FA+
Shop
760
Views
Views
14
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Story / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 120 x 120
File Size 2.31 MB
Report this content
More from Pr. Theodose
Listed in Folders
Creating furries : a feasibility study (EF17 talk)
This is the handout of a scientific conference that I will give next week during the Eurofurence convention. This talk summarizes my recent research concerning the feasibility to create furries with existing or foreseeable biotechnologies. I also try to tackle the ethical and philosophical issues that will certainly rise from the emergence of such human-animal hybrids.
Category Story / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 120 x 120px
File Size 2.31 MB
Listed in Folders
We could create a chimera RIGHT now : several British labs are allowed to create human-animal hybrids (chimeras, animal egg with human nucleus,etc) thanks to the Human Fertilization Embryology Act of 2008, but only at the condition that they destroy the embryos after 14 days... However, this venue is the most ethically controversial of the three techniques that I listed in my conference :
- The chimera will have two sets of parents, one human and one animal, and can't be easily classified in taxonomy. Such creature will certainly have extreme difficulties to get integrated into any of his/her parent species.
- A chimera can only have offspring with the species from which his/her reproductive organs originates and his/her children will be pure-breed human or animal. You can easily envision the uproar caused by a canine-looking chimera giving birth to a human baby and vice-versa... Without talking of the difficulties in the mother-child relationship if they aren't of the same species.
- A human surrogate mother will probably needed to get a chimera with expressed human characteristics, because of the human-specific proteins and hormones circulating from the mother to the fetus. Getting a woman to consent to bear a child from another human couple is already tricky and a whole can of worms, so obtaining the same thing for a human-animal chimera will be almost impossible...
- The chimera will have two sets of parents, one human and one animal, and can't be easily classified in taxonomy. Such creature will certainly have extreme difficulties to get integrated into any of his/her parent species.
- A chimera can only have offspring with the species from which his/her reproductive organs originates and his/her children will be pure-breed human or animal. You can easily envision the uproar caused by a canine-looking chimera giving birth to a human baby and vice-versa... Without talking of the difficulties in the mother-child relationship if they aren't of the same species.
- A human surrogate mother will probably needed to get a chimera with expressed human characteristics, because of the human-specific proteins and hormones circulating from the mother to the fetus. Getting a woman to consent to bear a child from another human couple is already tricky and a whole can of worms, so obtaining the same thing for a human-animal chimera will be almost impossible...
Do we know yet how much the extra-genomic material inherited from a nonhuman parent would effect the resulting chimera?
I know the mitochondria would belong to whichever species donated the cytoplasm, but proteins and RNAs (and all the cell structures made of them) are all pretty much gene products, so aside from the mitochondria or maybe chloroplasts (if you're getting really exotic) most of the chimera would be defined by the genome-parent.
In short? If a truly awesome, high-performance strain of mitochondria was discovered in some other nonhuman species, and we wanted to import them into the human species, we could take a couple's IVF-conceived child and move the nucleus, but I doubt that many other characteristics of the nonhuman donor would manifest.
I know the mitochondria would belong to whichever species donated the cytoplasm, but proteins and RNAs (and all the cell structures made of them) are all pretty much gene products, so aside from the mitochondria or maybe chloroplasts (if you're getting really exotic) most of the chimera would be defined by the genome-parent.
In short? If a truly awesome, high-performance strain of mitochondria was discovered in some other nonhuman species, and we wanted to import them into the human species, we could take a couple's IVF-conceived child and move the nucleus, but I doubt that many other characteristics of the nonhuman donor would manifest.
Well, the chimeras I talked about in my talk were of the "assembly of different embryos" type, mostly I thought then that they were most likely to be successful.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 2008 also allowed the creation of the "X nucleus / Y receiver cell" type of chimera, especially because he permits to study genetic interactions because nucleus and organelles. But it's seems more likely to me that the nucleus' genes will exert some form of regulation on the mitochondrial genome than the other way around, probably because the cells needs to control the power output of the mitochondria during phases of crisis.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 2008 also allowed the creation of the "X nucleus / Y receiver cell" type of chimera, especially because he permits to study genetic interactions because nucleus and organelles. But it's seems more likely to me that the nucleus' genes will exert some form of regulation on the mitochondrial genome than the other way around, probably because the cells needs to control the power output of the mitochondria during phases of crisis.
I agree with everything stated here except the necessity of the human mother. Admittedly this is what I know least about among the whole topic (reproductive biology), but as I understand it they have already got different species (admittedly related ones) to carry each other's young from blastulas to birth and the resulting creature is more or less what you would precisely expect from its natural biological parents. Thus I don't think a human surrogate mother is necessary, though again this is my weak point of knowledge. My take is that you would just need something with roughly the right sized womb and nurturative capacity that also provided enough of the right vitamins and nutrients via the placenta to sustain all the different species cell variants up through birth. In fact, for certain creatures that have a greater nutritional requirements (say a species that has more "essential" proteins then a human does) a human surrogate mother might actually prove fatal to the developing chimera (or at least the line of cells with the more stringent nutritional requirements that would otherwise be part of the developing chimera.)
Well, my reasoning at the time was that a human womb and placenta could provide the hormonal makeup needed to slightly favorite the human population of cells in the developing chimera... But I finally abandoned the avenue of human-animal chimerism due to its low overall efficiency and major ethical hurdles.
Another issue discovered since then is the possibility of cells from different species to fusion, leading both to a disruption in the local organ development and the expression of endogenous retroviral DNA (and potential interspecies viral transmission)
http://www.fasebj.org/content/early...../fj.03-0962fje
Another issue discovered since then is the possibility of cells from different species to fusion, leading both to a disruption in the local organ development and the expression of endogenous retroviral DNA (and potential interspecies viral transmission)
http://www.fasebj.org/content/early...../fj.03-0962fje
Thanks for the advertisement !
The only major change compared to the ScotiaCon's talk was the addition of the slide about chimeras, since I found that this research venue is probably the easiest (but the most ethically wrong, see above comment) way to create a human-animal hybrid. In fact, you could create a chimera with just one human couple, one animal couple, some items belonging to an ObGyn office (mainly a microscope with micro-manipulation needles) and ovulation stimulating drugs.
The only major change compared to the ScotiaCon's talk was the addition of the slide about chimeras, since I found that this research venue is probably the easiest (but the most ethically wrong, see above comment) way to create a human-animal hybrid. In fact, you could create a chimera with just one human couple, one animal couple, some items belonging to an ObGyn office (mainly a microscope with micro-manipulation needles) and ovulation stimulating drugs.
I downloaded a camcorder (cameraphone?) video of your talk, and found myself thoroughly impressed with the discussion. If anything, I'd like to see a follow up going into more detail; I understand the talk is intended for a high-school audience (or at least, an audience with the potential for high schoolers) and there are time constraints, but I would desperately love a follow-up to it, perhaps one with links to online journal articles relevant to the discussion.
I didn't know that my talk was being recorded... I only remember the short article on my conference in the convention journal, which was agreeably pleasing and summarized my findings quite correctly.
I try to adjust the level of my talks to the most likely education of my audience, even if it's difficult, because I think that correctly transmitting his ideas is more important than looking smart. But more profound after-talk discussion is always welcome : in fact, I did almost nothing but that during my free time at the last EF...
As for the relevant bibliography, I sent you a note about that.
I try to adjust the level of my talks to the most likely education of my audience, even if it's difficult, because I think that correctly transmitting his ideas is more important than looking smart. But more profound after-talk discussion is always welcome : in fact, I did almost nothing but that during my free time at the last EF...
As for the relevant bibliography, I sent you a note about that.
Definitely interesting! As a major in biochemistry, I very much appreciate adequate science-talk instead of the vague "Virus X" nonsense technobabble that turns people into werewolves. Definitely refreshing!
However, what little I know from genetics tells me this will be an extremely daunting project to do.
However, what little I know from genetics tells me this will be an extremely daunting project to do.
Interestingly, I'm working as a technical advisor on a webcomic project about a "werewolf plague"... Except that :
- It emanates from a benevolent program of human-to-furry genetic transformation, of the kind depicted in my second talk, done with no nefarious intentions in mind.
- The genetic vector is an harmless strain of Escherichia Coli (carrying a complex artificial chromosome with the genes of interest) which includes protections against replication and tumour generation and activates the chromosome only when in contact with a non-metabolised man-made compound.
- The epidemic only starts because of an unfortunate series of incidents and overlooks (accidental contamination, passage to an animal reservoir, deactivation of some protections by horizontal gene transfer, activation compound present as traces in a common household product)
- In absence of symptomatic treatment, the "plague" has an immediate mortality rate of 15%, another 15% of delayed mortality by induced cancer, most patients end up monstrously deformed and only 5-8% of the total gets an harmonious complete transformation.
- It emanates from a benevolent program of human-to-furry genetic transformation, of the kind depicted in my second talk, done with no nefarious intentions in mind.
- The genetic vector is an harmless strain of Escherichia Coli (carrying a complex artificial chromosome with the genes of interest) which includes protections against replication and tumour generation and activates the chromosome only when in contact with a non-metabolised man-made compound.
- The epidemic only starts because of an unfortunate series of incidents and overlooks (accidental contamination, passage to an animal reservoir, deactivation of some protections by horizontal gene transfer, activation compound present as traces in a common household product)
- In absence of symptomatic treatment, the "plague" has an immediate mortality rate of 15%, another 15% of delayed mortality by induced cancer, most patients end up monstrously deformed and only 5-8% of the total gets an harmonious complete transformation.
J'aimerais beaucoup lire ce webcomic! Quelle est l'addresse web?
and activates the chromosome only when in contact with a non-metabolised man-made compound.
Donc tous les plastiques et vinyles et autres produits artificiels? Je ne comprends pas très bien ce que tu veux dire içi.
Et pour avoir un taux de succès de 5% est quand même très optimiste pour ce que tu as décrit, déjà que 5% de succès pour un processus fait par exprès serait un succès retentissant! En bio moléculaire, le taux de succès pour créer des bactéries recombinantes est de l'ordre du 1 à 10% (le premier pour chromosomes artificiels et le second pour des transformations par phage). Tu pourrais aussi inclure dans l'histoire des gens infectés qui bien qu'ils portent le chromosome artificiel, ne l'expriment pas pour quelque raison que ce soit, et ils sont 'contagieux'.
Ah, les plaisirs du bio-terrorisme!
Justement, j'écris une série du genre, avec une maladie mystérieuse qui a toujours été présente dans l'environnement pour maintenir l'équilibre entre les populations animales. C'est une maladie du genre qui se déclenche seulement quand une population atteint un taux critique, et qui chane les gens en animaux au hasard (furry, évidemment, pas feral). J'essaie de me faire un modèle élaboré avec virus, bactéries, et mycoplasmes, où tous les éléments sont nécéssaires pour causer une transformation, mais chaque élément est contagieux et asymptomatique seul.
Je n'ai peut-être pas beaucoup de connaissances dans le domaine, mais si jamais tu as des questions, n'hésite pas à m'envoyer un message!
and activates the chromosome only when in contact with a non-metabolised man-made compound.
Donc tous les plastiques et vinyles et autres produits artificiels? Je ne comprends pas très bien ce que tu veux dire içi.
Et pour avoir un taux de succès de 5% est quand même très optimiste pour ce que tu as décrit, déjà que 5% de succès pour un processus fait par exprès serait un succès retentissant! En bio moléculaire, le taux de succès pour créer des bactéries recombinantes est de l'ordre du 1 à 10% (le premier pour chromosomes artificiels et le second pour des transformations par phage). Tu pourrais aussi inclure dans l'histoire des gens infectés qui bien qu'ils portent le chromosome artificiel, ne l'expriment pas pour quelque raison que ce soit, et ils sont 'contagieux'.
Ah, les plaisirs du bio-terrorisme!
Justement, j'écris une série du genre, avec une maladie mystérieuse qui a toujours été présente dans l'environnement pour maintenir l'équilibre entre les populations animales. C'est une maladie du genre qui se déclenche seulement quand une population atteint un taux critique, et qui chane les gens en animaux au hasard (furry, évidemment, pas feral). J'essaie de me faire un modèle élaboré avec virus, bactéries, et mycoplasmes, où tous les éléments sont nécéssaires pour causer une transformation, mais chaque élément est contagieux et asymptomatique seul.
Je n'ai peut-être pas beaucoup de connaissances dans le domaine, mais si jamais tu as des questions, n'hésite pas à m'envoyer un message!
Comments