Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Grow Tiny Human Brain In Lab

schwit1 writes: A team of researchers from Ohio State University claim to have grown a human brain in their lab that approximates the brain of a five-week-old fetus. They say the tiny brain is not conscious, but it could be used to test drugs and study diseases, but scientific peers urge caution. "The brain, which is about the size of a pencil eraser, is engineered from adult human skin cells and is the most complete human brain model yet developed, [the researchers say]. ... Anand and his colleagues claim to have reproduced 99% of the brain’s diverse cell types and genes. They say their brain also contains a spinal cord, signalling circuitry and even a retina." The team's data has not yet been peer reviewed.

37 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Shocking by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 5, Funny

    When a reporter asked the tiny brain how it felt, it replied "Kiiiiiillll meeeee".

    1. Re: Shocking by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is a lot of lab work that makes me squeamish. Come to think of it, there's even more stuff that happens outside a lab that makes me squeamish, but still produces important benefits for my life and many others.

      I have kids myself, and I understand how having them can make you empathetic in new ways. This certainly isn't a bad thing.

      But suppose your baby were diagnosed with a neurodegenerative disease. Would you still reject research that relied on techniques like those described here? Would you reject a treatment or cure, with proven efficacy, because its development had relied on this sort of model? Would you subject your child to experimental therapies that had some chance of success, but some chance of horrible, painful failure, if you instead had the option of trying them first on a model like this grown from your own child's skin cells?

      Like I said, some lab work makes me squeamish. I respect the importance of Institutional Review Boards to keep abuses in check. But, on balance, I'm glad that researchers continue to push into new avenues like this, and I expect that the research will eventually prevent a great deal of human suffering.

    2. Re: Shocking by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where's the line between "a few cultured brain cells" and "a brain that has a consciousness"?

    3. Re: Shocking by Kkloe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      well here the abortion limit is set at 22 weeks, so the size of that would be a good limit

    4. Re: Shocking by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where's the line between 'brain that has a consciousness' and 'Skynet, Elon Musk's worst nightmare'?

      Google could easily afford to grow a brain the size of ten thousand human brains. Would there be network effects of some kind, or a transition akin to the way turbulent flow passes a threshold and goes into chaos from normal oscillation? At what point is a brain a super-brain and are humans near that threshold?

      Interesting times we live in. Someone, somewhere, WILL try it.

    5. Re: Shocking by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

      Google could easily afford to grow a brain the size of ten thousand human brains.

      Oh yeah, we already know how that will turn out.

    6. Re: Shocking by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If my baby was diagnosed with a neurodegenerative disease, and it was possible to cure this disease by murdering a hobo and offering his heart's blood to some voodoo-related entity, I might seriously consider doing it. That doesn't make it right, of course.

    7. Re: Shocking by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They should just perform this research on homeless people of all ages. They're not worth anything.

      Or maybe Jews, or gays, or any other group that doesn't meet your approval. Personally, I think this type of research should be done on people who post as AC on /.

    8. Re: Shocking by Lexical_Scope · · Score: 3, Funny

      You want to do *brain* research on ./ users? Have you really thought this through?

    9. Re: Shocking by mjm1231 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Define "Human brain activity". Please explain how it can be differentiated from "squirrel brain activity", "snake brain activity", etc. Otherwise, this is a completely meaningless phrase.

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    10. Re: Shocking by ChrisMaple · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey moron, who are you going to blame for spontaneous abortions? Whose lives are you going to impoverish because they can't afford to support a child, especially if the child is going to have extreme defects requiring continuous connection to expensive medical equipment?

      Most people claiming "all abortions are crimes" are basing their statements on their religious beliefs. Take your religion and shove it into that dark, moist place where your head already is.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    11. Re: Shocking by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      Telling a woman that murder is wrong is intrusion into her personal life?

      Identifying that human brain activity begins at 12 weeks is saying that it is a human life at that point, so killing it should be considered murder. A mother that smokes, drinks, does drugs while knowing she is pregnant is considered to be committing child abuse. I don't know where your obese argument is headed, but I don't see that as causing problems for the child. If you want to try and argue that child abuse is perfectly acceptable, so murder should be perfectly acceptable, perhaps you should rethink your argument?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    12. Re: Shocking by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      http://ash.org/custody-and-smo...

      It appears that with smoking around children at least, you are wrong.

      I never said I had no problem with it, I actually quite clearly indicated that smoking, drinking, drugs, whatever IS child abuse. You are the one trying to argue that it isn't, though it has been determined by the state to be so.

      I haven't made a big deal out of forcing anything. I stated that it is murder, and as murder, there are some reasons for it to be acceptable in society, and some conditions which make it less serious, but it isn't any less of killing.

      I absolutely didn't remain silent on the slow poisoning of children, I actually clearly stated the opposite:

      A mother that smokes, drinks, does drugs while knowing she is pregnant is considered to be committing child abuse.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    13. Re: Shocking by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      Wow. wombat. You're the one who is deflecting and doing it very well with your "life unworthy of life" arguments.

      By your logic, it should be OK to kill kids who are already born because a lot of parents abuse them through poisoning (second-hand smoke, feeding them too much junk food, etc), plus all kinds of other abuse like sexual abuse, emotional abuse, slavery, playing One Direction music for them, or teaching them BASIC.

      Just think how much suffering we could eliminate if we could just put these poor kids out of their misery. And why must it stop with kids? There's massive starvation, disease and misery in many parts of the world, but if we nuke those places to glass we will eliminate _so_ much suffering. Most of these folks are just doing to die in pain, and we wouldn't want to allow that.

      You warm up the bombers and I'll look up the nuclear football codes. Meet back here in 10.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    14. Re: Shocking by s0nicfreak · · Score: 2

      Many miscarriages can be said to have been preventable with conscious decision.

    15. Re: Shocking by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      And if a doctor knowing prescribed one and it was not necessary for the life of the mother or the mother was not fully informed of the danger he would be in legal trouble.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  2. Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How do they know it's 'not conscious'? (Note: I am an atheist.)

    1. Re:Consciousness by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

      The same way we know that anything else is conscious or unconscious. There's a standard technique. I believe the formal term for it is "begging the question".

      If we do accept a definition of consciousness that includes an eraser-sized homunculus brain, though, we're probably already morally and ethically bankrupt, based on how we treat animals with much more sophisticated cognitive capabilities. Unless, of course, you believe one aspect of "consciousness" is that it can only arise in things made of human cells.

    2. Re:Consciousness by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean apparently more sophisticated cognitive capabilities. They don't know what this tiny brain is capable of, because it's completely isolated from sensory input. And had no opportunity to develop mentally at all (since, again, it's had no exposure to the world at all). In fact, they argue that because there is no sensory stimulation, the brain can't be thinking. That... well, that's just a crock of shit, quite frankly.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:Consciousness by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Informative

      What has being an atheist to do with knowing if an artificial grown brain is conscious?

      We only know that at that stage of development the brain does not generate brain waves, so the scientists assume it has no consciousness yet.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Consciousness by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 2

      Probably to discourage replies that dismiss his question as asking about spirit or soul or something. Or to make it clear that it wasn't intended as flamebait.

  3. Re:How did this pass an ethics review? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By being perfectly ethical?

  4. Cue the Kneejerk by VorpalRodent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not sure how I feel about this research...and that's pretty much why I'm all for this. We don't understand enough to be able to say whether or not this should be happening, and this is the best way we know how to move forward. This is something that doesn't directly harm anyone, and we have no reason to believe that any sort of consciousness exists in it. This should be an obvious win-win that could potentially benefit everyone.

    Certainly, this is going to trigger all kinds of knee-jerk responses from a lot of folks. I get that, but those are also the kinds of responses that are regularly made in the absence of any solid understanding of what's going on. That's why we had limited stem cell research for so long. This isn't mad scientist war crimes type stuff. This is the best way to study the human brain without actually stealing one from an unwilling donor.

    I don't know how we reconcile the fact that some people have a religious objection to messing with the parts that we're made of and the fact that there's huge benefits to be gained, but we can't dicker around and make everyone happy. Sometimes we just need to get stuff done so that we can say "Just be happy with your cure for ALS."

    --
    Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
    1. Re:Cue the Kneejerk by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wonder if they can stimulate a knee-jerk response in this mini-brain.

    2. Re:Cue the Kneejerk by umafuckit · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure how I feel about this research...and that's pretty much why I'm all for this. We don't understand enough to be able to say whether or not this should be happening, and this is the best way we know how to move forward.

      Do you think it poses more ethical problems than performing animal experiments on, say, mice? I do not think it does because adult mice are more advanced than this brain. Since we allow mouse experiments, I don't see why we don't allow experiments on cultured brains.

    3. Re:Cue the Kneejerk by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Funny

      OK. Ya got me on that. But then how do you explain knee jerk reactions from spineless cowards?

    4. Re:Cue the Kneejerk by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have similar concerns with the prospect of a strong AI. Not Chinese Room stuff like Watson, but if somebody actually did figure out a way to create an artificial consciousness, do you really think the first thing to pop out of the lab is going to be Mr. Data, all well-adjusted-ish and sane? No, the development process would be a series of failures. Insane, half-formed but thinking entities, terrified, trapped in a box, judged "not good enough" and deleted to make room for version 2.

      It's horrific to think about.

      Thought experiment: Assume God exists. Look at your life and the world. How much do you love your Creator?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  5. Re:How did this pass an ethics review? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It passed an ethics review because it started from cultured skin cells. Short of implanting them into unwilling participants or using them to attempt human cloning, there is very little that you are prohibited from doing with cultured skin cells. No lives were taken in the process of this experiment.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  6. Just don't put these in front of keyboards by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Funny

    We have enough small-brained comments on slashdot already. Unfortunately some people likely wouldn't be able to tell the difference around here.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  7. I couldn't get the brain you wanted... by tekrat · · Score: 3, Funny

    I, uh, I dropped it.
    Who's brain did you get?
    Abby, Abby someone. Abby Normal I think.
    You mean to tell me that I put an Abnormal brain into a 74 inch tall, 54 inch wide.... GORILLLA!!?

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  8. Question on everyone's mind by bigdavex · · Score: 2

    When will enter the presidential race?

    --
    -Dave
    1. Re:Question on everyone's mind by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      It already did, and is currently the frontrunner for the Republican Party.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  9. No Kneejerk required by tomxor · · Score: 2

    we have no reason to believe that any sort of consciousness exists in it.

    Defining consciousness is an endless philosophical debate... but forget all that, it's a brain - something we know to exhibit the properties that everyone uses to define consciousness, how can you possibly say there is no reason to believe it is concious? what arbitrary metrics are you using to call it unconscious? because craniometry is pseudo-science.

    I'm not sure how i feel about this either, and maybe it's fine... maybe we can prove it to be effectively brain dead but useful enough to observe chemical processes in the brain... that doesn't mean we can conveniently sweep conciousness under the rug though.

    This is the best way to study the human brain without actually stealing one from an unwilling donor.

    I don't know how we reconcile the fact that some people have a religious objection to messing with the parts that we're made of and the fact that there's huge benefits to be gained.

    You don't have to be religious to have a problem with this. I don't care where the brain comes from, it can be a willing donor or grown in the lab, the issue people are going to have is empathy with a potentially concious organism... i'd even extend that to sufficiently advanced synthetic neural networks, and i think most non-religious people would agree that conciousness is not bound to us "special" naturally grown humans for all time, it applies to any kind of brain.

    The point is: it's a brain - not a kidney, that doesn't mean you can't do experiments, it just means you can't dismiss ethical considerations (do not confuse this with religious ones).

  10. Republicans are A-OK with this research by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

    For them life begins at conception. Since there is no conception here, well, everything must be A-OK.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  11. Depends... by DrYak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Human brain activity starts at ~12 weeks

    And yet, some higher functionality, like the frontal lobe, only get fully developed and fully functional only *AFTER* birth.
    (For some obvious space-saving reasons that got selected by evolution once we start to try walking upright).
    That's why some toys are inappropriate for kids under 36 months old. The part of the brain that prevents them for choking on anything coming nearby their mouth isn't there yet.

    The brain isn't a magical machine which a switch that suddenly get turned on at a set point in time.

    It's a horrendously complicated machine that only gets to working very progressively and slowly over time, some parts finishing getting wired and myelinated (=electrically insulated) only after on the other side of the birth cannal, when size restrictions matter less.

    At 12 weeks, even if a few neurons starts firing, you're far away from the complexity and awarerness of a full grown kids brain.
    For fuck's sake, the baby won't have enough brain activity for such simple tasks as preventing itself to choke, and you expect a bunch of neural cells which have barely started to fire to be anything more intelligent than a cockroach ?!

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Depends... by SalafranceUnderhill · · Score: 2

      It doesn't get turned off like a switch, with the slow decay that comes with Alzheimers. Parts of it are abruptly erased in traumatic brain injuries. Why in the name of the god of all bullshit avoidance should it get turned *on* like a switch, unless we're back in the shiny happy tinsel world of make-believe?

  12. We're saved from zombies! by protoporos · · Score: 2

    Thank God, we now have a new weapon to use against a zombie apocalypse! I sure hope they can scale it up for mass production, so that we can keep up with the demand from the hordes :)