Human + Chimp = ?
john at publications.ccc.monash.edu.au
Mon Jul 22 03:14:28 EST 1991
In article <536.28871ecf at mbcl.rutgers.edu> kliman at mbcl.rutgers.edu writes:
>In article <1991Jul17.020458.16514 at monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,
john at publications.ccc.monash.edu.au (John Wilkins) writes:
>> I strongly suspect the only arguments are along the lines of the purity of
>> morphology of a species in God's eyes, which I suspect is question begging
>> the evolutionist point of view, or a social engineering question of the
>> unforeseeable consequences of such a race (a la SF), which is no real
>> at all, since EVERYTHING we do has unforeseaable consequences.
>If ethics simply reflected religious beliefs, wouldn't all atheists be
>Of course there are ethical questions raised by tampering with a human embryo,
>at any stage. Research performed to alleviate human sufferring can, in my
>view, be rationalized. And preliminary studies on model systems must be
>employed (and successful) up to the point where human embryos can no longer
>be substituted for. Certainly, no sane individual would tamper with an
>otherwise healthy late-stage human embryo.
>Research aimed at fixing wht ain't broke (e.g. ovum-fusion and genetic
>engineering of gametes), again in my view, falls under a different category.
>There are obvious alternatives, such as adoption, that preclude the necessity
>of tampering with gametes. There is no pressing need to take chances.
>Research that simply aims to satisfy curiosity has to answer to society. It
>goes beyond fixing what ain't broke. Studies on human-chimp hybrids do little
>to benefit society. They would not show us anything of general importance in
>genetics and evolution - other hybrid studies are better suited to addressing
>scientific questions. At what point would the studies end? Would all
>surviving blastulae be destroyed, or would researchers see how far they could
>take the embryo? And what happens if a human-chimp is actually born (as far-
>fetched as that may be)? Or do we abort our creatures at the last possible
>moment (presumably the mother will be a chimp, but the fetus, being a hybrid,
>may be protected by a conservative supreme court)
>To assert that the no real ethical questions exist in the absence of religion
>is absurd. In fact, if anyone can present a clear argument in favor of such
>research, given the FACT that some segments of society will be opposed, I
>like to see it presented. (And please don't say that the hybrids can be used
>for potential medical breakthroughs - there's already a moratorium on some
>fetal research, and I'm sure the same arguments would be used for half-human
>fetuses, let alone those out of the womb).
>- Rich Kliman
Sorry - my verbal shorthand. I meant that in THIS case, the objection is
primarily religion-based, or derived from religious presuppositions. I have
never seen an objection against cross-species fusion that stood up based on,
say, utilitarian ethics. However, that doesn't mean that I think there is none.
Of course research must answer to social concerns, but research that had to
justify every new act of curiosity would never get anywhere. I speak as a
government employee. I am not even sure that the ban on foetal research is
justified on good ethical grounds, unless the principle of "thou shalt not
offend thy neighbour's scruples" is an ethical ground.
More information about the Mol-evol