Animal-Human Hybrids

Do you feel a little weirded out by the thought that scientists have created a pig that has human blood? I get pretty weirded out when I hear that Stanford is attempting to create mice with human brains. The question that everyone wants to answer is, is this wrong? This post will follow National Geographic's commentary in the article "Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy", and try go come somewhere close to an answer.

Let me get a few things straight before I delve into this debate. First, you can't have an animal-human hybrid. Humans are already part of the animal set. In order for a hybrid to be created, you need to cross a distinction, animal/human is not a distincion. A cyborg is a hybrid. If people knew how to use language properly, it would spare many of us the burden of having pet hates! Therefore, a non-human animal/human hybrid is (probably*) a hybrid.

There are also a few rhetorical gaffs that need to pointed out, then left to rest. Consider a member of Canada's Stem Cell Oversight Committee and member of Georgetown University's Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Cynthia Cohen's, comments:

[To interfere with species boundaries is wrong.] It would deny that there is something distinctive and valuable about human beings that ought to be honored and protected.

I suppose the problem with this view is that it just isn't going to work about the scientists that she is up against. Anyone who is a staunch proponent of the natural sciences will doubt that there is a significant difference between human animals and non-human animals. Science has been telling the world this for 300 years, we just don't want to listen. Therefore, if Ms Cohen wants to start having a conversation with the scientists, she will need to be able to find an argument that can incorporate naturalism, and still come out on top.

Also, on the other hand, the scientists really need to get real. This stuff is seriously making people sick. You simply cannot ignore calls to halt because of an imperative to save people's lives. Maybe you need to address opponents' concerns before going ahead, instead of simply committing moral blackmail. Consider the director of Stanford University's Institute of Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine, Irv Weissman's comments:

Anybody who puts their own moral guidance in the way of this biomedical science, where they want to impose their will—not just be part of an argument—if that leads to a ban or moratorium. … they are stopping research that would save human lives.

Now, this statement only has force if saving human lives is a morally admirable thing to do (which it is). But if this is the case, then Mr Weissman is using a moral imperative as a key premise in an argument against moral argumentation. He can't have it both ways! Also, it is worth pointing out that many things are not currently being done that would save human lives. We could spend our money on aid to the starving, for instance. Hint: Give money to the starving.

[More coming soon]

*c.f. Xenotransplation.