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."

Comments

I'll take 3

[cstacy]

A quantum-computing bio-neural gel pack would be great.
Photonic co-processor would be nice.
(Life-support and control housing would be 3D printed, naturally.)

http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.c...

Re:Go Bucks!

[fyngyrz]

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.

You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

You are supposed to create headless bodies to perform experiments on and harvest organs from. The living brain is the *only* part we can't ethically do this kind of shit to, because it's the part that makes each of us a person.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[fyngyrz]

Not at five weeks, it doesn't. It's not magic. It's biology.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[PvtVoid]

You are supposed to create headless bodies to perform experiments on and harvest organs from.

Extra points if they're in topless bars.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

I never said that a 5 week baby brain is a person. Regardless of whether a 5 week old baby brain is a person, growing a brain in a vat to do experiments on is stupid. It's either a morally abhorrent thing to do in the case of personhood, or completely pointless in the case of non-personhood (i.e. just use a regular 5 week old non-person fetus).

There are no ethical dilemmas solved by this.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[drinkypoo]

The living brain is the *only* part we can't ethically do this kind of shit to, because it's the part that makes each of us a person.

Could a brain without any sensory input ever develop intelligence? And if a brain had no motor outputs, how could we ever tell?

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

Could a brain without any sensory input ever develop intelligence?

That's like asking "Could an airplane without wings ever fly". It depends on your specific definition of "flying" and "wings". I suspect that even a brain in a vat has *some* input, whether or not you want to label that input "sensory" is another matter. Furthermore, I don't think sensory input is necessary for intelligence in general, even if it may incidentally be necessary for human intelligence as we know it.

And if a brain had no motor outputs, how could we ever tell?

Motor functionality (i.e. movement) is not necessary for intelligence. If we hooked up a serial cable to the brain in a vat, and it was able to learn english via 2-way communication through this serial cable and have conversations, it would definitely be intelligent while having no motor functionality.

I don't think this is likely any time soon, especially with a 5 week old human brain. But I could see a grown human brain being kept alive in a vat, able to communicate with morse code or something similar as a first step. My point being that movement can be indicative of intelligence but it is not the only possible indication. You do need some way to measure the results of any experiment, and presumably these scientists are indeed measuring something from this brain they have, even if it isn't currently measuring intelligence.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[Ol Olsoc]

So, at what magical point does it become a problem?

Life begins at erection.

Re: You're doing it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, nobody remembers being 4 as well. I'm even pro choice but your points don't really hold up. Think of how many people of all ages are not viable without modern medical tech. The point in time when we think a nerual mass is large enough to make it unethical to terminate will never be fully agreed upon.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[MrNaz]

I took a cold shower this morning.

I better turn myself in.

Re: You're doing it wrong.

[Jack9]

> Umm, nobody remembers being 4 as well

I remember being 2. I have 2 distinct memories. Being wheeled into an operating room while my mom calls out that we will get Taco Bell after I get out and when my father was assembling a spring rocking horse. My memory is terrible today, yet I retained those all these years. Who the fuck doesn't have memories from being 4?

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[Ol Olsoc]

I took a cold shower this morning.

I better turn myself in.

Although we could always build a life enabling facility to make certain that all sperm can bring all eggs to birth.

Of course after they are born, to hell with 'em.

Is a miscarriage manslaughter?

Re: You're doing it wrong.

[Esteanil]

No.

Neurons do not fire without stimuli, so a brain without sensory input per definition isn't thinking.

Re: You're doing it wrong.

[Gaygirlie]

I do have to agree with you, there; I have plenty of memories from 1-2 years of age. For me they aren't as clear as memories from the latter years, they lack detail and are very short ones, but still. I haven't talked to too many people about so early memories, but such things have come up every now and then in conversations and I'm under the impression that most people do have memories from about 2 years of age onwards.

Re: You're doing it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're actually an oddity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_amnesia our brains are not typically developed enough for long term memories at that age.

Re: You're doing it wrong.

[h33t l4x0r]

Those are memories of memories. They're still with you because you keep recalling them (and they probably change a bit each time). Now if you were to have a new memory of something that happened when you were 2 that you hadn't recalled in ($age - 2) years, then that would be remarkable.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[drinkypoo]

That's like asking "Could an airplane without wings ever fly". It depends on your specific definition of "flying" and "wings".

Well, "airplane" also depends on specific definitions of "flying" and "wings", doesn't it? Also, as far as I am aware, all the alternative aircraft also have "flying" and "wings" of some sort. There's things like wings inside of jet turbines, so even if you just vectored the thrust off a jet and pointed its ass at the ground, you'd have things like wings.

Re: You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

Sensory input is not the only stimuli. The neurons are connected to eachother, and can stimulate eachother. This is analogous to a computer that can run a program when started without the need for any keyboard/mouse/network/etc input. Transistors do not work without input either, but the transistors in the system do have input, they have eachother.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[fahrbot-bot]

I never said that a 5 week baby brain is a person.

Um, fetus != baby. A 5 week old fetus/brain is quite different from a 5 week old baby/brain. The article is about the former not latter.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

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.

Re: You're doing it wrong.

[ChrisMaple]

Dramatic events have a better chance of being remembered. A mechanism not suggested in your citation is the repeated remembering of an event causing that memory to be transferred from one form of storage to another.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[ChrisMaple]

OK, I'll provide you with a problem this technology solves. Getting cells from non-defective fetuses pisses off many people. It is wrong to piss off people when there is an easy way to avoid doing so. This is an easy way to avoid pissing off some of those people.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[ChrisMaple]

Consciousness requires something to be conscious of.

Re: You're doing it wrong.

[ChrisMaple]

A small amount of neural firing is "random", akin to electronic noise in a radio with a shorted input. This is certainly neural firing without external stimulus; whether it can be called "without stimulus" is unclear, but I'd argue it is firing without stimulus.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

Yes, most things that "fly" have something *like* "wings".

What I am saying is that there is probably something *like* sensory input happening in a vat brain even if it doesn't have eyes, ears, nose, etc.

Neurons just need other neurons to make a functioning brain. They can get sensory input from optic nerves in the form of electrical signals, but they can also get electrical signals from artificial sources. The human brain is very plastic. It will adapt to whatever input it can find.

I don't expect a human brain that is intentionally denied external stimuli will flourish, but it can function pretty well on a lot less than perfectly functioning sensory organs (e.g. blindness, deafness, etc).

And as I said, I think it is possible for intelligence (a purely introspective one) to emerge even in the absence of external stimuli, although this is different from the route to intelligence we are most familiar with from our own experience.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

The article is about the former not latter.

And yet the point I am making (that the age of the brain doesn't matter) still holds.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

Wasting time, money, and human effort merely to appease irrational people, pisses me off. I would rather we spend our resources on things that actually matter.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

This may very well solve a technical problem. I'm not disputing that.

Re: You're doing it wrong.

[TimMD909]

I have memories from 2-3: being potty trained, seeing my grandfather for the last time, and determining 3 was my favorite number. Obviously when I turned 4 I realized the error of my ways and ++FAV_NUM;

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[sjames]

We do know that significant sensory input is a requirement to be conscious. Even the really incomplete deprivation in a sensory deprivation tank results in a dream like state in short order.

Having no neural connection to sensory organs would be a much more complete deprivation.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

We do know that significant sensory input is a requirement to be conscious.

How do you know that?

Even the really incomplete deprivation in a sensory deprivation tank results in a dream like state in short order.

You seem to be conflating "consciousness" (i.e. sentience) vs. "consciousness" (i.e. wakefulness).

Having no neural connection to sensory organs would be a much more complete deprivation.

I am not saying that a brain can be awake without sensory input (although I don't accept this as an absolute truth either). I am saying that sensory input is not strictly necessary for sentience.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[fahrbot-bot]

The article is about the former not latter.

And yet the point I am making (that the age of the brain doesn't matter) still holds.

It really doesn't hold.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[rtb61]

It is a collection of human brain cells and not a brain. The inputs provide the growth and development of brain cells, so that collection of brain cells with no inputs will be hugely if not totally non-functional beyond the simplest biological processes. Likely that would make the experiment largely pointless beyond those simple biological process. This would mean it would make more sense to work with those specific developed portions of specific areas of the brain provided by voluntary human donors, not those entire sections of course just collections of cells.

Basically a whole bunch of areas of that brain would atrophy to nothing or more accurately never develop at all do to lack of stimulation. Call it a brain if they want to (obviously gives them something to sell) but it would just be a biological mass of unstimulated brain cells developing in very unpredictable fashion and mostly useless to test higher order functionality.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

I am not even going to bother trying to explain anything to you until you can demonstrate you even know what I am arguing.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

It is a collection of human brain cells and not a brain.

What do you think a brain is? IT may not be a brain, but the fact that it is a collection of human brain cells is certainly not what disqualifies it.

The inputs provide the growth and development of brain cells, so that collection of brain cells with no inputs will be hugely if not totally non-functional beyond the simplest biological processes.

Where is your proof that *only* inputs (as you describe them), can "provide growth".

Basically a whole bunch of areas of that brain would atrophy to nothing or more accurately never develop at all do to lack of stimulation.

Neurons are connected to other neurons. They can stimulate eachother.

I have no idea how close what they have is to a real brain. It has basically nothing to do with my comment.

Re: You're doing it wrong.

[EzInKy]

I certainly have memories from age 4, which include tonsillectomy, mother holding my newborn brother, foot cut on glass, and just a week after I turned five both parents crying while watching JFK's funeral among quite a few others. Memories of memories perhaps, but memories nonetheless.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[EnsilZah]

Funny, I was under the impression it's the collection of thoughts, memories and emotions that makes us a person.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[sjames]

I am suggesting that until something perturbs the neural net from it's default state, there is no sentience there. It needs to have been awake to some degree for at least an instant at some time to be anything more than a blob of neural net.

I suspect coordinated and consistent input would be required to get from sentience to intelligence. In order to reason, there must be something to reason about.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

Is a car not a collection of car parts?

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

Consciousness (wakefulness) is a spectrum not a binary quality.

I am suggesting that until something perturbs the neural net from it's default state

I don't know why a neural net would need outside stimulus in order to progress beyond the initial state. This makes a lot of assumptions about the way that every neuron works. Computers don't need outside stimulus to operate, their "nerons" transistors can be triggered by the other transistors.

I suspect coordinated and consistent input would be required to get from sentience to intelligence.

This would certainly be useful in a consciousness learning about it's external environment, but I don't think comprehension of one's external environment is necessary for sentience. Just because we aren't familiar with having no sensory input, doesn't make it necessary.

In order to reason, there must be something to reason about.

This assumes the only thing to reason about is the external environment.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

A brain is a bunch of neurons connected to eachother. How does a brain that *is* connected to no nerves and sensory organs have any means of achieving consciousness? Until we can answer this question, we can't say that things like sensory organs are necessary for consciousness.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

Are you assuming that the only thing one can be conscious of is sensory input?

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

so people that are not "perfect" or have some minor disability, do not get to live.

No, because they aren't people yet. They are potential people just like the billions of sperm I will produce in my life. There are already countless "perfect" potential humans that don't get to become people either. This is just the way biology works.

My define personhood at conception? Why not define sperms and ova to be people as well? They also have the potential to become people.

You could even do genocide by embryo selection.

It's not genocide (because it's not murder). It's a broader category eugenics (one type of which is genocide). But you are also practicing eugenics by choosing to only start a family with an attractive partner. Think of all the other babies that could have been born with uglier partners, whose existence you are denying.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

I don't see how I went far out of my way to avoid anything. I already said that potential people (sperm, ova, zygotes) shouldn't count as people. So why would I have a different answer for skin cell that *could* be used to clone somebody. People are people whose lives must be protected. Potential people need not be protected. So you can kill a skin cell but not a mature human clone made from a skin cell.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[sjames]

This would certainly be useful in a consciousness learning about it's external environment, but I don't think comprehension of one's external environment is necessary for sentience.

Please read what I wrote carefully. I said:

I suspect coordinated and consistent input would be required to get from sentience to intelligence.

In other words, development of sentience doesn't necessarily require coordinated input but intelligence does.

Also, note that I said DEFAULT state, not INITIAL state.

As to the computer analogy, pull the boot rom and turn it on, the clock ticks, but nothing useful happens. Power on an untrained artificial neural net, at most you get a meaningless oscillation (but if there is no form of output, you won't see it).

Consider, how can there be self if there isn't not-self? While Buddhism suggests there is a self-less state of being, it also indicates that there is no suffering in that state.

A little googling shows that in fact, before week 25, the fetal neural net does not oscillate. Going back to the computer analogy, imagine an old mini where the power is on but the CPU clock hasn't been started. The potential is there but it isn't actualized. Of course, a neural net is asynchronous (or at least can be), but some stimulus is still needed to get it going. Note too that the normal fetal brain is not completely sensory deprived once the peripheral nervous system begins to develop.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

In other words, development of sentience doesn't necessarily require coordinated input but intelligence does.

Everyone seems to have their own definition of intelligence. The one I default to, assumes sentience. You can't be sentient and not intelligent.

Also, note that I said DEFAULT state, not INITIAL state.

I don't know what the "default state" of a complex system even is. I know what an initial state is. It seems you can define any state you want to be the default.

As to the computer analogy, pull the boot rom and turn it on, the clock ticks, but nothing useful happens. Power on an untrained artificial neural net, at most you get a meaningless oscillation (but if there is no form of output, you won't see it).

Consider, how can there be self if there isn't not-self? While Buddhism suggests there is a self-less state of being, it also indicates that there is no suffering in that state.

I don't accept Buddhism as evidence of anything scientific. And I don;t find anything particularly compelling in a philosophical sense with Buddhism either.

A little googling shows [brainblogger.com] that in fact, before week 25, the fetal neural net does not oscillate. Going back to the computer analogy, imagine an old mini where the power is on but the CPU clock hasn't been started. The potential is there but it isn't actualized. Of course, a neural net is asynchronous (or at least can be), but some stimulus is still needed to get it going. Note too that the normal fetal brain is not completely sensory deprived once the peripheral nervous system begins to develop.

I think you are taking an example of the way one thing works as evidence that all things must work the same way.

That's how *some* (i.e. modern desktops) work. It's not how all computers work. Older computers would boot, run a program and halt (or maybe run forever). This is where the name of Turing's halting problem comes from. Nowadays computers are designed not to halt, and are perpetually reacting to internal and external events. But this is not the only way things can work.

Power on an untrained artificial neural net, at most you get a meaningless oscillation (but if there is no form of output, you won't see it).

I think you are assuming that all possible neural networks work a particular way.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[sjames]

Intelligence is a slippery term to be sure. However, I would say that certainly sentience does not imply intelligence. Depending on your favorite definition, intelligence doesn't require sentience. For example, artificial image classification nets don't likely have any sense of self or subjective experience. Nor do expert systems.

The default state of a neural net is untrained, without memories. Fresh from the vat in the case of an organic one.

None of your confusion between the computer analogy you introduced and organic neural nets alters the fact that the fetal neural net does not oscillate before week 25. It shows only random spikes that damp to nothing in short order.

I am presuming that a neural net with no activity isn't doing anything. That's not a terribly radical idea.

I am well aware of the history of computing and the halting problem, but I'm not sure how the halting problem or batch vs interactive computing has any bearing on the question at hand. Regardless of the philosophy, the techniques provide experience that may have bearing on the question at hand.

I invoke Buddhist thought primarily because meditation is the only way we are likely to experience a self-less state without very dangerous physical experimentation on the brain.

It feels a bit as if we are talking at cross purposes. I am here hoping to spur new ideas on the subject in myself and perhaps you. I may be miss-perceiving, but you seem to be here expecting to win an argument?

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

Intelligence is a slippery term to be sure. However, I would say that certainly sentience does not imply intelligence. Depending on your favorite definition, intelligence doesn't require sentience. For example, artificial image classification nets don't likely have any sense of self or subjective experience. Nor do expert systems

I agree that intelligence doesn't imply sentience. I am saying sentience implies intelligence.

The default state of a neural net is untrained, without memories. Fresh from the vat in the case of an organic one.

And as soon as one neuron fires, it is no longer in the same state.

None of your confusion between the computer analogy you introduced and organic neural nets alters the fact that the fetal neural net does not oscillate before week 25. It shows only random spikes that damp to nothing in short order.

I don't see how this is relevant.

I am well aware of the history of computing and the halting problem, but I'm not sure how the halting problem or batch vs interactive computing has any bearing on the question at hand.

It is an example of how something can "think" in the absence of external input.

Regardless of the philosophy, the techniques provide experience that may have bearing on the question at hand.

They certainly show us that some things are possible. They do not show us what is impossible.

I invoke Buddhist thought primarily because meditation is the only way we are likely to experience a self-less state without very dangerous physical experimentation on the brain.

It feels a bit as if we are talking at cross purposes. I am here hoping to spur new ideas on the subject in myself and perhaps you. I may be miss-perceiving, but you seem to be here expecting to win an argument?

I am disputing the specific claim that external sensory input is necessary for consciousness. I don't think there is any conclusive evidence to suggest this. Simply pointing out that "we have external sensory input and we also have consciousness", is not sufficient to prove that it is necessary (i.e. something without external sensory input could never be conscious).

I don't typically like to claim that things are the *only* anything unless I am fairly sure.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[sjames]

And as soon as one neuron fires, it is no longer in the same state.

No. If the net has learned nothing, it's behavior will remain indistinguishable from the default state. Random static electricity can cause a neon tube to fire as well, but that doesn't mean it's conscious, even if another tube fires due to the stimulus.

Certainly, no matter how many neurons randomly fire, it is not going to learn self vs. not-self. The concept won't be there because without external stimulus there is no information about not-self. No self, no sentience. Sentience is generally believed to be required for suffering to exist. Where there is no possibility of suffering, there is no ethical or moral duty to not cause that suffering.

If you prefer to argue for consciousness, please see this. I see no definition there that can be satisfied without at least a history of external stimulus of some sort.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

No. If the net has learned nothing, it's behavior will remain indistinguishable from the default state.

It's behavior could be indistinguishable even if it has learned something. Or it's behavior could be distinguishable even if it hasn't learned anything. It all depends on what you consider to be learning, what you consider a distinguishable difference, and how good you are at distinguishing that difference.

Random static electricity can cause a neon tube to fire as well, but that doesn't mean it's conscious, even if another tube fires due to the stimulus.

I never said that neurons firing implies consciousness. I said that I haven't seen any evidence that external sensory stimulus is a per-requisite for consciousness.

Certainly, no matter how many neurons randomly fire, it is not going to learn self vs. not-self.

Who says the neuron firings are random? I don't think you actually need to know the difference between self and not-self. I think this distinction is just an evolutionary adaptation that is useful in a competitive environment. There is no reason that a conscious being need to be aware of the concept of non-self.

Sentience is generally believed to be required for suffering to exist. Where there is no possibility of suffering, there is no ethical or moral duty to not cause that suffering.

You seem to be making the jump from "P implies Q" to "!Q implies !P". I do agree that suffering implies sentience. I don't agree that sentience implies suffering nor that non-suffering implies non-sentience.

If you prefer to argue for consciousness, please see this. [google.com] I see no definition there that can be satisfied without at least a history of external stimulus of some sort.

You seem to be suffering from what Dan Dennett calls "Philosophers' Syndrome" (i.e. mistaking a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity).

It's as if you're saying "Steering wheels are required for a car." and I say "Despite the fact that we are quite familiar with cars having steering wheels, I don;t think they are absolutely necessary for carness" and you say "We examined lots of cars and they all had steering wheels, and when we removed the steering wheels, they stopped working".

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[sjames]

Alas, you seem willing to redefine terms into meaninglessness so you can claim a disconnected neural net has that mysterious thing. We'll call it quigby. It affects nothing and changes nothing and it can't be detected. Yes, I'll agree that neural nets may have quigby.

However, if sentience, consciousness, and intelligence have any sort of meaning that at all coincides with commonly accepted definitions, please do explain scientifically how a neural net might have those traits if it has never had connections to the outside world and doesn't even show signs of oscillation.

Otherwise, I declare that rocks are intelligent, sentient, and conscious and you just lack the imagination to see it. We must therefor cease all quarrying immediately.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[TsuruchiBrian]

However, if sentience, consciousness, and intelligence have any sort of meaning that at all coincides with commonly accepted definitions, please do explain scientifically how a neural net might have those traits if it has never had connections to the outside world and doesn't even show signs of oscillation.

I didn't say that this neural net had *no* connections to the outside world. I said it would be lacking external sensory inputs. The outputs are the only way you *could* measure anything, including sentience, consciousness, etc.

And originally this meant a brain that lacked traditional sensory organs (e.g. eyes, ears, etc). In fact in my original reply to drinkypoo, I references a two way communication line to the brain. But I actually don't think 2 way communication is necessary for sentience, intelligence, consciousness, although I think it would be very helpful in more accurately determining of those properties are really there. The only objective way I know of to determine if something is conscious is a Turing test. There are however numerous ways in which conscious beings would be unable to pass the Turing test.

Oscillations are not even a direct measure of consciousness anyway. Something that passes the Turing test is no doubt conscious regardless of what other observations can be made about it's oscillations.

I imagine that even without 2-way commutation, it is conceivable to detect convincing evidence of intelligence, sentience, consciousness, etc, if the brain is able to produce signals that would be unlikely to be produced by a non-conscious, non-intelligent, non-sentient, thing. This would be akin to the way in which we try to send information to other civilizations beyond earth, and the kinds of things we are looking for from those other possible civilizations.

Otherwise, I declare that rocks are intelligent, sentient, and conscious and you just lack the imagination to see it. We must therefor cease all quarrying immediately.

I am pretty sure we (myself included) eat sentient beings for food already.

Re: You're doing it wrong.

[beastofburdon]

Really? I have memories from when I was 2, possibly 1.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[beastofburdon]

While I don't think that it would be murder in itself, I am certain it would lead to many.

As a zombie ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... I much prefer free range brains. These GMO brains contain too many death-threatening chemical properties. The last thing I want to do is wake up one morning alive because of my diet.

Re:As a zombie ...

[iggymanz]

I don't even see the need to argue or worry about the artificial additives of vat brains, the superior taste of cage-free grey matter is reason enough for the discriminating zombie palate.

Re:As a zombie ...

[willworkforbeer]

... I much prefer free range brains.

Agreed: Give me cage free brains or give me death. I mean, Death^2.

Why no public discussion beforehand?

[bknack]

Does it strike anyone else that this research should only have been undertaken after a great deal of public discourse?

I didn't see anything in the OSU article (https://news.osu.edu/news/2015/08/18/human-brain-model/) that indicated the scientists had to (or plan to) ensure that no future brain is produced that has the maturity of a one year old (for example).

Compared to creating a disembodied human brain, all the potential for a future self-aware computer system seems much less controversial.

Re:Why no public discussion beforehand?

[Vairon]

> Does it strike anyone else that this research should only have been undertaken after a great deal of public discourse?
No.

As long as the collection of cells is not proven to be self aware I do not believe it matters what they do with those cells.

Re:Why no public discussion beforehand?

[bknack]

Well... that's the trick isn't it? How would we ever know?

I agree this isn't an issue with the current brain, but as I pointed out, there's no reason to believe they won't create much more mature ones in future.

Also, I'm not saying they shouldn't pursue the research. I just think that this deserves a very public airing.

Re:Why no public discussion beforehand?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? The general public is stupid. The general public shouldn't have any say in anything.

Re:Why no public discussion beforehand?

[iggymanz]

You are hilarious, anonymous member of the general public

Re:Why no public discussion beforehand?

[Harlequin80]

Not even slightly.

Re:Why no public discussion beforehand?

[khallow]

Does it strike anyone else that this research should only have been undertaken after a great deal of public discourse?

Add myself to the list of people who answer "no". What would be the point of this public discourse? Who would care enough to have a relevant opinion? What happens when someone decides to do it anyway because they don't accept that something shouldn't be done just because it is icky to the general public?

Re:Why no public discussion beforehand?

[polymath69]

As long as the collection of cells is not proven to be self aware I do not believe it matters what they do with those cells.

You haven't been proven to be self aware, so it doesn't matter what people do to you, either, I suppose?

Oh you say... sure you've been proven to be self aware? Not to a philosopher's satisfaction, you haven't. You can't disprove the solipsism hypothesis. So I haven't been proven to be self aware, either. Not to your satisfaction, anyway.

So don't be so fast to demand proof of self-awareness. I'm upset on behalf of brains in vats, because they can't protest on their own behalf. They deserve, philosophically, our great caution, lest someone else be quick to deny you or me our rights.

Problem solved.

[Mal-2]

Run the program at Wright State and declare the disembodied brains to be exempt immigrant workers. Then nobody will care that you're making them do 168 hour work weeks, and that termination of employment is literal termination.

We need new Ethics

[Dorianny]

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.

Re:We need new Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

Declaring certain people who are inconvenient in some way to be non-human and without any rights isn't exactly a new ethic...

Re: We need new Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the people who are fighting for the rights of these organisms, it's right up until you leave the womb. At that point, they generally stop caring about you entirely and you're on your own.

Re:We need new Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor is pretending that a non-person is a person.

Re: We need new Ethics

[ChrisMaple]

You become a human being when you start acting like a human being. In broad terms, ignoring the difficult details and exceptional cases, it's when you start breathing, when you're outside your mother's body, or other essentially equivalent criteria. At that point you should be considered legally human and recognized to have appropriate human rights.

This is not to say that ending the life of a human fetus should not be subject to conditions and limitations. It should be, and those conditions should become more stringent the nearer the fetus is to normal birth time.

Simplistic approaches to this subject are sure to produce unnecessary suffering. It needs to be carefully thought out and codified, and superstitions must be rejected.

Re: We need new Ethics

[I'm New Around Here]

Is a baby chick inside the egg a member of its mother's species?

Re: We need new Ethics

[AK Marc]

At birth, or when viable, depending on the circumstances. Viable meaning capable of unassisted survival outside the womb.

Though you are not a full human until 18, when "human rights" are fully conferred, depending on location and nationality.

Re: We need new Ethics

[AK Marc]

Is your cut hair a member of your mother's species? My appendix was taken out when I was 12. If it were tested today, it would be "human" but not "a human". You appear to be deliberately swapping the two to make a point, at least by the context of your leading question.

Re:We need new Ethics

[AK Marc]

You left out "hopeless poverty" in your list of causes. Seems that you list symptoms as causes. Try thinking for yourself next time.

Re: We need new Ethics

[I'm New Around Here]

So an independent organism is at the same level as a piece of cut hair?

Why don't you just answer the question? Why avoid it with so much effort?

Is the offspring of two domestic chickens a chicken, while it is still in the egg?

It seems like a very straight forward question, with a very simple response.

Re: We need new Ethics

[AK Marc]

So you don't answer my clarifying question, but demand I answer yours.

The cells inside the egg are chicken species. But it is not "a chicken" until it hatches. Much like my hair is human species, but is not "a human". I answered your question, now are you going to go back and answer mine you refused to answer?

Why avoid it with so much effort? Your 4 statements to avoid it were longer than any answer would have been, and the answer seems pretty straight forward.

Re: We need new Ethics

[I'm New Around Here]

I was being polite and waiting for your answer to my question. Since I asked first, that's my prerogative. Good to see you not getting all bent out of shape over that.

First, your question was not "clarifying" in any sense of the word. It was "avoidance", pure and simple.

Second, I doubt if scientists who work with birds would agree with your definition of "not a chicken yet".

Third, cut hair is simply cast off cells from an organism, not a complete and independent organism on their own. That is why I can't understand why people keep comparing the two. A chick inside the egg is certainly a chick one hour before it hatches. It is of the parents' particular species (assuming the parents are the same species), and was of that species even before it was fully developed a few days before hatching. There is no scientific argument that I am aware of that disputes this.

Finally, you said I was "deliberately swapping the two", apparently meaning human cells and a human. Not at all. Any organism is a member of its particular species, which generally is the same species as its parents' species. (Crossbreeds would of course be a combination of two similar species.) I find it fascinating that people who support abortion have such a hard time affirming a quite well established fact of science, especially considering how much that same fact is integral to evolution, which the same people vehemently defend against its own detractors.

Suddenly an organism is not an organism because it hasn't made some magical trip down a birth canal, or here pecked through a shell, and so it is no more a separate organism than your long-removed appendix or hair on a barber shop floor. The lack of logical consistency in that argument is appalling.

And let me reiterate a point I made in another post on this subject, I am not against abortion. I am against bad, even downright stupid, arguments in support of abortion.

Re: We need new Ethics

[AK Marc]

First, your question was not "clarifying" in any sense of the word. It was "avoidance", pure and simple.

First, it was solely clarification. You deliberately used vague words to set up a slam dunk against anyone who doesn't hold your specific belief. I was trying to clarify your meaning in the ambiguity you deliberately laid. Clarifying your deliberately obtuse question is "avoidance" of falling into your trap. That's why you are so objectionable about this.

Second, I doubt if scientists who work with birds would agree with your definition of "not a chicken yet".

Second, your incorrect opinion is not fact.

Third, cut hair is simply cast off cells from an organism, not a complete and independent organism on their own. That is why I can't understand why people keep comparing the two.

You choose to not understand. Both are separate instances of the species. One is an incomplete section, and the other "complete", but they are both human or chicken.

Suddenly an organism is not an organism because it hasn't made some magical trip down a birth canal, or here pecked through a shell, and so it is no more a separate organism than your long-removed appendix or hair on a barber shop floor. The lack of logical consistency in that argument is appalling.

And I find your lack of logical consistency appalling. Fix your own logical inconsistencies before trying so hard to search out others.

And let me reiterate a point I made in another post on this subject, I am not against abortion. I am against bad, even downright stupid, arguments in support of abortion.

I think you are a liar. Why else would you be so emotionally invested in proving others wrong? If it was simply a dispassionate passion for logic, you'd have answered my question, rather than going off on the "you first" stance, and note, I've answered yours, but you've still failed to answer mine.

If your passion was for logic, and not uterine slavery, you'd not be so emotional. Oh, and you'd not play with your own logical fallacies, like ad hominem, in an attempt to discredit anyone who doesn't share your opinion.

If you DNA test the hair, the answer is "human". So your "logic" is that it's not "human" because it's not complete, even if provably identifiable as human. I guess I'm not human. I have an ACL and an appendix missing. So I'm not "human" because I'm not a complete and whole organism.

No, your moving goalposts where you set the line in the sand of where "organism" starts proves you are lying about your motives. That you refuse to answer my simple question in a clear manner, but imply that you've answered without answering (so you can't be held responsible for your lack of logic and consistency while accusing everyone else of the same faults) indicates you are lying about your motives. Nothing you say rings true.

You fault me for my "logic" but I had, to that point, only asked a question that you didn't like. It asked you to define your views, rather than being a devil's advocate. Devil's advocate is code for "liar". "I don't believe that position, but I'm representing it because I like to piss off people". Again, all back to your intense emotional investment in the topic on the side against anyone who you think would support legalized abortion.

Is your cut hair a member of your mother's species? Asked, but not answered. Will you? Or just launch into more ad hominem? I predict the latter.

Re: We need new Ethics

[I'm New Around Here]

First, your question was not "clarifying" in any sense of the word. It was "avoidance", pure and simple.

First, it was solely clarification.

No. I asked a question that has a simple answer, either YES or NO. You used some hand-waving to deflect from that, because the truth is hard to hear. I get it. You are not the first one to avoid the truth.

You deliberately used vague words

What part of "chick", "egg", or "species" is vague?

to set up a slam dunk against anyone who doesn't hold your specific belief.

Again, you are wrong. I'm trying to clear up a detail that many people can't accept. That detail is that an organism is indeed an organism. Whether it is a chick developing inside a calcium shell, or an oak tree shading the back yard, or even a human embryo inside its mother's womb. Each are separate organisms from the organism they descended from. This isn't disputable based on my beliefs, this is basic high school science lessons.

I was trying to clarify your meaning in the ambiguity you deliberately laid.

And since there was no ambiguity, you have to make some. Good for you.

Clarifying your deliberately obtuse question is "avoidance" of falling into your trap. That's why you are so objectionable about this.

And you are still trying to pretend my question was not very clear. Maybe listing the definition of "organism" would help you out.

From http://www.biology-online.org/...

An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.

Notice it doesn't provide any qualification for where the organism is, or its dependence on others for food or protection.
But, please feel free to post an alternate definition from a more scientifically rigorous site.

Second, I doubt if scientists who work with birds would agree with your definition of "not a chicken yet".

Second, your incorrect opinion is not fact.

Quite right. I stated what I consider to be a likely case. But if you know scientists that work with birds, please have them post below.

Third, cut hair is simply cast off cells from an organism, not a complete and independent organism on their own. That is why I can't understand why people keep comparing the two.

You choose to not understand. Both are separate instances of the species. One is an incomplete section, and the other "complete", but they are both human or chicken.

No. Cut hair, or toenail clippings, or saliva, or even your missing appendix are not "instances of the species". They are parts of an organism, but are not organisms in their own right. Unlike a chick inside an egg.

Suddenly an organism is not an organism because it hasn't made some magical trip down a birth canal, or here pecked through a shell, and so it is no more a separate organism than your long-removed appendix or hair on a barber shop floor. The lack of logical consistency in that argument is appalling.

And I find your lack of logical consistency appalling.

Oooooh. Touché. I didn't see that one coming.

Fix your own logical inconsistencies before trying so hard to search out others.

The only logical inconsistency you are claiming to find in my post is a strand of hair is in the exact same classification as a complete organism. I'll stand by my assertions.

And let me reiterate a point I made in another post on this subject, I am not against abortion. I am against bad, even downright stu

Re: We need new Ethics

[AK Marc]

For the last time, a cut hair is not "a member" of any species,

You mean for the first time. If human DNA isn't human, then an egg isn't human, nor is a sperm. Then, logically, neither would be the zygote. It's not identifiable as a member of the species by any test other than DNA, and you indicate that a cluster of cells with identifiable DNA is unrelated to whether it's a member of the species, So the definition some use of "first identifiable unique DNA" is thrown out. After that, it's all a grey line. You draw it where you want and act like a complete nutter towards anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion.

Organs and parts of organs are not organisms. An leaf is not an tree, a tail is not a dog, a wing is not a bird.

Ham isn't from a pig, and the blood I gave last week wouldn't test as "human" if someone tested it.

Since you hate answering questions so much, where do you draw the line between "organism" and "not organism", in the context of a single cell with unique DNA? At what point is it an "organism" from your definition? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Wikipedia defines it as a "contiguous living system". That would make a mother in her 10th month (well past due date, with a viable fetus) a single organism. The organism inside is not a separate organism because the contiguous living system is the whole of the two.

But I'm sure you reject the definitions found in every dictionary and such. So, since everyone else on the planet is wrong, lets hear your unique definition. That's why I answered your rhetorical question with a question. I expected every word in it was defined by you directly contradicting every dictionary. It seems that I was right in assuming the worst of you.

Re: We need new Ethics

[david_thornley]

No. I asked a question that has a simple answer, either YES or NO. You used some hand-waving to deflect from that, because the truth is hard to hear. I get it. You are not the first one to avoid the truth.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Is the answer to this question "NO"?

Let's replace Congress with these lab brains!

[Guru2Newbie]

If we replaced Congress with these brains, perhaps putting them in large, bubbling jars with nametags, we could get much better throughput of congressional workload, much less whining, and less likelihood of leaving on vacation on a moment's notice, just before an important vote.

We'd need voting output lights, perhaps like Captain Christopher Pike (Yes, No, Low Battery). And if one acts up? Dump out the jar and refill it with another. Problem solved.

Re:Let's replace Congress with these lab brains!

[timrod]

So, you'd turn Congress from a bunch of bodies that lack brains to a bunch of brains that lack bodies?

Re:Let's replace Congress with these lab brains!

[Lumpy]

replacing all of congress with lab grown 5 week old brains would nearly quadruple the IQ of congress.

Yes I know we have a couple of them that are smart, but the negative IQ of many of the southern ones is having a detrimental effect.

Re:Let's replace Congress with these lab brains!

[ChrisMaple]

The unit of anti-intelligence is the Pelosi.

Re:Let's replace Congress with these lab brains!

[Kyont]

Worth a shot, we taxpayers would save a fortune in travel expenses, not to mention all those fundraising dinners and scabies outbreaks.

Let Me get This Straight

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re: Let Me get This Straight

[93 Escort Wagon]

Or Canadians. Any group that nice HAS to be hiding something...

Re:Let Me get This Straight

[Type44Q]

Your projection [of this mythical person who's cool with the former but bothered by the latter]? Just that.

Re:Go Bucks!

[nbauman]

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.

By Stemwedel's logic, we should oppose abortion too.

It’s hard to escape the intuition that it would be wrong to impose conditions on naturally developing human brains that would keep them from having selves. Is there a principled reason to think it’s not just as wrong to grow human brains in a dish under conditions that keep those lab-grown brains from having selves?

Brains are not minds and persons are minds.

[dsmatthews9379]

Without proof that the in-vitro-brain can develop consciousness there is no question of it experiencing anything let alone awareness of itself or suffering.

Re:Go Bucks!

[ChrisMaple]

At some point the question has to be examined, "for what reason do we live our lives, and what are good ways to live?" Sparta is an example of a way to make life miserable, it is not and never was a good model.

Brain!

[PopeRatzo]

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 other news, the brain has announced its candidacy for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, and is currently polling at 21% of likely voters.

Re: Go Bucks!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Reminds me of this ,,

[nickweller]

The Man with Two Brains (1983)

Re:Not a problem...

[ChrisMaple]

consciousness is an illusion. There is no such thing. It's as nonsensical as free will or a soul.

You should carefully consider the statements you make. Inviting someone to kill you, as you have just done, is not wise.

The question is...

[awengray]

Do we have the right to declare that a petri dish full of brains is not human? Where does that lead.

That joke is unethical

[PeterM from Berkeley]

"that the ethical use of lab-grown human brains is nothing like a no-brainer."

Really? That JOKE is unethical.

--PeterM

Re:Not a problem...

[mark-t]

Do you have an authoritative reference for that, or are you pulling that out of your ass?

I'm assuming the latter by default, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask if you actually have the former.

forbes

[Noah Haders]

I haven't read forbes in a long time, because my popup blocker breaks their "quote of the day" splash screen. and nothing of value was lost.

Re:Not a problem...

[istartedi]

Weren't you paying attention? His ass is an illusion. His turtles, however, are all the way down.

Re:Not a problem...

[drinkypoo]

consciousness is an illusion. There is no such thing. It's as nonsensical as free will or a soul.

You should carefully consider the statements you make. Inviting someone to kill you, as you have just done, is not wise.

That didn't do that. There are still logical reasons to oppose murder. It doesn't matter why you feel how you feel about it, you still do.

Only one concern

[MrKaos]

That is can't hold a conscious being in it. I think the information about how many neurons are in other tissue, like heart or even digestive system will have a bearing on how 'self' is defined, one day.

My biggest concern

[93 Escort Wagon]

A simple brain in a jar is not that many steps removed from glass-domed brains betting quatloos on battles between their slaves.

Re:Not a problem...

[Culture20]

consciousness is an illusion. There is no such thing.

Some would argue that illusions are impossible without consciousness, and therefore consciousness can't be an illusion.

Re: Go Bucks!

[MightyMartian]

Are HeLa cells human?

True Brain

[EnsilZah]

So when are we going to see the show about zombies coming out of hiding now that they have an artificial source of nourishment, and their various sexy adventures?

spit-take

[wezelboy]

"that the ethical use of lab-grown human brains is nothing like a no-brainer."

There goes my coffee.

Re: Go Bucks!

[Izuzan]

And no form of contraception is 100% effective. Do t say abstinence that is a life choice.

My second son made it through a condom that broke, wife on the pill, and the morning after pill. For some women having a child is not an option, and shit happens some times.

There doesnt need to be more unwanted children in the adoption files than there is. Or kids growing up in homes that cant afford them and live off welfare for the rest of their lives.

What's the problem?

[temcat]

"Thou shalt not kill/perform highly invasive experiments on people" etc. is not absolute, despite what many believe. It's only there as long as at least one of the below conditions is true:

1) The individual in question, human by nature (not necessarily an actual "person"), has feelings, or can be reasonably hoped to have his/her feelings eventually restored in case he/she is in e.g. coma.
2) Somebody is attached to this individual, whatever his/her condition is, so they have feelings about him/her that can be hurt.

Neither is the case here.

Re:What's the problem?

[temcat]

I think I should have phrased this using the verb "suffer", not the noun "feelings". Anyway, I hope the point is clear.

Re: Go Bucks!

[Applehu Akbar]

So long as there are laws around homicide, the state needs to define when life begins. But our secular legal code needs a secular definition of life, not the one that Christian moralists extract from Catholic canon law.

Since we legally define life as ending with brain death, why not the beginning of brain activity as the start of life? That would be at about six weeks term.

Re: Go Bucks!

[Crazy Taco]

There doesnt need to be more unwanted children in the adoption files than there is.

You just say that to make yourself feel better about the rampant killing of children that goes on in our society. The actual fact is that most adoption agencies have a two year average wait time. There are more loving families looking to adopt than there are children to match them with. Even if that weren't the case, it's still just as wrong, and sick, to murder a child, but it's especially pathetic to claim they are "unwanted" and that you are doing them a favor by killing them.

By the way, I hope you didn't type that inane post on an iPhone or iPad, because if everyone followed your wicked ideas, Steve Jobs would have been aborted, not raised in a loving home, and there would be no such thing as Apple Computer. Just think about that when you claim an adopted baby is unwanted and will be nothing more than a welfare leach. And even if they don't invent Apple Computer, their life is still just as valuable and they have a right to live it out as they wish.

And yes, I will say it: if you are not ready to have kids then you'd better either be willing to abstain, or lovingly raise any child you have/put it up for adoption. They should not pay the price for your lack of self control and your bad decisions.

Re: Go Bucks!

[Izuzan]

Blah blah blah wheenge wheenge wheenge.

Sorry, but you will not convince me that it should not be the womans choice. It is her body. At the point where abortions are allowed the fetus is nothing more than a parasite. It cant survive without the host.

Once science gets to a point where the fetus can survive at that age and be implanted into one of you bleeding hearts. Then you can complain about abortion.