Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Grow Two-Week-Old Human Embryos In Lab For The First Time (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader writes: According to Reuters, "Using a culture method previously tested to grow mouse embryos outside of a mother, the teams were able to conduct almost hour by hour observations of human embryo development to see how they develop and organize themselves up to day 13."
Brave new world, here we come From the report: "The work, covered in two studies published on Wednesday in the journal Nature and Nature Cell Biology, showed how the cells that will eventually form the human body self-organize into the basic structure of a post-implantation human embryo. As well as advancing human biology expertise, the knowledge gained from studying these developments should help to improve in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments and further progress in the field of regenerative medicine, the researchers said. But the research also raises the issue of an international law banning scientists from developing human embryos beyond 14 days, and suggests this limit may have to be reviewed. 'Longer cultures could provide absolutely critical information for basic human biology,' said researcher Zernicka-Goetz. 'But this would of course raise the next question - of where we should put the next limit.'"
Brave new world, here we come From the report: "The work, covered in two studies published on Wednesday in the journal Nature and Nature Cell Biology, showed how the cells that will eventually form the human body self-organize into the basic structure of a post-implantation human embryo. As well as advancing human biology expertise, the knowledge gained from studying these developments should help to improve in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments and further progress in the field of regenerative medicine, the researchers said. But the research also raises the issue of an international law banning scientists from developing human embryos beyond 14 days, and suggests this limit may have to be reviewed. 'Longer cultures could provide absolutely critical information for basic human biology,' said researcher Zernicka-Goetz. 'But this would of course raise the next question - of where we should put the next limit.'"
I'm sure there are plenty of nations that don't give a shit and would welcome research labs.
I don't particularly approve of the legal restrictions. Nevertheless, for early development, there is no significant difference between humans and primates (or even many other mammals) at the level of these studies, so they wouldn't have to use human embryos.
Any limit is going to be arbitrary. Let's put it another way: Whoever wants to do something like that has to show why. If there is a good reason to grow a body in a petri dish to 9 months, fine. For shits and giggles, even 14 days is more than you should get.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Zuck's next spawn is going to be the Kwisatz Haderach.
Let the heathen spill them
On the dusty ground
God will make him pay for
each sperm that can't be found...
Can we apply that 13 day rule to presidential candidates please
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
If we stick to this 14-day limit, then we will never know how things work exactly after this point. The question is thus whether we can use that knowledge for the benefit of humanity, to which the answer appears to be 'yes'.
What I find most tantalising about this is the prospect this opens of artificial uteruses, and with it the elimination of the need to carry one's unborn child along inside one's natural incubator for nine months, at least for humans of the female persuasion. This would also enable same-sex couples to have a child with their DNA, without requiring anyone else to carry the child to term.
This in addition to the things we can learn from studying the development of embryos and stem cells in general, for both current and future humans.
The possible positive impact these advances may have to me at least far outweigh the philosophical musing some people seem to be absorbed in.
Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
Trump 2016
You are welcome on my lawn.
fortunately embryos that would have reproduced you, died within 5 minutes.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Next step is the Bukanovsky's process.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
the teams were able to conduct almost hour by hour observations
Why only almost hour by hour? What stopped them having a sneaky peak at 59 minutes?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
That's when they start to get really annoying; they think they know everything.
Conception has occurred in the laboratory too.
On top of the Van de Graaff generator.
I'm shocked, I tell you!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The real problem of course is that governments and politicians of the world are limiting human knowledge and discoveries by sticking their shitty hands and noses where they do not belong at all - science. The real problem of ethics is the ignoramuses of the general public and their ignoramus pieces of shit 'representatives' destroying individual freedom of scientists to run any experiments they need to run on cells, tissues just because those cells and tissues can at some point become a human. Well, if they do end up making a human this way - great. It is about time we figured out how to do that without getting all sweaty.
You can't handle the truth.
"But this would of course raise the next question - of where we should put the next limit"
Full Term.
To the Likers, a single fertilized cell has full human rights. The Choicers punt until birth, leaving the debate with a huge excluded middle.
We have put a lot of thought into determining when life ends, and what we have decided on is cessation of brain activity. Why not define the start of brain activity, about six weeks in, as when life begins?
"Longer cultures could provide absolutely critical information for basic human biology,"
Why stop at embryos?
Think how much they could learn if they left them for 500, 600 weeks ? I mean hell, go to 2000 weeks and then terminate. Think how much you'd learn!
As a 49 year old, I can pretty much vouch there's little value in studying past that point.
If people can't see the moral qualms here, I'd only offer you a couple of current-world points from which to extrapolate:
- puppy mills
- the fact that China *already* treats actual humans like replaceable meaningless bio-cogs
-Styopa
The percentage of "Choicers" who punt it to nine months is so vanishing small it's not worth talking about. Most reasonable and rational people who believe in choice thats like 99.9999% of them put the end of "choice" where the foetus is able to survive independently of the mother.
To learn now to regenerate organs or limbs we need to learn how animals that actually can do that do it and not how an embryo is growing.
The amount we learn that is applicable to real treatments for humans is likely very very low. It looks like we do it because we can ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Well, now we know how he engineers his wives.
Where I come from the seats are designed to lift up.
At the bottom of the
The percentage of "Choicers" who punt it to nine months is so vanishing small it's not worth talking about. Most reasonable and rational people who believe in choice thats like 99.9999% of them put the end of "choice" where the foetus is able to survive independently of the mother.
With incubators and such, even extremely premature babies (1 pound birth weight!) have survived. At the other extreme, infants and toddlers can't survive on their own for years after delivery from mom.
I believe in both science and God. I believe that all mankind has agency to choose for themselves, so I am against any governmental theocracy or arbitrary laws enforcing a religious set of rules. People should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. That means that even though I don't drink coffee for religious reasons, I would oppose a law forbidding the sale (or consumption) of coffee. I also don't drink alcohol for religious purposes, but I strongly support laws outlawing drunk driving since it puts others at risk.
The crux of the issue at hand is when a group of cells becomes a person, and thus gets rights. Killing a pregnant woman is often prosecuted as double homicide, implying that such states consider the fetus a person. However, abortion isn't treated as murder or homicide, meaning the fetus is considered part of the mother's body.
Speaking religiously, the Scriptures tell us that God formed the physical body of Adam, then put in him the breath of life (often interpreted as spirit). Upon receiving the breath of life, Adam became a "living soul." Since it is impossible to know when the spirit enters the physical body, my sect forbids induced abortion at any point (except extreme situations, such as the result of rape). Spontaneous abortion (often called a miscarriage) is out of our hands, so carries no religious consequences. Of course, this only applies to those of my sect (as well as it should).
Coming up later: how Zuckerberg, Gates & Whitman are already planning a scheme to teach them to code.
At the bottom of the
Only if they can choose which redhead. It's an actual scientific fact that they follow a bimodal distribution.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Speaking religiously, the Scriptures tell us that God formed the physical body of Adam, then put in him the breath of life (often interpreted as spirit). Upon receiving the breath of life, Adam became a "living soul."
Doesn't it bother you to know that Adam is myth? Humans are primates and come from common ancestors of other living primates. Or do you throw all the way and cling to a myth? Just curious.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09...
Speaking religiously, the Scriptures tell us that God formed the physical body of Adam, then put in him the breath of life (often interpreted as spirit). Upon receiving the breath of life, Adam became a "living soul."
Doesn't it bother you to know that Adam is myth? Humans are primates and come from common ancestors of other living primates. Or do you throw all the way and cling to a myth? Just curious.
In a word, no. It doesn't bother me if Adam and Eve are a myth or historic figures. I believe that God speaks to man in a way that man understands at the time. Likewise, science is man's best guess based on current evidence. Religion, when perfectly revealed and understood SHOULD NOT conflict with perfectly understood science. Both science and religion are a "what we know / understand now" deal. Either could be refined as more is revealed / discovered.
From my personal experience with speaking to people, most choicers stop being ok with abortions at 3rd trimester, and most lifers start are fine with abortion at 1st trimester (using abortion as a guide of "when does 'life' begin"). The debate is really at the second trimester. But in the US, the politics/political theater/extreme groups keep glossing over this point, and try to polarize the issue into all or none. This polarization prevents actual civil discourse and resolution. It's rather sad, actually.