Slashdot Mirror
The Ethical Issues Surrounding OSU's Lab-Grown Brains
TheAlexKnapp writes: Last month, researchers at Ohio State University announced they'd created a "a nearly complete human brain in a dish that equals the brain maturity of a 5-week-old fetus." In the press release, the University hailed this as an "ethical" way to test drugs for neurological disorders. Philosopher Janet Stemwedel, who notes that she works in "the field where we've been thinking about brains in vats for a very long time" highlights some of the ethical issues around this new technology. "We should acknowledge," she says. "that the ethical use of lab-grown human brains is nothing like a no-brainer."
There's no evidence, or even rational theory, that says the "brain" of a 5-week old fetus is any more "human" than a clump of grass. It's alive (well, it was to get that far) but it surely isn't a human being. That takes a great deal more development physically, and frankly, I think it takes a great deal of interaction with parents and the environment as well. Potential? In the normal course of gestation, yes. When you're growing a lump of cells in a dish -- no.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Not at five weeks, it doesn't. It's not magic. It's biology.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I am tired of Religious beliefs dictating Ethics. This is especially true for stem-cell research.
An embryo can grow into a human given the right conditions, namely being carried to term by the host.
A zygote can grow into a human given the right conditions, namely attaching to uterues and being carried to term by the host
An egg can do the same given the right conditions, namely getting fertilized and then attaching to uterues and being carried to term by the host.
None of them is a human being despite your Religious convictions.
Folks have no problem sucking out a baby from the womb, a for real small person that can develop into the next Slashdoter, cutting its face open and extracting the brain. But growing a brain in a vat gives them pause?
How fucking backwards is that?
Being a "biologically human (having human DNA)" is completely irrelevant. Skin cells have human DNA and are in the genetic sense "human". The more important sense of the word "human" is "personhood". Skin cells are not "people". Brain dead people are not even "people". Intelligent aliens (despite not having human DNA) are probably "people". Artificial intelligence (not having any DNA at all) when it happens will be "people".
Pro life people commonly use this equivocation. "Zygotes are human (genetic sense), and we protect human (personhood sense) life, so we should protect the life of zygotes."
Even the phrase "Life begins at conception" implies that "life" (i.e. the state of being alive) is what matters. Obviously a zygote is "alive". All cells that are not dead, are alive. But a cell is clearly not a person. Many cells such as zygotes, sperm, ova, etc have the potential to develop into a person, but most won't.
Careful. When you decide to start making decisions on who is and who isn't human then you go down the same path as Hitler. It's easy to just declare someone you don't like as nonhuman.
We absolutely should oppose abortion if the organs are viable enough to be harvested and sold. And please don't start warbling about womens' rights, there are more forms of contraception available to women than I have fingers, it's not the 19th century anymore. Although I do find it entertaining to watch pro-abortionists trying to justify economically motivated abortion on the one hand while crying about babies being aborted based on their gender in China and India on the other. Guess what bobbleheads, that's economically motivated abortion too!