Cybrids, Unethical Experimentation on Quasi-human Subjects (8)

There is an obvious difference between experimenting with animals and experimenting on human subjects. For human subjects, we need their informed consent for this experimentation to be licit. There is, however, a debate as to how to go about experimenting on humans when they are incapacitated to give consent. The obvious solution is that the informed consent should be provided by their proxies. But what about those we are not yet born? Can we ethically experiment on human embryos?

In spite of the recent interest in experimenting in embryos for embryonic stem cell research, experimentation on human embryos is always illicit. “If the embryos are living, whether viable or not, they must be respected just like any other human person. Experimentation on embryos which is not directly therapeutic, is illicit. No objective, no matter how noble in itself, such as a foreseeable advantage to science, to other human beings or to society , can in any way, justify experimentation on living human embryos or fetuses, whether it is viable or not, regardless if it is inside or outside the mother’s womb.

The informed consent ordinarily required for clinical experimentation on adults cannot be granted by the parents, who may not freely dispose of the physical integrity or life of the unborn child.” (Donum vitae, I, 4). Pope John Paul II spoke clearly about it as well, “I condemn, in the most explicit and formal way, experimental manipulations of the human embryo, since the human being, from conception to death, cannot be exploited for any purpose whatsoever.” (AAS 75 (1983) 37).

But, what about cybrids? They are not technically humans because they do not come from a human egg and human sperm. Does the ethical rule of absolute respect for human embryos also apply to embryonic human cybrids?

Let us imagine, for the sake of discussion, that, one day, a group of anthropologists discovers in a remote island a strange creature which they have never seen before. They observe that this creature looks quite human. In fact, it shows all the human traits we have. What puzzles scientists is that this creature is not born from other female members of the species but surprisingly and inexplicably, grows from trees. A human-like bud develops in a tree, the bud blooms into a flower, and after 9 months, a human-like creature is born. The whole world is confused and mesmerized about this human-like creature. Soon some scientists decide that the scientific thing to do is to retrieve a few specimens, kill them and dissect them for experimentation. Would that be reasonable?

No, it would not. There is a basic ethical rule that forbids acting in the face of doubt as to what we are doing. If during hunting season, someone notices some movement behind the bushes, is he allowed to shoot? No, it is not permissible since what is moving behind the bushes could either be a person or an animal. It would not be a responsible thing to shoot before confirming that what is moving is indeed an animal and not a person.

We cannot act responsibly and therefore ethically before we resolve the doubt or ignorance as to what we are really doing — in our case, shooting an animal or a person. When in doubt, one should never shoot. This is common sense. The same rule would apply for this “strange new creature”. Until we know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that what we are dissecting is not a human creature, scientists should refrain from harming this creature in any way.

The human cybrid would be such a creature. For all we know, it is more likely to be human than non-human. We know this because previous clones resemble the donor of the cellular nucleus –in fact they are almost genetically identical– more than they resemble the donor of the egg, in our case, the animal.

Scientists agree with this similarity with humans. In a recent dispute in UK over this fact, UK scientists accused the Catholic church of misinterpreting their scientific enterprise. The Bishops’ Conference issued a letter to be read in all parishes warning their congregation against the evil intention of scientists to create half-human-half-animal embryos. UK scientists snapped accusing the bishops of “violating the truth”.

This is not so, the scientists contended. These cybrids are “devoid of an animal genetic identity” said scientist, Stephen Minger. “The resulting embryo contains only human genes”. The scientists have spoken — albeit, inaccurately, presumably on purpose. The truth is that the resulting embryo contains mostly human genes, but it would still harbour a bit of the animal genetic material held in the egg’s mitochondria. The main point to bring home from this dispute, however, is that, as far as science can say, this embryo is genetically mainly human.

The only consistent conclusion is that if human embryos should be absolutely respected, so should be the embryonic human cybrids. They should be respected regardless of our doubts about their real nature. They should still be respected, and all the more, since we scientifically know that they are “genetically” mainly human. The only reasonable thing to do is to give them the benefit of the doubt and protect them with the same respect the normal human embryos deserve. That is, not exerting on them any experimentation, and allowing them to grow and mature according to the best capacity of their nature.

The fact that these cybrids are not found in a remote island but are deliberately created for research purposes and will eventually be terminated makes this act even more illicit.

Embryonic Stem Cell research has brought us down an ethical slippery slope. Countries where such research is allowed, cannot even find any more grounds to draw ethical norms regarding human cybrids. The ethical challenge of the moral status of cybrids only demonstrates how wrong embryonic stem cells research was, in the first place.