Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Take Step Toward Creating Artificial Embryos (reuters.com)
An international team of scientists has moved closer to creating artificial embryos after using mouse stem cells to make structures capable of taking a crucial step in the development of life. From a report: Experts said the results suggested human embryos could be created in a similar way in future -- a step that would allow scientists to use artificial embryos rather than real ones to research the very earliest stages of human development. The team, led by Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, a professor at Britain's Cambridge University, had previously created a simpler structure resembling a mouse embryo in a lab dish. That work involved two types of stem cells and a three-dimensional scaffold on which they could grow. But in new work published on Monday in the journal Nature Cell Biology, the scientists developed the structures further -- using three types of stem cells -- enabling a process called gastrulation, an essential step in which embryonic cells begin self-organizing into a correct structure for an embryo to form.
At some point, our playing God is going to catch up to us.
Just because we *can* do something doesn't mean we *should*.
If we abort the artificial babies, then we no longer have to abort any naturally conceived ones. Also we can record this n a block chain. Time for an ICO!
Since some coward has mod points and felt the need to post as AC and mod his own posts up just to say we "shouldn't be playing God," I felt it was only right to balance this by claiming we should be playing God.
Science is all about learning how the world works and testing it if you can. If you think science is playing God then you should go back to the jungle with the other monkeys.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
skydaddy would be angry at you
Its rather factual now that human's have become God like beings created life artificially and eventually this leads to people losing the wonder of life as we know it. But I think most scientist never believed creation was anything that couldn't eventually be duplicated by science. Its one of those question just because we can doesn't mean we should.
This doesn't solve any moral dilemmas. If you can induce human embryos to come about then those are still human.
Hold on a second. You mean using artificial embryos which don't come from real eggs and sperms also constitutes "killing unborn babies"?
The process is created exactly to *prevent* real embryos from being used for experimentation.
I'd call this progress in the right direction - this will *save* millions of innocent unborn babies by using artificial, not real, embryos.
If the anti-abortion and/or "no playing God" crowds still protests about this, I'd call it goalpost moving.
The better we understand embryos, the easier it is to track them to their lair and kill them.
It will be interesting to see how this will affect choice rights. Is this considered conception, if so, at what point?
Then maybe the people who want to stop abortions should spend their time educating people about birth control and distributing pill and condoms...
Because those are the only things that have been demonstrated to reduce abortion rates
All we have to do now is combine this with artificial wombs and automate the whole thing in seed ships spreading humanity to neighboring stars...
The only question is who raises the newborns in the seed ship. How many adults do we need to have around? Perhaps a generational with only half a dozen people at any given time but that can spawn thousands once it arrives at the chosen destination.
I can't be the first to think of this concept. Can anyone recommend a sci-fi novel that describes a similar idea?
There is already a way to do that . It is called self-control.
Self-control over one's body in its ultimate sense is regulating what grows in it. Seems we have that covered, just a bunch of imaginary boss followers think otherwise. There's no rational argument against it.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
We murder innocent tumors when we excise them from healthy flesh. If you DNA test a tumor it is decidedly human. (Hyperbole for rhetorical purposes)
A fetus is a part of a woman's body until it can transform it's metabolic rate to survive outside of the womb. Without that tranformation a fetus dies from hypothermia once removed from the womb and must be kept in an incubator until it matures into an independent organism. (Scientifically supported and provable)
It's pure hyperbole to equate abortion to murder. And if you place anti-abortion in a historic and socio-political context it comes from authoritarians that attempt to blame all social woes on impoverished single mothers. (We know social problems are more complex)
First feed, clothe, and educate the children in our poor neighborhoods and I'd be far more receptive to your ideas of what is right thinking.
Is it fair to prioritize living breathing children over a fetus? That should be obvious. Certainly it's not a mutually exclusive choice, we could protect both, but that you can't even protect one calls a lot into question.
Remain a hippocrit and I will continue to dismiss your unscientific position and questionable motives.
See, those embryos are needed for research - to ease human suffering and help our economy - medical treatment for many genetic diseases are extremely expensive and limit peoples' ability to work. Many diseases that may one day may be cured from these artificial embryos will be eliminated. And as someone who lost the genetic lottery and is struggling physically, emotionally and financially because of our obscenely expensive medical system, I am hoping for success - even if it doesn't do me any good. I'm thinking of the future.
And let's remember this is necessary because some very misguided people think fertilized eggs, blastocysts and embryos are "human lives" and are morally against use of embryos in any scientific research - but have no problem with living people suffering because of the politicization of science. (And condemn those that have to be on disability as some sort of lazy freeloader.) And it's funny that many of the unused frozen embryos used in fertility clinics are trashed after a while. And of course many don't even become fetuses after implantation - but we'll ignore all those inconvenient facts.
Hold on a second. You mean using artificial embryos which don't come from real eggs and sperms also constitutes "killing unborn babies"? The process is created exactly to *prevent* real embryos from being used for experimentation.
I'd call this progress in the right direction - this will *save* millions of innocent unborn babies by using artificial, not real, embryos.
If the anti-abortion and/or "no playing God" crowds still protests about this, I'd call it goalpost moving.
That makes no sense to me.
If you induce a human embryo to develop from human cells, then what you have is a human embryo. Implanted, it would develop and mature.
The whole point is that you want to experiment on human embryos. So it's a human embryo.
You haven't solved any ethical problems at all. You've just found another hand waving way to try to say that these human embryos aren't human, because argle fargle.
Females can be quite unpredictable, what if they were to all go on a sex strike or something. Lol Or just unable to have children... who knows.
[($)]
Because I haven't seen one joke yet about Replicants.
Seems fair since it is a lot of hand waving (unsupported by actual Laws), that tries to claim that embryos are Human beings.
I think the core of the argument boils down to 'what is and what is not human', and since this is new, the one side could easily use the 'looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, therefore it's a duck' argument; doesn't matter if you assembled it molecule by molecule, if it's indistinguishable from a naturally-occurring human zygote, then it's the same regardless, and (to follow the pro-lifer thought train) therefore it could be a 'vessel' for a human 'soul', and 'experimenting' on it is therefore an atrocity and a crime against God. Keep in mind the driving force behind the pro-life movement is the idea that humans need to have as many babies as possible, regardless of the consequences, so that all the souls in Heaven can be born. That's how these people think.
I think the core of the argument boils down to 'what is and what is not human', and since this is new, the one side could easily use the 'looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, therefore it's a duck' argument; doesn't matter if you assembled it molecule by molecule, if it's indistinguishable from a naturally-occurring human zygote, then it's the same regardless, and (to follow the pro-lifer thought train) therefore it could be a 'vessel' for a human 'soul', and 'experimenting' on it is therefore an atrocity and a crime against God. Keep in mind the driving force behind the pro-life movement is the idea that humans need to have as many babies as possible, regardless of the consequences, so that all the souls in Heaven can be born. That's how these people think.
The whole point of inducing it to form would be that is is a human embryo.
So, we're the mumbo jumbo people, because we won't chant along with you that these particular biologically-human human embryos are not really human because hand waving?
Yes,
I'm not getting into a pro-choice/pro-life debate with some anonymous asshole on the internets, fuck off.
If you think I'm getting drawn into a pro-life versus pro-choice debate then you're completely wrong, that's about as smart as a land war in Asia. Bugger off.
Probably the least polite way in which to say, "Hey, your logic is sound, your premises solid, and I can't really argue with your conclusions" that I've heard in some time, but thanks! Have a great day!
History fail. The Roman Empire was long, long dead.
Google the phrase "Holy Roman Empire". Yes, Voltaire did say it "was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." Neverhtheless, it called itself the Roman empire.
--and, actually, the Eastern Roman empire was still around at the start of the crusades. So, I'll give your statement a "half" rating on the truthiness scale.
by the time of the Crusades which were a response to Muslim invasions and occupations in Europe which happened precisely because there was no longer a Roman Empire to keep the Muslims in check.
No; indeed there were Muslim invasions and occupations in Europe (mostly eastern Europe, and mostly the Turks)... but these were after the crusades, not before.
Go read some history books and stop getting your "facts" from other incel losers like yourself.
I would say the same to you.
You are like a debater who smears the stage and podium with feces and then claims VICTORY when everybody else leaves
If you induce a human embryo to develop from human cells, then what you have is a human embryo. Implanted, it would develop and mature.
There is only one way to find out. Has anyone implanted one of these and see it mature?
The whole point of inducing it to form would be that is is a human embryo.
Incorrect. The point of inducing it to form would be that it is similar enough to a human embryo such that conclusions drawn from experimentations on these cells can be reasonably applicable to real ones.
There is a minor but huge difference between the two.
You can regulate what grows in it by keeping your legs closed, you impulsive monkey.
If one can simulate on a computer at a molecular level, and repeat the same experiment to form a "cell" in-silico
(with progress we're seeing, it won't take that long for it to happen)
Can it still be a 'vessel' for a human 'soul'?
(unsupported by actual Laws)
Oh good, let's define our science through the legal system--that will work out well. Should we define laws to decide how we should think, too, Herr Leader?
Go post a monologue on your blog then, dip-shit.
So, we're the mumbo jumbo people, because we won't chant along with you that these particular biologically-human human embryos are not really human because hand waving?
No, you're the mumbo jumbo people because you think some invisible sky daddy is miracling a magical "soul" thingy into a petri dish.
In other words, you can't defend your position and have no arguments, so you won't participate aside from grossly misrepresenting the side you disagree with.
Why bother posting then? Just to virtue signal?
transform it's metabolic rate to survive outside of the womb.
Those poor toddlers in Alaska...
That's funny considering that is exactly what you did. You stomped your feet and refused to debate, therefore you lose.
Better through laws created via Democratic action and informed by Scientific study, than via some dusty book of ancient mythologies
Yeah, and also, a problem with religion is that humans have very powerful imaginations, where you imagine that certain practices are highly pure and saintly, and you just build stories around that. Whereas reason uses some feedback loop with causes and effects and by controlling variables. But in the imagination it just has to work as a story, and it could be anything, like wind energy is clean, veganism never kills anything, covering your face is dignified and pure, etc. Not that rational people don’t support these things too, just that there’s plenty of people who live in their imagination on these things too. So yeah, they can just double down on their imagined sanctity of life by claiming your experiments are abominations and so give themselves even more story material to imagine themselves as the pure and good characters of the saga, and so take comfort in how they are going to heaven and you aren’t. I guess TV isn’t enough for some people. The power of the imagination for satisfying ego needs is used more in Eastern religions as exercises, but at least there they do it in a more conscious fashion.
God murders more millions of unborn babies than abortion ever can. In the natural state god made humans, the majority die either in the womb or before they're toddlers. Would you rather follow His example with abortions galore, or "play god" by trying something that doesn't kill any viable lumps of cells?
This space intentionally left blank
How ironic, in so many ways, that someone named after Mary Magdelene would lead a team creating the initial phase of artificial humans. Philosophy students and scholars are going to be busy with that.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Hey dumbass, what do you think all of this research you keep trying to ban is for?
First off, cascading style sheets never made any fucking sense to me but the industry loves them and you named yourself after them. IOW, what makes sense to YOU doesn't matter one damned bit.
Also, as usual, you're a goddamned hypocrite. You use these kinds of technicalities* daily to shut down abortion facilities which are perfectly legal and what this shows is that you conservatives, again AS USUAL, can't take a dose of your own damned medicine.
You're a bunch of butthurt sore losers. You've been outplayed. CRY MOAR.
* waiting periods, limited number of facilites, admitting privelidges, onerous fees on the operators, 8ft fucking hallways, all kinds of "technically correct" bullshit.
I like how you put the comma like you were gonna keep talking, and then just wandered the fuck off. You've finally realized, like myself, that css isn't worth arguing with.
You, your uneducated self, perhaps cannot mod your own stuff. However, there are 3 working methods of doing so. One of those even lets you do it with logged-in accounts! However, I'm not gonna tell you how to do it. Maybe someone else will, but as you have already declared yourself an xstian, I know you'll only use the information I share for evil. That's what you guys always do.
Very rarely does intelligent discussion come from the sort of deceitful depiction of one's opponents as you present. What does come, though, is the tragedy of mobs, hatred, and dehumanizing those one does not agree with.
There are many viewpoints, many theologies. It just better to accept that there are so many different forms of beliefs and theories about the subject that one keeps constantly surprised of the diversity of the ecosystem, or the variability of the market offerings.
These artificial embryos are like those organelles, a cellular models of entire organs that medications can be tested against. If these could actually develop to term, the resulting individuals would be clones as there were no gamete (eggs and sperm) involved.
So, we're the mumbo jumbo people, because we won't chant along with you that these particular biologically-human human embryos are not really human because hand waving?
No, you're the mumbo jumbo people because you think some invisible sky daddy is miracling a magical "soul" thingy into a petri dish.
Really?
Because I believe that a human embryo is human, because of biology, regardless of what intentions it was created with, I'm the irrational one?
No, you're the irrational because you think some invisible sky daddy is miracling a magical "soul" thingy into a petri dish.
Um, that would be you. You believe that an embryo has some magical "non human" property because of how it was created.
And what lets you tell someone else to do so? And why?
OK, point; I was thinking of the Turkish expansion into Europe. The caliphate's conquest of Spain ("Al-Andalus") was indeed much earlier. But the crusades were not a "response" to Islamic Spain, as the original anonymous coward stated; they were in a different direction and with a different objective.
That's not even wrong. "Non human" isn't a property, it's a category.
Fuck off, troll.
"...Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
You think a sky daddy couldn't sneak a soul into a petri dish? He can only go in through a vagina? Or is it that a soul can only come out from one. Tell us quick, millions of c-section kids want to know if they have souls or not...
Um, that would be you. You believe that an embryo is in some magical "non human" category because of how it was created.
I'm not the one talking about invisible non measurable properties or categories. You'll have to ask him. I think genetically human embryos would be human. He doesn't, apparently. Not sure why.
Your reading comprehension skills really suck.
Your comunication skills are severly lacking.
It's hard to tell your position on this other than belligerent. Do you think embryos are humans? Do you thik humans need a soul to be human? Do you even think souls exist?
To any sensible person an embryo is an embryo regardless of location. Other made up attributes are irrelevant.