Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Faith-based perspectives on the use of chimeric organisms for medical research

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Transgenic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Efforts to advance our understanding of neurodegenerative diseases involve the creation chimeric organisms from human neural stem cells and primate embryos—known as prenatal chimeras. The existence of potential mentally complex beings with human and non-human neural apparatus raises fundamental questions as to the ethical permissibility of chimeric research and the moral status of the creatures it creates. Even as bioethicists find fewer reasons to be troubled by most types of chimeric organisms, social attitudes towards the non-human world are often influenced by religious beliefs. In this paper scholars representing eight major religious traditions provide a brief commentary on a hypothetical case concerning the development and use of prenatal human–animal chimeric primates in medical research. These commentaries reflect the plurality and complexity within and between religious discourses of our relationships with other species. Views on the moral status and permissibility of research on neural human animal chimeras vary. The authors provide an introduction to those who seek a better understanding of how faith-based perspectives might enter into biomedical ethics and public discourse towards forms of biomedical research that involves chimeric organisms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Unfortunately space does not permit a detailed description of these different arguments. For a review of the development and regulatory impact of Bioethical positions on research involving chimeric organisms see: (Baylis and Robert 2007) and (Harvey and Salter 2012)

  2. See for example:Midgley (2000)

  3. Regulatory jurisdictions in which faith-based positions on research involving chimeric organisms have been submitted to statutory bodies include the United Kingdom and Singapore. See for example: The Church of Scotland (2005) Reponse on the review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. Church and Society Council and the Science Religion and Technology Project; Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales. (2007) Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales and Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics Joint Response to the Human Tissue and Embryos, Mission and Public Affairs Council (2010) Response to the Academy of Medical Sciences’ Call for Evidence: ‘Animals Containing Human Material’. Church of England; and, The Bioethics Advisory Committee. (2010) Human–animal Combinations in Stem Cell Research. Singapore.

  4. This is not the case with research involving transgenesis and genetically modified organisms. See for example: (Bruce and Bruce 1998) and (Brunk and Coward 2009)

  5. Moral status is a concept that describes what an entity is owed by its own right, and not as a product of its instrumental value to others.

  6. imago dei is a theological doctrine that human beings are created in the image of God, which gives us a special status in creation and the ability to actualize unique qualities such as spiritual self awareness and a capacity for moral reflection and growth.

  7. According to some Judaic scholars, the Talmudic and halakhic literature suggest that being born or formed by a woman is the primary criterion that defines human beings. See: (Loike and Tendler 2008)

References

  • Abū Dāwūd (1952) Sunan, Cairo:’Isa al-Bābī al-Halabī

  • Bai Tongdong (2009) The price of serving meat: on Confucius’s and Mencius’s views of human and animal rights. Asian Philos 19:85–99

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baylis F, Robert JS (2007) Part-human chimeras: worrying the facts, probing the ethics. Am J Bioeth 7:41–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bhan A, Singer P, Daar A (2010) Human–animal chimeras for vaccine development: an endangered species or opportunity for the developing world? BMC Int Health Hum Rights 10:8

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce D, Bruce A (1998) Engineering genesis: the ethics of genetic engineering in non-human species, London: Earthscan Publications Ltd

  • Brunk CG, Coward HG (2009) Acceptable genes? religious traditions and genetically modified foods. SUNY Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Burtt EA (1955) The teachings of the compassionate Buddha: early discourses, the Dhammapada, and later basic writings. New American Library, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997) modifications from the Editio Typica No. 2419 US Catholic Conference

  • Catholic Bishops’ conference of England and Wales (2007) Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales and Linacre centre for healthcare ethics joint response to the human tissue and embryos

  • Chapple C (1993) Nonviolence to animals, earth, and self in Asian traditions. State University of New York Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • de Melo-Martín I (2008) Chimeras and human dignity. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 18:331–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeGrazia D (2007) Human–animal chimeras: human dignity moral status, and species prejudice. Metaphilosophy 38:309–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberl JT, Ballard RA (2009) Metaphysical and ethical perspectives on creating animal-human chimeras. J Med Philos 34:470–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fan R (2010) How should we treat animals? A confucian reflection. Dao 9:70–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fausböll V (1881) The Sutta-Nipâta: a collection of discourses being one of the canonical books of the Buddhists translated from Pâli. The Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham B (2012) Does the Bible say anything about how we should treat animals? Billy Graham Evangelical Society

  • Greely HT (2003) Defining chimeras and chimeric concerns. Am J Bioeth 3:17–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greene M, Schill K, Takahashi S, Bateman-House A, Beauchamp T, Bok H, Cheney D, Coyle J, Deacon T, Dennett D (2005) Moral issues of human-nonhuman primate neural grafting. Sci NY Wash 309:385–386

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haber MH, Benham B (2012) Reframing the ethical issues in part-human animal research: the unbearable ontology of inexorable moral confusion. Am J Bioeth 12:17–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey A, Salter B (2012) Anticipatory governance: bioethical expertise for human/animal chimeras. Science Cult 21:291–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HFEA (2007) Hybrids and chimeras: a report on the findings of the consultation. Hum Fertil Embryol Auth UK. http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/hybrids-and-chimeras

  • Jones N (2003) Could animal chimeras be on the way? The center for bioethics and human dignity. Trinity National University, San Antonio

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones DA (2009) What does the British public think about human–animal hybrid embryos? J Med Eth 35:168–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpowicz P, Cohen CB, van der Kooy D (2004) It is ethical to transplant human stem cells into nonhuman embryos. Nat Med 10:331–335

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis CS (1947) Vivisection foreword by George R. Farnum. New England Anti-vivisection Society, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Linzey A, Cohn-Sherbok D (1997) After Noah: animals and the liberation of theology. Geoffrey Chapman Mowbray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Linzey A, Kramer MB (1995) Vivisection. In: Clarke PB, Linzey A (eds) Dictionary of ethics, theology and society. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Loike JD, Tendler M (2008) Reconstituting a human brain in animals: a Jewish perspective on human sanctity. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 18:347–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley M (2000) Biotechnol and monstrosity: why we should pay attention to the “yuk factor”. Hastings Cent Rep 30:7–15

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mission and Public Affairs Council (2010) Response to the Academy of Medical Sciences’ call for evidence: ‘animals containing human material’. Church of England. http://www.churchofengland.org/media/45701/achmresp.pdf

  • Montefiore H (1975) Man and nature. Foreword by Archbishop Michael Ramsey. Report of a working party set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Collins

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Technology Assessment (1987) New developments in biotechnology. Background paper: public perceptions of biotechnology. In: OTA-BP-BA-45. GPO, Washington

  • Reisner A (1997) Curiouser and Curiouser: the kashrut of genetically engineered foodstuffs http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19912000/reisner_curiouser.pdf. Rabbinical Assembly: Committee on Jewish Law and Standards

  • Robert JS (2006) The science and ethics of making part-human animals in stem cell biology. FASEB J 20:838–845

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robert JS, Baylis F (2003) Crossing species boundaries. Am J Bioeth 3:1–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sherringham T (2008) Mice, men and monsters: opposition to Chimera Research ans the scope of federal regulation. Calif Law Rev 96:765–800

    Google Scholar 

  • Streiffer R (2005) At the edge of humanity: human stem cells, chimeras, and moral status. Kennedy Inst Eth J 15:347–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streiffer R (2011) Human/non-human chimeras. In: the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (ed) EN Zalta http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/chimeras/%3E. [2011, Spring Edition]

  • The Bioethics advisory committee. (2010) Human–animal combinations in stem cell research pp http://www.bioethics-singapore.org/uploadfile/54403 PMHAC Report.pdf, Singapore

  • The Church of Scotland (2005) Reponse on the review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act p Available at: http://archive.srtp.org.uk/cloning.shtml. Church and Society Council and the Science Religion and Technology Project

  • Waldau P (2000) Religion and other animals: ancient themes, contemporary challenges. Soc Anim 8:227–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wesley J (1806) The general deliverance. Sermons on Several Occasions JC, Totten

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, K25, Medical Foundation Building, 94-96 Parramatta Rd, Sydney, Australia

    Chris Degeling, Rob Irvine & Ian Kerridge

Authors
  1. Chris Degeling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rob Irvine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ian Kerridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Degeling.

Additional information

With Commentaries by: Zhen Cai, John Berkman, Elliot Dorff, Lisa Kemmerer, Anna King, Andrew Linzey, Karen Swallow Prior and Sarra Tlili

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Degeling, C., Irvine, R. & Kerridge, I. Faith-based perspectives on the use of chimeric organisms for medical research. Transgenic Res 23, 265–279 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-013-9770-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-013-9770-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation