…and this is a 
It's happening again. The Republicans are tilting at one of their favorite windmills, the mad scientists' dream of creating an unholy union between beast and human to produce a slave race of soulless monsters. They have introduced legislation to ban human-animal hybrids. And it's even bipartisan! They've got 19 Rethuglicans, like Sam Brownback, the ignoramus from Kansas:
What was once only science fiction is now becoming a reality, and we need to ensure that experimentation and subsequent ramifications do not outpace ethical discussion and societal decisions. History does not look kindly on those who violate the dignity of the human person.
And they've also got 1 Dimocrat, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana:
Here in the United States, we simply cannot open the door to the unethical blending of humans and animals, which the British government seems intent on doing. It creates an unnatural species and is a clear line we cannot cross.
One teensy little problem: these clowns do not understand the science. We actually aren't planning to creating a slave-race of beast-men; the technology isn't there, for one thing, and for another, that's really not at all an interesting goal. No one is planning on operating on any human persons, or even violating them; the focus is all on cells and molecules. This is routine stuff. In one hand, you've got a dish full of human cells — it doesn't talk, it can't sign a consent form even if it had the capacity to understand one — and you want to know what makes them tick. In the other hand, you've got a collection of hard-won tools you've gathered from work in mice or worms or flies; interesting vectors, genes that act as indicators or switches, ways to basically reach into a cell and toggle states. Scientists have had these for years, and we've regularly used these tools to manipulate cells and puzzle out what happens.
Another example: we want to know what genes on different human chromosomes do, but it is highly unethical to do random mutagenesis on human gametes, bring them together, and then raise up the fetus in a volunteer's womb to find out what interesting ways it might go kablooiee. One technique that has been used is to make mouse-human hybrid cells: use a little ethylene glycol to weaken the cell membranes, push a mouse cell next to a human cell, and presto, they fuse. They then recover and go through cell divisions, and the hybrid cell begins to lose pieces of the unnatural excess of chromosomes it's got. You can then screen the resultant cells and correlate the presence or absence of gene products with the presence or absence of specific human chromosomes.
I know. It sounds so nefarious.
One more example: scientists have made transgenic pigs carrying five human genes. The idea is to create animals that can be a source for xenografts — transplanted organs — in humans with a reduced level of rejection. These pigs would become illegal under the Brownback bill, because they mingle a blessedly human H-transferase gene with pig cells. This is not to argue that there are no ethical considerations in these kinds of experiments, since there certainly are: we can argue about the ethics of creating species of pigs with the specialized purpose of providing organs for human use (it's about as great a moral dilemma as raising pigs for meat), and there's also the concern that hybrid pigs will also be dangerous incubators for training viruses to respond to human epitopes. But the ethical debates aren't the domain of crude science-fiction versions of the science that these clueless lawmakers think them to be.
I'd like Brownback to answer a simple question. Does putting the human insulin or growth factor gene into E. coli violate the dignity of the human person? If it does, he's suggesting shutting down a good chunk of the pharmaceutical industry. And Ms Landrieu: what is an "unnatural species"? If they're unnatural and we can't cross that line, then we certainly don't need legislation to enforce it.
I don't know why she bothered to complain about the British government, unless she's using just plain old conservative xenophobia to stir up votes. American scientists have been using hybrid cells and have been introducing cross-species genes into cells for a long, long time now.
Politics
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 14, 2009 9:48 AM
Aren't there people walking around with skin grafts from pigs? (creepy music) It's already begun!
Posted by: minimalist | July 14, 2009 9:52 AM
The real purpose is to elevate human cells to the level of human beings. It's a backdoor way to strengthen the legal precedent for outlawing abortion.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 14, 2009 9:56 AM
This kind of knee-jerk ignorance has the potential to severely undermine world-class research in America. The idea of taking a pot-shot at the British government smacks of xenophobia, but also misses the point that the UK has been punching well above its weight in many areas of international research. As much as anything, this is simply because it develops scientifically-driven research policies to encourage international researchers to work here, and domestic researchers to stay here (even though brain drain has been something of worry here - at least we aren't generally legislating against entire fields of research).
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 14, 2009 9:57 AM
If only you weren't so militant PZ, then these Unscientific America(ns) wouldn't pass absurd legislation. This is all yours and Richard Dawkins fault... if only Carl Sagan were alive, it wouldn't have happened under his watch.
Posted by: Brandon P. | July 14, 2009 10:00 AM
A philosophical question: should the actual products of the science described here actually be called "human-animal hybrids"? The term makes it sound like they're making furries.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 14, 2009 10:01 AM
As if these doofuses had any clue about that.
Posted by: Matt | July 14, 2009 10:08 AM
So would this law halt the production of biosynthetic insulin? Should we instead raise a crop of "pure" humans from which to harvest blood sugar?
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 14, 2009 10:09 AM
The Brownback et al are the results of fusing humans with a cabbage. And the cabbage contributed the neural tissue.
Posted by: Bishop of Pork | July 14, 2009 10:09 AM
The legislators shouldn't worry about the Biologists. It's the Physicists that have been developing transporter machines with the aim of creating Human/Fly hybrids that worries me!
Posted by: Matt | July 14, 2009 10:11 AM
At #5 / Brandon P.
And aren't humans animals?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 14, 2009 10:12 AM
I suppose next, they'll ban research into all forms of medical resuscitation for fear of a zombie apocalypse.
Say goodbye to your defibrillators, doctors.
Posted by: Holydust | July 14, 2009 10:14 AM
@Matt:
not for Fundamentalist Christians, we're not. We are MAN. Animals were put here to serve us. They're beneath us. Didn't you know that? We're not animals. Pshaw.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 14, 2009 10:15 AM
If they were, I'd demand the Pentagon's entire budget be diverted into that research.
Posted by: Ultima thule | July 14, 2009 10:15 AM
Does this bill mean that the Marvel and DC comics will be banned?
:P
Posted by: tsig | July 14, 2009 10:16 AM
Fear what you do not understand!!
Posted by: blf | July 14, 2009 10:21 AM
Whenever a Thug (and in this case, joined by a Dummy) suggests something sciency, I'd like them to first pass the Dihydrogen Monoxide test. DHMO is nasty horrible stuff that really should be banned. It's killing more people every day than whatever sciency thingy the Thug or Dummy is going on about. DHMO must be banned! Write to the Thug or Dummy and insist, insist, they ban DHMO as matter of urgency. Think of all the babies they could be saving. And puppies.
Posted by: MikeB | July 14, 2009 10:23 AM
Suddenly a Seinfeld episode comes to mind.
"The government has been experimenting with Pig-men since the 50's!"..."It's a military thing".
Posted by: Kevin Anthoney | July 14, 2009 10:24 AM
Interesting - I didn't know cells fused that easily. I guess that has implications as to how sex got started, which is something I was wondering about after the recent "how did females evolve" question.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 14, 2009 10:25 AM
As a Brit I am rather proud our Government listened politely to the religious objections to using human/animal hybrids in research and then said, thank you, but come back when you have substantive objections and carried on pushing the law through Parliament anyway.
Posted by: DoxieVee
|
July 14, 2009 10:26 AM
I wonder are my country's fundies haunted by ghastly visions of horrific chimeras wandering the earth, ripping at the breast of good Christian children with their feline claws, whilst devouring the squirting innards with their arthropodean mandibled jaws and simultaneously raping their women with their conspiciously badly-arranged human genitalia?
Posted by: blf | July 14, 2009 10:29 AM
I didn't think the Pentagon's expertise extended into the culinary arts?
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 14, 2009 10:30 AM
I really enjoy the title of this post... It just sounds so comedic.
More seriously, though, this kind of legislation never made sense to me. Scientists are remarkably good at policing themselves through the current setup of regulatory ethical agencies and peer review. Modulating the regulatory agencies is the job of non-scientific legislative bodies, rather than regulating specific research practices in which they do not have the appropriate background to make an informed decision.
Posted by: JHS
|
July 14, 2009 10:32 AM
Typical. Take something scientifically complex and entirely benign (potentially groundbreaking, even), and all of a sudden the pols are having visions of The Island of Dr. Moreau. What must they think of blood transfusions and organ transplants? Does the recipient suddenly become some sort of unholy metaphysical mutant? A Janus-like demigod perhaps? Because I can only gather that, if one were to explain the basics of transfusion or transplantation to these people at the same level they likely understand this science, the answer would be yes. The blood of two men fused into one? Horror! *grabs his stake and pitchfork*
Posted by: Felix | July 14, 2009 10:33 AM
blf,
DHMO, that's this stuff that only existed after the Fall let in all that sin into our DNA, right? See, it's our fault, we wouldn't die of it if we were not so willfully imperfect, with our stupid windpipe and DHMO-intolerant lungs.
Posted by: ritebrother | July 14, 2009 10:33 AM
Kevin #18:
That's how monoclonal antibodies are produced: Splecocytes from immunized mice are fused with human myeloma cells with PEG to generate an immortal hybrid clone that pumps out immunoglobulins all day (following much chemical selection and screening).
Posted by: Pascalle
|
July 14, 2009 10:35 AM
I'm confused.
Of course i'm no biologist, but i read stuff and watched documentaries about the human body.
Isn't it so that we ourselves are the homes of millions of bacteria and such, which are if you look at it scientifically non human material.
Wouldn't that make us illegal under that law?
(or am i thinking too simple here?)
Posted by: Someone | July 14, 2009 10:35 AM
Who wouldn't want mermaids and centaurs? I like mermaids and centaurs!
Posted by: raven | July 14, 2009 10:38 AM
This is a disgusting legislative act.
Next they will be outlawing the production of Frankenstein class monsters, zombies, time machines, and shape shifters.
It also won't work, our best monster makers and mad scientists will just move to more enlightened places. The USA will inevitabily fall behind in the post-human race. One day a few decades from now, an army of superhuman clones may defeat our army of national guard callups.
When radioactive spiders are illegal, only criminals will have Spiderman type powers.
Posted by: Mu | July 14, 2009 10:38 AM
They lost the fight on stem cells, so this is the new battle field. They are deadly afraid we get to the stage of taking a rib of a man and grow a woman.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 14, 2009 10:39 AM
I agree. You humans could use some touch ups. Give the few scientifically-minded Texans a nice thick pelt, and they'll probably be more willing to tolerate moving out of this backwoods podunk and into that frozen land to the north you Yankees are proud of.
And, of course, claws, ultrasonic/subsonic hearing, acute sense of smell, wings, gills, echolocation, and digitigrade legs are all nifty additions you could go for.
Posted by: ritebrother | July 14, 2009 10:40 AM
@25: splenocytes, not splecocytes (typo)
Posted by: Mike in Ontario, NY
|
July 14, 2009 10:40 AM
Jebus, our politicians are insipid!
And to think, I was making animal/human cell hybrids 20+ years ago as an undergraduate. I took a Hybridoma Techniques course, one of the most enjoyable lab courses I ever took, and it was a great thrill to successfully create hybrids from mouse spleen cells and human tumor cells. Even the day when my partner confused the bottle of benchtop disinfectant with the bottle of PEG (the chemical that facilitates cell fusion) was a real (ahem) learning experience.
They never did find his body...
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 14, 2009 10:41 AM
And here I thought sheeple were the Republican base...
Posted by: Standard curve
|
July 14, 2009 10:41 AM
They can have my insulin when they pry it from my cold, dead, hyperglycemic, ketoacidic hands.
Posted by: Joseph Smidt | July 14, 2009 10:42 AM
It is very unfortunate that "blown out of proportion" claims and talking points hurt basic science.
We, as scientists, have got to figure out how to get politicians to see correctly though I have no idea how that can be done effectively.
Posted by: SEF | July 14, 2009 10:45 AM
It's probably partly because the British are the traditional US baddies - from the factual if distant history of US independence to the fiction of many block-buster Hollywood movies. Unlike just about everyone else they could pick on to make into a rhetorical baddy, the (largely secular, sarcastic, self-deprecating, non-excitable, old-world-wise) British* can be relied on not to retaliate. We're a safe, comfortable, saggy old punch-bag.
* This is less likely to be true of the new-age British teens etc brought up on American trash. They've been acquiring lots of bad American traits instead of the best world-weary ones. But, unlike UnSAnians, they tend not to be well armed - because we're still quite a bit more careful about that over here.
Posted by: JRQ | July 14, 2009 10:46 AM
These idiots don't have a clue what a serious ethical discussion about scientific issues looks like. They wouldn't even recognize such a thing if they saw it.
Posted by: Jeff S | July 14, 2009 10:47 AM
This is going to cause an uproar in the Neko* community.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 14, 2009 10:51 AM
I thin another reason why Hollywood likes British villains is that British actors tend to be able to act. And playing the bad guy is much harder than playing the hero. The classic example can be found in Die Hard. Alan Rickman was brilliant, and acted Bruce Willis of the set.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 14, 2009 10:52 AM
Hubristic fools! Can't you see that there are Places that Man was Not Meant to Go?
Posted by: tom p | July 14, 2009 10:55 AM
PZ, I've got to take issue with some of what you said:
"One teensy little problem: these clowns do not understand the science. We actually aren't planning to creating a slave-race of beast-men; the technology isn't there, for one thing, and for another, that's really not at all an interesting goal."
Speak for yourself, but I can't wait for the day when my man-pig can do all the menial tasks.
Posted by: amphiox | July 14, 2009 10:58 AM
#18: Regarding the '"how did females evolve" question', the more accurate question is "how did males evolve?" given that the puny, motile, completely-useless-for-everything-except-reproduction male gamete was the novel specialization that needs to be explained, while the big, independent, fully capable of surviving except for the one detail of the chromosome reduction, female gamete is not that much of a change from the ancestral cloning cell.
Posted by: raven | July 14, 2009 10:59 AM
This is Medieval not-thinking. The fundies really do want to go back to the Dark Ages and take us with them. They say exactly this often.
We don't have the technology to make man-animal hybrids in the sense they mean. It isn't even on the horizon and no one has any plans anyway.
This is just superstitious, ignorant xian Death Cultists being themselves. They do this a lot. Fundies are constantly making up lies and myths and circulating them among themselves for decades and even centuries.
1. UFO flying saucers exist. They are piloted by demons from hell.
2. The missing children are kidnapped by satanists who use them in blood rituals ending in their death. They also breed babies when the supply of missing children is low. The fundies actually badgered the FBI for years to arrest the satanic rings. The FBI couldn't even find a single "satanist".
3. Proctor and Gamble is run by satanists P&G has actually had to sue these clowns for libel to put up or shut up.
4. Teaching evolution leads to cannibalism. This is one that Cynthia Dunbar of the TSBOE uses in mailings.
5. Scienists plan to make ape human and dog human hybrids for some reason they can't quite remember using technology they can't quite understand.
6. Obama is a Moslem Terrorist who was born in Kenya.
7. Who knows? They will undoubtedly make up an endless series of lies and circulate them.
This sort of irrational, paranoid, stupid thinking is slowly destroying US xianity. When xian becomes synonymous with Liar, Ignorant, Crazy, Stupid, and sometimes Terrorist-Killer, who would want to be one? Worked for me.
PS Louisiana was considering a similar bill a year ago. Don't know if they ever passed it or not but they probably did.
Posted by: blf | July 14, 2009 11:01 AM
Pass a law making assassinating elected officials legal?
More seriously, but perhaps less fun, involvement: Testify at hearings; Talk to the press, visitors, &tc; Publicly ridicule with evidence silly things like this bill; and so on. Popular and press support is a big help.
All conventional, boring, stuff. But it works: Look at what corporations and special interest groups and the like do. This, of course, could lead down the slippery trail of PR gobbledygook and similar nonsenses (e.g., bribes and "spin"). Not to mention consuming time and other resources.
And very probably on a proactive, if not perhaps continuing, basis. Not sporadically, or only reactively in response to Teh Stoopid…
Posted by: Don Martin | July 14, 2009 11:02 AM
Creating a "soulless race of slaves" might possibly have been attractive before the Industrial Revolution (this suggests nothing very flattering about the mind set of this law's proponents), but today, with a global population over 6 billion and constant inroads into the potential slave market by robotics, it is an idea well past its time, even if it were an idea capable of realization.
Posted by: Wheelhouse Parboil | July 14, 2009 11:05 AM
This is the Terri Schaivo event of the current
legislative session. It is for a subset of the
folks back in the district. You atheists need
not be concerned; nothing to see here.
Posted by: Taki | July 14, 2009 11:08 AM
"We actually aren't planning to creating a slave-race of beast-men;...that's really not at all an interesting goal."
Are you kidding? That would be awesome!
Er, I'll just go back to the furry corner now. >_>
Posted by: amphiox | July 14, 2009 11:09 AM
Unnatural species?
As in species created by man which could never have arisen or survived in nature?
OK, what about the following?
Dog
Cat
Cow
Chicken
Corn
Wheat
Banana
Almond
etc
Of course, if science fiction is to be believed, potential future unnatural species will include:
SKYNET
The Matrix
Jurassic Park's part alligator and featherless Velociraptor (actually Deinonychus)
etc
Posted by: Josh
|
July 14, 2009 11:09 AM
Fixed it.
I don't think it's accurate to describe the United States Congress, if taken as a whole, as particularly science literate.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 14, 2009 11:11 AM
This won't of course stop the richer republicans from going abroad to benefit from the medical research of other countries in the future.
Posted by: Lykeros | July 14, 2009 11:16 AM
I see that both of the Arizona Senators are participating in this drivel.
It would seem that Arizona is attempting to make its name known in the anti-science community. What with the dimwit Sylvia Allen claiming the earth is only 6,000 years old just a week ago and now this?
Why on earth do we elect these people?
Posted by: Scrabcake | July 14, 2009 11:19 AM
Ooooh. Screw this petrie dish stuff. I want my kids to be half puma! Where do I sign up?!
Posted by: windy | July 14, 2009 11:21 AM
Simple, first we make the Manimals and then we send Them where Man was not Meant to Go. Molemen and squidmen, for those hard to reach places.
Posted by: mr.ed | July 14, 2009 11:21 AM
Thees peeple are so stoopid thay cant evin count jeans. Hows my spelin?
Posted by: BB | July 14, 2009 11:22 AM
They should pass those laws and limit science. Just this morning our CHO cells assembled themselves into a (horror) womanamal. Before I could ask her out, she pushed me down, grabbed my labcoat with my car keys in the pocket and said something about heading for SCRIPPS. Fortunately I had a bottle of DHMO which I threw at her, unable to maintain isotonic pressure she dissolved into a pile of cytoplasm screeming "what a world"
Oh the humanity, all is vainity.
Posted by: raven | July 14, 2009 11:23 AM
These scientific illiterates don't even understand their own paranoid delusions.
They left out human-plant and human-fungal hybrids.
Many decades ago, someone fused human (Hela) cells with plant cells to make an interkingdom heterokaryon..
Posted by: recovering catholic | July 14, 2009 11:25 AM
Re PZ's "Dimocrat"--my first impulse was to correct the spelling, then enlightenment hit...
I'm a bit slow this morning.
Posted by: Brad | July 14, 2009 11:28 AM
I've actually seen one of these man-beasts, and he is the stuff of comic books (Conan the Barbarian and The Terminator) First he had pig parts surgically grafted into his heart, then he became a republican and is now the governor of California.
Posted by: mck9 | July 14, 2009 11:32 AM
According to the article, the proposed legislation would ban "developing embryos that use both human and animal material."
Embryos. Nothing about fusing fibroblasts in a dish, or putting insulin genes into E. Coli. Nothing in the article at least; I haven't read the bill.
Yes, the bill could be a problem for those who want to produce transgenic pigs, or pursue various other lines of legitimate research. And yes, the ensoulment of human zygotes is no doubt part of the not-so-hidden agenda. And yes, the bill is no doubt a horrible misbegotten beast born of ignorance and superstition.
But let's not rush hysterically to the barricades to defend things that aren't being attacked.
Now I expect to be royally flamed for daring to suggest that PZ and his readers are capable of overreaction.
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
July 14, 2009 11:37 AM
I actually missed that on my first quick reading of the post. And then looking back through, it caught my eye and--I'm ashamed to admit--I had the exact same impulse/enlghtenment that you did. :-)
Posted by: Wainscott | July 14, 2009 11:40 AM
This is excellent news!
Our Republican agents will soon have removed any hope you would have of countering the imperial hybrid legions of Her Majesty when the reclaiming of the rebel colonies begins!
Victory approaches but first it's time for tea.
Posted by: Galbinus_Caeli | July 14, 2009 11:44 AM
I suspect that these people would define bacteria and virii as "animals" and as a result this would make most gene therapies illegal.
Would it also make it illegal for anyone who has received gene transfer therapy overseas to reenter the US?
What about people who have had animal tissue integrated into their bodies through the process of digestion?
Posted by: Qwerty
|
July 14, 2009 11:45 AM
Hey wait, this has already been done in the gay community. They are called "bears" and some are very furry!
Posted by: Bob | July 14, 2009 11:47 AM
This makes me so glad to live in Australia.
Posted by: Masklinn | July 14, 2009 11:48 AM
Well I'm very sorry PZ but I, for one, do want full-blown human-animal hybrids. I don't know you, but over the 27 or so years of my life, I've discovered that human eyes (mine in particular) blew chunks, so I'd be glad if I could one day replace them by far superior eyes. Cephalopod eyes would be a good start, though I'm pining for mantis shrimp eyes.
Posted by: marcus
|
July 14, 2009 11:49 AM
(sniff) This is so romantical. It was the manimal post popping up that lead me to this blog in the very beginning. And the rethugplicans are just as stupid as ever. Oh, memories pressed between the pages ...
Posted by: limes | July 14, 2009 11:54 AM
This sounds suspiciously like a plan to outlaw my dream of creating Orc-mimics to take over the world and feed me cheesecake and manflesh all day.
Posted by: blf | July 14, 2009 12:00 PM
Sorry to break it to you old chap, but in a very Douglas Adams moment, you've a scale problem: The entire invading fleet was eaten by a baby field mouse shortly after landing, who mistook the legions for a cricket.
Posted by: xenophon | July 14, 2009 12:01 PM
Why do you biologists follow these inane laws? If I knew more of the science (just to terrify you I'm learning)I would have gone Walter Bishop by now.Remeber YOU do not have to follow any laws that YOU don't want agree with.
Posted by: detrius | July 14, 2009 12:05 PM
So, does this proposal prove that Republicans are uncannily familiar with the furry subculture for some unidentified (hah!) reason or what?
Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 14, 2009 12:08 PM
What is often lost in the story of the legislation here in the UK is that when the scientists first thought seriously about doing this there was no law to stop them. Did they go ahead anyway? no. They went to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and asked that they set up a licensing regime for it. The HFEA decided they had no such power and went to government who set up a consultation and put it to a free vote iirc. There were no Whips involved (except for Tory MPs in private of course).
This mirrors the situation some years ago where the people at the University of Southampton who do research with cephalopods lobbied that they be included in the animal research licensing regime along with mammals and other vertebrates. Not because they had any worries about what they were doing but because they worried about what others might do. IOW they volunteered to be regulated and having been involved in writing two Project Licenses under the Act let me tell you it is no trivial thing.
I have other examples of scientists being more ethically minded than other professionals or lay members. Some of our number may be out of control (certain South Koreans come to mind, but they cleaned house), but as a group we are regulation friendly.
Posted by: Miguel | July 14, 2009 12:09 PM
Right, because unnatural is bad. *shudders*
Posted by: barryS | July 14, 2009 12:10 PM
Perhaps at the same time we can push for an amendment to this bill to ban unholy legislation hybrids, thereby reducing the need to keep guns in our national parks when passing stimulus or budget bills.
Posted by: MikeM | July 14, 2009 12:11 PM
As a Crohn's sufferer, I deeply resent this stance. People I know have been helped a lot by Remicade, which is a mouse-human hybrid protein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infliximab
I'm using Humira myself, which works better than Remicade, but if these idiots had their way, I'd be suffering for the rest of my life. Remicade has given many, many people hope, and now a doofus who wants to become president wants to take that away. It pisses me off.
If Brownback wants to learn what life is really like, we should all hope he gets into a position where Remicade is the only solution for him. Then, explain that he can't have any because we want him to learn what life would be like without it. After all, I'm sure he'd resent having mouse protein running around in his bloodstream.
There's no reason to think Remicade would turn Brownback into a monster. He already IS a monster.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 14, 2009 12:26 PM
I am also reminded of what happened after the first bacteria were transformed with recombinant DNA plasmids. There was the Asilomar Conference held in 1975:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asilomar_Conference_on_Recombinant_DNA
Where a moratorium on doing this was agreed while a cooperative effort was begun to cripple E. Coli so it couldn't live outside the lab, recombine its dna, have bacterial sex or a number of other things. Only once they had such strains did the work resume. Nobody, no government, no other authority forced them to do this, only their own knowledge of the risks.
Thanks to them we do transform coli with all sorts of stuff every day on the open lab bench with absolutely no problems unless you don't like the smell of coli in the morning.
Posted by: Chiaroscuro | July 14, 2009 12:28 PM
So, this means i must say goodbye to my dream of having batwings attached to my arms and octopus tentacles in my face?
So sad. But, thank Cthulhu, I live in South America where we can create pigman slaves to use in our genetic experiments without law interference.
Posted by: HP | July 14, 2009 12:29 PM
I've managed to get my hands on the complete text of Brownback's bill:
Posted by: Joffan | July 14, 2009 12:31 PM
Damn. I want my grandkids to have cuttlefish eyes.
I see Masklinn had a similar thought, above, although with less generational patience :-)
Posted by: Victor
|
July 14, 2009 12:37 PM
Today they outlaw Manimal, tomorrow it will be Automan. When will it stop?
Posted by: sophia kitty | July 14, 2009 12:44 PM
why do they hate furries so much? science is our only hope for realizing our true selves! :O
Posted by: Charles | July 14, 2009 12:46 PM
What do they have to say about such (indirectly) genetically engineered, unnatural species as cattle, dogs, corn, and bananas, to name a few?
Posted by: mck9 | July 14, 2009 12:46 PM
MikeM at #74: from what I can tell from the Wikipedia article you cited, Remicade is not threatened by the proposed legislation.
Remicade is a type of monoclonal antibody. Producing monoclonal antibodies typically involves the fusion of myeloma cells with spleen cells. No transgenic embryos are involved. If the bill only bans transgenic embryos, not somatic cells fused in culture, then it poses no threat to Remicade.
If Remicade is a special case involving transgenic embryos for some reason, then all bets are off.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 14, 2009 12:54 PM
Guess it's time to get out my "Catgirls against Bush" t-shirt again. :P
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 14, 2009 1:03 PM
Yes. Unfortunately, the public likes to react to almost any science story by assuming that the wild-haired, ethically unconstrained madmen who practice 99% of actual science will attempt to destroy the world/civilization/society at the drop of a hat.
Even the apparent transformation of stem cells into "artificial" sperm was greeted with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and the dull mantra "just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should". This, apparently because scientists were planning to start churning out fatherless children by impregnating women with their own clones, rather than using the sperm cells for research (for example, into why some men are azoospermic). Obviously.
The new race of self-fertilizing, scary-lesbian overlords ("overladies"? - sounds like some kind of Victorian underwear) will of course be contingent on the LHC not creating a planet-munching Black Hole prior to the wholesale redundancy of men becoming a reality.
Posted by: Bone Oboe | July 14, 2009 1:13 PM
That line reminds me strongly of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAArwzqshpw
That video is nuttier than squirrel shit.
My apologies if this has been posted here before.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
July 14, 2009 1:20 PM
Now, either I've gotten a whole hell of a lot smarter (doubtful), or Republicans have steadily gotten dumber over the years.
I'd be embarrassed for my country, but I'm currently enjoying my shiny, new genius status.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 14, 2009 1:20 PM
Bernard Bumner wins the internet!
Dude, you seriously owe me a keyboard.
Posted by: Bryan Elliott | July 14, 2009 1:32 PM
This is just legislation from the anthrocentric agenda. How dare they infringe upon my right to yiff!
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 14, 2009 1:41 PM
I'm sorry.
I'll place the order, just as soon as I've managed to shake the mental image from my own mind (yards of starched cloth, laces, and indecently numerous frills)...
Posted by: Confuseddave
|
July 14, 2009 2:06 PM
which the British government seems intent on doing
What? I remember this being a closely fought battle of desperately trying to educate stupid politicians and journalists. My memory was that the British government was "intent" on banning the fuck out of them until we convinced them that that was a stupid idea.
Posted by: bobxxxx | July 14, 2009 2:18 PM
If I remember correctly, Sam Brownback was one of the Republican retards who raised their hands at a debate when the question was who rejects evolution.
Should Christian idiots, who don't even know what science is, be allowed to tell scientists what they can and can't do? I don't think so.
Posted by: Sharon | July 14, 2009 2:45 PM
Oh, shit. They were listening to Hannity again and saw the video of the Michigan dogman/werewolf.
Posted by: Kobra | July 14, 2009 2:55 PM
Except, perhaps, a few furries who may or may not be scientists. But I think that's more of a fantasy than a goal.Posted by: Rob Jase | July 14, 2009 2:58 PM
I just don't get it.
Wouldn't such hybrids be evidence for ID?
Shouldn't they want to prove their religion is scientically accurate?
Or are they afraid we might do a better job than their proposed creator Dog?
Posted by: Rob Jase | July 14, 2009 3:01 PM
I just don't get it.
Wouldn't such hybrids be evidence for ID?
Shouldn't they want to prove their religion is scientically accurate?
Or are they afraid we might do a better job than their proposed creator Dog?
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 14, 2009 3:08 PM
Let's see-- according to the scorecard, human/animal hybrids= bad, killer military warbots with a taste for human flesh=good.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532492,00.html
Posted by: Buzz Buzz | July 14, 2009 3:22 PM
Will someone please, please think of the furries!?
Posted by: Blondin | July 14, 2009 3:29 PM
Boy, I would sure hate to be one of those human/pig hybrids and get shipwrecked on a desert island. I mean guess who would be first in the pot when the rations run out!
Kind of reminds me of the old WS Gilbert poem:
Oh, I am a cook and a captain bold,
And the mate of the Nancy brig,
And a bo'sun tight, and a midshipmite,
And the crew of the captain's gig.
Picture the Skipper & passengers of the SS Minnow chasing Gilligan all over the island to the tune of Yakkedy Sax...
"I'm not bacon! I'm not bacon!"
Posted by: AnswersInGenitals | July 14, 2009 3:30 PM
To blf @ #16;
Perhaps we should point out to these people that DHMO is so extremely toxic that at one time in the not so distant past it came very close to wiping out all life on earth! Of course, that was a rather large dose.
Posted by: Tom Coward | July 14, 2009 3:31 PM
Apologies if this point has been made earlier, but the most likely explanation for this proposal is that right-wing politicians are simply casting around for some sort of potential rallying point to attract right-wing religionists. They have beaten the anti-gay horse nearly to death, and the "Obama is a closet Muslim/Kenyan/Socialist/etc./etc." meme is withering on the vine, so they need something new to attract the simple.
Posted by: blf | July 14, 2009 3:35 PM
Roasted with fresh garlic and leeks and a few herbs, and a spicy red wine, sounds about right.
Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | July 14, 2009 3:42 PM
They do specify "embryo", and define it as "an organism of the species Homo sapiens during the earliest stages of development, from 1 cell up to 8 weeks."
But it's a ludicrous bill and grandstanding.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | July 14, 2009 4:06 PM
@59:
What about my transgenic mice that carry the human immunoglobulin repertoire so that it can produce human antibodies in response to pathogens? It is a source of human antibodies in large enough quantities to perform various immunological assays. This legislation seems to directly impact that!
Posted by: amphiox | July 14, 2009 4:14 PM
#56: "They left out human-plant and human-fungal hybrids."
I like this idea. We can get our sugar fix by sunbathing.
And think of the reduction in the carbon footprint of the human race (both direct and indirect!).
The green skin thing might be a little problematic, but then a temporary reduction in the birth rate would probably be a good thing in the long run.
Posted by: mck9 | July 14, 2009 4:23 PM
Kausik Datta at #103: according to Tsu Dho Nimh at #102, the bill refers specifically to human embryos. Unless the concept of "human embryo" is twisted so as to be (mis)construed as "any embryo containing any human DNA", it would seem that the bill would not affect transgenic mice (or pigs for that matter).
Posted by: Carlie | July 14, 2009 4:28 PM
The green skin thing might be a little problematic,
Didn't seem to bother James T. Kirk much.
Posted by: Gilbert | July 14, 2009 4:54 PM
Too late - the Republican Party already exists
Posted by: genesgalore | July 14, 2009 5:12 PM
are you sure that brownback isn't a monkey's uncle??? and what the hell do you call jesus???
Posted by: Mattmon | July 14, 2009 5:22 PM
Creating a slave-race of beast-men would not even be that effective. The robots of the future will take over the mundane tasks, and they would do it much more efficiently than these beast-men.
Posted by: CatBallou
|
July 14, 2009 5:28 PM
But, Manimal was so attractive! So urbane! So sexy!
Of course his transformations seemed limited to only three different animals, but that never bothered me.
Rowwr!
Wait, that's not what we're talking about? Never mind.
Posted by: ritebrother | July 14, 2009 5:32 PM
Mike in Ontario, NY # 32:
Did you happen to take that Hybridoma Techniques course 20+ years ago at RIT?
Posted by: A Recovering Catholic | July 14, 2009 5:37 PM
America is a puzzle. Why are your legislators so intent on banning and halting scientific research?
It's such a puzzle.
Posted by: Joel | July 14, 2009 5:39 PM
Just think, all those little Asian women at the nail salons wouldn't know what to do if they had to give a mani as well as file and shod to a Minotaur.
Posted by: ConstanceRifle | July 14, 2009 5:50 PM
They're called Pigoons! You should read Oryx and Crake. It tackles the exact subject of a race of pigs made solely for human organ transplants.
Posted by: Tongue of Groucho Marx | July 14, 2009 6:21 PM
I'm not surprised to see Brownback supporting this poorly contrived bill.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 14, 2009 6:55 PM
Apropos to this and the flesh-eating robot story:
The military is attempting to build cyborg spy insects.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532511,00.html
Posted by: Michael | July 14, 2009 7:13 PM
To be fair, the raising of pigs for organs is not about the same moral dilemma as raising pigs for meat but a much smaller one -- since unlike meat it's for the purpose of saving human lives. So even those who aren't fine with raising animals for meat are fine with genetic engineering for medical benefits a lot of the time.
Posted by: Michael | July 14, 2009 7:16 PM
To be fair, the raising of pigs for organs is not about the same moral dilemma as raising pigs for meat but a much smaller one -- since unlike meat it's for the purpose of saving human lives. So even those who aren't fine with raising animals for meat are fine with genetic engineering for medical benefits a lot of the time.
Posted by: Bruce | July 14, 2009 7:35 PM
When one eats meat, some of the molecules in the meat become incorporated into the human body, thereby making a hybrid between a human and an animal. The proposed legislation merely corrects this, by requiring everyone to follow 100% Vegan vegetarianism, under penalty of law. Wait until the farm state Republican Senators' constituents learn that their farms are now illegal. It's getting government to get off our backs and come into our mouths instead. These Republicans are disgusting.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 14, 2009 7:44 PM
"The term makes it sound like they're making furries."
"If they were, I'd demand the Pentagon's entire budget be diverted into that research."
Tempting, but I think as soon as the poor humanimals saw who was championing their creation, they'd run screaming back to the tanks.
Posted by: RHM | July 14, 2009 7:56 PM
This bill is not a new venture for the Senator - it is his second try, after first introducing it to the Senate in Nov. 2007 (S.2358 IS.) It was also introduced in the House in April 2008 (HR.5910 IH) by Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey.
It does seem to be all about the "embryos."
Same old song and dance. Hopefully, the bill will be rejected this time, as it was on the first go'round.
Posted by: deang | July 14, 2009 8:16 PM
You know they wouldn't be as opposed to the idea of human-animal hybrids if they were being created for military purposes.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 14, 2009 8:57 PM
So this bill is basically nothing more than a lot of idiot children stamping their feet and screaming and crying "WE'RE NOT ANIMALS! WE'RE NOT ANIMALS! WE'RE NOT ANIMALS!"
And I disapprove of any bill that gets in the way of my dream of attaining mermaid-dom. It's the only way I'll be able to take on those aliens from the Abyss on equal footing. Or... flipper...ing.
Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz | July 14, 2009 8:58 PM
What is this so bad about that?
I know pigs are gross (iberian black pigs less, though) But, what about cats?
Who wouldn't want a C'mell in his life ;-)
Posted by: MadScientist | July 14, 2009 8:58 PM
Bah, even if it becomes law it won't stop me from creating my army of flying homo-orangutans. Contrary to what the morons claim, they won't be slaves - they'll be the new masters (but under my control of course).
Posted by: atomjack | July 14, 2009 9:35 PM
Din't read all those posts above- but mixing swine and human DNA? Bacon that tastes like pussy! SA-WEET!
Posted by: atomjack | July 14, 2009 10:12 PM
@76: Frank Herbert fan, are we? There was another person against breeding humans and animals-Futars...scifi, though, and millennia in the future.
Posted by: Finback | July 14, 2009 11:02 PM
As always, the Simpsons helps.
"God schmod, I want my monkey-man!"
Posted by: Joker | July 14, 2009 11:19 PM
My own thoughts on the subject are more in the fears of new viruses coming from this sort of thing. That being said, the idea of using genetic engineering to understand how to deal with genetic disorders sounds like a good thing. If you want to get republicans onboard talk about the potential for a super soldier program and the jobs it could give all the good ol' boys as lab rats, suddenly the south will be screaming for these projects.
Posted by: articulett | July 14, 2009 11:25 PM
Look there, PZ-- you done gone made some more people scientifically ignorant with your militant atheism and all. If only you'd do some godlycoddling, then they'd understand!
Posted by: Justin | July 15, 2009 12:12 AM
Oh FSM, it would be Landrieu. Maybe someday my state will get some dignity.
Posted by: Robert Greer | July 15, 2009 12:52 AM
What I'm about to say is pretty minor even for being a quibble, but I think it needs to be said nonetheless: raising pigs for skin grafts is a lot more defensible than raising pigs for meat. Skin grafts keep people alive; pork tenderloins are pretty unnecessary by comparison.
Posted by: ElitistB
|
July 15, 2009 1:39 AM
Dammit, as I was reading this article, #128's quote was exactly what ran through my mind.
Posted by: TheVirginian | July 15, 2009 1:52 AM
I read this as a cry for help, as these people sound suicidal. Anyone who does any research will soon discover that about 50 years ago, Dr. Moreau inserted human genes into jackasses. The human-jackass hybrids now control Congress. So these Repugs and the Dimocrat are actually trying to ban themselves. I think they've come to hate being what they are. H.G. Wells truly was a prophet.
Posted by: Simon Scott | July 15, 2009 1:53 AM
Great. There goes my Remicade.
Posted by: Kobra | July 15, 2009 2:23 AM
@119:
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | July 15, 2009 4:47 AM
Hey MikeM @74
Fellow Humira user myself. Not for Crohns though- ankylosing spondylitis myself. Best stuff ever invented. Two years ago I was on a walking stick and unable to walk up stairs, today jogging 8 klms a day and able to play with my kids properly.
Wasn't easy to get on to as I had to pass a few medical "hurdles" ie be on Methotrexate for 6 months etc etc to qualify but the quality of life I now have is amazing.
Posted by: BradW | July 15, 2009 8:46 AM
So, after reading the actual language in the bill, several things become clear. First, as correctly pointed out, the legislators are obviously afraid of scientists showing that humans are not markedly different from, or special, when compared to the rest of the animal kingdom (of course this is a silly fear, no other animal will ever cause so much pollution or the extinction of so many other species as humans have, but yes, other than that we are not very different, oh and we already have plenty of evidence to support that). Also, the last line of what they want to ban is also revealing, in that, replacing a large part of a (non-human) animal's brain with human cells or tissue will be made illegal. Could this be the opening salvo in the creationist vs. materialist battle over the human soul? If we can make a pig that can think and love and learn english, how can we deny that either it has a soul or human's do not? Despite the obvious silliness, this is, seriously, the most troubling part of this legislation. For, while hybridoma cells, organ transplants, etc. would all still be legal under the proposed restrictions, current stem cell research that has shown promising results in curing neurodegenerative disorders such as MS, Huntington's, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, etc., would become illegal and punishable by hefty fines and up to 10 years in prison. Tell that to researchers who recently repopulated mouse brains with human neural stem cells and completely cured several of these mice from an otherwise fatal demyelinating disorder. http://www.aan.com/elibrary/neurologytoday/?event=home.showArticle&id=ovid.com:/bib/ovftdb/00132985-200807170-00002
And don't joke about DHMO, these guys might actually draw up legislation to ban it causing all of us to die from dehydration.
Posted by: gaypaganunitarianagnostic | July 15, 2009 11:31 AM
Are republican-human hybrids possible?
Posted by: BK | July 15, 2009 12:59 PM
Sounds to me like someone watched The Island of Dr Moreau a few too many times. Or maybe we have X-men racists without even having any X-men?
If I had the chance to ask for some special parts to be grown just for me though, I'd ask for wings in an instant!! :-)
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | July 15, 2009 1:00 PM
Rick Santorum is going to be SO BUMMED!!
He really had his heart set on a man-dog hybrid.
Posted by: anaxagoras | July 15, 2009 1:30 PM
Actually, we *are* all hybrids and *must* remain that way whether the unenlightened like it or not.
To #26 Pascalle
You said:
"Isn't it so that we ourselves are the homes of millions of bacteria and such, which are if you look at it scientifically non human material.
Wouldn't that make us illegal under that law?"
You are more right than you may realize. Actually, the number of microbial cells populating the human body (commensals) in the gut, mouth, on the skin etc. is actually greater than the number of cells that make up the human body! This is possible because microbial cells are way, way smaller than mammalian cells. So in a way we are all glorified incubators for our microbial residents.
But even if you stick with the human-centric viewpoint, our health is enormously dependent on the proper functioning and balance these microbial populations--two well-known and important examples being digestion and immune function. So even if it were possible to eliminate all non-human cells from our persons, it would be highly detrimental.
Perhaps the sponsors of the bill might counter with the argument that you shouldn't be allowed to alter what is "naturally" there. So I guess rethuglicans don't eat "Activia"? Would they insist Dannon be prosecuted?
Posted by: Rebecca Taylor | July 15, 2009 3:24 PM
The actual legislation defines an animal-human hybrid as:
(1) HUMAN-ANIMAL HYBRID- The term `human-animal hybrid' means--
(A) a human embryo into which a non-human cell or cells (or the component parts thereof) have been introduced to render the embryo's membership in the species Homo sapiens uncertain;
(B) a hybrid human/animal embryo produced by fertilizing a human egg with non-human sperm;
(C) a hybrid human/animal embryo produced by fertilizing a non-human egg with human sperm;
(D) an embryo produced by introducing a non-human nucleus into a human egg;
(E) an embryo produced by introducing a human nucleus into a non-human egg;
(F) an embryo containing at least haploid sets of chromosomes from both a human and a non-human life form;
(G) a non-human life form engineered such that human gametes develop within the body of a non-human life form; or
(H) a non-human life form engineered such that it contains a human brain or a brain derived wholly or predominantly from human neural tissues.
So they only want to prohibit creating human embryos that have animal DNA, animals that have human gametes and animals with mostly human brain tissue.
That is a far cry from banning the insertion of the human insulin gene into an E Coli.
Posted by: Rebecca Taylor | July 15, 2009 3:27 PM
The actual legislation defines an animal-human hybrid as:
(A) a human embryo into which a non-human cell or cells (or the component parts thereof) have been introduced to render the embryo's membership in the species Homo sapiens uncertain;
(B) a hybrid human/animal embryo produced by fertilizing a human egg with non-human sperm;
(C) a hybrid human/animal embryo produced by fertilizing a non-human egg with human sperm;
(D) an embryo produced by introducing a non-human nucleus into a human egg;
(E) an embryo produced by introducing a human nucleus into a non-human egg;
(F) an embryo containing at least haploid sets of chromosomes from both a human and a non-human life form;
(G) a non-human life form engineered such that human gametes develop within the body of a non-human life form; or
(H) a non-human life form engineered such that it contains a human brain or a brain derived wholly or predominantly from human neural tissues.
So they only want to prohibit creating human embryos that have animal DNA, animals that have human gametes and animals with mostly human brain tissue.
That is a far cry from banning the insertion of the human insulin gene into an E Coli.
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 15, 2009 3:30 PM
I know. Why go to all the trouble when you have perfectly good Ph.D. students?
Does anyone else find it interesting that no one seems to have raised an outcry about the fact that they're basically building Daleks in Reading?
Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 15, 2009 5:08 PM
@Tsu Dho Nimh #102
Except that a fertilised egg (The one cell stage) is explicitly not an embryo, it is a zygote. Since any such work would be at that stage it would not be covered even if the bill were to be passed. Got to be careful with your terminology when drafting laws.
Posted by: llewelly | July 18, 2009 3:45 PM
You Fool. It's not mermaids and centaurs that our Brave Congressmen defend us against. They defend us against the Evil, Militant Atheists who seek to build Armies of Starfish-Human hybrids, and Brothels of Squid-Human hybrids. Where it not for a few Brave Politicians, Atheist Scientists would use their Grossly Indecent Hordes to Take Over the World and force all humanity to engage in the vilest of Deviant Debaucheries!
Posted by: danmanning
|
July 20, 2009 11:28 AM
First of all, the man-eagle hybrid must be achieved. That would be friggin' awesome! Flying around on fifty-foot wide, beautiful white wings, with super-human eyesight and claws for feet. How could any red-blooded Amer-ican not love this idea. How patriotic would that be?
On the other hand, if this is impossible and these guys are wasting my tax money arguing about this stupidity, is there any way to engineer a man-eagle hybrid to fly over congress and gouge their eyes out? I mean really.