The Ethical Issues Surrounding OSU's Lab-Grown Brains 190
TheAlexKnapp writes: Last month, researchers at Ohio State University announced they'd created a "a nearly complete human brain in a dish that equals the brain maturity of a 5-week-old fetus." In the press release, the University hailed this as an "ethical" way to test drugs for neurological disorders. Philosopher Janet Stemwedel, who notes that she works in "the field where we've been thinking about brains in vats for a very long time" highlights some of the ethical issues around this new technology. "We should acknowledge," she says. "that the ethical use of lab-grown human brains is nothing like a no-brainer."
I'll take 3 (Score:2)
A quantum-computing bio-neural gel pack would be great.
Photonic co-processor would be nice.
(Life-support and control housing would be 3D printed, naturally.)
http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.c... [wikia.com]
You're doing it wrong. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not at five weeks, it doesn't. It's not magic. It's biology.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said that a 5 week baby brain is a person. Regardless of whether a 5 week old baby brain is a person, growing a brain in a vat to do experiments on is stupid. It's either a morally abhorrent thing to do in the case of personhood, or completely pointless in the case of non-personhood (i.e. just use a regular 5 week old non-person fetus).
There are no ethical dilemmas solved by this.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said that a 5 week baby brain is a person.
Um, fetus != baby. A 5 week old fetus/brain is quite different from a 5 week old baby/brain. The article is about the former not latter.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is about the former not latter.
And yet the point I am making (that the age of the brain doesn't matter) still holds.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is about the former not latter.
And yet the point I am making (that the age of the brain doesn't matter) still holds.
It really doesn't hold.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a collection of human brain cells and not a brain. The inputs provide the growth and development of brain cells, so that collection of brain cells with no inputs will be hugely if not totally non-functional beyond the simplest biological processes. Likely that would make the experiment largely pointless beyond those simple biological process. This would mean it would make more sense to work with those specific developed portions of specific areas of the brain provided by voluntary human donors, not t
Re: (Score:2)
It is a collection of human brain cells and not a brain.
What do you think a brain is? IT may not be a brain, but the fact that it is a collection of human brain cells is certainly not what disqualifies it.
The inputs provide the growth and development of brain cells, so that collection of brain cells with no inputs will be hugely if not totally non-functional beyond the simplest biological processes.
Where is your proof that *only* inputs (as you describe them), can "provide growth".
Basically a whole bunch of areas of that brain would atrophy to nothing or more accurately never develop at all do to lack of stimulation.
Neurons are connected to other neurons. They can stimulate eachother.
I have no idea how close what they have is to a real brain. It has basically nothing to do with my comment.
Re:You're doing it wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
So, at what magical point does it become a problem?
Life begins at erection.
Re: (Score:2)
I took a cold shower this morning.
I better turn myself in.
Although we could always build a life enabling facility to make certain that all sperm can bring all eggs to birth.
Of course after they are born, to hell with 'em.
Is a miscarriage manslaughter?
Re: (Score:3)
> Umm, nobody remembers being 4 as well
I remember being 2. I have 2 distinct memories. Being wheeled into an operating room while my mom calls out that we will get Taco Bell after I get out and when my father was assembling a spring rocking horse. My memory is terrible today, yet I retained those all these years. Who the fuck doesn't have memories from being 4?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: You're doing it wrong. (Score:2)
You're actually an oddity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_amnesia our brains are not typically developed enough for long term memories at that age.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You're doing it wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a "biologically human (having human DNA)" is completely irrelevant. Skin cells have human DNA and are in the genetic sense "human". The more important sense of the word "human" is "personhood". Skin cells are not "people". Brain dead people are not even "people". Intelligent aliens (despite not having human DNA) are probably "people". Artificial intelligence (not having any DNA at all) when it happens will be "people".
Pro life people commonly use this equivocation. "Zygotes are human (genetic sense), and we protect human (personhood sense) life, so we should protect the life of zygotes."
Even the phrase "Life begins at conception" implies that "life" (i.e. the state of being alive) is what matters. Obviously a zygote is "alive". All cells that are not dead, are alive. But a cell is clearly not a person. Many cells such as zygotes, sperm, ova, etc have the potential to develop into a person, but most won't.
Re: (Score:3)
so people that are not "perfect" or have some minor disability, do not get to live.
No, because they aren't people yet. They are potential people just like the billions of sperm I will produce in my life. There are already countless "perfect" potential humans that don't get to become people either. This is just the way biology works.
My define personhood at conception? Why not define sperms and ova to be people as well? They also have the potential to become people.
You could even do genocide by embryo selection.
It's not genocide (because it's not murder). It's a broader category eugenics (one type of which is genocide). But you a
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You're doing it wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
You are supposed to create headless bodies to perform experiments on and harvest organs from.
Extra points if they're in topless bars.
Re: (Score:2)
The living brain is the *only* part we can't ethically do this kind of shit to, because it's the part that makes each of us a person.
Could a brain without any sensory input ever develop intelligence? And if a brain had no motor outputs, how could we ever tell?
Re: (Score:2)
Could a brain without any sensory input ever develop intelligence?
That's like asking "Could an airplane without wings ever fly". It depends on your specific definition of "flying" and "wings". I suspect that even a brain in a vat has *some* input, whether or not you want to label that input "sensory" is another matter. Furthermore, I don't think sensory input is necessary for intelligence in general, even if it may incidentally be necessary for human intelligence as we know it.
And if a brain had no motor outputs, how could we ever tell?
Motor functionality (i.e. movement) is not necessary for intelligence. If we hooked up a ser
Re: (Score:2)
That's like asking "Could an airplane without wings ever fly". It depends on your specific definition of "flying" and "wings".
Well, "airplane" also depends on specific definitions of "flying" and "wings", doesn't it? Also, as far as I am aware, all the alternative aircraft also have "flying" and "wings" of some sort. There's things like wings inside of jet turbines, so even if you just vectored the thrust off a jet and pointed its ass at the ground, you'd have things like wings.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, most things that "fly" have something *like* "wings".
What I am saying is that there is probably something *like* sensory input happening in a vat brain even if it doesn't have eyes, ears, nose, etc.
Neurons just need other neurons to make a functioning brain. They can get sensory input from optic nerves in the form of electrical signals, but they can also get electrical signals from artificial sources. The human brain is very plastic. It will adapt to whatever input it can find.
I don't expect a huma
Re: (Score:2)
We do know that significant sensory input is a requirement to be conscious. Even the really incomplete deprivation in a sensory deprivation tank results in a dream like state in short order.
Having no neural connection to sensory organs would be a much more complete deprivation.
Re: (Score:2)
We do know that significant sensory input is a requirement to be conscious.
How do you know that?
Even the really incomplete deprivation in a sensory deprivation tank results in a dream like state in short order.
You seem to be conflating "consciousness" (i.e. sentience) vs. "consciousness" (i.e. wakefulness).
Having no neural connection to sensory organs would be a much more complete deprivation.
I am not saying that a brain can be awake without sensory input (although I don't accept this as an absolute truth either). I am saying that sensory input is not strictly necessary for sentience.
Re: (Score:2)
I am suggesting that until something perturbs the neural net from it's default state, there is no sentience there. It needs to have been awake to some degree for at least an instant at some time to be anything more than a blob of neural net.
I suspect coordinated and consistent input would be required to get from sentience to intelligence. In order to reason, there must be something to reason about.
Re: (Score:2)
I am suggesting that until something perturbs the neural net from it's default state
I don't know why a neural net would need outside stimulus in order to progress beyond the initial state. This makes a lot of assumptions about the way that every neuron works. Computers don't need outside stimulus to operate, their "nerons" transistors can be triggered by the other transistors.
I suspect coordinated and consistent input would be required to get from sentience to intelligence.
This would certainly be useful in a consciousness learning about it's external environment, but I don't think comprehension of one's external environmen
Re: (Score:2)
This would certainly be useful in a consciousness learning about it's external environment, but I don't think comprehension of one's external environment is necessary for sentience.
Please read what I wrote carefully. I said:
I suspect coordinated and consistent input would be required to get from sentience to intelligence.
In other words, development of sentience doesn't necessarily require coordinated input but intelligence does.
Also, note that I said DEFAULT state, not INITIAL state.
As to the computer analogy, pull the boot rom and turn it on, the clock ticks, but nothing useful happens. Power on an untrained artificial neural net, at most you get a meaningless oscillation (but if there is no form of output, you won't see it).
Consider, how can there be self if there isn't not-self?
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, development of sentience doesn't necessarily require coordinated input but intelligence does.
Everyone seems to have their own definition of intelligence. The one I default to, assumes sentience. You can't be sentient and not intelligent.
Also, note that I said DEFAULT state, not INITIAL state.
I don't know what the "default state" of a complex system even is. I know what an initial state is. It seems you can define any state you want to be the default.
As to the computer analogy, pull the boot rom and turn it on, the clock ticks, but nothing useful happens. Power on an untrained artificial neural net, at most you get a meaningless oscillation (but if there is no form of output, you won't see it).
Consider, how can there be self if there isn't not-self? While Buddhism suggests there is a self-less state of being, it also indicates that there is no suffering in that state.
I don't accept Buddhism as evidence of anything scientific. And I don;t find anything particularly compelling in a philosophical sense with Buddhism either.
A little googling shows [brainblogger.com] that in fact, before week 25, the fetal neural net does not oscillate. Going back to the computer analogy, imagine an old mini where the power is on but the CPU clock hasn't been started. The potential is there but it isn't actualized. Of course, a neural net is asynchronous (or at least can be), but some stimulus is still needed to get it going. Note too that the normal fetal brain is not completely sensory deprived once the peripheral nervous system begins to develop.
I think you are taking an example of the way o
Re: (Score:2)
Intelligence is a slippery term to be sure. However, I would say that certainly sentience does not imply intelligence. Depending on your favorite definition, intelligence doesn't require sentience. For example, artificial image classification nets don't likely have any sense of self or subjective experience. Nor do expert systems.
The default state of a neural net is untrained, without memories. Fresh from the vat in the case of an organic one.
None of your confusion between the computer analogy you introduce
Re: (Score:2)
Intelligence is a slippery term to be sure. However, I would say that certainly sentience does not imply intelligence. Depending on your favorite definition, intelligence doesn't require sentience. For example, artificial image classification nets don't likely have any sense of self or subjective experience. Nor do expert systems
I agree that intelligence doesn't imply sentience. I am saying sentience implies intelligence.
The default state of a neural net is untrained, without memories. Fresh from the vat in the case of an organic one.
And as soon as one neuron fires, it is no longer in the same state.
None of your confusion between the computer analogy you introduced and organic neural nets alters the fact that the fetal neural net does not oscillate before week 25. It shows only random spikes that damp to nothing in short order.
I don't see how this is relevant.
I am well aware of the history of computing and the halting problem, but I'm not sure how the halting problem or batch vs interactive computing has any bearing on the question at hand.
It is an example of how something can "think" in the absence of external input.
Regardless of the philosophy, the techniques provide experience that may have bearing on the question at hand.
They certainly show us that some things are possible. They do not show us what is impossible.
I invoke Buddhist thought primarily because meditation is the only way we are likely to experience a self-less state without very dangerous physical experimentation on the brain.
It feels a bit as if we are talking at cross purposes. I am here hoping to spur new ideas on the subject in myself and perhaps you. I may be miss-perceiving, but you seem to be here expecting to win an argument?
I am disputing the specific claim that external sensory input is necessary for consciousness. I don't think there is any conclusive evidence to
Re: (Score:2)
And as soon as one neuron fires, it is no longer in the same state.
No. If the net has learned nothing, it's behavior will remain indistinguishable from the default state. Random static electricity can cause a neon tube to fire as well, but that doesn't mean it's conscious, even if another tube fires due to the stimulus.
Certainly, no matter how many neurons randomly fire, it is not going to learn self vs. not-self. The concept won't be there because without external stimulus there is no information about not-self. No self, no sentience. Sentience is generally believed to be
Re: (Score:2)
No. If the net has learned nothing, it's behavior will remain indistinguishable from the default state.
It's behavior could be indistinguishable even if it has learned something. Or it's behavior could be distinguishable even if it hasn't learned anything. It all depends on what you consider to be learning, what you consider a distinguishable difference, and how good you are at distinguishing that difference.
Random static electricity can cause a neon tube to fire as well, but that doesn't mean it's conscious, even if another tube fires due to the stimulus.
I never said that neurons firing implies consciousness. I said that I haven't seen any evidence that external sensory stimulus is a per-requisite for consciousness.
Certainly, no matter how many neurons randomly fire, it is not going to learn self vs. not-self.
Who says the neuron firings are random
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, you seem willing to redefine terms into meaninglessness so you can claim a disconnected neural net has that mysterious thing. We'll call it quigby. It affects nothing and changes nothing and it can't be detected. Yes, I'll agree that neural nets may have quigby.
However, if sentience, consciousness, and intelligence have any sort of meaning that at all coincides with commonly accepted definitions, please do explain scientifically how a neural net might have those traits if it has never had connections
Re: (Score:2)
However, if sentience, consciousness, and intelligence have any sort of meaning that at all coincides with commonly accepted definitions, please do explain scientifically how a neural net might have those traits if it has never had connections to the outside world and doesn't even show signs of oscillation.
I didn't say that this neural net had *no* connections to the outside world. I said it would be lacking external sensory inputs. The outputs are the only way you *could* measure anything, including sentience, consciousness, etc.
And originally this meant a brain that lacked traditional sensory organs (e.g. eyes, ears, etc). In fact in my original reply to drinkypoo, I references a two way communication line to the brain. But I actually don't think 2 way communication is necessary for sentience, intellige
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: You're doing it wrong. (Score:2)
No.
Neurons do not fire without stimuli, so a brain without sensory input per definition isn't thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I was under the impression it's the collection of thoughts, memories and emotions that makes us a person.
Re: (Score:2)
As a zombie ... (Score:4, Funny)
... I much prefer free range brains. These GMO brains contain too many death-threatening chemical properties. The last thing I want to do is wake up one morning alive because of my diet.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even see the need to argue or worry about the artificial additives of vat brains, the superior taste of cage-free grey matter is reason enough for the discriminating zombie palate.
Re: (Score:2)
... I much prefer free range brains.
Agreed: Give me cage free brains or give me death. I mean, Death^2.
Problem solved. (Score:2)
Run the program at Wright State and declare the disembodied brains to be exempt immigrant workers. Then nobody will care that you're making them do 168 hour work weeks, and that termination of employment is literal termination.
We need new Ethics (Score:3, Insightful)
I am tired of Religious beliefs dictating Ethics. This is especially true for stem-cell research.
An embryo can grow into a human given the right conditions, namely being carried to term by the host.
A zygote can grow into a human given the right conditions, namely attaching to uterues and being carried to term by the host
An egg can do the same given the right conditions, namely getting fertilized and then attaching to uterues and being carried to term by the host.
None of them is a human being despite your Religious convictions.
Re: (Score:3)
You become a human being when you start acting like a human being. In broad terms, ignoring the difficult details and exceptional cases, it's when you start breathing, when you're outside your mother's body, or other essentially equivalent criteria. At that point you should be considered legally human and recognized to have appropriate human rights.
This is not to say that ending the life of a human fetus should not be subject to conditions and limitations. It should be, and those conditions should become mo
Re: (Score:2)
Is a baby chick inside the egg a member of its mother's species?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So an independent organism is at the same level as a piece of cut hair?
Why don't you just answer the question? Why avoid it with so much effort?
Is the offspring of two domestic chickens a chicken, while it is still in the egg?
It seems like a very straight forward question, with a very simple response.
Re: (Score:2)
The cells inside the egg are chicken species. But it is not "a chicken" until it hatches. Much like my hair is human species, but is not "a human". I answered your question, now are you going to go back and answer mine you refused to answer?
Why avoid it with so much effort? Your 4 statements to avoid it were longer than any answer would have been, and the answer seems pretty straight forward.
Re: (Score:2)
I was being polite and waiting for your answer to my question. Since I asked first, that's my prerogative. Good to see you not getting all bent out of shape over that.
First, your question was not "clarifying" in any sense of the word. It was "avoidance", pure and simple.
Second, I doubt if scientists who work with birds would agree with your definition of "not a chicken yet".
Third, cut hair is simply cast off cells from an organism, not a complete and independent organism on their own. That is why I can't un
Re: (Score:2)
First, your question was not "clarifying" in any sense of the word. It was "avoidance", pure and simple.
First, it was solely clarification. You deliberately used vague words to set up a slam dunk against anyone who doesn't hold your specific belief. I was trying to clarify your meaning in the ambiguity you deliberately laid. Clarifying your deliberately obtuse question is "avoidance" of falling into your trap. That's why you are so objectionable about this.
Second, I doubt if scientists who work with birds would agree with your definition of "not a chicken yet".
Second, your incorrect opinion is not fact.
Third, cut hair is simply cast off cells from an organism, not a complete and independent organism on their own. That is why I can't understand why people keep comparing the two.
You choose to not understand. Both are separate instances of the species. One is an incomplete section, an
Re: (Score:2)
First, your question was not "clarifying" in any sense of the word. It was "avoidance", pure and simple.
First, it was solely clarification.
No. I asked a question that has a simple answer, either YES or NO. You used some hand-waving to deflect from that, because the truth is hard to hear. I get it. You are not the first one to avoid the truth.
You deliberately used vague words
What part of "chick", "egg", or "species" is vague?
to set up a slam dunk against anyone who doesn't hold your specific belief.
Again, you are wrong. I'm trying to clear up a detail that many people can't accept. That detail is that an organism is indeed an organism. Whether it is a chick developing inside a calcium shell, or an oak tree shading the back yard, or even a human embr
Re: (Score:2)
For the last time, a cut hair is not "a member" of any species,
You mean for the first time. If human DNA isn't human, then an egg isn't human, nor is a sperm. Then, logically, neither would be the zygote. It's not identifiable as a member of the species by any test other than DNA, and you indicate that a cluster of cells with identifiable DNA is unrelated to whether it's a member of the species, So the definition some use of "first identifiable unique DNA" is thrown out. After that, it's all a grey line. You draw it where you want and act like a complete nutter to
Re: (Score:2)
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Is the answer to this question "NO"?
Re: (Score:2)
Though you are not a full human until 18, when "human rights" are fully conferred, depending on location and nationality.
Re: (Score:2)
Brain! (Score:3)
In other news, the brain has announced its candidacy for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, and is currently polling at 21% of likely voters.
Reminds me of this ,, (Score:2)
That joke is unethical (Score:2)
"that the ethical use of lab-grown human brains is nothing like a no-brainer."
Really? That JOKE is unethical.
--PeterM
forbes (Score:2)
I haven't read forbes in a long time, because my popup blocker breaks their "quote of the day" splash screen. and nothing of value was lost.
Only one concern (Score:2)
My biggest concern (Score:2)
A simple brain in a jar is not that many steps removed from glass-domed brains betting quatloos on battles between their slaves.
True Brain (Score:3)
So when are we going to see the show about zombies coming out of hiding now that they have an artificial source of nourishment, and their various sexy adventures?
spit-take (Score:2)
There goes my coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's no evidence, or even rational theory, that says the "brain" of a 5-week old fetus is any more "human" than a clump of grass. It's alive (well, it was to get that far) but it surely isn't a human being. That takes a great deal more development physically, and frankly, I think it takes a great deal of interaction with parents and the environment as well. Potential? In the normal course of gestation, yes. When you're growing a lump of cells in a dish -- no.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no evidence, or even rational theory, that says the "brain" of a 5-week old fetus is any more "human" than a clump of grass. It's alive (well, it was to get that far) but it surely isn't a human being. That takes a great deal more development physically, and frankly, I think it takes a great deal of interaction with parents and the environment as well. Potential? In the normal course of gestation, yes. When you're growing a lump of cells in a dish -- no.
By Stemwedel's logic, we should oppose abortion too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You just say that to make yourself feel better about the rampant killing of children that goes on in our society. The actual fact is that most adoption agencies have a two year average wait time. There are more loving families looking to adopt than there are children to match them with. Even if that weren't the case, it's still just as wrong, and sick, to murder a child, but it's especially pathetic to claim they are "unwant
Re: Go Bucks! (Score:3)
So long as there are laws around homicide, the state needs to define when life begins. But our secular legal code needs a secular definition of life, not the one that Christian moralists extract from Catholic canon law.
Since we legally define life as ending with brain death, why not the beginning of brain activity as the start of life? That would be at about six weeks term.
Let Me get This Straight (Score:2, Insightful)
Folks have no problem sucking out a baby from the womb, a for real small person that can develop into the next Slashdoter, cutting its face open and extracting the brain. But growing a brain in a vat gives them pause?
How fucking backwards is that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or Canadians. Any group that nice HAS to be hiding something...
Re: Go Bucks! (Score:2, Insightful)
Careful. When you decide to start making decisions on who is and who isn't human then you go down the same path as Hitler. It's easy to just declare someone you don't like as nonhuman.
Re: (Score:3)
Are HeLa [wikipedia.org] cells human?
Re:Let's replace Congress with these lab brains! (Score:5, Funny)
So, you'd turn Congress from a bunch of bodies that lack brains to a bunch of brains that lack bodies?
Re: (Score:2)
Worth a shot, we taxpayers would save a fortune in travel expenses, not to mention all those fundraising dinners and scabies outbreaks.
Re: (Score:2)
replacing all of congress with lab grown 5 week old brains would nearly quadruple the IQ of congress.
Yes I know we have a couple of them that are smart, but the negative IQ of many of the southern ones is having a detrimental effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Does it strike anyone else that this research should only have been undertaken after a great deal of public discourse?
No.
As long as the collection of cells is not proven to be self aware I do not believe it matters what they do with those cells.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the collection of cells is not proven to be self aware I do not believe it matters what they do with those cells.
You haven't been proven to be self aware, so it doesn't matter what people do to you, either, I suppose?
Oh you say... sure you've been proven to be self aware? Not to a philosopher's satisfaction, you haven't. You can't disprove the solipsism hypothesis. So I haven't been proven to be self aware, either. Not to your satisfaction, anyway.
So don't be so fast to demand proof of self-awareness. I'm upset on behalf of brains in vats, because they can't protest on their own behalf. They deserve, philosophically,
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why? The general public is stupid. The general public shouldn't have any say in anything.
Re: (Score:2)
You are hilarious, anonymous member of the general public
Re: (Score:2)
Not even slightly.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it strike anyone else that this research should only have been undertaken after a great deal of public discourse?
Add myself to the list of people who answer "no". What would be the point of this public discourse? Who would care enough to have a relevant opinion? What happens when someone decides to do it anyway because they don't accept that something shouldn't be done just because it is icky to the general public?
Re: (Score:2)
You should carefully consider the statements you make. Inviting someone to kill you, as you have just done, is not wise.
Re: (Score:2)
consciousness is an illusion. There is no such thing. It's as nonsensical as free will or a soul.
You should carefully consider the statements you make. Inviting someone to kill you, as you have just done, is not wise.
That didn't do that. There are still logical reasons to oppose murder. It doesn't matter why you feel how you feel about it, you still do.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have an authoritative reference for that, or are you pulling that out of your ass?
I'm assuming the latter by default, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask if you actually have the former.
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't you paying attention? His ass is an illusion. His turtles, however, are all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
consciousness is an illusion. There is no such thing.
Some would argue that illusions are impossible without consciousness, and therefore consciousness can't be an illusion.