Scientists create human-monkey chimera embryos that survived ~20 days

[essentialsaltes]

Human-Monkey Chimeras Shed Light on Development
Human stem cells injected into early monkey embryos proliferate and contribute to multiple cell lineages over 20 days of embryonic development.

In a study published today (April 15) in Cell, researchers describe their progress in producing a human-monkey chimeric embryo in an effort to determine whether having a more closely related host would allow the human cells to have a greater presence, thus paving the way for a better understanding of what cell types they can become and, possibly in the far future, a potential way to cope with the shortage of human organs available for transplant. The scientists made the chimeras by injecting human extended pluripotent stem (EPS) cells—also known as expanded potential stem cells—into early embryos of cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). The team grew the chimeras for up to 20 days in culture and found that up to 7 percent of the embryos’ cells can trace their lineage to the human EPS cells.

The researchers injected each of 132 six-day-old monkey embryos with 25 human EPS cells. The next day, they found human cells in all of the embryos. Where those cells were found within the embryos shifted over time. At 15 days old, the 38 surviving chimeras had the highest contribution of human cells (about 7 percent) in the outermost layer of embryonic cells, and at 19 days old, the three surviving chimeras had the greatest proportion of human cells (about 5 percent) in the innermost layer. The team did not see much human-cell presence in the layer that would become the extraembryonic tissues, such as the placenta.

Naturally, this raises questions of ethics.

 

[CuriousPagan]

But why John?

 

[Sabertooth]

Where was this experiment done? (I couldn't find it in the article.)

 

[ChetSinger]

Yikes. From a Christian point of view I think this is a big no-no. The human race was created in the image of God, meaning that we are his representatives here. Even our first job was to continue what he had begun and to complete the task of turning the chaos of the early Earth into orderliness.

In Genesis 6 there's a brief account where some members of the heavenly host leave heaven and procreate with human women. The children weren't descendants of Adam and Eve so this was considered a great sin. The children were killed in the flood and their spirits became demons, and their fathers were chained in darkness until final judgment. You can read about it in "Antiquities of the Jews" by Josephus, in Enoch I, and in the writings of various early church fathers including Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Lactantius, and Commodianus. Some modern denominations don't accept this but it appears to be the unanimous opinion of the early church.

Back then our genetic purity mattered to God. I don't think that's changed. I can't see God blessing this kind of thing.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Where was this experiment done? (I couldn't find it in the article.)

I assume it was at Tan's lab in China.

 

[Larniavc]

Back then our genetic purity mattered to God. I don't think that's changed. I can't see God blessing this kind of thing.

I dunno, man. The embryos are not human.

 

[lasthero]

The children weren't descendants of Adam and Eve so this was considered a great sin. The children were killed in the flood and their spirits became demons

So God just killed a bunch of innocent children?

Also, how can humans and angels even have offspring? Do angels have reproductive organs? Why? Why is it even possible for angels to mate with humans if that's something God doesn't want to happen?

 

[ChetSinger]

So God just killed a bunch of innocent children?

Also, how can humans and angels even have offspring? Do angels have reproductive organs? Why? Why is it even possible for angels to mate with humans if that's something God doesn't want to happen?

Those are all good questions and they all have answers. But they're not the purpose of this thread. I can personally recommend the author of this book, he's a scholar of Hebrew and I have several of his books. He has a significant online presence so you don't have to actually buy the book to answer your questions.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07GJWPXC3/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i5

 

[Larniavc]

So God just killed a bunch of innocent children?

Also, how can humans and angels even have offspring? Do angels have reproductive organs? Why? Why is it even possible for angels to mate with humans if that's something God doesn't want to happen?

With the wings I imagine lady angels would have difficulty with bras.

 

[BobRyan]

Yikes. From a Christian point of view I think this is a big no-no. The human race was created in the image of God, meaning that we are his representatives here. Even our first job was to continue what he had begun and to complete the task of turning the chaos of the early Earth into orderliness.

In Genesis 6 there's a brief account where some members of the heavenly host leave heaven and procreate with human women. The children weren't descendants of Adam and Eve so this was considered a great sin. The children were killed in the flood and their spirits became demons, and their fathers were chained in darkness until final judgment. You can read about it in "Antiquities of the Jews" by Josephus, in Enoch I, and in the writings of various early church fathers including Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Lactantius, and Commodianus. Some modern denominations don't accept this but it appears to be the unanimous opinion of the early church.

Back then our genetic purity mattered to God. I don't think that's changed. I can't see God blessing this kind of thing.

It's one thing "not to bless" it.

But in Gen 6 we find the issue with "corrupted flesh".

Gen 6: 12 God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth."

Gen 6 is where God introduces the idea of destroying all life on land with a flood

 

[CuriousPagan]

Yikes. From a Christian point of view I think this is a big no-no. The human race was created in the image of God, meaning that we are his representatives here. Even our first job was to continue what he had begun and to complete the task of turning the chaos of the early Earth into orderliness.

In Genesis 6 there's a brief account where some members of the heavenly host leave heaven and procreate with human women. The children weren't descendants of Adam and Eve so this was considered a great sin. The children were killed in the flood and their spirits became demons, and their fathers were chained in darkness until final judgment. You can read about it in "Antiquities of the Jews" by Josephus, in Enoch I, and in the writings of various early church fathers including Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Lactantius, and Commodianus. Some modern denominations don't accept this but it appears to be the unanimous opinion of the early church.

Back then our genetic purity mattered to God. I don't think that's changed. I can't see God blessing this kind of thing.

And from a non-Christian perspective, I don't want to be subjugated by a race of talking gorillas. I've read enough comic books to see where this is going.

 

[DaveISBA]

And from a non-Christian perspective, I don't want to be subjugated by a race of talking gorillas. I've read enough comic books to see where this is going.

Don't think for a minute, as some headlines seem to suggest, that they have created some sort of part monkey, part human sentient being! "The researchers injected 25 stem cells from humans, known as induced pluripotent stem cells (or ISP cells), into embryos from macaque monkeys"! The monkey embryo and human stem cells, growing distinct from each other, are "able to grow human organs for transplants" and, as noted in the information, "not an attempt to create a baby from of a mixed embryo"!
Scientists, who are able to grow human cells in a petri dish, are now using monkey embryos as the growth medium!

 

[Sif]

Laugh while you can monkey boy!

 

[Tanj]

Excellent. Now all we need are the wings and the butler training.

 

[SkyWriting]

Human-Monkey Chimeras Shed Light on Development
Human stem cells injected into early monkey embryos proliferate and contribute to multiple cell lineages over 20 days of embryonic development.

In a study published today (April 15) in Cell, researchers describe their progress in producing a human-monkey chimeric embryo in an effort to determine whether having a more closely related host would allow the human cells to have a greater presence, thus paving the way for a better understanding of what cell types they can become and, possibly in the far future, a potential way to cope with the shortage of human organs available for transplant. The scientists made the chimeras by injecting human extended pluripotent stem (EPS) cells—also known as expanded potential stem cells—into early embryos of cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). The team grew the chimeras for up to 20 days in culture and found that up to 7 percent of the embryos’ cells can trace their lineage to the human EPS cells.

The researchers injected each of 132 six-day-old monkey embryos with 25 human EPS cells. The next day, they found human cells in all of the embryos. Where those cells were found within the embryos shifted over time. At 15 days old, the 38 surviving chimeras had the highest contribution of human cells (about 7 percent) in the outermost layer of embryonic cells, and at 19 days old, the three surviving chimeras had the greatest proportion of human cells (about 5 percent) in the innermost layer. The team did not see much human-cell presence in the layer that would become the extraembryonic tissues, such as the placenta.

Naturally, this raises questions of ethics.

If they lived to adulthood you have to wonder how the conversations would go with the researchers.
Would they have voting rights? Would the company put up all 132 as a board of directors for the research facility? If I was judge in a civil trial, that's what I would do. Maybe the supreme court would compensate the embryos by installing all 32 as Supreme Court Justices and maybe 100 of them as senators. That seems fair to me.

 

[Strathos]

With the wings I imagine lady angels would have difficulty with bras.

Contrary to depictions in popular media, there are actually no female angels (at least they aren't stated to positively exist in the Bible).

 

[Larniavc]

Contrary to depictions in popular media, there are actually no female angels (at least they aren't stated to positively exist in the Bible).

No worries. I play Dungeons and Dragons so I have a very good imagination.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

If an embryo is part human, is there a soul? A partial soul maybe?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yikes. From a Christian point of view I think this is a big no-no. The human race was created in the image of God, meaning that we are his representatives here. Even our first job was to continue what he had begun and to complete the task of turning the chaos of the early Earth into orderliness.

In Genesis 6 there's a brief account where some members of the heavenly host leave heaven and procreate with human women. The children weren't descendants of Adam and Eve so this was considered a great sin. The children were killed in the flood and their spirits became demons, and their fathers were chained in darkness until final judgment. You can read about it in "Antiquities of the Jews" by Josephus, in Enoch I, and in the writings of various early church fathers including Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Lactantius, and Commodianus. Some modern denominations don't accept this but it appears to be the unanimous opinion of the early church.

Back then our genetic purity mattered to God. I don't think that's changed. I can't see God blessing this kind of thing.

Not so much unanimous as it was one interpretation that floated around in early antiquity. Most of the ancient fathers took the same position as rabbinical authorities did--what's being described is two groups of humans.

The problem with angels mating with humans should be obvious. Angels don't have gonads, angels don't have sexuality. Angels aren't biological, procreative animals; they are immaterial spirits.

The angel-hybrid theory is a fiction that arose in the imaginations of some in the 2nd Temple Period, hence why it shows up in works such as Enoch--almost certainly reflecting Hellenistic influence (compare the story of the Watchers in Enoch with the Greek myths of the Titans for some interesting overlap). As such, it was rejected by rabbinical authorities in the post-Temple and Talmudic periods; and while the popularity of Enoch is evidenced among 2nd century Christian thinkers, such as St. Justin and Tertullian, it likewise fell out among Christian writers and thinkers. With the notable exception of the ancient Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which has the most expansive biblical canon of any of the historic Churches, including the other Oriental Orthodox Churches (exception here being the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which was part of the Ethiopian Church until it gained autocephaly in 1993).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

If an embryo is part human, is there a soul? A partial soul maybe?

This was one of those interesting philosophical/theological questions that got asked a lot in Christian antiquity. The subject is called "Ensoulment" in Christian thought, and it is the question of where does "the soul" come from, and how.

There was no singular view in early Christianity. The 3rd century Christian philosopher Origen in his work De Principiis ("On First Principles") engages in a great deal of speculation (thus, it should not be assumed that Origen actively believed everything he wrote therein). One of those speculations was on the origin of the soul, as someone who was educated and trained in the works and philosophy of Plato and the Platonists, Origen used those tools and also, some of their ideas. So Origen wondered if perhaps before material creation that God had already created every soul that would be born, and thus rather than the body getting a soul, a soul gets a body. This speculation never gained support in Christian thinking, and outside of a few later hardcore Origenists, was pretty universally rejected as mere Greek philosophy and not Christians. And unfortunately, those hardcore Origenists ended up giving Origen a bad reputation, his name was condemned at the 5th Ecumenical Council in 553, and it would not be until modern times that Origen's name would finally be rehabilitated in Christianity.

Other views included the idea that the soul is the result of the union of the parents' souls, that is, my soul is in a sense inherited from my mom and dad. Not unlike we inherit the physical traits of our parents (which we now know comes from DNA), but ancient people were quite aware that children looked like their parents, and so it was not too much of a stretch to imagine that perhaps the human soul is similarly the result of that union of mother and father producing life in the womb. As far as I know this idea never really took off either.

What did take off, was what was called "Creationism", which for most of Church history has referred to the standard Christian view of ensoulment. The soul does not pre-exist the body, and it is not come from one's parents; rather the soul is the unique animating principle granted by God. God creates the soul, hence "Creationism" here.

So Creationism has been the normative Christian view of ensoulment since antiquity. The question then was, when does this happen? Many in the ancient Church looked to Aristotle, in Aristotle's works he speaks of three "types" of soul, the vegetative, the animal, and the rational. All living things have a "soul", the animating principle, plants have a vegetative soul. The non-rational "beasts" have an animal soul. While human beings uniquely have a rational soul, that is, human life has the unique quality of reason, of the rational intellect. That is, human beings are "thinking animals". So, in the same way, Aristotle imagined that during pregnancy the fetus underwent a progressive change, from the vegitative, the animal, until finally the rational. For this reason, many Christian writers and thinkers made the argument that God does not create the rational soul until about the third trimester. At the same time, others did argue that God created the rational soul at conception.

As you may have guessed, the view that would eventually gain the most popularity over the course of history, was that the soul was created at conception; but this has not always been some dogmatic view in Christianity. It's been part of a lengthy conversation stretching back to the earliest centuries of the Christian religion; and it is more philosophy than it is theology.

Ensoulment - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran