Scientists Debut Lab Models of Human Embryos (nytimes.com) 29
Carl Zimmer writes in The New York Times: In its first week, a fertilized human egg develops into a hollow ball of 200 cells and then implants itself on the wall of the uterus. Over the next three weeks, it divides into the distinct tissues of a human body. And those crucial few weeks remain, for the most part, a black box. "We know the basics, but the very fine details we just don't know," said Jacob Hanna, a developmental biologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. Dr. Hanna and a number of other biologists are trying to uncover those details by creating models of human embryos in the lab. They are coaxing stem cells to organize themselves into clumps that take on some of the crucial hallmarks of real embryos.
This month, Dr. Hanna's team in Israel, as well as groups in Britain, the United States and China, released reports on these experiments. The studies, while not yet published in scientific journals, have attracted keen interest from other scientists, who have been hoping for years that such advances could finally shed light on some of the mysteries of early human development. Ethicists have long cautioned that the advent of embryo models would further complicate the already complicated regulation of this research. But the scientists behind the new work were quick to stress that they had not created real embryos and that their clusters of stem cells could never give rise to a human being. "We do it to save lives, not create it," said Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, a developmental biologist at the University of Cambridge and the California Institute of Technology, who led another effort. [...]
If scientists can create close, reliable models of embryos, they will be able to run large-scale experiments to test potential causes of pregnancy failures, such as viral infections and genetic mutations. The models could lead to other medical advances too, noted Insoo Hyun, a member of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics who was not involved in the new studies. "Once you get the embryo models in place and you can rely on them, that can be an interesting way to screen drugs that women take when they're pregnant," he said. "That would be an enormous benefit." Dr. Hanna [...] also saw a possibility of using embryo models as a new form of stem-cell treatment for diseases such as cancer.
This month, Dr. Hanna's team in Israel, as well as groups in Britain, the United States and China, released reports on these experiments. The studies, while not yet published in scientific journals, have attracted keen interest from other scientists, who have been hoping for years that such advances could finally shed light on some of the mysteries of early human development. Ethicists have long cautioned that the advent of embryo models would further complicate the already complicated regulation of this research. But the scientists behind the new work were quick to stress that they had not created real embryos and that their clusters of stem cells could never give rise to a human being. "We do it to save lives, not create it," said Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, a developmental biologist at the University of Cambridge and the California Institute of Technology, who led another effort. [...]
If scientists can create close, reliable models of embryos, they will be able to run large-scale experiments to test potential causes of pregnancy failures, such as viral infections and genetic mutations. The models could lead to other medical advances too, noted Insoo Hyun, a member of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics who was not involved in the new studies. "Once you get the embryo models in place and you can rely on them, that can be an interesting way to screen drugs that women take when they're pregnant," he said. "That would be an enormous benefit." Dr. Hanna [...] also saw a possibility of using embryo models as a new form of stem-cell treatment for diseases such as cancer.
Khaaaaaan! (Score:2)
Re:Khaaaaaan! (Score:4, Insightful)
OTOH the benefit of being able to test drugs for use during pregnancy is not to be underestimated. There are a huge number of drugs that women can't take when pregnant, not because they're known to be unsafe but because they're not known to be safe because the manufacturer doesn't want to pay for the testing process or the testing process is just considered too risky to undertake. This includes some really basic stuff, like amoxicillin, penicillin, metformin (often used off-label to enable conception in women with PCOS), folic acid (! - almost routinely prescribed to pregnant women). Being able to verify the safety of these would be really good.
Re: (Score:3)
That's just it. We have no idea what differences there might be in, for example rat embryo development. So if we want to know about human development, they need human cells.
Otherwise, we end up with a bunch of stuff that works IN RATS.
So Can We Legally Eat Them? (Score:3)
And are they gluten free?
Burn the heretics! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Burn the heretics! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah but the reason to do this has nothing to do with opposition to petri dishes, substandard cans of beer, or what not, the reason is to fire a gun because it gets the oxytocin flowing! Or to laymans terms, the yee-haw hormone. Double benefit if you record it to put on Tik-Tok later and get money out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
the reason is to fire a gun because it gets the oxytocin flowing! Or to laymans terms, the yee-haw hormone.
Well yeah, if you don't scream "yee-haw" it doesn't really count.
Re: (Score:3)
Wasting taxpayer money by passing blatantly unconstitutional laws and appealing to the supreme court in hopes that one will stick.
Re:Burn the heretics! (Score:5, Informative)
This from the country that worships animals as people and treats children like pets. Ancient Hebrew laws about pregnancy are about the one who is breathing. Not about a possibility. Bad pregnancies were reduced by knowledge and science, but "so-called" knowledge and science are the devil's tools. Those who are not Christian should stop name calling and actually call out Christians on their ignorance of their own document. Read: They may want to be Christian, but if they act like they aren't loving their enemies you should say that. Because that's what's required of Christians by their own book.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty much whatever self-proclaimed pastor with a big enough following claims it to be.
That is the definition of any religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 14 Day Rule (Score:2)
Radiolab to the rescue!
Why there's a dark window of mystery in early embryo development [radiolab.org].
Yeah. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
During WWII, the scientists that left Nazi Germany for the Western countries including the U.S. knew that German scientists were interested an atom bomb. They could also calculate its destructive power. And the Germans would have come a lot closer if they were screw ups.
After Germany capitulated, Japan was left. An uncowed Japan, were the allies to have left it alone after taking the outer island chains and (Japan) left to its own devices, would have rearmed and restarted the war. They were even training sc
It's all cool (Score:2)
Watch out... (Score:3)
Biology Double Speak as Always (Score:1)
Just to be clear: a 'model' in biology is a living thing. Embryo, mouse, rat, cat, dog, pig ... are all "models".
When engineers, physicists, mathematicians, or genuine scientists use the term "models" they are talking about mathematical, theoretical, or mechanical constructs that replicate or approximate an observed phenomenon. Biology has no first principles and as a consequence observes, usually destructively and fatally, living organisms. That is why biology is not a science. It is nothing more than