Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chinese Doctor Performs Head Transplants On Mice

Posted by samzenpus on from the something-to-think-about dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Xiaoping Ren, a Chinese surgeon, has performed roughly 1,000 head transplants on mice since 2013 and says that monkeys are next. Some of the mice have lived as long as a day after the operations according to Ren and he hopes to have similar success with primates. With $1.6 million of funding so far, he says, "We want to do this clinically, but we have to make an animal model with long-term survival first. Currently, I am not confident to say that I can do a human transplant."

36 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Work with cloned mice by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The immune response would have to be serious.

    if you have two genetically identical mice then swapping their heads should be more viable.

    The interesting thing in so far as humans would be doing the same thing.

    Forget the ethics for a moment. Lets say you got a clone of yourself... doing a head swap would be less of a big deal than grabbing some random other person and doing a head swap with them.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Work with cloned mice by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The idea of "new bodies for old" is an old one in fiction and in science. This was explored in some dramatic detail in Lois McMaster Bujold's stories of "Miles Vorkosigan". Old people would have a clone made, the clone raised in foster care until mature enough to support a full grown brain, and then the brain transplanted. Raising the clone required raising them to at least puberty, to support the brain and mature nervous system of the transplant candidate, and they were certainly sentient beings being sacrificed.

    2. Re:Work with cloned mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also, calling it successful because some lived for a whole day is not what I would call successful. Oh, the operation was a success but the patient had the bad manners of dying... Obviously you don't have it all in hand or they would go on living.

    3. Re:Work with cloned mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The thing everyone always ignores is that no matter what, eventually your brain dies. Whether in you or after you've been uploaded to a computer or another brain or what have you. And when that happens *THAT* you is dead. *YOU* still experience the pain of death. YOU still cease to exist. There is something out there with your memories and thoughts, but they are not you any more than a photo album or journal is you.

    4. Re:Work with cloned mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The thing that everyone like you always ignores is that no matter what, cells are always dying. Constantly! Even brain cells! And then they get replaced by other cells! But that doesn't mean you cease to be you.

      Will it be easy to transfer a person to a new body, new brain, or an artificial brain? Heck no. But I can see no reason why, given advanced enough technology, "I" must die in order for "me" to live on.

    5. Re:Work with cloned mice by ranton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The thing everyone always ignores is that no matter what, eventually your brain dies. Whether in you or after you've been uploaded to a computer or another brain or what have you. And when that happens *THAT* you is dead. *YOU* still experience the pain of death. YOU still cease to exist. There is something out there with your memories and thoughts, but they are not you any more than a photo album or journal is you.

      This is very easily solved as a concept, although the implementation will obviously be insanely difficult. As another poster mentioned, your brain cells are constantly dying already. You still feel like you probably because it happens so gradually. So the answer to replacing your brain is the same; do it gradually. Conceptually you would be hooking your brain to a helmet filled with electronics that slowly replace your brain functions. At the end of the process your brain is completely electronic and you are still you. This is the theory anyway.

      If you consider this scenario to be the same as you experiencing death, then you have already died perhaps hundreds of times in your lifetime so far.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    6. Re:Work with cloned mice by sexconker · · Score: 2

      The thing everyone always ignores is that no matter what, eventually your brain dies. Whether in you or after you've been uploaded to a computer or another brain or what have you. And when that happens *THAT* you is dead. *YOU* still experience the pain of death. YOU still cease to exist. There is something out there with your memories and thoughts, but they are not you any more than a photo album or journal is you.

      This is very easily solved as a concept, although the implementation will obviously be insanely difficult. As another poster mentioned, your brain cells are constantly dying already. You still feel like you probably because it happens so gradually. So the answer to replacing your brain is the same; do it gradually. Conceptually you would be hooking your brain to a helmet filled with electronics that slowly replace your brain functions. At the end of the process your brain is completely electronic and you are still you. This is the theory anyway.

      If you consider this scenario to be the same as you experiencing death, then you have already died perhaps hundreds of times in your lifetime so far.

      Which part of the brain holds your conscious self?
      There is no scientific explanation for the phenomenon of consciousness - no theory about how it arises, not even a definition of what qualifies.
      You cannot transfer consciousness without know what it is and how it works.

    7. Re:Work with cloned mice by ranton · · Score: 2

      Which part of the brain holds your conscious self?
      There is no scientific explanation for the phenomenon of consciousness - no theory about how it arises, not even a definition of what qualifies.
      You cannot transfer consciousness without know what it is and how it works.

      Obviously science has not progressed far enough to know how to model the human brain in a computer, or else we would probably be doing it already. So I guess I concede that we can't transfer the human brain yet, but I never said we could. But it is silly to believe we won't figure this out eventually. I would be surprised if it takes us 50 years.

      I was only responding to the idea that if you transfer your brain to another medium, the old you dies. This is potentially true, but very unlikely. People can lose large portions of their brain without dying, and if those portions were replaced with synthetic computing devices I don't think anyone would think the old them has died.

      Worse case scenario would probably be like what happens to someone suffering from multiple sclerosis (MS), where their personality changes to the point where they seem like a new person. In this case they would likely become more capable instead of less (like an MS patient), but their personality is still likely to change considerably.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    8. Re: Work with cloned mice by orangesquid · · Score: 2

      I'd suggest reading some David Lewis and Saul Kripke. This topic of who is the real "you" has been elaborated upon in fantastic detail :)

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    9. Re:Work with cloned mice by rmdingler · · Score: 2
      Neurons in the cerebral cortex are never replaced, or added to, from the time we are born.

      Many (perhaps more than half) cardiomyocyte heart cells in a septuagenarian are the ones she was born with.

      A part of you has always been in the current state of things. 75 to 120 years mostly well-lived is more than enough for me.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    10. Re:Work with cloned mice by ag0ny · · Score: 2

      Which part of the brain holds your conscious self?
      There is no scientific explanation for the phenomenon of consciousness - no theory about how it arises, not even a definition of what qualifies.

      Consciousness is an emergent property of having a bunch of neurons together. Get enough neurons interacting and processing sensory data, and you get consciousness.

      You cannot transfer consciousness without know what it is and how it works.

      Bullshit. You only need to know how individual neurons work in order to produce artificial ones, and a process to replace existing ones with artificial ones. You certainly don't need to understand how the mind works in order to gradually transfer consciousness from a biological brain to an artificial one.

      --
      My site
    11. Re:Work with cloned mice by ag0ny · · Score: 2

      Obviously science has not progressed far enough to know how to model the human brain in a computer, or else we would probably be doing it already. So I guess I concede that we can't transfer the human brain yet, but I never said we could. But it is silly to believe we won't figure this out eventually. I would be surprised if it takes us 50 years.

      I was only responding to the idea that if you transfer your brain to another medium, the old you dies. This is potentially true, but very unlikely. People can lose large portions of their brain without dying, and if those portions were replaced with synthetic computing devices I don't think anyone would think the old them has died.

      That "replaced bit-by-bit" shit doesn't even fly at car auctions. There's no chance in hell close-minded idiots like me would accept a fully-replaced human as the original.

      FTFY

      --
      My site
  2. Anyone else get the feeling by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that we're moving into "Island of Dr. Moreau" territory?

    1. Re:Anyone else get the feeling by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doubtful IMO. While there have been quite a few sci-fi stories and movies about clones being used for organ harvesting, I really think we're going to figure out before long how to grow replacement organs without a clone. There's already a lot of work being done on this, and I think they already are doing significant work like this with artificial skin. This is what all this stem-cell research is all about, after all: being able to grow things quickly and easily, whether it's a replacement eyeball or liver or heart, or some artificial meat so you don't need to kill animals to enjoy a burger.

      And think about it: why would you want to wait 20 years for a clone to grow to maturity so you can harvest its organs for yourself so you can live longer, when you could just grow yourself a new heart (without a host body at all) using stem cells, in just a few weeks or so?

      Not too long after that, we're going to figure out many more rejuvenation therapies, and aging will simply be another disease to be fought against and eventually eradicated. You won't need to do a head transplant, because you can just have some pharmaceuticals (possibly including some nanites) injected into you periodically and maintain your age at 25 indefinitely.

    2. Re:Anyone else get the feeling by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And think about it: why would you want to wait 20 years for a clone to grow to maturity so you can harvest its organs for yourself so you can live longer, when you could just grow yourself a new heart (without a host body at all) using stem cells, in just a few weeks or so?

      Let's just take it a step further: stem cells seem to just know what to do if you can deliver them to the site. What if you had a treatment that would kill off old cells, and direct stem cells to the proper locations efficiently? Why bother growing a new body when you can just repair the one you've got?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re: Anyone else get the feeling by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Nature is pretty good at repairing bodies, but different species put more or less energy into repair. Mice last months. Many birds last a few years. Some parrots can live over a hundred years. Some tortoises and whales can live to over 200. Several species do not exhibit increasing mortality with age, meaning that they are effectively immortal but for disease and accident.

    4. Re:Anyone else get the feeling by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Thing is, everything deteriorates. Bones, organs, skin.

      The problem is, they don't have to. There's lots of organisms where they're completely able to rejuvenate themselves on a regular basis. A good example of this is lizards which regrow their tails: their tails are easily pulled off, as a defense mechanism, to let them escape predators. The tails grow back relatively quickly, with no scarring, cartilage, skin, and all. Young children heal skin wounds pretty quickly and easily in humans. Some (simpler) animals go beyond this: you can cut them in half, and the two halves grow into separate organisms. Nature has already evolved mechanisms of repairing injuries, sometimes to an extreme degree. There is a theory, I believe, that we more-complex organisms don't usually do this as well because there's a direct relationship between healing ability and susceptibility to cancer. Smaller animals with short lifespans can afford better healing power because they're not going to live long enough for cancer to be a big problem, but animals with 100-year lifespans have to have much more robust cancer-protection mechanisms.

      So if we rework our systems to have better healing, we can deal with the side-effects in other ways, since we have medicine and hospitals these days.

    5. Re: Anyone else get the feeling by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Several species do not exhibit increasing mortality with age, meaning that they are effectively immortal but for disease and accident.

      Which ones are these?

      I think we're going to get to that stage before long, thanks to the availability of medical technology.

    6. Re: Anyone else get the feeling by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Several species do not exhibit increasing mortality with age

      Which ones are these?

      Sharks do not age in the same sense that people do. But they also don't stop growing, so it becomes increasingly difficult for them to find enough food to sustain their body. Wild great white sharks can live for more than 70 years.

      Koi (ornamental carp) have been known to live more than 225 years.

      An aspen tree in Utah is believed to be more than 80,000 years old, and weighs more than 6000 tonnes. Although it has hundreds of trunks, they are all connected to the same root system, and constitute a single organism.

  3. Vladimir Demikhov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So he's transplanted a bunch of heads. Do they have control of the body, or is this functionally the same as what Vladimir Demikhov did ages ago?

    (also, this)

  4. A day? by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some of the mice have lived as long as a day after the operations according to Ren and he hopes to have similar success with primates.

    Maybe he should try to have his patients survive more than one day, before moving up to primates.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:A day? by azcoyote · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe if he just keeps stapling the monkey head onto a new body once a day, the head will be able to live a long and horrifying life.

      --
      Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
    2. Re:A day? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry, by the time the study actually gets approved, they will have given monkeys human rights and they'll have to use tax evaders or Christians.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Finally! by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Funny

    We'll be able to give our decrepit MPs and congressmen new, healthy brains!

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  6. One day? by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about switching to another species after you get the lifetime close to half of normal. These aren't fruit flies.

  7. Why even bother? by Nyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't understand how head transplants are even helpful in the real world. I can understand limb transplants, livers, kidneys, but heads? How often does someone lose their head and there is another head ready to take it's place? Seems to me like this is one thing that will almost never have use for anything practical if it's even possible.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  8. This guy has unrealistic expectations by meerling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Some of the mice have lived as long as a day after the operations according to Ren and he hopes to have similar success with primates."
    Really? He'd better get survival rates down to something close to normal lifespans before he moves up to primates or he's an idiot.
    I wonder if he's even bothered to look at the old Soviet attempts at this. With that short "survival" duration, I highly doubt it.

  9. I call shenanigans by pesho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is this physically possible? 1000 transplants in under three years! This is more than one serious microsurgery per day. An article in WSJ says he leaves the brain stem of the acceptor along with the so that it can control breading and hearth beat. This would mean that he is just connecting the blood vessels of the donor head to the circulatory system on the acceptor, without connecting the nerves. This seems more feasible to me, but hardly warrants the bombastic headlines. Does anybody have a link to an original research paper?

    1. Re:I call shenanigans by KGIII · · Score: 2

      I can dump something into a healthy 18 year old body but it is not my brain. Hyuk Hyuk...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  10. That's because it's fiction. by denzacar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and they were certainly sentient beings being sacrificed.

    They were "sentient" cause the story demanded it.
    There is no reason why a jar-grown clone would need to be anything other than completely brain dead.
    Hell... If they can be grown to a full healthy adult in an artificial womb - make the clones anencephalic.

    And then there's that whole bit where people don't give a flying fuck about what happens to their clone's ass when their own ass is on the line.
    I for one wouldn't care. Hell... I'd club my own clone-self to death with a garden dwarf if necessary.
    Though it would probably just be much simpler to just check the "yes - I would like to have a clone(s) for all my future transplant needs" box.

    And besides that... It is not sentient if it is never allowed to be sentient.
    Keep it in a box - both physical and mental.
    All that needs to be done is just get in there while it is still just an abortion in a jar, and never allow it to form sentience.
    There. "Morality" problem solved.

    And for anyone out there who's getting their panties all bunched up while getting their favorite appeal to emotion argument ready - THINK OF THE CHILDREN YOU HEARTLESS CUNTS!
    You know how hard it is to get child-sized organs for transplantation?
    You wanna go and tell those dying children they have to die cause your "morality" won't allow them to have clones?
    Boy are you people fucking heartless.

    But in all seriousness now - that's what all "morality" arguments about cloning boil down to.
    Appeal to this or that emotion.
    Whether it is fear or guilt-shaming or simply "my god is against that".

    A clone raised in a jar is no different from a stillborn baby, resuscitated into a coma and kept alive by machines.
    Except there are no parents to fool themselves that their little Braindead Billy will get better and grow up to be a politician or a model.

    Oh... And to any of those Fuckers for Ethical Treatment of Clones out there...
    My clones come with a contract on their ass.
    Clone leaves the storage without my consent - its head explodes.
    It leaves the storage WITH my consent but without my immediate medical need - there's money in an account out there for anyone who blows its head off.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:That's because it's fiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can do all that now without the clones. Make some kids and keep them locked away until you need their parts. Kill any that wouldn't be a good match and make some more. I'm not sure if you can keep them brain dead because the human body needs to move around, get exercise, and bumps help keep your bones strong. You wouldn't want a heart that is only strong enough to keep you alive when you're asleep.

      Luckily that's illegal in most of the world. But free free to move to where it isn't and start your own organ harvesting business. Good luck not getting murdered or kidnapped in your sleep for your organs. Societies where humans are consumables tend to fail in brutal ways. There's more to morality than only emotion. If it was only emotion than rage murders, rape, and public sex would be commonly acceptable because it feels good (at least for one of the party).

    2. Re:That's because it's fiction. by denzacar · · Score: 2

      Which part of "I'd club my own clone-self to death with a garden dwarf" did you miss?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  11. No way by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    We all know Ron Popeil is the inventor of the technology that lets heads survive separate from their bodies...

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  12. Wait a minute... by no-body · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Despite the mind-blowing possibilities", "ground breaking" - ????

    1000 Mice killed with a 0 success rate and primates next.
    1.6 Million funding so far - more to come, as it seems.
    What is the actual benefit, how many humans would be able to take advantage of such a procedure at what success rate and which result?

    Just for reference, the much hailed CPR has a success rate of - depending where one looks - 6 or 10 % and of those, half have maybe a halfway liveable life, the other half will be tied to an artificial reparator working against their native breath rythm for the rest of their remaining life, not considering remaining mental capacities.

    If it really happens that someone gets injured to bad that a new head would be adequate - or, the other way around, the body is wasted and a replacement could be helpful (?)... is this worth it?

    All sounds pretty much sick to me. Some ego trip of doing something somebody has never done and wasting living creatures en mass for this.
    Maybe a mandatory mental health check should be done on a couple of individuals running those projects before start. Seems basic respect for life in general is missing here.

  13. Hmmmm ... I got chucked in the loony bin for this! by MarkTina · · Score: 5, Funny

    You dismantle the neighbourhood cats and dogs to make yourself a Labrapussy and they chuck you in the nut house .. but if I was a "Doctor" I'd be praised for my work!

    Unfair!!!

  14. Up to 1 day survical on mice is meaningless by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Translates roughly to "we have no clue how to do this right".

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.