Time for a dialogue

Time for a dialogue are used to study the neural correlates of depression do not suffer from depression as we know it in humans. These transgenic tools are generated so that we can study a particular aspect of the disease process in a specific biological context. The lay public and popular press, however, might see the results differently when reduced neatly into a cocktail party punch line, and uniformed politicians can misrepresent facts to spread fear. As an example, US Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell spoke out against human-mouse hybrids a few years ago in a television news show, warning the public that “…American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains…”. The lack of a full public understanding of the scientific purpose of why animals are made to contain human materials could, and does, fuel the misconception that scientists try these experiments simply because they can. One way to curb public exaggeration of real science is for scientists to refrain from anthropomorphizing animal models, especially those containing human material, and ensuring that they qualify the characterization of their animal models in the most accurate manner possible. Communication with the public will only become more critical as research with ACHM progresses. Technology and research tools, especially those used by neuroscientists to probe the workings of the brain, are advancing at a rapid pace. Although current tools may have limited capabilities at present, they will mostly certainly be repurposed and extended in ways that we do not currently envision. Open dialogue and discussion about future applications will help to prepare society at large for the potential societal and ethical implications of these animal models. Another important consideration in keeping channels of communication open is that the public opinion of what research practices are ethical is constantly evolving. At one point in history, it was acceptable to do all sorts of experiments with chimpanzees. In some European countries, it is now difficult to get permission just to do non-invasive experiments with small primates. Clearly justifying the importance of using ACHM and demonstrating that the research is done responsibly will almost certainly be necessary to ensure that public opinion does not turn against this area of research on accusations of animal misuse. ACHM are research tools that are likely to be widely used far into the future. Scientists who are actively conducting this research will have many discussions about this work, and its implications, as it progresses. However, we cannot forget to include the public in some of these conversations. Making private discussion public will help to assure the public that scientists are fully aware of potential implications of their research, technical, ethical or otherwise, and that they will responsibly regulate the use of these incredibly powerful tools. ◼ recently, the UK’s Academy of Medical Science set up a working group to consider the scientific, ethical and regulatory ramifications of working with animals containing human material (ACHM). Their publicly available report (http://www. acmedsci.ac.uk/p47.html) makes specific recommendations on what lines of research should be allowed to use ACHM and recommends that a national expert body be instituted that would advise on ACHM research. It also advocates an active public debate on the potential ethical and scientific implications of the use of ACHM. The majority of research now conducted with ACHM models does not pose issues beyond those that are already considered in the regulations that dictate the general use of animals in research. Thus, to some, the publication of the UK report may seem premature. However, as research techniques and their applications are constantly evolving, an ongoing discussion is the only way to ensure that science is conducted in an ethical framework that accurately reflects the interests of all of society, both scientists and the general public. It is not too early for scientists to start taking the lead in this discussion, in part by clearly and accurately communicating the aims and limitations of their animal models. Although scientists are keenly aware of the limitations of using animal models, they often refrain from engaging in a public discussion of potential controversial topics, such as the use of ACHM models, for fear that their work will be misinterpreted in the public domain and incorrectly perceived as dangerous or scary. Consider the public fascination with the mouse that looked like it had a human ear growing out of its back. In fact, no human material was used in this project, but the sight of an animal with a human appendage was sufficient to evoke a loud outcry from both animal rights groups and groups opposing genetic engineering. Given that negative public perception of science can influence research funding, it is of paramount importance that strong emotional responses to the integration of human materials and animals be countered by frank discussion of the regulations and goals of this area of research. A more active public dialogue on these issues would ensure that the public do not misconstrue an experiment in which mice are implanted with human stem cells to study brain repair and extrapolate this to mean that scientists can (or want to) use advances in stem cell research to clone human beings. Most scientists will agree that simply introducing a snippet of a human gene (or even multiple human genes) will not make their research animals remotely human, nor will it necessarily imbibe animals with more human-like capacities.