Category: Animals

Taxonomy is the method by which all animal species can be classified, with a hierarchical system that uses at least seven of the 12 classifications from Kingdom to Species. One example that uses human beings is as follows:

• Kingdom – Animalia
• Phylum – Chordata
• Subphylum – Vertebrata
• Class – Mammalia
• Subclass – Eutheria
• Order – Primates
• Suborder – Anthropoidea
• Family – Hominidae
• Subfamily –
• Genus – Homo
• Species – Homosapiens
• Subspecies –

At a very basic level of classification, true animals can be largely divided into three groups based on the type of symmetry of their body plans, radial symmetry which can be divided into two or more planes, bilateral symmetry which can be divided into two halves, and asymmetry, where symmetry can not be achieved.

Architectural patterns in animals are separated into 5 major grades of organization, beginning with single-celled organisms and increasing in complexity to organ systems.

the first grade, the protoplasmic grade, contains organisms where all of their life functions are contained within one cell. for example, species from the genus Amoeba are unicellular with no symmetry, and within its cytoplasm contains organelles that each perform their own specialised function. Like a food vacuole, where food is digested for the cell’s nutrition.

the second grade of organization, the cellular grade, is when a number of cells combine but each cell is specialized to perform its own unique function such as nutrition or reproduction. An example of a multicellular organism is the sea sponge, phylum Porifera, which has cells called choanocytes which are flagellated collar cells that trap food particles, and cells that form spicules of calcium to stiffen the sponge.

The third grade is the tissue grade, where cells aggregate and form tissues that function in a unified way. Phylum Cnidaria are placed in grade which includes the radially symmetrical jellyfish. Jellyfish show an organization of tissues by the nerve net, the most primitive form of a nervous system.

The fourth grade is tissue-organ organization. This is more complex than the previous grade as organs are made up of more than one tissue. Super phylum Lophotrochoza, “worms”, are an example of this grade and are the simplest animals to obtain bilateral symmetry. They have an organ system level of organization with the centralization of a nervous system.

The final grade is the organ-system organization. Organs integrate into systems to perform more complex functions like circulation, respiration, and digestion. Many animals have this organization with the simplest being roundworms, phylum Nematoda, which have a complete digestive tract.

As complexity increases, there are additional ways to classify animals. Multicellular animals are often divided into vertebrates and invertebrates. the prevailing view holds that the phylum Chordata consists of 3 Sub-phyla; Eurochordata, Cephalochordata, and Vertebrata. which are all characterized by having a notochord, dorsal tubular nerve cord, pharyngeal pouches/slits, endostyle, and a post-anal tail. Although some of these features may alter or disappear in later stages.

Introduction

In biology, a chimera is an organism that has genetically different cells in one entity. The different cells originate from distinct zygotes that can but do not necessarily derive from the same species. A hybrid, on the other hand, is an organism resulting from the sexual reproduction of two different species, all cells having just one genotype. Recent advances in genetic engineering allowing the creation of human-animal chimeras and hybrids have sparked an intense and vivid discussion about the creation and use of such beings. There are many potential uses for life forms like these. For example, being able to use them for insights in early embryonic development and the mechanisms of action of stem cells without using human embryos. Another possible use could be the xenotransplantation – the transfer of an organ from an animal to a human – to compensate for the lack of human organs. Yet a third possibility would be studying how genetic material – transferred from humans in animals – operates in organisms (according Sturma. “Handbuch der Bioethik”. S.226).

In the following essay, I will discuss the moral status of human-animal hybrids and chimeras and questions of whether it is ethically inoffensive to create and utilize them for research and possible therapeutic goals.

Thesis

A The Moral Status of Animal-Human Chimeras and Hybrids

In this day and age, the clear border between animals and humans is of high significance for our system of justice and traditional morality. As a result, organisms, which can be identified as humans have dignity and human rights, whereas animals are protected and can be considered legal property (see Sturma. “Handbuch der Bioethik”. S.226-27). The existence, however, of Animal-Humans Chimeras (and Hybrids) blur that line as they are – per definition – a mix of the two. This raises the question of what kind of moral status appertains to them.

First, it is worth considering what kind of animal-human chimeras or hybrids we are discussing. For instance, what kind of developmental stage are they in? Are they embryos, new-borns or even grown? You also can distinguish what type and how high the hybridization is. To simplify matters, however, we will omit those aspects.

In the following, I will introduce and discuss common arguments concerning the moral status of human-animal chimeras and hybrids and using them for research.

A.1. Potentiality Arguments

Potentiality arguments are well known from discussion about stem cells and human embryo protection. Potentiality arguments employ the plea that those organisms have the potential to develop capacities like sentience (physical experience, pain, mental pleasure) and higher cognitive capacities, such as rationality and moral thinking. Hence, some people might argue that animal-human hybrids/chimeras are eligible for protection and security of instrumentalization comparable to human embryos.

However, such arguments are irrelevant if discussing chimeras/hybrids that lack the potential for development. Those wouldn’t be able to survive long enough to turn into an organism, such as “cybrids” – an enucleated living cell where the nucleus has been replaced by one of a different species. Research has found that none of those “cybrids” are able to develop into an organism.

A.2. Capacity Arguments

Capacity arguments claim that if a life form has the capacity for sentience and/or higher cognitive ability (capacities independent of whether they are able to exert them or not), that entitles them to a certain degree of moral status. Cases where the being has the capacities for sentience, but not for rationality or moral thinking (higher cognitive abilities) could lead to similar reasoning found in animal research – reduction, refinement, replacement – described by W.Russell in 1959. Those strategies call for an improvement of the well-being and treatment of the tested subjects.

When it comes to Animal-Human Hybrids/Chimaeras that could have the capacity for sentience and higher cognitive abilities, one might consider raising the moral status of said subject – as an autonomous being — calling for dignity and non-instrumentalization in a Kantian manner. That would give them a moral status similar to humans, resulting in special “rules” applying to them, such as protection of utilization and informed consent (see Hübner.”Human-Animal Chimeras and Hybrids: An Ethical Paradox behind Moral Confusion?”. S.192).

Consequently, if those measures can not be matched/fulfilled – as their sole purpose of their creation is to be probed, utilized, and potentially harmed without consent – one has reason to be apprehensive of creating them at all. In the event of animal-human hybrids/chimeras that have “built in” terminator sequences or are unable to develop into an organism, those ideas may not apply.

A.3. Speciesism

Speciesism was defined by Peter Singer in 1959 as “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species.” Often this specism comes with a “human centric” view, that sees humans as the only moral and rational species in existence, putting other species below them and giving them lesser or no moral status.

That brings up the problem: what group would human-animal chimaeras and hybrids belong to? Are they humans, and granted human rights? Or, are they animals, and fall under the animal protection act?

Per definition they are organisms with genetic material from different species. Since the type and the degree of the hybridization can vary (for instance, some might be 99,9% human and 0,01% animal, whereas others just contain a little amount of human genes) it doesn’t seem like an adequate tool for classification, because it links their moral status to their features and how “human” they are. If used as such – their amount of human genes could be used as an index for their membership to the human species, certifying them for human rights (that argument may also work for embyros that lack potential to develope) .However, seeing animal-human hybrid and chimaeras as neither – human or animal – but as their own species could give an solution to this problem. It allows to

A.4. Disturbance of the “Natural Order” Through Animal-Human Hybrids and Chimeras

Because of their set-up animal-human hybrids and chimeras blur the natural line of biological species borders and are raising questions about species integrity and human identity. Species borders can – as they allow humans to identify one another and distinguish from others – be important for our idea of ethics and morality and the functioning of ethical and moral norms (for example, see speciesism). A lot of people might get a feeling of unease thinking about human-animal chimeras and hybrids, as they seem to be “unnatural,” and creating them breaks a moral taboo, a violation of the rules- seemingly saying the moral status of entitities can be linked to species. This statement is less concerned with the moral status of semi-human beings than with seeing them as a threat to their own identity and dignity. In Biology it is very hard to define what the term “natural” means. If you would ask a group of biologist, how important the integrity of a species is, they would probably tell you not that fundamental – as species are constantly developing, interbreeding and changing. In spite of that most “norma” people would say it is indeed very important. (find a better way to say this!!!).

Since moral taboos and norms can depend on era and social background, it’s questionable how much those arguments can be seen as “neutral” and rational, much less ethical (such as being homosexual was seen as – and still is in some countries – seen as something “morally wrong”).

B Research on Human-Animal Hybrids and Chimeras

With the tricky question of the moral status of the animal-human mixtures comes another difficult question: is it morally justifiable to do research on them? I think it’s important to distinguish between embryonic and grown organisms in this matter. Thinking about autonomy and higher cognitive abilities of grown organisms may give them a right to informed choice and consent.

B.1. Utilitarianism

The Utilitarian approach evaluates an action based on its outcome and/or consequences. It tries to achieve the best possible outcome for the most individuals, while creating the least harm. So, you could use it to justify or condemn the testing of other organisms for the sake of knowledge and therapeutic advances. If we look at it in a non-speciest way, that would mean that every individual – including non-human animals – have the right to a maximization of their happiness. That means that doing tests and research on them, that causes pain or harm, meaning a decrease of their happiness, would be forbidden. The only justifiable – in an utilitarian sense – research would be research that increases their happiness and well-being. On the other hand, (in a more humancentric thinking), one might argue that the “higher goal” of studies on human-animal hybrids and the benefits outweigh the suffering of a few, increasing the happiness of a lot of others, hence, justifying such research, even if it may harm or kill those individuals. (Note: This thought only considers animal-human hybrids and chimeras that are grown but lack higher cognitive abilities. Otherwise, autonomy and informed consent must be taken into account).

3 Conclusion

The Question of the moral status of animal-human hybrids and chimeras ist a very knotty one with divided opinions. Overall it think it’s important to differentiate between embryo and developed/grown organisms. Little is known about what kind of abilities and cognitive functions developed animal-human hybrids and chimeras would have, much less about how they would live and what requirements need to be met. On these Grounds we can’t guarantee adequate surroundings,treatment and well-being for them. Since the intention behind bringing those entities into existence is to use them for research, transplantations, and avoiding using human embryos (just to name some), it’s most likely that in that process they are going to be harmed, instrumentalized and inflicted pain upon for advances of humanity. Their inherent purpose is to be mistreated (for example animal-human hybrids and chimeras that are supposed to be used for Xenotransplantation would need to spend their whole life alone in steril cages, so they can get used for transplantations). I think it’s important to be able to establish some norms when it comes to testing on life forms with sentience (and perhaps higher cognitive function that require a raise of their moral status,protection and possibly autonomy and dignity). But because the point of their existence is contradictory to that, one might want to abstain from creating them at all.

I take a more gradualistic stance regarding research on human-animal embryos and their moral status. A majority of them are – because of their set-up – unable to develop into a fully grown organism or they are genetically engineered and hold termination sequences that prevents their development. That fact makes Capacity and Potentiality arguments redundant, because there are no potentials and capacities those organisms hold. When we are talking about embryos that still might hold those abilities the determining factor is which stadium of development they are in. For me the moral status and degree of protection increases with their development, as well as our moral obligations towards them. Although i think it’s difficult to say if one would be able to determine the different thresholds while developing.

Osmoregulation is a procedure that animals control concentration water and sodium chloride in our body, permitting them to support their body fluids in the homeostasis limits. Freshwater, marine and terrestrial animals adapt in different ways. Our focus is on freshwater and part in terrestrial animals. The organism found in freshwater are different from others. The animals living in freshwater area must have ability to osmotic and ionic regulation. We have freshwater invertebrates and freshwater vertebrates, in general freshwater invertebrates are animals which are small without backbone and also in freshwater vertebrates that are organisms of bigger group that differs by the position of the backbone, e.g., mammals, birds. Terrestrial animals are the animals that live on the land. There are ways in which these types of animals deal with increase in water and losing of water. There are also terrestrial vertebrates and terrestrial invertebrates. Animals respond in different ways in different areas. How they have gaining and losing of water also differs.

Principle of Osmotic Response

The process whereby the movement of water across the membrane in which two solutions are separated from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration is called ‘osmosis’. When the membrane which is permeable with water separate the two aqueous solutions of different solute concentrations but impermeable then water to solute molecules, then water will diffuse through the membrane from the solution, the continuation will be retained and there will be no movement or flow of water and solutions concentration in the other side of the membrane that allows the water to move through.

Osmotic Response of Animals

Animals are classified into two categories namely osmoconformers and osmoregulators.

Osmoconformers

In these animals the concentration of their body fluid is the same with the concentration of their environment, for example marine invertebrates which the concentration of their body fluid is the with the one of water. Thus, the body fluid and water tend to be isosmotic. Even if these animals are at their osmotic equilibrium is unnecessary to be having the same composition. Thus, lot of energy is required for ionic regulation. Osmoconformers need to have the correspond change with the change in external environment osmotic concentration. Then we have the euryhaline which are osmoconformers that can tolerate a severe change of their osmotic concentration in their environment, those that can tolerate the little change are stenohaline.

Osmoregulators

In these animals the body fluid concentration is maintained being different with the one of the environments and they can be classified into two groups according to their level of body fluid concentration namely: hyperosmotic regulators and hypoosmotic regulators. In hyperosmotic regulation the environment concentration is less than that one of body fluid (e.g., in crabs), while in hypoosmotic regulators the environment concentration is higher than that one of the body fluids.

Osmoregulation in Freshwater Environment

Freshwater environments must be hyper-osmotic into water they live in. Freshwater environments involve all world aquatic areas and consist of low salt concentration. The organism that are available in this area are unique because the osmoregulation challenge that they came across are different with those of marine. Animals that live in freshwater area is difficult for them to be osmotic and ionic equilibrium. There are two challenges they face: they gain water from their area by process of osmosis and losing of ions by process of diffusion caused by availability of more concentration gradient. The animals that live in this type of environment must have ability of significant osmotic and ionic regulations.

Freshwater Invertebrates

Freshwater invertebrates are the small animals which do not have a backbone, they include various worms, snails, crabs, crustaceans, and insects. Freshwater invertebrates are frequently used to point out or to indicate the state of rivers, streams, ponds and rivers. Like vertebrates, invertebrates have only one way to limit the gaining of water and the loss of ions which is to have a body plane that will not allow fluids to pass through. Invertebrates eliminate the gained water in the form of urine. The flow rate of urine in freshwater is greater than the one of correlating marine animals. Nevertheless, the urine elimination also ended up in the dropping of ions and then worsen the loss of ions that takes place in these species. in most of the freshwater invertebrates the ion uptake site is unknown, so it is expected to take place over the surface area of the common body. But in other invertebrates the uptake site is familiar with some level of confidence. For example, in freshwater crustaceans it is studied that ions active transport takes place over the gills. In insects that are found in the moist environment larvae, ions active transport has been revealed to take place in the anal of gills.

Freshwater Vertebrates

Freshwater vertebrates face the same osmotic and ionic problems as freshwater invertebrates. When considering freshwater vertebrates, it is only necessary to believe the osmotic and ionic relations of the teleosts. There are only a couple of elasmobranchs that are true freshwater species. Like invertebrates, the most site of osmotic water gain in teleosts is that the gills. The excess water is removed by the assembly of giant quantities of very dilute urine. Although the urine is dilute, it does contain some dissolved solutes, and since large volumes of urine are produced, urine excretion may end during a comparatively large loss of ions. This successively compromises the ion loss which is already occurring by diffusion from plasma to water. Some loss of ions is often compensated for by the gain of ions from food. However, the foremost source of ion gain is by the active transport of ions within the gills. It is thought that the transport of ions across the general body surface is insignificant.

Fish in Freshwater Vertebrates

Fish have adapted to their environment through the evolution of gills, swim bladders and fins. Gills allow fish to wish in oxygen from the water, swim bladders allow fish to wish care of an appropriate level of buoyancy and fins allow the fish to maneuver through the water.

A large amount of seafood species also is being threatened by degradation, reduction or maybe loss of floodplains by damming, agriculture practices, urban development, rivers dredging and geomorphological modifications.

Fish protect themselves through color camouflage, poisonous spines, stunning shocks, and chemicals. Poison injected by teeth, or through barbs or spines could even be a useful defense employed by catfish and scorpionfish.

Osmoregulation in Terrestrial Environments

Animals that are terrestrial are prone to reduction of water, but not like water species in which the reduction of water, removal of water is osmotic in terrestrial organisms as a result of vanishing from the surface that are permeable and closed by the atmosphere. Organisms that are terrestrial fight to have the hassle of losing water by having a procedure that can be called osmoregulatory adjustments.

• Waterproof integument. The absolute manner of lowering water unavailability is one of the types of adjustments to osmoregulatory, has been created by using different corporations such as insecticide, reptilian, feathered creatures, and mammals. The measures of reptilians and epithelium of warm-blooded creatures grant both physical safety and separator towards water misfortunes. This clarifies why the greatest of those organisms can live successfully in heated and dry ranges. The earthly vertebrates, the land and water creatures are slightest custom-made to this kind of water conservation. The skin of creatures of land and water is lean, wet and habitations small or no resistance to vanishing. The pores and skin are utilized as a supplementary inhaling surface which implies that it must be for all time soggy which makes them limited to damp spots.
• Lessening the glomeruli filtration speed. Earthly vertebrates lessen the filtrates fee by lowering its run and measures of glomeruli within the kidney similar to the way marine teleost do. Earthbound vertebrates especially the ones who reside in heated and dry areas just like they destroy traces locales diminish water misfortunes by way of this strategy. For occurrence, the barren region organisms, that are one of the as it were few creatures of land and water that thrive in heated desserts, has littler and less glomeruli than the common creatures residing in wet calm districts.

The version of creation to earthly existence must be supplied those life forms to get extended sums of oxygen, along with an exceptional hazard to their water and ionic adjust. Usually due to reality which may be reduce accessibility of water on surface, thus, creatures are inclined to the trouble of drying out. The life of creatures within the earth environments continually visible as a way between gasoline change and lack of hydration. The main reason of this good quantity if water misfortunes for earthbound creatures is dissipation, and water unavailability because of dissipation can be physiologically compensated for.

Conclusion

The principle of osmotic response states that when a permeable membrane separates two fluid spaces water will flow from an area with lower concentration to an area with higher concentration and is mainly based on the interaction of the animals with their environment through osmotic concentration. The tolerance of the change in their environment osmotic concentration, while others are able to tolerate the environmental osmotic concentration change and while others fail to do so. Freshwater invertebrates are the small animals which do not have a backbone, they include various worms, snails, crabs, crustaceans, and insects. They are frequently used to point out or to indicate the state of rivers, streams, and rivers. In freshwater vertebrates the diversity and ecosystem services provision, and the cases we resolved to help plan successful monitoring programs for freshwater vertebrates. Animals on terrestrial habitats have a physiological advantage of accessing oxygen and their finest physiological danger to their lifestyles is dehydration. There is different in freshwater and terrestrial areas. These areas should be protected in order not for them to go extinct because there are many important species needed by environment

References

1. Cote, C.J. (1994). Principles of Renal Physiology. (3rd ed.). London: Chapman and Hall.
2. Lan, K. (1998). Introduction to Animal Physiology. (1st Ed.). Oxford: BIOS Scientific Publishers Ltd.
3. Onwujiariri, T. (2017). Osmoregulatory Adaptations of Terrestrial Animals to Water Loss. http://www.gulpmatrix.com/
4. Prosser, C.L. (1991). Comparative Animal Physiology. (4th Ed.). New York: Wiley-Liss.
5. Rastogi, S.C. (2007). Essentials of Animal Physiology. (4th ed.). New Delhi: New Age International Publishers.
6. Solomon, E.P., Berg, L.R., Martin, D.W. 2019. Biology. 11th edition.

Red foxes are one of the most widespread species of carnivores in the world (Malkemper and Peichl, 2018). They have no one specific habitat where they are found and therefore can be found all over the world. They are nocturnal mammals therefore their eyes and ears are adapted to allow them to hunt in the dark. They are carnivores therefore they have appropriately developed teeth which allow them to catch their prey as well as an adapted skull to help them bite into their prey. This essay is going to discuss the red fox’s physiology and how this allows the red fox to survive in the many environments they can be found in.

Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are members of the family Canidae (Viranta and Kauhala, 2011). They are a medium-sized mammal which have a carnivorous diet (Malkemper and Peichl, 2018). They feed on organisms such as birds and small rodents such as mice (Malkemper and Peichl, 2018). This carnivorous diet means they need specialized teeth to eat their prey. Unlike carnivores which lean to a more omnivorous diet, and therefore their molars are stronger for grinding prey, carnivores with a more meat orientated diet have more emphasized canine teeth for slicing into their prey (Malkemper and Peichl, 2018). Red foxes are crepuscular and nocturnal hunters meaning they are most active at dusk and dawn (Malkemper and Peichl, 2018). Due to the fact they hunt when it is predominantly dark out this means the fox must have good hearing and eyesight. Foxes’ eyes are almost completely spherical in shape with the optic never leaving the eye at nearly the exact middle of the back of the eye (Malkemper and Peichl, 2018). The eye of a fox is common for crepuscular and nocturnal organisms. They have large pupils to allow them to see in the dark conditions. Fox’s hearing behaviors are close to those of domesticated cats and dogs. A study conducted showed that the fox’s hearing is more sharply tuned than those of cats and dogs (Malkemper et al., 2020). However, the study could not explain why this was. The fox’s skull also contributes highly to their bite and how they catch their prey. The size and shape of a fox’s skull changes between population and region (Viranta and Kauhala, 2011).

Foxes have no real specific habitat and therefore can be found in many different environments. These can range anywhere from urban areas such as cities and towns, to deserts (Viranta and Kauhala, 2011). Due to the fact they have no specific habitat they can be found all around the world such as most of Europe, Asia, parts of North America and Australia (Viranta and Kauhala, 2011). Fox’s physiology varies slightly between these different environments. For example, the fox skull, foxes found in more urban regions were found to have larger brain cases and shorter snout regions whereas, foxes found in rural areas were found to have longer snouts and smaller brain cases (Viranta and Kauhala, 2011).

In conclusion, red foxes are one of the most widespread species of carnivores (Malkemper and Peichl, 2018). This is a result of them having no one specific habitat. However, their physical attributes such as their eyes, ears, skull and teeth as mentioned above allow them to adapt to whichever of the environments mentioned they are part of.

The world’s best zoos offer face-to-face encounters with some of the most fascinating and rare creatures on the planet—an experience that few people would ever be able to pursue in the wild. Unlike the cramped cages that housed wild animals in sideshow spectacles of the past, the modern zoo has elevated habitat emulation to an art, carefully recreating natural environments and offering inhabitants challenging activities to reduce boredom and stress.

The evolution of zoos has also included programs dedicated to protecting endangered species, both in captivity and in the wild. Zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) participate in Species Survival Plan Programs that involve captive breeding, reintroduction programs, public education, and field conservation to ensure survival for many of the planet’s threatened and endangered species.

Conservation Breeding

AZA conservation breeding programs (also known as captive breeding programs) are designed to augment populations of endangered species and avoid extinction via regulated breeding in zoos and other approved facilities.

One of the primary challenges facing captive breeding programs is maintaining genetic diversity.1 If the population of a captive breeding program is too small, inbreeding may result, leading to health problems that can have a negative impact on the species’ survival. For this reason, breeding is carefully managed to ensure as much genetic variation as possible.

Six Species Saved From Extinction by Zoos

1. Arabian Oryx: Hunted to extinction in the wild, the Arabian Oryx was revitalized thanks to conservation efforts by the Phoenix Zoo and other organizations. As of 2017, 1,000 animals had been restored to the wild, while thousands more were living in zoo environments.
2. Przewalski’s Horse: The only truly wild species left in the world, Przewalski’s Horse is native to the grasslands of Central Asia. After being declared completely extinct in the wild, it’s made an amazing comeback.
3. California Condor: Not all that long ago, there were only 27 of these magnificent birds left. Thanks to conservation efforts from the San Diego Wild Animal Park and the Los Angeles Zoo, hundreds of California Condors have been reintroduced into the wild.
4. Bongo: The Eastern Bongo, a large antelope native to a remote region of Kenya was one of the last large mammal species to be discovered but poaching and loss of habitat nearly wiped them out. Zoos worldwide are working to establish a stable population to ensure their survival.
5. Panamanian Golden Frog: Beautiful but extremely poisonous, the entire species succumbed to the effects of a devastating fungal disease in the wild. Since 2007, existing captive populations abetted by collaborative conservation efforts by a number of zoos have staved off their extinction.
6. Golden Lion Tamarin: Close to extinction due to loss of habitat from logging and mining, as well as poaching in its native Brazil, there has been a steady effort since the 1980s to ensure this species doesn’t vanish from the face of the Earth. Currently, about one-third of wild Golden Lion Tamarins come from breeding programs.

The goal of reintroduction programs is to release animals that have been raised or rehabilitated in zoos back into their natural habitats. AZA describes these programs as ‘powerful tools used for stabilizing, re-establishing, or increasing in situ animal populations that have suffered significant declines.’

In cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the IUCN Species Survival Commission, AZA-accredited institutions have established reintroduction programs for endangered animals such as the black-footed ferret, California condor, freshwater mussel, and Oregon spotted frog.

Zoos educate millions of visitors each year about endangered species and related conservation issues. Over the past 10 years, AZA-accredited institutions have also trained more than 400,000 teachers with award-winning science curricula.

A nationwide study including more than 5,500 visitors from 12 AZA-accredited institutions found that visits to zoos and aquariums prompt individuals to reconsider their role in environmental problems and see themselves as part of the solution.

Field conservation focuses on the long-term survival of species in natural ecosystems and habitats. Zoos participate in conservation projects that support studies of populations in the wild, species recovery efforts, veterinary care for wildlife disease issues, and conservation awareness.

Today, 31 animal species classified as ‘Extinct in the Wild’ are being bred in captivity. Reintroduction efforts are underway for some of these species, including the Hawaiian crow.5 According to a 2021 study published in the journal Conservation Letters, at least 20 bird and nine mammal species have been saved from extinction through conservation breeding and reintroduction efforts since 1993.

A study recently published in the journal Science supports the establishment of specialized zoos and a network of captive breeding programs that target species facing an acute risk of extinction.7 ‘Specialization generally increases breeding success. The animals can be ‘parked’ at these zoos until they have a chance of survival in the natural environment and can then be returned to the wild,’ the study’s lead researchers told Science Daily.

Endangered species breeding programs will also help scientists better understand population dynamics critical to the management of animals in the wild.

1. The Bakas Equestrian Center staff can continue to serve a dwindling number of autistic children and teens and ignore the fact that there are many more autistic children that require social interaction and motor skill improvements outside of their surrounding environments. Both improvements have been researched and verified with autistic children that have participated in Creative Art Therapy.
2. Hillsborough County Commissioners should do their own research and bring in experts to understand and recognize that autistic children deserve equal opportunities for specialized programs just as other handicapped children. They also need to recognize the fact that a new Creative Art Therapy Program will enable autistic children and teens to have a chance at not just existing but flourishing in life.
3. Hillsborough County Equestrian Center adopt Creative Art Therapy Pilot Program that gives autistic children and teens the opportunity to be involved in the natural setting of the center by participation in related art activities. The pilot program will be instrumental in providing positive quantitative and qualitative data for the implementation of the combined equestrian and Creative Art Therapy Program.

Final Recommendation

I recommend that Horses for the Handicapped, Inc. and Hillsborough County Parks and Recreation staff adopt the new Creative Art Therapy Program. To do so, the program must be in compliance with applicable federal and state regulatory standards and expectations, as defined by

1. The Americans with Disabilities Act, Title I and Title II
2. the Hillsborough County Parks and Recreation Department, Chapter 38, Article II which defines Public Conduct in Parks and Recreational Facilities
3. the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services,
4. the Internal Revenue Service Exempt Organizations Reporting Changes Form 990
5. Title XLV, Chapter 828 of the Florida Statutes: Animals: Cruelty, Sales, and Animal Enterprise Protection, and
6. Special Programs for Exceptional Student Education.

For Hillsborough County to consider the adoption of the Creative Art Therapy Program, certain pre-requisites must also be met. These include 1) Submission of a comprehensive and to the point business plan that will define how the non-profit will accomplish their goals 2) availability of county space 3) a county department that will back the non-profit and support its mission, and 4) the detailed general benefit to the occupants of Hillsborough County (Hillsborough County Florida, n.d.). In addition, if the Creative Art Therapy Program or any new program is approved for implementation, and the new program requires a new structure, regardless of whether it is a tent or solid structure, either at the onset of a new program or during any phase of an older program, a Building Permit Application must be filled out and submitted to Hillsborough County. (Hillsborough County Florida, n.d.). For the Art Therapy Program, there are plenty of areas available on the property at Whisper Lake Trail to hold classes (West, J., personal communication, February 16, 2019).

Additional regulatory standards include oversight of Creative Art Therapists and combined therapeutic equestrian activities by The American Art Therapy Association and Accreditation Council for Art Therapy Education.

By adopting a new Creative Art Therapy Program, Hillsborough County, Florida will have the opportunity to reap the benefits of increased revenue by serving more autistic children and teens and will have the opportunity to receive recognition for qualitative improvements in the lives of autistic children and teens. More importantly, the new combined equestrian and Creative Art Therapy Program will be known as the trendsetter for new and innovative experiences in the State of Florida, where combining creative art with therapeutic equestrian activities will give autistic children and teens an experience that they will carry all their lifetimes.

Survey Questions

My survey questions for the feasibility of combining Creative Art Therapy with equestrian activities were submitted to participants using the St Petersburg College Survey Builder tool. I used both dichotomous, or open-ended questions, and rating scales from 1-5. In addition, some of my surveys were emailed outside of the Survey Builder tool via my college email account.

There is a total of ten survey questions: 1) Do you or a member of your family, or someone you know have autism? 2) Are you a St Petersburg College Student? 3) If you are a St. Petersburg College Student, are you registered with Accessibility Services? 4) Do you know someone who has autism and that has participated in horseback riding activities now, or in the past? 5) Do you currently provide care or therapeutic services to children and/or teens that have autism? 6) Have you, or someone you know been introduced to, or have participated in Creative Art Therapy either academically, clinically, or leisurely? 7) On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 the most unlikely and 5 the most likely, do you believe that various creative art activities can personally improve your quality of life? 8) On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the most unlikely, and 5 being the most likely, do you believe that Creative Art Therapy has the potential to improve, to a noticeable degree, both communication and motor skills of children and teens diagnosed with autism? 9) If you have a child or teen with autism that takes part in therapeutic horseback riding activities, do you believe that a free Creative Art Therapy Program is something you would like your child to participate in, and 10) On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the most unlikely and 5 the most likely, how likely are you to donate your time, money, or materials to the addition of a Creative Art Therapy Program to enhance horseback riding activities for children and teens with autism?

Data were gathered from multiple sources. It is important to note here that there were no college email survey responses received outside of Bakas Horses for the Handicapped’s staff, parents, and guardians. All other survey responses came via the St. Petersburg College Survey Builder tool.

All known survey sources include: 1) Parents and guardians of autistic children who participated in therapeutic riding activities at the Bakas Equestrian Center 2) the non-profit entity, Horses for the Handicapped, Inc., and Hillsborough County staff at the Bakas Equestrian Center 3) Jenna at Quantum Leap Farm 4) St Petersburg College students in the Public Policy and Administration Program 5) Kelli Mitchell with Accessibility Services at St Petersburg College in Seminole 6) Sara Hofman, a former St. Petersburg College Professor who taught Abnormal Psychology 7) Kelly at RVR Horse Rescue 6) Mary Uruquart at Horses for the Handicapped in Seminole, 8) and President and founder of TherHappy Therapy Services Andrea Clark and her staff

Survey Results

Surveys responses were received via the Survey Builder tool and emailed surveys. The quantitative data from the Survey Builder tool involved 48 views with 30 participating responses for determining the feasibility study of combining Creative Art Therapy with equestrian-related activities. The survey began on February 13th and ended on February 23, 2019. Eighteen respondents completed the survey with all questions answered; nine respondents answered nine out of ten questions; two respondents answered eight out of ten questions, and one respondent answered seven out of ten questions.

What surprised me the most was the question that asked, “Do you, a member of your family, or someone you know have autism? An astounding 56.67% of those surveyed via the Survey Builder tool answered in the affirmative. That is a little over half of those surveyed. More importantly and encouraging data involve the 62% of respondents who believe that Creative Art can personally improve their quality of life, with 70.83% believe that participating in creative art has the potential to improve communication and motor skills of autistic children and teens.

However, the Survey Builder respondent answers present several major flaws with the data proving that Creative Art Therapy is feasible when combined with Animal Assisted Intervention. For example, 80% of respondents do not know someone with autism that has participated in horseback riding activities, 90% of respondents do not provide care or therapeutic services to children with Autism, and 76.67% of respondents have not been introduced to, or participated in, Creative Art Therapy either academically, clinically, or leisurely.

The good news is that my feasibility study is focused on the non-profit entity, Bakas Horses for the Handicapped, Inc. General Manager Jennifer West went above and beyond what I expected and handed out my surveys to her therapy staff, parents and guardians of therapeutic riding participants, and a park ranger. The reason for this is that she forgot about the presentation she agreed to let me give at the ranch, despite numerous reminders (see emails). The following responses showed great promise for the feasibility of providing a Creative Art Therapy Program with equestrian-related activities for autistic children and teens at Bakas Horses for the Handicapped, Inc.

I received a total of 17 returned surveys via email from General Manager Jennifer West at Bakas Horses for the Handicapped, Inc. Here are the survey respondents by title 1) General Manager 2) Senior Recreational Therapist 3) two Recreational Therapists 4) one Recreational Therapy Assistant 5) one Park Ranger 6) seven guardians of disabled riders 7) one Special Education Teacher and parent of a rider, and 8) three unidentified respondents. All 17 surveys were completed.

Out of the 17 received surveys, only question #6 received the most mixed answers. The question is: “Have you or someone you know been introduced to, or have participated in, Creative Art Therapy, either academically, clinically, or leisurely?” Seven ”yes” and ten “no” answers were provided. The survey questions with the most affirmative responses for the implementation of the new program, were questions 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. Question #4 asks, “Do you know someone who has autism and that has participated in horseback riding activities now, or in the past?” Responses: Fourteen “yes” answers and one “no” answer. Question #5 asks, “Do you currently provide care or therapeutic services to children and/or teens that have autism?” Responses: Thirteen “yes” answers and four “no” answers. Question #7 asks, “On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 the most unlikely and 5 the most likely, do you believe that various creative art activities can personally improve your quality of life?” Responses: Sixteen #5 scaled responses and one #1 scaled response. Question #8 asks, “On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the most unlikely, and 5 being the most likely, do you believe that Creative Art Therapy has the potential to improve, to a noticeable degree, both communication and motor skills of children and teens diagnosed with autism?” Responses: Fourteen #5 scaled responses, one #3 scaled response, and one not applicable scaled response. Finally, question #9 asks, “If you have a child or teen with autism that takes part in therapeutic horseback riding activities, do you believe that a free

The competitive environmental forces for San Antonio Zoo are largely from the local leisure industry. Notable competitors include Fiesta Texas, SeaWorld, and Doseum. However, the firm is in a relatively less competitive environment due to the nature of its operations. In this regard, the unique features of the zoo give it an upper hand in the sense that the experience package offered is not comparable to any other. Additionally, the notable animals such as the Asian Elephants are such a boost to the Zoo regarding uniqueness and keeping the able competitor at bay. The competitive environmental factors still impact the Zoo, and they include; the threat of entry, the threat of substitutes, the threat of the buyers and finally the threat of rivalry (Armstrong et al., 2015).

San Antonio Zoo’s threat of entry emanates from the other existing competitors’ expansion as well as new leisure industries developing. The expansion by its competitors may result in the introduction of species that are offered in the zoo. As a result, it will make the current visitors consider changing their places of enjoying leisure activities. New entrants also have a unique sense of competition in the sense that technology and other advancements may give them an upper hand regarding entry cost and subsequent operational cost. The implication of this will be cheap rates to view the animals as well as enjoying the ambiance in the zoo. However, entry into this industry is capital intensive and time-consuming hence it’s not a major competitive concern.

Substitutes are a real threat to the Zoo. The current competitors; Fiesta Texas, SeaWorld, and Doseum, are substitutes to San Antonio Zoo. As such the Zoo has to always aim at having its visitors contented with the experience that they receive to avoid being compared with a competitor, which will eventually result in a change of destination to the competitor. The other substitutes that affect the Zoo are leisure activities such as theatre that offer leisure experiences at the cost of what could have been spent on the zoo. Such substitutes can be countered by increasing awareness of the zoo and explaining the uniqueness of the experience in comparison to other leisure activities.

The buyers of San Antonio Zoo are the residents of the area and the tourists that pay a visit. Given that all the leisure industries target them, they pose a significant competition implication. A drop in their number means that the zoo may be forced to reduce the fees charged for various activities as a marketing strategy. However, this would also result in services being reduced putting the zoo at risk as a whole. As such, it is key to keep buyers motivated am always have a reason for coming back.

Therefore, the buyers, in this case, visitors to the zoo can be kept by maintaining a relatively lower price of all the Zoo activities as well as increasing the traffic flow of tourists towards the zoo.

The last competitive environmental factor is the threat of rivalry. Competitors may gang up to reduce the earnings enjoyed by one player in the sector. This as such may cripple the operations of the firm in question. For the case of San Antonio Zoo, the rivalry may come from the competitors such as Fiesta Texas that may deliberately direct tourist traffic to their side. Additionally, offering discounts to the locals may equally be considered as a rivalry move to reduce the number of customers that San Antonio receives. Such threat can be neutralized by having laws and regulations that prevent such activities towards a player hence having a neutral playing ground.

San Antonio Zoo marketing goals and objectives are centered around its mission statement, which is to “inspire its community to love, engage with, act for and protect animals, and the places they live” (“San Antonio Zoo – About the San Antonio Zoo,” 2018). The marketing objectives are divided into two that is the short-term and the long term. Short term marketing goals and objectives are meant to be achieved in less than one year and their implications used to make other decisions as well as be renewed as a measure for the next season. The long-term goals and objectives, on the other hand, refer to the aspirations that will be met in a duration longer than one year. As such, San Antonio Zoo marketing goals and objectives aim to attain both current and future success.

The short-term goals are quite a number with all geared towards loving, engaging, acting and protecting the animals and the place they stay. Engaging is one of the key marketing goals. This is achieved through various platforms, which include the zoo’s website, social handles as well as one on one interactions. Through engagement, the zoo can sell its works to the people and eventually attract them to be active participants in supporting the animals and consequently the mission of the zoo as a whole. The other one is website traffic, which in short translates to the people who have an idea about the zoo and the animals at large. This, in essence, leads to more customers in the long run who will in turn aid in the survival of the zoo. The other short-term marketing objective is conversions in the sense that they are the actual numbers that visit the zoo (Tomczak, Reinecke, & Kuss, 2018). By answering this question, the marketing team can see if they are on the right track through an increase in people coming into the zoo or they are not through a decline. These shortterm marketing goals and objectives then inform the long-term ones. Long-term marketing goals and objectives are those that once attained, the business is considered to have hit success. Reputation is one major goal. San Antonio Zoo views this as the best milestone that it will ever achieve. Reputation is built on the day to day activities that the zoo offers. By letting the public have various events in the zoo such as learning lessons, and experience with animals, the reputation of the zoo keeps growing. Its attainment will occur when the general public associates the activities to the zoo. The other marketing objective is to name recognition in the sense that people will easily pick San Antonio Zoo as a leisure destination regardless of the circumstances (Stewart, 2016).

The short-term and long-term marketing goals and objectives are consistent with the external environment and recent trends in the customer environment. The economic growth and stability indicators show that zoo visits increased by a huge number over the last ten years and that it is with marketing objectives of growing traffic. Increase in visitors to the San Antonio website also goes a long way to impress the technological aspects of the external environment. The zoo’s reputation grows as a result of keen consideration of political, legal and regulatory aspects. The customer environment is dynamic, and the marketing goals and objectives have been tailored to take this into account. Use of the online platform is as such a massive milestone regarding consistency. Additionally, current customers prefer being engaged to get the information first hand and reinforce their experience.

San Antonio Zoo has a huge portfolio of resources at its disposal. Of importance though is the huge land and animal population that it has. They range from lions, jaguars, to giraffes. It has also employed over 432 workers directly. The workers include animal caretakers, tour guides, medical personnel as well as animals, security guards, and also office-based individuals including the finance and IT teams. Indirectly, 264 individuals rely on induced jobs. The financial resource that San Antonio Zoo supported as per the 2016 report was a whopping 85 million dollars. This was as a result of sales made by local business people. The jobs created and the overall impact of marketing that attracted over 1.5 million guests (Love, 2016). However, the direct resources at the disposal of the zoo are not sufficient due to the huge and complex needs of the animals it supports. This range from food, medication to research and other projects that go a long way in keeping the zoo up to date regarding what the market requires. The zoo, therefore, requires additional resources but still, it is adapting to other methods that will mitigate the gap created. Technology is meeting a key role concerning security, hence reducing the wage bill and freeing current and future financial resources for other projects.

Imagine a wild animal, for example an elephant. It has all the freedom in the world. Suddenly, the elephant is trapped and taken away from its family. It is put in a small crate, unable to move, starving, and alone for what seems like years. When the elephant is finally let out, all it can see are cage bars and children looking at the elephant as if it were wallpaper. There are over 2,000 zoos, just in America. The animals are not from America, and have been taken from their natural habitats. Some people think zoos are entertaining and help preserve endangered animals. However, this is how they are becoming endangered, because they are in the zoos. Zoos are inhumane because animals have to suffer to get to zoos, they are uncared for at zoos, and they are unable to live life naturally.

First of all, animals have to suffer before they even arrive at the zoo. According to Born Free USA,“many are captured from their native habitat and smuggled in or legally imported.” Traffickers take animals out of their homes and harm them, even though it is illegal. They are using the animals to get money. Born Free USA also stated, “Trafficking in rare and exotic wildlife is a global business, worth 10-20 billion (dollars) annually.” Trafficking has gotten big and it is not good for the animals. For example, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) wrote, “parrots might have their beaks and feet taped and be stuffed into plastic tubes that can be easily hidden in luggage.” The parrot could suffocate in the tubes and experience great pain. The pain for the animals starts way before they get to the zoo.

In addition to the pain while getting to the zoo, the animals are uncared for once finally reaching the zoo. PETA wrote, “precious funds that should be used to provide more humane conditions for animals are often squandered on cosmetic improvements- such as landscaping, refreshment stands, and gift shops- in order to draw visitors.” The money should be benefitting the animals, by getting nice living spaces, lots of food, and being protected from destructive visitors, since they are the ones attracting customers. PETA also reported that zoo compartments are “tiny, filthy, barren enclosures.” If the animals have awful living conditions, how will they not be in danger? While talking about zoo animals getting injured in their cells, Christian Draper, a program manager on captive wild animals at Born Free USA stated, “responsible facilities would do their best to absolutely minimize these things. However, some are irresponsible and that can lead the animal to becoming injured.” The animals are not cared for at zoos, and that greatly affects the animals.

Finally, the animals are unhappy at zoos. PETA stated, “animals are closely confined, lack privacy, and have extremely limited possibilities for mental stimulation or physical exercise.” The animals are unable to live a “normal” wild animal’s life. Instead of running loose, finding food for itself, and making its own choices, the animals has to sit still, behaved, and wait until they are given food, even if they are hungry before that time. PETA’s surveys have shown that 88% of animals at zoos become depressed, lonely, or anxious, causing their life span to be shorter. Sociologist Eric Jensen did a study and discovered that captive elephant’s lives are 17 to 39 years shorter. PETA again wrote, “some have reportedly even committed suicide by choosing to stop breathing or by slamming their heads against the walls.” The animals feel so unhappy with their lives at the zoo that they would rather die. The animals are very unhappy at zoos and are unable to live naturally.

In conclusion, zoos are cruel because animals are smuggled in the process, the animals are neglected at the zoo, and the animals are not fond of being at the zoo at all. Our local zoo, Franklin Park Zoo, made $7,000,000 in 2014, just from admission, and has been in business for 103 years. So you may ask, if they make so much money and have not been shut down, why is it so bad? Others may argue zoos present a safe way to observe wildlife. There are other safe ways, like videos on YouTube and television channels such as Animal Planet. As for an answer for zoo’s success, it may not harm us, the humans, but it does harm the animals.

Taxonomy is the method by which all animal species can be classified, with a hierarchical system that uses at least seven of the 12 classifications from Kingdom to Species. One example that uses human beings is as follows:

• Kingdom – Animalia
• Phylum – Chordata
• Subphylum – Vertebrata
• Class – Mammalia
• Subclass – Eutheria
• Order – Primates
• Suborder – Anthropoidea
• Family – Hominidae
• Subfamily –
• Genus – Homo
• Species – Homosapiens
• Subspecies –

At a very basic level of classification, true animals can be largely divided into three groups based on the type of symmetry of their body plans, radial symmetry which can be divided into two or more planes, bilateral symmetry which can be divided into two halves, and asymmetry, where symmetry can not be achieved.

Architectural patterns in animals are separated into 5 major grades of organization, beginning with single-celled organisms and increasing in complexity to organ systems.

the first grade, the protoplasmic grade, contains organisms where all of their life functions are contained within one cell. for example, species from the genus Amoeba are unicellular with no symmetry, and within its cytoplasm contains organelles that each perform their own specialised function. Like a food vacuole, where food is digested for the cell’s nutrition.

the second grade of organization, the cellular grade, is when a number of cells combine but each cell is specialized to perform its own unique function such as nutrition or reproduction. An example of a multicellular organism is the sea sponge, phylum Porifera, which has cells called choanocytes which are flagellated collar cells that trap food particles, and cells that form spicules of calcium to stiffen the sponge.

The third grade is the tissue grade, where cells aggregate and form tissues that function in a unified way. Phylum Cnidaria are placed in grade which includes the radially symmetrical jellyfish. Jellyfish show an organization of tissues by the nerve net, the most primitive form of a nervous system.

The fourth grade is tissue-organ organization. This is more complex than the previous grade as organs are made up of more than one tissue. Super phylum Lophotrochoza, “worms”, are an example of this grade and are the simplest animals to obtain bilateral symmetry. They have an organ system level of organization with the centralization of a nervous system.

The final grade is the organ-system organization. Organs integrate into systems to perform more complex functions like circulation, respiration, and digestion. Many animals have this organization with the simplest being roundworms, phylum Nematoda, which have a complete digestive tract.

As complexity increases, there are additional ways to classify animals. Multicellular animals are often divided into vertebrates and invertebrates. the prevailing view holds that the phylum Chordata consists of 3 Sub-phyla; Eurochordata, Cephalochordata, and Vertebrata. which are all characterized by having a notochord, dorsal tubular nerve cord, pharyngeal pouches/slits, endostyle, and a post-anal tail. Although some of these features may alter or disappear in later stages.

Introduction

In biology, a chimera is an organism that has genetically different cells in one entity. The different cells originate from distinct zygotes that can but do not necessarily derive from the same species. A hybrid, on the other hand, is an organism resulting from the sexual reproduction of two different species, all cells having just one genotype. Recent advances in genetic engineering allowing the creation of human-animal chimeras and hybrids have sparked an intense and vivid discussion about the creation and use of such beings. There are many potential uses for life forms like these. For example, being able to use them for insights in early embryonic development and the mechanisms of action of stem cells without using human embryos. Another possible use could be the xenotransplantation – the transfer of an organ from an animal to a human – to compensate for the lack of human organs. Yet a third possibility would be studying how genetic material – transferred from humans in animals – operates in organisms (according Sturma. “Handbuch der Bioethik”. S.226).

In the following essay, I will discuss the moral status of human-animal hybrids and chimeras and questions of whether it is ethically inoffensive to create and utilize them for research and possible therapeutic goals.

Thesis

A The Moral Status of Animal-Human Chimeras and Hybrids

In this day and age, the clear border between animals and humans is of high significance for our system of justice and traditional morality. As a result, organisms, which can be identified as humans have dignity and human rights, whereas animals are protected and can be considered legal property (see Sturma. “Handbuch der Bioethik”. S.226-27). The existence, however, of Animal-Humans Chimeras (and Hybrids) blur that line as they are – per definition – a mix of the two. This raises the question of what kind of moral status appertains to them.

First, it is worth considering what kind of animal-human chimeras or hybrids we are discussing. For instance, what kind of developmental stage are they in? Are they embryos, new-borns or even grown? You also can distinguish what type and how high the hybridization is. To simplify matters, however, we will omit those aspects.

In the following, I will introduce and discuss common arguments concerning the moral status of human-animal chimeras and hybrids and using them for research.

A.1. Potentiality Arguments

Potentiality arguments are well known from discussion about stem cells and human embryo protection. Potentiality arguments employ the plea that those organisms have the potential to develop capacities like sentience (physical experience, pain, mental pleasure) and higher cognitive capacities, such as rationality and moral thinking. Hence, some people might argue that animal-human hybrids/chimeras are eligible for protection and security of instrumentalization comparable to human embryos.

However, such arguments are irrelevant if discussing chimeras/hybrids that lack the potential for development. Those wouldn’t be able to survive long enough to turn into an organism, such as “cybrids” – an enucleated living cell where the nucleus has been replaced by one of a different species. Research has found that none of those “cybrids” are able to develop into an organism.

A.2. Capacity Arguments

Capacity arguments claim that if a life form has the capacity for sentience and/or higher cognitive ability (capacities independent of whether they are able to exert them or not), that entitles them to a certain degree of moral status. Cases where the being has the capacities for sentience, but not for rationality or moral thinking (higher cognitive abilities) could lead to similar reasoning found in animal research – reduction, refinement, replacement – described by W.Russell in 1959. Those strategies call for an improvement of the well-being and treatment of the tested subjects.

When it comes to Animal-Human Hybrids/Chimaeras that could have the capacity for sentience and higher cognitive abilities, one might consider raising the moral status of said subject – as an autonomous being — calling for dignity and non-instrumentalization in a Kantian manner. That would give them a moral status similar to humans, resulting in special “rules” applying to them, such as protection of utilization and informed consent (see Hübner.”Human-Animal Chimeras and Hybrids: An Ethical Paradox behind Moral Confusion?”. S.192).

Consequently, if those measures can not be matched/fulfilled – as their sole purpose of their creation is to be probed, utilized, and potentially harmed without consent – one has reason to be apprehensive of creating them at all. In the event of animal-human hybrids/chimeras that have “built in” terminator sequences or are unable to develop into an organism, those ideas may not apply.

A.3. Speciesism

Speciesism was defined by Peter Singer in 1959 as “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species.” Often this specism comes with a “human centric” view, that sees humans as the only moral and rational species in existence, putting other species below them and giving them lesser or no moral status.

That brings up the problem: what group would human-animal chimaeras and hybrids belong to? Are they humans, and granted human rights? Or, are they animals, and fall under the animal protection act?

Per definition they are organisms with genetic material from different species. Since the type and the degree of the hybridization can vary (for instance, some might be 99,9% human and 0,01% animal, whereas others just contain a little amount of human genes) it doesn’t seem like an adequate tool for classification, because it links their moral status to their features and how “human” they are. If used as such – their amount of human genes could be used as an index for their membership to the human species, certifying them for human rights (that argument may also work for embyros that lack potential to develope) .However, seeing animal-human hybrid and chimaeras as neither – human or animal – but as their own species could give an solution to this problem. It allows to

A.4. Disturbance of the “Natural Order” Through Animal-Human Hybrids and Chimeras

Because of their set-up animal-human hybrids and chimeras blur the natural line of biological species borders and are raising questions about species integrity and human identity. Species borders can – as they allow humans to identify one another and distinguish from others – be important for our idea of ethics and morality and the functioning of ethical and moral norms (for example, see speciesism). A lot of people might get a feeling of unease thinking about human-animal chimeras and hybrids, as they seem to be “unnatural,” and creating them breaks a moral taboo, a violation of the rules- seemingly saying the moral status of entitities can be linked to species. This statement is less concerned with the moral status of semi-human beings than with seeing them as a threat to their own identity and dignity. In Biology it is very hard to define what the term “natural” means. If you would ask a group of biologist, how important the integrity of a species is, they would probably tell you not that fundamental – as species are constantly developing, interbreeding and changing. In spite of that most “norma” people would say it is indeed very important. (find a better way to say this!!!).

Since moral taboos and norms can depend on era and social background, it’s questionable how much those arguments can be seen as “neutral” and rational, much less ethical (such as being homosexual was seen as – and still is in some countries – seen as something “morally wrong”).

B Research on Human-Animal Hybrids and Chimeras

With the tricky question of the moral status of the animal-human mixtures comes another difficult question: is it morally justifiable to do research on them? I think it’s important to distinguish between embryonic and grown organisms in this matter. Thinking about autonomy and higher cognitive abilities of grown organisms may give them a right to informed choice and consent.

B.1. Utilitarianism

The Utilitarian approach evaluates an action based on its outcome and/or consequences. It tries to achieve the best possible outcome for the most individuals, while creating the least harm. So, you could use it to justify or condemn the testing of other organisms for the sake of knowledge and therapeutic advances. If we look at it in a non-speciest way, that would mean that every individual – including non-human animals – have the right to a maximization of their happiness. That means that doing tests and research on them, that causes pain or harm, meaning a decrease of their happiness, would be forbidden. The only justifiable – in an utilitarian sense – research would be research that increases their happiness and well-being. On the other hand, (in a more humancentric thinking), one might argue that the “higher goal” of studies on human-animal hybrids and the benefits outweigh the suffering of a few, increasing the happiness of a lot of others, hence, justifying such research, even if it may harm or kill those individuals. (Note: This thought only considers animal-human hybrids and chimeras that are grown but lack higher cognitive abilities. Otherwise, autonomy and informed consent must be taken into account).

3 Conclusion

The Question of the moral status of animal-human hybrids and chimeras ist a very knotty one with divided opinions. Overall it think it’s important to differentiate between embryo and developed/grown organisms. Little is known about what kind of abilities and cognitive functions developed animal-human hybrids and chimeras would have, much less about how they would live and what requirements need to be met. On these Grounds we can’t guarantee adequate surroundings,treatment and well-being for them. Since the intention behind bringing those entities into existence is to use them for research, transplantations, and avoiding using human embryos (just to name some), it’s most likely that in that process they are going to be harmed, instrumentalized and inflicted pain upon for advances of humanity. Their inherent purpose is to be mistreated (for example animal-human hybrids and chimeras that are supposed to be used for Xenotransplantation would need to spend their whole life alone in steril cages, so they can get used for transplantations). I think it’s important to be able to establish some norms when it comes to testing on life forms with sentience (and perhaps higher cognitive function that require a raise of their moral status,protection and possibly autonomy and dignity). But because the point of their existence is contradictory to that, one might want to abstain from creating them at all.

I take a more gradualistic stance regarding research on human-animal embryos and their moral status. A majority of them are – because of their set-up – unable to develop into a fully grown organism or they are genetically engineered and hold termination sequences that prevents their development. That fact makes Capacity and Potentiality arguments redundant, because there are no potentials and capacities those organisms hold. When we are talking about embryos that still might hold those abilities the determining factor is which stadium of development they are in. For me the moral status and degree of protection increases with their development, as well as our moral obligations towards them. Although i think it’s difficult to say if one would be able to determine the different thresholds while developing.