What is the Objectivist Position on Animal-Human Hybrids?

There are great ethical concerns about the fast-evolving ability of researchers to create chimeras — individuals, organs, or parts consisting of tissues of diverse genetic constitution. The name comes from Greek mythology for a fire-breathing she-monster having a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail.

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

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.

There are many issues, including human dignity, discovery of new treatments for human diseases, risk of disturbing fragile ecosystems, and so on.

Sam

Post 1

Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 3:32pm

Most of these matters, especially when restricted to animals expressing a few human genes, should be of little consequence. Given the nature of embryonic development, I doubt the mice will be externally distinguishable from normal mice. If anything, they may come out disabled.

My only concern would be the making of actual human-ape hybrids with one half ape and one half human chromosomes. Creating such a creature would be like deliberately creating a retarded human, a very evil thing indeed.

Chimeras will usually not be any different from their normal relatives except that just one or a few genes will be the Human forms of a gene that the organism itself would already have had, just in its own form. A hybrid would be like a poem written with every other word in English and the rest in Spanish, a monster. But a poem that uses just one word or phrase from a foreign tongue, like "spiritus mundi" in Yeats "The Second Coming" should be no worry.

Ted

Post 2

Monday, November 13, 2006 - 8:21am

Ted: The point of my question is directed to what is inevitable. In my mind it is a dead certainty that the abomination of considerable inter-species mixing will occur at some time in the future. If it can be done, it will be done, irrespective of laws and moral condemnation. I completely agree with you as to the innocuous nature of trivial amounts in inter-species mingling that is occurring now and that this could have enormous benefits for the treatment of diseases but I'm not sure how this will eventually play out.

There is a perfect fit between the mind (or brain) of an organism and its body. If, for example, a significant amount of human brain tissue were to displace that of a dog, the hybrid will not be able to process the huge olfactory organs of a dog, and conversely, the cerebral capability to talk and process language would not be matched with the physical ability to enunciate. The hybrid would be a relative genius in one respect and a complete idiot in another.

The sociological implications are enormous. If there is discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity now, what will there be in the future against a human/dog hybrid? What about natural rights? Could only purebred humans vote? Animal rights activists would have a field day. Any slur against animals would be judged as hate crimes. Calling anyone a "birdbrain", for example, could be punishable because that (ostensible) person might really have a bird brain. Privacy issues of an entity's genetic make-up would be paramount

Names such as "Robin" and "Wolf" would become more popular. New names for family relationships would have to be invented. Family reunions might take place in the barnyard or the forest. What would constitute incest? A bull can inseminate thousands of cows. If a man/cow hybrid were attracted to a woman/cow hybrid and their cow components were sired by the same bull could they marry? Could a man/dog hybrid marry a woman/cat hybrid and hope to have a compatible marriage?
:-)

Sam

Post 3

Monday, November 13, 2006 - 8:41am

I inject Enbrel twice weekly. I’m not clear on the science, but my doctor explained that it is produced by hijacking the function of thousands of rats’ ovaries. They introduce a human gene, which gets the rats to produce a human protein that apparently I need more of. Then they harvest the ovaries and refine the protein and then I inject it. Nice imagery, huh? I take it for psoriasis and arthritis and it’s a miracle drug. Needless to say, I am all for it.

Post 4

Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 1:11am

One of Sam's Points:

"If, for example, a significant amount of human brain tissue were to displace that of a dog, the hybrid will not be able to process the huge olfactory organs of a dog, and conversely, the cerebral capability to talk and process language would not be matched with the physical ability to enunciate. The hybrid would be a relative genius in one respect and a complete idiot in another."

This is a very complicated matter given the epistatic interactions of genes and the fact that most versions of a gene will either work suitably well or not at all. Epistatic regulation is the fact that one gene, often a "regulator" will interact with other genes to change the expression of one or more traits, which my be expressed normally or abnormally or not at all. Imagine that a person gets a particularly dark melanin gene from his mother, but gets a regulator gene from his father that turns all pigment genes off, or, more likely, turns off the gene that makes the precursor for melanin? Then, even though the child has a dark gene from his mother he may end up an albino, because his father's gene in effect "stepped in" and "shut the process down." Now such effects are extremely complex, so we find such phenomena as blue eyed dogs tending toward deafness, and so on, because genes long down the production line or genes that only interact indirectly cause effects that are not simple arithmetic summations.

Most animal genes when transplanted across species will either work out okay (but possibly with some efficiency loss) and thus allow the normal activity to proceed (although perhaps with the build up of physical flaws, toxins or such over time) or they will simply fail to work entirely, and if the gene is vital, the animal will die. The idea of women with viper fangs or dog men will not occur simply because we replace the bone or saliva gene of one animal for the other. The genes must work together as an integrated organism or probably not at all. Such manipulations to a phantasmagorical extent would seem quite a long long way off.

As for having mice with human brain genes, since the mice will not have human vocal or sense organs, which are the seat of language and thus conceptualization, the mice will probably function close to norm as mice, perhaps with slower brain maturation if regulator genes that are slower to act in humans are transplanted. The gene expression program is strongly feedback-governed and redundant, and many essential hormones and molecules can even be made by various different pathways, so even if a few genes are not working right, the organism is designed to overcome the failures. (Most people are said to carry at least 10 lethal genes, but having two copies of each, the good copy usually steps up to the plate, as in sickle cell carriers or as in dwarves who have one normal and one dwarf type growth regulator gene. Two copies of the dwarf gene are fatal.) The special purpose for scientists to make mice which seem just like regular mice but have human brain genes is that the human proteins that they do express can be tested using medicines designed to work on human tissue, not mouse tissue, so experiments can be done on mice rather than on human corpses and ill volunteers who provide less helpful subjects given their otherwise unhealthy state. This will help in say, Alzheiner's research, where we don't want to cut up live people or do potentially deadly tests on a medicine that will attack just one human protein.

Nonviable monsters will self-select out (i.e., die off) and workable chimeras will have to be workable organisms. If they are capable of voluntary reason, they would presumably have rights, but not the "right" to violate the laws of chemistry or biology. And the ability to sue without cause does not require alien DNA now, so what would change with Chimerae running around would seem to be more of a political question to ask now, rather than a biological question to ask for later.

Frankly, I'd be happy with an anti-aging suite of genes and less of the Irish tendency towards diabetes, and maybe the head of hair I had at 17. I have little interest, concern or fear about my future ability to procreate with cows.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 11/16, 2:00am)

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 11/16, 10:51am)

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 11/16, 10:15pm)

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 11/16, 10:25pm)

Post 5

Friday, November 17, 2006 - 5:46pm

How it is immoral to expand our horizons? An animal that is given the chance to move beyond the perceptual into the conceptual may be scarey, but I see nothing that explicitly forbids it. This claim of such chimeras being 'abominations' are often the words used by people lacking an understanding in the very nature of existence itself. Humans evolved from so-called lower 'order' species, but with a twist toward tool making [which requires a mind and a free will]. Other species evolved to fit other niches. In turn scientists are beginning to see the usefulness of blending certain proteins into the human genome from other species. Imagine a protein that could prevent most kinds of heart disease related problems? Then imagine a protein that could stop cancer in its tracks without harming the organism. Just those two examples makes it possible to imagine the good that can come about. As for making a retarded human from an ape/human recombination, I find that to be very doubtful due to the fact that many apes tend to test out around the average intellect of a six year old human. If anything, I bet that such a creature would be on par with us, considering that the genetic difference between us and the apes approximates to a slim 2%.

Do I think we'll see 'furries' in our future? No, it's not practical to make hybrids that have other species' morphologies since all of our technology depends on human hands and an average human build to operate them. Can you imagine having the hooves of a horse, goat, or cow and trying to drive a car? Even an automatic transmission cars would be a pain in the butt. How about having the eyes like that of a hawk? Sure, you can see things clearly far away, but you can't read the newsprint in front of your face. And so forth. Just those facts alone will stop such hypothetical propositions from even becoming practical ones. But what you will see is humans with certain genes from other species to allow for longer, healthier lifespans.

-- Bridget

Post 6

Friday, November 17, 2006 - 7:47pm

There is a difference between what you do to yourself, and what you do to others.

Bridget, I think that the latter half of Sam's post shows that in some way he is making light of the issue, although I answered him seriously. But calling creating half-man half-anything mixtures an "abomination" is correct for two reasons. First, the organism itself will almost certainly be at a disadvantage, if not crippled or even unviable. Second, this is a matter of doing experiments on other people who could not possibly have consented to the act before it occurred.

I see no objection by anyone here to anyone doing whatever he likes to himself. If an adult wants to have a suite of fur-producing genes inserted by recombinant DNA, who could object, so long as the condition is not transferable? But just mucking about with persons who will have to suffer for the experimenter's mistakes in order to make real-life cartoon characters because they would be cool is hardly a responsible thing to do. The matter can be addressed at length, once the science is well known and actual. At this point, we know only enough to know that we are likely to be making a big mistake by mucking about with chromosomes.

I have been unable to find any good on-line pictures of known chromosomal abnormalities or hybrid monstrosities. But I have seen a picture of an animal that was the result of a mixture of dog and cat chromosomes. The creature was pathetic and anyone who would even risk such a thing an another person would be criminally negligent if not psychopathic. The picture at right is merely the result of a developmental abnormality. With mixed up genes, such abnormalities would be commonplace. It is for this reason that doing such experimentation is so difficult, because almost all of the created organisms die. Only the unlucky ones survive until birth to shock us with their images.

Likewise, it has been rumored that the Chinese and others have already created and then destroyed human-chimp hybrids. To me this is the worst case scenario, because it most likely is quite easy and possible to do. Imagine being born neither human nor chimp, not accidentally, but intentionally created to be sterile, and perhaps having the ability to understand that one was created as an experiment. Humans have been cross-dressing and self-castrating and totemistic for millennia. But this does not mean that what adults may chose for themselves can be done to unborn persons at whim.

Adults can do to themselves, and to themselves only, whatever they like. Even if hybrids themselves are not monsters, those who at our stage of knowledge would even entertain creating such hybrids of others are themselves indeed abominations. Anyone who wants to know what its like to be half human and half lion can throw himself in a lion's den and let the lions experiment on him.

Ted Keer, 17 November, 2006, NYC

Post 7

Friday, November 17, 2006 - 9:05pm

Ted: Bridget, I think that the latter half of Sam's post shows that in some way he is making light of the issue, although I answered him seriously. But calling creating half-man half-anything mixtures an "abomination" is correct for two reasons. First, the organism itself will almost certainly be at a disadvantage, if not crippled or even unviable. Second, this is a matter of doing experiments on other people who could not possibly have consented to the act before it occurred.

Me: According to what sources do you make this claim? To my knowledge no one has shown any chimera cells being inviable under any conditions. If you want a hybrid you need only look at your cob of corn. We've been doing 'chimerization' for thousands of years, Ted. No one has yet made an inviable stalk of corn or a corn monster from Heck(tm)! So, I find this part of your argument to be completely and absolutely without validity and/or soundness.

Ted: I see no objection by anyone here to anyone doing whatever he likes to himself. If an adult wants to have a suite of fur-producing genes inserted by recombinant DNA, who could object, so long as the condition is not transferable? But just mucking about with persons who will have to suffer for the experimenter's mistakes in order to make real-life cartoon characters because they would be cool is hardly a responsible thing to do. The matter can be addressed at length, once the science is well known and actual. At this point, we know only enough to know that we are likely to be making a big mistake by mucking about with chromosomes.

Me: Yet cells and fetuses are not persons, so that claim doesn't work at all. And it's really a non-sequitur.

Ted: I have been unable to find any good on-line pictures of known chromosomal abnormalities or hybrid monstrosities. But I have seen a picture of an animal that was the result of a mixture of dog and cat chromosomes. The creature was pathetic and anyone who would even risk such a thing an another person would be criminally negligent if not psychopathic. The picture at right is merely the result of a developmental abnormality. With mixed up genes, such abnormalities would be commonplace. It is for this reason that doing such experimentation is so difficult, because almost all of the created organisms die. Only the unlucky ones survive until birth to shock us with their images.

Me: And? What moral obligation do we have to non-human animals when combining their dna with other non-human animals? Again, non-sequitur.

Ted: Likewise, it has been rumored that the Chinese and others have already created and then destroyed human-chimp hybrids. To me this is the worst case scenario, because it most likely is quite easy and possible to do. Imagine being born neither human nor chimp, not accidentally, but intentionally created to be sterile, and perhaps having the ability to understand that one was created as an experiment. Humans have been cross-dressing and self-castrating and totemistic for millennia. But this does not mean that what adults may chose for themselves can be done to unborn persons at whim.

Me: We call this assumption based on the unsubstantiated. Moreover it also plays on the slippery slope fallacy which is there no need to use it there. Also, the application of the cross-dressing argument doesn't fit within the total sum of your argument against chimera cell experiments. It seems more of a stab in the dark toward my person rather than the argument. So, I suggest you don't try it again and be a little bit more honest, okay?

Ted: Adults can do to themselves, and to themselves only, whatever they like. Even if hybrids themselves are not monsters, those who at our stage of knowledge would even entertain creating such hybrids of others are themselves indeed abominations. Anyone who wants to know what its like to be half human and half lion can throw himself in a lion's den and let the lions experiment on him.

Me: Nope, because you want to call something an abomination because you believe there is only one form to Nature's creatures. If that were so, why evolution? Why even have it possible for hybridization naturally and by human design? Basically, I see this whole argument easily disregarded via the Naturalistic Fallacy in that you are assuming human prescriptions that are arbitrary upon that which occurs even within Nature itself. And that more specifically you are trying to append a moral prescription on that which has no moral value in and of itself.

-- Bridget

P.S. The picture you posted in your argument is also photoshopped, just FYI for you.

Post 8

Friday, November 17, 2006 - 10:53pm

Bridget,

You: "To my knowledge no one has shown any chimera cells being inviable under any conditions." I spoke of organisms, not cells. You are too emotionally involved and should step back and re-read what I said. You claim that it is okay to do what you like to fetuses, for example. Does this mean that once they are born they are no longer the responsibility of the person who has created them? As for abomination, it has nothing to do with evolution. The term is a moral one that I would use to criticize someone who, for example, mentally and emotionally abused his own children. I will not address any of your other points, you are lashing out defensively and are misconstruing and not addressing mine. It is not my point to upset people. I will respond if you wish to post further, but you must try to understand my points, not mistake them for attacks. If that picture of sheep fetuses is a fake, no problem, my point was general, and can be illustrated by these of a cycloptic sheep fetus with no mouth and the other needing no description below.

Post 9

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 12:30am

Ted: As for abomination, it has nothing to do with evolution. The term is a moral one that I would use to criticize someone who, for example, mentally and emotionally abused his own children.

Me: It's not the same, you don't get it. When we go and explore the furthest reaches of the genome, we're not looking to abuse creatures. We're looking for answers to our problems like how to cure cancer, and how to stop Parkinson's Disease and what not. It's a matter of conquest of Nature, not a matter of controlling people. You seem to paint every doctor that does such research as a Frankenstein.

I really don't see how all your gross pictures prove anything. In fact, it all smacks of scare tactics since none of the pictures are explained. You just go and post them without a reference. Like the Siamese Twin skeleton, that was never a product of any biotechnological experiment, it was something that occurred naturally. The same for the sheep picture. All you done is not only misrepresent the issue, but completely demonized an entire field of scientists that do worry about making mistakes. You make it look all so easy to damn the whole venture, and that's the sign of dogmatism in an argument. In that you produce an either or scenario. Either we do chimeric cell research and make little monsters. Or we don't do the research and have no monsters. There's no way that this is a valid dichotomy.

As for me getting emotional? I interpreted the crossdressing statement for what was, and you knew better. If I interpreted wrongly, I'm sorry, but that does not imply any state of emotion, especially considering the fact that this is all very impersonal in that neither of us have to see, hear, and/or smell each other. So, I really don't invest any emotion in any argument online. I tend toward the very analytic view point.

Post 10

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 2:00am

Bridget, why do you assume that everything I have said is a personal attack? By "cross-dressing, self-castrating and totemistic" I am referring to phenomena going on throughout human history where an adult person choses to take on the characteristics of that which they are not by genetic endowment. You continue to attack positions which I have never taken. My sole point has been that human-animal hybrids should not be made because of the potential for intentionally creating a human monster, which act would be an abomination. I have not argued against genetically modified food, or the use of animal-human chimeric strains to produce such things as Enbrel of which Jon spoke. I showed deformed fetuses (which can be deformed through genetic or environmental means - but yes, these are both environmental deformations) because you said that it does not matter what we do to fetuses. I have said repeatedly that adults can do to themselves as they like. I have no idea where you get the notion that I am against genetic research per se. You say: "You make it look all so easy to damn the whole venture, and that's the sign of dogmatism in an argument." But what am I damning other than the creation of chimp-children, which you yourself state with all the faith of a zealot: "As for making a retarded human from an ape/human recombination, I find that to be very doubtful due to the fact that many apes tend to test out around the average intellect of a six year old human..."

Post 11

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 8:14am

Well, it seems that I have got a controversy going — and, yes, I did have some tongue-in-cheek comments in my original post but the topic was meant to be a serious one, which it has become. The "abomination of inter-species mixing" comment I made was supposed to be directed towards the mindless creation of freaks. Creating a man/fish hybrid with gills instead of lungs and scales instead of skin is one thing; enhancing a man's ability to stay underwater for an extended period of time is another.

Post 12

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 9:05am

Creating a man/fish hybrid with gills instead of lungs and scales instead of skin is one thing; enhancing a man's ability to stay underwater for an extended period of time is another.

Quite so - gills allow breathing in water, provided there's sufficient oxygen in the water to support human needs - which, sadly, unless oxygenated, there isn't.

Post 13

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 11:53am

Ted: But what am I damning other than the creation of chimp-children, which you yourself state with all the faith of a zealot.

Me: I don't think I said it with faith, I said it as based on what we know about apes. In fact I believe there's some evidence there already has been a chimp/human cross breed, but in this case he was sterile. Oddly, they knew he probably was one due to one odd feature about him: he went bald on top of his head. Now that doesn't sound like a significant feature, you think, "Sure it's possible for any animal to get some baldness somewhere," but the kicker is that his baldness wasn't due to malnutrition and/or some skin ailment, he simply just went bald. Now was he able to talk and think like us? Not really, but he wasn't all malformed and suffering. He was just a chimp that looked slightly human, and was bald, and a had taste for good cigars.

Also, where do you go assuming I sanction such developments anyways? I stated it was impractical since the morphology part of such a hybridization would make such a hybrid practically disabled in our world. In that our instruments, our technology requires us to be within a certain tolerance level of size and shape. I'm 6'4 and I still have a hell of a time finding a chair in the university computer lab that allows me to sit down in front of a terminal without bumping my knees against the desk. That alone ought to be enough to keep people from thinking of making a 'Mickey Mouse' sort of creature through biotechnology.

-- Bridget

Post 14

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 4:15pm

The purported hybrid "Oliver" of which you speak, Bridget, is now believed not to have been a hybrid but a rare subspecies which represents about 1% of the Chimp population. If Oliver is a hybrid, his example is to me (given his rejection by chimps and humans as lovers, and his inability to speak) an argument against allowing such "experiments" by considering the act wilful criminal negligence in the first degree. But the latest genetic tests again argue that he was not a hybrid. The image is from >www.answers.com< .

I don't think anything I've said til now needs further clarification, so unless anyone has any questions, I'll sanction Sam, and politely forgo pointless further provocation. There is little point in arguing about the proper wingspans of pigs til they start flying.

Ted

Post 15

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 7:22pm

Yet isn't Oliver's rejection very much like what happens to 'racially mixed' individuals? From that logic you setup it can be argued that one ought not to have mixed 'race' children either, yet today such kids are very lucky as they're becoming accepted because everyone know recognizes that they are indeed the future of what humans might become insomuch of lack of racial distinction. What I mean by that is no matter how you carve up this issue, it's not a moral wrong or hazard to explore the powers of genes for our benefits. We've been doing it since arranged marriages and agriculture. And we'll keep on truckin' on that vein of thought until either we die or we reach a conclusion that it's self limiting.

-- Bridget

Post 16

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 9:17pm

Our Happiness is Our Own

My understanding from the show "Humanzee" is that Oliver was rejected by other chimps because he did not smell right, which makes sense to me, given the nature of isolation mechanisms in speciation. Sister species truly become differentiated from each other when the two populations become better adapted at different ways of living - ecological niches - and the intermediate forms are less successful than the well differentiated forms. The rise of a barrier between these two population's interbreeding then arises because those individuals that will interbreed have children less well adapted to their circumstances, and less likely to survive.

Imagine that a species of antelope lives on an island with two mountains, and eats the leaves of tall medium and short species of trees that grow on them. Then the water level rises, and on one mountain, only short trees and thus only short antelope survive. The medium height trees that flourished in the lowlands drown, and that tree species goes extinct. On the other mountain, the taller trees survive, and the antelopes there get taller in response. After thousands of years the water level falls again, and now the trees and the two populations of antelope can again inhabit the entire island. But the medium height trees are extinct. Since the antelope still look similar except for height, when they meet, some will still interbreed, but some have developed a preference for tall partners and some for short, and these stick to their kind. The interbreeders will be at a disadvantage, because their medium height offspring will end up being too tall to eat from the shortest trees and too short to eat from the tallest trees. Those antelope which do not interbreed, for whatever reason, because they do not like the smell of the other type, because they come into season at different times, or for whatever reason will come to dominate the population because the medium-height offspring producing animals will not pass on their genes as successfully. Eventually, random variations of preference in smell and coloration and so forth that have genetic bases will become established as suites of isolation mechanisms which will keep the two population from interbreeding. The two populations of one former species will now be two full-blown species.

Over thousand of years of separate breeding, many different traits and genetic suites will build up in each population. One will become dark and semi-aquatic, the other striped and with larger horns. One species will perhaps lose a chromosome pair through attrition, the other will gain a chromosome pair through duplication or splitting. (Humans have 23 pair, Gorillas and Chimps 24) At some point, if the two species interbreed, which may happen if a male and female are stranded on a sub-island, their offspring may lack vital genes yet have double copies of others. They will not have long enough horns to attract a mate with one species, but not be able to swim in the migration with the other. This type of hybridization may recur over and over. But no intermediate population will survive past the first breeding.

The mechanisms I describe above arise naturally and have done so over and over leading to most of the biological diversity that exists today. Nature's mechanisms do not care for the individual. The only thing that matters to nature is reproduction. Think of just one of your ancestors who never had a single child. Can you? No, because it's a contradiction in terms, "non-reproductive ancestor." The broadly understood sexual drive and its strength to override all else - its ability to drive us to kill to protect our mate or our children, its ability to drive us to seek partners of the same sex, or to alter our gender in some, its ability to drive us to diet, to create, to depilate, to kill - is the force of nature expressed through our flesh.

But nature's ends are her own, and we, as beings of rational volition, need not accept the drives she gives us unexamined or chose reproduction over our own joy. Some people find to their luck that their nature and the drive to raise a family coincide, and they participate willingly in the grand dance. Others of us who have different natures still exist and if we do not reproduce, we still create and enjoy. And our happiness is our own.

© Ted Keer, 19 November, 2006, NYC

Post 17

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 9:28pm

Mixed race children are, on the whole, more healthy than ? "pure-bred" (ha!) children, for the same reason that mutts are better than pure-bred dogs, they don't suffer the effects of inbreeding and genetic diseases that run in isolated populations.

But human "races" have arisen only within the last 75,000 years or probably even much less (some estimate 13,000) while our distance from chimps is estimated at 6,000,000 years. Matters of prejudice based on appearance play little part in the biological texts which I have read.

Ted

Post 18

Friday, February 2, 2007 - 6:06pm

Ayn Rand must have said something on the topic of genetically engineered chimera. Did she have any comment on the Island of Dr. Moreau?

A.S.

Post 19

Saturday, February 3, 2007 - 8:49am