Noggin

1st page of the article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._chimeras.html


2nd page of the article (talks about the possibility of mice with 100% human brains)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...himeras_2.html

I think I can wait for the ethics debate to unfold over this. I am not a scientists but I can see the benefits such research could provide. After reading this article, however, I also feel like I am sitting on a pine cone. It just doesn't feel right.

I just want to go with the gut feeling that if this is what it takes to unlock the remedy for alzheimer's etc, then sign me up for support.

Noggin

premjan

Would a mouse with a human brain be able to function normally for a mouse at all?

Marduk

it seems to work OK for Mickey!

dettus

I saw on American Scientific Frontiers on PBS how people can be chimeras too. Fertilized eggs merge and one person is born with 2 different sets of DNA. Some parts of the body exhibit one DNA and other parts exhibit the other DNA. Freaky, even checker board type of patterns appear on the skin. One lady was having issues with child custody when her DNA didn't match her children's.

Shadow Wraith

Interesting. I am likewise curious as to how an ethics debate on chimerae would unravel, assuming it is feasible to create a viable, healthy chimera of a human and another organism, or of two different non-human organisms. Personally, I would rather do without—but fully expect to hear—the crap about "playing God." It should rather be framed on such things as what would the rights of the chimera are. Would/should a mouse with the same level of sentience and intelligence as a human be granted the full rights under the law? Would a human spliced with a snake (to take an example of Marta, a fictional chimera from Fullmetal Alchemist) be considered less than human simply by virtue of having physical characteristics that were once possessed only by "lower" lifeforms. What about the potential to create people with super strength by splicing them with, say, a bear or a bull elephant. Or how about a person with gills, or chlorophyll, or the regeneration capabilities of a starfish, or the camouflage of a chameleon? Would that be looked upon as the next generation of eugenics, or as science merely leading to the betterment of humanity?

It's hard to say exactly what I think about most of this. However, I would have as my default position this: Any human-animal chimera, or any chimera with the same level of sentience, reasoning, self-awareness, etc. of a human, should be granted the same rights and be treated with the same dignity and respect as any other human would. Finally, we need to keep in mind one other thing...

Pig and elephant DNA just won't splice.

premjan

It would be nice for humans to have functioning gills. It would help me get over a fear of drowning at least (I am a so-so swimmer).

unregistered_user_1

I would have thought that there would be immune system reaction problems; much like whith organ transplants. Especially when one is mixing DNA from different species. :huh:

Gamer4Fire

"Most uses of chimeras are actually much more relevant to practical concerns." Magnus said

Well put, why do we need to ban something that is currently only being used for practical purposes?

"It would deny that there is something distinctive and valuable about human beings that ought to be honored and protected," said Cohen

HAH! What is so important about being a human animal over any other animal?

mike all together

Not to stray too far off from this great topic, but what would you say about artificial intelligence if it reaches a point where only science fiction currently reaches?

Would the argument just be that AI just appears to have the same level of sentience, reasoning, self-awareness, etc. of a human and so it doesn't deserve the rights?

Just random curiosities is all.

sbaii

How would it fit in a mouse's skull?