out soon enough.

But saying 'we need this to try to cure Alzheimers' is not really a justification of the process. Whether or not it does lead to a cure, it has to be ethical in and of itself first.

[Primula Baggins]

The object isn't to produce a line of mature cells, Mith. It's to produce individual cells that have divided just far enough to be stem cells.

I think this is an improvement. I have no objection to using unfertilized human eggs that are about to be destroyed anyway for the same purpose (they are too old to be fertilized at that point and thus don't represent potential human life; they're just wasted, like most of the eggs a woman produces in her lifetime). But this technique doesn't involve human eggs, just human DNA, which we all shed all the time and fling around freely. We do not carefully collect and bury our dead skin cells, or blood samples we give at a lab; we never give it a thought.