• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

to funny! what will they think of next....

Free episodes:

He will find someone, i dont doubt it.
There are plenty of poverty stricken women in the world who would do this for a small amount of money. The return on exhibiting such a "product" could be quite large.

Given that the "product" would be sentient though, i must admit even i have some misgivings about creating it as a stand alone creature.

Seems a bit mean to me, i guess eventually you would want a few of them to see if they would breed true.

We are going to have to confront this one day anyway. its always been a part of the genome discussion.

The product will think and feel, but it wont be human.
There is no real legal or moral difference between putting these in a zoo and chimpanzee's
And people will pay to come and look at them

And before you label me a monster, understand i say no legal or moral difference, but i also cant stand zoo's

But some pretty heavy stuff has been done in the name of science before, this is no different, a chance to observe neanderthal man in a natural looking preserve is just too tempting a thing. I recognise the academic and fiscal factors in this proposal, so i dont doubt someone will do it.

It comes back to the universe's prime caveat

The ability to do a thing, as all the right you need to do it.

What gives us the right to take a chimp from the wild and put it in a zoo....
The right to take a dolphin from its pod for an aquarium....
The right to take a perfectly happy lamb and serve it up with mint sauce.....

Right and wrong have never been strong factors, the ability to do a thing takes precidence everytime.

So yeah if this can be done, it will be done eventually, concepts like right and wrong are usually only personally relevant ones, ie when we are the ones being done wrong by.

If he goes to a third world country he will be able to bypass the laws and get a surrogate cheaply enough.

Ive looked into the ethics of this before with the hybrid discussions, if the Govt could create hybrid soldiers

The institute founded in 1927 was rumored to have come into existence, as part of Stalin’s disturbing plan to make legions of industrial workers that would be inhumane in strength, while mentally subdued. This would in theory, be achieved by inseminating female chimpanzees with human sperm from male donors, in order to create human-ape hybrids that could mindlessly build cities at terrifying speeds.
After decades of circulating through the Russian Media and being entangled by myth, Russian scientists working at the institute today, admit that such experiments did take place within the institute and that most of the radical testing can be narrowed down to one man named Dr. Ilya Ivanov.

Read more at http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/stalins-deranged-vision-human-ape-super-race/1257#KSFBLkRQMeLxeifI.99

We would have no more an issue with this than we do with dogs being used in combat, or dolphins being trained for navy work.

If the asset is not 100 percent human, it has no rights or choice.

We have used and abused non human bioforms for as long as we have been able to
This scenario wont be any different
 
Eventually he wont even need a woman

Artificial womb allows embryos to grow outside the body | World news | The Observer

And

In Japan, an artificial womb has been created that incubates goat fetuses. The scientists who developed it say they are working on a model that can be used for human fetuses, but that the technology is ten or more years away.
The womb is a plastic box filled with amniotic fluid and attached to a number of devices that monitor vital functions. Researchers remove the fetus from the mother at 17 weeks of development. A pump replaces the placenta by supplying oxygen and food that goes directly into the fetus's blood. The fetus lies submerged in the fluid, and its blood supply is cleaned and oxygenated by a dialysis machine through the umbilical cord.
Currently a goat fetus can stay in the womb a maximum of three weeks, but scientists are working to extend this time and to solve the problems when the goat fetuses are removed from the artificial womb. Some have lived for a few days, others for much longer

Fisheries biologist Dr Nick Otway and his team, Dr Megan Storrie, Brett Louden and Justin Gilligan, have “birthed” live dwarf ornate wobbegong sharks using an artificial uterus (AU). The technology developed by Nick, a senior researcher with the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI), will ultimately be used to breed the critically endangered grey nurse shark.

What Do Artificial Wombs Mean for Women? | RH Reality Check

4251055871_6f43f09f96_o.jpg
 
Oh they are quite serious, unraveling the genome was always going to come with some heavy ethical dilemas, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Advances in Biotech are going to change us in ways beyond imagination


SCOPE
Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
Biotechnology Topics:

• Microbial & Biochemical Technology
• Microorganism Technology
• Microbiology
• Bioremediation & Biodegradation
• Clinical and Cellular Immunology
• Petroleum & Environmental Biotechnology
• Biotechnology and its Applications
Biosensors, Bioelectronics & Biochips, Tissue chips
• Marine and Ocean Biotechnology
• Omics Technologies
• Medical Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering
• Stem Cell Research & Tissue Science Engineering
• Environmental Biotechnology
• Industrial Biotechnology
• Food Processing & Technology
• Pharmaceutical Biotechnology
• Agricultural Biotechnology
• Nano science & Nanotechnology
• Regulatory And Economical Aspects In Biotechnology
• Neuroscience and Neuroengineering
• Biosecurity
• Disease Outbreak Assessment
• Bioenvironmental Engineering and Risk Assessment
Applied Biotechnology

Algae and photobiotechnology

Bioeconomy

Bio-based products: materials

Biocatalysis and biotransformation

Bioengineering at the µ-Scale

Biomaterials engineering and nanomedicine

Bio-nanoparticles

Biopharmaceuticals production

Bioprocess engineering, modelling, measurement & control

Biorefineries

Downstream processing and separation science

Membrane technology

Metabolic engineering

Molecular, cellular and process biothermodynamics

Renewables, biofuels and bioenergy

Systems bio(techno)logy

Synthetic biology

Thermodynamics of chemical and pharmaceutical systems

Tissue engineering




Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Topics:

DNA Computing
• Neural Computing
• Evolutionary Computing
• Immuno-Computing
• Swarm-Computing
• Cellular-Computing
• Gene Expression Array Analysis
• Structure Prediction and Folding
• Molecular Sequence Alignment and Analysis
• Metabolic Pathway Analysis
• RNA and Protein Folding and Structure Prediction
• Analysis and Visualization of Large Biological Data Sets
• Motif Detection
• Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics
Systems and Synthetic Biology
• Modelling, Simulation and Optimization of Biological Systems
• Robustness and Evolvability of Biological Networks
• Emergent Properties in Complex Biological Systems
• Ecoinformatics and Applications to Ecological Data Analysis
• Medical Imaging and Pattern Recognition
• Medical Image Analysis
• Biomedical Data Modelling and Mining
• Treatment Optimisation
• Biomedical Model Parameterisation
Brain Computer Interface

3rd Annual International Conference on Advances in Biotechnology (BIOTECH 2013)

From the moment we as a species started making tools, we were on a one way trip to a place where the tools are making us.........................
 
Its funny, the people ive discussed this with today all have a universal sense of horror and outrage at the very idea.
They find the idea that the living fossil exhibit featuring Homo neanderthalensis at their local zoo or wildlife park is one they have great aversion to.
But they dont share this same sentiment in regards to chimpanze's or gorilla's

But a chimps DNA and ours differs by just 4 percent.......

Neandertal DNA Sequencing

There is plenty of research that points to chimps being "people too"

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Chimps 'are people, too'

Chimps Can Play Fair, Too | TIME.com

But for most, they are just animals
Poor Neo Nandys.......

The question isnt will we bring them back, we almost certainly will

The question is what status do we accord them ?

People or just another animal............
 
Its funny, the people ive discussed this with today all have a universal sense of horror and outrage at the very idea.
They find the idea that the living fossil exhibit featuring Homo neanderthalensis at their local zoo or wildlife park is one they have great aversion to.
But they dont share this same sentiment in regards to chimpanze's or gorilla's

But a chimps DNA and ours differs by just 4 percent.......

Neandertal DNA Sequencing

There is plenty of research that points to chimps being "people too"

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Chimps 'are people, too'

Chimps Can Play Fair, Too | TIME.com

But for most, they are just animals
Poor Neo Nandys.......

The question isnt will we bring them back, we almost certainly will

The question is what status do we accord them ?

People or just another animal............

People or just animals... the problem is it is quite possible that they could/will learn to speak.
So now we have a serious moral problem, for unlike chimps etc that can learn sign language we will have a sentient, intelligent being that can converse with us.

So is it still an animal at this point?.... I am sure you understand where I am coming from as the planet of the apes pic I posted above was half in jest and half serious.
 
Personally i welcome the challenge such a thing would present our species.

Up until now, you are either human, or you are not

If you are not a human, then you are an animal and animals have no rights

This is a game changer, and imo could be very good for our collective psyche

The old polarised paradigm will be shattered.

Yes they will likely develop tools, language even music, hopefully it will change the way we view a species thats not our own.
 
Personally i welcome the challenge such a thing would present our species.

Up until now, you are either human, or you are not

If you are not a human, then you are an animal and animals have no rights

This is a game changer, and imo could be very good for our collective psyche

The old polarised paradigm will be shattered.

Yes they will likely develop tools, language even music, hopefully it will change the way we view a species thats not our own.

I am with you on this...

It is a double edged sword I guess.
 
True enough, there are many challenges involved in this.
What happens if one breeds with homo sapiens, do we really want to open that can of worms.

But i think Anthropologists will be climbing over one another to observe and study a group of these in a wildlife preserve type setting.

Which is why i think the scientists will do this if they can, right or wrong wont be factors.
Ability to do so will be the only question asked in the process
 
Through DNA, we can start to understand ourselves by comparing our genomes to other creatures. By changing the code, we can explore how in turn this affects metabolism, phenotype, and behavior. And this is exactly what life scientists are beginning to do in high throughput. DNA sequencing data is now flowing out of genome centers at a phenomenal rate, at the very least ensuring job stability for IT professionals and bioinformatics specialists. Meanwhile, synthetic biology, genetic engineering assisted by design software tools and automated synthesizers, is blistering hot. The field is opening up bioengineering to a new generation of programmers.

Andrew Hessel: 3 Gigabits of Genetic Code

As i said from the moment we started making tools, we were set on a course where in the end the tools make us.
 
Its funny, the people ive discussed this with today all have a universal sense of horror and outrage at the very idea.
They find the idea that the living fossil exhibit featuring Homo neanderthalensis at their local zoo or wildlife park is one they have great aversion to.
But they dont share this same sentiment in regards to chimpanze's or gorilla's

But a chimps DNA and ours differs by just 4 percent.......

Neandertal DNA Sequencing

There is plenty of research that points to chimps being "people too"

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Chimps 'are people, too'

Chimps Can Play Fair, Too | TIME.com

But for most, they are just animals
Poor Neo Nandys.......

The question isnt will we bring them back, we almost certainly will

The question is what status do we accord them ?

People or just another animal............

It seems as though the consensus opinion as to whether or not something is human depends upon whether we can breed with it. It remains unanswered whether or not we can breed with chimps, but if we can then that criteria would have to include chimps.

A couple of points about your chimp comments. The chimp experiment article about Sue Savage-Rumbaugh specifies that these are bonobos. It is an important point that these are not Pan troglodytes. Doing this sort of thing with the common chimp may have deleterious impacts on the human face and genitals. Still, an interesting article that raises many questions.

As for the 4% difference between chimp and human DNA, I found this:
The often-quoted statement that we share over 98% of our genes with apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) actually should be put another way. That is, there is more than 95% to 98% similarity between related genes in humans and apes in general. (Just as in the mouse, quite a few genes probably are not common to humans and apes, and these may influence uniquely human or ape traits.) Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85% similarity but a lot of variation from gene to gene (e.g., some mouse and human gene products are almost identical, while others are nearly unrecognizable as close relatives). Some nucleotide changes are “neutral” and do not yield a significantly altered protein. Others, but probably only a relatively small percentage, would introduce changes that could substantially alter what the protein does.
Functional and Comparative Genomics Fact Sheet

The link you posted further up:
Stalin's Deranged Vision of a Human-Ape Super Race
I thought was interesting, because it claimed a motivation of wanting to have subdued workers. "Subdued" isn't the word I think of in regard to chimps! Is there any other information out there about Dr. Ilya Ivanov? This one is really a curious story, but there is a lot of internet kibble stuck to it in other sources. I'd like to find out more on this character. I think he eventually fared poorly under the regime.


There are many points about the possibility of a Neanderthal clone that I find interesting:
1. It is often pointed out that Neanderthals had a bigger brain than Homo sapiens, and so might have an advantage. Does a bigger brain necessarily mean a smarter organism? Or is it the brain:body mass ratio that is important? Do Neanderthals still have an advantage in this ratio?
2. A recurring argument in anthropology is over whether or not Neanderthals had art and culture. Last I checked, the more conservative researchers say that their culture seemed to be much more limited. Would this not argue against greater intelligence?
3. If a human mother gave birth to a Neanderthal today, would it be immediately recognizable as a Neanderthal? The question becomes more uncertain if the child was only half-Neanderthal. It seems like the experiment could happen in, say, one of those countries that are the usual suspects for illegal organ transplants; a place stable enough to perform medicine, but corrupt enough to avoid laws (which, now that I think about it, would probably include the U.S.). As genetic science advances and becomes cheaper, faster, and easier, I suspect we will see experimentation proceed in some strange directions.
 
THE Soviet dictator Josef Stalin ordered the creation of Planet of the Apes-style warriors by crossing humans with apes, according to recently uncovered secret documents.
Moscow archives show that in the mid-1920s Russia's top animal breeding scientist, Ilya Ivanov, was ordered to turn his skills from horse and animal work to the quest for a super-warrior.
According to Moscow newspapers, Stalin told the scientist: "I want a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat."
In 1926 the Politburo in Moscow passed the request to the Academy of Science with the order to build a "living war machine". The order came at a time when the Soviet Union was embarked on a crusade to turn the world upside down, with social engineering seen as a partner to industrialisation: new cities, architecture, and a new egalitarian society were being created.
The Soviet authorities were struggling to rebuild the Red Army after bruising wars.
And there was intense pressure to find a new labour force, particularly one that would not complain, with Russia about to embark on its first Five-Year Plan for fast-track industrialisation.
Mr Ivanov was highly regarded. He had established his reputation under the Tsar when in 1901 he established the world's first centre for the artificial insemination of racehorses.
Mr Ivanov's ideas were music to the ears of Soviet planners and in 1926 he was dispatched to West Africa with $200,000 to conduct his first experiment in impregnating chimpanzees.
Meanwhile, a centre for the experiments was set up in Georgia - Stalin's birthplace - for the apes to be raised.
Mr Ivanov's experiments, unsurprisingly from what we now know, were a total failure. He returned to the Soviet Union, only to see experiments in Georgia to use monkey sperm in human volunteers similarly fail.
A final attempt to persuade a Cuban heiress to lend some of her monkeys for further experiments reached American ears, with the New York Times reporting on the story, and she dropped the idea amid the uproar.
Mr Ivanov was now in disgrace. His were not the only experiments going wrong: the plan to collectivise farms ended in the 1932 famine in which at least four million died.
For his expensive failure, he was sentenced to five years' jail, which was later commuted to five years' exile in the Central Asian republic of Kazakhstan in 1931. A year later he died, reportedly after falling sick while standing on a freezing railway platform.


As for the product being half nandy half human, if done properly it wont be

Under the plan, the nuclei of mammoth cells will be inserted into an elephant's egg cells from which the nuclei have been removed to create an embryo containing mammoth genes, it said.
The embryo will then be inserted into an elephant's womb in the hope that the animal will eventually give birth to a baby mammoth. Researches hope to achieve their aim within five to six years, the Yomiuri said.

Japanese researchers aim to resurrect mammoth in five years with cloning technology | adelaidenow

The biggest difference between somatic cell nuclear transfer and artificial embryo twinning is where they get their DNA. A clone developed from artificial embryo twinning takes its chromosomes from a mother and a father. A clone from the somatic cell nuclear transfer gets all its chromosomes from one organism, making it an exact replica of its 'donor parent.' Somatic cell nuclear transfer is also referred to as reproductive cloning. Reproductive cloning is accomplished by a scientist taking a somatic cell from an adult. A somatic cell is basically any cell that is not an egg or sperm. The reason for this is because an egg or sperm only have half the amount of chromosomes as a somatic cell, which is only half the amount of chromosomes any given species needs to develop.

Scientists will then take the nucleus out of somatic cell and place it into an egg that has had its nucleus removed. The reason they do this is because the nucleus is much like the brain of the cell. It contains all chromosomes that are needed in DNA. The DNA tells the cell how to form, what the person will look like, how they will develop and all other pertinent information.

By taking the nucleus out of an egg cell, and replacing it with a nucleus that has all the chromosomes, the egg acts like a fertilized egg and becomes a zygote. It will then develop with the exact information as the 'donor parent.' This causes the new cell to become the clone of the 'donor parent' making them genetically identical




Look out we have a volunteer

I can be a volunteer for such research,with pleasure and interest! I am healthy women (and most importantly very adventurous))) - 36 years old. Tell me the requirements and opportunities. My email address: [email protected]
- Speransa , Moskow, Russia, 22/1/2013 14:23
 
Best article ive found

Blasts from the past: The Soviet ape-man scandal - life - 23 August 2008 - New Scientist

Whats scary is i think we could do this with todays gene technology.
An army of super strong disposable combat units.

Will chimeras have the same rights as us ?

Now scientists create a sheep that's 15% human | Mail Online

This one doesnt

But creating human-animal chimeras—named after a monster in Greek mythology that had a lion's head, goat's body, and serpent's tail—has raised troubling questions: What new subhuman combination should be produced and for what purpose? At what point would it be considered human? And what rights, if any, should it have?

There are currently no U.S. federal laws that address these issues.

Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy



Parahuman - Transhumanism Wiki

http://www.nymc.edu/sanewman/PDFs/L'Observatorie%20Genetique_chimera.pdf
 
Back
Top