> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Sheep — they’re not just for dinner table
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/sheep-theyre-not-just-for-dinner-table/
- Published: 2007-03-27T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-24T23:45:03.000Z
- Author: David Pisarra
- Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica, #archive-import

THE DESERTS OF NEVADA ARE KNOWN for strange things. Aside from being the rumored best location to dump a dead body, or see a little green man, or catch a ride on the U.S. Government’s latest top-secret aircraft, the Nevada desert now has created a new spectacle to delight or revolt you, depending on your views of life.

Scientists at the University of Nevada have upped the ante again in the global fight for survival of the human race. They have taken a sheep fetus and injected human stem cells into it so that, as it develops, it contains 15 percent human cells and 85 percent sheep cells.

The goal of this bit of bio-engineering is to create a supply of donor organs to be transplanted into humans. Eventually, a person would be able to have a flock of sheep that could be used to swap out a malfunctioning liver, heart or lungs.

This latest scientific breakthrough heralds huge potential for alleviating suffering across the globe for those patients who are desperately in need of a new heart or liver. Given the relatively quick gestational period of a sheep, a person would theoretically be able to have a new liver in about two months.

There are several ethical questions that arise for me, however, at this new type of medical care and bio-engineering. For example, at what point does the sheep have enough human genetic material to become sufficiently human to warrant his own donor? And what about the carcass of a “donor” post donation? If that is roasted and barbecued with mint sauce, does it become cannibalism? These are, on the one hand, absurd questions, because in any sufficiently advanced society we recognize that the lower order of animals have no rights, particularly if they are specifically bred for a purpose, and on the other hand, they are questions that must be answered.

It is said that God created man in his image, and that man returned the favor. Now it seems that we are not stopping at God, but soon we’ll have the ability to create the whole zoological rainbow, with a just a bit of Uncle Harry in it for our private zoos and medical needs.

I understand the need for scientists to continue to press the boundaries of what they can accomplish to save lives. It is their sworn duty, and unlike a certain Attorney General, they are actually able to do their duty. But at some point, shouldn’t we be asking the question of how far is too far? I don’t know if this Frankensheep is too far or not, but I do know that I am uneasy with the possibilities that these new genetic erector sets can create.

There are many unanswered questions, such as what are the medical protocols to prevent the transference of silent virii? If you look at the diseases that man’s interaction with the animal kingdom has created, we have HIV and syphilis for starters.

Currently, there are approximately more than 94,000 people waiting for a transplanted organ, commonly called “the gift of life.” Today, about 77 people receive organ transplants daily, with 19 people dying each day waiting for transplants that can’t take place because of the shortage of donated organs.

The Frankensheep is supposed to eventually reduce that number and alleviate suffering. I have very mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I can see that if it was me, I would certainly want a new heart to continue living. On the other hand, nature works the way it does for a reason. Part of that reason is to weed out the weak, to prevent them from replicating their weakness and passing it on to other generations.

For anyone fighting for their life, this is a no-brainer, they want the franken-sheep, and I have a hard time saying they shouldn’t have it, but I can’t help but wonder if we aren’t losing a bit of our humanity, the more we try to save humans in this manner.

It seems to me that we would have a better situation if we just made organ donation an “opt-out” situation. By that I mean, if a person dies and their organs can be harvested to provide a new lease on life to someone else, they should be. If you have a strong religious objection to this, you could “opt-out” of the program. This is what is being done in Europe and, frankly, it makes a great deal of sense... far more sense to me than taking a sheep and making it an organ donor.

I understand that modifying sheep in this way is really no different than special breeding programs to create a “more flavorful” or “juicier” type of sheep.

It still creeps me out.

DAVID PISARRA is a business development lawyer in the Santa Monica firm of Pisarra & Grist. He or (310) 664-9969.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 27, 2007.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/032707.pdf?ref=smdp.com)