MadameConcorde From Monaco, joined Feb 2007, 11330 posts, RR: 34 Posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1784 times:
I have no idea what will be the limit to this once the scientists will have started creating these new human-animal "species". What if they try to bring one to life without telling anybody outside of their labs?
This is rather freaky I think...
Hybrids are made using an animal egg mixed with human genes
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.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
Aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 9418 posts, RR: 39
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1757 times:
Isn't the animal genetic material removed from the eggs? I think it would have to be, further ruling out the creation of a "hybrid species" in addition to the fact that none of the cells created are supposed to be implanted in the womb of a woman.
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1749 times:
Quoting Aloges (Reply 3): Isn't the animal genetic material removed from the eggs?
Correct. All the animal DNA from the nucleus is removed.
They aren't trying to produce some kind of human/animal hybrid, they want to be able to create human embryos for experimentation - research into disease basically - and there is a shortage of human embryos. Hence this approach.
It's a matter open to debate, of course, and there are perfectly reasonable arguments against it. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. It's not like they're experimenting on babies, although no doubt some will try to categorise it as such.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Avt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1733 times:
I like the one line about "tampering with nature". Presumably when these critics get sick, they don't take medicine, or have surgery, since that's "tampering with nature".
"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. "
Maybe this guy ought to worry less about the "unborn" and worry more about the "born" children who are suffering with disease and birth defects.