Latest Shouts In The Shoutbox -- View The Shoutbox
The shoutbox is currently offline!

[ Smilies | BBCodes ]

     
 
Click Here and visit PuPPs FREE StuFF

This website contains controversial information that may be disturbing to some viewers.
The theories, conclusions and commentaries are presented in an attempt to reveal the hidden truths.
It is up to the viewer to determine what they choose to believe after evaluating all available sources of information.

 
     

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
Does your government represent your best interests?


     
 
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
~ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.



POLITICAL ART GALLERY



IMPORTANT TOPICS

1. U.S. NEWS MEDIA CAN LEGALLY LIE TO YOU
There is no law preventing the U.S. news media from intentionally lying to the public. Whistle blowers and honest reporters are fired for telling the truth.

2. FLUORIDE IS A TOXIN/POISON
Read the Poison Warning label on your toothpaste, then call the 800# and ask;
"Why do you put poison in my toothpaste?"

3. NEW FLU VACCINE IS LOADED WITH MERCURY
by Dr. Joseph Mercola

4. PEDOPHILES IN HIGH PLACES
Also: Conspiracy of Silence Video

5. ASPARTAME IS HARMFUL
Equal, Nutra-Sweet and over 6000 food and beverage products contain Aspartame

6. On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 (2 Trillion) in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for.
Such a disclosure normally would have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the [9/11] attack on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon the following morning would assure that the story remained buried.


http://drinkingwaterlosangeles.com
Serving the greater Los Angeles area,
Los Angeles Drinking Water is proud to offer Reverse Osmosis filtration systems
that remove trace elements such as arsenic, mercury, lead and fluoride
which are known to be in Los Angeles tap water according to
the 2013 DWP Water Quality report.
POLITICAL ART GALLERY









"If our nation is ever taken over, it will be taken over from within."
~ James Madison, President of the United States

  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy, Human/Animal Hybrids Coming Soon


Master Of His Domain
******
Group: Admin
Posts: 12736
Member No.: 8
Mood: 



Posted: Nov 21 2004, 12:54 AM
Quote Post
I have said this several times..... I like to use the term "Island of Dr. Moreau" to describe what I believe is still happening today.

Krazy Matty has posted several times at the old GLP that pigs are genetically related to humans and we shouldn't eat them as it's a form of cannibalism.

HMMMMM - Could be!

QUOTE
Of Mice, Men and In-Between
Scientists Debate Blending Of Human, Animal Forms

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 20, 2004; Page A01

In Minnesota, pigs are being born with human blood in their veins.

In Nevada, there are sheep whose livers and hearts are largely human.

In California, mice peer from their cages with human brain cells firing inside their skulls.

These are not outcasts from "The Island of Dr. Moreau," the 1896 novel by H.G. Wells in which a rogue doctor develops creatures that are part animal and part human. They are real creations of real scientists, stretching the boundaries of stem cell research.

Biologists call these hybrid animals chimeras, after the mythical Greek creature with a lion's head, a goat's body and a serpent's tail. They are the products of experiments in which human stem cells were added to developing animal fetuses.

Chimeras are allowing scientists to watch, for the first time, how nascent human cells and organs mature and interact -- not in the cold isolation of laboratory dishes but inside the bodies of living creatures. Some are already revealing deep secrets of human biology and pointing the way toward new medical treatments.

But with no federal guidelines in place, an awkward question hovers above the work: How human must a chimera be before more stringent research rules should kick in?

The National Academy of Sciences, which advises the federal government, has been studying the issue and hopes to make recommendations by February. Yet the range of opinions it has received so far suggests that reaching consensus may be difficult.

During one recent meeting, scientists disagreed on such basic issues as whether it would be unethical for a human embryo to begin its development in an animal's womb, and whether a mouse would be better or worse off with a brain made of human neurons.

"This is an area where we really need to come to a reasonable consensus," said James Battey, chairman of the National Institutes of Health's Stem Cell Task Force. "We need to establish some kind of guidelines as to what the scientific community ought to do and ought not to do."

Beyond Twins and Moms

Chimeras (ki-MER-ahs) -- meaning mixtures of two or more individuals in a single body -- are not inherently unnatural. Most twins carry at least a few cells from the sibling with whom they shared a womb, and most mothers carry in their blood at least a few cells from each child they have born.

Recipients of organ transplants are also chimeras, as are the many people whose defective heart valves have been replaced with those from pigs or cows. And scientists for years have added human genes to bacteria and even to farm animals -- feats of genetic engineering that allow those critters to make human proteins such as insulin for use as medicines.

"Chimeras are not as strange and alien as at first blush they seem," said Henry Greely, a law professor and ethicist at Stanford University who has reviewed proposals to create human-mouse chimeras there.

But chimerism becomes a more sensitive topic when it involves growing entire human organs inside animals. And it becomes especially sensitive when it deals in brain cells, the building blocks of the organ credited with making humans human.

In experiments like those, Greely told the academy last month, "there is a nontrivial risk of conferring some significant aspects of humanity" on the animal.

Greely and his colleagues did not conclude that such experiments should never be done. Indeed, he and many other philosophers have been wrestling with the question of why so many people believe it is wrong to breach the species barrier.

Does the repugnance reflect an understanding of an important natural law? Or is it just another cultural bias, like the once widespread rejection of interracial marriage?

Many turn to the Bible's repeated invocation that animals should multiply "after their kind" as evidence that such experiments are wrong. Others, however, have concluded that the core problem is not necessarily the creation of chimeras but rather the way they are likely to be treated.

Imagine, said Robert Streiffer, a professor of philosophy and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin, a human-chimpanzee chimera endowed with speech and an enhanced potential to learn -- what some have called a "humanzee."

"There's a knee-jerk reaction that enhancing the moral status of an animal is bad," Streiffer said. "But if you did it, and you gave it the protections it deserves, how could the animal complain?"

Unfortunately, said Harvard political philosopher Michael J. Sandel, speaking last fall at a meeting of the President's Council on Bioethics, such protections are unlikely.

"Chances are we would make them perform menial jobs or dangerous jobs," Sandel said. "That would be an objection."

A Research Breakthrough

The potential power of chimeras as research tools became clear about a decade ago in a series of dramatic experiments by Evan Balaban, now at McGill University in Montreal. Balaban took small sections of brain from developing quails and transplanted them into the developing brains of chickens.

The resulting chickens exhibited vocal trills and head bobs unique to quails, proving that the transplanted parts of the brain contained the neural circuitry for quail calls. It also offered astonishing proof that complex behaviors could be transferred across species.

No one has proposed similar experiments between, say, humans and apes. But the discovery of human embryonic stem cells in 1998 allowed researchers to envision related experiments that might reveal a lot about how embryos grow.

The cells, found in 5-day-old human embryos, multiply prolifically and -- unlike adult cells -- have the potential to turn into any of the body's 200 or so cell types.

Scientists hope to cultivate them in laboratory dishes and grow replacement tissues for patients. But with those applications years away, the cells are gaining in popularity for basic research.

The most radical experiment, still not conducted, would be to inject human stem cells into an animal embryo and then transfer that chimeric embryo into an animal's womb. Scientists suspect the proliferating human cells would spread throughout the animal embryo as it matured into a fetus and integrate themselves into every organ.

Such "humanized" animals could have countless uses. They would almost certainly provide better ways to test a new drug's efficacy and toxicity, for example, than the ordinary mice typically used today.

But few scientists are eager to do that experiment. The risk, they say, is that some human cells will find their way to the developing testes or ovaries, where they might grow into human sperm and eggs. If two such chimeras -- say, mice -- were to mate, a human embryo might form, trapped in a mouse.

Not everyone agrees that this would be a terrible result.

"What would be so dreadful?" asked Ann McLaren, a renowned developmental biologist at the University of Cambridge in England. After all, she said, no human embryo could develop successfully in a mouse womb. It would simply die, she told the academy. No harm done.

But others disagree -- if only out of fear of a public backlash.

"Certainly you'd get a negative response from people to have a human embryo trying to grow in the wrong place," said Cynthia B. Cohen, a senior research fellow at Georgetown University's Kennedy Institute of Ethics and a member of Canada's Stem Cell Oversight Committee, which supported a ban on such experiments there.

How Human?

But what about experiments in which scientists add human stem cells not to an animal embryo but to an animal fetus, which has already made its eggs and sperm? Then the only question is how human a creature one dares to make.

In one ongoing set of experiments, Jeffrey L. Platt at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., has created human-pig chimeras by adding human-blood-forming stem cells to pig fetuses. The resulting pigs have both pig and human blood in their vessels. And it's not just pig blood cells being swept along with human blood cells; some of the cells themselves have merged, creating hybrids.

It is important to have learned that human and pig cells can fuse, Platt said, because he and others have been considering transplanting modified pig organs into people and have been wondering if that might pose a risk of pig viruses getting into patient's cells. Now scientists know the risk is real, he said, because the viruses may gain access when the two cells fuse.

In other experiments led by Esmail Zanjani, chairman of animal biotechnology at the University of Nevada at Reno, scientists have been adding human stem cells to sheep fetuses. The team now has sheep whose livers are up to 80 percent human -- and make all the compounds human livers make.

Zanjani's goal is to make the humanized livers available to people who need transplants. The sheep portions will be rejected by the immune system, he predicted, while the human part will take root.

"I don't see why anyone would raise objections to our work," Zanjani said in an interview.

Immunity Advantages

Perhaps the most ambitious efforts to make use of chimeras come from Irving Weissman, director of Stanford University's Institute of Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine. Weissman helped make the first mouse with a nearly complete human immune system -- an animal that has proved invaluable for tests of new drugs against the AIDS virus, which does not infect conventional mice.

More recently his team injected human neural stem cells into mouse fetuses, creating mice whose brains are about 1 percent human. By dissecting the mice at various stages, the researchers were able to see how the added brain cells moved about as they multiplied and made connections with mouse cells.

Already, he said, they have learned things they "never would have learned had there been a bioethical ban."

Now he wants to add human brain stem cells that have the defects that cause Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease and other brain ailments -- and study how those cells make connections.

Scientists suspect that these diseases, though they manifest themselves in adulthood, begin when something goes wrong early in development. If those errors can be found, researchers would have a much better chance of designing useful drugs, Weissman said. And those drugs could be tested in the chimeras in ways not possible in patients.

Now Weissman says he is thinking about making chimeric mice whose brains are 100 percent human. He proposes keeping tabs on the mice as they develop. If the brains look as if they are taking on a distinctly human architecture -- a development that could hint at a glimmer of humanness -- they could be killed, he said. If they look as if they are organizing themselves in a mouse brain architecture, they could be used for research.

So far this is just a "thought experiment," Weissman said, but he asked the university's ethics group for an opinion anyway.

"Everyone said the mice would be useful," he said. "But no one was sure if it should be done."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63731-2004Nov19




--------------------
QUOTE
"Ye shall know them by their fruits"
~ Matthew 7:16

"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
~ Buddha
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top


Tree Sprite
***
Group: Members
Posts: 113
Member No.: 124
Mood: 



Posted: Jan 27 2005, 03:09 PM
Quote Post
Holy Shit! I couldn't believe this when I read it!

National Geographic

QUOTE
Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy
Maryann Mott
National Geographic News

January 25, 2005
Scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras—a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal.

Chinese scientists at the Shanghai Second Medical University in 2003 successfully fused human cells with rabbit eggs. The embryos were reportedly the first human-animal chimeras successfully created. They were allowed to develop for several days in a laboratory dish before the scientists destroyed the embryos to harvest their stem cells.


In Minnesota last year researchers at the Mayo Clinic created pigs with human blood flowing through their bodies.

And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains.

Scientists feel that, the more humanlike the animal, the better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing "spare parts," such as livers, to transplant into humans.

Watching how human cells mature and interact in a living creature may also lead to the discoveries of new medical treatments.

But creating human-animal chimeras—named after a monster in Greek mythology that had a lion's head, goat's body, and serpent's tail—has raised troubling questions: What new subhuman combination should be produced and for what purpose? At what point would it be considered human? And what rights, if any, should it have?

There are currently no U.S. federal laws that address these issues.

Ethical Guidelines

The National Academy of Sciences, which advises the U.S. government, has been studying the issue. In March it plans to present voluntary ethical guidelines for researchers.

A chimera is a mixture of two or more species in one body. Not all are considered troubling, though.

For example, faulty human heart valves are routinely replaced with ones taken from cows and pigs. The surgery—which makes the recipient a human-animal chimera—is widely accepted. And for years scientists have added human genes to bacteria and farm animals.

What's caused the uproar is the mixing of human stem cells with embryonic animals to create new species.

Biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin is opposed to crossing species boundaries, because he believes animals have the right to exist without being tampered with or crossed with another species.

He concedes that these studies would lead to some medical breakthroughs. Still, they should not be done.

"There are other ways to advance medicine and human health besides going out into the strange, brave new world of chimeric animals," Rifkin said, adding that sophisticated computer models can substitute for experimentation on live animals.

"One doesn't have to be religious or into animal rights to think this doesn't make sense," he continued. "It's the scientists who want to do this. They've now gone over the edge into the pathological domain."

David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University, believes the real worry is whether or not chimeras will be put to uses that are problematic, risky, or dangerous.

Human Born to Mice Parents?

For example, an experiment that would raise concerns, he said, is genetically engineering mice to produce human sperm and eggs, then doing in vitro fertilization to produce a child whose parents are a pair of mice.

"Most people would find that problematic," Magnus said, "but those uses are bizarre and not, to the best of my knowledge, anything that anybody is remotely contemplating. Most uses of chimeras are actually much more relevant to practical concerns."

Last year Canada passed the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, which bans chimeras. Specifically, it prohibits transferring a nonhuman cell into a human embryo and putting human cells into a nonhuman embryo.

Cynthia Cohen is a member of Canada's Stem Cell Oversight Committee, which oversees research protocols to ensure they are in accordance with the new guidelines.

She believes a ban should also be put into place in the U.S.

Creating chimeras, she said, by mixing human and animal gametes (sperms and eggs) or transferring reproductive cells, diminishes human dignity.

"It would deny that there is something distinctive and valuable about human beings that ought to be honored and protected," said Cohen, who is also the senior research fellow at Georgetown University's Kennedy Institute of Ethics in Washington, D.C.

But, she noted, the wording on such a ban needs to be developed carefully. It shouldn't outlaw ethical and legitimate experiments—such as transferring a limited number of adult human stem cells into animal embryos in order to learn how they proliferate and grow during the prenatal period.

Irv Weissman, director of Stanford University's Institute of Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine in California, is against a ban in the United States.

"Anybody who puts their own moral guidance in the way of this biomedical science, where they want to impose their will—not just be part of an argument—if that leads to a ban or moratorium. … they are stopping research that would save human lives," he said.

Mice With Human Brains

Weissman has already created mice with brains that are about one percent human.

Later this year he may conduct another experiment where the mice have 100 percent human brains. This would be done, he said, by injecting human neurons into the brains of embryonic mice.

Before being born, the mice would be killed and dissected to see if the architecture of a human brain had formed. If it did, he'd look for traces of human cognitive behavior.

Weissman said he's not a mad scientist trying to create a human in an animal body. He hopes the experiment leads to a better understanding of how the brain works, which would be useful in treating diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease.

The test has not yet begun. Weissman is waiting to read the National Academy's report, due out in March.

William Cheshire, associate professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic's Jacksonville, Florida, branch, feels that combining human and animal neurons is problematic.

"This is unexplored biologic territory," he said. "Whatever moral threshold of human neural development we might choose to set as the limit for such an experiment, there would be a considerable risk of exceeding that limit before it could be recognized."

Cheshire supports research that combines human and animal cells to study cellular function. As an undergraduate he participated in research that fused human and mouse cells.

But where he draws the ethical line is on research that would destroy a human embryo to obtain cells, or research that would create an organism that is partly human and partly animal.

"We must be cautious not to violate the integrity of humanity or of animal life over which we have a stewardship responsibility," said Cheshire, a member of Christian Medical and Dental Associations. "Research projects that create human-animal chimeras risk disturbing fragile ecosystems, endanger health, and affront species integrity."




--------------------
"The things I have seen, the many things, have long now faded far, only three come clear now back to me: a Cloud, a Tree, a Star."
~From The Death of St. Brendan


"I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, han mathon ne chae a han noston ned 'wilith."
PMEmail Poster
Top


Master Of His Domain
******
Group: Admin
Posts: 12736
Member No.: 8
Mood: 



Posted: Jan 27 2005, 04:14 PM
Quote Post
Heya Scully, thanks for the post.

Remember the Egyptian man gods with the animal heads and the 'myth' of the bull headed minotaur beast of King Minos' labyrinth?

I fully believe the pseudo creators have been playing god(s) for thousands if not millions of years and the Island of Dr. Moreau is a reality.

I've seen the glow in the dark mice recently.

Imagine, splicing genes of the squid, octopus or the cuddlefish, which have the ability to change colors, with a human.

It's totally possible and IMHO - against natures way.

The beings which rule over us are NOT what they appear to be.




--------------------
QUOTE
"Ye shall know them by their fruits"
~ Matthew 7:16

"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
~ Buddha
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top


The Great Ving
*****
Group: Members
Posts: 754
Member No.: 219
Mood: 



Posted: Jan 29 2005, 12:12 PM
Quote Post
QUOTE (PuPP @ Jan 27 2005, 07:14 PM)
I fully believe the pseudo creators have been playing god(s) for thousand of years and the Island of Dr. Moreau is a reality.

They have been experimenting with genetic manipulation for quite a while now and though it might be banned on a public level, on the higher government level, the practice will continue. Russia, China and other countries also play god and most likely have not only created hybrids but also human clones. The building of an invincible loyal blood thirsty army with no morals or values and greater strength than normal humans has been the goal of the New World Order for quite a while now and one that we will ultimately see come into existence within the very near future. bartborg.gif


PMEmail PosterAOL
Top


The Great Ving
*****
Group: Members
Posts: 754
Member No.: 219
Mood: 



Posted: Feb 16 2005, 01:03 PM
Quote Post
QUOTE
U.S. Denies Patent for a Too-Human Hybrid
Scientist Sought Legal Precedent to Keep Others From Profiting From Similar 'Inventions'
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 13, 2005; Page A03

A New York scientist's seven-year effort to win a patent on a laboratory-conceived creature that is part human and part animal ended in failure Friday, closing a historic and somewhat ghoulish chapter in American intellectual-property law.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected the claim, saying the hybrid -- designed for use in medical research but not yet created -- would be too closely related to a human to be patentable.

Paradoxically, the rejection was a victory of sorts for the inventor, Stuart Newman of New York Medical College in Valhalla, N.Y. An opponent of patents on living things, he had no intention of making the creatures. His goal was to set a legal precedent that would keep others from profiting from any similar "inventions."

But in an age when science is increasingly melding human and animal components for research -- already the government has allowed many patents on "humanized" animals, including a mouse with a human immune system -- the decision leaves a crucial question unanswered: At what point is something too human to patent?

Officials said it was not so difficult to make the call this time because Newman's technique could easily have created something that was much more person than not. But newer methods are allowing scientists to fine-tune those percentages, putting the patent office in an awkward position of being the federal arbiter of what is human.

"I don't think anyone knows in terms of crude percentages how to differentiate between humans and nonhumans," said John Doll, a deputy commissioner for patents. Yet neither is the office comfortable with a "we'll know it when we see it" approach, he added: "It would be very helpful . . . to have some guidance from Congress or the courts."

The Newman case reveals how far U.S. intellectual-property law has lagged behind the art and science of biotechnology. The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of patenting life only once, and that was 25 years ago.

It also raises profound questions about the differences -- and similarities -- between humans and other animals, and the limits of treating animals as property.

"The whole privatization of the biological world has to be looked at," Newman said, "so we don't suddenly all find ourselves in the position of saying, 'How did we get here? Everything is owned.' "

Newman's application, filed in 1997, described a technique for combining human embryo cells with cells from the embryo of a monkey, ape or other animal to create a blend of the two -- what scientists call a chimera. That's the Greek term for the mythological creature that had a lion's head, a goat's body and a serpent's tail.

Others had used similar methods to create a "geep," part goat and part sheep. But Newman's human-animal chimeras would have greater utility in medicine, for drug and toxicity testing and perhaps as sources of organs for transplantation into people.

In collaboration with Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington biotech activist and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, he challenged the patent office: Issue the patent, which would keep others from pursuing such work for 20 years, or reject it, effectively accomplishing the same thing.

The two had until Friday to appeal the latest rejection, but they decided to let it pass and declare victory.

For Rifkin, the case was deja vu in reverse. When U.S. scientist Ananda Chakrabarty applied for the first patent on a living organism -- a genetically engineered bacterium able to digest oil spills -- the case ended up in the Supreme Court because the patent office did not want to patent life forms. That time Rifkin filed the main amicus brief supporting the patent office.

They lost. In a 5 to 4 decision, the court declared that patents could be issued on "anything under the sun that is made by man."

The office has obliged, issuing patents on bacteria, yeast and, as of last fall, 436 animals.

In 1987, the patent office announced it would draw the line with humans, but it offered no legal rationale or statutory backing.

The paper trail created by the Newman claim offers perhaps the best explication yet for that ban. One rationale in the documents sent to Newman is that such a patent would be "inconsistent with the constitutional right to privacy." After all, the office wrote, a patent allows the owner to exclude others from making the claimed invention. If a patent were to issue on a human, it would conflict with one of the Constitution's core privacy rights -- a person's right to decide whether and when to procreate.

Patents on humans could also conflict with the 13th Amendment's prohibition against slavery. That is because a patent permits the owner to exclude others from "using" the invention. Because "use" can mean "employ," officials wrote, a patent holder could prevent a person from being employed by any other -- which "would be tantamount to involuntary servitude."

Finally, the office noted that it is illegal to import products that are made abroad using processes patented in the United States. To show how that could cause a problem in a world where people are patentable, it gave an example in which a person goes overseas and undergoes one of the many surgical procedures patented by U.S. doctors. Simply by returning to the United States, the office said, that "surgically altered human being" could be guilty of patent infringement for illegally importing herself.

Not all those concepts hold water with legal scholars. But the general position was greatly strengthened two years ago when Rep. David Joseph Weldon (R-Fla.) added a rider to an appropriations bill -- renewed this year -- barring patents on humans or human embryos.

Still unresolved by that wording, however, is what is human and what is not.

Last week, patent officials conceded they lack a good way of defining the "human" that Newman's patent supposedly too closely resembles.

The decision letter to Newman notes that many people have heart valves from pigs. A patent has even issued on the use of baboon cells in people to aid in organ transplantation. Those procedures, the letter says, "did not convert the human patient to a non-human."

Similarly, mice that have up to 1 percent human brain cells in their skulls are clearly mice, said Stanford University biologist Irving Weissman, one of the scientists who helped make hybrid rodents.

The tricky part, all agree, is what to do with the middle ground. Weissman and others, for example, have talked about their desire to make mice whose brains are made entirely of human brain cells.

Hank Greely, a professor of law and director of Stanford's Center for Law and the Biosciences, said even those animals would not seem very human to him. "But a chimp brain with human neurons. . . ."

That's exactly the kind of scenario that makes Rifkin, Newman and others want a total ban.

"If the U.S. Congress and president are not willing to do this now, then there is no door that will remain closed to an era of commercial eugenics," Rifkin said. "We'll be on our way to that brave new world that Aldous Huxley warned us about."

Leon Kass, chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, agreed that Congress should at least get involved.

"The patent office is not the place for society to make its moral decisions," Kass said.

Weldon, the Florida representative, said he is interested in providing such guidance -- and believes the public would favor restrictions.

"There's instant public revulsion when you start talking with the average person about this stuff." For starters, Weldon said, "I'd like to ban the creation of human embryos with animal genes in them."

But many scientists fear that Congress is likely to overreact.

"There are chimeras out there that serve very valuable purposes in medical research, such as mice that make human antibodies," said Michael Werner, chief of policy for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. "This is sufficiently technical scientifically that it should be left to scientific bodies like the National Academy of Sciences to decide."

That organization is now preparing a report, due in April, that will address scientific and ethical issues relating to human-animal chimeras. And although it will not probe deeply into intellectual-property issues, it may at least offer the patent office -- and the nation -- a modicum of the guidance it craves.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...b12.html?sub=AR


PMEmail PosterAOL
Top


Master Of His Domain
******
Group: Admin
Posts: 12736
Member No.: 8
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 10 2005, 06:40 PM
Quote Post
QUOTE
Scientists To Make Mouse With Human Brain
By James Langton in New York
The Telegraph - UK
3-6-5

It will look like any ordinary mouse, but for America's scientists a tiny animal threatens to ignite a profound ethical dilemma.
 
In one of the most controversial scientific projects ever conceived, a group of university researchers in California's Silicon Valley is preparing to create a mouse whose brain will be composed entirely of human cells.
 
Researchers at Stanford University have already succeeded in breeding mice with brains that are one per cent human cells.
 
In the next stage they plan to use stem cells from aborted foetuses to create an animal whose brain cells are 100 per cent human.
 
Prof Irving Weissman, who heads the university's Institute of Cancer/Stem Cell Biology, believes that the mice could produce a breakthrough in understanding how stem cells might lead to a cure for diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.
 
The group is waiting for a key American government-sponsored report, due this month, that will decide just how much science can blur the distinction between man and beast.
 
Last week, however, the university's ethics committee approved the research, under certain conditions. Prof Henry Greely, the head of the committee, said: "If the mouse shows human-like behaviours, like improved memory or problem-solving, it's time to stop."
 
He accepted that the project might seem "a little creepy", but insisted: "It's not going to get up and say 'Hi, I'm Mickey'. Our brains are far more complicated."
 
Biologists know such creatures as "chimeras", after the mythical Greek monster that was part-lion, part-goat and part-serpent.
 
Prof Weissman said that there was no way of knowing whether the "human-mice" would develop any human characteristics until after they were born. In previous experiments, pigs with human blood have been developed at a clinic in Minnesota. Last year, the University of Nevada produced sheep whose livers were 80 per cent human and could one day be used for transplants.
 
An inquiry into laying down rules for research using stem cells from human embryos was launched last summer by America's National Academies of Science. The government-sponsored report, said to be in draft form, will govern stem cell research in the private sector. It comes at a time of growing confusion in America over the limits of stem cell research.
 
President George W Bush halted government-funded research during his first term of office but several states, including California, have since passed laws that allow support for stem cell projects from local taxes.
 
At hearings in Washington last October, Prof Weissman argued strongly against a ban on "chimera mice". He believes that the mice would behave like any others, but said that he would monitor the experiment closely and destroy them at the slightest suggestion of human-like brain patterns.
 
Supporters of stem cell research at Stanford University include the actor Michael J Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease. Fox provided the voice for Stuart Little, Hollywood's version of the "human mouse'', who talks, has human parents and lives in a New York apartment.
 
Opponents of Prof Weissman's work accept that his mice are unlikely to show such obvious human traits, but voice concerns that the brain cells would begin to organise themselves in a way that was more human than mouse. There is growing unease over whether human stem cells could migrate to other parts of the animals, creating human sperm or eggs in their reproductive systems.
 
Should two such "chimera mice" mate, it could lead to the nightmarish scenario of a human embryo trapped in a mouse's womb. William Cheshire, a neurology professor from the Mayo Clinic in Florida and a Christian activist, has called for a ban on any research that destroys a human embryo to create a new organism.
 
"We must be careful not to violate the integrity of humanity or of animal life," he said. "Research projects that create human-animal chimeras risk disturbing fragile ecosystems, endanger health and affront species integrity."
 
In a recent article for the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, Wesley Smith, a consultant for the Centre for Bioethics and Culture warned that "biotechnology is becoming dangerously close to raging out of control".
 
He wrote: "Scientists are engaging in increasingly macabre experiments that threaten to mutate nature and the human condition."
 
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html




--------------------
QUOTE
"Ye shall know them by their fruits"
~ Matthew 7:16

"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
~ Buddha
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top


Master Of His Domain
******
Group: Admin
Posts: 12736
Member No.: 8
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 11 2005, 05:56 AM
Quote Post
Pssst... we're ALL hybrids!
~ PuPP

It's really comforting to read someone elses words that agree with my theories.

Ahhhh... how refreshing!

Island Of Dr. Moreau = Earth - Yikes!

ShockedMouse.gif
hehehe

QUOTE
The Hybrids Are Here
Nov. 29th 2003
http://stargods.org/HybridsAreHere.htm

Decades ago a visionary author named H.G.Wells wrote many books that foreshadowed man's future in his books. So accurate was he that many thought he was some kind of prophet. The fact is that H.G. Wells was an Illuminati insider revealing information to the public.

One book I would like to mention is The Island of Doctor Moreau (1896).

"On a deceivingly beautiful island in the South Seas exists the sinister kingdom of Doctor Moreau. Shipwrecked in this seeming paradise, the unfortunate Edward Prendick stumbles upon the wild beastly creations of the sadistic doctor and enters into a bizarre and terrifying world of a doctor who plays an evil God and cruelly creates monstrosities of living creatures."

What the evil doctor was doing was to genetically modify animals with human DNA thus creating a half human and half animal which we call hybrids. For decades there has been circumstantial evidence of this being done especially in Nazi Germany. Not only were twins experimented on, it was also rumored that the Nazi were trying to develop a genetic "Super Soldier.

"...they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another." Dan 2:43

"And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant." 2 Sam 21:20, 20

Is this a disease, or is it emerged recessive genes from ancient and hidden interbreeding?

Lamb Head Boy --------- The Hobbit (Florencia Woman)

user posted image user posted image

Hair Covered Talented Circus Acrobats -- Sasquatch

user posted image user posted image



user posted image


India Baby With Tail

user posted image


Polydactyls
(Multi digits)

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

Ecuador Waorani Tribe

user posted image

user posted image


I believe this one is from the Middle East - not sure.

user posted image

Roswell Control Panels Recovered from the crashed saucer, 'er I mean weather balloon.

user posted image


Cat Polydactyls

user posted image

http://www.furkats.net/polydactyls.html




--------------------
QUOTE
"Ye shall know them by their fruits"
~ Matthew 7:16

"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
~ Buddha
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top


Freedom Fighter
*****
Group: Members
Posts: 583
Member No.: 223
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 11 2005, 09:49 PM
Quote Post
QUOTE
Lamb Head Boy --------- The Hobbit (Florencia Woman)


It's amazing how much the lamb head boy resembles the hobbit woman. huhNEW.gif I wonder if they found him where they found the hobbit bones. Unfortunately I couldn't find out any information about him.


PMEmail Poster
Top


Master Of His Domain
******
Group: Admin
Posts: 12736
Member No.: 8
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 11 2005, 10:02 PM
Quote Post
Hey Seralia, I posted that on another thread and thanked you for providing that hobbit recreation image. Yes, doesn't it look similar?

I have a book called "Very Special People" and one of these days I'm gonna scan the photos and put them online.

Also, do a search on Progeria and you'll also see a different type of hybrid. One that has a short life span. I have several images in my archives but out of respect for the children and their loving parents, I have not posted them. But do a Google on progeria and be amazed.

We're all basically hybrids and a mixture of sorts. Some reptilian, some mammal/primate, some aquatic type species and possibly more all mixed together in many cases. It really boggles the mind!

straightjacket.gif
hehehe

If you get a chance, see Dex's latest thread in UFO section. It's a classic abduction case that I don't recall ever hearing about.




--------------------
QUOTE
"Ye shall know them by their fruits"
~ Matthew 7:16

"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
~ Buddha
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top


Truth Seeker
***
Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 236
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 16 2005, 10:16 PM
Quote Post
And the controversy continues. sadoriginal.gif

QUOTE
Are you a man or a mouse?

Chimeric experimentation is producing animal-human hybrids. This time, science really has gone too far

Jeremy Rifkin

Tuesday March 15, 2005
The Guardian

What happens when you cross a human and a mouse? Sounds like the beginning of a bad joke but, in fact, it's a serious experiment recently carried out by a team headed by a distinguished molecular biologist, Irving Weissman, at Stanford University.

Scientists injected human brain cells into mouse foetuses, creating a strain of mice that were approximately 1% human. Weissman is considering a follow-up that would produce mice whose brains are 100% human.

What if the mice escaped the lab and began to proliferate? What might be the ecological consequences of mice who think like human beings, let loose in nature? Weissman says that he would keep a tight rein on the mice, and if they showed any signs of humanness he would kill them. Hardly reassuring.

Experiments like the one that produced a partially humanised mouse stretch the limits of human tinkering with nature to the realm of the pathological.

The new research field at the cutting edge of the biotech revolution is called chimeric experimentation. Researchers around the world are combining human and animal cells and creating chimeric creatures that are part-human, part-animal.

The first chimeric experiment occurred many years ago when scientists in Edinburgh fused a sheep and goat embryo - two unrelated animal species that are incapable of mating and producing a hybrid offspring. The resulting creature, called a geep, was born with the head of a goat and the body of a sheep.

Now, scientists have their sights trained on breaking the final taboo in the natural world - crossing humans and animals to create new human-animal hybrids. Already, aside from the humanised mouse, scientists have created pigs with human blood and sheep with livers and hearts that are mostly human.

The experiments are designed to advance medical research. Indeed, a growing number of genetic engineers argue that human-animal hybrids will usher in a golden era of medicine. Researchers say that the more humanised they can make research animals, the better able they will be to model the progression of human diseases, test new drugs, and harvest tissues and organs for transplantation. What they fail to mention is that there are equally promising and less invasive alternatives to these bizarre experiments, including computer modeling, in vitro tissue culture, nanotechnology, and prostheses to substitute for human tissue and organs.

Some researchers are speculating about human-chimpanzee chimeras - creating a humanzee. This would be the ideal laboratory research animal because chimpanzees are so closely related to us. Chimps share 98% of the human genome, and a fully mature chimp has the equivalent mental abilities and consciousness of a four-year-old human.

Fusing a human and chimpanzee embryo - which researchers say is feasible - could produce a creature so human that questions regarding its moral and legal status would throw 4,000 years of ethics into chaos. Would such a creature enjoy human rights? Would it have to pass some kind of "humanness" test to win its freedom? Would it be forced into doing menial labour or be used to perform dangerous activities?

The possibilities are mind-boggling. For example, what if human stem cells - the primordial cells that turn into the body's 200 or so cell types - were to be injected into an animal embryo and spread throughout the animal's body into every organ? Some human cells could migrate to the testes and ovaries where they could grow into human sperm and eggs. If two of the chimeric mice were to mate, they could potentially conceive a human embryo. If the human embryo were to be removed and implanted in a human womb, the resulting human baby's biological parents would have been mice.

Please understand that none of this is science fiction. The National Academy of Sciences, America's most august scientific body, is expected to issue guidelines for chimeric research some time next month, anticipating a flurry of new experiments in the burgeoning field of human-animal chimeric experimentation.

Bioethicists are already clearing the moral path for human-animal chimeric experiments, arguing that once society gets past the revulsion factor, the prospect of new, partially human creatures has much to offer the human race. And, of course, this is exactly the kind of reasoning that has been put forth to justify what is fast becoming a journey into a brave new world in which all of nature can be ruthlessly manipulated. But now, with human-animal chimeric experiments, we risk even undermining our own species' biological integrity in the name of human progress.

With chimeric technology, scientists have the power to rewrite the evolutionary saga - to sprinkle parts of our species into the rest of the animal kingdom as well as fuse parts of other species with our own genome and even to create new human sub-species and super-species. Are we on the cusp of a biological renaissance, or sowing the seeds of our destruction?

· Jeremy Rifkin is the author of The Biotech Century

jrifkin@foet.org


PMEmail Poster
Top


Intentions
**
Group: Members
Posts: 41
Member No.: 379
Mood: 



  Posted: Apr 28 2005, 07:06 PM
Quote Post
QUOTE
New Federal Guidelines Will Allow Creation of Human-Animals Chimeras

From Environment News Service <www.ens-newswire.com

Stem Cell Research Guide Permits Creation of Human-Animal Chimeras

WASHINGTON, DC, April 27, 2005 (ENS) - A new set of guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research issued Monday by the National Academies of Sciences would permit the creation of human-animal hybrids, but would not allow them to breed. The guidelines permit the introduction of human embryonic stem cells into nonhuman mammals, "under circumstances where no other experiment can provide the information needed."

Private research on human embryonic stem cells should be guided by responsible practices, and oversight committees should be established to ensure these practices are followed, say the National Academies' National Research Council and Institute of Medicine in the new set of guidelines.

The National Academies, a self-selected group of scientists that advises the federal government, has published the non-binding set of guidelines in the hope that they will be adopted by all research organizations. The guidelines recommend ethical practices for handling human embryonic stem cell lines.

Stem cells usually are taken after three to five days from a blastocyst - a mass of about 150 cells that occurs at an early stage of human development before implantation in the uterus.

Under the guidelines, research organizations would establish Embryonic Stem Cell Research Oversight (ESCRO) committees, but not as replacements for other research compliance bodies such as institutional review boards already required by federal regulations.

In addition to experts in biology and stem cell research, ESCRO committees should include legal and ethical experts as well as representatives of the public, the guidelines recommend.

"Heightened oversight is essential to assure the public that stem cell research is being carried out in an ethical manner," said committee co-chair Dr. Jonathan Moreno, professor of biomedical ethics and director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Virginia-Charlottesville. In addition to his position at the Center for Biomedical Ethics, Dr.

Jonathan Moreno is president of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, and is a member of the Council on Accreditation of the Association of Human Research Protection Programs. He is also a member of the Board on Health Sciences Policy of the Institute of Medicine. (Photo courtesy U. Virginia) "The oversight we call for will, in many instances, set a higher standard than required by existing laws or regulations," said Moreno. "And while we were hesitant to recommend another bureaucratic oversight entity, the burden in this case is justified, given the novel and controversial nature of embryonic stem cell research."

Because there is widespread agreement in the international scientific community about the potential value of human embryonic stem cell research, the volume of this research has expanded since 1998, despite restrictions in the United States, said the committee.

"A standard set of requirements for deriving, storing, distributing, and using embryonic stem cell lines - one to which the entire U.S. scientific community adheres - is the best way for this research to move forward," said the guidelines committee co-chair Dr. Richard Hynes, a professor of Cancer Research and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dr. Richard Hynes is a cancer research specialist, a fellow of the Royal Society of London, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. (Photo courtesy MIT) Federal funding for stem cell research is restricted to research involving existing stem cell lines, but privately funded research continues. Despite the public perception that this research is unregulated, in fact it is governed by federal regulations that protect human donors, set animal care standards, and mandate safety reviews of lab work that involves genetic alteration of stem cell lines.

Still, the guidelines say, ESCRO committees should review proposals for research that takes stem cells from excess blastocysts at in vitro fertilization clinics or from blastocysts created expressly for stem cell research.

They also should review any proposed use of blastocysts created by nuclear transfer, often referred to as therapeutic cloning.

Nuclear transfer, the technique currently used in the cloning of adult animals, is the transfer of a nucleus from one cell to another, creating a new cell with a different nucleus. All cloning experiments of adult mammals have used a variation of nuclear transfer.

"Nuclear transfer must not be used for reproductive cloning," the guidelines committee warned, reiterating a recommendation from a previous National Academies report.

The guidelines open a path for experiments that create animals that contain some introduced human embyronic stem cells.

These hybrid part human, part animal creatures, called chimeras, would be "valuable in understanding the etiology and progression of human disease and in testing new drugs, and will be necessary in preclinical testing of human embryonic stem cells and their derivatives," the guidelines committee said. Chimeras might also be used to grow organs, such as livers, to transplant into humans.

Today, faulty human heart valves are sometimes replaced with valves taken from cows and pigs, making the recipient a human-animal chimera, and the procedure is considered acceptable.

But new ethical issues are raised by the mixing of human embryonic stem cells with embryonic animals to create new species.

Human embryonic stem cells should be introduced into nonhuman mammals "only under circumstances where no other experiment can provide the information needed," the guidelines say.

The danger is experiments in which there is a possibility that human cells could contribute in a "major organized way" to the brain of an animal. These experiments "require strong scientific justification," the committee warned. Microscopic view of a human blastocyst. Once implanted in the uterus, it is ready to become a human being. (Photo courtesy RHS) The guidelines say no animal embryonic stem cells should be transplanted into a human blastocyst, and approval by an ESCRO committee should be secured before any human embryonic stem cells are put into an animal.

"No human embryonic stem cells should be put into nonhuman primate blastocysts," the guidelines say, and "no animal into which human embryonic stem cells have been introduced should be allowed to breed," the committee warned.

In its new guidelines, the National Academies committee also addressed ethical issues concerning stem cell donors.

Donor consent must be obtained before a blastocyst is used to generate stem cells, and donors should be informed that they have the right to withdraw their consent at any point before a stem cell line is derived, the guidelines say.

Practices for obtaining consent should be scrutinized for potential conflict of interests. For example, researchers proposing to derive stem cells should not influence decisions about creating embryos for fertility treatment.

Consent forms should inform the donor that embryos will be destroyed in the process of deriving stem cells and that the resulting cell lines may be kept for many years. The forms also should state that cells might be manipulated genetically or transplanted into animals for preclinical testing.

The guidelines also emphasize that no payments should be made to donors. Blastocysts left over at in vitro fertilization clinics may not be donated for research without consent, and researchers should not ask fertility doctors to create more embryos than necessary for reproductive treatments. According to the guidelines, donors should be told that information about them, including their names, may be retained and could become known by those who derive or work with resulting stem cell lines, but that donors' identities will be encoded and not readily ascertainable. They should be asked whether they want to receive information obtained through studies of the cell lines.

Donors also need to be told that although research involving their stem cells may have commercial potential, donors will not share in any financial benefit, the guidelines say.

Proposals to generate additional human embryonic stem cell lines by any means should be reviewed and approved by an ESCRO committee, the guidelines say.

Human embryos used for research should not be grown in culture for longer than 14 days, or until the point when the body axis and central nervous system - called the primitive streak - begin to form, according to the guidelines.

In addition to the oversight of an ESCRO committee, an institutional review board (IRB) should review the donation of somatic cells to be used in creating a blastocyst via nuclear transfer, the guidelines say.

Research on existing anonymous or coded embryonic stem cell lines does not require IRB review unless the cells are going to be transplanted into patients or the donor's identity is likely to become known by researchers. Researchers working on previously derived stem cell lines should provide documentation on the origin of the cell lines, including evidence that the procurement process was reviewed by an institutional review board, to newly formed ESCRO committees, the guidelines committee said.

The ESCRO committee should maintain a registry of stem cell lines banked at an institution, the guidelines recommend. The registry should include a proof of informed consent, a medical history of the donors, and a characterization of any genetic markers on the cell lines. Repositories of stem cell lines also need a secure coding system to protect the identity of donors.

The committee urged the formation of a national independent body to periodically review whether the guidelines need to be updated in light of unforeseen advances in stem cell science and evolving public attitudes.

The National Academies developed the guidelines on behalf of the scientific community and without government involvement. Although compliance is voluntary, the committee called on private funders, professional societies, journals, research institutions, and others involved in embryonic stem cell studies, to require adherence to the guidelines.

The full report is online at: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11278.html.
Click "Read it online Free."

For details on members of the guidelines committee, visit: http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/CommitteeDis...-B?OpenDocument For the basics of stem cell research, visit the National Institutes of
Health at: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/appendixA.asp
http://www.organicconsumers.org/patent/chimeras042805.cfm


All I can say is... Damn.... double damn.... And didn't Nostrodamus say something about that in his prophecy/predictions? And has anyone else seen this? Am I reading this right? Man! Talk about creepy.

bartborg.gif robotskull.gif

~SG~


PMEmail Poster
Top


Can you dig it?
******
Group: Members
Posts: 1149
Member No.: 210
Mood: 



Posted: Apr 28 2005, 09:27 PM
Quote Post
Now I'm really wondering, when I hear people say Bush resembles a chimp...


blinkNEW.gif


PMEmail Poster
Top


Master Of His Domain
******
Group: Admin
Posts: 12736
Member No.: 8
Mood: 



Posted: May 13 2005, 09:18 PM
Quote Post
QUOTE
Genetic Mingling Mixes Human And Animal Cells
By Paul Elias
AP Biotechnology Writer
5-1-5

On a farm about six miles outside this gambling town, Jason Chamberlain looks over a flock of about 50 smelly sheep, many of them possessing partially human livers, hearts, brains and other organs.
 
The University of Nevada-Reno researcher talks matter-of-factly about his plans to euthanize one of the pregnant sheep in a nearby lab. He can't wait to examine the effects of the human cells he had injected into the fetus' brain about two months ago.
 
"It's mice on a large scale," Chamberlain says with a shrug.
 
As strange as his work may sound, it falls firmly within the new ethics guidelines the influential National Academies issued this past week for stem cell research.
 
In fact, the Academies' report endorses research that co-mingles human and animal tissue as vital to ensuring that experimental drugs and new tissue replacement therapies are safe for people.
 
Doctors have transplanted pig valves into human hearts for years, and scientists have injected human cells into lab animals for even longer.
 
But the biological co-mingling of animal and human is now evolving into even more exotic and unsettling mixes of species, evoking the Greek myth of the monstrous chimera, which was part lion, part goat and part serpent.
 
In the past two years, scientists have created pigs with human blood, fused rabbit eggs with human DNA and injected human stem cells to make paralyzed mice walk.
 
Particularly worrisome to some scientists are the nightmare scenarios that could arise from the mixing of brain cells: What if a human mind somehow got trapped inside a sheep's head?
 
The "idea that human neuronal cells might participate in 'higher order' brain functions in a nonhuman animal, however unlikely that may be, raises concerns that need to be considered," the academies report warned.
 
In January, an informal ethics committee at Stanford University endorsed a proposal to create mice with brains nearly completely made of human brain cells. Stem cell scientist Irving Weissman said his experiment could provide unparalleled insight into how the human brain develops and how degenerative brain diseases like Parkinson's progress.
 
Stanford law professor Hank Greely, who chaired the ethics committee, said the board was satisfied that the size and shape of the mouse brain would prevent the human cells from creating any traits of humanity. Just in case, Greely said, the committee recommended closely monitoring the mice's behavior and immediately killing any that display human-like behavior.
 
The Academies' report recommends that each institution involved in stem cell research create a formal, standing committee to specifically oversee the work, including experiments that mix human and animal cells.
 
Weissman, who has already created mice with 1 percent human brain cells, said he has no immediate plans to make mostly human mouse brains, but wanted to get ethical clearance in any case. A formal Stanford committee that oversees research at the university would also need to authorize the experiment.
 
Few human-animal hybrids are as advanced as the sheep created by another stem cell scientist, Esmail Zanjani, and his team at the University of Nevada-Reno. They want to one day turn sheep into living factories for human organs and tissues and along the way create cutting-edge lab animals to more effectively test experimental drugs.
 
Zanjani is most optimistic about the sheep that grow partially human livers after human stem cells are injected into them while they are still in the womb. Most of the adult sheep in his experiment contain about 10 percent human liver cells, though a few have as much as 40 percent, Zanjani said.
 
Because the human liver regenerates, the research raises the possibility of transplanting partial organs into people whose livers are failing.
 
Zanjani must first ensure no animal diseases would be passed on to patients. He also must find an efficient way to completely separate the human and sheep cells, a tough task because the human cells aren't clumped together but are rather spread throughout the sheep's liver.
 
Zanjani and other stem cell scientists defend their research and insist they aren't creating monsters - or anything remotely human.
 
"We haven't seen them act as anything but sheep," Zanjani said.
 
Zanjani's goals are many years from being realized.
 
He's also had trouble raising funds, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is investigating the university over allegations made by another researcher that the school mishandled its research sheep. Zanjani declined to comment on that matter, and university officials have stood by their practices.
 
Allegations about the proper treatment of lab animals may take on strange new meanings as scientists work their way up the evolutionary chart. First, human stem cells were injected into bacteria, then mice and now sheep. Such research blurs biological divisions between species that couldn't until now be breached.
 
Drawing ethical boundaries that no research appears to have crossed yet, the Academies recommend a prohibition on mixing human stem cells with embryos from monkeys and other primates. But even that policy recommendation isn't tough enough for some researchers.
 
"The boundary is going to push further into larger animals," New York Medical College professor Stuart Newman said. "That's just asking for trouble."
 
Newman and anti-biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin have been tracking this issue for the last decade and were behind a rather creative assault on both interspecies mixing and the government's policy of patenting individual human genes and other living matter.
 
Years ago, the two applied for a patent for what they called a "humanzee," a hypothetical - but very possible - creation that was half human and chimp.
 
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office finally denied their application this year, ruling that the proposed invention was too human: Constitutional prohibitions against slavery prevents the patenting of people.
 
Newman and Rifkin were delighted, since they never intended to create the creature and instead wanted to use their application to protest what they see as science and commerce turning people into commodities.
 
And that's a point, Newman warns, that stem scientists are edging closer to every day: "Once you are on the slope, you tend to move down it."
 
___
 
On the Net:
 
NAS: http://www.nas.edu
 
Zanjani's Web site:
http://www.unr.edu/cmbprog/ezanjani-new.htm
 
Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. 

http://rense.com/general64/geneticminglingmixes.htm




--------------------
QUOTE
"Ye shall know them by their fruits"
~ Matthew 7:16

"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
~ Buddha
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top

Topic Options Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 



[ Script Execution time: 0.0473 ]   [ 17 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."
~ James A. Garfield, President of the United States


MORE POLITICAL ART

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."
~ Amschel Mayer Rothschild