|
(Editor's Note: On September 1, 2005, the
Scottish Council on Human
Bioethics released an in-depth report on the issue of
animal-human mixtures. Below are an overview and a list of
recommendations from the report.
The full report is available in PDF
here.)
Overview:
The potential power of embryonic and fetal inter-species
mixtures became clear about a decade ago in a series of dramatic
experiments in which small sections of brains from developing
quails were taken and transplanted 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.1
Although moral intuitions about the creation of animal-human
mixtures, especially at the embryonic and fetal level, may vary,
it is subject to deep ethical concern to many for whom the
creation of animals with certain kinds of human characteristics
or with human brain and reproductive cells, would be offensive.
In a report published in 2004 and entitled Reproduction and
Responsibility: The Regulation of New Biotechnologies2,
the President's Council on Bioethics of the USA indicated that
in the context of procreation - of actually mixing human and
non-human gametes or blastomeres3
at the very earliest stages of embryological development - the
ethical concerns raised by violating the animal-human species
barrier were especially acute. Thus, the drawing of clear lines
limiting permissible research in this area should be
specifically considered.
In this respect, the President's Council recommended that one
bright line should be drawn at the creation of animal-human
embryos, produced by the fertilization of human eggs by animal
(for example, chimpanzee) sperm (or the reverse). This is
because the Council accepted that society should not be put into
a position to judge the humanity or moral worth of such
ambiguous hybrid entities (for example, a “humanzee,” the
analogue of the mule). Moreover, the Council stated that it did
not want to see the possibility of a human being having other
than human progenitors (for example, having a monkey as a
parent).
Accordingly, the Council recommended that the US Congress should
draft legislation to address these biological possibilities and
make it illegal to cross this line.
But in a report entitled Human Reproductive Technologies and
the Law4
prepared in 2005, the UK House of Commons Science and Technology
Committee went a lot further than the US President’s Council.
For example, it indicated that the fertilization of animal eggs
with human sperm should continue to be legal in the UK for
research purposes and the time limit extended before they are
destroyed.
Recommendations of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics:
1. National Ethics Committees of the Council of Europe member
states should initiate, as soon as possible, an extensive
consultation and reflection relating to the complex ethical
questions arising from the creation of animal-human mixtures.
2. The Parliamentary Assembly and the Steering Committee on
Bioethics of the Council of Europe should address the ethical
issues arising from the creation of animal-human mixtures, as
soon as possible, in a Recommendation and/or a legally binding
Convention.
3. The creation of animal-human transgenic animals in which some
foreign human genes are deliberately inserted into the genome of
animals should only proceed with extreme caution.
4. The placing of a live human embryo into an animal should be
prohibited.
5. The placing of live human sperm into an animal should be
prohibited.
6. The placing of a live animal embryo into a woman should be
prohibited.
7. The placing of live animal sperm into a woman should be
prohibited.
8. The insertion of a human cell nucleus or chromosomes into a
non-human egg enabling an embryo to exist should be prohibited.
9. The insertion of a human cell nucleus or chromosomes into a
non-human egg stripped of its chromosomes enabling an embryo to
exist should be prohibited.
10. The mixing of animal and human gametes should be prohibited.
11. Xenotransplantation should only take place if the procedure
respects all national and international legal instruments such
as the Council of Europe Recommendation (2003) 10 of the
Committee of Ministers on Xenotransplantation.
12. The incorporation of human pluripotent stem cells into
post-natal animals should proceed with extreme caution.
Moreover, such a procedure should only take place if it can be
proven that the cells cannot contribute to the germline or give
rise to “higher-order” brain functions in the animals.
13. Because pluripotent stem cells might be expected to
participate in the tissue of the germline and in the brain, the
incorporation of (1) human pluripotent cells into post-blastocyst
stages of non-human embryos and (2) non-human pluripotent cells
into post-blastocyst stages of human embryos should be
prohibited until it can be proven that such possibilities cannot
take place.
14. The incorporation of (1) human pluripotent stem cells into a
non-human blastocyst or its preliminary embryonic stages and (2)
non-human pluripotent stem cells into a human blastocyst or its
preliminary embryonic stages should be prohibited. CBHD
Copyright 2005 by The Center for Bioethics and Human
Dignity
The contents of this article do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
CBHD, its staff, board or supporters. Permission to reprint granted as long as The Center for Bioethics and
Human Dignity and the web address for this article is referenced.
|
