Human dignity and the creation of human-nonhuman chimeras

A Technological and Regulatory Review on Human-Animal Chimera Research: The Current Landscape of Biology, Law, and Public Opinion

Organ transplantation is a highly utilized treatment for many medical conditions, yet the number of patients waiting for organs far exceeds the number available. The challenges and limitations currently associated with organ transplantation and technological advances in gene editing techniques have led scientists to pursue alternate solutions to the donor organ shortage. Growing human organs in animals and harvesting those organs for transplantation into humans is one such solution. These chimeric animals usually have certain genes necessary for a specific organ's development inhibited at an early developmental stage, followed by the addition of cultured pluripotent human cells to fill that developmental niche. The result is a chimeric animal that contains human organs which are available for transplant into a patient, circumventing some of the limitations currently involved in donor organ transplantation. In this review, we will discuss both the current scientific and legal landscape of human-animal chimera (HAC) research. We present an overview of the technological advances that allow for the creation of HACs, the patents that currently exist on these methods, as well as current public attitude and understanding that can influence HAC research policy. We complement our scientific and public attitude discussion with a regulatory overview of chimera research at both the national and state level, while also contrasting current U.S. legislation with regulations in other countries. Overall, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal and scientific barriers to conducting research on HACs for the generation of transplantable human organs, as well as provide recommendations for the future.

Mapping the Ethical Issues of Brain Organoid Research and Application

In 2008, researchers created human three-dimensional neural tissue - known as the pioneering work of "brain organoids." In recent years, some researchers have transplanted human brain organoids into animal brains for applicational purposes. With these experiments have come many ethical concerns. It is thus an urgent task to clarify what is ethically permissible and impermissible in brain organoid research. This paper seeks (1) to sort out the ethical issues related to brain organoid research and application and (2) to propose future directions for additional ethical consideration and policy debates in the field. Toward (1), this paper first outlines the current state of brain organoid research, and then briefly responds to previously raised related ethical concerns. Looking next at anticipated scientific developments in brain organoid research, we will discuss (i) ethical issues related to in vitro brain organoids, (ii) ethical issues raised when brain organoids form complexes or have relationships with other entities, and (iii) ethical issues of research ethics and governance. Finally, in pursuit of (2), we propose research policies that are mindful of the ethics of brain organoid research and application and also suggest the need for an international framework for research and application of brain organoids.

The American Public Is Ready to Accept Human-Animal Chimera Research

We report findings from a new survey of US public attitudes toward human-animal chimeric embryo (HACE) research, designed to compare with recently reported Japanese survey data. We find that 59% of the US public can personally accept the process of injecting human induced pluripotent stem cells into genetically modified swine embryos and having human tissues produced in a pig's body transplanted into a human. This is greater acceptance than in Japan, and there is even strong acceptance among those with strong religious affiliations and who self-identify as conservatives. We argue that strong public support for HACE research, as well as the emerging literature suggesting that humanization of research animals is very unlikely, should compel the NIH to lift its current moratorium on HACE research.

The Ethics of Creating and Using Human-Animal Chimeras

Rapid advances in gene-editing and stem-cell technology have expanded the range of possible future applications in human-animal chimera research. Most notably, recent developments may allow researchers to generate whole personalized human organs in pigs for the purpose of transplantation into human patients. Though human-animal chimera research in small animals, such as mice, is routine, human-animal chimeric techniques are now increasingly being applied to larger animals. Moreover, these chimeras include increasing amounts of human material, which is potentially present in more morally significant locations, such as the brain and the reproductive system. These developments raise important ethical questions about whether we should create such chimeras, and if so, how we should treat them. Answers to these ethical questions are needed to inform the development of policies regulating human-animal chimera research and its applications. Here, we provide a review of some of the most important or widespread ethical concerns.

Ethical arguments concerning human-animal chimera research: a systematic review

Background

The burgeoning field of biomedical research involving the mixture of human and animal materials has attracted significant ethical controversy. Due to the many dimensions of potential ethical conflict involved in this type of research, and the wide variety of research projects under discussion, it is difficult to obtain an overview of the ethical debate. This paper attempts to remedy this by providing a systematic review of ethical reasons in academic publications on human-animal chimera research.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of the ethical literature concerning human-animal chimeras based on the research question: “What ethical reasons have been given for or against conducting human-animal chimera research, and how have these reasons been treated in the ongoing debate?” Our search extends until the end of the year 2017, including MEDLINE, Embase, PhilPapers and EthxWeb databases, restricted to peer-reviewed journal publications in English. Papers containing ethical reasons were analyzed, and the reasons were coded according to whether they were endorsed, mentioned or rejected.

Results

Four hundred thirty-one articles were retrieved by our search, and 88 were ultimately included and analyzed. Within these articles, we found 464 passages containing reasons for and against conducting human-animal chimera research. We classified these reasons into five categories and, within these, identified 12 broad and 31 narrow reason types.

15% of the retrieved passages contained reasons in favor of conducting chimera research (Category P), while 85% of the passages contained reasons against it. The reasons against conducting chimera research fell into four further categories: reasons concerning the creation of a chimera (Category A), its treatment (Category B), reasons referring to metaphysical or social issues resulting from its existence (Category C) and to potential downstream effects of chimera research (Category D). A significant proportion of identified passages (46%) fell under Category C.

Conclusions

We hope that our results, in revealing the conceptual and argumentative structure of the debate and highlighting some its most notable tendencies and prominent positions, will facilitate continued discussion and provide a basis for the development of relevant policy and legislation.

Ethical Considerations in Crossing the Xenobarrier

Chimeras have been an important part of animal research for decades. Yet crossing the species barrier has always been seen as potentially morally problematic. In recent years, advances in chimeric research and the attendant possibilities-organ xenotransplantation, cognitive enhancement, and others-have given rise to further ethical concern. This contribution surveys the main ethical questions that have been discussed in the literature. We examine two arguments-from the order of nature and from human dignity-which aim to show that chimerization is inherently wrong. Finding the first untenable and the second largely inapplicable, we then turn to two unconvincing arguments designed to show that chimerization must necessarily lead to negative outcomes. Having thus found that no blanket statements can be made on the ethics of chimerization, we examine two important parameters relevant to the ethical evaluation of proposed chimeric research: the argument from moral status and from risk.

Ethical Challenges of Germline Genetic Enhancement

The new reproductive technologies have opened the door to different processes of germline genetic enhancement by which the characteristics of an individual according to the interests of the agents involved could be selected during its gestation. Although the initiative is apparently oriented towards developing individuals that would excel in society, critical voices raise the concerns about that this approach would generate and need for a reflection on the ethical, social and legal implications of these techniques and their implementation in society. We reviewed the literature about these issues throughout their historical records to date, focusing on the moral arguments and non-clinical aspects that affect the legal and social environment. We have observed various trends of thought with divergent positions (proactive, preventive, and regulatory) as well as a large number of articles that try to reconcile the different approaches. This review illustrates a series of concepts from the ethics and philosophy fields which are frequently used in studies that evaluate the ethical implications of germline genetic enhancement, such as dignity, benefit, autonomy, and identity. In addition, amongst the many unresolved controversies surrounding genetic enhancement, we identify procreative beneficence, genetic disassociation, gender selection, the value of disability, embryo chimerization, and the psychosocial inequality of potentially enhanced individuals as crucial. We also develop possible scenarios for future debate. We consider especially important the definition and specification of three aspects which are essential for the deployment of new reproductive technologies: the moral status of the embryo undergoing enhancement, the legal status of the enhanced individual, and the responsibility of the agents executing the enhancement. Finally, we propose the precautionary principle as a means to navigate ethical uncertainties.

A framework for the ethical assessment of chimeric animal research involving human neural tissue

BACKGROUND

Animal models of human diseases are often used in biomedical research in place of human subjects. However, results obtained by animal models may fail to hold true for humans. One way of addressing this problem is to make animal models more similar to humans by placing human tissue into animal models, rendering them chimeric. Since technical and ethical limitations make neurological disorders difficult to study in humans, chimeric models with human neural tissue could help advance our understanding of neuropathophysiology.

MAIN BODY

In this article, we examine whether the introduction of human neural tissue and any consequent cognitive change is relevant to the way we ought to treat chimeras. We argue that changes in cognitive abilities are morally relevant to the extent that they increase the capacities that affect the moral status of any entity, including awareness, autonomy, and sociability. We posit that no being, regardless of species, should be treated in a way that is incommensurate with its moral status. Finally, we propose a framework that can be used to guide ethical assessment of research involving chimeras with advanced cognitive capacities.

CONCLUSION

We advance this framework as a useful tool for bringing relevant considerations to the forefront for those considering the ethical merit of proposed chimeric research. In doing so, we examine concepts relevant to the question of how any entity may be treated, including moral status, dignity, and capacities.

How and Why to Replace the 14-Day Rule

Purpose of Review

The ‘14-day rule’, which limits research on human embryos to the first 14 days after fertilisation, has long been a pillar of regulation in this contested area. Recently, advances in developmental biology have led to calls to rethink the rule and its application. In this paper, I address the question of whether the 14-day rule should be replaced and, if so, how.

Recent Findings

The two lines of research that have prompted this question are new techniques enabling culture of embryos at least up to 14 days and patterning experiments with pluripotent cells suggesting that they might form embryo-like structures. I consider each of these in relation to the foundations and function of the rule to examine whether they warrant change.

Summary

I argue that the 14-day rule for embryo research should be open to change, but that this possibility must be addressed through early and thorough discussion involving a wide range of publics and other stakeholders.

Current and emerging global themes in the bioethics of regenerative medicine: the tangled web of stem cell translation

Probably the most serious problem facing the field of regenerative medicine today is the challenge of effective translation and development of viable stem cell-based therapies. Particular concerns have been raised over the growing market in unproven cell therapies. In this article, I explore recent developments in the stem cell therapy landscape and argue that while the sale of unproven therapies undoubtedly poses ethical concerns, it must be understood as part of a larger problem at the interface between biomedicine, healthcare, publics, policy and the market. Addressing this will require a broader perspective incorporating the shifting relationships between different stakeholder groups, the global politics of research and innovation, and the evolving role of publics and patients with respect to science.

Chimeras intended for human gamete production: an ethical alternative?

Human eggs for basic, fertility and stem-cell research are in short supply. Many experiments that require their use cannot be carried out at present, and, therefore, the benefits that could emerge from these are either delayed or never materialise. This state of affairs is problematic for scientists and patients worldwide, and it is a matter that needs our attention. Recent advances in chimera research have opened the possibility of creating human/non-human animal chimeras intended for human gamete production (chimeras-IHGP). In this paper, I examine four arguments against the creation of such chimeras and prove that all of them are found wanting. I conclude by showing that there is a strong moral reason for scientists to pursue this research avenue.

Stem cells and interspecies chimaeras

Chimaeras are both monsters of the ancient imagination and a long-established research tool. Recent advances, particularly those dealing with the identification and generation of various kinds of stem cells, have broadened the repertoire and utility of mammalian interspecies chimaeras and carved out new paths towards understanding fundamental biology as well as potential clinical applications.

Public attitudes in Japan towards human-animal chimeric embryo research using human induced pluripotent stem cells

AIM

To understand the steps and objectives for which Japanese people are willing to accept human-animal chimeric embryo research using human induced pluripotent stem cells.

METHODS

An internet-based survey was conducted for the general public and researchers in Japan in 2016.

RESULTS

Over 60% of the public and 83.8% of researchers supported the creation of human-swine chimeras and 81.0% of the public and 92.4% of researchers supported the creation of human-swine chimeric embryos.

DISCUSSION

When presented with a graded view of human-swine chimeric embryo research with concomitant, specific objectives, a large majority of the general public as well as researchers are willing to accept this research with the aims of disease study, novel drug and treatment development, and transplantation.

Ethical aspects of creating human-nonhuman chimeras capable of human gamete production and human pregnancy

In this paper I explore some of the moral issues that could emerge from the creation of human-nonhuman chimeras (HNH-chimeras) capable of human gamete production and human pregnancy. First I explore whether there is a cogent argument against the creation of HNH-chimeras that could produce human gametes. I conclude that so far there is none, and that in fact there is at least one good moral reason for producing such types of creatures. Afterwards I explore some of the moral problems that could emerge from the fact that a HNH-chimera could become pregnant with a human conceptus. I focus on two sets of problems: problems that would arise by virtue of the fact that a human is gestated by a nonhuman creature, and problems that would emerge from the fact that such pregnancies could affect the health of the HNH-chimera.