And, what was that in reference to in the SOTU speech by the president? I am not aware of any controversy over animal human hybrids. The only AHHs that could fit remotely are bacteria modified with human genetic information to produce medicine, such as insulin producing bacteria.
The questions for debate are:
When should this type of manipulation be prohibited? In other words, how much human genetic information before you have an AHH.
And, are we in any position for this to become an issue?
Mods, I believe this is GD material, but I apologize if you wish to move it.
PsychoPirate posted this link in the SOTU thread as an example of the kinds of AHH he/she finds worrysome.
While mice with human brains are a bit troubling, I imagine that for every researcher trying to make a supersmart mouse there’s a few hundred trying to get bacteria to produce medical proteins, or trying to reproduce a specific disease in pigs so they may be studied.
Politically I don’t think a ban on this sort of thing will fly either. Americans may be somewhat wishywashy about pure science, but they are very pro technology and especially medical science. It will be easy to paint any ban on combining human and animal genes as a threat to our technological dominence (rightfully so IMHO) and the public will reject it.
It’s been established for a long time that DNA sequences and other products of genetic engineering can be patented, and patent rights are a form of property.
There would be very serious legal issues involved if a creature with substantially human characteristics was brought into existence, but was still the subject of patent law. Would it be the property of the laboratory - if so, would it legally be a slave? Would it be subject to any sort of constitutional protection or human rights legislation? If so, what’s the maximum amount of human genetic material a hybrid can have before it’s legally human? If such a limit is set, should a Dr Moreau be allowed to create “beast-folk” that were of near-human intelligence but still legally “animals”, provided he kept the human DNA percentage below the maximum?
Would it be legitimate, rather than creating a mouse with a human brain, to create a human with a mouse’s brain, or only the minimum amount of brain to keep it alive, and use it for transplant surgery?
And, yes, I’m sure the legal definition of “bestiality” would need to be looked at, as well.
