Scientists have been accused of 'playing God' after a bizarre experiment by Japanese and German scientists spliced human genes with monkeys' brains. It was shown as a result, that the monkey brains became more human-like and more advanced in certain areas of cognition.
The experiments were carried out in a collaboration between the Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics in Germany and the Central Institute for Experimental Animals in Japan. During the experiment the scientists injected the gene ARHGAP11B into the matter of marmoset foetuses, ARHGAP11B is a gene that directs stem-cells in human neurological development.
It was discovered that the monkey brains that were injected with the human genes became more advanced in areas related to language and complex thinking. In fact, it was found that after 100-days of development in the womb, the monkey's brains were twice the size that they would normally have been. While the animals were aborted before they could be born, what did result was the prospect that the monkeys could have begun to think similarly to humans had they been born.
Similar experiments using human genes and monkeys have taken place before. Chinese and American scientists found out last year that injecting live monkeys with certain human genes resulted in a change in the areas of their brains that facilitate memory and problem-solving skills.
Many are wondering though how ethical such experiments are and what the long-term consequences these could have. This is because if such genetic modification can occur in monkeys, it could raise an ethical dilemma of monkeys being regarded as equally sentient to humans. This, in turn, could lead to profound moral dilemmas over how such animals should be treated. The experiments also raise the prospect that human babies could be genetically modified to have super-intelligence.
Many will claim that such experiments are simply a step too far and that the danger such activity poses to human society and nature far outweighs the benefits any such research provides. However, the validity of such claims should be examined further.
COMMENTS