HOME / human nature: Science, technology, and life.

Animal FarmThe recombination of man and beast.

Mouse. Click image to expand.If you've been laughing at those Neanderthal presidential candidates who still don't believe in evolution, it's time to sober up. Every serious scientist knows we evolved from animals. The question now is whether to put our DNA and theirs back together.

We've been putting baboon hearts, pig valves, and other animal parts in people for decades. We've derived stem cells by inserting human genomes in rabbit eggs. We've made mice with human prostate glands. We've made sheep with nearly half-human livers. This week, Britain's Academy of Medical Sciences reported (PDF) that scientists have created "thousands of examples of transgenic animals" carrying human DNA. According to the report, "the introduction of human gene sequences into mouse cells in vitro is a technique now practiced in virtually every biomedical research institution across the world."

Why have we done this? To save lives. If you can't get a human heart valve, a pig valve will do. If you can't get human eggs to clone embryos for stem-cell research, rabbit eggs will do. If you can't use people as guinea pigs in gruesome but necessary experiments on human tissues, guinea pigs will do. All you have to do is put—or grow—the human tissues in the guinea pigs. You're free to inflict any disease or drug on a human system, as long as that human system lives in an animal.

In stem-cell research, moreover, human cells are the therapy. Under FDA rules, you have to test them in animals before you test them in people. That means implanting them to see how they change the animals. Meanwhile, we're using hamster cells to make a human protein to treat anemia (PDF). We're using mice to make humanized antibodies that produce cancer drugs. We've grown human kidney tissue in rats.

So far, our mixtures are modest. To make humanized animals really creepy, you'd have to do several things. You'd increase the ratio of human to animal DNA. You'd transplant human cells that spread throughout the body. You'd do it early in embryonic development, so the human cells would shape the animals' architecture, not just blend in. You'd grow the embryos to maturity. And you'd start messing with the brain.

We're doing all of those things.

According to the British academy's report, "researchers have constructed ever more ambitious transgenic animals"—some with an entire human chromosome—and it's "likely that the process of engineering ever larger amounts of human DNA into mice will continue." Four months ago in Nature, biologists outlined several ways to pursue this, starting with "genetic modifications to humanize the host strain further." We're transplanting pluripotent stem cells, which proliferate and grow many kinds of human tissue. We're doing it early in mouse embryogenesis, and we're implanting the resulting embryos in "foster mice" so they can develop.

We're not doing these things because they're creepy. We're doing them because they're logical. The more you humanize animals, the better they serve their purpose as lab models of humanity. That's what's scary about species mixing. It's not some crazy Frankenstein project. It's the future of medicine.

Now comes the brain.

Neurological disorders affect 1 billion people and kill nearly 7 million per year. To study these disorders, we're doing to brain tissue what we've done to liver and kidney tissue: We're replicating it in animals. We've made humanized mice with Alzheimer's symptoms. We've put human neural stem cells in monkey brains. We've put human stem cells in the brains of fetal mice and grown them into adult mice with human neurons. According to the British academy, it's now standard practice to test human neural stem cells by assessing whether they "integrate appropriately into mouse or rat brain."

Last month, ethicists from Stanford University and the University of Wisconsin detailed a proposal by a Stanford scientist to substitute human brain stem cells for dying neurons in fetal mice. "The result would be a mouse brain, the neurons of which were mainly human in origin," they reported. The payoff, if the fetuses survived, would be "a laboratory animal that could be used for experiments on living, in vivo, human neurons." Imagine that: a humanoid brain network you can treat like a lab animal, because it is a lab animal.

The Stanford experiment wouldn't actually produce a human brain. Most brain cells aren't neurons, and the experiment called for inserting human cells after the mice had constructed their brain architecture. But last year in Developmental Biology, researchers proposed to insert human stem cells in mice before this architectural stage. The resulting "mouse/human chimeras," they argued, "would be of considerable value for the modeling of human development and disease in live animals."

When Stanford's ethicists first heard the proposal for humanized mouse brains, they were grossed out. But after thinking it over, they tentatively endorsed the idea and decided that it might not be bad to endow mice with "some aspects of human consciousness or some human cognitive abilities." The British academy and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences have likewise refused to permanently restrict the humanization of animals.

If you want permanent restrictions, your best bet is the senator who tried to impose them two years ago. He's the same presidential candidate now leading the charge against evolution: Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas. He thinks we're separate from other animals, "unique in the created order." Too bad that isn't true of the past—or the future.

A version of this article also appears in the Outlook section of the Sunday Washington Post.

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War. Follow him on Twitter here.
Photograph of mouse by John Foxx/Stockbyte.
COMMENTS

Remarks from the Fray:

While there are many issues on which Brownback can be criticized and castigated, holding that human beings are "unique in the created order" is not one of them.

We are most certainly unique with regard every other species we have ever encountered. Where Brownback diverges from reality is in the fact that we have evolved to our point of ultimate uniqueness rather than having it bestowed upon us by some god.

We've busted our hump to get where we are, have damn near destroyed ourselves more than once, and sacrificed millions of our brothers and sisters in that quest. And we still have a lot of very hard work left to do, so I'll be damned if I'm going to let some mythical fiction take the credit for it.

We did it our way and we're still here moving forward into a most exciting future.

--gruff

(To reply, click here.)

Let's tone down the sensationalism. My heart beat started to race as I read the chimera article and I am a biologist who works with this stuff all the time. Half of that article was full of things sexed up to sound so much scarier than they really are. The most accurate line was how timid our current mixes have been.

The majority of medical/biology breakthroughs are scary. Thirty years ago when we started to clone individual genes and put human and mouse genes into bacteria to replicate more copies it sounded scary and unnatural. So did the idea of blood transfusions. When people don't understand science they have a hard time trusting the people who do to stay in control and within ethical bounds.

Tough. I don't understand the economy but I don't spend tons of time freaking out about new and scary financial derivatives created on Wall Street, but those are honestly more likely to actually effect our well being than the vast majority of biomedical research. Why not worry? There are people who do that, who are passionate about it, and my uneducated opinion probably wouldn't bring much insight on the matter.

By the way, the scary hamster cells that are being used to make an anemia treatment-- they are just a factory. Why is it so much scarier to inject something made by a hamster cell than from a purely chemical process. Both are quality controlled to make sure that what is in the drug is exactly what was intended, nothing less, nothing more. How do you know? Well, there are smart, passionate, properly educated people who make sure and if they don't we punish them and their corporation.

--im1

(To reply, click here.)

(6/23)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
DOONESBURY FLASHBACK
TODAY'S VIDEO
Nice boots!39/TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on breast cancer.80/TC.jpg
You don't say.86/TD.jpg