David:
In January, scientists at the privately-funded Salk Institute created a human-pig chimera with the idea of growing organs to use in patients waiting for transplants. What do you think are the ethical considerations that should be addressed before research like this proceeds farther? I think we may find quite a bit of common ground on this subject.
Doug:
Aren't there already ethical standards in place that address this? You think we need more regulation not less? I must admit that I have no idea what your beliefs may end up being on this topic. Do share!
David:
There are not ethical standards in place for chimeras. That's one reason why this is such big news.
Doug:
I find it hard to believe that there are no standards in place for manipulating cells like these. We have been doing stem-cell research for years. Wouldn't such standards apply here?
David:
Stem cells have been used for gene therapy, and have even been modified into rudimentary tissue cells, but this is not the same. This is creating a human / animal hybrid that is then harvested for parts after they have developed. Some scientists have already raised the issue as to whether or not a chimera with human DNA might be considered human, and therefore need to be considered to have some "rights". How much human tissue does a chimera need to have to be considered human?
Doug:
Who are these scientists that claim DNA has "rights"? The article that you linked to isn't by "some scientists" but rather an undergraduate student (Jielin Yu) writing for a class assignment. It is a well-written paper. But I don't think that is what you want to cite. It brings up some good arguments, but we don't know if this is an accurate portrayal of the current state of the science, nor if this an accurate assessment of current scientific consensus.
David:
Well-written good arguments, that you apparently choose to toss aside. Discussing coming to a consensus is just what I'm proposing. You surely understand that introducing human DNA into animals has greater ramifications than just mixing random DNA. Even if you don't find that to be an ethical issue, you know that others do.
Doug:
I didn't toss it aside. I read it. It is well-written. I just don't know if it reflects the opinion of experts in the field. Did it leave out important criteria? Did it simplify some arguments? Did it misrepresent some data? That is why I would not use it in an important argument. The source matters. The undergraduate report isn't "fake" but there are surely better sources.
David:
I can agree with that.
Here are some more opinions:
https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/26/chimera-humans-animals-ethics/
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/01/30/human-pig-chimera-ethics-medical-promise-growing-human-organs-animals/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/545106/human-animal-chimeras-are-gestating-on-us-research-farms/
“We are not near the island of Dr. Moreau, but science moves fast,” NIH ethicist David Resnik said during the agency’s November meeting. “The specter of an intelligent mouse stuck in a laboratory somewhere screaming ‘I want to get out’ would be very troubling to people.”
Doug:
Now that is what I am talking about! If you had a talking mouse (regardless of its DNA) it would be hard to ignore. One is not treated humanely because of some threshold of DNA percentage. One is "human" based on many properties, but none that I would put on the measure of your DNA.
David:
I find that curious. What then, would make one human, if not the makeup of your DNA? And to change the question a bit, how much DNA from another source would you need to introduce before one might not be considered human? Is there a number? For instance, if you create a chimera with 50% human DNA, and 50% porcine DNA, does it have any standing as a human? What if that number is 90% human, or only 0.9%?
Doug:
If a creature (or autonomous robot for that matter) exhibited human behavior, then I don't think that we would treat it any differently than one treats you or me. I have no idea how much human DNA you (or I) have without having tests run. So, as I said, that isn't the most important criteria for considering one a human. But I will still treat you like a human, regardless of how the test come back.
David:
You have 100% human DNA. Did you skip basic biology?
Doug:
I even teach basic biology.
David:
I don't understand how that's possible. Hey, maybe I can get a college gig teaching computer science.
Doug:
I don't think that I have ever, even in private or as a joke, questioned your professional qualifications. Perhaps you just see this is as a natural escalation of rhetoric? Cast doubt on other's qualifications? Perhaps you just think this is funny, a little light-hearted poke? I don't get it. Perhaps you really feel this way? Perhaps it is partially an attempt to denigrate college education? I have no idea, and if I don't know then I suspect anyone reading this doesn't know either. You cannot get a job teaching computer science. But I really did co-teach an introduction to Biology and Computer Science (a course that satisfied the requirements for Introduction to Biology and Introduction to Computer Science). As far as I know, this is only the second course in the nation like this. The fact that I co-developed and co-taught this course shouldn't be interpreted by you as me claiming more than just that. I'm not saying anything about your qualifications.
David:
First, as a physician, I recommend you cut back on your caffeine intake. Waaaay back.
Doug:
Is that because I you think that I shouldn't defend my professional work? You want to claim that my reaction is unreasonable? If I just drank less caffeine then I would agree with you? Or I would just take you at your word and just let you claim things that aren't true? You can't imagine yourself teaching computer science, therefore you can't imagine me teaching biology. But you could teach computer science if you study it. And caffeine can indeed help when you are studying.
David:
I can't imagine myself teaching computer science because I'm under the impression that college courses are taught by people who received their degrees in that particular subject. I think most people who read your comment came away asking the same question that I did: How can Bryn Mawr College have Doug Blank, with a phD in computer science, teach biology? Do many universities have professors teach outside of their area of expertise? How is that possible? It turns out it isn't. You've created a fairly unique educational chimera. You've combined a computer science class with a biology class, and you're teaching it with another professor, who appears to be a biologist. Bryn Mawr has decided that this educational hybrid meets the qualifications of both sciences for students to get either credit for biology and/or computer science. Truly, the class sounds interesting, but it appears you are still teaching computer science, not biology. The biologist is teaching the biology. My question was how can a professor teach a class outside of his area of specialty at the college level. I'm not questioning your qualifications or your work. Your complicated explanation provides a great deal more information than your simple statement, which appears inexact at best.
Doug:
You threw an insult because you don't understand my argument.
David:
I didn't insult you at all. You seem to have perceived an insult, but that is different than me "throwing an insult".
Doug:
You're assaulting my credentials to diminish my point of view. Biology and computer science have a lot in common. First, computer science uses many biological metaphors (such as evolution and neural networks, two areas that I have been studying for 20 years). But also, many ideas from computer science can be applied to biological systems (including the idea of "information" and "computing" itself). Areas of specialty cut across many of the artificial borders between departments and topics. For example, you can study DNA computing. Our Bio+CS chimera course wouldn't be very good if the computer science and biology weren't integrated at a deep level. So, yes, I did indeed teach biology. By the way, my Ph.D. is a joint Ph.D. in Cognitive Science and Computer Science, another useful chimera.
David:
I appreciate your very vigorous defense. However, you're defending yourself against, well, nothing. The attack and insult is imagined by your caffeine-hopped-up mind. I'm not attacking you, your credentials, your class, or anything else. I think it's wonderful that Bryn Mawr allows their computer scientists to teach biology. And I don't believe for a minute that students get credit towards their biology degree because of the biology professor.
I've said it many times before: You're very, very smart and gifted. No insult was intended at all. You're reading between the lines, and finding things that just are not there. Now, go soak your head in a bucket of ice water, take a deep breath, and just chill out. (Don't take the deep breath while your head is still in the bucket. A humanoid robot won't drown, but a human such as yourself just might. That's my biology tip-of-the-day.)
Doug:
Another possibility: attacking me on my credentials was a mistake, and you could just apologize. Or you could double-down and argue that people have specialties and they should stay there. You did that. Finally, you can get tell me to chill out, and then move on. Perhaps you have accomplished your goal: make some people doubt that I really do have a valid opinion on this matter. A preemptive strike, because I haven't even said what my opinion is!
David:
At this rate, you never will.
Doug:
Trust me, I'd rather get the topic than having to defend "my gig." I take your comments seriously. So, I now can't tell if you think that I am purposefully not trying to answer the question, or if you don't want me to take your comments seriously. To me, this looks very similar to what Kellyanne Conway relies on: there is not enough time nor energy to refute/explore every quip she makes. But this isn't live TV, and I am not a interviewer with a fixed time slot. We can dissect your ideas and comments completely.
David:
You seem to be infatuated with Ms. Conway. You bring her up in every blog.
I'm truly sorry that you think I've insulted you. If we were together having a conversation, rather than blogging long-distance, you would see that. I'm sorry I've questioned Bryn Mawr's educational decisions to let professors teach other sciences, rather than employing specialists in that field. I enjoy your opinions. Now, let's please return to the topic at hand.
Doug:
Aw, you're just trying to keep the conversation on track. And you're sorry you questioned my employer (but still slighting me as a non-expert in CS + Biology) because that somehow got the conversation de-railed. And now you're begging me, begging me, please don't stray, even in my caffeine-induced frenzy. It seems like it would be easier for you to ask "what do you mean?" rather than to claim "it is impossible for you to have taught a Biology course."
David:
I am trying to keep the conversation on track. By the way, the comment you have placed in quotes wasn't said by anyone. It's only a quote in your mind, which is probably why you believe you were insulted, even though you weren't.
Doug:
Of course, you missed my point: if a you had a conversation over the phone with someone (say, a talking mouse), you have no idea what percentage of their DNA is human. You don't even know if they have DNA. Did you not see the Imitation Game? Good movie based on the life of one of the founders of Computer Science. Alan Turing proposed a game (The Imitation Game) to demonstrate what I just suggested.
David:
But a robot isn't human, even if it acted like one. Siri isn't human. An image of a person in a movie is not an actual human. What criteria do you use to determine whether someone is human? Or some other species for that matter? And I'm not talking about how you treat someone or something. A machine isn't human. But a creature composed partly of human DNA could be.
Doug:
You should watch the movie, for a few reasons. I'm not arguing that a robot is human, but that there could be cases where we should treat it as such, like the talking mouse. On the other hand, there are many cases where one has 100% human DNA, but that doesn't give them the same "rights" as others (like during "wartime"). In fact, one might not have any rights. I'm sure you can think of some examples.
David:
Treating something as human is not the same as that thing being human.
Doug:
Also add Blade Runner to your list of movies to watch. Of course, this is fiction, but very thoughtful fiction. And to me, there is more essence of truth in Blade Runner than there is in our legal system, for example.
David:
You've developed your sense of ethics from Hollywood? Don't forget the T-800 Model 101 Terminator and Hal 9000. In the end, they were only machines (that killed people).
Doug:
What is a machine? A mechanical device. You are "only a machine" right? You aren't going to like this, but I have also taught a course on all of these movies: Robots Gone Berserk: A Look at Robots in Films. I've thought a lot about this issue. I believe that Alan Turing was right: it is behavior that makes us (and them) human.
David:
We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I believe we all have a soul.
Doug:
Is this "soul" in your DNA? Do chimps have souls? Would you still have your soul if your neurons were copied into a computer? These might be interesting questions, but they aren't scientific questions. Let's stick to reality for the moment and just consider DNA.
David:
While I agree that being human is more than just having human DNA, not having human DNA excludes you from the club. Human DNA is a foundational element of humans.
I can understand your point of view. If I didn't believe in God as our creator, I might also believe we are no more than a sum of our parts, a complicated machine acting out programs. But I do believe God created us, and we are not machines.
Doug:
Couldn't both be true: God made you, and you are a machine? In any event, if we are going to create policies that are rooted in one particular religion, then you could imagine that not everyone is going to agree with it.
David:
Actually, that belief is rooted in all major religions. While you may not agree with that, the majority of the world does agree with it.
I agree not everyone has the same rights. But the question at hand is should we create a creature that has human DNA for the sole purpose of harvesting it for parts. Would you harvest another human for parts? What if the other person had 90% human DNA? 75%?
Doug:
We treat some 100% human people as if they have no rights. I don't think it has anything to do with their DNA. Would I "harvest" from another "human"? I think it depends on many things (such as how you define "harvest" and "human"), but again I don't think the percentage of DNA matters.
David:
Stem-cell biologists doing this research disagree with you.
Doug:
Which part of what I have said would they disagree with? Do you speak for all of them? Maybe some would agree with me?
David:
Hiromitsu Nakauchi, a stem-cell biologist at Stanford University, began trying to make human-sheep chimeras this year. He says that so far the contribution by human cells to the animals’ bodies appears to be relatively small. “If the extent of human cells is 0.5 percent, it’s very unlikely to get thinking pigs or standing sheep,” he says. “But if it’s large, like 40 percent, then we’d have to do something about that.”
Doug:
I bet he would also argue that it would depend on which 40%. Again, I would point to behavior as to what makes us human.
David:
My question to him is, "What are you going to do about that?"
Doug:
We could ask him.
David:
Perhaps we should. Someone should decide what to do about that, before that becomes reality and it's too late to make those types of decisions.
Doug:
Whoa, there. I don't think "someone" should decide. I merely meant that we could ask him more about what his opinion is. I find it ironic that you're worried about something becoming reality. Understanding the idea of "reality" doesn't seem to be your highest priority. I'm not meaning to be insulting, I just mean it as a fact: if something (like God) is a core part of your life, and there is no evidence for it, then the idea of "reality" is one not based on "real." But we can discuss that in another post.
David:
I think we should be having that discussion now, before we start making these animal-human chimeras. So far, you haven't even slightly touched on answering the question. Scientists are currently mixing animal and human DNA together to create a creature specifically for organ harvesting. That is the plan. That is their goal. My question to you is do you think that is ethical? Is it moral? (I'm almost afraid to ask further how you define "human").
Doug:
Yes, I absolutely believe that creating chimera's could be ethical and moral. In fact, if such research could save "humans", then I believe it is imperative. Don't be afraid to ask me to define "human"... you can handle it.
David:
The issue also comes into play when we talk about elephants. Asian elephants to be specific. Scientists are currently working to insert Wooly Mammoth Genes into Asian Elephant embryos. The resulting hybrid would in theory be heartier than the endangered Asian elephants. But that seems to actually hasten the end of Asian elephants, as the hybrids that would replace them wouldn't be Asian elephants anymore. Nor would they be Asian elephants. They would be something else. In this instance, the amount of foreign DNA certainly has an impact on what the resulting creature is.
Doug:
This article is from "history.com," also not a place I would hang an argument. That is the same site that explores the ideas that aliens have been visiting earth for many generations. But why would a new creature have to replace the old one?
David:
A species' DNA is what separates that species from another. Traits are expressions of genes, which are controlled by DNA. Change the DNA, you change the traits expressed, and you change the species. That's a somewhat simplified explanation, but that's basically how it works.
Doug:
Creating a new species doesn't mean that the old species is replaced. Both species could exist.
David:
True, but the point of this research is to introduce mammoth DNA into the gene pool with the idea it would save Asian elephants by replacing them with the hybrid.
Doug:
Of course, gene therapy and genetically manipulated organisms (GMO) are in existence today. It seems that the same ethical principles should be applied to all of these cases: humans, elephants, and tomatoes.
David:
GMO's are not the same as chimeras at all, although some of the techniques being used are comparable. Modifying an organism so that it resist bacteria better, or is larger or more colorful has been going on since the days of Gregor Mendel. GMO foods make that process of selective breeding occur much faster within a lab. But a tomato remains a tomato. Chimeras are different, and involve putting the DNA from two totally different species together as a hybrid organism, with each species maintaining distinctive properties.
Doug:
Using the same ethical principles on GMO and chimeras doesn't mean that they are literally the same. But these issues could be seen as similar at a more abstract level. "Putting the DNA from two different species together" could describe the creation of GMOs or chimeras. Why couldn't similar ethical principles apply?
David:
That is the core of the issue. Does introducing human DNA into another species create ethical dilemmas? You seem to be very comfortable with the idea, while I am not comfortable at all. And neither of us is alone in our differing thoughts. What I'm asking for is a thorough discussion to occur before the cat-dog-human is out of the bag. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it should be done. The means don't neccessarily justify the ends. We're moving beyond the world of the abstract into the realm of reality. And we're moving very quickly.
Doug:
I think the ethics of how we treat Artificially Intelligent (AI) systems should also be considered more deeply than just your superficial "robots aren't human" dismissal. This is a growing ethical issue, I believe, of which we are on the threshold.
David:
I think we can agree then, that there are ethical issues at hand that should be developed more fully. You seem more concerned with whether or not your robot get's it's feelings hurt, than with harvesting the heart, lungs, and liver from a partially-human creature that was designed solely for that purpose. Yet both of these issues can have deep ethical concerns. It would seem that now, before we get to a point of no return, we should slow things down, and make sure the decisions are well thought out.
Doug:
It is clear that I do have a different sense of these issues than you. Too bad that you only want to express your condescension on these ideas rather than asking me about them. You have honed your skills at turning what could be a thoughtful discussion into a caricature. Leveled-up!
David:
So says the man who uses Hollywood movies as the basis of his moral compass. You show righteous indignity when you misinterpreted my earlier comments as an insult, and then you turn around and blatantly insult me. I guess that's your strategy to discredit my side of the discussion by calling it a caricature. Or maybe you really do believe that all conservatives go back to our caves at night, and polish our guns by the light of burning science books. Go stick your head in that bucket again.
Doug:
Those movies can provide an easy introduction to the ideas. I can provide a reading list for detailed analysis. As I have mentioned, I don't think asking about the percentage of human DNA is the right question. I'm not even sure it makes sense as a question. I'm not sure how you would measure it (in a meaningful way) in a chimera. But since you asked it, I suspect that you have a percentage in mind. Or do you believe that mixing in even a touch of human DNA is unethical?
David:
Your theory that your DNA doesn't have anything to do with your species puzzles me, but I do feel it is unethical and immoral to introduce human DNA into an animal to create a chimera.
Doug:
I didn't give a theory, and I didn't say that anything about species. I said that being treated as "human" (or not) has little to do with DNA.
David:
But there are still questions that will need answered. If a majority of people feel the same way I do, or if they feel as you do, how do we decide how to move forward? What if scientists are split in their opinion? What if there is no consensus? Do we just go forward with the research? Does this process make humans less of a species? Less unique? Could a progressive mixing of the gene pool result in some very questionable ethical and unintended consequences down the road?
As much of this research is now privately funded, who can delay or even stop it if ethicists and scientists reach a consensus that it is ethically wrong?
“We don’t want to grow them to stages we don’t need to, since that would be more controversial,” says Pablo Ross, a veterinarian and developmental biologist at the University of California, Davis, where some of the animals are being housed. “My view is that the contribution of human cells is going to be minimal, maybe 3 percent, maybe 5 percent. But what if they contributed to 100 percent of the brain? What if the embryo that develops is mostly human? It’s something that we don’t expect, but no one has done this experiment, so we can’t rule it out.”
In other words, they don't think it will happen, unless it does. We should have this discussion now, before this happens.
Doug:
Sure, I think that is a good idea. But you might have to consider that the result might not be what you agree with.
David:
That's possible, but first, the discussion has to occur. Right now, scientists are just pushing full-steam ahead. Their actions are moving faster than the debate.
Doug:
You never really considered my idea that it doesn't matter how much "human" DNA is used. (I put human in quotes because, we share a lot of DNA with other organisms. It could be that DNA taken from a human could be taken from other creatures as well). It really is an issue of how much that would influence the behavior of the creature. For example, if a creature had 80% "human" DNA, but that the brain was still 100% pig, then it might not be as large of a concern. Also, chimpanzees have much the same DNA as humans. You could probably tweak a chimp's DNA into becoming more "human" (I know you have seen Planet of the Apes, another useful movie.) The possibilities are almost endless, and we have just started to examine them.
In January, scientists at the privately-funded Salk Institute created a human-pig chimera with the idea of growing organs to use in patients waiting for transplants. What do you think are the ethical considerations that should be addressed before research like this proceeds farther? I think we may find quite a bit of common ground on this subject.
Doug:
Aren't there already ethical standards in place that address this? You think we need more regulation not less? I must admit that I have no idea what your beliefs may end up being on this topic. Do share!
David:
There are not ethical standards in place for chimeras. That's one reason why this is such big news.
Doug:
I find it hard to believe that there are no standards in place for manipulating cells like these. We have been doing stem-cell research for years. Wouldn't such standards apply here?
David:
Stem cells have been used for gene therapy, and have even been modified into rudimentary tissue cells, but this is not the same. This is creating a human / animal hybrid that is then harvested for parts after they have developed. Some scientists have already raised the issue as to whether or not a chimera with human DNA might be considered human, and therefore need to be considered to have some "rights". How much human tissue does a chimera need to have to be considered human?
Doug:
Who are these scientists that claim DNA has "rights"? The article that you linked to isn't by "some scientists" but rather an undergraduate student (Jielin Yu) writing for a class assignment. It is a well-written paper. But I don't think that is what you want to cite. It brings up some good arguments, but we don't know if this is an accurate portrayal of the current state of the science, nor if this an accurate assessment of current scientific consensus.
David:
Well-written good arguments, that you apparently choose to toss aside. Discussing coming to a consensus is just what I'm proposing. You surely understand that introducing human DNA into animals has greater ramifications than just mixing random DNA. Even if you don't find that to be an ethical issue, you know that others do.
Doug:
I didn't toss it aside. I read it. It is well-written. I just don't know if it reflects the opinion of experts in the field. Did it leave out important criteria? Did it simplify some arguments? Did it misrepresent some data? That is why I would not use it in an important argument. The source matters. The undergraduate report isn't "fake" but there are surely better sources.
David:
I can agree with that.
Here are some more opinions:
https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/26/chimera-humans-animals-ethics/
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/01/30/human-pig-chimera-ethics-medical-promise-growing-human-organs-animals/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/545106/human-animal-chimeras-are-gestating-on-us-research-farms/
“We are not near the island of Dr. Moreau, but science moves fast,” NIH ethicist David Resnik said during the agency’s November meeting. “The specter of an intelligent mouse stuck in a laboratory somewhere screaming ‘I want to get out’ would be very troubling to people.”
Doug:
Now that is what I am talking about! If you had a talking mouse (regardless of its DNA) it would be hard to ignore. One is not treated humanely because of some threshold of DNA percentage. One is "human" based on many properties, but none that I would put on the measure of your DNA.
 |
| From: https://twitter.com/dataandme/status/834003609016729600/photo/1 |
David:
I find that curious. What then, would make one human, if not the makeup of your DNA? And to change the question a bit, how much DNA from another source would you need to introduce before one might not be considered human? Is there a number? For instance, if you create a chimera with 50% human DNA, and 50% porcine DNA, does it have any standing as a human? What if that number is 90% human, or only 0.9%?
Doug:
If a creature (or autonomous robot for that matter) exhibited human behavior, then I don't think that we would treat it any differently than one treats you or me. I have no idea how much human DNA you (or I) have without having tests run. So, as I said, that isn't the most important criteria for considering one a human. But I will still treat you like a human, regardless of how the test come back.
David:
You have 100% human DNA. Did you skip basic biology?
Doug:
I even teach basic biology.
David:
I don't understand how that's possible. Hey, maybe I can get a college gig teaching computer science.
Doug:
I don't think that I have ever, even in private or as a joke, questioned your professional qualifications. Perhaps you just see this is as a natural escalation of rhetoric? Cast doubt on other's qualifications? Perhaps you just think this is funny, a little light-hearted poke? I don't get it. Perhaps you really feel this way? Perhaps it is partially an attempt to denigrate college education? I have no idea, and if I don't know then I suspect anyone reading this doesn't know either. You cannot get a job teaching computer science. But I really did co-teach an introduction to Biology and Computer Science (a course that satisfied the requirements for Introduction to Biology and Introduction to Computer Science). As far as I know, this is only the second course in the nation like this. The fact that I co-developed and co-taught this course shouldn't be interpreted by you as me claiming more than just that. I'm not saying anything about your qualifications.
David:
First, as a physician, I recommend you cut back on your caffeine intake. Waaaay back.
Doug:
Is that because I you think that I shouldn't defend my professional work? You want to claim that my reaction is unreasonable? If I just drank less caffeine then I would agree with you? Or I would just take you at your word and just let you claim things that aren't true? You can't imagine yourself teaching computer science, therefore you can't imagine me teaching biology. But you could teach computer science if you study it. And caffeine can indeed help when you are studying.
David:
I can't imagine myself teaching computer science because I'm under the impression that college courses are taught by people who received their degrees in that particular subject. I think most people who read your comment came away asking the same question that I did: How can Bryn Mawr College have Doug Blank, with a phD in computer science, teach biology? Do many universities have professors teach outside of their area of expertise? How is that possible? It turns out it isn't. You've created a fairly unique educational chimera. You've combined a computer science class with a biology class, and you're teaching it with another professor, who appears to be a biologist. Bryn Mawr has decided that this educational hybrid meets the qualifications of both sciences for students to get either credit for biology and/or computer science. Truly, the class sounds interesting, but it appears you are still teaching computer science, not biology. The biologist is teaching the biology. My question was how can a professor teach a class outside of his area of specialty at the college level. I'm not questioning your qualifications or your work. Your complicated explanation provides a great deal more information than your simple statement, which appears inexact at best.
Doug:
You threw an insult because you don't understand my argument.
David:
I didn't insult you at all. You seem to have perceived an insult, but that is different than me "throwing an insult".
Doug:
You're assaulting my credentials to diminish my point of view. Biology and computer science have a lot in common. First, computer science uses many biological metaphors (such as evolution and neural networks, two areas that I have been studying for 20 years). But also, many ideas from computer science can be applied to biological systems (including the idea of "information" and "computing" itself). Areas of specialty cut across many of the artificial borders between departments and topics. For example, you can study DNA computing. Our Bio+CS chimera course wouldn't be very good if the computer science and biology weren't integrated at a deep level. So, yes, I did indeed teach biology. By the way, my Ph.D. is a joint Ph.D. in Cognitive Science and Computer Science, another useful chimera.
David:
I appreciate your very vigorous defense. However, you're defending yourself against, well, nothing. The attack and insult is imagined by your caffeine-hopped-up mind. I'm not attacking you, your credentials, your class, or anything else. I think it's wonderful that Bryn Mawr allows their computer scientists to teach biology. And I don't believe for a minute that students get credit towards their biology degree because of the biology professor.
I've said it many times before: You're very, very smart and gifted. No insult was intended at all. You're reading between the lines, and finding things that just are not there. Now, go soak your head in a bucket of ice water, take a deep breath, and just chill out. (Don't take the deep breath while your head is still in the bucket. A humanoid robot won't drown, but a human such as yourself just might. That's my biology tip-of-the-day.)
Doug:
Another possibility: attacking me on my credentials was a mistake, and you could just apologize. Or you could double-down and argue that people have specialties and they should stay there. You did that. Finally, you can get tell me to chill out, and then move on. Perhaps you have accomplished your goal: make some people doubt that I really do have a valid opinion on this matter. A preemptive strike, because I haven't even said what my opinion is!
David:
At this rate, you never will.
Doug:
Trust me, I'd rather get the topic than having to defend "my gig." I take your comments seriously. So, I now can't tell if you think that I am purposefully not trying to answer the question, or if you don't want me to take your comments seriously. To me, this looks very similar to what Kellyanne Conway relies on: there is not enough time nor energy to refute/explore every quip she makes. But this isn't live TV, and I am not a interviewer with a fixed time slot. We can dissect your ideas and comments completely.
David:
You seem to be infatuated with Ms. Conway. You bring her up in every blog.
I'm truly sorry that you think I've insulted you. If we were together having a conversation, rather than blogging long-distance, you would see that. I'm sorry I've questioned Bryn Mawr's educational decisions to let professors teach other sciences, rather than employing specialists in that field. I enjoy your opinions. Now, let's please return to the topic at hand.
Doug:
Aw, you're just trying to keep the conversation on track. And you're sorry you questioned my employer (but still slighting me as a non-expert in CS + Biology) because that somehow got the conversation de-railed. And now you're begging me, begging me, please don't stray, even in my caffeine-induced frenzy. It seems like it would be easier for you to ask "what do you mean?" rather than to claim "it is impossible for you to have taught a Biology course."
David:
I am trying to keep the conversation on track. By the way, the comment you have placed in quotes wasn't said by anyone. It's only a quote in your mind, which is probably why you believe you were insulted, even though you weren't.
Doug:
Of course, you missed my point: if a you had a conversation over the phone with someone (say, a talking mouse), you have no idea what percentage of their DNA is human. You don't even know if they have DNA. Did you not see the Imitation Game? Good movie based on the life of one of the founders of Computer Science. Alan Turing proposed a game (The Imitation Game) to demonstrate what I just suggested.
David:
But a robot isn't human, even if it acted like one. Siri isn't human. An image of a person in a movie is not an actual human. What criteria do you use to determine whether someone is human? Or some other species for that matter? And I'm not talking about how you treat someone or something. A machine isn't human. But a creature composed partly of human DNA could be.
Doug:
You should watch the movie, for a few reasons. I'm not arguing that a robot is human, but that there could be cases where we should treat it as such, like the talking mouse. On the other hand, there are many cases where one has 100% human DNA, but that doesn't give them the same "rights" as others (like during "wartime"). In fact, one might not have any rights. I'm sure you can think of some examples.
David:
Treating something as human is not the same as that thing being human.
Doug:
Also add Blade Runner to your list of movies to watch. Of course, this is fiction, but very thoughtful fiction. And to me, there is more essence of truth in Blade Runner than there is in our legal system, for example.
David:
You've developed your sense of ethics from Hollywood? Don't forget the T-800 Model 101 Terminator and Hal 9000. In the end, they were only machines (that killed people).
Doug:
What is a machine? A mechanical device. You are "only a machine" right? You aren't going to like this, but I have also taught a course on all of these movies: Robots Gone Berserk: A Look at Robots in Films. I've thought a lot about this issue. I believe that Alan Turing was right: it is behavior that makes us (and them) human.
David:
We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I believe we all have a soul.
Doug:
Is this "soul" in your DNA? Do chimps have souls? Would you still have your soul if your neurons were copied into a computer? These might be interesting questions, but they aren't scientific questions. Let's stick to reality for the moment and just consider DNA.
David:
While I agree that being human is more than just having human DNA, not having human DNA excludes you from the club. Human DNA is a foundational element of humans.
I can understand your point of view. If I didn't believe in God as our creator, I might also believe we are no more than a sum of our parts, a complicated machine acting out programs. But I do believe God created us, and we are not machines.
Doug:
Couldn't both be true: God made you, and you are a machine? In any event, if we are going to create policies that are rooted in one particular religion, then you could imagine that not everyone is going to agree with it.
David:
Actually, that belief is rooted in all major religions. While you may not agree with that, the majority of the world does agree with it.
I agree not everyone has the same rights. But the question at hand is should we create a creature that has human DNA for the sole purpose of harvesting it for parts. Would you harvest another human for parts? What if the other person had 90% human DNA? 75%?
Doug:
We treat some 100% human people as if they have no rights. I don't think it has anything to do with their DNA. Would I "harvest" from another "human"? I think it depends on many things (such as how you define "harvest" and "human"), but again I don't think the percentage of DNA matters.
David:
Stem-cell biologists doing this research disagree with you.
Doug:
Which part of what I have said would they disagree with? Do you speak for all of them? Maybe some would agree with me?
David:
Hiromitsu Nakauchi, a stem-cell biologist at Stanford University, began trying to make human-sheep chimeras this year. He says that so far the contribution by human cells to the animals’ bodies appears to be relatively small. “If the extent of human cells is 0.5 percent, it’s very unlikely to get thinking pigs or standing sheep,” he says. “But if it’s large, like 40 percent, then we’d have to do something about that.”
Doug:
I bet he would also argue that it would depend on which 40%. Again, I would point to behavior as to what makes us human.
David:
My question to him is, "What are you going to do about that?"
Doug:
We could ask him.
David:
Perhaps we should. Someone should decide what to do about that, before that becomes reality and it's too late to make those types of decisions.
Doug:
Whoa, there. I don't think "someone" should decide. I merely meant that we could ask him more about what his opinion is. I find it ironic that you're worried about something becoming reality. Understanding the idea of "reality" doesn't seem to be your highest priority. I'm not meaning to be insulting, I just mean it as a fact: if something (like God) is a core part of your life, and there is no evidence for it, then the idea of "reality" is one not based on "real." But we can discuss that in another post.
David:
I think we should be having that discussion now, before we start making these animal-human chimeras. So far, you haven't even slightly touched on answering the question. Scientists are currently mixing animal and human DNA together to create a creature specifically for organ harvesting. That is the plan. That is their goal. My question to you is do you think that is ethical? Is it moral? (I'm almost afraid to ask further how you define "human").
Doug:
Yes, I absolutely believe that creating chimera's could be ethical and moral. In fact, if such research could save "humans", then I believe it is imperative. Don't be afraid to ask me to define "human"... you can handle it.
David:
The issue also comes into play when we talk about elephants. Asian elephants to be specific. Scientists are currently working to insert Wooly Mammoth Genes into Asian Elephant embryos. The resulting hybrid would in theory be heartier than the endangered Asian elephants. But that seems to actually hasten the end of Asian elephants, as the hybrids that would replace them wouldn't be Asian elephants anymore. Nor would they be Asian elephants. They would be something else. In this instance, the amount of foreign DNA certainly has an impact on what the resulting creature is.
Doug:
This article is from "history.com," also not a place I would hang an argument. That is the same site that explores the ideas that aliens have been visiting earth for many generations. But why would a new creature have to replace the old one?
David:
A species' DNA is what separates that species from another. Traits are expressions of genes, which are controlled by DNA. Change the DNA, you change the traits expressed, and you change the species. That's a somewhat simplified explanation, but that's basically how it works.
Doug:
Creating a new species doesn't mean that the old species is replaced. Both species could exist.
David:
True, but the point of this research is to introduce mammoth DNA into the gene pool with the idea it would save Asian elephants by replacing them with the hybrid.
Doug:
Of course, gene therapy and genetically manipulated organisms (GMO) are in existence today. It seems that the same ethical principles should be applied to all of these cases: humans, elephants, and tomatoes.
David:
GMO's are not the same as chimeras at all, although some of the techniques being used are comparable. Modifying an organism so that it resist bacteria better, or is larger or more colorful has been going on since the days of Gregor Mendel. GMO foods make that process of selective breeding occur much faster within a lab. But a tomato remains a tomato. Chimeras are different, and involve putting the DNA from two totally different species together as a hybrid organism, with each species maintaining distinctive properties.
Doug:
Using the same ethical principles on GMO and chimeras doesn't mean that they are literally the same. But these issues could be seen as similar at a more abstract level. "Putting the DNA from two different species together" could describe the creation of GMOs or chimeras. Why couldn't similar ethical principles apply?
David:
That is the core of the issue. Does introducing human DNA into another species create ethical dilemmas? You seem to be very comfortable with the idea, while I am not comfortable at all. And neither of us is alone in our differing thoughts. What I'm asking for is a thorough discussion to occur before the cat-dog-human is out of the bag. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it should be done. The means don't neccessarily justify the ends. We're moving beyond the world of the abstract into the realm of reality. And we're moving very quickly.
Doug:
I think the ethics of how we treat Artificially Intelligent (AI) systems should also be considered more deeply than just your superficial "robots aren't human" dismissal. This is a growing ethical issue, I believe, of which we are on the threshold.
David:
I think we can agree then, that there are ethical issues at hand that should be developed more fully. You seem more concerned with whether or not your robot get's it's feelings hurt, than with harvesting the heart, lungs, and liver from a partially-human creature that was designed solely for that purpose. Yet both of these issues can have deep ethical concerns. It would seem that now, before we get to a point of no return, we should slow things down, and make sure the decisions are well thought out.
Doug:
It is clear that I do have a different sense of these issues than you. Too bad that you only want to express your condescension on these ideas rather than asking me about them. You have honed your skills at turning what could be a thoughtful discussion into a caricature. Leveled-up!
David:
So says the man who uses Hollywood movies as the basis of his moral compass. You show righteous indignity when you misinterpreted my earlier comments as an insult, and then you turn around and blatantly insult me. I guess that's your strategy to discredit my side of the discussion by calling it a caricature. Or maybe you really do believe that all conservatives go back to our caves at night, and polish our guns by the light of burning science books. Go stick your head in that bucket again.
Doug:
Those movies can provide an easy introduction to the ideas. I can provide a reading list for detailed analysis. As I have mentioned, I don't think asking about the percentage of human DNA is the right question. I'm not even sure it makes sense as a question. I'm not sure how you would measure it (in a meaningful way) in a chimera. But since you asked it, I suspect that you have a percentage in mind. Or do you believe that mixing in even a touch of human DNA is unethical?
David:
Your theory that your DNA doesn't have anything to do with your species puzzles me, but I do feel it is unethical and immoral to introduce human DNA into an animal to create a chimera.
Doug:
I didn't give a theory, and I didn't say that anything about species. I said that being treated as "human" (or not) has little to do with DNA.
David:
But there are still questions that will need answered. If a majority of people feel the same way I do, or if they feel as you do, how do we decide how to move forward? What if scientists are split in their opinion? What if there is no consensus? Do we just go forward with the research? Does this process make humans less of a species? Less unique? Could a progressive mixing of the gene pool result in some very questionable ethical and unintended consequences down the road?
As much of this research is now privately funded, who can delay or even stop it if ethicists and scientists reach a consensus that it is ethically wrong?
“We don’t want to grow them to stages we don’t need to, since that would be more controversial,” says Pablo Ross, a veterinarian and developmental biologist at the University of California, Davis, where some of the animals are being housed. “My view is that the contribution of human cells is going to be minimal, maybe 3 percent, maybe 5 percent. But what if they contributed to 100 percent of the brain? What if the embryo that develops is mostly human? It’s something that we don’t expect, but no one has done this experiment, so we can’t rule it out.”
In other words, they don't think it will happen, unless it does. We should have this discussion now, before this happens.
Doug:
Sure, I think that is a good idea. But you might have to consider that the result might not be what you agree with.
David:
That's possible, but first, the discussion has to occur. Right now, scientists are just pushing full-steam ahead. Their actions are moving faster than the debate.
Doug:
You never really considered my idea that it doesn't matter how much "human" DNA is used. (I put human in quotes because, we share a lot of DNA with other organisms. It could be that DNA taken from a human could be taken from other creatures as well). It really is an issue of how much that would influence the behavior of the creature. For example, if a creature had 80% "human" DNA, but that the brain was still 100% pig, then it might not be as large of a concern. Also, chimpanzees have much the same DNA as humans. You could probably tweak a chimp's DNA into becoming more "human" (I know you have seen Planet of the Apes, another useful movie.) The possibilities are almost endless, and we have just started to examine them.
David:
Sure I did. I asked you several times just how much DNA would make a difference. It's how the DNA is assembled that makes the difference, and the differences are structural. What separates differing species from each other? It isn't how they behave, but how they differ structurally, how their physical traits vary, and if they can therefore reproduce. I think we differ in the idea that human DNA is required to be human, or not.
My hope is that we can all discuss these important ethical issues before we feel the same frustrations Charlton Heston felt at the end of Planet of the Apes. Before we get the same results....
Doug:
Bah! If the future is a choice between DNA-modified chimpanzees versus Charlton Heston, I'll take the modified chimps. Or talking mice! Or intelligent robots! Perhaps they can be better stewards of our planet and better implement our humane ideals.
Sure I did. I asked you several times just how much DNA would make a difference. It's how the DNA is assembled that makes the difference, and the differences are structural. What separates differing species from each other? It isn't how they behave, but how they differ structurally, how their physical traits vary, and if they can therefore reproduce. I think we differ in the idea that human DNA is required to be human, or not.
My hope is that we can all discuss these important ethical issues before we feel the same frustrations Charlton Heston felt at the end of Planet of the Apes. Before we get the same results....
Doug:
Bah! If the future is a choice between DNA-modified chimpanzees versus Charlton Heston, I'll take the modified chimps. Or talking mice! Or intelligent robots! Perhaps they can be better stewards of our planet and better implement our humane ideals.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!