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 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.
I'm sure there are plenty of nations that don't give a shit and would welcome research labs.
i am sure there are plenty of nations that wouldn't "give a shit" to test on adult humans in said research labs too.
-
in the end question is what is the limit on scientific testing, that harms text subjects, but benefits other humans?
limits at present are arbitrary and irrational (though imperfectly practical); we don't allow healthy humans and late more developed embryos, but allow early ones, we allow some animals, not others, but feel squeamish and hold protests.
at the same time we kill and eat animals(sometimes the same ones) and allow even very late embryos to ripped out and burned, and end their "life" in garbage.
all that uncertainty and irrationality inevitably flow from of moral relativism and utilitarianism, which are main components of dominant secular ideology of modern west.
if you buy in to that ideology, accept inevitable ethical chaos and irrationality.
deal with it! and live(if it lets you live) with it!
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
Next step is the Bukanovsky's process.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
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 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).