Animal-Human hybrids? Not so environmentally friendly

Earlier this month, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in Britain (a statutory body responsible for controlling all issues related to in vitro fertilization, storing of human sperm or eggs, artificial insemination and most embryo research carried out in the United Kingdom) decided there is no reason to prevent cytoplasmic hybrid research. This research would involve inserting human stem cells into an empty cow egg, creating a “cybrid” (cytoplasmic hybrid) that is 99.9 percent human and 0.1 percent animal. Each organization that wishes to create these cybrids needs to be approved, and the embryos created would have to be destroyed after 14 days. The scientists behind the research say this method solves the problem of the human egg shortage, and could possibly pave the way for cures for motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, cystic fibrosis, and Huntington’s. The decision currently has the approval of 61 percent of the populace.

And so it begins. A slight majority rule allows scientists to create part-human embryos and then destroy them while pursuing a line of research that has yet to cure or treat any disease. If you are looking for the definition of a “slippery slope,” this is it. There is nothing good about this decision, including the rules regulating it.

The rules that have been placed upon this kind of research were clearly designed to placate pro-life people, especially those opposed to it on religious grounds. The fact that the embryos are not to be made by combining genetic material from two different species, and can only be human material injected into an empty animal egg, is clearly an unwanted restriction, as the scientists who first proposed this research investigated public opinion on combining genetic material as well. Additionally, the HFEA could not have been more ignorant in thinking it would be good decision-making to force the researchers to destroy the embryos after 14 days; pro-lifers will be against making part humans, but killing them is not going to make them feel any better about the research. They will have a difficult time deciding which part is worse; the fact that these scientists are creating embryos that are not fully human, or that they are destined to die.

The rules may be insulting to those against the ruling, but it is the actual research that is frightening. No one fears the completely irrational possibility that a scientist will suddenly jump up and say, “We’ve put a cow’s head on a human body and now we can harvest its organs!” The pro-lifers are not conspiracy theorists. It is, rather, the very likely possibility that a scientist, a year or two down the road, will say, “I don’t love the results we’ve achieved after 14 days of development, but I really think we could make some magic happen if we let the cells develop for just one more week. Can I get 20 days, please?” And so on from there. Pro-lifers have every right to be afraid of this possibility, considering “this has potential” was the reasoning that got this line of research approved in the first place.

Someone will always want to push the boundaries a little farther; they are scientists, it is what they do. And in nearly all cases, this is a fantastic trait; millions of people are alive today because some scientist, somewhere, decided to try something new.

But it is not wonderful in this case. Scientists are choosing a method of research that creates deliberately flawed cells and kills them, in pursuit of a science that has yet to cure anything. Pro-lifers do not object to attempts to cure disease and make the world better. They object to letting ethics die in the pursuit of saving lives, and this ruling is killing more than hybrids.