Many people believe that they exist, and even skeptical people usually admit that the technology to create them exists. Pardon the lack of evidence provided here, because I don't want a debate about whether or not they exist, but rather the moral aspect of creating such creatures. Places like Plum Island do factually exist however, and I am interested in hearing your thoughts and feelings about hypothetical situations where dark government scientists attempt to genetically engineer hybrid Monsters.
I think it would help to elaborate on what exactly you mean by 'hybrid', as it could mean anything from cats with jellyfish proteins to fabled creatures like the Sphinx. This would also help to determine what technology you have in mind that 'makes hybrids', although it would be even better if you specifically elaborate on that too.
.
As for Plum Island, the island certainly exists, although I assume what you actually meant is the Plum Island Animal Disease Center:
.
"PIADC operates Biosafety Level 3 Agriculture (BSL-3Ag), BSL-3 and BSL-2 laboratory facilities. The facility's research program includes developing diagnostic tools and biologicals(vaccines) for foot-and-mouth disease and other diseases of livestock."
.
Note that such biosafety facilities exist all over the world, and that there are four Biosafety levels in total.
.
As for genetic engineering, on one hand I would advise to avoid the term 'monster' which is highly subjective and might contribute to derail the discussion. On the other hand, experiences with animals have to be approved by ethical committees, and that is even more true for anything that includes humans; I don't think an ethical committee would ever approve genetic engineering on humans, not anytime soon.
Many people also believe that ghosts exist, that window panes are liquid at room temperature, that daddy longlegs have the deadliest venom on the planet, and that Columbus was the first to demonstrate the shape of said planet.
Places like Plum Island do factually exist however, and I am interested in hearing your thoughts and feelings about hypothetical situations where dark government scientists attempt to genetically engineer hybrid Monsters.
Why? What possible economic benefit could such things ever convey? Those "dark government scientists" don't come cheap, you know, and any government found sanctioning any such research is going to need some outstanding legal support (also not cheap) if they have any intentions of staying in office. It's all well and good to say that it might be technologically feasible, but there needs to be some motive.
depends. when its on animals it would have to be as said above approved by ethics comittees. on humans, if the human gave consent i dont mind. now this was about the experiment but i got the feeling you were more interested in the new species itself.
i couldnt care less really. if its totally ok to give women bigger breasts and fix our noses or even change our sex, why not change the species if you feel like it? i actually think it would be cool if one day humans would have more animalistic apperances and such so yeah
depends. when its on animals it would have to be as said above approved by ethics comittees. on humans, if the human gave consent i dont mind. now this was about the experiment but i got the feeling you were more interested in the new species itself.
Consent is sadly not an option in genetic engineering, as you cannot ask an embryonic stem cell if it is OK with the experiment. Engineering cats with GFP is unproblematic as it has no impact on its life (it only glows slightly under specific light exposure); importantly, it serves a purpose by yielding important information for research. Making a weird cryptic human-animal hybrid is problematic because it would most definitely affect its life in a drastic way, and unnecessary as I cannot see any purpose that would justify it.
That is why it is important to know precisely what is meant by 'hybrid', as an ethics committee has to make the decision beforehand whether it is ethical or not.
i couldnt care less really. if its totally ok to give women bigger breasts and fix our noses or even change our sex, why not change the species if you feel like it? i actually think it would be cool if one day humans would have more animalistic apperances and such so yeah
You cannot 'change species' in a developed individual. As for our appearence, we are animals; and what we lack in senses or appearance we already improve with technology and fashion. Or body modifications, for those that do want to look like animals [1][2].
Consent is sadly not an option in genetic engineering, as you cannot ask an embryonic stem cell if it is OK with the experiment. Engineering cats with GFP is unproblematic as it has no impact on its life (it only glows slightly under specific light exposure); importantly, it serves a purpose by yielding important information for research. Making a weird cryptic human-animal hybrid is problematic because it would most definitely affect its life in a drastic way, and unnecessary as I cannot see any purpose that would justify it.
That is why it is important to know precisely what is meant by 'hybrid', as an ethics committee has to make the decision beforehand whether it is ethical or not.
by consent i meant by a creature who can give consent. not to mention only those we can understand, so yeah, other grown up humans.
You cannot 'change species' in a developed individual. As for our appearence, we are animals; and what we lack in senses or appearance we already improve with technology and fashion. Or body modifications, for those that do want to look like animals [1][2].
i dont see your point... by animals i obviously meant those that are not humans. and just because we improved what we lacked with technology doesnt mean we still couldnt inhance the senses in this way instead.
depends. when its on animals it would have to be as said above approved by ethics comittees. on humans, if the human gave consent i dont mind.
The ethics committee must also ensure that no laws are subverted or violated in the process, and most existing laws aren't equipped for anything that blurs the lines of legal personhood like this.
by consent i meant by a creature who can give consent. not to mention only those we can understand, so yeah, other grown up humans.
The inability to explicitly give consent is not a sufficient substitute for consent. If the directly affected individual is one that, for whatever reason, cannot influence the decision, why should those who are not directly affected be permitted to make such a decision on their own?
i dont see your point... by animals i obviously meant those that are not humans. and just because we improved what we lacked with technology doesnt mean we still couldnt inhance the senses in this way instead.
If it doesn't become a fitness trade-off, okay, but I don't see why you would need to rope in other species for that.
by consent i meant by a creature who can give consent. not to mention only those we can understand, so yeah, other grown up humans.
Like FishPreferred I am of the opinion that consent cannot be delegated to other individuals in that case. The only case when I would approve of genetic engineering of human germ cells is when there is a very good medical reason and sufficient research backing up the intervention. Anything else is an unnecessary risk and noone's business.
i dont see your point... by animals i obviously meant those that are not humans. and just because we improved what we lacked with technology doesnt mean we still couldnt inhance the senses in this way instead.
My point is, it is not necessary because we have other inoffensive means to reach the same goal, whereas genetic engineering bears risks, moral issues and technical limits.
i guess either my english isnt good enough or i simply wasnt clear enough. if the person is ok with it, i dont see why he shouldnt be used for such an experiment. if the person isnt ok with it, cant be ok with it, or cant show that he is ok with it in a way wed understand, the experiment shouldnt happen. and just because its unnecesairy, doesnt mean it shouldnt or cant be used. as long as the person is ok with it and understands the risks i see no problem
i guess either my english isnt good enough or i simply wasnt clear enough. if the person is ok with it, i dont see why he shouldnt be used for such an experiment. if the person isnt ok with it, cant be ok with it, or cant show that he is ok with it in a way wed understand, the experiment shouldnt happen.
Classical techniques that include the insertion or deletion of DNA sequences directly on a cell work easily with bacteria as they are single celled and the change will be spread when the edited cell multiplies. With animals it is more complex: it implies that for the change to spread to the whole organisms, it has to be operated early on. You have to work with embryonic stem cells, either by selecting the desired trait through genetic screening, or by germline engineering. Only operations at this stage enable the change to be present in the whole organism.
That is the reason why you cannot get consent, or why the comparison to aesthetic surgery doesn't work: you cannot genetically engineer a developed individual.
There is one technique that allows to insert bits of codes in adult organisms through specifically engineered viruses, called gene therapy. But while you can add or delete the expression of certain proteins in specific cells through this technique, it doesn't allow any fundamental changes on organs that are already fully developed. So as long as I am lacking a specific definition of 'hybrids', I assume that what is meant under that term involves changes too big to be done with gene therapy methods (and probably also with any other methods, frankly).
and just because its unnecesairy, doesnt mean it shouldnt or cant be used. as long as the person is ok with it and understands the risks i see no problem
I would agree, if there weren't technical limits (see above), possible risks (tinkering with the genetic code is like changing a computer program; if you don't know exactly what you are doing, and even if you do, you risk breaking something) and moral issues (see also the debate about so-called 'designer babies').
EDIT: I expanded a bit more on the technical aspects of genetic engineering compared to my original post (which is quoted in the post below), just saying this to avoid confusion.
That is the reason why you cannot get consent, and why the comparison to aesthetic surgery doesn't work: genetic engineering on animals only works with germ cells. Anything more developed, foetus, child, adult, cannot be engineered.
facepalm, of course. i even knew that... i dont know why i didnt even took that into consideration. well, yeah. i guess then in this case, its really hard to say. since some people think every cell is a living being and shouldnt be harmed while others dont. so im just gonna stick with what my feelings tell me and say that its ok if the result can be foreseen.
I would agree, if there weren't technical limits (see above), possible risks (tinkering with the genetic code is like changing a computer program; if you don't know exactly what you are doing, and even if you do, you risk breaking something) and moral issues (see also the debate about so-called 'designer babies').
i think the techincal limits are irrelevant since they are temporal. as for risks, i do think they are more of a moral problem since the risk is for the subject.
as for moral, yeah i get it. but i cant be totally against it either.i still think that maybe one day techonology will make it possible to shrink the risk and when/if that happens. will there be another reason not to do it?
