The idea of creating human-animal hybrids is initially deeply repulsive. Although many people may imagine something out of Planet of the Apes, at least one proposal is less problematic than what it would supplant. The United Kingdom's regulatory agency will make a decision today on whether to permit this practice, which Australia's Parliament recently prohibited.

Stem cell researchers wish to create these hybrids in order to use animal eggs, instead of those from women, in research cloning. Human eggs are in short supply, and their extraction carries health risks. These scientists plan on removing the nucleus from a cow or rabbit egg, inserting the nucleus from a human body cell, and stimulating the resulting hybrid cell to divide into an embryo. Only a tiny portion of the animal DNA would remain. Apart from the occasional crackpot, no one plans on letting these divide for more than a couple weeks, during which the embryo remains an undifferentiated ball of cells. Instead, they'd be destroyed to extract embryonic stem cells with (almost) the same DNA as the donor of the human body cell.

How does this compare with the other option, using human eggs? I'd say favorably, in three ways. First, human stem cells have yet to be successfully derived via cloning. Researchers could investigate and refine the technique using the animal egg alternative. If the results are promising AND human eggs appear to be needed, perhaps scientist could then ask women to provide eggs. Second, if research cloning actually leads to individually-matched cellular therapies (however unlikely they may be), it may be possible to create the patient-matched stem cells using animal eggs. This would dramatically reduce the cost of such therapies. Finally, the hybrid embryos are likely to be less viable than human clonal embryos. This would reduce the chance that research cloning will lead to the abuses of reproductive cloning.

Although this practice may be defensible, some of its backers have crossed a rhetorical line. One applicant for permission to carry out the procedure said:

There are hundreds of thousands of patients in Britain with degenerative neurological conditions. We can use these cell lines to study them, and to see if drugs are going to be effective. To shut that down is a real affront to patients who are desperate for therapy. Of all these diseases, none are really treatable. This is a very serious turning point in terms of science and medicine.

Wake Forest University

A few reactions to the news about stem cells derived from amniotic fluid:

First, there’s a lot here that looks promising. The Wake Forest University researchers who found this new type of stem cells say (Washington Post, Associated Press, San Francisco Chronicle) that they share much of the versatility and flexibility of embryonic stem cells, and have already been turned into a range of tissue types.

But unlike embryonic stem cells, amniotic fluid-derived stem cells tend not to form tumors in test animals, and not to trigger immune rejection. Perhaps even more significant is their immunity to political opposition; stem cell research sans embryos makes this virtually unobjectionable.

And, unlike stem cells derived from cloning techniques, research with these “new” stem cells won’t subject women to the risks of egg retrieval.

Stem cells from amniotic fluid also seem better than “adult” stem cells as they appear relatively easy to isolate and culture; they apparently grow as quickly as embryonic stem cells. This raises the possibility of stem cell banks with sufficient genetic variation. According to lead researcher Anthony Atala, 100,000 stem cell lines would “provide cells for 99% of the US population with a perfect match for genetic transplantation.”

But let’s resist another round of stem cell mania. Like other varieties of stem cell research, this one will require much additional effort in Petri dishes and animals before human trials can begin.

Nobel laureate Milton Friedman’s recent passing marks the end of a long and productive career. As one of the most influential free market proponents since Adam Smith, Friedman greatly influenced the development of local exchanges and global economies. But markets aren’t the only things that Friedman liked “liberal”; he was a staunch opponent of the draft and thought legalizing marijuana made good sense.

But, would Milton Friedman be a transhumanist?

The Economist—the magazine of record for free marketeers—suggests that he might. Its recently published annual look at the upcoming year includes an article arguing that human biotechnologies and other medical applications that may be used for “enhancement” are not unlike other uncontroversial attempts at health and longevity such as reducing caloric intake or taking supplements. Throwing its proverbial hands in the air, The Economist implies that market forces are best suited to sort out this growing field since “one thing is certain: whatever ailment drugs may be developed to treat [illness], if they can also be used to provide someone with a competitive advantage, or prolong life, people will take them.”

This libertarian link between transhumanism and free market conservatism is certainly disturbing. They share the perspective that government regulation is bad by default and the public good is nothing more than an aggregate of individual choices. This is surely simplistic to a fault; government oversight, such as civil rights legislation, often advances individual freedoms and the public interest relies heavily upon keeping individual choices from running amuck.

Viewing transhumanism as a legitimate market endeavor also fails to consider the qualitatively different concerns that arise when biotechnology enters the fray. What’s particularly troubling is that many of these enhancement technologies are irreversible, such as the transhumanist dreams of reproductive cloning and germline engineering. Even the worse market decisions, such as the Enron debacle, can eventually be remedied or prevented from happening again. But, can we say the same about a laissez faire approach to biotechnology that creates the conditions for genetically superior classes of people that clone themselves in perpetuity?

Over at the Hasting Center's Bioethics Forum, Richard Hayes of the Center for Genetics and Society reviews a proposal for the oversight of human genetic and reproductive technologies from Francis Fukuyama and Franco Furger. Hayes describes the challenge: