Asian Bioethics Review

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 211–228 | Cite as

A Preliminary Study Exploring Japanese Public Attitudes Toward the Creation and Utilization of Human-Animal Chimeras: a New Perspective on Animals Containing “Human Material” (ACHM)

  • Mayumi KusunoseEmail author
  • Yusuke Inoue
  • Ayako Kamisato
  • Kaori Muto
Original Paper


Ongoing research on making “human-animal chimeras” or “animals containing human material” (ACHM) to solve the shortage of organs available for transplantation has raised many ethical issues regarding the creation and utilization of such constructs, including cultural views regarding the status of those creations. A pilot study was conducted to explore Japanese public attitudes toward human-animal chimeras or ACHM. The February 2012 study consisted of focus group interviews (FGIs) with citizens from the Greater Tokyo Area, aged between 20 and 54. The 24 participants were divided into four groups. Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed and participants’ attitudes categorized. Five categories of participant attitudes were identified: (1) resistance to the unnatural, (2) concerns about animal welfare, (3) concerns about controlling human-animal chimeras, (4) concerns about the possible birth of intermediate entities, and (5) resistance to creating and utilizing animals containing my material or my child’s material. Our FGI results showed a broader and greater variety of public concerns than those reported in previous studies. While researchers have tried to establish new methods to avoid creating intermediate entities, our participants expressed concerns about not only intermediate entities but also animals containing their own material or their child’s material. Based upon their responses in the interviews, we are introducing a new ethical concern: “animals containing my material/my child’s material.”


Human-animal chimeras ACHM Japanese public attitudes Focus group interviews Qualitative research 



We would like to thank the citizens who participated in the focus group interviews. We acknowledge the contributions and helpful suggestions of Professor Hyunsoo Hong and members of the Department of Public Policy at the University of Tokyo as well as Dr. Shimon Tashiro at the National Cancer Center for helpful suggestions. Additionally, the authors would like to express special gratitude to Professor Hocine Fetni at the University of Pennsylvania and Professor Robert Congleton of Rider University for editing the English paper and their valued advice.

Funding Information

This study was funded by Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the Japan Science and Technology Agency, and the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

A Human Subjects’ Protection Statement

The protocol of this research was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) at the Institute of Medical Sciences, The University of Tokyo (approval number: 23-63-0223, date of approval: February 23, 2012).


  1. Academy of Medical Sciences. 2011. Animals containing human material. United Kingdom: The Academy of Medical Sciences. Available at Accessed 11 May 2016.
  2. Bourret, R., Martinez, E., Vialla, F., Giquel, C., Thonnat-Marin, A., and De Vos, J. 2016. Human-animal chimeras: ethical issues about farming chimeric animals bearing human organs. Stem Cell Research & Therapy 7(1): 87.Google Scholar
  3. Boyatzis, R.E. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. The United States of America: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Cobbe, N. 2007. Cross species chimeras: exploring a possible Christian perspective. Zygon 42 (3): 599–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deutscher Ethikrat. 2011. Human-animal mixtures in research: opinion. Germany: The German Ethics Council. September 27. Available at Accessed 5 July 2016.
  6. Ehrich, K., Williams, C., and Farsides, B. 2008. The embryo as moral work object: PGD/IVF staff views and experiences. Sociology of Health & Illness 30(5): 772–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ehrich, K., Williams, C., and Farsides, B. 2010. Fresh or frozen? Classifying ‘spare’ embryos for donation to human embryonic stem cell research. Social Science & Medicine 71(12): 2204–2211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eijkholt, M., Kwon, B., Mizgalewicz, A., and Illes, J. 2012. Decision-making in stem cell trials for spinal cord injury: the role of networks and peers. Regenerative Medicine 7(4): 513–522.Google Scholar
  9. Evans, G., and Durant, J. 1995. The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science 4(1): 57–74.Google Scholar
  10. Fiesta, A., and Düwell, M. 2009. IV. Ethics—ethical issues raised by chimera and hybrids—an overview. In CHIMBRIDS−Chimeras and Hybrids in Comparative European and International Research− Scientific, Ethical Philosophical and Legal Aspects, eds. J. Taupitz and M. Weschka, 61–77. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Fox, M. 2016. What is special about the human body? Law, Innovation and Technology 7: 206–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grant, L. and Williams, B. 2010. Exploring the boundaries: a dialogue on animals containing human material: evaluation report. United Kingdom: Laura Grant Associates. Available at Accessed 11 May 2016.
  13. Greely, H. T. 2011. Human/nonhuman chimeras: assessing the issues. Beauchamp, T. L. and Frey, R. G. (Eds.). The oxford handbook of animal ethics. Oxford University Press. pp. 641–670. Available at Accessed 20 April 2017.
  14. Guest, G., MacQueen, K.M., and Namey, E.E. 2011. Applied thematic analysis. The United States of America: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Hug, K. 2009. Research on human-animal entities: ethical and regulatory aspects in Europe. Stem Cell Reviews 5: 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hyun, I. 2015. From naive pluripotency to chimeras: a new ethical challenge? Development 142: 6–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hyun, I. 2016. What’s wrong with human/nonhuman chimera research? PLoS Biology 14: e1002535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Illes, J., Reimer, J.C. and Kwon, B.K. 2011. Stem cell clinical trials for spinal cord injury: readiness, reluctance, redefinition. Stem Cell Reviews and Reports 7(4): 997–1005.Google Scholar
  19. Inoue, Y., Shineha, R., and Yashiro, Y. 2016. Current public support for human-animal chimera research in Japan is limited, despite high levels of scientific approval. Cell Stem Cell 19(2): 152–153.Google Scholar
  20. Ipsos MORI. 2010. Exploring the boundaries: report on a public dialogue into animals containing human material. United Kingdom: Academy of Medical Science. Available at Accessed 11 May 2016.
  21. Karpowicz, P., Cohen, C.B., and Van der Kooy, D. 2004. It is ethical to transplant human stem cells into nonhuman embryos. Nature Medicine 10(4): 331–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karpowicz, P., Cohen, C.B., and Van der Kooy, D. 2005. Developing human-nonhuman chimeras in human stem cell research: ethical issues and boundaries. In CHIMBRIDS−Chimeras and Hybrids in Comparative European and International Research− Scientific, Ethical, Philosophical and Legal Aspects, eds. J. Taupitz and M. Weschka, 535–555. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Kass, L.R. 1997. The wisdom of repugnance: why we should ban the cloning of humans. New Republic 216: 17–26.Google Scholar
  24. Kitzinger, J. 1994. The methodology of focus groups—the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness 16: 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kobayashi, T., Yamaguchi, T., Hamanaka, S., Kato-Itoh, M., Yamazaki, Y., Ibata, M., Sato, H., Lee, Y.S., Usui J., Knisely, A.S., Hrabayashi, M., and Nakauchi, H. 2010. Generation of rat pancreas in mouse by interspecific blastocyst injection of pluripotent stem cells. Cell 142: 787–799 Available at Accessed 11 May 2016.
  26. Kobayashi, T., Kato-Itoh, M., and Nakauchi, H. 2014. Targeted organ generation using Mixl1-inducible mouse pluripotent stem cells in blastocyst complementation. Stem Cells and Development 24(2): 182–189.Google Scholar
  27. Mackenzie, R. 2016. Queering Spinoza’s somatecnics: stem cells, strategic sacralisations and fantasies of care and kind. In Somatechnics: queering the technologisation of bodies. Kindle ed, ed. S. Murray. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  28. Marris, C., and Rose, N. 2010. Open engagement: exploring public participation in the biosciences. PLoS Biology 8(11): e1000549.Google Scholar
  29. Matsunari, H., Nagashima, H., Watanabe, M., Umeyama, K., Nakano, K., Nagaya, M., Kobayashi, T., Yamaguchi, T., Sumazaki, R., Herzenberg, L. A., and Nakauchi, H. 2013. Blastocyst complementation generates exogenic pancreas in vivo in apancreatic cloned pigs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(12): 4557–4562 Available at Accessed 11 May 2016.
  30. McClaren, B., Delatycki, M., Collins, V., Metcalfe, S., and Aitken, M. 2008. ‘It is not in my world’: an exploration of attitudes and influences associated with cystic fibrosis carrier screening. European Journal of Human Genetics 16(4): 435–444.Google Scholar
  31. Midgley, M. 2000. Biotechnology and monstrosity: why we should pay attention to the “yuk factor”. Hastings Center Report 30 (5): 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mills, C. (2014) Commentary: In defence of repugnance. Akabayashi, A. (Ed.). The future of bioethics: international dialogues. Oxford University Press. pp. 366-370.Google Scholar
  33. Mixed Media Limited. 2004. Report to the bioethics council on the dialogue events focusing on human genes in other organisms. New Zealand: Mixed Media Limited. June 7. Available at Accessed 31 July 2017.
  34. NFO World Group: NFO New Zealand. 2003. Human genes in other organisms: qualitative research report - Prepared for: The Bioethics Council. Wellington, New Zealand: Toi te Taiao: Bioethics Council. August. Available at Accessed 14 May 2016.
  35. Normile, D. 2013. Chimeric embryos may soon get their day in the sun. Science 340 (6140): 1509–1510 Available at (accessed May 11, 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. NTT DATA Institute of Management Consulting, Inc. 2017. Social awareness survey on regenerative medicine: the key to donate human cells for regenerative medicine is adjusting the environment to donors’ preferences. Japan: NTT DATA institute of management consulting, Inc. (Japanese). Available at: Accessed 1 Sep 2017.
  37. Nuyen, A. 2010. Stem cell research and interspecies fusion: some philosophical issues. Available at: Accessed 1 Sep 2017.
  38. Ormandy, E.H., and Schuppli, C.A. 2014. Public attitudes toward animal research: a review. Animals (Basel) 4: 391–408.Google Scholar
  39. Palacios-González, C. 2015a. Human dignity and the creation of human–nonhuman chimeras. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18: 487–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Palacios-González, C. 2015b. Ethical aspects of creating human-nonhuman chimeras capable of human gamete production and human pregnancy. Monash Bioethics Review 33: 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Porter, M., and Bhattacharya, S. 2005. Investigation of staff and patients’ opinions of a proposed trial of elective single embryo transfer. Human Reproduction 20(9): 2523–2530.Google Scholar
  42. Rashid, T., Kobayashi, T., and Nakauchi, H. 2014. Revisiting the flight of Icarus: making human organs from PSCs with large animal chimeras. Cell Stem Cell 15: 406–409.Google Scholar
  43. Robert, J.S., and Baylis, F. 2003. Crossing species boundaries. American Journal of Bioethics 3(3): 1–13.Google Scholar
  44. Roberts, S.A., McGowan, L., Hirst, W. M., Brison, D.R., Vail, A., and Lieberman, B.A. 2010. Towards single embryo transfer? Modelling clinical outcomes of potential treatment choices using multiple data sources: predictive models and patient perspectives. Health Technology Assessment 14(38): 1–237.Google Scholar
  45. Savulescu, J. 2011. Genetically modified animals: should there be limits to engineering the animal kingdom?. In The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics, eds. T. L. Beauchamp and R. G. Frey, 641–670. New York: Oxford University Press. Available at Accessed 20 April 2017.
  46. Sawai, T., Hatta, T., and Fujita, M. 2017. Public attitudes in Japan towards human–animal chimeric embryo research using human induced pluripotent stem cells. Regenerative Medicine. 12: 233-248.Google Scholar
  47. Schmidt, J., Castellanos-Brown, K., Childress, S., Bonhomme, N., Oktay, J., Terry, S., Kyler, P., Davidoff, A., and Greene, C. 2012. The impact of false-positive newborn screening results on families: a qualitative study. Genetics in Medicine 14(1): 76–80.Google Scholar
  48. Shaw, D., Dondorp, W., Geijsen, N., and de Wert, G. 2015. Creating human organs in chimaera pigs: an ethical source of immunocompatible organs? Journal of Medical Ethics 41(12): 970–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Skloot, R. 2010. The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. Reprint ed. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  50. Toi te Taiao: Bioethics Council. 2004. The cultural, ethical and spiritual dimensions of the use of human genes in other organisms. Wellington, New Zealand: Bioethics Council. Available at Accessed 14 May 2016.
  51. Usui, J., Kobayashi, T., Yamaguchi, T., Knisely, A. S., Nishinakamura, R., and Nakauchi, H. 2012. Generation of kidney from pluripotent stem cells via blastocyst complementation. The American Journal of Pathology 180(6): 2417–2426 Available at Accessed 11 May 2016.
  52. Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. 2004. See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
  53. Wu, J., Platero-Luengo, A., Sakurai, M., Sugawara, A., GiI, M.A., Yamaguchi, T., Suzuki, K., Bogliotti, Y.S., Cuello, C., Morales Valencia, M., Okumura, D., Luo, J., Vilarino, M., Parrilla, I., Soto, D.A., Martinez, C.A., Hishida, T., Sanchez-Bautista, S., Martinez-Martinez, M.L., Wang, H., Nohalez, A., Aizawa, E., Martinz-Ressondo, P., Ocampo, A., Reddy, P., Roca, J., Maga, E.A., Esteban, C.R., Berggen, W.T., Nunez Delicado, E., Lajara, J., Guillen, I., Guillen, P., Campistol, J.M., Martinez, E.A., Ross, P.J., and Izpiua Belmonte, J.C. 2017. Interspecies chimerism with mammalian pluripotent stem cells. Cell 168: 473–486 e15. Available at Accessed 20 April 2017.
  54. Yamaguchi, T., Sato, H., Kato-Itoh, M., Goto, T., Hara, H., Sanbo, M., Mizuno, N., Kobayashi, T., Yanagida, A., Umino, A., Ota, Y., Hamanaka, S., Masaki, H., Rashid, S.T., Hirabayashi, M., and Nakauchi, H. 2017. Interspecies organogenesis generates autologous functional islets. Nature 542: 191–196. Available at Accessed 20 April 2017.

Copyright information

© National University of Singapore and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mayumi Kusunose
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yusuke Inoue
    • 1
  • Ayako Kamisato
    • 1
  • Kaori Muto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Public Policy, Human Genome Centre, The Institute of Medical SciencesThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations