The Animal Made Human, pt. II

In the discussion to my last post, Adam posted a couple of questions which I think are worth exploring in more detail. Here they are below:

1) Should animals be experimented on this way, and if so, to what extent?

2) Should scientists be allowed to do so much genetic engineering that they effectively change a creature so much that can no longer be considered of the same species? Why or why not?

As I mentioned below, the NY Times article doesn't really discuss how this new technology relates to the issue of animal rights. It's clear that there is a certain threshold beyond which we should not cross when it comes to the use of such technology. I think it's helpful in placing that threshold to start by defining three particular ways in which this technology can be used.

1) Animal experimentation that alters the fundamental structure, but not the brain, of the animal experimented on.

2) Animal experimentation that alters the fundamental structure and/or just the brain of the animal.

3) Human experimentation

Clearly the threshold for the last scenario is the highest. As it is now, the standards concerning scientific and medical experimentation on humans are well-grounded, and the reasons for which we may experiment on humans has to be compelling. In general, even the most compelling reasons rarely justify placing the health or life of a human subject in danger, and even then it's usually in cases where the person is facing terminal or crippling illness. (And practically speaking, the issue of stem cells, both their creation and their use, has been debated time and time again, and probably deserves an entire blog of it's own.)

What of animal experimentation that alters the fundamental structure of the animal, but confers no additional consciousness on the animal? This is where the "yuck" factor begins to come into play. To many people, it would be most disturbing to see an animal that is a congolomerate of one more more other animals. But why does that bother us? At first glance, what appears to bother us about the idea is that it violates not a standard of ethics, but a standard of aesthetics. Looking to mythology, there are examples of animal conglomerates that aren't considered monstrous; the Pegasus for example. If scientists could create a horse with purely extraneous wings, how offensive would that be to our taste? What of an animals with human organs, to be harvested for transplant? Human eyes? Human skin? A human face? Obviously, the examples grow more and more disturbing as they become more and more extreme. The question is though, at what point are we going too far? Beyond what point we'll we not alter animals for reasons that are offensive to our aesthetic taste? And how do you establish an aesthetic threshold? I'm neither a philospher nor an ethicist, but it seems to me that altering an animal in such a way as to prevent it from adhering to it's "original" or "natural" purpose, form, or function, is perhaps going too far. In other words, changing the animal in such a way that you alter it's essential character, would be crossing that line. Practially speaking, what does that mean? After all, we alter animals all of the time, and have been for thousands of years. But there is a huge difference between altering a rat so that it grows a particular type of cancer, and altering an ape so that it, say, grows human arms. Obviously, the problem with this standard is that it's barely a standard at all; deciding what is too great is an alteration is left up to each individual person, and it's hardly based on anything more then the sort of judgment you make about whether one flower is prettier then another. But I think it's possible to cross a line beyond which we're not longer making an aesthetic judgement about the animal's form and function, but rather, a moral one. Beyond a certain point, we find that what has been done to the animal is offensive to "life" itself; that no living creature should be modified in so drastic or radical a manner. What does it mean that something is offensive to life itself? I have to admit that this is something that, at this point, is merely a gut feeling on my part. It is certain to me that there is a moral line that we should not cross in the modification of living creatures, but where that line is for certain, and how we justify where that line should be, is quite beyond me right now. I'm not sure that I even have the proper philosophical or ethical background to even really get a grip on that issue. Hopefully some of you can contribute your ideas on this.

What of animal experimentation that alters the structure of the animal's brain, or confers consciousness on it? As I mentioned below, the NY Times article talks about a researcher who'd like to replace a fetal mouse's neurons with human neural stem cells. In all liklihood the mouse will have human nuerons that mimic mouse nuerons, such that there is little distinction between it and any other mouse's brain. But the possibility exists that the human stem cells will attempt to grow into a human brain, or a quasi-human brain. If we were to allow that mouse to come to term, and be born with that brain, what have we created? Clearly the sheer size of a human brain is part of what creates our unique consciousness, but can we confer some measure of consciousness on a mouse beyond what it has? What of larger animals, with more cranial capacity? What of apes, already so closely related to us? What if we can alter apes in unique ways, to confer upon them the ability to emote as we do, even if we do not alter their levels of consciousness? None of these experiments are as likely to trigger the revulsion that we might with the ones that alter that of the animal which we can see. In my opinion that makes it more likely that some researcher somewhere will attempt just such an experiment at some point.

So why not? If there's no inherent revulsion, as there would be to the sight of an ape with human arms, what should prevent us? The biggest flaw with the "yuck" factor as a measure of what experiments we can and cannot carry out is that it addresses only the human perspective; what is offensive to us? What is unpleasant for us to look upon? What does and does not trigger revulsion in us? There is no consideration of how the changes effect the animal itself.

Clearly we are evolving greater ethical standards in the treatment of animals for research and experimentation(what we do to them in the process of eating them is quite another issue, and one which our ancestors would probably hold us in low regard for.) We do, to a limited extent, consider the pain and suffering of the animals themselves in our experimentations. I believe that we should aim for a standard in all animal experimentation where we do not inflict any pain and suffering on the animals unless absolutely necessary, and only to the extent that we cannot mitigate such pain and suffering. In such cases we have to ask ourselves, are we inflicting suffering on an ape if we give it human hands it was never meant to have? If we alter it's brain so that it can understand it's own circumstances more clearly? If we change it in such a manner so that it is an outcast from it's own community? I think the answer is yes in each of those circumstances, and in such cases we have gone too far.

Clearly this is a difficult issue to tackle, and I'm sure smarter men and women then me will eventually give us some more principled guidelines that we can follow. I think our ever increasing awareness of the nature of life itself, and our greater ethical understanding concerning how animals should be treated, will eventually give us reason to turn away from such experiments unless they are strictly regulated, and there is a compelling need for them. But so long as the technology outpaces our ethical response, we run the risk of going too far and not being able to turn back.