In the late 2010s, researchers in China took part in certain experiments that are raising more than a few eyebrows in the scientific community. Namely, these scientists are studying the implantation of a human intelligence gene into monkey embryos and the after-effects of the implantation.
As you might expect, this brings on myriad ethical questions and implications, leading some in the community to call this experimentation “an ethical nightmare.” (1)
At the center of the current controversy is a study published in May of 2019. In the study, researchers implanted the human MCPH1 gene into rhesus macaque monkeys. The results of the study were that the transgenic monkeys did indeed show human-like brain development. (2) But at what cost, and for what purpose? There doesn’t seem to be any purpose beyond implanting the monkeys and recording the results. That’s leaving a lot of fellow scientists with a bad taste in their mouths.
This study was carried out by implanting monkey fetuses with the MCPH1 gene, using a virus as the means of delivery. Of the 11 fetuses they implanted, 6 died, suggesting a huge problem with the approach from the get-go. The remaining 5 were subjected to a battery of tests, looking to determine the effects of the implantation. While their brains did not grow any larger than the control group, they did outperform their counterparts on short-term memory tasks. Interestingly, the brains developed over a longer period of time, which is also a very human brain characteristic.
The Ethics Of Intelligence Gene Implantation
Chinese researchers were thrilled with their results. But much of the scientific community is a bit concerned by this line of research. The intent of this experiment, in part, is to study the way human intelligence has evolved. But if we’re taking lab animals and making them more human-like, at what point is it deemed cruel to keep them locked in a lab, subject to endless experiments?
University of Colorado bioethicist Jacqueline Glover said it best: “To humanize them is to cause harm. Where would they live and what would they do? Do not create a being that can’t have a meaningful life in any context.”
Another researcher, Barbara J. King, who is an emerita professor of anthropology at the College of William and Mary, and author of the book “How Animals Grieve” had this to say: “In the wild, macaques live in matrilines, centered around groups of related females with close social ties; they explore their world with intelligence and curiosity. What right do we have to subject these primates to grotesque procedures of this sort? The costs are terribly high and the benefits to humanity approach zero; there’s growing recognition that animal models simply don’t work well to study complex human processes.”
Indeed, it is difficult to say what the benefit of this kind of research would be. To many in the U.S., it likely seems cruel and unnecessary, with no stated goal to the research. For example, if scientists were implanting monkeys with a disease, to study how to fight a disease, that would most likely be easier for many to understand as opposed to simply implanting genes to see what happens.
Intelligence Gene Study: Where Is It Going?
This hints at deep ethical differences between what is considered allowable animal research in the US versus China. China has long been amenable to laboratory research on monkeys. In fact, they have large breeding facilities there and they export tens of thousands each year. In China, a research monkey costs just $1,500.00, while in the United States it’s nearly $6,000.00. (1) United States animal rights activists have helped bring awareness and moderation to testing on monkeys, but the same cannot be said for China. So it’s fairly common for U.S. researchers to travel there in order to carry out their experiments.
In 2017, researchers at Emory University collaborated with scientists in China to work on genetically modified monkeys. (3) So while the U.S. is not interested in hosting research such as this, because it is cruel and unnecessary, some researchers see no ethical problem with it and will happily participate in the process. Others like Martin Styner from University of North Carolina realized during the process that it’s not something they wish to be a part of. Mr. Styner told MIT Tech Review that he had considered pulling his name from the project because he believes the research is not headed in “a good direction.” (1)
As long as vast differences exist in acceptable research on monkeys, it seems likely that these studies will continue. And they will divide the scientific community for some time to come.
