Latest News: The Great Trubulation

150 Human-Animal Hybrids grown in UK labs
Author Message
politicus incorrectissimus in extremis

Posts: 1,883
Group: Moderator
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #1
150 Human-Animal Hybrids grown in UK labs

150 human animal hybrids grown in UK labs: Embryos have been produced secretively for the past three years

By Daniel Martin and Simon Caldwell

Last updated at 8:19 AM on 25th July 2011

Scientists have created more than 150 human-animal hybrid embryos in British laboratories.

The hybrids have been produced secretively over the past three years by researchers looking into possible cures for a wide range of diseases.

The revelation comes just a day after a committee of scientists warned of a nightmare ‘Planet of the Apes’ scenario in which work on human-animal creations goes too far.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is currently considering whether donors can be paid for their services

Last night a campaigner against the excesses of medical research said he was disgusted that scientists were ‘dabbling in the grotesque’.

Figures seen by the Daily Mail show that 155 ‘admixed’ embryos, containing both human and animal genetic material, have been created since the introduction of the 2008 Human Fertilisation Embryology Act.

This legalised the creation of a variety of hybrids, including an animal egg fertilised by a human sperm; ‘cybrids’, in which a human nucleus is implanted into an animal cell; and ‘chimeras’, in which human cells are mixed with animal embryos.

Scientists say the techniques can be used to develop embryonic stem cells which can be used to treat a range of incurable illnesses.

Three labs in the UK – at King’s College London, Newcastle University and Warwick University – were granted licences to carry out the research after the Act came into force.

All have now stopped creating hybrid embryos due to a lack of funding, but scientists believe that there will be more such work in the future.

The figure was revealed to crossbench peer Lord Alton following a Parliamentary question.

[photo: Research centre: Warwick University has been growing animal human hybrids over the last three years]

Last night he said: ‘I argued in Parliament against the creation of human- animal hybrids as a matter of principle. None of the scientists who appeared before us could give us any justification in terms of treatment.

‘Ethically it can never be justifiable – it discredits us as a country. It is dabbling in the grotesque.

‘At every stage the justification from scientists has been: if only you allow us to do this, we will find cures for every illness known to mankind. This is emotional blackmail.

‘Of the 80 treatments and cures which have come about from stem cells, all have come from adult stem cells – not embryonic ones.
‘On moral and ethical grounds this fails; and on scientific and medical ones too.’

Josephine Quintavalle, of pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: ‘I am aghast that this is going on and we didn’t know anything about it.

‘Why have they kept this a secret? If they are proud of what they are doing, why do we need to ask Parliamentary questions for this to come to light?

‘The problem with many scientists is that they want to do things because they want to experiment. That is not a good enough rationale.’

[photo: Test centre: Newcastle University was another site where human animal hybrid testing was being undertaken]

Earlier this week, a group of leading scientists warned about ‘Planet of the Apes’ experiments. They called for new rules to prevent lab animals being given human attributes, for example by injecting human stem cells into the brains of primates.

But the lead author of their report, Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, from the Medical Research Council’ s National Institute for Medical Research, said the scientists were not concerned about human-animal hybrid embryos because by law these have to be destroyed within 14 days.

He said: ‘The reason for doing these experiments is to understand more about early human development and come up with ways of curing serious diseases, and as a scientist I feel there is a moral imperative to pursue this research.

‘As long as we have sufficient controls – as we do in this country – we should be proud of the research.’

However, he called for stricter controls on another type of embryo research, in which animal embryos are implanted with a small amount of human genetic material.

Human-animal hybrids are also created in other countries, many of which have little or no regulation.

Explore more:

Josephine Quintavalle
United Kingdom
Medical Research Council

Read more:

rez -- looking for the shockface smilie

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one… – Edmund Burke
07-27-2011 03:11 PM
Find all posts by this user
politicus incorrectissimus in extremis

Posts: 1,883
Group: Moderator
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #2
RE: 150 Human-Animal Hybrids grown in UK labs

U.S. Denies Patent for a Too-Human Hybrid
Scientist Sought Legal Precedent to Keep Others From Profiting From Similar 'Inventions'

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 13, 2005; Page A03

A New York scientist's seven-year effort to win a patent on a laboratory-conceived creature that is part human and part animal ended in failure Friday, closing a historic and somewhat ghoulish chapter in American intellectual-property law.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected the claim, saying the hybrid -- designed for use in medical research but not yet created -- would be too closely related to a human to be patentable.

Stuart Newman, a professor at New York Medical College in Valhalla, N.Y., had sought a ruling on whether the animal-human hybrid could be patented. (Philip Jensen-carter)

Paradoxically, the rejection was a victory of sorts for the inventor, Stuart Newman of New York Medical College in Valhalla, N.Y. An opponent of patents on living things, he had no intention of making the creatures. His goal was to set a legal precedent that would keep others from profiting from any similar "inventions."

But in an age when science is increasingly melding human and animal components for research -- already the government has allowed many patents on "humanized" animals, including a mouse with a human immune system -- the decision leaves a crucial question unanswered: At what point is something too human to patent?

Officials said it was not so difficult to make the call this time because Newman's technique could easily have created something that was much more person than not. But newer methods are allowing scientists to fine-tune those percentages, putting the patent office in an awkward position of being the federal arbiter of what is human.

"I don't think anyone knows in terms of crude percentages how to differentiate between humans and nonhumans," said John Doll, a deputy commissioner for patents. Yet neither is the office comfortable with a "we'll know it when we see it" approach, he added: "It would be very helpful . . . to have some guidance from Congress or the courts."

The Newman case reveals how far U.S. intellectual-property law has lagged behind the art and science of biotechnology. The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of patenting life only once, and that was 25 years ago.

It also raises profound questions about the differences -- and similarities -- between humans and other animals, and the limits of treating animals as property.

"The whole privatization of the biological world has to be looked at," Newman said, "so we don't suddenly all find ourselves in the position of saying, 'How did we get here? Everything is owned.' "

Newman's application, filed in 1997, described a technique for combining human embryo cells with cells from the embryo of a monkey, ape or other animal to create a blend of the two -- what scientists call a chimera. That's the Greek term for the mythological creature that had a lion's head, a goat's body and a serpent's tail.

Others had used similar methods to create a "geep," part goat and part sheep. But Newman's human-animal chimeras would have greater utility in medicine, for drug and toxicity testing and perhaps as sources of organs for transplantation into people.

In collaboration with Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington biotech activist and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, he challenged the patent office: Issue the patent, which would keep others from pursuing such work for 20 years, or reject it, effectively accomplishing the same thing.

The two had until Friday to appeal the latest rejection, but they decided to let it pass and declare victory.

For Rifkin, the case was deja vu in reverse. When U.S. scientist Ananda Chakrabarty applied for the first patent on a living organism -- a genetically engineered bacterium able to digest oil spills -- the case ended up in the Supreme Court because the patent office did not want to patent life forms. That time Rifkin filed the main amicus brief supporting the patent office.

They lost. In a 5 to 4 decision, the court declared that patents could be issued on "anything under the sun that is made by man."

The office has obliged, issuing patents on bacteria, yeast and, as of last fall, 436 animals.

In 1987, the patent office announced it would draw the line with humans, but it offered no legal rationale or statutory backing.

The paper trail created by the Newman claim offers perhaps the best explication yet for that ban. One rationale in the documents sent to Newman is that such a patent would be "inconsistent with the constitutional right to privacy." After all, the office wrote, a patent allows the owner to exclude others from making the claimed invention. If a patent were to issue on a human, it would conflict with one of the Constitution's core privacy rights -- a person's right to decide whether and when to procreate.

Patents on humans could also conflict with the 13th Amendment's prohibition against slavery. That is because a patent permits the owner to exclude others from "using" the invention. Because "use" can mean "employ," officials wrote, a patent holder could prevent a person from being employed by any other -- which "would be tantamount to involuntary servitude."

Finally, the office noted that it is illegal to import products that are made abroad using processes patented in the United States. To show how that could cause a problem in a world where people are patentable, it gave an example in which a person goes overseas and undergoes one of the many surgical procedures patented by U.S. doctors. Simply by returning to the United States, the office said, that "surgically altered human being" could be guilty of patent infringement for illegally importing herself.

Not all those concepts hold water with legal scholars. But the general position was greatly strengthened two years ago when Rep. David Joseph Weldon (R-Fla.) added a rider to an appropriations bill -- renewed this year -- barring patents on humans or human embryos.

Still unresolved by that wording, however, is what is human and what is not.

Last week, patent officials conceded they lack a good way of defining the "human" that Newman's patent supposedly too closely resembles.

The decision letter to Newman notes that many people have heart valves from pigs. A patent has even issued on the use of baboon cells in people to aid in organ transplantation. Those procedures, the letter says, "did not convert the human patient to a non-human."

Similarly, mice that have up to 1 percent human brain cells in their skulls are clearly mice, said Stanford University biologist Irving Weissman, one of the scientists who helped make hybrid rodents.

The tricky part, all agree, is what to do with the middle ground. Weissman and others, for example, have talked about their desire to make mice whose brains are made entirely of human brain cells.

Hank Greely, a professor of law and director of Stanford's Center for Law and the Biosciences, said even those animals would not seem very human to him. "But a chimp brain with human neurons. . . ."

That's exactly the kind of scenario that makes Rifkin, Newman and others want a total ban.

"If the U.S. Congress and president are not willing to do this now, then there is no door that will remain closed to an era of commercial eugenics," Rifkin said. "We'll be on our way to that brave new world that Aldous Huxley warned us about."

Leon Kass, chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, agreed that Congress should at least get involved.

"The patent office is not the place for society to make its moral decisions," Kass said.

Weldon, the Florida representative, said he is interested in providing such guidance -- and believes the public would favor restrictions.

"There's instant public revulsion when you start talking with the average person about this stuff." For starters, Weldon said, "I'd like to ban the creation of human embryos with animal genes in them."

But many scientists fear that Congress is likely to overreact.

"There are chimeras out there that serve very valuable purposes in medical research, such as mice that make human antibodies," said Michael Werner, chief of policy for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. "This is sufficiently technical scientifically that it should be left to scientific bodies like the National Academy of Sciences to decide."

That organization is now preparing a report, due in April, that will address scientific and ethical issues relating to human-animal chimeras. And although it will not probe deeply into intellectual-property issues, it may at least offer the patent office -- and the nation -- a modicum of the guidance it craves.

Researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.


When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one… – Edmund Burke
07-27-2011 07:32 PM
Find all posts by this user
In Spite of Many and Much

Posts: 2,239
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #3
RE: 150 Human-Animal Hybrids grown in UK labs

oh what tangled webs we weave.

aldous huxley indeed.

come quickly lord jesus. ... please. :pray:

Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. Of these I am foremost.--1 Timothy 1:15.

Above all things, have INTENSE Love for one another.--1 Peter 4:8.

Sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts. ... Hold a good conscience.--1 Peter 3:15, 16.

07-28-2011 12:28 AM
Find all posts by this user
man hu
Babe and any other piggy names

Posts: 2,498
Group: Moderator
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #4
RE: 150 Human-Animal Hybrids grown in UK labs

Yes I only got hold of this information a couple of days ago, but my fiance has been concerned about "weaponised" baboons as an insurmountble force from something he saw several years ago.
07-28-2011 12:35 AM
Find all posts by this user

Posts: 713
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #5
RE: 150 Human-Animal Hybrids grown in UK labs

Just as in the days of Noah..... we are trying to do the same thing the angels did mixing human DNA with something else.
It's time for this system to fail because of this.


07-28-2011 01:17 AM
Find all posts by this user

Posts: 484
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Post: #6
RE: 150 Human-Animal Hybrids grown in UK labs

digging Wrote:
Just as in the days of Noah..... we are trying to do the same thing the angels did mixing human DNA with something else.
It's time for this system to fail because of this.


>>>>>>>>>>> That is so true sis

At the present scientist are experimenting with embryo brain stem cells , so far they have high hopes to be able to replace the brains of those who are in comas. They do admit that if successful, and they are pleased so far with their experimenting, but
their one concern and they admit it , .. is they have no idea how to give the brain a conscience.

Has any one taken notice, that Satan's world would love to do everything that The Messianic Kingdom will do. .........Satan would just love to be honored and take credit for creating a " new life."

We humans are already facing a one world government, a one world religion, There's all kinds of artificial body parts, where a artificial leg can even run faster then a normal leg. A new arm is better then none. There's organ transplants, eye lens that replace your old natural lens from cataracts.and blindness. ( I know )
There's face lifts, there's wrinkle removal creams, there's even hair transplants , for those that are balding.
Scientist are trying to lengthen the life span, but nothing in this system will ever match up with the real promises that will be covered by Jesus reign..

I would not be a bit surprised if there aren't clones being made to harvest body parts for the very wealthy/
There was a Movie like that years back. (Think it was called "Coma "with Mike Douglas) way before cloning was even thought of .( except for the producer ).

As Isoman put it and as Lee always says
Come quickly Lord Jesus.

susanna :grouphug:

Jehovah and one is a large army
07-28-2011 04:59 PM
Find all posts by this user
This Space For Rent

Posts: 1,839
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #7
RE: 150 Human-Animal Hybrids grown in UK labs

This is why I am skeptical of Science as providing the answers to everything. On the one hand, scientists think they can explain everything without God, and on the other hand they want to play God.

My Blog: The Prophetic Word

Latest post: Daniel 9 And The Seventy (70) Weeks - How Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy was fulfilled.
07-30-2011 07:32 PM
Find all posts by this user

Posts: 713
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #8
RE: 150 Human-Animal Hybrids grown in UK labs

That's why I think 'modern man' is the 'man of lawlessness' of 2thess.

They ARE playing God.


07-31-2011 04:51 AM
Find all posts by this user

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: