I'm not certain whether you don't see the part that is creepy about this, or whether you are consciously glossing over it. The (or at least my) problem is not with a bacterium genetically engineered to be a nonsentient replication machine for a specific protein; rather, it is with the quite logical progression that Saletan posits and the unwillingness of the research establishment to consider ruling anything off-limits. If our goal is to create as close a facsimile to human consciousness as possible in a rodent for the purposes of research, it calls into question why we would differentiate between human and animal subjects for research at all. This is not my wish, but rather the logical end of the argument.

It is exceedingly unhelpful to brush this thought off with "but we don't really have that capability yet." The precise problem is the natural human tendency to delay considering the ethical implications of an action until the moment we are actually able to pursue it (or more often, afterward). And at that point, the genie is out of the bottle, and there is no stuffing it back in.

For this reason, it is also unhelpful to say "well, there are people more knowledgeable about the field who are better qualified to answer these questions than I am." Those who hold the steering wheel of this sort of thing are exactly the wrong people to decide its ethical implications. I currently work in an NICU, where I witness some of the worst abominations of modern medicine performed in the name of "saving" infants that would in a more merciful world be allowed to die with comfort and peace. But it is a truism that an intensive-care physician is exactly the worst person to decide whether a radical therapy should be used for a patient who appears to have little or no hope - intensive care attracts those who do, those who tinker, those who believe that by exercising maximum control over as many aspects of a patient's function as possible, they can restore function to what has been broken. This will always be the last person in the room to admit "defeat" and say "we will go no further."

It is a similar kind of person who engages in research science. The hyperspecialization involved in this kind of endeavor makes it increasingly difficult to maintain perspective of that research in its broader context. And when that context involves something as breathtaking as the idea of experimenting on an unwilling possessor of human or semi-human consciousness, anyone with a sense of that broader context automatically begins to lean backward. It is not fear of progress, but rather the natural response of a consciousness with recognition of its own limits, frailties, blind spots and forbidden zones.

>>the cutting edge of biomedical treatments are always inherently dangerous as they have not been tested but standard practice is (for many people) to weigh how much danger the patient is in from disease and how much danger there is from the treatment.<<

Yeah fine, but those many people can be wrong. The 1976 swine flu fiasco is another good example. The infectious disease experts worried that a particularly fatal form of flu was on its way after a single Fort Dix soldier died of the disease. Worried that another 1918 pandemic may result, the infectious disease experts convinced Ford of the threat, who then asked Congress to appropriate 135 million dollars to be used to make enough vaccine for the American population of 215 million. Parke-Davis made the vaccine and the Swine Flu vaccination program officially commenced on Oct 1, 1976. On Oct 11 two elderly people died shortly after getting the vaccine, which resulted in headlines that severely diminished the vaccines demand. By Oct 15 only 40 million had been vaccinated; it was estimated that an 85% vaccination rate was required to prevent the pandemic. Mid-January the CDC reported that the falls pneumonia and flu-associated deaths was the lowest since 1972. The first case of Guillain-Barre syndrome appeared the third week of November; a disease that causes weakness, poor reflexes and can progress to paralyze. On Christmas Eve the CDC revealed that 172 cases of Guillain-Barre cases had turned-up, including 6 deaths. In the end the US government would settle 393 claims.

The dread Swine Flu never materialized but because the experts hyped the fear a vaccine was pushed onto the American public that caused several deaths and paralyze or paralyze-like syndrome in hundreds.

The detail of this story (and a few lines lifted) from Laurie Garrett’s The Coming Plague.

As to the "passionate, properly educated people" who work for such charitable, loveable outfits as pharmaceutical companies portray themselves, I pity them if they think they'll be able to crack the corporate mentality that puts human life - or saving it - as part of a balance sheet that has to please the people who own the most stock. We've all read about the drugs that were not quite "exactly what was intended, nothing less, nothing more." Whether a drug comes from a hamster or a chem lab is immaterial. dick brandlon

This is exactly what I was thinking - just in the past few years, there have been several instances of apparent negligence by the FDA in pursuit of a new market for a big pharma product (just say "Vioxx"). Unless there is some other body that the writer had in mind, I cannot see how our current system is set up to do anything other than allow for the maximum profits at the minimum ("don't get caught or we'll lose our shorts") cost. Has anyone read a pharma insert lately? Or the two pages of fine print alongside the ads for the latest designer pharmaceuticals? All that fine print serves to cover the backsides of the pharmaceutical companies, "nothing more, nothing less".

I do think the original article made some valid points, not all of them about how "scary" the science is. Most of all, I came away from reading it a little wiser, and just a little bit uneasy, about the breaking down of boundaries that have been thought inviolable for millenia. I don't think jumping to the defense of science is necessary or productive in this case; it's a distraction from the main issue: when is a human not quite human? When is a mouse not a mouse anymore, but a hybrid human/mouse? (Think of the fascinating photo that circulated a few years back, of the mouse with a human ear growing out of it. Okay, don't think about it. Yuck!)

momofone

but think if they did get a mouse or something tht could talk, would that not be cool?

reddot99:

but think if they did get a mouse or something tht could talk, would that not be cool?

Actually that would be the biggest nightmare of all.