Scientists Take Step Toward Creating Artificial Embryos (reuters.com) 118
An international team of scientists has moved closer to creating artificial embryos after using mouse stem cells to make structures capable of taking a crucial step in the development of life. From a report: Experts said the results suggested human embryos could be created in a similar way in future -- a step that would allow scientists to use artificial embryos rather than real ones to research the very earliest stages of human development. The team, led by Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, a professor at Britain's Cambridge University, had previously created a simpler structure resembling a mouse embryo in a lab dish. That work involved two types of stem cells and a three-dimensional scaffold on which they could grow. But in new work published on Monday in the journal Nature Cell Biology, the scientists developed the structures further -- using three types of stem cells -- enabling a process called gastrulation, an essential step in which embryonic cells begin self-organizing into a correct structure for an embryo to form.
Re: Playing God (Score:2)
"At some point, our playing God is going to catch up to us."
- Ogg the regressive caveman, 50,000 BC
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Playing God (Score:2)
I haven't seen that in ages. Completely forgot about it. Thank you, it's wonderful.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Well, if scientists cannot experiment with real embryos due to ethical concerns, the logical thing is to experiment with simulated ones.
Progress needs to be made and the "shouldn't be playing God" mentality cannot have it both ways by ever expanding what's considered a real embryo.
Re:Playing God (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if scientists cannot experiment with real embryos due to ethical concerns, the logical thing is to experiment with simulated ones.
Progress needs to be made and the "shouldn't be playing God" mentality cannot have it both ways by ever expanding what's considered a real embryo.
"Simulated"?
These would be real human embryos, created by an unusual method.
A "simulated" embryo would be a computer simulation or something.
Re: (Score:2)
"Real"?
For even more controversial ethical reasons, there is not a chance that these cells will be attempted to be developed into a foetus.
Therefore, nobody will know for sure whether or not they'll be viable foetuses. There'll simply be no evidence to support the "realness" of these lumps of cells that happen to look like early embryos.
A "real" embryo would be those created through an egg and a sperm.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not "prevented". There will simply be no evidence. Period. If there's no development, there would be no "result".
"how will you distinguish between the result of a cell tricked into development and one from an inseminated egg?"
The burden of proof is on those who say it is real. How can you be sure they're the same? The TFA only shows one facet of similarity.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad, bad assertion.
If you purposefully suppress (you hope) the evidence that would convince you, of course you'll never find it. By the way, those embryos didn't "happen" to look like. It was on purpose and they *are* early embryos.
Sta
Re: (Score:2)
If you purposefully suppress (you hope) the evidence that would convince you, of course you'll never find it.
Except that the "evidence" itself is also the definition of what is real.
By the way, those embryos didn't "happen" to look like. It was on purpose and they *are* early embryos.
Since when does purpose implies equality? An Accord is built on purpose to be like a Camry, but it is not a Camry.
Stated as fact, but still an opinion.
Nope. Fact. Fact is I have seen egg and sperm develop into a real human. To prove that another lump of cell is real, development needs to happen first. The burden of proof is on those who declare they're real, not on those who say they're not real - because they're different from real ones as we know it.
Re: (Score:1)
From the makers of Sim City comes.... Sim Embryo. (Simbryo?)
(randomly reminds me of loving the idea of Sim City 2000 + Sim Copter.... and also liking that demo of Sim Tower that I had) (also Simbryo makes me remember always wanting to play Sim Earth....)
Re: (Score:1)
Time to pull your head out of the sand and start asking questions... like:
1. Would an artificial embryo be considered a 'Human' embryo, and would they be subject to the same laws as embryos created in the normal manner?
2. If they are judged to not be a human embryo (why? because definition of a human embryo includes that it comes from a egg and sperm interacting), then are they available for stem cell studies (in the US, most other countries are less regressive)?
3. If they are not a human embryo, then if th
Have to. (Score:1, Troll)
See, those embryos are needed for research - to ease human suffering and help our economy - medical treatment for many genetic diseases are extremely expensive and limit peoples' ability to work. Many diseases that may one day may be cured from these artificial embryos will be eliminated. And as someone who lost the genetic lottery and is struggling physically, emotionally and financially because of our obscenely expensive medical system, I am hoping for success - even if it doesn't do me any good. I'm t
History [Re:Have to.] (Score:1)
History fail. The Roman Empire was long, long dead.
Google the phrase "Holy Roman Empire". Yes, Voltaire did say it "was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." Neverhtheless, it called itself the Roman empire.
--and, actually, the Eastern Roman empire was still around at the start of the crusades. So, I'll give your statement a "half" rating on the truthiness scale.
by the time of the Crusades which were a response to Muslim invasions and occupations in Europe which happened precisely because there was no longer a Roman Empire to keep the Muslims in check.
No; indeed there were Muslim invasions and occupations in Europe (mostly eastern Europe, and mostly the Turks)... but these were after the crusades, not before.
Go read some history books and stop getting your "facts" from other incel losers like yourself.
I would say the same to you.
Re: (Score:2)
No; indeed there were Muslim invasions and occupations in Europe (mostly eastern Europe, and mostly the Turks)... but these were after the crusades, not before.
Would you consider Spain part of Europe? The Umayyad [wikipedia.org] invasion forces landed in Gibraltar in 711; the first crusade started in 1095. You're wrong by more than 3 centuries.
Go read some history books
I would say the same to you.
Which is ironic given your post.
Crusades and Reconquista (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A number of sci-fi writers have already explored the topic of us creating something which provides the perfect breeding ground for the kinds of diseases which would wipe us out. I believe there's merit in considering these possibilities. We don't yet have enough data to determine if GMO crops are going to produce some new vile bug which would prove disastrous, however findings now state that advances against pests and organisms (fungal, viral or bacterial) only beat the organism for a few years, before th
Re: Playing God (Score:1)
What do we do if we create a host for a super bug?
People use the phrases "super bug" and "super weed" as if they actually mean something beyond "life evolved to overcome adversity, as it always has". The only "super" thing about them is that they're resistant to all of the things we use to fight existing bugs .... the same way that every serious new bug in history has been resistant to our technology at that time.
But, as long as you insist on using silly phrases like "super bug", the solution to fighting them is simple and obvious: kryptonite.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one welcome my GodEmperor
Re: (Score:3)
At some point, our playing God is going to catch up to us.
Well all know here on Slashdot that monopolies are bad . . . why should God have a monopoly on creating life . . . ?
He must have paid off some politicians to get the monopoly.
I'll bet those meddling Russian kids put Him into power . . .
God really shouldn't be playing God either, when you think about it.
We should be playing God! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since some coward has mod points and felt the need to post as AC and mod his own posts up just to say we "shouldn't be playing God," I felt it was only right to balance this by claiming we should be playing God.
Science is all about learning how the world works and testing it if you can. If you think science is playing God then you should go back to the jungle with the other monkeys.
Re: (Score:3)
Science is all about learning how the world works and testing it if you can.
Not that AC you're referring to, but there's this: Scientists come up with all sorts of interesting discoveries and developments and think nothing of it. But then two different types of asshole get wind of whatever it is science has come up with; one of them thinks "I wonder how much money I can make off that?", and the other thinks "I wonder what sort of awesome weapon of war I can use that for?". That's when shit starts going horribly, horribly wrong, because the first guy creates and markets some product
Re: (Score:3)
one of them thinks "I wonder how much money I can make off that?"
You have to fund the research (and later production) somehow. Scientists and equipment makers do, after all, need to eat. Most corporate profits aren't egregious, but there are a few who maintain long-term high profit margins and need ... addressing.
"I wonder what sort of awesome weapon of war I can use that for?"
Unfortunately, while competition tends to squeeze out those high profit margins as research matures into cheap, consumer-grade technology, weapons of war just keep getting worse.
You have two excellent tools against war: democracy and a strong interdepend
Re: We should be playing God! (Score:2)
You're right, bro, warfare was so much better back when we were carpet bombing cities rather than using GPS guided bombs to take out precise targets. Damn those military scienticians!
We need the tech in this area (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Science is all about learning how the world works and testing it if you can. If you think science is playing God then you should go back to the jungle with the other monkeys.
The same reasoning was made by people that were testing eugenics. Some of them even referred to people they believed to be inferior as monkeys, but they were being a little more literal.
Re: We should be playing God! (Score:2)
There are ethical questions to consider. At what point does a group of cells become "human"? When does it get a spirit (I'm Christian)? Quite frankly I don't know, but I would rather error on the side of caution.
Well in that case I hope you're a vegan. Animals might have souls too you know. The bible certainly doesn't say that they don't. So if you want to avoid killing things with spirits, you better not eat meat.
Then again, who's to say that carrots don't have spirits? Better error on the side of caution, bro ... you wouldn't want to show up in heaven and have Carrot God royally pissed at you ...
Talk about playing God (Score:1)
Its rather factual now that human's have become God like beings created life artificially and eventually this leads to people losing the wonder of life as we know it. But I think most scientist never believed creation was anything that couldn't eventually be duplicated by science. Its one of those question just because we can doesn't mean we should.
this doesn't solve any moral dilemmas (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But, who is going to pay the child support?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:this doesn't solve any moral dilemmas (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only things needing to be tracked back to their lair and killed are a drooling conservative morons pretending to give a shit about babies.
Roe vs Made (Score:2)
Next step: colonizing the galaxy (Score:2)
All we have to do now is combine this with artificial wombs [scientificamerican.com] and automate the whole thing in seed ships spreading humanity to neighboring stars...
The only question is who raises the newborns in the seed ship. How many adults do we need to have around? Perhaps a generational with only half a dozen people at any given time but that can spawn thousands once it arrives at the chosen destination.
I can't be the first to think of this concept. Can anyone recommend a sci-fi novel that describes a similar idea?
Re: Next step: colonizing the galaxy (Score:2)
I can't be the first to think of this concept. Can anyone recommend a sci-fi novel that describes a similar idea?
The Songs of Distant Earth, by Arthur C Clarke. It's probably one of the better known ones.
A more recent one would be Seveneves, by Neil Stephenson. Haven't read it myself yet, but I've heard good things.
There are a bunch of books probing the subject, but my personal favourite is probably Voyage From Yesteryear, by James P Hogan. It involves humans from earth arriving at a remote colony which was established by the kind of seed ships you describe but with zero human crew; the embryos were gestated and ra
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Next step: colonizing the galaxy (Score:2)
If you put it up on kickstarter, I'll definitely pitch in :)
Re: (Score:2)
Assemblers of Infinity, by Kevin J Anderson and Doug Beason, touch on the subject very briefly. Their story passes on a colony ship though for a rather more interesting method.
Now THAT is irony (Score:2)
How ironic, in so many ways, that someone named after Mary Magdelene would lead a team creating the initial phase of artificial humans. Philosophy students and scholars are going to be busy with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Hold on a second. You mean using artificial embryos which don't come from real eggs and sperms also constitutes "killing unborn babies"?
The process is created exactly to *prevent* real embryos from being used for experimentation.
I'd call this progress in the right direction - this will *save* millions of innocent unborn babies by using artificial, not real, embryos.
If the anti-abortion and/or "no playing God" crowds still protests about this, I'd call it goalpost moving.
Re: (Score:3)
Hold on a second. You mean using artificial embryos which don't come from real eggs and sperms also constitutes "killing unborn babies"? The process is created exactly to *prevent* real embryos from being used for experimentation.
I'd call this progress in the right direction - this will *save* millions of innocent unborn babies by using artificial, not real, embryos.
If the anti-abortion and/or "no playing God" crowds still protests about this, I'd call it goalpost moving.
That makes no sense to me.
If you induce a human embryo to develop from human cells, then what you have is a human embryo. Implanted, it would develop and mature.
The whole point is that you want to experiment on human embryos. So it's a human embryo.
You haven't solved any ethical problems at all. You've just found another hand waving way to try to say that these human embryos aren't human, because argle fargle.
Re: (Score:2)
If you induce a human embryo to develop from human cells, then what you have is a human embryo. Implanted, it would develop and mature.
There is only one way to find out. Has anyone implanted one of these and see it mature?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the core of the argument boils down to 'what is and what is not human', and since this is new, the one side could easily use the 'looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, therefore it's a duck' argument; doesn't matter if you assembled it molecule by molecule, if it's indistinguishable from a naturally-occurring human zygote, then it's the same regardless, and (to follow the pro-lifer thought train) therefore it could be a 'vessel' for a human 'soul', and 'experimenting' on it is therefore an atrocity and a crime against God. Keep in mind the driving force behind the pro-life movement is the idea that humans need to have as many babies as possible, regardless of the consequences, so that all the souls in Heaven can be born. That's how these people think.
The whole point of inducing it to form would be that is is a human embryo.
So, we're the mumbo jumbo people, because we won't chant along with you that these particular biologically-human human embryos are not really human because hand waving?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of inducing it to form would be that is is a human embryo.
Incorrect. The point of inducing it to form would be that it is similar enough to a human embryo such that conclusions drawn from experimentations on these cells can be reasonably applicable to real ones.
There is a minor but huge difference between the two.
Re: Should not be playing God (Score:2)
So, we're the mumbo jumbo people, because we won't chant along with you that these particular biologically-human human embryos are not really human because hand waving?
No, you're the mumbo jumbo people because you think some invisible sky daddy is miracling a magical "soul" thingy into a petri dish.
Re: (Score:2)
So, we're the mumbo jumbo people, because we won't chant along with you that these particular biologically-human human embryos are not really human because hand waving?
No, you're the mumbo jumbo people because you think some invisible sky daddy is miracling a magical "soul" thingy into a petri dish.
Really?
Because I believe that a human embryo is human, because of biology, regardless of what intentions it was created with, I'm the irrational one?
Re: Should not be playing God (Score:2)
No, you're the irrational because you think some invisible sky daddy is miracling a magical "soul" thingy into a petri dish.
Re: Should not be playing God (Score:2)
That's not even wrong. "Non human" isn't a property, it's a category.
Re: Should not be playing God (Score:2)
Re: Should not be playing God (Score:2)
Your reading comprehension skills really suck.
Re: (Score:2)
If one can simulate on a computer at a molecular level, and repeat the same experiment to form a "cell" in-silico
(with progress we're seeing, it won't take that long for it to happen)
Can it still be a 'vessel' for a human 'soul'?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and also, a problem with religion is that humans have very powerful imaginations, where you imagine that certain practices are highly pure and saintly, and you just build stories around that. Whereas reason uses some feedback loop with causes and effects and by controlling variables. But in the imagination it just has to work as a story, and it could be anything, like wind energy is clean, veganism never kills anything, covering your face is dignified and pure, etc. Not that rational people don’
Re: Should not be playing God (Score:2, Informative)
We murder innocent tumors when we excise them from healthy flesh. If you DNA test a tumor it is decidedly human. (Hyperbole for rhetorical purposes)
A fetus is a part of a woman's body until it can transform it's metabolic rate to survive outside of the womb. Without that tranformation a fetus dies from hypothermia once removed from the womb and must be kept in an incubator until it matures into an independent organism. (Scientifically supported and provable)
It's pure hyperbole to equate abortion to murder.
Re: (Score:2)
God murders more millions of unborn babies than abortion ever can. In the natural state god made humans, the majority die either in the womb or before they're toddlers. Would you rather follow His example with abortions galore, or "play god" by trying something that doesn't kill any viable lumps of cells?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Then maybe the people who want to stop abortions should spend their time educating people about birth control and distributing pill and condoms...
Because those are the only things that have been demonstrated to reduce abortion rates