With all the noise in the media about Terri Schiavo, and steroids in baseball, most people didn't notice a little article in the paper about how scientists at Stanford University had implanted DNA into mice, resulting in brains in those mice that were 1% human.

The idea of blending species -- creating what are called chimeras -- isn't a new one. Indeed, the word "chimera" comes from an imaginary critter in ancient Greek myth that was part lion, part snake, and part goat. Creating chimeras was one of the highest goals of alchemy, when they weren't trying to transmute base metals into gold. And of course, the idea has been a staple in science fiction going back to Frankenstein.

So it's not a new idea.

It's just that up until the past year, it was purely a product of human imagination, with no basis in reality.

Now, true chimeras -- an actual blending of separate species -- are not only possible, but have been created, and suddenly the ethical and moral ramifications are enormous, much greater than the Schiavo case, or even steroid queens in the outfield or the governor's office.

Just to give you some idea of the implications, consider this: suppose someone creates, through DNA manipulation, a dog with human intelligence. Under American law (backed by one of the most lunatic court decisions this Supreme Court has ever made) a company that builds new lifeforms through DNA manipulation can copyright and patent those lifeforms. Human intelligence or no, that human-dog chimera is property under the law.

You think the Terri Schiavo case has complicated ramifications? Consider this: Suppose they discovered a way to grow human organs in pigs, that could readily be transplanted into humans as replacement organs, but part of the process gave those same pigs human-level intelligence? Would it be right to slaughter an animal capable of reading and writing, one that could look up to the stars and wonder what they are?

Suppose the process only made the pig, already a pretty intelligent animal, just a little bit smarter?

Or suppose the blending of genes didn't make the pig smarter at all, but ensured that from birth to death, the animal would be in constant pain?

Steroids bother you? You think the advantage in muscle mass and strength upsets the purity of the sport, and that recent long ball hitters might have been cheating? Suppose some team owner gets a chimpanzee with human intelligence. Immense arm strength, speed on the bases, good reflexes, small strike zone, and teeth and temperament designed to intimidate the toughest umpire! Best of all, he's property, so there's no question about mediation, or even pay. Just feed him and clean his cage once a week. Hall of Famer material. Just make sure he has plenty of mates, from either species!

Another possibility is genetically modified humans -- not chimeras, necessarily, but altered to have longer arms, or more (or less) intelligence, or designed for lack of aggression. Corporations would love to own workers who were genetically impelled to be loyal and compliant. Again, property, and the corporations wouldn't have to pay them. Of course, they would have to spend money on ad campaigns convincing the public that the creatures are nothing more than animals with a human appearance, but historically, the public has always been willing to embrace such a point of view, whether it's about African Americans, Jews, or Natives.

Genetic modification of plants already gives some people the willies, especially since those modifications involve introduction of toxins into the plant's structure, the ability to grow seed, and the genetically modified plants not only are refusing to keep to themselves in their own fields, but they are producing hybrids with natural plants to produce GM offspring! Although a discovery was announced yesterday that might mitigate that a bit; Perdue scientists announced that they've discovered that some plants have "back up copies" of genetic material from earlier generations, and can somehow use these backups to overwrite flawed DNA strands in themselves. That just turned everything we thought we knew about heredity on its head.

Genetic modification of animals will be an even more explosive subject. Cats with blue fur and dogs that can whistle are one thing, but imagine designing a pig that grows to 1,500 pounds in six months, and then dies? They've been trying to design bacteria that eat plastic, but the problem is designing a type that eats only some plastic, and not ones that are still in use.

Religious people get upset about man creating new breeds, arguing that is the sole province of God, but my take on that is that any Deity who doesn't want something to be possible will simply make it impossible. You can't go faster than the speed of light, and you can't create a physical object with a value of the square root of negative one.

But since we can genetically modify organisms, it's rather pointless waiting for bolts of lightning to strike biochemists down in their labs. It's even less productive to wait for things to go seriously wrong and then prattle about "defying the will of God."

Better to sit down and think hard about what this new technology might mean.

We cannot grasp the physical and political issues because we don't know what those will be yet. Various interested parties have already come up with some pretty strange requests, like the one the military supposedly made for mice that can be used to spy inside buildings or towns and report back. The Navy already tried training dolphins to be suicide bombers, but it turned out that dolphins were smarter than that, and when the time came and the navy strapped real bombs to them, they simply swam off, never to be seen again. Hooray for the dolphins!

On the other hand, you cannot help but feel an intense sense of curiosity about all this. An animal with the power of speech would give insight into the minds of animals. Would alteration of the human mind be permissible if the aim was not that of a smarter human, but a wiser one?

My guess is that while there is much promise in this emerging new chimera technology, there is much more room for peril.

Just in the past 24 hours, two bombshell science stories have emerged that point out how imperfect our understanding of biology remains. First was the announcement from Nature of a plant that apparently stores genetic maps from several generations back, much the way you would back up a hard drive, and has the ability to do a "restore" to overwrite genes that have become defective in the generations since. Second, Science magazine reports they found the remains (not fossil; remains) of a Tyrannosaurus Rex, and are examining the structure of the soft tissue -- muscle and blood vessels. So far, they report, it's essentially the same as that found in an ostrich. That they were birds is not a surprise; that seventy-five million year old soft tissue could be found is.

With each new discovery that leads to what might become the greatest moral conundrum in human history, we'll have to ask: Is it Victor Frankenstein type of discovery? Or is it a Frederick Banting?

Topplebush.com
Posted: March 31, 2005