Tweet
Regulations proposed for
animal–human chimaeras
UK lays out first framework to govern ethically sensitive
research field.
The increasingly sophisticated blending of different species to create
chimaeras is pushing biology into a new ethical dimension. Last year,
scientists used new stem-cell technologies to create a mouse with a
functioning pancreas composed entirely of rat cells. So might it soon be
possible to create a monkey with a brain composed entirely of human
neurons? And would it think like a human?
Such an animal might be useful to researchers studying human cognition or
human-specific pathogens. But it would be ethically unacceptable and
should be banned, argues a government-commissioned report from the UK
Academy of Medical Sciences, a body that promotes medical research.
The document, Animals Containing Human Material , says that genetic and
stem-cell technologies are now so advanced that the creation of such
animals is already on the horizon. But no country has yet devised a broad
regulatory framework for the research. The report, released on 22 July,
calls for the United Kingdom to take the lead in putting in place specific
safeguards.
"We are not proposing a new tier of regulation that will hold up important
research," says Robin Lovell-Badge, a developmental biologist at the
Medical Research Council's National Institute for Medical Research in
London, and a member of the working group that drew up the report. At
the same time, he says, "we don't want scientists to cause problems for
the future by overstepping the mark of what is publicly acceptable". Unlike
the hypothetical monkey with a human brain, many animals containing
human material (ACHMs) are likely to advance basic biology and medicine
without transgressing ethical boundaries, the report concludes.
The working group, chaired by human geneticist Martin Bobrow of the
University of Cambridge, included experts in philosophy, ethics, social
sciences and law, as well as biomedicine, and consulted internationally.
The group also commissioned surveys and focus groups that revealed
broad acceptance of some mixing of species among lay people who
understood the rationale — but also unease about work that could
introduce human traits into animals' brains, reproduction or appearance
(see 'Public support'). The report is likely to inform similar debates in other
countries, such as the United States — which has generated several
studies on aspects of ACHM research in the past six years but has no
legislation in prospect — and Germany, where bioethical sensitivities are
acute.
One category of experiments should be off-limits for the time being,
according to the report. This includes the creation of a non-human primate
with enough human brain cells to make it capable of 'human-like' behaviour.
The report says that such animals, which might be able to develop human
capacities such as reasoning or self-awareness, would have a moral status
close to our own or to that of the great apes, which cannot be used for
invasive research in most countries.
The creation and development of embryos formed by mixing embryonic or
pluripotent cells from humans and non-human primates should also be
banned for now, as should the breeding of animals that have human
derived sperm or egg cells and could generate a true animal–human hybrid.
A second category of ethically sensitive ACHM research could go ahead if
approved by a specialist committee, the report says. This would include
modifying the brains of animals, other than non-human primates, in ways
that might give some 'human-like' function; generating or propagating
human-derived sperm or egg cells in an animal in which there is no chance
of fertilization; and creating an animal with some obvious human-like
characteristic, such as human skin or speech. Some introduction of human
genes or cells into non-human primates might also be allowed. That would,
for example, enable researchers to introduce a small number of human
neural stem cells into a monkey's brain to assess whether they could
replace neurons lost in diseases such as Parkinson's.
The report urges the UK government to establish a national expert body to
advise on ACHMs, and to review the contents of these two categories
regularly. The government is likely to incorporate the proposals into
legislation.
International attention
Most ACHM research needs no additional oversight, the report concludes.
Innumerable transgenic mice expressing human genes have already been
created to study a wide range of human diseases. Transgenic sheep and
goats are routinely used to manufacture human proteins for treatment, and
pigs containing human genes are being developed for transplantation
surgery. In the United Kingdom and most other research-intensive
countries, the report says, animal-welfare authorities already regulate this
type of work adequately.
Other countries are likely to scrutinize the UK report closely, says
molecular biologist Jens Reich, a vice-chairman of the independent German
Ethics Council in Berlin, which is preparing its own advisory report on the
subject. "ACHM research is very controversial in Germany, and very
political because our constitution stresses that the 'dignity of humans'
must be preserved at all cost," he says. The UK report concludes that
human dignity is not violated by ACHM research.
"It will certainly be looked to in the United States," says Ruth Faden, a
bioethicist at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland,
who has convened expert groups on the topic. She applauds the UK
academy for funding an in-depth public-opinion exercise. "Our debates in
the United States would benefit from this type of methodology," she says.
If you found that interesting, perhaps you might like this: http://www.pashtunforums.com/science...h-qatar-18934/
animal–human chimaeras
UK lays out first framework to govern ethically sensitive
research field.
The increasingly sophisticated blending of different species to create
chimaeras is pushing biology into a new ethical dimension. Last year,
scientists used new stem-cell technologies to create a mouse with a
functioning pancreas composed entirely of rat cells. So might it soon be
possible to create a monkey with a brain composed entirely of human
neurons? And would it think like a human?
Such an animal might be useful to researchers studying human cognition or
human-specific pathogens. But it would be ethically unacceptable and
should be banned, argues a government-commissioned report from the UK
Academy of Medical Sciences, a body that promotes medical research.
The document, Animals Containing Human Material , says that genetic and
stem-cell technologies are now so advanced that the creation of such
animals is already on the horizon. But no country has yet devised a broad
regulatory framework for the research. The report, released on 22 July,
calls for the United Kingdom to take the lead in putting in place specific
safeguards.
"We are not proposing a new tier of regulation that will hold up important
research," says Robin Lovell-Badge, a developmental biologist at the
Medical Research Council's National Institute for Medical Research in
London, and a member of the working group that drew up the report. At
the same time, he says, "we don't want scientists to cause problems for
the future by overstepping the mark of what is publicly acceptable". Unlike
the hypothetical monkey with a human brain, many animals containing
human material (ACHMs) are likely to advance basic biology and medicine
without transgressing ethical boundaries, the report concludes.
The working group, chaired by human geneticist Martin Bobrow of the
University of Cambridge, included experts in philosophy, ethics, social
sciences and law, as well as biomedicine, and consulted internationally.
The group also commissioned surveys and focus groups that revealed
broad acceptance of some mixing of species among lay people who
understood the rationale — but also unease about work that could
introduce human traits into animals' brains, reproduction or appearance
(see 'Public support'). The report is likely to inform similar debates in other
countries, such as the United States — which has generated several
studies on aspects of ACHM research in the past six years but has no
legislation in prospect — and Germany, where bioethical sensitivities are
acute.
One category of experiments should be off-limits for the time being,
according to the report. This includes the creation of a non-human primate
with enough human brain cells to make it capable of 'human-like' behaviour.
The report says that such animals, which might be able to develop human
capacities such as reasoning or self-awareness, would have a moral status
close to our own or to that of the great apes, which cannot be used for
invasive research in most countries.
The creation and development of embryos formed by mixing embryonic or
pluripotent cells from humans and non-human primates should also be
banned for now, as should the breeding of animals that have human
derived sperm or egg cells and could generate a true animal–human hybrid.
A second category of ethically sensitive ACHM research could go ahead if
approved by a specialist committee, the report says. This would include
modifying the brains of animals, other than non-human primates, in ways
that might give some 'human-like' function; generating or propagating
human-derived sperm or egg cells in an animal in which there is no chance
of fertilization; and creating an animal with some obvious human-like
characteristic, such as human skin or speech. Some introduction of human
genes or cells into non-human primates might also be allowed. That would,
for example, enable researchers to introduce a small number of human
neural stem cells into a monkey's brain to assess whether they could
replace neurons lost in diseases such as Parkinson's.
The report urges the UK government to establish a national expert body to
advise on ACHMs, and to review the contents of these two categories
regularly. The government is likely to incorporate the proposals into
legislation.
International attention
Most ACHM research needs no additional oversight, the report concludes.
Innumerable transgenic mice expressing human genes have already been
created to study a wide range of human diseases. Transgenic sheep and
goats are routinely used to manufacture human proteins for treatment, and
pigs containing human genes are being developed for transplantation
surgery. In the United Kingdom and most other research-intensive
countries, the report says, animal-welfare authorities already regulate this
type of work adequately.
Other countries are likely to scrutinize the UK report closely, says
molecular biologist Jens Reich, a vice-chairman of the independent German
Ethics Council in Berlin, which is preparing its own advisory report on the
subject. "ACHM research is very controversial in Germany, and very
political because our constitution stresses that the 'dignity of humans'
must be preserved at all cost," he says. The UK report concludes that
human dignity is not violated by ACHM research.
"It will certainly be looked to in the United States," says Ruth Faden, a
bioethicist at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland,
who has convened expert groups on the topic. She applauds the UK
academy for funding an in-depth public-opinion exercise. "Our debates in
the United States would benefit from this type of methodology," she says.
If you found that interesting, perhaps you might like this: http://www.pashtunforums.com/science...h-qatar-18934/