I'm not sure why I feel like I have to respond, but I do.
I'd like to first point out the source of the information. National Geographic. While indeed, it's a reputable source, it is not, in the scientific community. Any science it carries is watered down for general consumption, so when they say:
And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains.
It is in fact, infinitely more complicated than that. Mice with human brains. Even having had some experience with this. Even having held a mouse that glows green in the palm of my hand, it boggles my mind. I'm sure it won't be a mouse with a "human" brain and "human" thoughts. Perhaps structurally the brain would be more similar, which, due to the shorter lifespan of mice makes studying disease much more efficient.
I'm sure, even if they wanted to, the scientists at Stanford *couldn't* grow a human brain in a mouse. Not a real, honest to goodness human brain. The environment for development would be wrong. So, while we may have something structurally similar, functionally... who knows?
So, as far as I'm concerned:
Wouldn't the creature be essentially human (not counting physical appearance) but without the physical capability to produce speech?
No.
No, the mouse wouldn't be human. I wont go into the philosophical side (after all, what is it that makes us human?), but the probability that the environment in the mouse embryo would be suitable to produce a functionally human brain?
I'm sure, *if* they manage to produce viable mice, they'll test them cognitively before they induce disease. Just to make sure the mice aren't flawed before. To establish a baseline. They'd know if they were "smart mice".
Now... ethics. Ethics, by nature, is a very controversial topic. I feel very strongly about certain points, being from a scientific background, but I'll do my best to stay polite.
To tell you the truth, the fact that it's 'okay' to experiment on animals but 'wrong' to experiment on humans has always bugged me.
Actually, we do experiment on humans. We have to before a drug or a product can be marketed. We do cognitive experiments and drug experiment and shock experiments. The ethic guidelines are more stringent on human experiments, but they do happen.
To the question Anna asked:
'Should we keep on trying to understand the human brain works? Or is it something unnecessary and/or unethical?'
Well... she went into a very detailed blow-by-blow of this, but I'll still add my 2 cents.
This is, as it happens, one of the areas I feel very strongly about. And, funnily enough, for the least scientific of reasons.
As far as I'm concerned, we don't do this for fun. We don't do this so we can prove to ourselves that we know everything. Usually, and with very few exceptions, we do these experiments to try and cure disease. To try and make the quality of life better. To try and understand what went wrong so we can make things right again.
If you can look at someone - the mother of a sick child, the husband of a dying woman, the child of a sick parent - if you can look at them and say "I'm sorry, we're not going to try anymore..."
I couldn't. I can't. And that's why I support research. On animals. On humans. On eggplants. These aren't done for fun, they're done because somewhere, someone needs them to be done.
The question (which brings us back to our original subject - apologies for sidetracking) is, where do those 'chimeras' stand? Are they humans, animals, or something in between? And how should they be treated?
First of all, as far as I'm concerned, they aren't human. To be considered human... most of them are simply mice with human genes or bacteria that produce human hormones or pigs with human hearts... They're not human, they simply have human parts. And, of course, all animals are treated with the utmost care. For those pessimistic to believe scientists wont follow the guidelines laid out by ethics committees, you must at least believe they wouldn't want their results tainted by the ill health or poor nutrition of test animals.
And finally, creating chimeras isn't a "new" science. It's not something we've only just started doing. It's been done for years. As the article mentioned, we've been using bacteria to grow human hormones like growth hormone and insulin. We've been mixing donkeys and horses to create mules. We've been crossbreeding dogs and cats. We've been tampering with nature for a long time. Now, we're just doing it on a cleaner level.
Dave
I'm not even sure how to respond to that. It's wrong in so many ways, regardless of the medical advances it could make. I mean... they want to give a mouse a human brain, and once they know it has human cognitive ability, *then* they want to test on it? That's... Wouldn't the creature be essentially human (not counting physical appearance) but without the physical capability to produce speech? If that's the case (and I'm no scientist), it's beyond cruel. *shakes head* I agree, Doran, there's a very precarious line they need to be careful about crossing.
This was fairly disturbing, particularly the line about a human being born to mice parents. I was envisioning the sci-fi nightmare that could come from a society like this. Usually, I say "anything goes" (Ted Kennedy is more conservative than I am!), but this was even too far for me. I certainly support medical research, but there need to be ethical guidelines in place before something like this goes too far.