Chimeras, Hybrids, and Interspecies Research: Politics and Policymaking

Chapter 4. Beliefs about Interspecies Interventions

Chapter 4 Beliefs about Interspecies Interventions WHY DOES EARLY INTERSPECIES RESEARCH (ISR) matter? What accounts for the animus by some and largely silent acceptance by others? Understanding some of the bases for conflicting views helps indicate how early ISR is political in the way it attracts attention, elicits emotion, and prompts action to protect values thought to be threatened. Of the many beliefs that animate the matter of early ISR, four are considered in this chapter: (1) orientation toward biotechnology, (2) acceptance of intuitive reactions, (3) trust in ability to draw lines, and (4) belief in firmness of the line between human and nonhuman animals. ORIENTATION TO BIOTECHNOLOgY Biotechnology refers to the use of “biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use” (Rifkin 1998, 1). It is a subset of technology, which is the applied use of scientific principles and findings for human practical use (Singleton 2000, 1088). Biotechnology dates at least from times when humans began planting crops and noticed that some seeds produced better crops than others (Silver 2006, 259). By selectively using seeds from crops that were superior in some ways, humans manipulated biological processes for their own benefit. They also did so by combining grains and yeasts to produce alcohol, cross-breeding dogs to produce animals for specific uses, and catapulting bodies with bubonic plague over the walls of fortified medieval towns to spread toxins that would cause the deaths of people in the enemy community (Derbes 1966). 111 112 Chapter 4 Biotechnology includes a range of activities such as creating vaccines, altering corn genetically to resist insects, creating mouse models of human disease, and manufacturing artificial blood. Its use accelerated in the twentieth century, particularly after the first published instance of recombinant DNA (r-DNA) research in 1973 and the subsequent application of this technique for microorganisms, plants, animals, and humans. An early example of r-DNA work in plants occurred in the 1980s with the planned introduction of a bacterium, known as ice minus, into strawberry plants to increase their resistance to frost. The first recombinant mouse was created in 1974, and this was followed in 1980 by the first patented mammal, Oncomouse, which was genetically altered to grow tumors more quickly than ordinary mice in order to aid the study of cancer-causing agents. The first experimental use for humans of genetically modified cells was approved in 1990, when somatic cells were removed, altered, and transferred back to a young girl who had ADA deficiency. Recombinant work has come to be equated with “modern” biotechnology, which produces novel biological outcomes that could not happen with traditional selective breeding. Biotechnology has both alluring and disconcerting dimensions. According to one observer, to be modern is “to find ourselves in an environment that promises us adventure, power, joy, growth, transformation of ourselves and the world—and, at the same time, that threatens to destroy everything we have, everything we know” (Marshall Berman, quoted in Turney 1998, 6). Some groups express skepticism about the goodness of at least some uses of biotechnology. They urge caution about releasing genetically modified organisms to the environment, where these organisms can proliferate without natural controls. Others warn of the economic impulse behind biotechnology. As one author put it, “genetic engineering biotechnology is bad science working together with big business for quick profit, against the public good, against public will and aspirations , against the moral values of society and the world community” (Ho 2000, vi). From this perspective biotechnology is dangerous because it is an “unprecedented alliance between two great powers that can make or break the world: science and commerce” (Ho 2000, 13). Jeremy Rifkin, a vocal critic of biotechnology, sees animal-human interchanges as a particularly onerous prospect for the future: “We could Beliefs about Interspecies Interventions 113 also see the creation of a range of new chimeric animals on Earth, including human/animal hybrids. A chimp/hume, half chimpanzee and half human, for example, could become a reality. The human-animal hybrids could be widely used as experimental subjects in medical research and as organ ‘donors’ for xenotransplantation. The artificial creation and propagation of cloned, chimeric, and transgenic animals could mean the end of the wild and the substitution of a bioindustrial world” (Rifkin 1998, 2). Some embrace the economic and public health potential of biotechnologies in general but are wary of technologies they feel will make human...