Animals with human DNA

laboratory mouse Researchers can add human genes and tissues to mice

Related Stories

It was one of the great comedy sketch moments from Not the Nine O'Clock News. Mel Smith is a scientist on a talk-show, sitting next to a gorilla (Rowan Atkinson in a costume) and begins explaining how he has taught him to speak.

Smith: "When I caught Gerald in '68 he was completely wild."

Gerald/Atkinson: "Wild. I was absolutely livid."

Funny, yes, and truly far-fetched, but experiments on animals that lead to possible human characteristics are something the Academy of Medical Sciences has spent nearly two years considering.

It looked at the vast and growing area of research involving the insertion of human DNA or cells into animals.

This sort of research has been going on for decades. It can involve a single gene being inserted in a mouse genome, or the transplantation of human cells or tissue into animals, creating what are known as chimaeras.

The point is to study human development and disease - anything from cancer, stroke or dementia to Down's syndrome.

People know that experimentation on animals takes place, but probably very few know much about this area. The academy commissioned a consortium led by the polling organisation Ipsos Mori to look at public opinion.

Great Apes

The public consultation showed strong support as long as people felt it would produce genuine benefits for medicine and that these would be widely available.

Most of this area of research involves mice, but rats, fruit flies and zebra fish are also used.

One of the key areas of potential concern outlined in the report is research involving the brain: "The predominant question is whether populating an animal's brain with human-derived cells could result in the production of an animal with human cognitive capacity" - areas such as consciousness, awareness and sentience and human-like behavioural capabilities.

The academy thinks if human brain stem cells were transplanted into a mouse in the womb, it would still probably end up acting like a mouse. But it is less certain about the potential consequences for a similar experiment with a larger animal, for example a sheep or pig.

Professor Martin Bobrow, who chaired the working group which compiled the report, suggested what he called the "Great Ape test". He said there is a consensus that experiments should not be carried out on Great Apes (chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas). So if experiments to add human material gave a sheep or a pig the same level of cognitive ability as a gorilla, then it should probably not be allowed.

Science fiction

The academy is not suggesting that anyone wants to do this, but it says public discussion should occur now, long before scientists have the idea for unusual experiments.

So what else might make you feel uncomfortable? Animals with human physical features would be a step too far for many - bringing to mind HG Wells science fiction novel The Island of Dr Moreau.

And what about language? The report says: "Creating characteristics such as speech and behaviour in animals would be very complex." Considerable potential benefits would need to be justified before that was allowed.

After all, as one of the report authors said: "If you come home and your parrot says - 'who's a pretty boy?' - that's one thing. If you come home and your monkey says it, that's quite another."

Fergus Walsh Article written by Fergus Walsh Fergus Walsh Medical correspondent

Superbugs to kill 'more than cancer' by 2050

Drug resistant infections will kill an extra 10 million people a year worldwide by 2050 unless action is taken, a study says.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 4.

    But animals are not that similar to us . . scientists always have to carry out final testing on humans as no animal is that close to us. And that is the point. Humans have always exploited animals in many ways, whether it is for food, warmth or in this case the testing of new possible medical treatments. Long may that continue.

  • rate this

    Comment number 3.

    Why should certain animals have a different status from others including ourselves? Noone would condone inserting animal DNA into humans so why does it make it acceptable once the roles are reversed? Any pain caused to animals through animal testing is unneccesary and should not be tolerated. If animals are so similar to us that we test on them, then that surely is a reason not to test on them.

  • rate this

    Comment number 2.

    It's nonsense to say that we should not test on animals. We have the ability to improve human lives by experimenting on lesser animals and we should do so. Of course, this is not to say that we should cause them unnecessary pain but the benefits from genetic research on animals are potentially enormous and we shouldn't hesitate to go after them.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1.

    Animal testing is animal cruelty. Who gave us the authority to interfere and experiment on these animals? We have no way of knowing if this 'research' is harming the animals or causing them suffering. How can we be sure that these genetic mutations will not get in to the wild population? If Frankenstein Foods are bad, how much worse are Frankenstein Animals?



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.