An artificial womb successfully grew baby sheep(theverge.com)
theverge.com
An artificial womb successfully grew baby sheep
http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15421734/artificial-womb-fetus-biobag-uterus-lamb-sheep-birth-premie-preterm-infant
130 comments
And its comments:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14194422
You know it's the actual science because they use the word "lamb" instead of "baby sheep"
I think this graph tells you everything you need to know. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=baby+sheep%2Cl...
And also hopefully reduce the need for abortion. Women would be able to "donate" the foetus to be raised in one of these bags and then adopted.
(Eventually, I realise this technology is not there yet).
(Eventually, I realise this technology is not there yet).
The science fiction author Lois McMaster Bujold has this technology in her "Vorkosigan universe" books, depicted as sufficiently advanced that it is safer for the fetus than natural pregnancy. She presents such technology, should it exist, as a moral imperative for the health and safety of both the mother and the child in wanted pregnancies, as well as an alternative to abortion.
I must praise these books, they're very good!
I;m pro choice and think this tech is great.
All the pro-life people i know that have seen it though think it's a disturbing, godless or unnatural...
All the pro-life people i know that have seen it though think it's a disturbing, godless or unnatural...
I would suspect that's an anomaly with the sample of pro-life people that you know.
I'm pro-life and in the circles where I travel, this is being hailed.
I'm pro-life and in the circles where I travel, this is being hailed.
Yeah, take a fetus out of a living being and stick it in a plastic bag to incubate. How could anyone possibly think that's weird or unnatural?
And? "Unnatural" describes our entire existence - living in houses, eating food we raised, wearing clothes, taking medicines.
To be honest, 'nature' is that thing that constantly tries to kill us. I think its hilarious that folks pursue 'natural' foods and lifestyles, thinking its somehow better.
To be honest, 'nature' is that thing that constantly tries to kill us. I think its hilarious that folks pursue 'natural' foods and lifestyles, thinking its somehow better.
Birds nests and termite mounds. Ants invented farming and animal domestication (and slavery) before humans evolved as a species (certain strains of fungus have gone extinct in nature and only still remain because of their cultivation. Hermit crabs. And a few years ago (can't remember where at the moment) it was shown animals self-medicate when sick by instinctually eating certain plants they would otherwise not consume.
You're not in traffic. You are traffic.
You're not in traffic. You are traffic.
Either nothing is Natural or everything is.
Those are all habits that developed organically over centuries based on our desire to live and lead happy, fulfilling lifestyles.
This is a brand-new procedure that just a couple years ago would be written about in a sci-fi novel. Perhaps you can understand how someone might think it's a little strange.
This is a brand-new procedure that just a couple years ago would be written about in a sci-fi novel. Perhaps you can understand how someone might think it's a little strange.
We have no clue as to how various chemicals released by the mother affect the newborn psychologically. Would probably not be able to predict the effects for over 10-20 years.
I'm worried we might end up with sociopathic kids. It's been shown in many animals that the mother does not bond with the newborn without oxytocin release from childbirth.
I'm worried we might end up with sociopathic kids. It's been shown in many animals that the mother does not bond with the newborn without oxytocin release from childbirth.
> It's been shown in many animals that the mother does not bond with the newborn without oxytocin release from childbirth.
1. Citation needed.
2. Not relevant to humans unless you are also going to assert that fathers and adopted mothers fail to bond.
1. Citation needed.
2. Not relevant to humans unless you are also going to assert that fathers and adopted mothers fail to bond.
I would describe my stance as reluctantly pro-choice. I think anything that reduces the number of abortions is a good thing.
Although if confronted with the two options (abortion, bag fetus), I'm sure pro-lifers would always choose the latter.
You would hope pro-choice people would as well.
How far do we take it though. If they manage to move the tech back to close to conception
Is there an obligation to bag and try to save every single fertilized egg?
Is there an obligation to bag and try to save every single fertilized egg?
That is true. I guess one constraint would be the effectiveness of pregnancy testing i.e. how early can it detect conception?
I'm pro-life, hail this as well.
...because adoption is such a riotous success these days?
...because there are thousands of women who for various reasons cannot have children of their own and would definitely prefer a child created like this rather than adopting a child that potentially comes with a lot of life baggage.
- This yields a child without lots of life baggage? The medical repercussions of gestating in-vitro are not known (and given the complexity of the system, it's all but certain that there will be side-effects). There's a large body of evidence linking in-utero gestation conditions to all manner of pathologies, physical and mental (if such a distinction can even be made). Note that it's not just a question of fetuses being exposed to positively harmful conditions (smoking, cortisol, disease, etc) -- an impoverished sensory environment can be linked to changes in perception at birth.
- Why should the safeguards against child-abuse that are present for contemporary adoption be lifted for cases of adoption ex vitro? What, are abusive parents suddenly going to refrain from abusing in vitro babies?
I don't see how this line of reasoning holds up. It's little more than shoe-horning the present debate into the abortion debate.
- Why should the safeguards against child-abuse that are present for contemporary adoption be lifted for cases of adoption ex vitro? What, are abusive parents suddenly going to refrain from abusing in vitro babies?
I don't see how this line of reasoning holds up. It's little more than shoe-horning the present debate into the abortion debate.
And what of what might be best for the child?
Eh, lets consult the oracle? Seriously- one never knows, because its the future- so asking the question is kind of pointless.
We can have a jolly good guess regarding whether people would like to have been carried inside their mother versus gestating inside a plastic bag.
Why would being inside your mother for nine months, which you have no recollection of, be more important than the following years of developing an emotional bond? It's not even about making such children lack the body contact with parents since that only happens after the baby is born.
Anecdotal, but I'd have no feelings about being grown in a bag. I'd be rather happy to know my mother didn't have to suffer through 9 months of pregnancy.
I feel that strong feelings towards these things are a product of culture. Some did some good, like saying the pregnancy is a blessing to make it easier for women to pull through. But with developments like the one described in the article, these cultural norms stop being useful and can be safely dropped.
Anecdotal, but I'd have no feelings about being grown in a bag. I'd be rather happy to know my mother didn't have to suffer through 9 months of pregnancy.
I feel that strong feelings towards these things are a product of culture. Some did some good, like saying the pregnancy is a blessing to make it easier for women to pull through. But with developments like the one described in the article, these cultural norms stop being useful and can be safely dropped.
I think most people would vote for being born and having a nice childhood.
Also the bag removes the artificial limitations on brain size that is female hip.
Finally, i have seen many woman, who would love to have children, but at the same time are so bound to this sick ideal of being thin and eternally beautiful, they "train" away there children.
I think being born from a bag, is preferabl to not being born at all, any time.
I think being born from a bag, is preferabl to not being born at all, any time.
This is ridiculous. Your anecdotal stories about a few thin women isn't harming the general population's fecundity, or even those womens'.
Stampeding over the edge cases, so much fun, until the edge cases trample you.
I would imagine 99.999% of the time adoption is better than being dead.
I would imagine the exact opposite.
Shit life vs a (sentient) life that never begins? Sign me up for the latter.
Shit life vs a (sentient) life that never begins? Sign me up for the latter.
...because raising a child is such an easy process, it would be terrible if you had to start with one with "life baggage" instead of just being totally helpless, completely unable to be reasoned with or in control of it's basic bodily functions?
I know media like to present adoption as a common horror show but what is the success rate for adoption, vs biological parenthood, vs single parent, vs within-family adoption, vs raised by proxy (i.e. nanny and later in life boarding school).
And what exactly is wrong with women choosing to have an abortion? Not every child is adopted. Our planet is grossly overpopulated. Abortions are more humane.
Why don't we wait to see if the child is adopted? They might be a really cute baby. If say, by the age of 3 they aren't adopted, then we abort?
I'm joking, of course. Just wanted to apply some of your cold logic. By the way, our planet isn't overpopulated either. You are offering an opinion.
A few decades ago, when I used to enjoy wasting more time debating, I always liked to throw in "someday you'll be able to grow a child outside of the womb" to get people think a little more. I'm glad to see we're here.
The pro-life/pro-choice argument is two different polarized groups, who's minds are unlikely to change. Personally, I wouldn't have the debate on HN.
I'm joking, of course. Just wanted to apply some of your cold logic. By the way, our planet isn't overpopulated either. You are offering an opinion.
A few decades ago, when I used to enjoy wasting more time debating, I always liked to throw in "someday you'll be able to grow a child outside of the womb" to get people think a little more. I'm glad to see we're here.
The pro-life/pro-choice argument is two different polarized groups, who's minds are unlikely to change. Personally, I wouldn't have the debate on HN.
"By the way, our planet isn't overpopulated either. "
What number would it have to reach before you concede it is?
What number would it have to reach before you concede it is?
First, tell me the number where the world became overpopulated? 5 billion? 3 billion?
You can calculate a number from the resource (over)usage.
Some will, of course, claim that we consume too much – but at that point, it's a matter of opinion. I call it overpopulation for the current level of technology.
Some will, of course, claim that we consume too much – but at that point, it's a matter of opinion. I call it overpopulation for the current level of technology.
That's right. Overpopulation is a function of technology, etc. More people are coming out of poverty, and according to Bill Gates there will be almost no poor countries by 2035:
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/21/bill-gates-they-will-be-no-po...
If we can't figure out how to generate electricity by means other than coal, for example, we will have a problem. However, technology is increasing rapidly and increasing the quality of life for the majority of people is happening on a large scale.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-middle-class-is-explod...
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/11/13/middle-c...
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/21/bill-gates-they-will-be-no-po...
If we can't figure out how to generate electricity by means other than coal, for example, we will have a problem. However, technology is increasing rapidly and increasing the quality of life for the majority of people is happening on a large scale.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-middle-class-is-explod...
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/11/13/middle-c...
Cringe. Here's how this plays out:
I get a knock on the door... "Hello, it's me your long lost child..."
"Wait, what? I thought we aborted you?"
"Nope! Mom secretly put me in a bag and I was raised by Mormons. Would you like me to tell you about Joseph Smith?"
"Oh cool, yeah... this is exactly the outcome I hoped for when I paid for her to get an abortion 20 years ago... come on in!"
I get a knock on the door... "Hello, it's me your long lost child..."
"Wait, what? I thought we aborted you?"
"Nope! Mom secretly put me in a bag and I was raised by Mormons. Would you like me to tell you about Joseph Smith?"
"Oh cool, yeah... this is exactly the outcome I hoped for when I paid for her to get an abortion 20 years ago... come on in!"
The great thing about it is that it's a start. If it even begins to be used regularly to gestate fetuses for 25% of the gestation period, eventually techniques and technology will improve to use it for 30% then 40% and on and on.
Foothold technologies like this generally improve over time.
Foothold technologies like this generally improve over time.
One aspect of this that's interesting is the extent to which factors like the sound and pulse of the mother's heart, her movement, and sounds from the outside world affect fetal development.
For example, this system is pumpless, while the rest of the system evolved in the presence of a pump. In mammals the vascular system is continuously monitoring and optimizing blood-vessel diameter as a function of the waves of blood flowing through them. You don't get that if you have an artificial heart.
I bet movement also plays a role in fetal brain development too.
Therefore ideally the bag should be hung from a robot arm programmed to move like a sheep moves (maybe from recordings of an actual sheep), including sleeping at night etc. And the bag should gently pulse as though there's a heart and lungs. Also the miserable factory where these clones develop should play sounds of open pasture and birds, sheep bleating etc. That way they will be properly developed lambs ready to go to the abattoir. (edit: sorry for the sad ending)
For example, this system is pumpless, while the rest of the system evolved in the presence of a pump. In mammals the vascular system is continuously monitoring and optimizing blood-vessel diameter as a function of the waves of blood flowing through them. You don't get that if you have an artificial heart.
I bet movement also plays a role in fetal brain development too.
Therefore ideally the bag should be hung from a robot arm programmed to move like a sheep moves (maybe from recordings of an actual sheep), including sleeping at night etc. And the bag should gently pulse as though there's a heart and lungs. Also the miserable factory where these clones develop should play sounds of open pasture and birds, sheep bleating etc. That way they will be properly developed lambs ready to go to the abattoir. (edit: sorry for the sad ending)
> One aspect of this that's interesting is the extent to which factors like the sound and pulse of the mother's heart, her movement, and sounds from the outside world affect fetal development.
Not to mention the influence of everything else that the mother provides (hormone levels, immune system, ...).
I mean there are people that research whether c-sections vs. natural birth has a measurable impact on human children (and believe it has), for example. In that context, this would seem like a big diffrence.
And unlike things like sounds and mechanics these are things that are quite poorly understood. How humans develop their immune systems, get autoimmune diseases and allergies etc is tricky stuff. What this will do is at least help figure out what comes from where, because you can use identical twin animals where one is born naturally and one artificially.
Not to mention the influence of everything else that the mother provides (hormone levels, immune system, ...).
I mean there are people that research whether c-sections vs. natural birth has a measurable impact on human children (and believe it has), for example. In that context, this would seem like a big diffrence.
And unlike things like sounds and mechanics these are things that are quite poorly understood. How humans develop their immune systems, get autoimmune diseases and allergies etc is tricky stuff. What this will do is at least help figure out what comes from where, because you can use identical twin animals where one is born naturally and one artificially.
I believe this study is done as alternate treatment for premature born babies. In that respect these babies already miss this aspect in their development. I don't know how current incubators or treatments handle this or if the effect have been studied. But it makes me curious if it really makes a difference in longer term.
Yes and no. For the most premature babies in the low 20s week gestation they have minimal physical contact with their parents. However older preterm infants do receive Kangroo care with their mothers.
As we rapidly convert science fiction into reality, the question in my (vegetarian) mind is this:
Why not genetically engineer them to not have a brain? No brain, no chance it might suffer. The bare minimum of neurons needed for staying alive — pump heart, breathe, digest food — is tiny compared to a mamillian brain.
Why not genetically engineer them to not have a brain? No brain, no chance it might suffer. The bare minimum of neurons needed for staying alive — pump heart, breathe, digest food — is tiny compared to a mamillian brain.
Because it's even more ridiculous than raising normal animals for food. Producing a whole animal minus a functional brain is no less wasteful than raising a normal animal and you have the added expense of developing this tech (which, granted, goes to zero with time). We can already grow meat without actual animals, just using animal cells, and even engineering meat from completely plant tissue is viable. And that's for the case someone is psychologically “desperate” for meat as such, because we don't really need any animal products in our diet.
it is. it's a stupid idea.
although, when I go vegan, I don't like taking supplements. If we could engineer some foods to provide all the B12, Zinc & Iron etc we need that are hard to get from vegetables (without a a lot of effort) that would be nice.
although, when I go vegan, I don't like taking supplements. If we could engineer some foods to provide all the B12, Zinc & Iron etc we need that are hard to get from vegetables (without a a lot of effort) that would be nice.
We already do that, kind of, again in an extremely wasteful manner. Farmed animals get their B12 from supplementation mostly, so pretty much both vegans and non-vegans get it from supplementation. The food in the supply chain for both humans and farmed animals is just way to clean (good!) to get enough B12 without supplementation. I'm guessing that B12 is not the only micronutrient that is supplemented. But seriously, apart from B12, if one has any semblance of a reasonable, moderately varied diet, micros are not an issue in a vegan diet, you can easily verify this on nutrition trackers. And if you don't you probably should take some supplementation anyway.
Why not just isolate the meat and just grow meat? instead of growing lambs without brains that still have to grow into adults just to waste bones/tenonds/all other non edibles etc. etc. etc.
This is coming soon; there's already companies working on this. It makes the most sense, because once you can grow stuff biologically, for meat you only want the muscle and fat, you don't want the rest, so why bother growing it?
I predict that within 50 years (which may be overly conservative), killing animals for meat will be all but extinct, and we'll be eating artificially-grown meat.
I predict that within 50 years (which may be overly conservative), killing animals for meat will be all but extinct, and we'll be eating artificially-grown meat.
I think (in the absence of any post-school biology qualifications) that most of the rest is necessary to keep it alive. Bones make the blood, the white blood cells stop every random infection consuming the flesh they way they make it rot when it's dead.
As a meat-eater, I'd welcome that. It would be a great way to step around the whole issue of animal suffering.
Wouldn't such technology be forever rooted in animal suffering?
That is, I sort of doubt that the first attempts are 100% successful.
That is, I sort of doubt that the first attempts are 100% successful.
I don't mind really; I don't see how developing it would involve more animal suffering than normal breeding of animals for slaughter.
or, going the other way, it reminds me of a Stephen Baxter novel where humans were exclusively fed by "mummy cows", which were genetically-engineered cows who could provide meat while staying alive and actually enjoyed having meat taken from their bodies
Wait, wasn't this a joke in Douglas Adams's Restaurant at the End of the Universe?
I'm probably conflating the two
was thinking that too. Isn't there already a genetic condition where mammals can be born with no brain ? If so, CRISPR that up and there you go -- suffering-free meat in a convenient boil-in-the-bag format
There is, anencephaly, but it normally causes stillbirths in humans.
In a scary future, this could be used to grow a population fast. Once they can copy the entire pregnancy from (artificial) inception to ready made baby, they can grow a population from just the sperm and eggs of a few men and women. Send 1M embryos up to Mars, take them out of the freezer as you need more workers. You no longer need thousands of ships for that or to wait for generations. They might even be able to "bake in" chips and sensors in the process for better control of the population.
end 1M embryos up to Mars, take them out of the freezer as you need more workers.
Because of course a one month old baby is ready to work, right?
Sorry, but humans are social animals. We don't come ready-to-use; it takes a lot of training (about 9-18 months for basic language alone). Worse, we're born — by the standards of most mammals — prematurely: if we weren't, the maternal death rate would be unsustainable (big skulls don't pass easily through gaps in the mother's pelvis). Our immune systems are primed by the mother via colostrum ("first milk") after delivery: we can't walk for months, we don't even have full bowel control for a year or two. And then there's socialization and interaction and play and all the other panoply of human developmental requirements — which you might think are unimportant, but a quick look at the history of Romania's Ceaucescu-era orphanages and their survivors (the Ceaucescu dictatorship banned abortions) will give you a grisly tour of the failure modes.
The least-bad outcome of your proposal is that it would enable parents to rapidly raise a family with 2-20 children without inflicting direct physical damage on the female population (but don't underestimate the exigencies of raising children as a full-time job, specially on that scale). But it's not a colony-in-a-can gadget that will making planetary (or interstellar) colonization easy; someone's got to be there first, to prepare a safe and healthy environment for the kids to grow up in.
(If you say "yes but AI!" then I submit that you don't have any clear idea what you're asking for or you're a believer in the singularity, aka the rapture of the nerds.)
Because of course a one month old baby is ready to work, right?
Sorry, but humans are social animals. We don't come ready-to-use; it takes a lot of training (about 9-18 months for basic language alone). Worse, we're born — by the standards of most mammals — prematurely: if we weren't, the maternal death rate would be unsustainable (big skulls don't pass easily through gaps in the mother's pelvis). Our immune systems are primed by the mother via colostrum ("first milk") after delivery: we can't walk for months, we don't even have full bowel control for a year or two. And then there's socialization and interaction and play and all the other panoply of human developmental requirements — which you might think are unimportant, but a quick look at the history of Romania's Ceaucescu-era orphanages and their survivors (the Ceaucescu dictatorship banned abortions) will give you a grisly tour of the failure modes.
The least-bad outcome of your proposal is that it would enable parents to rapidly raise a family with 2-20 children without inflicting direct physical damage on the female population (but don't underestimate the exigencies of raising children as a full-time job, specially on that scale). But it's not a colony-in-a-can gadget that will making planetary (or interstellar) colonization easy; someone's got to be there first, to prepare a safe and healthy environment for the kids to grow up in.
(If you say "yes but AI!" then I submit that you don't have any clear idea what you're asking for or you're a believer in the singularity, aka the rapture of the nerds.)
I wonder what a few hundred years of using external gestation would do to early development.
The premature-birth thing can be fixed now with artificial wombs: we'll just keep kids in there longer, perhaps 2-4 years. Throw in some genetic engineering and some techniques to rapidly indoctrinate and train these people and we can grow a clone army! Bwahahaha!
The novel Cyteen by C.J. Cherryh depicts more or less this scenario: "normally" raised human colonists (who happen to include a lot of genetics, biology, and psychology experts) need to expand their population quickly, so they create babies in artificial wombs. Womb conditions simulate a particular human pregnancy with sound, movement, temperature, hormones, etc. After birth, children are socialized with a combination of brainwashing delivered via sensory "tapes" under hypnotic drugs, and orphanage/boarding school style care, with the front line caregivers themselves being artificial womb products. They are conditioned to be unable to disobey, so are essentially slaves, but are also conditioned to derive deep satisfaction from their work, with each worker genetically and psychologically optimized for a specific field/job. The resulting people are depicted as not "normal" in their psychology and social behavior, but in some ways superior (able to approach problems more rationally and systematically with less emotional involvement, for example). It's an interesting study by an author who clearly recognizes this scenario as slavery and ultimately wrong, but is also willing to explore a variety of both positive and negative implications.
In Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space series, there was a colonisation attempt before the main one in that series where fertilized embryoes were sent on ships with all they needed to rebuild civilisation. Turned out some fraction of the people born thusly became psychopaths and killed off all the rest, dooming the entire thing, so in the books all that is left is artifacts. I always found it a very nice touch and highly plausible that such an attempt failed spectacularly.
We already have that: at least 5-10% of the population is naturally born that way now. We try to socialize them out of it, which has some success, but for those who it doesn't, the dumb ones become hardened criminals, and the smart ones become politicians and CEOs.
This colonization idea needs to wait until we can figure out the genetic basis of sociopathy, and then we can genetically engineer it out of the fertilized embryos, and instead GE them to be much more interdependent and social than we are.
This colonization idea needs to wait until we can figure out the genetic basis of sociopathy, and then we can genetically engineer it out of the fertilized embryos, and instead GE them to be much more interdependent and social than we are.
I guess next we'll put hospital patients in such bags to protect them from the external environment, provide healing fluids as well? The future is looking pretty cool.
I'm picturing something like the pods in "The Matrix". Actually I can see a huge benefit to e.g. burns victims and other types of massive trauma where some time in an "artificial womb" could be hugely beneficial for regeneration. Cool indeed.
Technologist who are trying to create an A.I. empowered robot with silicon should take note. Why complicate stuff when you already have millions of years of evolution giving you a good framework to start. Genetically design babies, and then produce them. Bingo, there you have your A.I. new born.
Creating real A.I. robots that are close to humans (intelligence-wise) is just complicating the process and pushing us a bit further from the ethical questions. I say let's face them now and push A.I. through biotechnology.
Creating real A.I. robots that are close to humans (intelligence-wise) is just complicating the process and pushing us a bit further from the ethical questions. I say let's face them now and push A.I. through biotechnology.
I find it a fascinating implication that this could do to men what artificial insemination do for women. All that a man would need to start a family would be to visit a bio bank and wait, which with current rules has none of the requirement that exist for adoption.
This could become a model for space colonization, imagine you only send frozen embryos to another planet that then give birth to humans educated and raised by an AI.
I mean there is a limit how long we can preserve living humans and multi generational ships are very fragile ecosystems.
I mean there is a limit how long we can preserve living humans and multi generational ships are very fragile ecosystems.
Oddly this exact same URL was posted 2 days ago. I wonder why it didn't get caught?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14196680
I've had this happen multiple times. Usually it's because it's missing the "/" at the end or some other small change in the URL. Their check is only looking for exact matches.
I'm glad the dupe check isn't better, as it is undeniable that reaching the front page here is about luck just as much as quality.
This story is just as interesting as when it was first submitted, yet this submission is way more popular.
This story is just as interesting as when it was first submitted, yet this submission is way more popular.
Well, that post got no comments. So this could just be a resubmission.
[deleted]
Hacker roulette.
Disclaimer: I really know nothing about biology or genetics.
This is an area I find fascinating. One thing I've pondered is with merely a genome could you construct the organism it's from?
The first problem is creating a fertilized egg. Having that, it's not clear to me (again, as a layman) whether or not you could gestate that to an independent organism.
To put it in computing terms, imagine the genome as "source code" and the host (gestating) organism as, for lack of a better word, a "compiler". Now imagine that a lot of the complexity of life comes from these successive generations, which is to say that an organism isn't simply a function of its genome, it's essentially a function of every ancestor.
If you think about it, some organisms are born with some ingrained characteristics and behaviour. Humans have the moro reflex. Bear cubs manage to find way to their mother's milk when the mother is barely conscious. Some ducks are capable of swimming, eating and surviving from the day they're born.
How much of this is part of the genome and how much is "communicated" from mother to child in the womb?
Obviously only applies to a subset of animals. Birds, for example, are born in eggs and--unless I'm missing something--the only interaction between parent and egg once the egg is laid is incubation so it's easy to imagine that there is no "communication" in this phase.
But maybe this is what makes mammals (particularly primates) seemingly special? How much of what we do is hardwired or "software"?
So there have been two important developments in the last year or so. The first is hatching chicks without a shell [1]. The second is this and this is far more impressive.
If nothing else, this limits potential interactions between mother and unborn child. At least for sheep. I think this is a really important development.
[1]: https://www.cnet.com/news/video-shows-how-to-incubate-an-egg...
This is an area I find fascinating. One thing I've pondered is with merely a genome could you construct the organism it's from?
The first problem is creating a fertilized egg. Having that, it's not clear to me (again, as a layman) whether or not you could gestate that to an independent organism.
To put it in computing terms, imagine the genome as "source code" and the host (gestating) organism as, for lack of a better word, a "compiler". Now imagine that a lot of the complexity of life comes from these successive generations, which is to say that an organism isn't simply a function of its genome, it's essentially a function of every ancestor.
If you think about it, some organisms are born with some ingrained characteristics and behaviour. Humans have the moro reflex. Bear cubs manage to find way to their mother's milk when the mother is barely conscious. Some ducks are capable of swimming, eating and surviving from the day they're born.
How much of this is part of the genome and how much is "communicated" from mother to child in the womb?
Obviously only applies to a subset of animals. Birds, for example, are born in eggs and--unless I'm missing something--the only interaction between parent and egg once the egg is laid is incubation so it's easy to imagine that there is no "communication" in this phase.
But maybe this is what makes mammals (particularly primates) seemingly special? How much of what we do is hardwired or "software"?
So there have been two important developments in the last year or so. The first is hatching chicks without a shell [1]. The second is this and this is far more impressive.
If nothing else, this limits potential interactions between mother and unborn child. At least for sheep. I think this is a really important development.
[1]: https://www.cnet.com/news/video-shows-how-to-incubate-an-egg...
I'm doubtful about this. There's no neural connection between mother and child, and I find it hard to believe there's some alternative communication mode with enough bandwidth to teach behaviours.
The fetus may be listening to the outside environment or hearing his or her mother talk, but if this was a prerequisite to the "specialness" of humans/primates you are referring to, then we would see significant differences in the immediate post-natal behaviour of congenitally deaf children. I haven't searched the literature for this topic, but I personally have never seen that mentioned.
An easier explanation is that these are genetically encoded. The ducks are a good example. Ducks hatched from eggs that are artificially incubated seem to have the same core instincts as those hatched from natural incubation.
That said, there are still important forms of communication between mother and child: chemicals. An extreme example is the disastrous and tragic affect of alcohol on fetal development.
The fetus may be listening to the outside environment or hearing his or her mother talk, but if this was a prerequisite to the "specialness" of humans/primates you are referring to, then we would see significant differences in the immediate post-natal behaviour of congenitally deaf children. I haven't searched the literature for this topic, but I personally have never seen that mentioned.
An easier explanation is that these are genetically encoded. The ducks are a good example. Ducks hatched from eggs that are artificially incubated seem to have the same core instincts as those hatched from natural incubation.
That said, there are still important forms of communication between mother and child: chemicals. An extreme example is the disastrous and tragic affect of alcohol on fetal development.
One thing I've pondered is with merely a genome could you construct the organism it's from?
Craig Venter already did that with a bacterial. He synthesized the entire genome, then inserted it a cell. I assume that cell already had the other machinery (translation enzymes, etc).
Craig Venter already did that with a bacterial. He synthesized the entire genome, then inserted it a cell. I assume that cell already had the other machinery (translation enzymes, etc).
Single cells organisms are one thing. I don't think you can automatically extrapolate from bacteria to primates however.
Pictures or it didn't happen. C'mon this is 2017, everyone has a camera in their pocket!
I expect the pictures look so gross that they don't want to publish it, afraid for public outcry. And thus settle with drawings instead :)
I expect the pictures look so gross that they don't want to publish it, afraid for public outcry. And thus settle with drawings instead :)
Not sure why the article didn't include it, but here is a Swedish news article with a video: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/vetenskap/lammfoster-overlevde-fy...
Wow! Thanks, video!
Thanks for the video!
It reminded me of the scene in the Matrix with Neo coming out of his tank.
It reminded me of the scene in the Matrix with Neo coming out of his tank.
An artificial womb is also one of the steps required to bring back the mammoth.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170221-reviving-woolly-mamm...
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170221-reviving-woolly-mamm...
This is actually great. The possibilities are vast: saving prematurely born babies, speeding up the healing process of patients with severe burns...and then even (maybe) bringing back to life some of the extinct species (this one's tricky though).
I wonder what the implications of functioning artificial wombs would be to abortion. Would it make sense to allow people to abort if we could take the fetus from the mother and let it become a baby?
If/when that becomes feasible, I assume moving the fetus to the artificial womb would become a more humanitarian (if more expensive) equivalent to getting an abortion.
I wonder how long before we have cities that regulate humans population via such machines as shown in Ergo Proxy?
It's going to take a while, for what they have described is a process to keep extremely preterm foetus alive, rather than an artificial environment to develop an entire organism from a fertilised egg - we actually know lot about IV fertilisation and keeping it alive through the first few development stages, but there are still significant gaps to cover until you have a somewhat developed foetus that has a chance of survival outside the womb.
In parallel example, we have not managed to find an artificial replacement for egg shells which is required for avian embryos to develop. Some techniques do exist, but none of the them were able to ensure survival past the first 2 weeks. Considering that humans have been breeding chicken for centuries, there is still plenty we don't know about our favourite bird, let alone fellow humans.
In parallel example, we have not managed to find an artificial replacement for egg shells which is required for avian embryos to develop. Some techniques do exist, but none of the them were able to ensure survival past the first 2 weeks. Considering that humans have been breeding chicken for centuries, there is still plenty we don't know about our favourite bird, let alone fellow humans.
Hatching a chick shell free using plastic wrap was developed in 2014. It was recently replicated by Japanese students which made the news.
Not really, similar techniques were developed as early as.the 70s and there are sufficient doubt that the student project in the news did not go as well as they claimed, nor was there any report of reproducibility in a controlled laboratory setting.
Jurassic Park, at least in book form, describes in the first few chapter or three a revolutionary plastic which can replace an egg shell and produce viable chicks. I believe that this was based on actual contemporary science, circa 1990.
What's really frightening is not controlling human population, but vastly expanding it. Countries could grow citizens in factories. I've always thought Malthus would come back roaring, but this could go uncomfortably far.
No need to let them run free. Those humans could work remotely, from a small pod of amniotic fluid, mounted to the side of a huge tower. They could live their lives in MMOs, which would seem absolutely realistic, if that was the only thing they ever experienced. I don't think it is realistic to use them as an energy source though, heat would be a waste product in an environment like that.
I've always been confused about the part of The Matrix where they still bother to grow the whole human, rather than just the brain.
Rewatching the films recently, the only explanation I've thought of for the machine's barmy plan is that they must be bound by the three laws or feel some kind of deep obligation to us, even after we made the entire world uninhabitable. Why else would they spend so much time growing us, feeding us, simulating for us, allowing the One(s) to save humanity repeatedly, and why else would they initially try to simulate paradise for us?
The original script mechanic was that the machines used human brains to run the Matrix, hence why some people are able to influence it.
That explains why the humans aren't just ems (which is what people are more commonly confused about.) But I wasn't asking that; I was asking, why do they need the rest of the human, other than their brain? It costs far more to feed than just the brain would.
The method of which they produce the fetuses is never explained in the franchise, and considering they'd want to maintain genetic diversity it's probable that they simply harvest gametes from mature humans in the power plant and incubate an embryo.
There's also the whole "cycle" thing that's apparantley gone on for 6 iterations, allowing humans who reject the matrix to leave and periodically cull them was a solution to widespread rejection of the system that would have affected entire crops of humans. It's hard to do that if they don't have physical bodies to escape the system in the real world.
There's also the whole "cycle" thing that's apparantley gone on for 6 iterations, allowing humans who reject the matrix to leave and periodically cull them was a solution to widespread rejection of the system that would have affected entire crops of humans. It's hard to do that if they don't have physical bodies to escape the system in the real world.
When Neo disconnected, the machines just dumped him for recycling. That is consistent with the machines eliminating humans who develop connection problems (mental disconnect with the Matrix), but it still doesn't account for the humans' bodies being grown and maintained in a nearly functional state.
What really bugged me about their scheme, was the suggestion that a human might make a decent power source. Perhaps that was all misdirection, and the humans are actually the computing substrate of the entire system? Maybe the machines were never able to compute at the power efficiency of a human brain? Maybe they suck at nanotech altogether, and can't even design a decent microchip without human assistance? All their stuff is big and bulky.
(5 minutes later) Lol, I can't believe I guessed it. Thanks to deegles for the background info.
What really bugged me about their scheme, was the suggestion that a human might make a decent power source. Perhaps that was all misdirection, and the humans are actually the computing substrate of the entire system? Maybe the machines were never able to compute at the power efficiency of a human brain? Maybe they suck at nanotech altogether, and can't even design a decent microchip without human assistance? All their stuff is big and bulky.
(5 minutes later) Lol, I can't believe I guessed it. Thanks to deegles for the background info.
My take is that they never managed to find a way to grow humans outside the 'ordinary' way. So they simply didn't have the technology to grow and sustain a working brains without also growing a whole human.
They can't just grow the human to adulthood, and then take the brain out and throw the body away? The point isn't to avoid growing a body; it's to avoid feeding a body that is laying there doing nothing, when the brain would have a much lower energy+nutrient cost.
I wonder if these imaginary super-AI couldn't come up with a solution, does that make this problem of growing just the brain a NP-HARD problem in this imaginary world?
I don't know, I never got the feeling that the AI in the matrix was 'that' smart.
Much like the last episode of the 1988 TV show Max Headroom, “Baby Grobags”.
imagine no more abortions, you're just giving your child away prior to birth.
Super!! Bringing the Wooly Mammoth and more extinct animals is next :-D!
George Church's group at Harvard is proposing using similar technology in their attempt to clone a mammoth by replacing the DNA in an elephant egg with DNA from a mammoth. They want to grow it extracorporeally for its entire development, because doing it in utero in an elephant would present additional ethical issues (i.e., potentially harming elephants in an experiment of a technology that is far from mature).
What a time to be a lamb! :D
One should read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley after this.
Axolotl tanks? ;)
I think this is absolutely sick, I know there are way more horrible experiments scientists do with animals but this gives me the creeps. Its just sick, let nature but nature and stop messing around with it. Seriously if this continues we have AI that breeds Humans as their power or brain source and the matrix becomes reality.
I do not think this is a rational response. I get that the "knee-jerk" reaction might be one of total disgust (I know because I also had it reading this), but there should be a bit of rational thought put into what would be the consequences of this.
Because AI growing humans and the Matrix becoming reality is a little bit on the "surreal paranoid" side of life, given the current state of scientific knowledge.
On that same train of thought, but with a more realistic outlook, we could just think of the many difficult pregnancy cases that women might face that this development might help solve. And by difficult cases I mean situations where women who want a child face complications during pregnancy.
And generally (even though I'm a natural pessimist), I think it's best to have a positive outlook towards the products of our own curiosity. They might bring trouble, but there are very few other natural catalysts to progress other than curiosity. War comes to mind as an alternative, but I believe that is less than desired.
As said in another comment, it might be benificial for premature babies.
disgust is a useful expression but I'm not sure I would rely on it to make choices and strange imagined futures. I'm glad that your disgust was vivid enough to conjure such a future in your head though!
Oh yeah it may help humans, in the future mothers can simply skip the "annoying" part of being pregnant. Thats great the future is here women can stay sexy and thin, being naturally pregnant will be totally out. Welcome to the brave new world.
Awesome who cares about animals if we can help humans.
And yeah downvote me because I do not embrace this unhuman future.
Awesome who cares about animals if we can help humans.
And yeah downvote me because I do not embrace this unhuman future.
It's not quite a total replacement for a natural womb (and the Nature article only uses the word "womb once, in the abstract), as it can't grow a fetus from an embryo; you have to start with a pre-incubated fetus that already has an umbilical ford to plug into and a strong enough heart. But even though we won't be growing test-tube babies 100% in-vitro with this thing, it is a major advance that could significantly push back the earliest time at which a premature baby could remain viable with artificial incubation.