drbob@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Robert H. Woodman) (09/24/90)
In article <1990Sep23.163322.28379@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> sticklen@cps.msu.edu (Jon Sticklen) writes: >From article <4904@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu>, by drbob@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Robert H. Woodman): <my stuff deleted. Bob> >I sympathize with Woodman's thurst, but the conclusion is very circular. >What constitutes "ethical vacuum" for a particular research >direction? To avoid this horrible state (ethical vacuum) what can I do? > > a) Do I have to know what my results are going to be, > then consider the ethical implications of those results, then > NOT do the experiment if the implications are somehow not meeting > my ethical standards? Most scientists would claim you cannot do > that because you cannot know what experiemntal results will be in > any a priori way. > > b) So if (a) will not work, then should I go on and do experiemnts > in which results are not certain, but if the results are > not meeting my "ethical standards" maybe I should suppress > the results? Somehow that does not sound too scientific either. > > >So what should a scientist do? > > ---jon--- Jon, Suppose that you are pursuing a line of work which involves the com- parison of human and chimp genes. You follow that line scientifically. As you go, you consider the ethical consequences of what you have learned and what future research results might, or might not, yield. Now let us suppose that you have found, from your experimental results, data which points the way towards species engineering. What are you to do? a. Sit on the data, and never publish. If you've got tenure and lots of grants, that may be viable, but a young, untenured pro- fessor with a family may not find that option so good. The high moral ground is not so easy to take when one's future is at stake. b. Publish the data, continue the research, and hunker down when the public finds out and explodes in anger [or at least when Jeremy Rifkin explodes in anger :-) ]. That may not be good either. In fact it is probably far *less* helpful, since you then run the risk of press and public hysteria and a political solution (read Congressional imposition on research) being im- plemented. Your research may then sway in the political winds for quite a while with no direction. c. Publish the data, but drop the research. Find a different line of inquiry in the system you are studying and go down it. This is probably not the best solution, but it is better, IMHO, than solutions a and b. If you have clout, or affiliation with sci- entists with clout, and if you are feeling particularly "moral" about the potential ethical problems of your work, you can call an international conference of bioethicists and researchers in the same field. In that conference, you would discuss the re- search, the results, and the problems, and then you would seek a moratorium on future research along those lines by the whole scientific community. One of the things that I have noticed about scientists is that they are perceived by the public as being so focused on the science that they ignore any ethical problems. I know that this is not true; it is far too broad a generalization, but it is, nonetheless, the perception which people have of scientists. Furthermore, scientists (or at least many scientists) encourage this stereotyping by the nonscientific public by *not* paying attention to the ethical problems inherent in their work. They give off an air which says "Only the research is important. Who cares about any- body's moral hangups?" We as scientists have an obligation to the public, especially if we are being funded by public money, to consider the ethical implications of any line of research we pursue. Furthermore, when we present our findings to the public, it would behoove us to note and even discuss the ethical implications of the work. If all we care about is the research, we run the risk of offending public sensibilities when we find results from certain lines of inquiry which contain potentially explosive ethical implications. It is past time to quit acting as though we don't under- stand, or care about ethics, and start demonstrating that we can balance on the thin wire of "ethical responsibility" versus "scientific freedom." -=- ********************************************************************* *Bob Woodman * "A job not worth doing well is not * *INTERNET: woodman.1@osu.edu * worth doing."--Salvador Luria * *********************************************************************
honig@ics.uci.edu (David Honig) (10/04/90)
In article <4909@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> drbob@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Robert H. Woodman) writes: > One of the things that I have noticed about scientists is that they >are perceived by the public as being so focused on the science that they >ignore any ethical problems. The ethical problems arise when generals, politicians, and unelected policymakers *employ* the knowledge that scientists find. Finding that chimps and humans can breed, and measuring the properties of the resulting creature, is different from, e.g., proposing to raise a breed of slaves. And I agree with others that such a hybrid would be very interesting. Uranium fissions; some organophosphates irreversibly bind acetylcholinesterase. These are facts. What you do with them is subject to moral evaluation, but discovering them is not. -- David A. Honig ``Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.'' ---Ghandi
pmm@acsu.buffalo.edu (patrick m mullhaupt) (10/04/90)
In article <270A6B70.15884@ics.uci.edu> honig@ics.uci.edu (David Honig) writes: >The ethical problems arise when generals, politicians, and unelected >policymakers *employ* the knowledge that scientists find. Finding >that chimps and humans can breed, and measuring the properties of the >resulting creature, is different from, e.g., proposing to raise a >breed of slaves. And I agree with others that such a hybrid would >be very interesting. As a non-biologist I am curious about what scientists would hope to gain by performing the human/chimp experiment. What questions would this experiment shed light on? As a more general question; on what criteria should an experiment, (any experiment), be judged as being worthwhile? Who should decide what the criteria are? Should the general public get any say in the matter? Patrick Mullhaupt
bryans@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Bryan Seigfried) (10/04/90)
pmm@acsu.buffalo.edu (patrick m mullhaupt) writes: > As a non-biologist I am curious about what scientists would >hope to gain by performing the human/chimp experiment. What questions >would this experiment shed light on? > As a more general question; on what criteria should an >experiment, (any experiment), be judged as being worthwhile? Who >should decide what the criteria are? Should the general public get >any say in the matter? > > Patrick Mullhaupt I must agree must agree with Pat. While finding out what a human/ chimp hybrid would be like would be interesting, I find the idea pretty abhorrent. How could one rationalize keeping the being in a lab or some controlled enviroment all its life. I do not see anyone anywhere who would extend the poor creature anything more than sympathy. It would exist always hated, despised, or studied in a calculating manner all it life. Many people struggle with the meaning of their life, this poor being would know *exacty* why he exists, and I'm sure that no one has the right to bring sentience to the world for such cold reasons. As far as what it would shed light on, I'm sure it could shed light on many questions. However, for any statistical significance to take hold, there would have to be at least a population of a few hundred. This amounts to vurtual slave ;abor *whether or not they are used for more than sciemtific purposes*. __ Bryan Siegfried Biology and economics at the University of Illinois sigbio@uiuc.edu
seb1@drutx.ATT.COM (Sharon Badian) (10/06/90)
Bryan Siegfried says: > I must agree must agree with Pat. While finding out what a human/ > chimp hybrid would be like would be interesting, I find the idea pretty > abhorrent. ... This is pretty much what Stephan Jay Gould says. One of the most interesting experiments we could do, but to his mind, absolutely unethical (for much the same reasons that Bryan said). So, ethics and science do meet in some scientists (and I consider Stephan Jay Gould to be one of the best). Sharon Badian AT&T Bell Labs - Denver att!drutx!seb1
mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) (10/06/90)
> chimp hybrid would be like would be interesting, I find the idea pretty > abhorrent. How could > one rationalize keeping the being in a lab or some controlled enviroment > all its life. I do not see anyone anywhere who would extend the poor > creature anything more than sympathy. It would exist always hated, despised, > or studied in a calculating manner all it life. Many people struggle with > the meaning of their life, this poor being would know *exacty* why he exists, > and I'm sure that no one has the right to bring sentience to the world for > such cold reasons. Oh my! What a chilling image of the future. What makes you think we would keep the chimpman in a cage? In a lab? I think any serious researcher would try to provide a maximum enriched environment, probably raising the experimental animal in a home setting. What makes you think _humans_ don't know why they were brought into existence? People want kids; kids are produced to satisfy their parent's want for kids. The first chimpman would probably have very loving parents, all the more so because of their ambition to bring an entire new species into existence. Certainly if I were raising one of the members of the first generation of chimpmanity, I would want to give the creature the very best start in life that I could. I'd read it stories, take it to the zoo, whatever helps it achieve its full potential while having a rich and enjoyable life.
zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) (10/10/90)
bryans@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >pmm@acsu.buffalo.edu (patrick m mullhaupt) writes: > > >> As a non-biologist I am curious about what scientists would >>hope to gain by performing the human/chimp experiment. What questions >>would this experiment shed light on? >> As a more general question; on what criteria should an >>experiment, (any experiment), be judged as being worthwhile? Who >>should decide what the criteria are? Should the general public get >>any say in the matter? >> >> Patrick Mullhaupt > > I must agree must agree with Pat. While finding out what a human/ >chimp hybrid would be like would be interesting, I find the idea pretty >abhorrent. How could >one rationalize keeping the being in a lab or some controlled enviroment >all its life. I do not see anyone anywhere who would extend the poor >creature anything more than sympathy. It would exist always hated, despised, >or studied in a calculating manner all it life. Many people struggle with >the meaning of their life, this poor being would know *exacty* why he exists, >and I'm sure that no one has the right to bring sentience to the world for >such cold reasons. > > As far as what it would shed light on, I'm sure it could shed light >on many questions. However, for any statistical significance to take hold, >there would have to be at least a population of a few hundred. This amounts >to vurtual slave ;abor *whether or not they are used for more than sciemtific >purposes*. Interesting - no one seems to mind breeding chimps for experimental purposes, yet a chimp/human hybrid is 'abhorrent' and a 'vurtual [sic] slave'. I suppose you consider chimpanzees primitive enough to enslave? - Pat -- This .sig space for rent.
bryans@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Bryan Siegfried) (10/11/90)
zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: >Interesting - no one seems to mind breeding chimps for experimental >purposes, yet a chimp/human hybrid is 'abhorrent' and a 'vurtual [sic] >slave'. >I suppose you consider chimpanzees primitive enough to enslave? >- Pat Do you want the truth? No, I do not consider chimpanzees primitive enough to enslave. But I believe that for purposes of research that the needs of humanity take primacy over the dubious rights of the chimpanzees. I simply cannot rationalize the halting of medical science so that chimpanzees, or any other creature, will no longer have to die for research. I believe that followups should be directed to alt.flame. ___ Bryan
mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) (10/11/90)
> Do you want the truth? No, I do not consider chimpanzees primitive > enough to enslave. But I believe that for purposes of research that the needs > of humanity take primacy over the dubious rights of the chimpanzees. I > simply cannot rationalize the halting of medical science so that chimpanzees, > or any other creature, will no longer have to die for research. So what exactly has you bothered about the chimpman? Is it that some human DNA would be used, and you feel a sharp line should be drawn around humanness? What if the hybrid was 99.99% chimp and 0.01% human? Would that help? Would it be okay if the experiment was done with totally non-human DNA, like chimp/dog? Or chimp/CAD-generated? Does your uncomfort extend to non-DNA components of humanness, such as the mind? If I discovered a way to upload a copy of human consciousness, then download it into a chimp brain, would you find that objectionable? How about if the brain was made out of integrated circuits? Or is your uncomfort connected to the technology involved? If I could produce a sentient chimp solely through selective breeding, could I count on your approval?
bryans@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Bryan Siegfried) (10/12/90)
mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: >So what exactly has you bothered about the chimpman? Is it that some human >DNA would be used, and you feel a sharp line should be drawn around humanness? >What if the hybrid was 99.99% chimp and 0.01% human? Would that help? The *idea* of the chimpman is not what bothers me so much as what the life of the creature would be like. You would be bringing an assumedly sentient life form into a world which would reject it. The life of the chimpman would be like the life of the elephantman. His differences would set him so far apart from society that he abhorred. No one has the right to create sentience when he knows that sentience could never live a happy life. Attempting to draw a line about humanness is impossible. Considering humanity's diversness and the constant effect of evolution, there can never be a line drawn about humanity, not to such a degree of accuracy. Trans- planting human genes into other life forms is not the same. That is merely using other life forms to produce human products, such as insulin. Where it is applicable, this practice is certainly better than using animal substitutes, like we use animal insulin to treat diabetes. There is an obvious difference here. What is being discussed here is a human-chimp mule. If it is possible, then the creature might possess sentience. It would not be a *human*, but it would be a *being*, a *sentience*. I hold that all sentients possess the rights of humans, and that they should be treated just as we treat humans. The creation of these mules would be mere exploitation of them. Exploitation is immoral, illegal. That is why child pornography is illegal. This would possibly be worse than child pornography, if that can be imagined. That is why I draw a line. >Would it be okay if the experiment was done with totally non-human DNA, like >chimp/dog? Or chimp/CAD-generated? Neither dogs nor chimps possess sentience. They are incapable of complex thought. They have simple social structures. If one argues that chimpanzees posses very complex social structures, then I would like to introduce you to human society - a world of not only personal inter- relationships, but also of governments, corporations, money, and religions of every imaginable kind. All human societies have complex social structures. Even nomadic tribes still in the prehistoric era show obviously complex societies. The character of sentience should be obvious. Without the sentience, the animals possess no rights. Just as we use animals for every kind of research imaginable already, I do not see how hybrids would be immoral. How many animals right's activists protest mules? Not even they see the hybridization of animals to be immoral. Going a little further, I have no objections to species engineering either. In fact, engineering larger cows, better grains, and new animals that fill new niches in the economy (Has anyone read _West of Eden_?) would be a tremendous development for mankind. I doubt animals right's activists would agree here, of course. >Does your uncomfort extend to non-DNA components of humanness, such as the >mind? If I discovered a way to upload a copy of human consciousness, then >download it into a chimp brain, would you find that objectionable? >How about if the brain was made out of integrated circuits? Indeed, the mind makes gives us the sentience which is central to our humanaity. No chimp brain could hold the mind of a human They should already be maximizing the potential of their brain. I wouldn't find the transferring of the mind of a person to another medium unless it was against their will. If someone wished it, I do not feel it is my choice to decide. The only exception would be if everyone wanted themselves uploaded to computers, which might have an interesting effect on the power consumption of civilization... >Or is your uncomfort connected to the technology involved? If I could produce ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >a sentient chimp solely through selective breeding, could I count on your ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >approval? ^^^^^^^^ Yes and no. Creating a new being would not be bad in itself, but your intentions may make it so. If you create them for exploitative reasons, you have created a permanent underclass expressly for exploitation. This is immoral. It is sort of the old question - is a gun immoral? It depends on your intentions. __ Bryan
mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) (10/13/90)
> The *idea* of the chimpman is not what bothers me so much as what > the life of the creature would be like. You would be bringing an assumedly > sentient life form into a world which would reject it. The life of the > chimpman would be like the life of the elephantman. His differences would > set him so far apart from society that he abhorred. No one has the right > to create sentience when he knows that sentience could never live a happy > life. This is a false assumption. If I created the first chimpman, I can guarantee that the first generation or two would have a happy and loving environment. Maybe if somebody else did it, it would be more like the hell of a public mental health facility, but that does not mean all attempts to give birth to chimpmanity would have that problem. Or are you arguing that over the long term chimpmanity would suffer from race/species prejudice? If you ask a victim of prejudice whether they would rather never have existed, I'm sure you'll get a firm no. What they want is elimination of prejudice, not elimination of themselves. Even if such prejudice becomes a problem for future generations of chimpmanity, I'm sure they will be grateful for their creation, and human culture might even be improved as a result of being challenged by the assimilation of an inferior species. (Or possibly a superior species, if the chimp DNA happens to contain greater potential to benefit from neotenization than the ancient ancestor of Man.) > *sentience*. I hold that all sentients possess the rights of humans, and that > they should be treated just as we treat humans. The creation of these > mules would be mere exploitation of them. Exploitation is immoral, illegal. > That is why child pornography is illegal. This would possibly be worse than > child pornography, if that can be imagined. That is why I draw a line. How do you know what's sentient and what's not? What would a cat or dog need to do to be considered sentient? Aren't we really talking about language here? And now that a few chimps and gorillas have been taught sign language, does that mean they're sentient? And since you've already indicated a willingness to use chimps for medical research, what's wrong with doing a little biological/anthrological research too? > Neither dogs nor chimps possess sentience. They are incapable of > complex thought. They have simple social structures. If one argues that > chimpanzees posses very complex social structures, then I would like to > introduce you to human society - a world of not only personal inter- > relationships, but also of governments, corporations, money, and religions > of every imaginable kind. All human societies have complex social structures. > Even nomadic tribes still in the prehistoric era show obviously complex > societies. The character of sentience should be obvious. Oh, it's "social structures" which define sentience? One nebulous term defined in terms of another. How about if I raise the chimpman as an atheist. He won't have a religion, and I won't raise him to loyal to a particular government. We'll live on a backwoods farm, and I'll keep the account books. He won't be taught to use any tool more complicated than a rifle. Will that satisfy you that he is non-sentient? > Without the sentience, the animals possess no rights. Just as > we use animals for every kind of research imaginable already, I do not > see how hybrids would be immoral. How many animals right's activists > protest mules? Not even they see the hybridization of animals to be immoral. > Going a little further, I have no objections to species engineering > either. In fact, engineering larger cows, better grains, and new animals > that fill new niches in the economy (Has anyone read _West of Eden_?) would > be a tremendous development for mankind. I doubt animals right's activists > would agree here, of course. I see. You're against nuclear power, but that doesn't stop you from using the electricity it generates. You're against air pollution and greenhouse, but you continue to drive a car. > Indeed, the mind makes gives us the sentience which is central to > our humanaity. No chimp brain could hold the mind of a human They > should already be maximizing the potential of their brain. I wouldn't > find the transferring of the mind of a person to another medium unless it > was against their will. If someone wished it, I do not feel it is my > choice to decide. The only exception would be if everyone wanted themselves > uploaded to computers, which might have an interesting effect on the power > consumption of civilization... I disagree that a chimp brain couldn't hold a human intelligence if some way could be found to upload a copy, perhaps perform a little translation, and download it. It might not be a complete human intelligence, for example it might lack language skills, but it would be something. If we could do this experiment, then upload it back from the chimp and re-download to a human, it would be the most important experiment ever in animal behavior. For the first time, we could understand what another animal perceives by experiencing it directly, rather than performing laborious experiments in perception. Brains are composed of a large number of separate neural organs, e.g. cerebellum, pons, hippocampus, etc. If we could temporarily transfer a human consciousness into whatever organs the experimental subject had in its brain, we could look at the world through its eyes. When the "neuronaut" was returned to his own, human brain, he could use his language organs to tell us what he saw. > >Or is your uncomfort connected to the technology involved? If I could produce > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >a sentient chimp solely through selective breeding, could I count on your > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >approval? > ^^^^^^^^ > > Yes and no. Creating a new being would not be bad in itself, but > your intentions may make it so. If you create them for exploitative reasons, > you have created a permanent underclass expressly for exploitation. This > is immoral. It is sort of the old question - is a gun immoral? It depends > on your intentions. What if I have no intentions other than curiousity about the end result? That's a very pure intention--no malice or greed. Okay, maybe a little greed when I think about the possible commercial aspects, but not with any notion of harming the little darlings in any way. What if dogs didn't exist, and I was talking about creating the first dog? Wouldn't that be a 100% warm and fuzzy motive, which everybody should approve? Think of it as being like a dog, but enhanced like the talking animals one often find in children's stories.