Japan approves first human-animal embryo experiments(nature.com)
nature.com
Japan approves first human-animal embryo experiments
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02275-3
186 comments
[In 2017, Nakauchi and his colleagues reported the injection of mouse iPS cells into the embryo of a rat that was unable to produce a pancreas. The rat formed a pancreas made entirely of mouse cells. Nakauchi and his team transplanted that pancreas back into a mouse that had been engineered to have diabetes, The rat-produced organ was able to control blood sugar levels, effectively curing the mouse of diabetes1.]
WOW :O
A good day for diabetic mice!
Was it the hitch hikers guide that said, "As a result of their time on Earth, mouse scientists had developed the means to cure all mouse diseases, allowing their civilization to survive in perpetuity."
I mean, they are engineered to have diabetes, I don't know if they have much cause to celebrate.
I hoped technology would reduce animal exploitation. It does in some areas, like cell farming to create food without animals. And synthetic models for pharmaceutical research. Maybe this branch of research can evolve to eliminate animals as well.
There will still exist a fascinating dichotomy, up until we can predict result without either simulation or animal models. An ideal engineered organism would be a delightfully weird homunculus, and a sufficiently advanced simulation could be deemed to be a living creature too.
Perhaps it is best to make sure that lab technicians feel a great deal of empathy for the animals they work with.
Perhaps it is best to make sure that lab technicians feel a great deal of empathy for the animals they work with.
Have to be careful, though. Too much empathy and you'll quit your job.
I would hope instead that they refuse to do certain procedures. Then if someone else gets asked to do the same procedure in hope of less empathy there should be alarms going off.
The lab technicians will after all be the experts on the subject; not academics on an ethics board.
The lab technicians will after all be the experts on the subject; not academics on an ethics board.
The sheer number of animals abused and killed for food [0][1] is 3 orders of magnitude larger than the number for research [2] (at least in USA). Animal research is more abstractly upsetting-sounding than killing animals for food (perhaps because we've been doing it for a briefer part of our species's existence), but the horrid conditions of most livestock raised for food in the US don't seem any better than those of lab animals; at least rats are anesthetized for the more gruesome experiments. There's also no clear reason to eat meat other than pleasure and food tradition, whereas animal medical experiments provide a unique means to massively improve our physical wellbeing.
I think that once we've reduced our meat consumption by 99.9%, then it might make some sense to spend energy coming up with alternatives to animal testing for medicine. For now, it's hard for me to see animal testing as the key bottleneck. If you profiled your code and found that one badly-implemented function was taking up 99.9% of your execution time, why would you ever waste any time optimizing the 0.1% function?
[0] https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/report...
[1] https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/report...
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218261/
I think that once we've reduced our meat consumption by 99.9%, then it might make some sense to spend energy coming up with alternatives to animal testing for medicine. For now, it's hard for me to see animal testing as the key bottleneck. If you profiled your code and found that one badly-implemented function was taking up 99.9% of your execution time, why would you ever waste any time optimizing the 0.1% function?
[0] https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/report...
[1] https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/report...
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218261/
Looks like we're moving in that direction for some things with organ on a chip systems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ-on-a-chip
Technology may eventually help reduce humans who don't mind exploitation.
Beyond that, I'm afraid it'll be business as usual.
Beyond that, I'm afraid it'll be business as usual.
These damn ethics committees are just slowing down much needed progress. Let's not pretend that DARPA and other black military scientific experimentation sites around the world have, and are, operating under the ethical radar and keeping their findings classified and to themselves and highly doubtful to the betterment of mankind. Let's just call a spade a spade and loosen the restrictions on the scientific community that actually operates with the public good in mind.
Let's move fast and break things, including our ethics.
Counties have done unethical experiments on humans before, and maybe they do it now. Why should we hold ourselves to a standard, if other groups do not? I couldn't possibly think of a reason why the scientific community would hold themselves accountable, rather than think they know best and act as if they were superior to the larger community they work to improve. I mean, that mindset has never gone wrong.
Personally, I like seeing a community doing some attempt at self regulation. Maybe it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.
Counties have done unethical experiments on humans before, and maybe they do it now. Why should we hold ourselves to a standard, if other groups do not? I couldn't possibly think of a reason why the scientific community would hold themselves accountable, rather than think they know best and act as if they were superior to the larger community they work to improve. I mean, that mindset has never gone wrong.
Personally, I like seeing a community doing some attempt at self regulation. Maybe it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.
Let's move fast and break things, including our ethics.
Why not? That's how we got vaccines, isn't it? (Stated completely without any ironic intent.)
Why not? That's how we got vaccines, isn't it? (Stated completely without any ironic intent.)
As usual, Japan is ahead of things.
Maybe in not-so-distant future we'll see human DNA modification.
It's the only way towards, as devolution will dull us otherwise with all these bad, useless habits too available.
I understand (and agree with) all these moral related questions and why so many downvotes in this topic. What is interesting, when one nation develops this tech and their people will live, say, 150 years, will these morals survive in other countries?
Like iPhone manufacturing, the West will buy the finished product before it allows the experimentation under its roof.
Might be. But it is quite different from iPhone manufacturing. It actually could more dangerous than nukes. West will just buy this you say, but why it is not possible now to just buy several intercontinental ballistic missiles? There are people with enough money and desire to buy this.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> but why it is not possible now to just buy several intercontinental ballistic missiles?
It probably is. You'll have to buy them from North Korea in secret though.
It probably is. You'll have to buy them from North Korea in secret though.
Good for mice i guess. Bad for rats.
When I heard Alex Jones on Joe Rogan saying that there was human-animal experiments being made I thought he was exaggerating.
In my opinion this kind of research crosses some ethical lines that shouldn't be crossed. If one considers an embryo as an independent life, what species the embryo belongs to? Wouldn't be the ones in this experiment half humans with human rights? After all, the scientist doesn't know all, and the cells he put in could evolve to a chain reaction of the hybrid developing human conscious.
Just my opinion tho, as I know nothing about genetics and biology.
In my opinion this kind of research crosses some ethical lines that shouldn't be crossed. If one considers an embryo as an independent life, what species the embryo belongs to? Wouldn't be the ones in this experiment half humans with human rights? After all, the scientist doesn't know all, and the cells he put in could evolve to a chain reaction of the hybrid developing human conscious.
Just my opinion tho, as I know nothing about genetics and biology.
I saw you had been downvoted and I upvoted you, despite disagreeing very strongly with your opinion, because you stated your opinion without vitriol and while I might disagree I'll still fight for your right to say it as long you do so in a way that isn't hurtful.
I think the line of inquiry into replacement organs can be researched ethically but the how of the research may cross ethical lines if not done carefully. Given diseases we have, I think we need to do the research and find an ethical way to make this kind of organ production happen, if we want to extend human lifespan.
I think the line of inquiry into replacement organs can be researched ethically but the how of the research may cross ethical lines if not done carefully. Given diseases we have, I think we need to do the research and find an ethical way to make this kind of organ production happen, if we want to extend human lifespan.
I knew I would be, but its fine. Thank you for your words! I share the same belief regarding freedom of speech.
About the research, I hope I am wrong and the advances that came out of it help save lives and extend the human life. I just wish they take those ethical questions in consideration too.
About the research, I hope I am wrong and the advances that came out of it help save lives and extend the human life. I just wish they take those ethical questions in consideration too.
Well, if you're allowing abortion on the basis that an embryo isn't human life, you're by extension allowing this.
Right, that's what I am saying. If even that discussion isn't settled yet, we should be more careful and wait before mixing humans and animals.
That discussion was reasonably settled a very long time ago and court cases established reasonable laws around it. Then one side demanded a do-over, in much the same way they are seeking do-overs for a lot of previously seemingly settled issues.
A court decision may settle a working compromise given evidence available at the time and the preferences of the people in the area. I'd say that's a far cry from settling an ethical issue.
Court cases don't settle moral disagreements and moral disagreements are never "settled" in a way that you can accuse some party of "demanding a do-over".
There is a lot of settled law in the history of the USA that shouldn't stand (segregation, suffrage, slavery, extreme methods of execution) no matter how reasonable the various settlements seemed to some at the time of their "settlement".
When an issue will not be settled no matter how reasonable the first party is the second party is either motivated by tyranny or just principles. The former requires force to suppress. The latter cannot be suppressed forever without destroying the goods the first party wishes to preserve.
When an issue will not be settled no matter how reasonable the first party is the second party is either motivated by tyranny or just principles. The former requires force to suppress. The latter cannot be suppressed forever without destroying the goods the first party wishes to preserve.
The discussion is very settled in a number of countries. I assume Japan is one of them.
Human-animal experiments are done for quite some time. Cloned mice receive tumor grown on human derived tissue so-called xenografts. And it's immensely helpful in checking whether certain drugs work.
> Just my opinion tho, as I know nothing about genetics and biology.
Arguments from ignorance are rarely helpful.
Arguments from ignorance are rarely helpful.
I agree. But even the ignorant on the matter can raise relevant questions, more so when the subject cross boundaries on other less "restrict to the experts" topics, like ethics.
It beats organlegging (which is a real thing now) but we should be able to regrow our own organs and limbs.
Becker, "The Body Electric" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_Electric_(book)
But then he died and most research dried up, but now there's Levin: https://ase.tufts.edu/biology/labs/levin/
Becker, "The Body Electric" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_Electric_(book)
But then he died and most research dried up, but now there's Levin: https://ase.tufts.edu/biology/labs/levin/
How does the human part affect cognition? A stem cell for example is before it "decides" to be a specific cell right? If that is the case in terms of embryo development, then how do they coax only specific cells in embryos to only express themselves in parts of the body excluding the brain. Complicated but I really am not understanding some basic principles here.
Yes you are missing basic parts. There are certain genes that produce proteins that then bind to other control areas of the DNA that affect how much other genes are expressed. These last genes translate to proteins that make e.g. a pancreatic cell what it is. But this is a tree of increased specialization on which embryonic stem cells become e.g. blood stem cells which then specialize to rbc, white platelet producers.
Yeah America has all the moral debates about genetics and experiments with embryos. But the bottom line is other countries are going to move forward no matter what America does.
While I disagree with the US's stance, ignoring your morals because other countries are doing something would be a race to the bottom.
> ignoring your morals
If those morals say people should die instead of getting the organ transplants they need, maybe we are better off ignoring such morals.
If those morals say people should die instead of getting the organ transplants they need, maybe we are better off ignoring such morals.
The moral is that embryos deserve the same rights as people, so you’re really just killing one person to save another
But do rats (or other non-human animals) with human organs deserve the same rights as humans? I don't think that the human pancreas is the source of our innate "human-ness" that gives us distinct moral standing from non-human animals. You can certainly wonder whether there is any such thing that gives humans a special standing, but if you also eat pork, you have a tricky row to hoe in that argument.
And some people disagree with the fundamental basis of that moral.
No it is not.
Viability matters here. I realize you see that differently. Realize others will ALWAYS differ on this. ALWAYS.
Frankly, this will absolutely be done. There probably will be wars over it too.
And it still will be done.
And then it will be done sans an embryo, using stems.
Right now, powerful, wealthy people are paying full attention. The one thing they cannot buy will end up for sale. More time.
Buckle up. It is going to get super ugly.
Viability matters here. I realize you see that differently. Realize others will ALWAYS differ on this. ALWAYS.
Frankly, this will absolutely be done. There probably will be wars over it too.
And it still will be done.
And then it will be done sans an embryo, using stems.
Right now, powerful, wealthy people are paying full attention. The one thing they cannot buy will end up for sale. More time.
Buckle up. It is going to get super ugly.
He's not saying the idea is accurate, he's simply stating the idea. No need to argue unless you don't think he's representing the viewpoint accurately.
I think it is accurate, and we all see that how we see it.
There is not a wrong, just grave differences, IMHO, unresolvable ones. At least for a considerable time.
That was the intended point.
People are going to really struggle over this area of tech.
Not so much an argument as it is, look out. Incoming!
There is not a wrong, just grave differences, IMHO, unresolvable ones. At least for a considerable time.
That was the intended point.
People are going to really struggle over this area of tech.
Not so much an argument as it is, look out. Incoming!
Viability? That's a moral slippery slope if I ever saw one.
Yes but according to most western countries where abortion is legal it doesn't matter.
That's a short-sighted view of morals in general. Whenever a new technology is made available to the world, you must take the good side-effects with the bad. It's very convenient to only view this from the lens of improved health service without considering that previously unexploitable biological processes that are now in control of 3rd parties.
This research is part of a larger trend in biology where things once thought to be impractical are rapidly becoming possible. Extend these trends decades into the future; are you okay with a world where people can select the quality/type/number of organs for other people? What about the intentional creation of deadly viruses that select for subsets of the population? What about organizations intentionally modifying embryos to create people fit for menial labor? What about people making involuntary clones of others? And so on and so forth with the presently sci-fi topics.
Whether or not most people would generally agree to do such things, the fact is that they become possible. Without accurately projecting the economic factors in play 50, 100, 200 years from now, you can't actually confirm that people won't exploit biological research in this way.
Consider the atomic bomb as a case study. There are immediate positive side-effects that particle physics has brought to the world; but it doesn't simply cancel out the negative effects, nor can anyone alter their severity. After the creation of the 1st atomic bomb, the world is now left in a position where any of the major world super powers can _literally_ wipe out all human life on earth. Millions of man-hours per year have to be dedicated to preventing terrorist groups from acquiring atomic weaponry, and the stakes of political action have been permanently raised.
Similarly, if producing viable human-animal embryos becomes possible, the status quo of biology is permanently altered. Is it for the better? Maybe, but it's glib to just _assume_ it's better.
This research is part of a larger trend in biology where things once thought to be impractical are rapidly becoming possible. Extend these trends decades into the future; are you okay with a world where people can select the quality/type/number of organs for other people? What about the intentional creation of deadly viruses that select for subsets of the population? What about organizations intentionally modifying embryos to create people fit for menial labor? What about people making involuntary clones of others? And so on and so forth with the presently sci-fi topics.
Whether or not most people would generally agree to do such things, the fact is that they become possible. Without accurately projecting the economic factors in play 50, 100, 200 years from now, you can't actually confirm that people won't exploit biological research in this way.
Consider the atomic bomb as a case study. There are immediate positive side-effects that particle physics has brought to the world; but it doesn't simply cancel out the negative effects, nor can anyone alter their severity. After the creation of the 1st atomic bomb, the world is now left in a position where any of the major world super powers can _literally_ wipe out all human life on earth. Millions of man-hours per year have to be dedicated to preventing terrorist groups from acquiring atomic weaponry, and the stakes of political action have been permanently raised.
Similarly, if producing viable human-animal embryos becomes possible, the status quo of biology is permanently altered. Is it for the better? Maybe, but it's glib to just _assume_ it's better.
Do you consider it moral or immoral to harvest organs from prisoners, as China reportedly does?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests...
lonelappde(2)
Morals are subjective and personal. A country has ethics, but those are also a collective representation and open to change.
When it comes to biological sciences, we are on the forefront of some very big questions that do need consideration, especially because other populations (in advanced first-world countries) are deciding to move forward.
When it comes to biological sciences, we are on the forefront of some very big questions that do need consideration, especially because other populations (in advanced first-world countries) are deciding to move forward.
And every person arguing this is going to use this tech to save their kid regardless of their current moral position
I don't want to be dismissive of either side of the debate, but this specifically seems to be a very weak argument.
If Japan had just approved involuntary human experimentation on political prisoners, and it eventually lead to a breakthrough on cancer research, every person who argued against it would still immediately use that research to save their kids.
People are (broadly speaking) usually hypocritical when their individual needs conflict with their social ideals. Productive discussions about social moral standards should usually ignore that hypocrisy.
If Japan had just approved involuntary human experimentation on political prisoners, and it eventually lead to a breakthrough on cancer research, every person who argued against it would still immediately use that research to save their kids.
People are (broadly speaking) usually hypocritical when their individual needs conflict with their social ideals. Productive discussions about social moral standards should usually ignore that hypocrisy.
I wouldn't call morals things that change the moment a big company with deep pockets and suave lobbyists has a stake in changing them.
Acknowledging they have different moral doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Just like them you should do what you think is right.
What if those morals are evil?
(Philosophical question I suppose)
(Philosophical question I suppose)
What if the other side's morals are evil? What even is evil? Is there an objective "evil"?
If significant % of the population doesn't think it's problematic it should be allowed as long as it doesn't influence lives of the other part. You can easily opt out of any stem cells based research or treatment, we can make it not state funded. Opposing that is the kind of self-righteous aggressive morality I despise.
It's the same with abortion: about half the population thinks it's ok to let a woman decide. It doesn't influence you, your family or your community if you opt out. If you still think your feelings should dictate how others then you're the problem and the reason there are so many conflicts and so much violence caused by "I want to dictate how others live and I don't accept if they disagree".
Just one example of how abortion affects everybody: Sex selective abortions leave millions without somebody to marry and live with.
Not a problem in a Western culture. If it's a problem in yours then there are many other ways to fix things to make raising girls better for the parents than forcing them to have children so you are provided with a bride. I mean, seriously that's a sense of entitlement right there: "Not only you will have children even if you don't want to but you will have them so they are spouses for others".
That's what robot lovers are for silly goose!
Wouldn't we still have slavery if we did things the way you suggest?
That would very clearly negatively affect the opposing party.
You first have to define the opposing party. Are you speaking of the slaves or of the other humans who oppose slavery? Because remember, part of the justification is that slaves and unborn babies are not fully human, and thus cannot be the opposing party.
If you have slavery, obviously you're not going to care much whether the slaves oppose it.
Slavery kinda influences lives of slaves. Maybe.
But slaves don't get to vote, so it's a moot point.
To phrase this more succinctly, you're saying that society should never intercede on behalf of the victims of moral injustice as long as the perpetrators are sufficiently numerous.
I'm sure you would disagree, of course, because you probably only see this principle applying to certain moral issues--namely, the ones you've already carved out as exceptions because you don't perceive them as injustices.
I'm sure you would disagree, of course, because you probably only see this principle applying to certain moral issues--namely, the ones you've already carved out as exceptions because you don't perceive them as injustices.
This isn't really a problem. America can just wait for somebody else to take the risk and show the benefit, and then popular opinion would change. And we have the back-bench to develop these technologies once somebody has shown it possible.
note that many parts of the US enthusiastically adopted stem cell technology (https://www.cirm.ca.gov/about-cirm/history) but unfortunately federal-level policies set by conservative leaders have ameliorated the ambitious plans of that project.
note that many parts of the US enthusiastically adopted stem cell technology (https://www.cirm.ca.gov/about-cirm/history) but unfortunately federal-level policies set by conservative leaders have ameliorated the ambitious plans of that project.
Nobody was concerned about using stem cell technology or stem cell research.
The opposition was/is entirely to the death of embryos in order to obtain some stem cells for research. It's not as if it's some anti-science policy.
It's simply a continuation of anti-abortion politics, which a lot of people feel very strongly about and invokes a ton of ethical questions. As long as there can be a perception that someone was killed in order to provide the stem cells to save someone else, that's not going to go away.
Find ways to research stem cells without doing that and all of those concerns vanish.
The opposition was/is entirely to the death of embryos in order to obtain some stem cells for research. It's not as if it's some anti-science policy.
It's simply a continuation of anti-abortion politics, which a lot of people feel very strongly about and invokes a ton of ethical questions. As long as there can be a perception that someone was killed in order to provide the stem cells to save someone else, that's not going to go away.
Find ways to research stem cells without doing that and all of those concerns vanish.
The program I'm describing was funded to work with stem cells derived from embryos.
https://www.cirm.ca.gov/about-cirm/cirm-faq#embryos "All the embryos used in CIRM-funded research were donated from IVF clinics. They had either been rejected for implantation and were going to be destroyed, or the couple had decided to stop storing the embryos for future use. The embryos used to create embryonic stem cell lines were already destined to be destroyed."
https://www.cirm.ca.gov/about-cirm/cirm-faq#embryos "All the embryos used in CIRM-funded research were donated from IVF clinics. They had either been rejected for implantation and were going to be destroyed, or the couple had decided to stop storing the embryos for future use. The embryos used to create embryonic stem cell lines were already destined to be destroyed."
This is nuance; Of which entertainment news and polarized parties are not very good at exploring.
[deleted]
lonelappde(1)
Not necessarily - if enough countries have moral issues with experimentation on human embryos there could easily be substantial pushback through economic or physical means. Maybe they won't draw the line here, but there's definitely a line people have with human experimentation.
You're also making the assumption that this is moving "forward" and that there won't be ramifications outside of external influence by other countries.
You're also making the assumption that this is moving "forward" and that there won't be ramifications outside of external influence by other countries.
The problem with this is that America has a lot of money and brainpower behind it, so it sitting on the sideline inevitably slows down progress.
According to the article, these experiments have already been done in the US before.
Not these experiments, similar experiments.
Pronoun ambiguity strikes again. Yes, that’s what I was referring to, human-animal embryonic experimentation.
>Assuming the Japanese don't have debates on bioethics.
Nice.
Nice.
Don't be snarky.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
He didn't assume that. Also, you're making the internet a worse place by accusing him of doing that. You should feel bad.
It's a logical consequence of the statement that America has all the ethical debates on genetics.
Pretty sure they meant "all these debates." Doubt they think USA has the only debates in the world.
As in, "you're having all these debates about how to defend your front door but you don't even have a lock on your back door."
As in, "you're having all these debates about how to defend your front door but you don't even have a lock on your back door."
Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes this place worse still.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
“Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.”
> ...other countries are going to move forward no matter what America does.
While that's their prerogative, the US could still enact trade sanctions.
On the other hand, DARPA is probably already working on the next generation of hybrid human/gorilla soldier.
Related:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926701-000-blasts-f...
While that's their prerogative, the US could still enact trade sanctions.
On the other hand, DARPA is probably already working on the next generation of hybrid human/gorilla soldier.
Related:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926701-000-blasts-f...
Isn't it highly likely this is already being done by various other nations already in secret labs?
[deleted]
Alex Jones Heavy Breathing
[deleted]
Why all comments are being down-voted?
(Personally... I think this tech is amazing and I can't wait for it to be available worldwide!)
(Personally... I think this tech is amazing and I can't wait for it to be available worldwide!)
You mean the South Park references that add no contribution to this scientific article? Or people broadcasting their moral opinions into the void?
I don't see any good comments downvoted.
I don't see any good comments downvoted.
Yeah for example the super-profound and constructive top comment that just quotes the article and adds "WOW :O".
That's quality content, unlike a the South Park reference drawing a simile between serious research and the (humorously) exaggerated potential disasters of combining human DNA with other species.
Obviously the second was made by some common peasant lacking the intelligence to engage with the audience here. The first, clearly being the work of an intellectual powerhouse the likes of which we stand in awe of, has rightly collected the praise and votes they deserve.
That's quality content, unlike a the South Park reference drawing a simile between serious research and the (humorously) exaggerated potential disasters of combining human DNA with other species.
Obviously the second was made by some common peasant lacking the intelligence to engage with the audience here. The first, clearly being the work of an intellectual powerhouse the likes of which we stand in awe of, has rightly collected the praise and votes they deserve.
[deleted]
I've noticed that too. It seems like it is happening quiet a bit lately. Comments getting voted down out of no where for seemingly no reason.
Mods need to look into this trend and give us a report.
Finally, Japan can make good on the real life creations from their anime movies.
Poor rats. Poor mice.
man-bear-pig origin story confirmed
The first thing that came to my mind was "Edward...".
Yes, it's pretty crazy how well this already works.
A toast to the manpig that shall grow my future replacement liver!
A toast to the manpig that shall grow my future replacement liver!
[deleted]
grow human organs inside rats and? how does that work? i don't understand. meanwhile we are entering the sixt mass extinction event caused by a massive climate change. what good is this technology when you have failing crops, extreme weather, no electricity and mass immigration at your doorstep?
Presumably, the eventual goal is to grow full-sized organs inside some larger animal. Then the organ can be harvested and transplanted to a human who needs it. Per my understanding, medicine does a lot of work with rats because they're cheap and easy to work with, so any new technology of this type would be tried on rats first.
By the way, my neutral explanation above doesn't mean that I approve of doing such things. Honestly, I'm quite torn about the issue.
By the way, my neutral explanation above doesn't mean that I approve of doing such things. Honestly, I'm quite torn about the issue.
I'm not remotely torn about it, taken to the finish, it's a human organ with my dna grown in a pig and then transplanted into me.
We already eat bacon and use large mammal heart valves in surgery.
I mean we wear the skin of cows, grease things with their rendered fat and use them for glue.
This seems like a strange point to be torn on.
We already eat bacon and use large mammal heart valves in surgery.
I mean we wear the skin of cows, grease things with their rendered fat and use them for glue.
This seems like a strange point to be torn on.
Remember that a bio ethicist has years of education on smart ways to block stuff like this.
If they didn’t block this stuff they wouldn’t have a job.
If they didn’t block this stuff they wouldn’t have a job.
Well, "we" don't all eat bacon and wear the skin of cows. What's strange about wanting to respect other living beings and avoid harming them? This is also not incompatible with the belief that a human life should come first, e.g. in your heart valve example.
I quite enjoyed the cognitive dissonance of the PETA director being a Type 1 Diabetic.
https://www.humanewatch.org/person/mary_beth_sweetland/
https://www.humanewatch.org/person/mary_beth_sweetland/
Hopefully the use of animals for tissue incubation and harvesting is a bridge to a future when animals are no longer required for human tissue synthesis.
Artificial womb experiments are going well [1], as well as tissue synthesis for cultured meat (which is just animal muscle), so...maybe?
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15421734/artificial-womb-...
Artificial womb experiments are going well [1], as well as tissue synthesis for cultured meat (which is just animal muscle), so...maybe?
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15421734/artificial-womb-...
Reminds me of the Bene Tleilax and their Axlotl tanks - presumed to be advanced technology but in reality female humans.
> when animals are no longer required
maybe an impossible burger?
maybe an impossible burger?
I don't know about Japan, but in the US rats are also often used because they're basically the biggest mammal that has almost no regulation on what you do to them. Experimenting on, for example, a monkey might be closer to something human, but they're not legally classified as pests, so doing things with them requires a lot more paperwork and might not be approved.
Definitely not saying it shouldn't be that way; I'm kind of glad that we have some level of ethical rules for handling animals.
Definitely not saying it shouldn't be that way; I'm kind of glad that we have some level of ethical rules for handling animals.
You're missing one of the other huge factors in why mice and rats are used for experiments: lifetime. These animals (esp. mice) have very, very short lifetimes by human standards, so you don't have to wait around for decades to see how something affects the animal over its whole lifespan. This is especially useful for aging research: it doesn't take very long for mice to become "elderly", so you can test out anti-aging experiments on them. Doing this on humans, even if it were totally legal, would be very slow because it'll take you 70+ years to grow a human in a lab to old age. Mice can only live a few years at most.
Yeah, and unlike something like a fruit fly, which also has a short lifespan, mice are mammals, so they are still fairly close to us in the animal kingdom, relatively speaking.
This is a really basic appeal to worse problems fallacy. You also assume that the same resources used for this somehow take away from addressing climate change.
For human organs the most likely host species is pig.
Pigs are big enough and apparently quite similar to us. And also the slaughter of hundreds of millions of them every year is already well accepted...
Pigs are big enough and apparently quite similar to us. And also the slaughter of hundreds of millions of them every year is already well accepted...
...and for something far less exalted than curing people of diabetes.
:/
:/
Well exactly. If we are fine breeding so many for meat, breeding a few more to cure serious illnesses or even to save lives should not raise problems in public opinion.
Perhaps even further than that! It may make humanity realize that, just as oil is too valuable to burn, pigs are too valuable to use for bacon instead of life saving medical treatments.
Well, if you have to slaughter the pig to remove its human pancreas for transplant anyway, the ethical thing to do is extract as much value as you can by also using its delicious, delicious meat. (Which hopefully does not contain too many migrated human cells.)
[deleted]
[deleted]
This, but honestly I think to avoid any chance of something like prions we should just avoid genetically altered pigs for edible consumption altogether and stick to naturally bred pigs.
Yeah dog owners are on a real meat kick now so the meat will still have an important use. Dogs don't mind eating something that's 1% (or any other percentage, really) human.
That’s getting close to cannabalism. Especially if some
Human cells start circulating around its bloodstream.
There isn't a meaning limit on the number of pigs that can be raised, unfortunately.
I hope you're right.
Nothing is too valuable for bacon.
> And also the slaughter of hundreds of millions of them every year is already well accepted...
I hope this changes eventually. It is one of humans archaic traditions that is highly unethical.
I hope this changes eventually. It is one of humans archaic traditions that is highly unethical.
it's fairly complicated but basically that's the magic of induced pluripotent stem cells. It's possible to turn human cells into cells that are prepared to become a specific organ, and then place them in an environment in which they will grow to that organ. This is because most of the necessary commands to differentiate and multiply cells into an organ are encoded in the genome and cellular state.
I think the wikipedia page helps understand this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell although the part where you can actually make a rat/human hybrid is still undefined science.
I think the wikipedia page helps understand this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell although the part where you can actually make a rat/human hybrid is still undefined science.
[This is because most of the necessary commands to differentiate and multiply cells into an organ are encoded in the genome and cellular state.]
The current mass extinction event we're currently in has little to do with climate change, but a lot more to do with habitat destruction from industrial activities, pollution, deforestation, etc.
Humans love to blame problems on amorphous "others" in some other location, rather than the people right here who are acting selfishly right here.
yes, i forgot to add "anthropogenic" to climate change. ie – this climate change is the direct result of human activity
Is there this false notion floating out there somewhere that "science" is a universal resource and paying "science" to one thing inhibits our ability to understand another thing?
I worry about allowing Japan, a country that has refused to fully own up to the biomedical atrocities it committed with Unit 731, to lead the way on these kinds of experiments. I would feel much more comfortable if there was international ethical oversight.
1945 was a long time ago and a very different Japan... We don't still force Germany to have caps on its army.
> We don't still force Germany to have caps on its army.
You pacified the German psyche so thoroughly that the Germans do it themselves now.
You pacified the German psyche so thoroughly that the Germans do it themselves now.
It wasn't pacification. It was a nation collectively coming to terms with their brutal past and taking to heart the phrase "never again". If "not bombing non-knee-bending nations on a whim" equals "pacified" in your mind, then I hope you never hold a position of power in any government.
I'd imagine Japan's attitudes have changed the same, as well.
I'd be interested in knowing if that's true, and if so, to what extent. My knowledge of Japanese culture - especially modern prevailing attitudes towards the Japanese government's actions in the second world war - is very limited. I'm not qualified to speak to that.
Historical revisionism is alarmingly prevailing in Japan, and I see Japan is slowly turning into nationalism and militarism.
Except you literally do. 370,000 active personnel and not a single soul more, in accordance with the 2+4 treaty of 1990.
>1945 was a long time ago and a very different Japan
Japan is currently sanctioning Samsung because it wants to avoid responsibility for WW2 sexual slavery.
Japan is currently sanctioning Samsung because it wants to avoid responsibility for WW2 sexual slavery.
That's a horrendous mis-statement of a convoluted political issue. Japan has no sanctions against Samsung directly, they are upset that materials they export to South Korea keep showing up in North Korea, while SK denies being the cause.
There's a separate case which was decided in SK courts claiming in short that Japan should give SK more reparations, because of course a court is going to consistently find in favor of their own country versus a luke-warm neighbor over a historical tension.
There's a separate case which was decided in SK courts claiming in short that Japan should give SK more reparations, because of course a court is going to consistently find in favor of their own country versus a luke-warm neighbor over a historical tension.
> Japan has no sanctions against Samsung directly, they are upset that materials they export to South Korea keep showing up in North Korea, while SK denies being the cause.
This is flat out bullshit. Photoregist, hydrogen fluoride, fluorine polyimide are all together mainly used for photolithography/OLED. It is not a coincidence.
It is very obvious that Japan targeted Samsung and their primary goal is to ruin the Samsung and hynix's(SK semiconductor industry) business, ultimately to harm SK economy(semiconductor industry is significant to SK economy). They do this because of the recent SK courts' verdict and Japan don't like to admit nor apologize horrendous war crimes they committed in WW2.
Just repeating Japan's specious pretexts(that to avoid potential WTO issues and get plausible deniability) that they are doing this because of NK is disingenuous.
This is flat out bullshit. Photoregist, hydrogen fluoride, fluorine polyimide are all together mainly used for photolithography/OLED. It is not a coincidence.
It is very obvious that Japan targeted Samsung and their primary goal is to ruin the Samsung and hynix's(SK semiconductor industry) business, ultimately to harm SK economy(semiconductor industry is significant to SK economy). They do this because of the recent SK courts' verdict and Japan don't like to admit nor apologize horrendous war crimes they committed in WW2.
Just repeating Japan's specious pretexts(that to avoid potential WTO issues and get plausible deniability) that they are doing this because of NK is disingenuous.
vorpalhex(1)
Quite the opposite, in fact: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/26/ex-german-defense-chief-ques...
> I worry about allowing Japan
It's not up to you.
It's not up to you.
I'm not sure why you got downvoted and flagged.
You are absolutely right; what Japan wants to do in their own country is their own decision.
You are absolutely right; what Japan wants to do in their own country is their own decision.
The votes also fluctuated a bit before settling. It's unclear to me why it got flagged. To me, my comment is an obvious and factual correction. Maybe it was flagged because I corrected someone tersely who has been downvoted a lot already. But then, other short corrections in these situations don't get flagged. Maybe there is a special sensitivity towards the topic of US-American exceptionalism and neo-imperialism. Who can flag? Only Dang?
It seems like every country is more or less guilty of the same.