Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
THIS WEEK
E-SPECIES Zoologists should follow botanists into the digital age p.424 WORLD VIEW Meet the worlds only blogging stem-cell scientist p.425
MAN BITES DOG Ancient canines more than best friends p.427
Regulators must look past visceral disgust about humananimal hybrids. Strict but sensible rules are needed for research on hybrid embryos and chimaeric animals that could produce therapies.
he science-fiction author H. G. Wells coined the term humanized animals in his 1896 novel The Island of Doctor Moreau. The book invited readers to consider the ethical limits of curiosity-driven research and to ponder the moral value of the distinction between humans and animals. The books evil protagonist creates, through a vaguely defined process of vivisection, a colony of half-human beast folk, unhappy in themselves and frightening to others. Dr Moreaus humanized animals evoke visceral disgust. Thankfully, more than a century later, they remain science fiction. However, the ethical dilemmas presented by Wells do not. Innumerable mice and other animals have been engineered in past decades to express a human gene and model specific aspects of human disease. They rarely inspire disgust, because they still resemble their own species. But further advances in genetic and stem-cell technologies mean that researchers could, in theory, create animals with quintessentially human characteristics or behaviours. The sight of an animal with shiny, furless human skin, for example exceptionally useful for research into skin disorders could evoke disgust similar to that created by Moreaus beast folk, even though the animal itself might be perfectly comfortable. One of the biggest horrors although technically unlikely could be a self-aware monkey, a creature with human thought trapped in the body of an animal, unable to express itself. Prompted by the possibilities, scientists around the world have begun to discuss the ethical consequences of taking to extremes the frontier technologies that allow mixing of species. These include the introduction of human stem cells into animals, where they could integrate into the animals body; or the formation of hybrid or chimaeric embryos that mix the DNA of humans and animals. The UK Academy of Medical Sciences in London has now produced a comprehensive report on the subject (see page 438 and page 448). The document is likely to lead to pioneering legislation specifically geared towards regulating research on animals containing human material. This is a timely and important step: timely because little truly controversial research in this area has yet been done, so both public debate and scientific research can take place in a peaceful environment; important because instinctive revulsion should not automatically block future research that will undoubtedly pave the way for therapies for currently incurable diseases. The report clearly identifies techniques that cannot yet be used ethically, including extensive humanization of the monkey brain or the development of embryos that mix DNA from humans and non-human primates. It distinguishes them from procedures such as the creation of transgenic mice that bear human genes, which the academy says require no oversight beyond the strict controls that already apply. The academy says that further oversight of experiments that occupy the middle ground perhaps the human-skinned animal should assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether the benefits to understanding or to medicine from a particular research project outweigh the potential
suffering of the animal involved, its cage mates or its carers. The UK government commissioned the report and is likely to adopt its conclusions. In doing so, it will reinforce Britains reputation as an attractive research environment, strictly controlled but without unwarranted hindrances. The country has some of the worlds most stringent laws on the welfare of research animals, but also some of the most rational regulations for research using human embryonic stem cells. It allows the creation of hybrid embryos that are Advances in predominantly human forbidden in many genetic and countries as long as they are destroyed stem-cell before they develop beyond the two-cell technologies stage. Now the country seems ready to regucould, in late hybrid embryos that are mainly animal, as theory, create well as chimaeric animals. The United Kingdom knows that this will animals with quintessentially give it an advantage in reaping medical benefits and that proactive legislation offers human characteristics. protection against future calls for outright bans, should public anxiety grow. Potential therapies using human stem cells to replace damaged organs or tissue must first be tested in animals. Chimaeric animals with human brain material might be useful. For example, they could help to establish how the normal human brain develops and functions, and what goes wrong in neurodevelopmental disorders such as schizophrenia. The ethical questions raised by H. G. Wells are as valid today as they ever were. But as facts and fiction converge, the answers have become more complex.
The Heartland Institutes climate conference reveals the motives of global-warming sceptics.
t would be easy for scientists to ignore the Heartland Institutes climate conferences. They are curious affairs designed to gather and share contrarian views, in which science is secondary to wild accusations and political propaganda. They are easy to lampoon delegates at the latest meeting of the Chicago-based institute in Washington DC earlier this month could pick up primers on the libertarian writings of RussianAmerican novelist Ayn Rand, who developed the philosophical theory of objectivism, and postcards depicting former US vice-president Al Gore as a fire-breathing demon. And they are predictable, with environmentalists often portrayed as the latest incarnation of a persistent communist plot. Green on the outside, red on the inside,
2 8 J U LY 2 0 1 1 | V O L 4 7 5 | N AT U R E | 4 2 3
Origin of species
da had a difficult birth. This remarkably well preserved primate fossil was introduced to the world in May 2009, in a description in the online journal PLoS ONE. Arguments raged over the evolutionary importance of the unquestionably photogenic new species Darwinius masillae and the role of a television company in its unveiling; a more technical criticism came from taxonomy specialists. Under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, publication of species names must be in a durable medium that is, on paper or CD-ROM, which must be made available at specific libraries. The online-only naming of Ida as a new species was therefore illegitimate. The journal rushed out a correction stating that a separate print-only edition is available to fulfil the requirements and ensure that Ida really was D. masillae (J. L. Franzen et al. PLoS ONE 5, e5723; 2009). But the underlying problem remained: if zoologists and botanists wished to publish their findings in online journals, they would still have to physically distribute print copies to suitable repositories. Last year, Sandra Knapp, a botanist at the Natural History Museum in London, got around the plant-science version of the same rules, the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. She described four new plants, again in PLoS ONE (S. Knapp PLoS ONE 5, e10502; 2010), printed out hard copies of the online paper, and posted them to libraries. At a meeting in Melbourne, Australia, last week, the International Botanical Congress took the first steps to end this situation and bring botany into the electronic age (see Nature http://dx.doi. org/news.2011.428; 2011). The congresss nomenclature section, chaired by Knapp, voted to amend the code to allow purely
4 2 4 | N AT U R E | V O L 4 7 5 | 2 8 J U LY 2 0 1 1