Obviously this is a long, long way from a functional brain being grown. But I have to wonder where the moral line is drawn when you're talking about growing an organ that (may-or-may-not) hold the ability to form a level of consciousness.
If I may be so bold, I think that line will get pushed farther out every generation - who will simply accept past work as the then status quo ante. Just a hundred years back, cloning would have been considered morally reprehensible. Today, many people accept it as fact. Each generation only pushes the boundary just a bit (in the grand scheme of things) further; and only things far beyond the immediate realm of practical possibility seem thoroughly abominable.
There’s also the possiblity that the distaste that a culture/era has for such things is based on the extent to which it has been raised with religious values - which typically tend to deem the work of creation to be in the domain of the divine, not the mortal. As either distance from organized religion grows, or religions adapt their values, future generations exposed to such teachings may find such things to be acceptable as long as they’re not used for “bad” purposes.
Surveys of populations have been shown opposition to the idea too. The idea that the Catholic Church might be considered a moral
authority to any significant number of people is troubling. https://news.gallup.com/poll/5098/americans-oppose-idea-huma...
No, them specifically. The recent developments in Ireland seem to me to be a result of people questions the word of that institution, and that’s a good thing.
It might be a misunderstanding. In many languages, there is one commonly used word that translates (out of context) to "wife", "unmarried partner" and "woman" at the same time.
That's the word the Bible uses for Eve. It means all three words, as you've mentioned. Being biblical, this form of speech is not uncommon in many European and Middle Eastern cultures and languages.
(edited to match parent) Her mother was Helena Jens, and she was already married to another man at the period this article talks about. Descartes was also back in France while she was still in the Netherlands.
Although Descartes did vivisect animals for research purposes, I think it's safe to say that this particular account is an invention.
This is called "Functional testing of cognitive function" (usually something referring to trauma is added), and is an active area of study.
There are research institutions doing this to everything from fruit flies, bats, dogs to monkeys in some cases.
Hell, I even heard stories that doing it to monkeys is risky. Even smaller monkeys are smart enough to get loose, steal keys, remember access codes, cooperate, fake medical problems and they will exact revenge for what was done to cellmates. And some primates like gorillas have that, and sufficient strength to lift a small car easily.
In a way, it's even done to humans. With the caveat that researchers aren't allowed to cause the damage in a human. However a sufficient number of humans have "acquired trauma to the brain" (got shot in the head/shoot themselves in the head/otherwise manage to insert large objects into their brain and are "lucky" enough to survive), and the medical papers on that by the treating physician are disseminated and studied. Sometimes the patients are available for further testing (often they are compensated for such studies, as it leads to new treatments and even medicines). And yes, for the treatment, one of the first steps is to immobilise the head in a metal contraption. I think you can see why movements of the head are unlikely to improve matters.
(note that that rat still has a perforated cranial membrane with equipment keeping it perforated and will start suffering from extreme headaches in about a day, and die in weeks, from this procedure. They tend to be put down after a day or two because after that they just lie there and scream)
There no explicit need for a "Complete brain".
Here is example of functional network with 25k neurons:
Rat brain cells organize, learn to control electrodes and fly a fighter jet in a simulation.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022104658.h...
The quick answer is to say it's not ethical. But what if the brain is given full autonomy and ability to communicate with others and then let the brain decide if it wants an organic or machine body?
In several decades it may be possible to transplant such a brain into the body of a brain-dead human (preferably an infant Neanderthal brain into a brain dead human infant), which could alleviate a lot of ethical concerns from the start
Why? If you create a conscious brain and leave it in a container, keeping it perpetually alive just to study it, that sounds pretty cruel. I'd imagine it would be like being in a conscious coma. Lack of social interaction is known to be damaging to people, so who knows what kind of distress an isolated brain might be in.
I don't think you should be so quick to call something moral or not. Let's take your statement and apply it to a few real life situations ...
So what you're saying is we should take anything with a brain, figure out what it's answer would be to "do you want to be alive ?" and then support that decision ?
Boy, you must hate abortion ...
(just saying that those things obviously have a brain, and every last kid on the planet will say they want to be alive, so those embryos being aborted can be easily assumed to either be conscious or at least said to be rapidly becoming conscious, and we can be likewise sure they want to be alive as well. Human embryos have functional brains 20 days after conception, which is just barely after a woman would become aware of a pregnancy, and we support abortion up to 6 months or even later, at which point a human embryo has a brain with more functional neurons than almost any animal on the planet, and more than every dog, cat, primate, dolphin)
(and just to defend this research, any research that gets us closer to being able to grow specific tissues - especially neural tissue - has the potential to alleviate the suffering of a great many people that have damaged nerves and/or brains)
But we all know how we judge morals in practice. Things that can complain get preference. Brains in jars won't complain. Nobody will ever make a picture of them showing big eyes behind bars. There will never be a scream or panic reaction available in full-color video of them. So they'll be abused, even tortured, even for very little gain. Because that's how humans judge morality ... in practice. If you believe otherwise, good luck explaining the morality of abortion.
Yes abortion has serious moral questions. In that case the brain is being grown inside another human body connected to another brain. That's a far different moral question than a brain being grown by itself in a lab.
When my rights negatively impact your rights it's a moral dilemma. In a lab though, there's no affect in another person's rights by keeping the brain alive, no host body being affected, no physical/emotional pain, no financial responsibilities and no parenting role to factor in.
That's why it seems immoral to me to create a conscious brain and then destroy it or make decisions without it's consent because it only seems like the brain's rights are bring affected. Abortion is more complex because it involves the rights of two brains.
The same question should be asked about research animals today then, as detailed in a sibling thread. “Brain grown on a dish” sounds preferable to “rat with a drilled skull.”
This question is asked and discussed rigorously any time a study that involves animal testing is proposed. At least it is in a scientific research setting in the US. There are boards dedicated to ensuring that the potential scientific benefit is sufficient to warrant whatever suffering the animals will endure. Obviously this is subjective, but the point is that these issues are considered in detail.
If you submitted a human to the same level of suffering, it would be considered torture, so this is kinda moot. Our systems are currently considering animals as not remotly as sensible or worth as us. This is true for food production, science, pets, etc.
Actually our entire society exists because we delegate part of our suffering to other organisms, including other humans. Be it with pollution, war, drug testing, cattling, slavery... It would be foolish to pretend to have the moral ground unless one lives a very primitive life, but I think it's important to know the implied cost of our ways. It's saner, and more honest.
As an annecdote, I recently worked on a software dedicated to study epilespy episods on mouses. The experiment induced epilespsy on the subjects. When discussing about this, the scientist handling the mouses told me not to worry because the ethics commity was making sure it was done properly. At this moment I though we, as a specy, add a dark humour touch to every thing we do.
Future home of The Island of Doctor Moreau or a Four-Assed Monkey (s01e05). Srsly: At some point, a sizable-enough brain develops a degree of consciousness. Are we really going to test the mad scientist hypothesis that your brain might be in a Petri dish somewhere and that your senses are artificial? NM: https://nypost.com/2015/08/19/scientist-creates-99-complete-...
> Several of these differences mirror what Muotri has found studying neuronal development in the brains of children with autism. "I don't want families to conclude that I'm comparing autistic kids to Neanderthals, but it's an important observation," says Muotri, who has a stepson with autism. "In modern humans, these types of changes are linked to defects in brain development that are needed for socialization. If we believe that's one of our advantages over Neanderthals, it's relevant."
Could you elaborate? What part do you find to be unethical and for what reasons? What alternate ethical studies do you recommend to gain the same information being gained here?
I honestly don't know why my comment is downvoted and flagged.
The OP comment that it's not ethical "if it makes enough people uncomfortable" is absurd.
You can tell that it's absurd because defining ethics by majority rule has many obvious problems. The most obvious problem is shown when a majority declares that minorities shouldn't have equal rights. This happens all the time, and outsiders would never point and say: "well giving minorities equal rights must not be ethical because it makes so many people uncomfortable"
So please, @dang, since you're in the mood to lecture me, can you explain why a short and uncomplicated counterexample to an absurd statement is flamebait?
It doesn't feel like you're asking a question so much as seeking an argument, but let me try to explain. It's the combination of shallowness, snark, and politics. That's a ticket to flamewar hell, and we need users not to go there if HN is to remain viable for anything other than flamewars.
Sorry about the broken link. It's fixed now, so if you'd (re-)read the site guidelines and follow them when commenting here, we'd appreciate it.
I wanted to actually have a chance to read his comment and judge for myself if things are really as you state they are.
But wouldn't you know it: it was deleted.
HN mods basically are allowed to erase history and claim whatever. You know who does that? Totalitarian regimes like those in China or NKorea!
@Dang, you need to at least present some credentials so you know what validates your intellectual reasoning. Until then, HN is basically a Red Hen restaurant.
>>> "We're trying to recreate Neanderthal minds," Muotri says."
Get the pitchforks. This scientist has gone too far. Really. I'm a totally against growing "minds" in jars. I'd be against doing this with any animal brain, let alone something functionally equivalent to human. There are ethical lines that shouldn't be crossed. The concept of a non-corporeal mind living a non-sensory existence in a jar of goo is too horrible to be allowed. This nightmare should live only in the pages of science fiction.
How exactly do you think scientists investigate which areas of animal (and human) brains are responsible for which functional area ?
With humans it comes from papers describing the treatment of "brain trauma". Within animals, where the majority of research is done, depending on the animal, they just nail them to a board, or nail a board or a wire into their skull, cut out half the brain, insert some sensors, and record data in the few hours that the pain does not totally immobilise the animals, usually while making the animal perform some trick, like navigating a maze, or looking at prey, or ...
The same ways they have done in the past. Persuit of knowledge isnt a free pass to do horrific things. We have rules and they follow them.
In the real world, most knowledge of human brain function has come from people with brain injuries or disorders. For anything above basic motor skills you want a subject you can talk to.
54 comments
[ 5.4 ms ] story [ 115 ms ] threadThere’s also the possiblity that the distaste that a culture/era has for such things is based on the extent to which it has been raised with religious values - which typically tend to deem the work of creation to be in the domain of the divine, not the mortal. As either distance from organized religion grows, or religions adapt their values, future generations exposed to such teachings may find such things to be acceptable as long as they’re not used for “bad” purposes.
2001 - "Catholic Church Condemns Human Cloning" https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2001-11-26-22-catholic-6640...
1998 - Churches Condemn Plan to Clone Humans https://www.csmonitor.com/1998/0113/011398.feat.feat.2.html
I never spoke as an authority, just made some remarks.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/5098/americans-oppose-idea-huma...
You mean outside of the 1.2 billion Catholics?
> To test his theory, he nailed his wife’s dog to a board and chopped it open while the poor thing was still alive.
https://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/29/descartes-dissected-his...
https://www.biography.com/people/ren-descartes-37613
Not sure if the rest is credible...
That's the word the Bible uses for Eve. It means all three words, as you've mentioned. Being biblical, this form of speech is not uncommon in many European and Middle Eastern cultures and languages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francine_Descartes
Although Descartes did vivisect animals for research purposes, I think it's safe to say that this particular account is an invention.
There are research institutions doing this to everything from fruit flies, bats, dogs to monkeys in some cases.
Hell, I even heard stories that doing it to monkeys is risky. Even smaller monkeys are smart enough to get loose, steal keys, remember access codes, cooperate, fake medical problems and they will exact revenge for what was done to cellmates. And some primates like gorillas have that, and sufficient strength to lift a small car easily.
In a way, it's even done to humans. With the caveat that researchers aren't allowed to cause the damage in a human. However a sufficient number of humans have "acquired trauma to the brain" (got shot in the head/shoot themselves in the head/otherwise manage to insert large objects into their brain and are "lucky" enough to survive), and the medical papers on that by the treating physician are disseminated and studied. Sometimes the patients are available for further testing (often they are compensated for such studies, as it leads to new treatments and even medicines). And yes, for the treatment, one of the first steps is to immobilise the head in a metal contraption. I think you can see why movements of the head are unlikely to improve matters.
Example paper in humans: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16395622
Example paper in animals: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29326273
Here's a non-gruesome picture of it: http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/rat-with-implant.jpg
(note that that rat still has a perforated cranial membrane with equipment keeping it perforated and will start suffering from extreme headaches in about a day, and die in weeks, from this procedure. They tend to be put down after a day or two because after that they just lie there and scream)
So what you're saying is we should take anything with a brain, figure out what it's answer would be to "do you want to be alive ?" and then support that decision ?
Boy, you must hate abortion ...
(just saying that those things obviously have a brain, and every last kid on the planet will say they want to be alive, so those embryos being aborted can be easily assumed to either be conscious or at least said to be rapidly becoming conscious, and we can be likewise sure they want to be alive as well. Human embryos have functional brains 20 days after conception, which is just barely after a woman would become aware of a pregnancy, and we support abortion up to 6 months or even later, at which point a human embryo has a brain with more functional neurons than almost any animal on the planet, and more than every dog, cat, primate, dolphin)
(and just to defend this research, any research that gets us closer to being able to grow specific tissues - especially neural tissue - has the potential to alleviate the suffering of a great many people that have damaged nerves and/or brains)
But we all know how we judge morals in practice. Things that can complain get preference. Brains in jars won't complain. Nobody will ever make a picture of them showing big eyes behind bars. There will never be a scream or panic reaction available in full-color video of them. So they'll be abused, even tortured, even for very little gain. Because that's how humans judge morality ... in practice. If you believe otherwise, good luck explaining the morality of abortion.
When my rights negatively impact your rights it's a moral dilemma. In a lab though, there's no affect in another person's rights by keeping the brain alive, no host body being affected, no physical/emotional pain, no financial responsibilities and no parenting role to factor in.
That's why it seems immoral to me to create a conscious brain and then destroy it or make decisions without it's consent because it only seems like the brain's rights are bring affected. Abortion is more complex because it involves the rights of two brains.
Actually our entire society exists because we delegate part of our suffering to other organisms, including other humans. Be it with pollution, war, drug testing, cattling, slavery... It would be foolish to pretend to have the moral ground unless one lives a very primitive life, but I think it's important to know the implied cost of our ways. It's saner, and more honest.
As an annecdote, I recently worked on a software dedicated to study epilespy episods on mouses. The experiment induced epilespsy on the subjects. When discussing about this, the scientist handling the mouses told me not to worry because the ethics commity was making sure it was done properly. At this moment I though we, as a specy, add a dark humour touch to every thing we do.
The OP comment that it's not ethical "if it makes enough people uncomfortable" is absurd.
You can tell that it's absurd because defining ethics by majority rule has many obvious problems. The most obvious problem is shown when a majority declares that minorities shouldn't have equal rights. This happens all the time, and outsiders would never point and say: "well giving minorities equal rights must not be ethical because it makes so many people uncomfortable"
So please, @dang, since you're in the mood to lecture me, can you explain why a short and uncomplicated counterexample to an absurd statement is flamebait?
Also, your link gives a 404.
Sorry about the broken link. It's fixed now, so if you'd (re-)read the site guidelines and follow them when commenting here, we'd appreciate it.
I wanted to actually have a chance to read his comment and judge for myself if things are really as you state they are. But wouldn't you know it: it was deleted. HN mods basically are allowed to erase history and claim whatever. You know who does that? Totalitarian regimes like those in China or NKorea!
@Dang, you need to at least present some credentials so you know what validates your intellectual reasoning. Until then, HN is basically a Red Hen restaurant.
Get the pitchforks. This scientist has gone too far. Really. I'm a totally against growing "minds" in jars. I'd be against doing this with any animal brain, let alone something functionally equivalent to human. There are ethical lines that shouldn't be crossed. The concept of a non-corporeal mind living a non-sensory existence in a jar of goo is too horrible to be allowed. This nightmare should live only in the pages of science fiction.
With humans it comes from papers describing the treatment of "brain trauma". Within animals, where the majority of research is done, depending on the animal, they just nail them to a board, or nail a board or a wire into their skull, cut out half the brain, insert some sensors, and record data in the few hours that the pain does not totally immobilise the animals, usually while making the animal perform some trick, like navigating a maze, or looking at prey, or ...
In the real world, most knowledge of human brain function has come from people with brain injuries or disorders. For anything above basic motor skills you want a subject you can talk to.