from the world's big
Should We Create Human-Animal Chimeras: Yes or No?
Harvard bioethics specialist Glenn Cohen considers the complex question of whether humans should mix their genetic material with other animals to create chimeras.
Glenn Cohen: So a recent set of controversies has to do with the funding by the federal government about a research that mixes human and animal genetic material sometimes called chimeras, but there's actually a broader – so again, the method is to think about a large number of cases; it's helpful to think about very different cases. So to use some real cases imagine you mixed human brain cells, so human brain stem cells in the embryonic stage into a mouse to create a mouse with a humanized brain and it wouldn't be a human brain. It isn't exactly the same. It's much smaller, for example, but has humanized elements. Another example is imagine you took a gorilla, treated the gorilla exactly as it is but were able to generate a human looking face, so a gorilla with a human face, how would we think about that entity?
Third example, humanized immune system. Took a mouse and we do this with, we have these at Harvard, for example, and created an immune system in order to test drugs, think about HIV, for example, that was humanized. So not the brain but just the immune system was very human like. And last example is actually valve replacements, heart valve replacements. So Jesse Helms, a senator had a pig valve placement years ago so there's a piece of an animal in him. So these are four examples of different kinds of mixing and the question is which are okay and which are not okay? Why can we generate some principles? So what might be wrong with mixing human and animal parts? So one thing that might be wrong is that we think it will confuse the boundaries between humans and animals, that right now we have a pretty clear distinction. Many people love their dogs and their cats like members of the family. They are able to say this is not a member of my family. This is not a member that has the same rights as my family member. In a world where we had much more of a continuum between animals and human beings those distinctions would become difficult. Now just because they become difficult doesn't mean that that's wrong, it just posed for us a new problem. Maybe it would illustrate a problem we should be thinking about all together. So I'm not particularly sympathetic to that argument.
A different arguments though is to say human beings are particular kinds of things with particular kinds of capacities and there's a dignity to being a human being. And if we were to mix enough animal material into a human being the thing that we would have would not be something new but would be a human being that could not flourish as a human being. It would be an undignified human being, a kind of entity that is one of that really is unable to really experience what it is to be human. Now again, you might push on this and say well yes that's true they would not be a human being and they would not necessarily have all the capacities of a human being. So imagine having some of the capacities of a human being being stuck in a rat's body for example. Sure they would be ways in which you would not flourish as a human being, but why not think of you as flourishing as a new kind of entity?
And in particular you might actually think there might be an obligation to create some kinds of chimeras. So if, for example, we think of Big Bird from Sesame Street, it sounds like a silly example but it's a good one right? Big Bird talks. Big Bird has friends. Big Bird goes to school, been at school a long time on Sesame Street I guess, but he seems to have a pretty good life. Imagine if we could take regular birds and turn them into Big Birds by doing something to them. Would we think of that as improving a little bird's life or do we think about that as hurting a human being's life through this mixture? Hard questions, but at least it might be possible that we think we're doing animals a favor by doing this.
And other answers might say it depends a lot on the specifics of the case. There are changes we could make to human beings by mixing in animal DNA that might make them better, and there are changes we could make to human beings that might make them worse and worse from a moral perspective. So, for example, if it turned out that there was, to use an example of the literature, we could give human beings night vision so they could see at night like some animals through mixing in a little animal DNA. You might think that would be great. We could do more search and rescue. We'd be better drivers. There would be less fatalities. On the other hand if the result was to produce human beings that had much stronger aggression or violence or claws or something like that you might think that's worse because we're going to do more harm. And that would suggest that the answer about whether we ought to have chimeras or not and what kind can only be answered in a particularistic way of thinking about a particular case.
I will say, and this is kind of referencing some work by my friend Hank Greely at Stanford, that there are particular kinds of changes which from a sociological perspective seem to bother us more. And he describes them as kind of brains, balls and faces. So brains, it turns out we're very disturbed by the idea of human brains or humanized brains in animals, much more disturbed by the humanized brain in mice than we are by the humanized immune system in mice, for example. The other is balls. We tend to be very nervous when we think about the idea, and this is kind of crazy and out there, imagine you could create an animal that had the ability to reproduce it's gonads, it's reproductive system was human so that you'd have animals mating and producing human beings and animals. That's the kind of thing that I think disturbs a lot of people as an idea. And the last is faces. The idea of having animals with human faces, for example, I think just disturbs a lot of people. Even though you might say a face is a face, but it's a marker of human beings in the way we relate to each other and I think there's just a strong sociological pushback against that.
It is really, really fun when Harvard professors play ‘What If…’. This is a regular part of Glenn Cohen’s work as a law professor specializing in health policy, bioethics and biotech. Invoking the Jurassic Park rule of ‘just because you can, doesn’t mean you should’ and imagining all eventualities is how Cohen explores the fascinating and sometimes twisted intricacies driving our ethical dilemmas.
It’s particularly fun on the topic of chimeras, which broadly defined is research that mixes human and animal genetic material. Cohen lists some real cases as examples: mixing human brain cells into mice brains, or humanizing a mouse’s immune system to carry out studies that yield results relevant to humans. Former U.S. senator Jesse Helms had a pig valve placement in his heart many years ago. To make a more imaginative leap, what about a gorilla with a human face? How would we feel about that?
Cohen discusses a few key ethical arguments surrounding our hesitancy to mix interspecies genetic material, then moves onto a hypothetical concerning Sesame Street’s Big Bird, and surmises that when it comes to this ethical area, decisions can really only be made on a case by case basis. Some changes simply are more unethical or sociologically disturbing to humans, and here Cohen cites his friend and colleague at Stanford Law School, Professor Henry T. Greely, who sums it up nicely with three words: brains, balls, and faces. Those are the things that make us most uncomfortable in genetic mixing, perhaps because they are definitive markers of what it is to be human.
The jury might be out on chimeras, but at least you have some insight into how a bioethicist’s mind works.
Glenn Cohen's book is Patients with Passports: Medical Tourism, Law, and Ethics.
If machines develop consciousness, or if we manage to give it to them, the human-robot dynamic will forever be different.
- Does AI—and, more specifically, conscious AI—deserve moral rights? In this thought exploration, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, ethics and tech professor Joanna Bryson, philosopher and cognitive scientist Susan Schneider, physicist Max Tegmark, philosopher Peter Singer, and bioethicist Glenn Cohen all weigh in on the question of AI rights.
- Given the grave tragedy of slavery throughout human history, philosophers and technologists must answer this question ahead of technological development to avoid humanity creating a slave class of conscious beings.
- One potential safeguard against that? Regulation. Once we define the context in which AI requires rights, the simplest solution may be to not build that thing.
Duke University researchers might have solved a half-century old problem.
- Duke University researchers created a hydrogel that appears to be as strong and flexible as human cartilage.
- The blend of three polymers provides enough flexibility and durability to mimic the knee.
- The next step is to test this hydrogel in sheep; human use can take at least three years.
Duke researchers have developed the first gel-based synthetic cartilage with the strength of the real thing. A quarter-sized disc of the material can withstand the weight of a 100-pound kettlebell without tearing or losing its shape.
Photo: Feichen Yang.<p>That's the word from a team in the Department of Chemistry and Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Duke University. Their <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adfm.202003451" target="_blank">new paper</a>, published in the journal,<em> Advanced Functional Materials</em>, details this exciting evolution of this frustrating joint.<br></p><p>Researchers have sought materials strong and versatile enough to repair a knee since at least the seventies. This new hydrogel, comprised of three polymers, might be it. When two of the polymers are stretched, a third keeps the entire structure intact. When pulled 100,000 times, the cartilage held up as well as materials used in bone implants. The team also rubbed the hydrogel against natural cartilage a million times and found it to be as wear-resistant as the real thing. </p><p>The hydrogel has the appearance of Jell-O and is comprised of 60 percent water. Co-author, Feichen Yang, <a href="https://today.duke.edu/2020/06/lab-first-cartilage-mimicking-gel-strong-enough-knees" target="_blank">says</a> this network of polymers is particularly durable: "Only this combination of all three components is both flexible and stiff and therefore strong." </p><p> As with any new material, a lot of testing must be conducted. They don't foresee this hydrogel being implanted into human bodies for at least three years. The next step is to test it out in sheep. </p><p>Still, this is an exciting step forward in the rehabilitation of one of our trickiest joints. Given the potential reward, the wait is worth it. </p><p><span></span>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://derekberes.substack.com/" target="_blank">Substack</a>. His next book is</em> "<em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</em></p>
What would it be like to experience the 4th dimension?
Physicists have understood at least theoretically, that there may be higher dimensions, besides our normal three. The first clue came in 1905 when Einstein developed his theory of special relativity. Of course, by dimensions we’re talking about length, width, and height. Generally speaking, when we talk about a fourth dimension, it’s considered space-time. But here, physicists mean a spatial dimension beyond the normal three, not a parallel universe, as such dimensions are mistaken for in popular sci-fi shows.
An algorithm may allow doctors to assess PTSD candidates for early intervention after traumatic ER visits.
- 10-15% of people visiting emergency rooms eventually develop symptoms of long-lasting PTSD.
- Early treatment is available but there's been no way to tell who needs it.
- Using clinical data already being collected, machine learning can identify who's at risk.
The psychological scars a traumatic experience can leave behind may have a more profound effect on a person than the original traumatic experience. Long after an acute emergency is resolved, victims of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) continue to suffer its consequences.
In the U.S. some 30 million patients are annually treated in emergency departments (EDs) for a range of traumatic injuries. Add to that urgent admissions to the ED with the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Health experts predict that some 10 percent to 15 percent of these people will develop long-lasting PTSD within a year of the initial incident. While there are interventions that can help individuals avoid PTSD, there's been no reliable way to identify those most likely to need it.
That may now have changed. A multi-disciplinary team of researchers has developed a method for predicting who is most likely to develop PTSD after a traumatic emergency-room experience. Their study is published in the journal Nature Medicine.
70 data points and machine learning
Image source: Creators Collective/Unsplash
Study lead author Katharina Schultebraucks of Columbia University's Department Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons says:
"For many trauma patients, the ED visit is often their sole contact with the health care system. The time immediately after a traumatic injury is a critical window for identifying people at risk for PTSD and arranging appropriate follow-up treatment. The earlier we can treat those at risk, the better the likely outcomes."
The new PTSD test uses machine learning and 70 clinical data points plus a clinical stress-level assessment to develop a PTSD score for an individual that identifies their risk of acquiring the condition.
Among the 70 data points are stress hormone levels, inflammatory signals, high blood pressure, and an anxiety-level assessment. Says Schultebraucks, "We selected measures that are routinely collected in the ED and logged in the electronic medical record, plus answers to a few short questions about the psychological stress response. The idea was to create a tool that would be universally available and would add little burden to ED personnel."
Researchers used data from adult trauma survivors in Atlanta, Georgia (377 individuals) and New York City (221 individuals) to test their system.
Of this cohort, 90 percent of those predicted to be at high risk developed long-lasting PTSD symptoms within a year of the initial traumatic event — just 5 percent of people who never developed PTSD symptoms had been erroneously identified as being at risk.
On the other side of the coin, 29 percent of individuals were 'false negatives," tagged by the algorithm as not being at risk of PTSD, but then developing symptoms.
Image source: Külli Kittus/Unsplash
Schultebraucks looks forward to more testing as the researchers continue to refine their algorithm and to instill confidence in the approach among ED clinicians: "Because previous models for predicting PTSD risk have not been validated in independent samples like our model, they haven't been adopted in clinical practice." She expects that, "Testing and validation of our model in larger samples will be necessary for the algorithm to be ready-to-use in the general population."
"Currently only 7% of level-1 trauma centers routinely screen for PTSD," notes Schultebraucks. "We hope that the algorithm will provide ED clinicians with a rapid, automatic readout that they could use for discharge planning and the prevention of PTSD." She envisions the algorithm being implemented in the future as a feature of electronic medical records.
The researchers also plan to test their algorithm at predicting PTSD in people whose traumatic experiences come in the form of health events such as heart attacks and strokes, as opposed to visits to the emergency department.