home  gallery  contact  music 

POSTED IN: COMEDY >>

Men could have kids with chimpanzees - gov must act

Lewis Page, Tuesday 29th April 2008 12:13 GMT


Religious bioethics hardliners amazing claim

A leading Scottish churchman and bioethics thinktank operator has warned again of the dangers attendant on genetic research, and recommended that there should be a law against men having children with female chimpanzees.

The Scotsman reports today that Calum MacKellar, an Elder of the Church of Scotland who trained as a biochemist, has called for government action to prohibit the possible interbreeding of men and lady chimps to create "humanzees".

"The Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill prohibits the placement of animal sperm into a woman," the worried Christian told the Scotsman.

"The reverse is not prohibited. Its not even mentioned. This should not be the case."

Dr MacKellar is apparently concerned about the possible human rights and status of humanzees.

"If it was never able to be self-aware or self-conscious it would probably be considered an animal," he said. "However, if there was a possibility of humanzees developing a conscience, you have a far more difficult dilemma on your hands."

MacKellar believes that a law against the creation of chimp-human halfbreeds by meddling scientists is necessary. He speculated that in the absence of any such law, unscrupulous boffins would be sure to manufacture humanzees in order to harvest them for transplant organs.

"Theres a desperate need for organs," he warned.

"If they could create these humanzees who are substantially human but are not considered as humans in law, we could have a large provision of organs."

Dr MacKellar is already well known for flagging up various possibilities which he thinks might occur as a result of research involving human DNA. He pretty much always feels that such research should be outlawed or at the very least tightly regulated.

In 2000, MacKellar suggested that cloning techniques could be used to produce a child with two fathers and no mother, a technique that was thought likely to appeal to gay men. He said that the government should consider the ethical issues raised by this, and that legislation should cover the issue - even though serious scientists said it was a far-fetched notion at best.

There cant be much doubt that MacKellar would have been hoping to see the male-only kids possibility forbidden. He has written a paper (apparently available online only in French, or translated by Google here) arguing that homosexuality is an affliction which a moral, Christian person does not yield to - just like paedophilia or murderous rage.

Dr MacKellar has also made his own position on human embryo research in general entirely clear. The Church of Scotland said in 2006 that it was opposed to any creation of human embryos "by IVF methods or nuclear transfer cloning methods". However, the Kirk made an exception for research into "serious diseases ... under exceptional circumstances".

Elder MacKellar was strongly against this exception, writing at the time:

Christians believe that all persons, whether they are embryonic or have been born, cannot be reduced to ?piles of cells? even though some may be very small, short-lived or unconscious ... Christians accept that every person is amazingly loved and valued by an amazing God ... this love of God forms the basis of human personhood, which is a mystery that can never be determined from scientific concepts alone ...

This is a crucial Christian belief and for many it also gives full moral status to early human embryos ... all research on human embryos is morally wrong.

MacKellar was also widely quoted - on the basis of his bioethics rather than religious background - for his opposition to medical researchers application to use human DNA carried in cow eggs stripped of their nuclei. He felt that even this would "begin to undermine the whole distinction between humans and animals".

Not unlike his concept of "humanzees" created for organ harvesting, in fact, described by more mainstream scientists as "impractical" and by the government as "impossible".

But the "humanzee" notion is certainly a great way for MacKellar to cast stem-cell scientists - or indeed anyone who ever dares mess with a human embryo for any reason whatsoever - as evil, perverse lunatics.

Read the Scotsman "exclusive" scoop here, in which Dr McKellars views are explored again.?
2008 04 30 00:32:03


Exclusive: Half man, half chimp - should we beware the apeman's coming?

By JENNY HAWTHORNE

Published Date: 29 April 2008

A LEADING scientist has warned a new species of "humanzee," created from breeding apes with humans, could become a reality unless the government acts to stop scientists experimenting. In an interview with The Scotsman, Dr Calum MacKellar, director of research at the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, warned the controversial draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill did not prevent human sperm being inseminated into animals.

He said if a female chimpanzee was inseminated with human sperm the two species would be closely enough related that a hybrid could be born.

He said scientists could possibly try to develop the new species to fill the demand for organ donors.

Leading scientists say there is no reason why the two species could not breed, although they question why anyone would want to try such a technique.

Other hybrid species already created include crossed tigers and lions and sheep and goats.

Dr MacKellar said he feared the consequences if scientists made a concerted effort to cross humans with chimpanzees. He said: "Nobody knows what they would get if they tried hard enough. The insemination of animals with human sperm should be prohibited.

"The Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill prohibits the placement of animal sperm into a woman The reverse is not prohibited. It's not even mentioned. This should not be the case."

He said if the process was not banned, scientists would be "very likely" to try it, and it would be likely humans and chimps could successfully reproduce.

"If you put human sperm into a frog it would probably create an embryo, but it probably wouldn't go very far," he said.

"But if you do it with a non-human primate it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it could be born alive."

Dr MacKellar said the resulting creature could raise ethical dilemmas, such as whether it would be treated as human or animal, and what rights it would have.

"If it was never able to be self-aware or self-conscious it would probably be considered an animal," he said. "However, if there was a possibility of humanzees developing a conscience, you have a far more difficult dilemma on your hands."

He said fascination would be enough of a motive for scientists to try crossing the two species.

But he also said there was a small chance of scientists using the method to "humanise" organs for transplant into humans. "There's a desperate need for organs. One of the solutions that has been looked at is using animal organs, but because there's a very serious risk of rejection using animal organs in humans they are already trying to humanise these organs.

"If they could create these humanzees who are substantially human but are not considered as humans in law , we could have a large provision of organs."

He wrote to the Department of Health to ask that the gap in the draft legislation be addressed.

The department confirmed that the bill "does not cover the artificial insemination of an animal with human sperm".

It said: "Owing to the significant differences between human and animal genomes, they are incompatible and the development of a foetus or progeny is impossible.

"Therefore such activity would have no rational scientific justification, as there would be no measurable outcome."

Dr MacKellar disagrees. He said: "The chromosomal difference between a goat and a sheep is greater than between humans and chimpanzees."

Professor Bob Millar, director of the Medical Research Council Human Reproductive Sciences Unit, based in Edinburgh, agreed viable offspring would be possible. He said: "Donkeys can mate with horses and create infertile offspring; maybe that could happen with chimpanzees."

But he said he would oppose any such attempt. "It's unnecessary and ridiculous and no serious scientist would consider such a thing. Ethically, it's not appropriate.

"It's also completely impractical. Chimps would never be a source of organs for humans because of the viruses they carry and the low numbers."

Professor Hugh McLachlan, professor of applied philosophy at Glasgow Caledonian University's School of Law and Applied Sciences, said although the idea was "troublesome", he could see no ethical objections to the creation of humanzees.

"Any species came to be what it is now because of all sorts of interaction in the past," he said.

"If it turns out in the future there was fertilisation between a human animal and a non-human animal, it's an idea that is troublesome, but in terms of what particular ethical principle is breached it's not clear to me.

"I share their squeamishness and unease, but I'm not sure that unease can be expressed in terms of an ethical principle."

A Department of Health spokeswoman said: "It's just not a problem. If you inseminate an animal with human sperm, scientifically nothing happens. The species barriers are too great."

HYBRIDS ARE AT CROSS PURPOSES

EVEN though hybrids of humans and animals have never been created, many other creatures have been crossed successfully.

Lions and tigers have been bred to create ligers, the world's largest cats.

And there are also zorses (zebra and horse), wholphins (whale and dolphin), tigons (tiger and lion), lepjags (leopard and jaguar) and zonkeys (zebra and donkey).

As well as these hybrid mammals, there are also hybrid birds, fish, insects and plants.

Many hybrids, such as mules, are sterile, which prevents the movement of genes from one species to another, keeping both species distinct. However, some can reproduce and there are scientists who believe that grey wolves and coyotes mated thousands of years ago to create a new species, the red wolf.

More commonly, hybrids mate with one of their parent species, which can influence the genetic mix of what gets passed along to subsequent generations.

Hybrids can have desirable traits, often being fitter or larger than either parent.

Most hybrid animals have been bred in captivity, but there are examples of the process occurring in the wild.

This is far more common in plants than animals but in April 2006 a hunter in Canada's North-west Territories shot a polar bear whose fur had an orange tint.

Research showed that it had a grizzly bear father, and it became known as a pizzly.

In 2003, DNA analysis confirmed that five odd-looking felines found in Maine and Minnesota were bobcat-lynx hybrids, dubbed blynxes.

The full article contains 1056 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper. Page 1 of 1


* Last Updated: 29 April 2008 8:08 AM
* Source: The Scotsman
* Location: Edinburgh



2008 04 29 19:01:48













  




terence blacker  thomas sutcliffe  milf  government  artists  radio  artistic proposals  b3ta  art  dsf adsfg afg fg  history  johnvile  bbc  gallery  site update  the guardian  documentation  nsfw  random  mp3  comedy  free software  drugs  porn  new york times  obituary  meme  music  research  the independent 

1&1 Hosting and Domains
99.9% Uptime Guarantee, 25
GBit Connectivity & 24/7 Support!
www.1and1.co.uk
1&1 Hosting and Domains
99.9% Uptime Guarantee, 25
GBit Connectivity & 24/7 Support!
www.1and1.co.uk .

Hits Today: 32
Total Unique Visits: 11253

Creative Commons License