Chimeras, Hybrids, and Interspecies Research: Politics and Policymaking

Conclusion: Is Early Interspecies Research Fundamentally Distinct?

Conclusion Is Early Interspecies Research Fundamentally Distinct? WHAT ARE WE TO MAKE of the place of “animal-human hybrids” in bioethics and policy? Hybrids, along with genetic alterations, cloning, and ectogenesis (artificial uterus), entered the literature of bioethics and policy in the 1970s as a metaphor for unleashed biotechnology. This metaphor continues today: “Some transforming powers are already here. The Pill. In vitro fertilization. Bottled embryos. Surrogate wombs. Cloning. Genetic screening. Genetic manipulation. Organ harvesting. Mechanical spare parts. Chimeras” (Kass 2002, 5). Framed as a future possibility lying at the bottom of a slippery slope, the integration of human and animal biological material for reproductive ends melded into historic visual images of mythical monsters and chimeric oddities. As Turney points out, images such as Frankenstein (his example) or hybrids can elicit a script. “Once a script has been laid down,” he writes, “a single cue can evoke an entire story, as an interpretive frame or context for what is being discussed ” (Turney 1998, 6). In recent years with innovative scientific endeavors under way, the script involving the concept of animal-human hybrids has been in transition . Already more detailed policy templates are in the works, with the United Kingdom’s integration of “admixed embryos” into its licensing structure a key example. In the United States the fleshing out of guidelines in regenerative medicine institutes in California, New Jersey, and other states provides another venue to develop norms and practices for early interspecies research (ISR). This book challenges the worry-based rudiments of the earlier but largely unexamined script in order to suggest mechanisms for a more empirically based script about the role of early ISR in research on regenerative medicine. 131 132 Conclusion For some types of early ISR more than others, a valley exists between objections and evidence, with the former outpacing the latter. A generous interpretation is that deep-seated values are primarily at issue. A less generous interpretation is that political interests are also at play with exaggerated warnings designed to foment distrust and uncertainty. At root both exist together. In the United States a line of argument among some objectors is that early ISR will lead to illicit outcomes at the hands of “renegade researchers .” This equates chimeric animal-human studies with unseemly science , encompasses a broad sweep with vague reference to animal-human hybrids, and advocates anticipatory bans. It also reflects preexisting divisions related to different views of the moral status of embryos. For example , an antichimera bill introduced in Delaware’s legislature specified that a human individual existed “from the beginning of the single-cell stage onward, produced by any means” (Delaware General Assembly 2007). With this stipulation no research would be permissible on human embryos, much less research using human embryos and nonhuman cells together. Objections to early ISR also surface in academic circles and policy advisory bodies, where the goal is not necessarily to restrict research but instead to flesh out its dimensions in order to ensure it is carried out in an ethically acceptable way. That message is generally one of caution rather than censure. It should be noted, however, that those in the policy and scientific communities who regard early ISR as legitimate and not particularly troublesome have been relatively quiet in the face of both fanciful and serious objections. For a variety of reasons, reassurances about early ISR from stem-cell supporters are not as crisp as identification of issues by critics. Perhaps those who take early ISR “in stride” (Silver 2006, 187) are not inclined to respond to what they regard as irrational or frivolous objections. Or perhaps they choose not to lend legitimacy to concerns by addressing them, or fail to understand ethical objections, or simply wish not to become involved in what looks like a political imbroglio. Nevertheless when objections are not carefully addressed, an opportunity is missed to examine issues in a way that accepts the role of early ISR in research and development. Conclusion 133 With concern about a regulatory “chimaera quagmire” in mind, the editors of the journal Nature in 2007 advised readers to take a more active role in “identify[ing] the various research protocols defining interspecies research involving human cells and embryos, and the associated risks, ethical issues and benefits of each” (Avoiding a Chimaera Quagmire 2007). Inasmuch as the journal reaches scientists and policy specialists, this editorial in effect invited diverse voices to help shape the way early...