Human embryo models grown from stem cells(wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il)
wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il
Human embryo models grown from stem cells
https://wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il/life-sciences/human-embryo-models-grown-stem-cells
94 comments
Nice, the Nature news article links to the biorxiv version of three papers. The one linked by TFA is Oldak, https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.14.544922.
I used to be a researcher in NLP until not too long ago. Over the last few years, increasing pressure has been put on on everyone trying to publish papers related to training data collected through human trials to provide ethics statements as a way to ensure that certain standards are met regarding that data. Not everyone is able to see too much sense in this process, and I've heard comments from non-US colleagues that it reflects a purely American world view. But I think that there are at least some applications where ethical consideration are definitely worth talking about, eg., in applications such as hate speech detection.
And of course, even if you don't agree with the necessity for ethics statements, because it is just one more thing that takes up time you could otherwise spend on your actual job (doing research), you certainly don't want to risk having your paper rejected just because you don't meet whatever ethics standards the conference or journal seeks to uphold.
But remember, I'm talking natural language processing here.
In that light, it is a complete mystery to me how research like the one described in the article could have possibly, ever made it past an ethics review. Unless, of course, completely different standards are applied - which in itself would be rather questionable.
And of course, even if you don't agree with the necessity for ethics statements, because it is just one more thing that takes up time you could otherwise spend on your actual job (doing research), you certainly don't want to risk having your paper rejected just because you don't meet whatever ethics standards the conference or journal seeks to uphold.
But remember, I'm talking natural language processing here.
In that light, it is a complete mystery to me how research like the one described in the article could have possibly, ever made it past an ethics review. Unless, of course, completely different standards are applied - which in itself would be rather questionable.
Why do you believe this work would not have passed an ethics review?
(your comments are a bit obscure, in a way that suggests you aren't familiar with how modern biological research is evaluated)
(your comments are a bit obscure, in a way that suggests you aren't familiar with how modern biological research is evaluated)
I have no doubt that it passed an ethics review. I'm sorry if my comment seemed to suggest otherwise.
I suppose what I was trying to get at was a suspicion that ethics reviews in today's research landscape (not only in the medical field, but others as well) seem to me more like a lip service. And don't get me wrong, that's just an opinion, I'm sure a lot of you think otherwise.
I suppose what I was trying to get at was a suspicion that ethics reviews in today's research landscape (not only in the medical field, but others as well) seem to me more like a lip service. And don't get me wrong, that's just an opinion, I'm sure a lot of you think otherwise.
It is true that a great deal of review is lip service. A cynic would point out that while IRBs contain an ethical review, they often exist only to absolve the university of legal or moral responsibility. The realist in me points out that ethical review has been right-shifted: now we're more likely to approve a wide range of experiments that skirt right up against the common ethical boundaries, and then let the subsequent public response determine the ethics of the action.
None of this really matters until somebody announces we can make viable embryos from stem cells or that we can bring a viable embryo to term in an artificial womb. Both of these seem to be not implausible in the next 20 years.
None of this really matters until somebody announces we can make viable embryos from stem cells or that we can bring a viable embryo to term in an artificial womb. Both of these seem to be not implausible in the next 20 years.
It's that modern computer science around Web is just total Stanford prison experiment when it comes to ethics. A/B testing, heatmap collection, user generated data collection, those are all human subject researches and should be required to have an independent board in a University.
These guys have established processes and justifications to do these experiments. It was always just wrong that Web has none, and it also makes no sense to assume that just because the process look substantial judged by norms of other industries they must have ignored it.
These guys have established processes and justifications to do these experiments. It was always just wrong that Web has none, and it also makes no sense to assume that just because the process look substantial judged by norms of other industries they must have ignored it.
The hard part of children is the womb and available parents, not creating an embryo. The UK needs to finish their artificial womb work.
The truly hard part is raising them to be decent human beings. There is more to procreation than fertilization and carrying to term.
While an artificial womb could be very useful as a medical device to save the life of the child, in vitro/ex vivo methods of reproduction only entrench human alienation. Support for them bespeaks an absence of a sound philosophical anthropology. And I mean not just the alienation of the children, but the alienation of men and women from their own humanity as well. And this is because it attacks the very core of what it means to be human.
But as they say, experience is an expensive school, but fools will learn in no other. Often, nothing short of catastrophe is needed to lead men to pause and reflection, and even then, there are no guarantees.
While an artificial womb could be very useful as a medical device to save the life of the child, in vitro/ex vivo methods of reproduction only entrench human alienation. Support for them bespeaks an absence of a sound philosophical anthropology. And I mean not just the alienation of the children, but the alienation of men and women from their own humanity as well. And this is because it attacks the very core of what it means to be human.
But as they say, experience is an expensive school, but fools will learn in no other. Often, nothing short of catastrophe is needed to lead men to pause and reflection, and even then, there are no guarantees.
"in vitro/ex vivo methods of reproduction only entrench human alienation"
I absolutely disagree with your view. Infertility is a medical condition much like cataract or myocardial infarction.
In my view, it is profoundly unethical to deny unhealthy people efficient treatment of their disease for philosophical reasons. You are straying dangerously close to the "life unworthy of life" eugenics that is, fortunately, overcome. Trying to ban other people from procreating because your personal opinion on the necessary means is "phew, icky" (and for all the grand words in your comment, you basically say "phew, icky"), sounds like it is you who hasn't taken any lessons from the experience of the collective West.
I absolutely disagree with your view. Infertility is a medical condition much like cataract or myocardial infarction.
In my view, it is profoundly unethical to deny unhealthy people efficient treatment of their disease for philosophical reasons. You are straying dangerously close to the "life unworthy of life" eugenics that is, fortunately, overcome. Trying to ban other people from procreating because your personal opinion on the necessary means is "phew, icky" (and for all the grand words in your comment, you basically say "phew, icky"), sounds like it is you who hasn't taken any lessons from the experience of the collective West.
There's a chasm between banning people from procreating and not going to extraordinary lengths to guarantee them their own biological offspring. That type of bate and switch is used for other medically and transactionally complex situations that future humans have to deal with.
People here (and not just here) are advocating for banning of various techniques outright, preemptively.
In absence of a ban, you can be almost sure that someone will go to the extraordinarily lengths to develop such techniques for human use.
In absence of a ban, you can be almost sure that someone will go to the extraordinarily lengths to develop such techniques for human use.
> The truly hard part is raising them to be decent human beings.
We have ChatGPT for that.
We have ChatGPT for that.
There are millions of couples going through IVF that fail to get viable embryos. Probably 3/4 of women over 40 fail to get any successful pregnancies, and many younger ones too.
Depends how much over 40. "At age 40: 44% will have a conception ending in a live birth within one year, 64% will have a conception ending in a live birth within four years" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility
The lab that published this paper has also been developing an ex vivo environment for growing these kinds of human embryoids by what's called rolling culture. Other groups specializing in extremely premature neonatal care have been pushing the gestational envelope from the other direction.
Why wouldn't the state raise them? We've been moving away from the traditional family.
Moving away from the traditional family has detrimental effects for the children. See this Wikipedia page and it's citations for a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_absence
no, we haven't. that's a view held by 0.00001% of the population in a handful of western countries
Please Don't create the Torment Nexus
[deleted]
population collapse: solved {checkmark}
warring super-solider arms race: {added to jira board}
warring super-solider arms race: {added to jira board}
Out of all sci-fi/fantasy ideas out there, I'd never have thought Star Wars: Attack of the Clones would show up as a possible future. But as we are making rapid advancements in robotics and AI on one hand, and biotech on the other, and the relevant fields are controlled by different corporate interests, clones fighting droids doesn't seem so out there anymore.
Give a normal person some steroids and strength/endurance training exercise regiment. You will have a person that is 80~100% stronger then your average male within 7~10 months. A lot quicker and cheaper then waiting 20 years for a embryo to grown up.
the progression of the commodification of human beings: on schedule.
Would this allow them to study the rejuvenation events that occur during embryogenesis? I'm talking about the epigenetic resets that occur at some point after egg & sperm unit.
Edit: link to my previous comment with a list of papers from the last time a similar thread was posted for those interested.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37018392
This was a busy summer for developmental biology, full disclosure that I am an author on one of these papers and my thesis work is in embryo models/early development. The Hanna group was unfortunately scooped by some unethical behavior but their model is superior to the other one in Nature by Zernicka-Goetz.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37018392
This was a busy summer for developmental biology, full disclosure that I am an author on one of these papers and my thesis work is in embryo models/early development. The Hanna group was unfortunately scooped by some unethical behavior but their model is superior to the other one in Nature by Zernicka-Goetz.
Just link your old comment next time since sometimes threads get merged
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Thank you I wasn't aware, appreciate it.
I agree, Zernicka-Goetz made a lot of hype at ISSCR but the Hanna lab's system is better.
Would you be open to giving a talk on the topic?
[deleted]
Terrifyng to me.
We are biochemical, biomechanical machines already. We just don't teach it.
I recommend studying metaphysics. Scientism and its presumed mechanistic metaphysics are not coherent.
If metaphysics were real, it'd just be called physics.
Physics is about matter. If you were only matter, you'd have no free will.
Who says we have free will? I think the jury is out on that one.
The sheer number of interactions in our environment per femtosecond is astounding. They're dynamical inputs into our brain that compound over time. It's certainly enough to approximate "free will" at our level of detection.
The sheer number of interactions in our environment per femtosecond is astounding. They're dynamical inputs into our brain that compound over time. It's certainly enough to approximate "free will" at our level of detection.
We are only matter. But "only" is great way to devalue something pretty fucking amazing. Consider that you are using matter right now to think.
Metaphysics looks like a lot of vacuous garbage to me; the sort of vacuous garbage that people use as intelectual mimicry.
It is nevertheless worth looking at - in order to know what to avoid.
It is nevertheless worth looking at - in order to know what to avoid.
Yeah, this is just wrong.
Doesn't Israel have any bio-ethics rules in place? If not, they should have and this abomination shouldn't have received the green light.
Doesn't Israel have any bio-ethics rules in place? If not, they should have and this abomination shouldn't have received the green light.
[deleted]
The goal eventually is to be able to create organs in lab condition that can be implanted
That sounds to me like opening console and messing up with the website's JS code :D
Biologists have been messing with the console since a long time ago. They figured out what each gene does in large part by turning them off one by one, or occasionally making them run more than they should (overexpression). Even before they had the whole genome, they used random mutagenesis and slowly analyzed what got broken by breeding experiments. With enough data you can even locate it on a chromosome relative to known genes by linkage maps.
The most fun stuff to mess with is of course parts that controls how other stuff works. Figuring out what makes stem cells want to grow into shapes will lead us to more of these control switches.
The most fun stuff to mess with is of course parts that controls how other stuff works. Figuring out what makes stem cells want to grow into shapes will lead us to more of these control switches.
I did not comment negatively about the tech, to be clear
[deleted]
Reducing human suffering is a noble goal and infertile couples could benefit from this research. I would rather have western world make giant leaps in this field and also set the direction of ethics here rather than just banning it and leaving it up to Russia and China to conduct this sort of research in their secret facilities.
Don't worry, Russia isn't in any position for this high-tech research. Anyone who's been anywhere close to capable of doing this work has left since 2014 or 2022.
China is a bigger risk factor, but it's not like they would care about the direction of western ethics anyway.
China is a bigger risk factor, but it's not like they would care about the direction of western ethics anyway.
[deleted]
> Reducing human suffering is a noble goal and infertile couples could benefit from this research.
The research isn't about reducing human suffering. No research is. All research is about attaining new knowledge.
> I would rather have western world make giant leaps in this field and also set the direction of ethics here rather than just banning it and leaving it up to Russia and China to conduct this sort of research in their secret facilities.
Why? Given the history of the western world in biological, chemical and nuclear genocides, why is it better that the west make sets the directin of ethics than russia or china. The west has proven it hasn't a ethical bone in our body.
Research should happen because humans want to learn and advance. The west ain't saints. The russians and chinese certainly aren't monsters, especially compared ot the west.
The research isn't about reducing human suffering. No research is. All research is about attaining new knowledge.
> I would rather have western world make giant leaps in this field and also set the direction of ethics here rather than just banning it and leaving it up to Russia and China to conduct this sort of research in their secret facilities.
Why? Given the history of the western world in biological, chemical and nuclear genocides, why is it better that the west make sets the directin of ethics than russia or china. The west has proven it hasn't a ethical bone in our body.
Research should happen because humans want to learn and advance. The west ain't saints. The russians and chinese certainly aren't monsters, especially compared ot the west.
[deleted]
[deleted]
A team of scientists at the Weizmann Institute have successfully created an 'embryo model' that closely resembles a 14-day-old human embryo, without using sperm, eggs or womb.
The question I have is why they call it a model?
It is certainly not a simulation, and although it apparently started with different components they manipulated those to behave the way the normal versions do.
What would happen if they implanted it in a womb?
It is certainly not a simulation, and although it apparently started with different components they manipulated those to behave the way the normal versions do.
What would happen if they implanted it in a womb?
It’s a model because it’s not completely equivalent. Medicine has learned a great deal from studying rodents, but humans are quite different.
For one thing human embryos would have already been implanted in a womb for a week at that point and a great deal of signaling occurs between embryo and the uterus.
For one thing human embryos would have already been implanted in a womb for a week at that point and a great deal of signaling occurs between embryo and the uterus.
>"For one thing human embryos would have already been implanted in a womb for a week at that point"
At what point? Implantation typically occurs 6-12 days after fertilization. This experiment starts at the equivalent of day 7. IVF is a thing.
It sounds like you're just guessing.
Edited to add, this article says "It would be illegal to implant them into a patient’s womb" which is a far cry from what you are implying, that it would be impossible.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jun/14/synthetic-hu...
At what point? Implantation typically occurs 6-12 days after fertilization. This experiment starts at the equivalent of day 7. IVF is a thing.
It sounds like you're just guessing.
Edited to add, this article says "It would be illegal to implant them into a patient’s womb" which is a far cry from what you are implying, that it would be impossible.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jun/14/synthetic-hu...
I thought I was repeating what the article said:
“This stage corresponds to day 7 of the natural human embryo, around the time it implants itself in the womb.”
“The researchers discovered that if the embryo is not enveloped by placenta-forming cells in the right manner at day 3 of the protocol (corresponding to day 10 in natural embryonic development), its internal structures, such as the yolk sac, fail to properly develop.”
“The stem cell–based embryo-like structures (termed SEMs) developed normally outside the womb for 8 days, reaching a developmental stage equivalent to day 14 in human embryonic development.” (So ~1 week post implantation for a human embryo.)
“This stage corresponds to day 7 of the natural human embryo, around the time it implants itself in the womb.”
“The researchers discovered that if the embryo is not enveloped by placenta-forming cells in the right manner at day 3 of the protocol (corresponding to day 10 in natural embryonic development), its internal structures, such as the yolk sac, fail to properly develop.”
“The stem cell–based embryo-like structures (termed SEMs) developed normally outside the womb for 8 days, reaching a developmental stage equivalent to day 14 in human embryonic development.” (So ~1 week post implantation for a human embryo.)
None of your quotes indicate that it would be impossible to implant these. The article is beating around the bush, but essentially it is saying "These could potentially be implanted." That's why people are somewhat up in arms about this. Read the other article I linked.
This research in animals has led to successful implantation, but not live births. Nobody knows why yet.
This research in animals has led to successful implantation, but not live births. Nobody knows why yet.
Nothing I said had anything to do with if these were viable or could be made viable, just that they aren’t direct equivalents.
People could be up in arms if hypothetically 50% of these where viable, but the nonviable 50% would still cause errors when compared to human embryos. Alternatively, 100% could be viable and they could still be different in critical ways from natural human embryos resulting in universally late or premature births etc. Or perhaps 0% are viable and people just don’t understand the nuances.
It’s therefore an orthogonal question.
People could be up in arms if hypothetically 50% of these where viable, but the nonviable 50% would still cause errors when compared to human embryos. Alternatively, 100% could be viable and they could still be different in critical ways from natural human embryos resulting in universally late or premature births etc. Or perhaps 0% are viable and people just don’t understand the nuances.
It’s therefore an orthogonal question.
You don’t appear to be able to say anything helpful about what “model” means in this discussion. The only explicit claim you made (that they were different because they would have been implanted in a womb for a week already) was incorrect. Some would likely have been implanted for a day.
Your timeline is off, the egg can take nearly 2 weeks to implant but that requires a delay in fertilization. This 14 day timeline is specifically in reference to fertilization not the release of the egg.
The discrepancy exists because people can track the day of ovulation and hormonal changes from implantation but actual fertilization has no obvious signs, unless your doing IVF or something and looking at the actual egg.
That said, extreme outliers may exist but that’s not what we’re talking about.
The discrepancy exists because people can track the day of ovulation and hormonal changes from implantation but actual fertilization has no obvious signs, unless your doing IVF or something and looking at the actual egg.
That said, extreme outliers may exist but that’s not what we’re talking about.
IVF is exactly how one would implant these embryo "models," and that's why I brought it up in my first comment.
Here's an example of how IVF embryos are graded at day 6, prior to implantation:
https://flo.health/getting-pregnant/trouble-conceiving/ferti...
I think you missed the fact that these models start at the equivalent of day 7, so we're right in the same time window of implantation. Unless you are claiming that exactly at 6 days after fertilization is when every single embryo implants, and at 7 days it is simply too late. But your whole point seems to be that the window is hard to observe, so I doubt that's what you mean.
At any rate, I still see nothing to indicate that these "models" are not simply embryos. I think they are intentionally calling them models so that they can skirt the legal requirements about embryo research.
Unless of course you can point me to something that is actually different about one of these models vs an embryo. The whole article is about how they are the same.
Here's an example of how IVF embryos are graded at day 6, prior to implantation:
https://flo.health/getting-pregnant/trouble-conceiving/ferti...
I think you missed the fact that these models start at the equivalent of day 7, so we're right in the same time window of implantation. Unless you are claiming that exactly at 6 days after fertilization is when every single embryo implants, and at 7 days it is simply too late. But your whole point seems to be that the window is hard to observe, so I doubt that's what you mean.
At any rate, I still see nothing to indicate that these "models" are not simply embryos. I think they are intentionally calling them models so that they can skirt the legal requirements about embryo research.
Unless of course you can point me to something that is actually different about one of these models vs an embryo. The whole article is about how they are the same.
[deleted]
Signalling? Thank you for expanding my horizons. Could you please share some more? Even a link or two would suffice.
I am not expert but I think OP means different hormones would start to get produced and others would become suppressed to support the creation of a placenta, to support the the lining of the uterus and to cease ovulation and menstrual cycle as well as to start supporting the growing embryo in terms of nutrients by means of generating and connecting blood vessels.
I read somewhere that pregnancy (unlike what is normally described) is a tug of war between the embryo which is the leach if you will on the mother which is the host. The embryo basically try consumes the host and so long as everybody is doing what they're supposed to, all the mechanisms end up keeping that war at bay with both participants making it alive at the end. If some mechanisms (and signals) were to misbehave one of the two would cease to exist.
I read somewhere that pregnancy (unlike what is normally described) is a tug of war between the embryo which is the leach if you will on the mother which is the host. The embryo basically try consumes the host and so long as everybody is doing what they're supposed to, all the mechanisms end up keeping that war at bay with both participants making it alive at the end. If some mechanisms (and signals) were to misbehave one of the two would cease to exist.
Preeclampsia is a condition where the fetus "requests" that the mother's body increase blood pressure to dangerous levels. It's definitely a case where one misbehaving could kill both the mother and the fetus.
Another commenter linked to an earlier Nature article where 'Model' is a particularly carved out word in the ethical guidelines. https://archive.ph/Xnx5n#selection-1171.0-1171.349
We don't know what will happen. Further research will provide more answers.
[deleted]
"we are summoning things that cannot be easily unsummoned"
"and for no good reason besides that we can and profit"
The people here don't like it when you imply there are things people just should not do. They think they're going to be singularity'd into gods. If they got that amount of entitlement from a "welfare queen" they'd be offended to death.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
yieldcrv(2)
A summary on Nature news at the times: https://archive.ph/Xnx5n