"Humanzee" human-chimp hybrid?

Romo

There are bizarre stories surrounding the question of a human-chimp hybrid or ‘humanzee’. A respected American professor, Dr. Gordon Gallup, has claimed there are persistent rumours that in the original Yerkes primate research centre in the 1920’s, scientists successfully bred a human-chimp hybrid. The creature was destroyed/killed by researchers soon after its birth. He claims that as a young research student an elderly academic had confided in him that he had been part of the team.

Before you ask, no it did not entail intercourse, but still pretty gruesome. The human participant would have ejaculated, this would then have been placed in a syringe type instrument and the incapacitated female chimp would then have been inseminated. The human subject would probably have been a mental patient/vagrant or conversely one of the researchers.

There are also rumours that a similar experiment was conducted in China, however, when the Chimp was in her final trimester the cultural revolution broke out and rioting red guard members destroyed the facility and killed the Chimp.

As for the extra chimp chromosome, Gallup believes that it is possible it may loop in on itself and take itself out of the equation.


A question arises, would you consider such a creature to have crossed the human-animal divide or are they still animals?



Discussion about Gallup's claims

http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/sci.anthropology/archive/october-1996/0439.html


Other work Gallup has done

http://www.yardfood.blogspot.com/

NotMe

Oliver the humanzee

rain on

NotMe wrote:

Oliver the humanzee

are the discovery channel a bunch of killjoy sceptics? because the 48-chromosome explanation (which was based on scientific testing, not pulled out of the air) satisfied them just fine.

Romo

The claim about the Yerkes "Humanzee" pre-date Oliver by about 50 years. There is something about it that rings true, in keeping with the very creepy pre-World War 2 eugenics movement.

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/

NotMe

rain on wrote:

are the discovery channel a bunch of killjoy sceptics? because the 48-chromosome explanation (which was based on scientific testing, not pulled out of the air) satisfied them just fine.

rain on

NotMe wrote:

Did you read the link you posted?

Oliver was retired from the lab in 1996 and sent to a chimp retirement home. He was finally called in for credible scientific testing, which insisted that he was really just a "normal chimp" with 48 chromosomes, an explanation which satisfied absolutely no one except a bunch of killjoy skeptics.

The contents of that article are sensationalist at best. Very biased use of language. Test results don't 'insist' anything.

NotMe

I wasn't stating any opinion by posting that link. I was just linking to info about Oliver the humanzee which I had heard of before and had been reminded of by this thread.

Oh right, I understand your post now. I guess I should have read the article I was posting.

rain on

NotMe wrote:

I wasn't stating any opinion by posting that link. I was just linking to info about Oliver the humanzee which I had heard of before and had been reminded of by this thread.

Consider your opinions uncriticised

Doper Than U

would you consider such a creature to have crossed the human-animal divide or are they still animals?

Humans are animals. But to be honest I would find that a hideous abomination, and I'm not sure why. I feel the same way about the Liger (Lion x Tiger).

Moriarty

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html

Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy
Maryann Mott
National Geographic News
January 25, 2005

Scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras—a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal.

Chinese scientists at the Shanghai Second Medical University in 2003 successfully fused human cells with rabbit eggs. The embryos were reportedly the first human-animal chimeras successfully created. They were allowed to develop for several days in a laboratory dish before the scientists destroyed the embryos to harvest their stem cells.

In Minnesota last year researchers at the Mayo Clinic created pigs with human blood flowing through their bodies.

And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains.

Scientists feel that, the more humanlike the animal, the better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing "spare parts," such as livers, to transplant into humans.

Watching how human cells mature and interact in a living creature may also lead to the discoveries of new medical treatments.

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.

Ethical Guidelines

The National Academy of Sciences, which advises the U.S. government, has been studying the issue. In March it plans to present voluntary ethical guidelines for researchers.

A chimera is a mixture of two or more species in one body. Not all are considered troubling, though.

For example, faulty human heart valves are routinely replaced with ones taken from cows and pigs. The surgery—which makes the recipient a human-animal chimera—is widely accepted. And for years scientists have added human genes to bacteria and farm animals.

What's caused the uproar is the mixing of human stem cells with embryonic animals to create new species.

Biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin is opposed to crossing species boundaries, because he believes animals have the right to exist without being tampered with or crossed with another species.

He concedes that these studies would lead to some medical breakthroughs. Still, they should not be done.

"There are other ways to advance medicine and human health besides going out into the strange, brave new world of chimeric animals," Rifkin said, adding that sophisticated computer models can substitute for experimentation on live animals.

"One doesn't have to be religious or into animal rights to think this doesn't make sense," he continued. "It's the scientists who want to do this. They've now gone over the edge into the pathological domain."

David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University, believes the real worry is whether or not chimeras will be put to uses that are problematic, risky, or dangerous.

Human Born to Mice Parents?

For example, an experiment that would raise concerns, he said, is genetically engineering mice to produce human sperm and eggs, then doing in vitro fertilization to produce a child whose parents are a pair of mice.

"Most people would find that problematic," Magnus said, "but those uses are bizarre and not, to the best of my knowledge, anything that anybody is remotely contemplating. Most uses of chimeras are actually much more relevant to practical concerns."

Last year Canada passed the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, which bans chimeras. Specifically, it prohibits transferring a nonhuman cell into a human embryo and putting human cells into a nonhuman embryo.

Cynthia Cohen is a member of Canada's Stem Cell Oversight Committee, which oversees research protocols to ensure they are in accordance with the new guidelines.

She believes a ban should also be put into place in the U.S.

Creating chimeras, she said, by mixing human and animal gametes (sperms and eggs) or transferring reproductive cells, diminishes human dignity.

"It would deny that there is something distinctive and valuable about human beings that ought to be honored and protected," said Cohen, who is also the senior research fellow at Georgetown University's Kennedy Institute of Ethics in Washington, D.C.

But, she noted, the wording on such a ban needs to be developed carefully. It shouldn't outlaw ethical and legitimate experiments—such as transferring a limited number of adult human stem cells into animal embryos in order to learn how they proliferate and grow during the prenatal period.

Irv Weissman, director of Stanford University's Institute of Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine in California, is against a ban in the United States.

"Anybody who puts their own moral guidance in the way of this biomedical science, where they want to impose their will—not just be part of an argument—if that leads to a ban or moratorium. … they are stopping research that would save human lives," he said.

Mice With Human Brains

Weissman has already created mice with brains that are about one percent human.

Later this year he may conduct another experiment where the mice have 100 percent human brains. This would be done, he said, by injecting human neurons into the brains of embryonic mice.

Before being born, the mice would be killed and dissected to see if the architecture of a human brain had formed. If it did, he'd look for traces of human cognitive behavior.

Weissman said he's not a mad scientist trying to create a human in an animal body. He hopes the experiment leads to a better understanding of how the brain works, which would be useful in treating diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease.

The test has not yet begun. Weissman is waiting to read the National Academy's report, due out in March.

William Cheshire, associate professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic's Jacksonville, Florida, branch, feels that combining human and animal neurons is problematic.

"This is unexplored biologic territory," he said. "Whatever moral threshold of human neural development we might choose to set as the limit for such an experiment, there would be a considerable risk of exceeding that limit before it could be recognized."

Cheshire supports research that combines human and animal cells to study cellular function. As an undergraduate he participated in research that fused human and mouse cells.

But where he draws the ethical line is on research that would destroy a human embryo to obtain cells, or research that would create an organism that is partly human and partly animal.

"We must be cautious not to violate the integrity of humanity or of animal life over which we have a stewardship responsibility," said Cheshire, a member of Christian Medical and Dental Associations. "Research projects that create human-animal chimeras risk disturbing fragile ecosystems, endanger health, and affront species integrity."

pwd

i don't have to put up with some annoying **** if i want to have kids then? Coola boola. Chimps are quite charming creatures.

Kobie

I feel the same way about the Liger (Lion x Tiger).

And how would you feel about a mule (half horse/half donkey)? Would you shoot it in the head or ride it on the seaside?

And about this Humanzee - I think her name is Carol. Dated her for a week or two a couple of years back. Wouldn't exactly call her human, but she did go halves over dinner. Bit of a banana fixation (if you know what I mean). Spent many a happy evening swinging on her tire.

Last I heard she was auditioning for some Clint Eastwood movie.

K.

Simi

God smod, I want my monkey man!

NotMe

Kobie wrote:

And how would you feel about a mule (half horse/half donkey)? Would you shoot it in the head or ride it on the seaside?

And about this Humanzee - I think her name is Carol. Dated her for a week or two a couple of years back. Wouldn't exactly call her human, but she did go halves over dinner. Bit of a banana fixation (if you know what I mean). Spent many a happy evening swinging on her tire.

Last I heard she was auditioning for some Clint Eastwood movie.

K.

Hahaha

quank

Look at the size of these pussies:

Matthewthebig

Wtf are those?

quank

Lion + Tiger = Liger.

Basq

quank wrote:

Lion + Tiger = Liger.

Been watching 'Napolean Dynamite'?

Phil_321

Is there really such a thing as a liger I thought it was just a joke?

kleefarr

When a male lion mates with a tigress, his genes promote large offspring because lions are adapted to a competitive breeding strategy. The tigress does not inhibit the growth because she is adapted to a non-competitive strategy. Therefore the offspring (liger) grows larger and stronger than either parent because the effects do not cancel each other out. In contrast, when a male tiger mates with a lioness, his genes are not promoting large growth of the offspring because he is not adapted to a competitive breeding strategy. However, the lioness is adapted to a competitive strategy and her genes still inhibit the growth of the developing cubs. This uneven match means that the offspring (tigons) are often smaller and less robust than either parent.

Interesting.

Rest of link here.

pwd

tigard = tiger +leopard. They are always stillborn
dogla = leopard +tigress. They may or may nbot exist.

servicals: crosses between servals and caracals

http://members.aol.com/jshartwell/servical.jpg

lots of others described here:
http://members.aol.com/jshartwell/hybrid-bigcats2.html

Romo

A dolphin/whale hybrid called a wholpin.

http://www.hotspots.hawaii.com/Wolphin.html

Phil_321

I heard in China scientists cross-bred a turtle with a donkey. I think they called it a turkey.

pwd

they bred a three legged donkey in Kerry.
They called it a Wonkey.

[Jackass]

quank wrote:

Look at the size of these pussies:

Pffft...Liger my ass, blatantly just a couple of midgets standing next to a lion! :rolleyes:

I heard they bread a horse and a mole...they called it a homole...unfortunatly, it wouldn't mate with either other female horses or moles....

kleefarr

Funny looking lion.

quank

basquille wrote:

Been watching 'Napolean Dynamite'?

Er, no. ??

pork99

Romo wrote:

A question arises, would you consider such a creature to have crossed the human-animal divide or are they still animals?

What divide? We are animals (primates).

beezkneez

pwd wrote:

they bred a three legged donkey in Kerry.
They called it a Wonkey.

they also bred a three legged donkey with one eye, they called it winkey wonkey.

Romo

pork99 wrote:

What divide? We are animals (primates).

If scientists successfully bred a human/chimp hybrid back in the 1920's in the original Yerkes Institute and Dr. Gallup seems to think there is a very real possibility that they did. When they destroyed the hybrid soon after its birth, would you consider it murder or was it the simple destruction of an animal? Also, if there are some religious people reading this, do you think such a hybrid would have a soul?


It's actually a very serious claim from the holder of an academic chair to make, as Gallup is pointing the finger at Robert Yerkes as being responsible.

Throughout the 1920's Yerkes had been conducting the first experiments in to the cognitive abilities of chimps. How they perceived consciousness, how facial features and reactions related to conscious abilities.

Yerke's was also one of the early pioneers in the study of human sexuality, this along with the fact that the experiments were conducted at the height of the eugenics movement, gives credence to the idea that inseminating a chimp with human sperm might have seemed worthwhile. Almost all of the research was done with fellow scientist Ada Watterson, who was also his wife. Again, a husband and wife team may have gone much further than professional colleagues and been prepared to challenge ultimate taboos.

The result of their work was published in 1929 entitled "The Great Apes: A Study of Anthropoid Life", it's regarded as a classic. Naturally, the hybrid, if there was one, was not mentioned.

Yerkes died in 1956, so he would not have known Gallup as a research student, as Gallup is in his late 50's, early 60's at most. However, I believe Watterson lived for some time after her husband. If Watterson was the unnamed elderly academic who confided in Gallup about the hybrid, then the story gains greatly in credibility.