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

Abstract

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 humananimal 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.

Knowledge graphs of ethical concerns of cerebral organoids

“…Individuals may resist the creation of stem cell‐based cerebral organoids based on ‘instinctive hostility’, 8 and using cerebral organoids as a pathological modelling method also raises uncertainties about the instrumentalization of humans and whether this is the ultimate evolution of instrumental rationality. 9 The use of cerebral organoids may undermine human dignity 10 , 11 and subvert some individuals' cognition of the origin of mankind, both in scientific and religious fields. 12 …”

Clinical xenotransplantation seems close: Ethical issues persist

“…Some have criticized xenotransplantation on grounds that it represents "playing God", or interfering with the natural order of things. 19 Mixing of tissues from different organisms into a single being creates a new form of life that did not exist in nature. This is unlike the use of bioprosthetic valves in that the lack of cellular viability of the implanted product negates the concept of a chimera, or a being composed of cells that are genetically different.…”

“…Some have criticized xenotransplantation on grounds that it represents “playing God”, or interfering with the natural order of things 19 . Mixing of tissues from different organisms into a single being creates a new form of life that did not exist in nature.…”

Medical Researchers’ Ethical Awareness of Transgenic Monkeys with Human Genes: A Quantitative Case Study from China

“…Transgenic monkeys with human genes might have human-like characteristics, but they do not have human rights. They will not receive a level of protection and care be tting their moral status [10].…”