Kins, Chimeras, Controversies: The Challenges of Public Debate and Engagement over Interspecies Id/entities

• In Event: Personhood, Law, and Relationality Amidst the New Biosciences I

Abstract

In September 2014, the National Institutes of Health imposed a temporary ban on federal funding for what has been termed ‘chimera research.’ The objectives of such research include disease modelling, stem cell testing and the production of animals with human organs. Some commentators welcomed the announcement. Bioethicist and law academic, Hank Greely, expressed concern that chimera research could endow laboratory animals with ‘human consciousness.’ Similarly, philosopher, David Resnick, commented, ‘The prospect of an intelligent mouse, stuck in a lab screaming “I want to get out!” is very troubling to people. There is psychic suffering, not just physical suffering.’ In response, advocates of chimera research dismissed such concerns as unfounded. In a letter published in Science, a group of scientists and bioethicists from Stanford University called upon the NIH to lift its ban as soon as possible. They argued that the temporary withdrawal of federal funding ‘casts a shadow of negativity towards all chimerism studies’ and threatens scientific progress in key areas of biomedical research (Sharma et al 2015, 640). Though the exchange between Resnick and Sharma et al is interesting and entertaining for the public to observe, scholars in science and the humanities will likely agree that the way in which the conversation has unfolded is not amenable to open and inclusive dialogue. As such, in this paper, I offer an alternative perspective by posing a different question raised by chimera research, that is, what constitutes the limits of the human? My paper illustrates the significance of this question with three case studies from Australia and the US. My case studies show that whether we are dealing with human tissue, animal organs or chimeric entities, social movements and interest groups have consistently taken effective action to contest and influence the trajectory of science and/or the regulation of biomedical research.

Author

• Myra Cheng