Chimeras
Questions and war and peace aside, I have to think that Ross Douthat is right about this. Psychology professor David Barash has published an op-ed in the LA Times arguing that we ought to genetically engineer human animal hybrids in order to . . . prove that creationism is wrong.
For one thing, the idea that this would convince anyone is odd. The theory of evolution is well-supported by the empirical evidence. The people who don't believe it aren't unpersuaded due to the paucity of empirical evidence but because it conflicts with what they regard as sound evidence of the revealed Truth. Adding another data-point isn't going to change anything, it's not obvious to me that this would even be a valid data-point. The only thing it would seem to provide evidence for is the notion that methodological materialism is dangerous and the scientists who employ it are unhinged.
But more to the point, the underlying sentiments here lack all perspective. I'm all for teaching the proper science of biology in biology classes. But to undertake a radical policy initiative in an area unrelated to education policy purely to thumb our noses at creationists -- depending on how you count, a majority of Americans -- is crazy.
Aren't there we already chimera among us?
See Genesis 6:4
;-}
July 18, 2006 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, engineering a new species hardly proves evolution exists - indeed, the resulting species would be an example of 'intelligent design' by humanity.
July 18, 2006 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't looking at this from a Western point of view?
Proving creationism false? Yawn. But connecting humanity with all other forms of animal life? This would be like two royal families marrying to guarantee peace between their realms. Think what it would mean for Hindus/Buddhists/Jains and others who have long since claimed that all life is sacred, not just human life. It would not be merely a political stunt to thumb our nose at the ignorant, it would be a tremendous civil rights victory in which Western secularists and fundamentalists alike would be humbled.
That was the real focus of Barash's proposal--that human disconnectedness from life is unscientific--no different from believing that God likes white people more than black people.
July 18, 2006 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
His point appears to be contained in these quotes:
"Should geneticists and developmental biologists succeed once again in joining human and nonhuman animals in a viable organism — as our ancient human and chimp ancestors appear to have done long ago — it would be difficult and perhaps impossible for the special pleaders to maintain the fallacy that Homo sapiens is uniquely disconnected from the rest of life.
It is one thing to ignore the fact that we share roughly 98% of our genotype with chimpanzees; but such "ignore-ance" would require even more intellectual sleight-of-hand when human and nonhuman cells are literally conjoined.
Moreover, the benefits of such a physical demonstration of human-nonhuman unity would go beyond simply discomfiting the naysayers, beyond merely bolstering a "reality based" as opposed to a bogus "faith based" worldview. I am thinking of the powerful payoff that would come from puncturing the most hurtful myth of all time, that of discontinuity between human beings and other life forms. This myth is at the root of our environmental destruction — and our possible self-destruction."
While Matt is probably right that any form of rational proof wouldn't be useful in the face of creationist dogma, the professors's claim that physical proof of one of the tenets of that dogma being false may prove powerful might be correct.
Also, that last paragraph indicates that Matt is wrong to say that the professor is merely "thumbing his nose at creationists'. Clearly he has a more extensive agenda.
On the other hand, I can't say I agree that the result would necessarily follow.
I do agree with the professor, however, that proving that humans really ARE chimps might help overcome some of humanity's tendency to behave like chimps.
Naah, probably not, for the same reasons that the creationists wouldn't be undone.
Still, I have no problem with the notion of human-animal hybrids, although I can't really think of any practical use for them that would justify the effort, although for purely research purposes, it might be reasonable.
July 18, 2006 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ethics and proof?
Am I the only one who remembers how cool "Manimal" was back in the 80's? Those 8 episodes rocked! What's wrong with playing god if we can make a super-cool half-man/half-chimp/half-cobra chimera? Imagine if you had those combined powers? You could reason with your enemies, when that failed you could throw feces at them - and if that didn't change their mind, sink your venomous fangs into their flesh and watch them slowly die.
It'd be nearly as awesome as being Dick Cheney..
July 18, 2006 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least in tissue culture, mouse-human (murine-human) chimeras are quite common in genetic engineering. Quite a few drugs and research chemicals are produced from these cells.
During the Carter administration, brother Billy thought his Secret Service code name was "Linc", as in "Lincoln". He apparently never learned it was "Link", as in "Missing". Seemed vaguely apropos.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 19, 2006 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well if I've learned anything from the X-men, it is this:
The problem with mutant hybrids is moral. Superhuman power requires superhuman restraint to not abuse that power.
So the problem for genetic engineers is how to instill in their hybrids a moral sense that is so desperately lacking among ordinary men of below-average intelligence.
--
-- All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door. (John Kenneth Galbraith) --
July 19, 2006 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
So the problem for genetic engineers is how to instill in their hybrids a moral sense that is so desperately lacking among ordinary men of below-average intelligence.
And not lacking in plenty of men (and women) of average, above average and even extraordinary intelligence? I beg to differ...
July 19, 2006 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reminds me of something I wrote on my second blog a few months back, making fun of Science magazine for picking "Evolution in Action" as its "breakthrough of the year." (I also posted about it on Glaivester) This was obviously a move done for political reasons, because "evolution in action" is not a "breakthrough" anymore than "gravity in action" is.
<>"You say I'm a dreamer. We're two of a kind. Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"
July 19, 2006 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Superhuman power requires superhuman restraint to not abuse that power."
I think the Transhuman position would be slightly different. Superhuman power requires NON-humanity.
To be human is to be a primate.
Actually, the idea of mixing humans and primates would just emphasize that fact - which is sort of what the professor is suggesting.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure that's a good idea.
A lot of people might like being primates.
July 19, 2006 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would be really useful in quelling some of the pseudo-scientific looney-tunery of the religious fringe would be the discovery of extraterrestial life, especially intelligent extraterrestials.
July 20, 2006 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink