Introduction
In biology, a chimera is an organism that has genetically different cells in one entity. The different cells originate from distinct zygotes that can but do not necessarily derive from the same species. A hybrid, on the other hand, is an organism resulting from the sexual reproduction of two different species, all cells having just one genotype. Recent advances in genetic engineering allowing the creation of human-animal chimeras and hybrids have sparked an intense and vivid discussion about the creation and use of such beings. There are many potential uses for life forms like these. For example, being able to use them for insights in early embryonic development and the mechanisms of action of stem cells without using human embryos. Another possible use could be the xenotransplantation – the transfer of an organ from an animal to a human – to compensate for the lack of human organs. Yet a third possibility would be studying how genetic material - transferred from humans in animals – operates in organisms (according Sturma. “Handbuch der Bioethik”. S.226).
In the following essay, I will discuss the moral status of human-animal hybrids and chimeras and questions of whether it is ethically inoffensive to create and utilize them for research and possible therapeutic goals.
Thesis
A The Moral Status of Animal-Human Chimeras and Hybrids
In this day and age, the clear border between animals and humans is of high significance for our system of justice and traditional morality. As a result, organisms, which can be identified as humans have dignity and human rights, whereas animals are protected and can be considered legal property (see Sturma. “Handbuch der Bioethik”. S.226-27). The existence, however, of Animal-Humans Chimeras (and Hybrids) blur that line as they are - per definition - a mix of the two. This raises the question of what kind of moral status appertains to them.
First, it is worth considering what kind of animal-human chimeras or hybrids we are discussing. For instance, what kind of developmental stage are they in? Are they embryos, new-borns or even grown? You also can distinguish what type and how high the hybridization is. To simplify matters, however, we will omit those aspects.
In the following, I will introduce and discuss common arguments concerning the moral status of human-animal chimeras and hybrids and using them for research.
A.1. Potentiality Arguments
Potentiality arguments are well known from discussion about stem cells and human embryo protection. Potentiality arguments employ the plea that those organisms have the potential to develop capacities like sentience (physical experience, pain, mental pleasure) and higher cognitive capacities, such as rationality and moral thinking. Hence, some people might argue that animal-human hybrids/chimeras are eligible for protection and security of instrumentalization comparable to human embryos.
However, such arguments are irrelevant if discussing chimeras/hybrids that lack the potential for development. Those wouldn’t be able to survive long enough to turn into an organism, such as “cybrids” - an enucleated living cell where the nucleus has been replaced by one of a different species. Research has found that none of those “cybrids” are able to develop into an organism.
A.2. Capacity Arguments
Capacity arguments claim that if a life form has the capacity for sentience and/or higher cognitive ability (capacities independent of whether they are able to exert them or not), that entitles them to a certain degree of moral status. Cases where the being has the capacities for sentience, but not for rationality or moral thinking (higher cognitive abilities) could lead to similar reasoning found in animal research – reduction, refinement, replacement - described by W.Russell in 1959. Those strategies call for an improvement of the well-being and treatment of the tested subjects.
When it comes to Animal-Human Hybrids/Chimaeras that could have the capacity for sentience and higher cognitive abilities, one might consider raising the moral status of said subject – as an autonomous being -- calling for dignity and non-instrumentalization in a Kantian manner. That would give them a moral status similar to humans, resulting in special “rules” applying to them, such as protection of utilization and informed consent (see Hübner.”Human-Animal Chimeras and Hybrids: An Ethical Paradox behind Moral Confusion?”. S.192).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Consequently, if those measures can not be matched/fulfilled – as their sole purpose of their creation is to be probed, utilized, and potentially harmed without consent – one has reason to be apprehensive of creating them at all. In the event of animal-human hybrids/chimeras that have “built in” terminator sequences or are unable to develop into an organism, those ideas may not apply.
A.3. Speciesism
Speciesism was defined by Peter Singer in 1959 as “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species.” Often this specism comes with a “human centric” view, that sees humans as the only moral and rational species in existence, putting other species below them and giving them lesser or no moral status.
That brings up the problem: what group would human-animal chimaeras and hybrids belong to? Are they humans, and granted human rights? Or, are they animals, and fall under the animal protection act?
Per definition they are organisms with genetic material from different species. Since the type and the degree of the hybridization can vary (for instance, some might be 99,9% human and 0,01% animal, whereas others just contain a little amount of human genes) it doesn’t seem like an adequate tool for classification, because it links their moral status to their features and how “human” they are. If used as such - their amount of human genes could be used as an index for their membership to the human species, certifying them for human rights (that argument may also work for embyros that lack potential to develope) .However, seeing animal-human hybrid and chimaeras as neither - human or animal – but as their own species could give an solution to this problem. It allows to
A.4. Disturbance of the “Natural Order” Through Animal-Human Hybrids and Chimeras
Because of their set-up animal-human hybrids and chimeras blur the natural line of biological species borders and are raising questions about species integrity and human identity. Species borders can – as they allow humans to identify one another and distinguish from others – be important for our idea of ethics and morality and the functioning of ethical and moral norms (for example, see speciesism). A lot of people might get a feeling of unease thinking about human-animal chimeras and hybrids, as they seem to be “unnatural,” and creating them breaks a moral taboo, a violation of the rules- seemingly saying the moral status of entitities can be linked to species. This statement is less concerned with the moral status of semi-human beings than with seeing them as a threat to their own identity and dignity. In Biology it is very hard to define what the term “natural” means. If you would ask a group of biologist, how important the integrity of a species is, they would probably tell you not that fundamental - as species are constantly developing, interbreeding and changing. In spite of that most “norma” people would say it is indeed very important. (find a better way to say this!!!).
Since moral taboos and norms can depend on era and social background, it’s questionable how much those arguments can be seen as “neutral” and rational, much less ethical (such as being homosexual was seen as – and still is in some countries – seen as something “morally wrong”).
B Research on Human-Animal Hybrids and Chimeras
With the tricky question of the moral status of the animal-human mixtures comes another difficult question: is it morally justifiable to do research on them? I think it’s important to distinguish between embryonic and grown organisms in this matter. Thinking about autonomy and higher cognitive abilities of grown organisms may give them a right to informed choice and consent.
B.1. Utilitarianism
The Utilitarian approach evaluates an action based on its outcome and/or consequences. It tries to achieve the best possible outcome for the most individuals, while creating the least harm. So, you could use it to justify or condemn the testing of other organisms for the sake of knowledge and therapeutic advances. If we look at it in a non-speciest way, that would mean that every individual - including non-human animals - have the right to a maximization of their happiness. That means that doing tests and research on them, that causes pain or harm, meaning a decrease of their happiness, would be forbidden. The only justifiable - in an utilitarian sense - research would be research that increases their happiness and well-being. On the other hand, (in a more humancentric thinking), one might argue that the “higher goal” of studies on human-animal hybrids and the benefits outweigh the suffering of a few, increasing the happiness of a lot of others, hence, justifying such research, even if it may harm or kill those individuals. (Note: This thought only considers animal-human hybrids and chimeras that are grown but lack higher cognitive abilities. Otherwise, autonomy and informed consent must be taken into account).
3 Conclusion
The Question of the moral status of animal-human hybrids and chimeras ist a very knotty one with divided opinions. Overall it think it's important to differentiate between embryo and developed/grown organisms. Little is known about what kind of abilities and cognitive functions developed animal-human hybrids and chimeras would have, much less about how they would live and what requirements need to be met. On these Grounds we can’t guarantee adequate surroundings,treatment and well-being for them. Since the intention behind bringing those entities into existence is to use them for research, transplantations, and avoiding using human embryos (just to name some), it’s most likely that in that process they are going to be harmed, instrumentalized and inflicted pain upon for advances of humanity. Their inherent purpose is to be mistreated (for example animal-human hybrids and chimeras that are supposed to be used for Xenotransplantation would need to spend their whole life alone in steril cages, so they can get used for transplantations). I think it's important to be able to establish some norms when it comes to testing on life forms with sentience (and perhaps higher cognitive function that require a raise of their moral status,protection and possibly autonomy and dignity). But because the point of their existence is contradictory to that, one might want to abstain from creating them at all.
I take a more gradualistic stance regarding research on human-animal embryos and their moral status. A majority of them are - because of their set-up - unable to develop into a fully grown organism or they are genetically engineered and hold termination sequences that prevents their development. That fact makes Capacity and Potentiality arguments redundant, because there are no potentials and capacities those organisms hold. When we are talking about embryos that still might hold those abilities the determining factor is which stadium of development they are in. For me the moral status and degree of protection increases with their development, as well as our moral obligations towards them. Although i think it's difficult to say if one would be able to determine the different thresholds while developing.
Stuck on your essay?
