Slashdot Mirror
'Predecessor' Neurons to Human Brain Discovered
Yale researchers claim to have found the very first neurons in what eventually becomes the human brain. Developed before most anything else, these neurons are in place just 31 days after fertilization. From the article: "We hypothesize that these predecessor neurons may be a transient population involved in determining the number of functional radial units including the human specific regions of the cerebral cortex mediating higher cognitive functions," Rakic said. "As a next step it is essential to determine their neural stem cell lineage, pattern of gene expression, developmental role and eventual fate."
and on the 32nd day, the currently dim-witted embryo signs up for a myspace account.
"We hypothesize that these predecessor neurons may be a transient population involved in determining the number of functional radial units including the human specific regions of the cerebral cortex mediating higher cognitive functions..."
Oh, wow. That's actually pretty clear! It's actually all written right there. I suppose it was a real head-smacking time down at the lab when this statement came down the line, being so obvious.
Some are afraid of artificial intelligence. I'm afraid I'll have to get my kid "enhanced" just so he can keep up in school. Meat is programmable too. Knowledge is good but ethics will hopefully ease our future obsolescence.
Shh.
"pro life" and "pro choice" people are talking past each other anyway. Pro lifers believe everything with the potential for becoming life (zygote onwards in some cases) should be protected, while pro choicers believe things that only things which would be viable life forms outside of the womb should be protected.
This discovery means nothing in this debate, because the basic concept of what constitutes life (potential life versus viable life) is not affected. Sure, some pro life groups may choose to add this to their stable of propaganda, but it probably isn't going to change the debate in any meaningful way.
Yale researchers claim to have found the very first neurons in what eventually becomes the human brain.
The human brain isn't made out of neurons. It is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
When your blood alcohol comes down you'll probably realise that you're not going to find much likeness regarding brain development between humans and C. Elegans. Because they don't have much of a brain... in fact they're lacking circulatory and respiratory systems as well.
WRONG. Maybe worms don't have a "brain" as we know it, but they are a very good model for nervous systems. Nearly 1/3 of the cells of C. elegans worms are neurons, and the entire lineage of every cell in the adult worm is well mapped. Worms are a good animal model system, and combined with research from flies (Drosophila) and mice, much is known about neural development. Since we are humans, clearly, we are often most interested specifically in what is know about our own development. So the Yale study, while not entirely novel, certainly is an important study in a long line of great research to help us understand the development and wiring of the brain.
I didn't claim that the brain cells of elegans was known- they haven't properly got one, as you point out. I was saying that the fate of ALL cells in the elegans zygote are known- that you can trace the development of a single cell from ferticlization to adult. If you want to know what the cell in the fourth quadrant upper right is (i don't know the mapping schema- I do trees) you can go look it up somewhere, and conversely, if you want to know which cell in the blastocyte produced the segment you're looking at under the microscope you can find that information as well. I had thought this proceudre had been done on humans as well, but I was apparently wrong, that or this article is old news. It is /. after all.
Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
...Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great... ...If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate....
:)
If the souls of aborted babies go to heaven, then shoudn't the christians ENCOURAGE abortion as much as possible? Especially in athiests? I mean, saving the child's soul is the most important thing, right? What kind of loving parent would allow the child's soul to come in danger of eternal torment, when salvation is just an abortion away?
"pro life" and "pro choice" people are talking past each other anyway. Pro lifers believe everything with the potential for becoming life (zygote onwards in some cases) should be protected, while pro choicers believe things that only things which would be viable life forms outside of the womb should be protected.
That is an interesting perspective. As science progresses, the set of all life which is "viable outside of the womb" is going to eventually be equal to the set of all "potential for becoming life". The abortion debate seems to be about a disagreement about an interval of time whose limit is zero. That's true, anyway, if we presume your definition of "pro-life" and "pro-choice".
I do certainly agree they are talking right passed each other. That's why we should just rename the groups "baby-killers" and "woman-haters", and that way we can just skip the second sentence of every innane abortion debate.
How do you accuse the pro-lifers of trying to push their religious beliefs on other people if they are using science to justify their position?
Right below the post about people "talking passed each other", and you come up with the perfect example of it. I'm not religious, and I'm not really pro-life (I am one of the 9 people in this country who is neither pro-life nor pro-choice... I consider myself a populist on this particular subject.) Religious people aren't "pushing their beliefs on you". That's a fear-mongering tactic used by one side. That's basically equal to asking if you like killing babies. The fundamental question is when does life begin. That's a question that every society must answer. Everyone agrees that killing a person is wrong. The question becomes.. when does society agree that this is, in fact, a person. Pretending pro-life is about a bunch of religious zealots trying to push their religion on you completely and utterly misses the point. It's bordering on an ad hominem fallacy, to be sure.
This is no more about religious belief as it is about believing in freedom. Everyone believes you should be free to do with your body what you want, and everyone believes that murder should be wrong. The disagreement is when does "your body" become "their body". If you think you have an answer to that question, that defines which side of the line you are on. Adding any of the rest of this tagentially related strawmen (you hate women! you murder babies! religious freak! promiscious whore!) to the picture just inflames the situation and destroys conversation.
As science progresses, the set of all life which is "viable outside of the womb" is going to eventually be equal to the set of all "potential for becoming life".
Not likely, since a lot of that early stuff isn't even viable inside the womb. This is a point that "pro-life" folk tend to ignore. The fact is, most fertilized ova don't even properly implant in the womb, and of those that do many don't make it much past the first month, for purely natural reasons -- including cases where there was never an embryo per se at all (eg empty placenta).
-- Alastair
All this is evidence of is how efficient the marketing departments of large institutions like Yale and Oxford are. This paper is novel for one reason: it is in human embryos. Sure, they found a population of neurons earlier than, and different from, those in any other species, but the role of these neurons or even if they survive for long, is unknown. It is worth noting that these embryos were harvested from a Russian abortion clinic. Makes me wonder whether they shipped the whole embryo, the slices of the brain, or just the data over to Oxford. -BilZ0r www.ilikethings.net
-BilZ0r www.ilikethings.net
I'm only speaking for myself and anyone who decides to agree with me after I've made this statement.
I'm pro-choice.
Life begins before conception.
It is continued through conception, and lasts onward through birth.
Before about the sixth month, a human baby will not be able to
develop a fully functional brain if removed from the uterus.
Up until that point, I feel that if a woman doesn't feel they can
raise a child properly, they should have the right to stop their
pregnancy in a method safe for themselves. It's better than the
alternatives for them. I think it's also important to allow doctors
who could use the same techniques to save lives if it is deemed a
birth would kill a woman.
I think that it's a hard decision to decide to stop a pregnancy,
and I think it should be, which is why I'm not trying to sway any
'pro-lifers' off their fence. They can have it. I think it's sick
what the extremist pro-lifers do, but you don't see pro-choicers
running around aborting every fetus they can find, no matter how
extreme they are, so pardon me while I hold the argument that you
need to get the people on the far side of the fence into some level
of control. Those people are seriously sick and need attention for
it.
I find the results of this cool. It's exciting research. Keep the
pro-X bullshit out of it. I will love it when one day I've got a kid
on the way and I can plot out what part of it is growing when. There's
a lot of value in that.
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
This worm is quite interesting, in that it has evolved to use OTHER animals nervous systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nematomorpha
The fundamental question is when does life begin. That's a question that every society must answer
IMHO, humans managed to answer that question a long time ago. Life began millenia ago, and, assuming that you believe Darwin knew what he was talking about, it is our obligation as a species to continue the propogation of life. When you take this kind of view, you arrive at the conclusion that not only is abortion "killing babies," but so is everything from effective use of condoms, birth control, and yes, even celibacy. Everyone in this damned country, on both sides of the fence, is so hung up on the matter of timing that they fail to realize that in the end, everyone is a hypocrite. Living in this society, personally, I've come to terms with that, and I rightfully enjoy my hypocrisy.
Sure, you're going to have people always shouting the completely fallacious argument, "What if your parents had decided to abort you?" I like to follow with, "Then we wouldn't be having this discussion."
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Something that can give insight, though, is how they feel about someone dying. Many pro-lifers consider a person dead if they're brain-dead, even if brain cells exist and the rest of the body is doing just fine (and that's going to the lowest common denominator, past sentience and other standards of whether or not they're "living"). Yet they'll consider a fetus alive with just one cell living, regardless if it's the equivalent of brain-dead or not.
So although I disagree with pro-lifers, I can at least understand the ones that will draw that equivalent line on both sides. Trouble is, most of the ones that make their voices the loudest do not - hence the stereotype of "a bunch of religious zealots" (and hyprocrites at that).
Not necessarily, you are looking at the extremes of both.
I am pro-life, but I think that the right to life comes with self-awareness. It is pretty clear that unborn children have developed fairly complex mental activity well within the range within which abortion is allowed in most countries.
On the other had I know pro-abortion people who are definitely not in favour of abortion up to birth.
Incidentally abortion is many countries is allowed for babys who would be viable outside the womb - the limit in the UK is 28 weeks, viability with modern medicine is several weeks before that. So viability in itself is probably not a criterion for anyone any more.
So certainly evidence of brain activity would make a huge difference form my point of view and many others.
You seem to think the organism is a human life only after reading Descartes. Personally, I think human life begins just after graduate school. Although post-docs are a bit iffy.
feeling especially biggoted today? Yes, there are people like that but I doubt they are any more pro-life than anything else. I have no illusions of the greatness of "pro-life"-ers but there are crappy people everywhere.
no doubt the term "pro-life" is a joke. "pro-choice" is a joke as well. just how many "pro-choice"-ers will be in favor of gay marriage for example? probably more than the other side but nowhere near 100%. pro-choice is in favor of choice for the things they'd like to choose. pro-choice means "pro-abortion rights", nothing more.
I'm always in favor of more rights and more choice. I'm in favor of life too. None of that helps me choose sides in the abortion matter.
both sides present themselves with appealing names to cover up their hatred of the other.
The fundamental question is when does life begin. That's a question that every society must answer. Everyone agrees that killing a person is wrong.
No, no, no.
Most human societies throughout most of history have had accepted practices for getting rid of unwanted children. These practices usually involved some form of infanticide. Almost everyone almost everywhere agrees that the practice of killing infants is sometimes justified. The Jews were notable exceptions in the ancient world, and were considered weird by the Romans because of it.
So let's not start the debate with trivial falsehoods.
Nor has there ever been any doubt about or question about when "life begins" in societies that practice infanticide. The modern Indian or Chinese peasents who allow female children to die are not in any doubt as to the fact that their children are alive! What they are in doubt about is how valuable those lives are. That has been the fundamental question in most human societies throughout most of history.
Nor is it the case that "everyone agrees that killing a person is wrong." The obvious counter-example, alluded to in other replies, are advocates of capital punishment.
Stripped on the lies and dishonesty that colour the picture on both sides of the fence, the question regarding abortion is this: Should a mother be allowed by society to choose to end her child's life in early pregnancy? I believe any humane invidual who is aware of the social realities will eventually realize that the answer to this question is clearly, yes. Killing an unwanted child is not a good thing. But giving birth to an unwanted child is a far, far greater evil. And taking the choice away from the adult whose life and body are most greatly affected by the decision, and who can reasonably be assumed to have the child's well-being more strongly in her mind than anyone else, is the greatest evil of all.
But so long as the debate is clouded by irrelevant non-questions like, "Is a zygote alive?" there will be no resolution. Of course a zygote is alive. Only an idiot would suggest otherwise. Every single cell in our bodies is alive, and with sufficient technological intervention it is quite likely that some day every single one of them will be a "potential human being." So long as the debate centres around this kind of nonsense rather than the real question of how or whether to practice infanticide in the modern world, it will just be a lot of pointless noise.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Careful, self-awareness doesn't start until over a year after birth. I think you mean something else.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
I'm pro-choice all the way, man.. And I don't draw the line of "viable life" upon the exit of the womb! I mean, could that be any more arbitrary? Of course not.
Personally, I'm all for legislation that legalizes retroactive abortions, up to about age 23 or so... And should such a law come to pass I already have a list of several deserving candidates!
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Measures that contain sperm, such as abstinence or condom use, extend the life of existing organisms because they ensure that new life does not compete for resources that could be used to sustain existing life. Define "propagation of life" precisely to help solve this dilemma. Is it the maximum number of organisms at any given moment? Is it the sum of the lifespans of all organisms? Is it just the number of diploid cells in existence at once?
I too recognize that I am a sinner, but I enjoy improving myself so that I become less of a hypocrite.
And it would be one fewer advocate for the choice of a woman carrying a child within her to end the child's life. You wouldn't be having this discussion, but I still would because thank God I had a good pair of grandparents to adopt me.
Since pederasts tend to be homosexuals
FYI this is false. Heterosexual men are vastly more likely to abuse children (including boys) than homosexual men.
Unfortunately, fetal experimentation will be against the law so when they test it on mice, mice _will_ be the most intelligent species on earth.