[...] These "synthetic embryos" can be made without the direct contribution of egg or sperm cells. Because they're not "real" embryos, some have argued that the same restrictions don't apply.
Embryos made from stem cells, rather than an egg and sperm, appear to generate a short-lived pregnancy-like response in monkeys.
Recent advances are allowing scientists to create embryo-like structures that look more and more like the real thing. Just this week, scientists in China described how they developed structures called blastoids for 17 days in the lab. They even managed to get some of them to implant in the uteruses of monkeys and trigger the very first signs of pregnancy.
The blastoids didn't survive for very long, probably because researchers haven't quite figured out how best to mimic what happens during the development of a conventional embryo. But most believe that it's just a matter of time. If we can eventually get stem cells to form a viable embryo, a functional fetus, or even a baby, should we treat blastoids in the same way we treat embryos?
Perhaps the bigger question rests on how embryo-like these stem-cell-derived structures are. For some scientists, it's a catch-22 situation. If the blastoids look too much like embryos, then many believe research with them should be restricted in the same way that we control work on human embryos.
But if they don't look enough like embryos, then there's no point in using them for research, says Chuva de Sousa Lopes. "At the moment, it's so difficult to understand how close they are, or how different they are," she says.
Scientists tend to look at the size and shape of the structures, and which genes their cells express, to work out how similar they are to typical embryos. But there are other important aspects to consider.
"We first need to agree on what an embryo is," says Naomi Moris, a developmental biologist at the Crick Institute in London. "Is it the thing that is only generated from the fusion of a sperm and an egg? Is it something to do with the cell types it possesses, or the [shape] of the structure?"
Perhaps it's more to do with the structure's potential. A human embryo could go on to form a person. Human blastoids can't develop into people. Yet.
As the technology advances, it is looking increasingly likely that one day, stem-cell-derived embryos will be able to develop into living animals. "Theoretically, if you have all the right cell types ... they could go further," says Rossant. "Never say never."
However we define blastoids and other embryo-like structures, now is the time to start regulating how we grow and study them. Rossant is one of the many scientists I spoke to who agree that, given how embryo-like these structures are looking, they should probably be subject to the same rules and regulations that cover research on normal embryos.
"The big risk is ... if we had one rogue player that went really fast [with human cells], and developed something that caused a public backlash," says Moris.
[Ed] What do you think? Should science be allowed to go further and what controls would you want to see if they do?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09, @02:10AM (7 children)
If you're trying to cure genetic diseases there's no need for that as long as you allow abortion - just test for genetic diseases and abort if not good enough. Or just use someone else's genes to produce the kid - "everyone" likes to claim that all humans are mostly genetically the same after all.
If you're trying to produce human-like creatures to legally enslave and/or conduct experimentation on and/or you're just trying to publish papers without thinking about the long term consequences:
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday April 09, @03:39AM (4 children)
It's dinosaurs. Should is axiom. The biggest saving grace of Jurassic Park was that Michael Crichton failed to turn it into a killjoy cautionary tale. I think he was aiming for sober reflection on our new powers to meddle in creation. Instead what he got was "That velociraptor was so cool when it bit that guy's head off!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09, @05:12AM
Quasi-humans on the other hand could raise many legal issues.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09, @02:17PM (2 children)
Crichton's whole career was based on stoking fears of science and technology. I don't think he ever intentionally aimed for sober reflection on any topic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09, @03:58PM (1 child)
He did write "Eaters of the Dead" which spawned "The Thirteenth Warrior", I really enjoyed that movie.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 10, @02:20AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by darkfeline on Sunday April 09, @09:24PM (1 child)
You sound a bit too cavalier about killing newly conceived life. If no other option exists then abortion could be considered, but when you start promoting it over finding a cure, it becomes a little...
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10, @01:27AM
(Score: 2) by Frosty Piss on Sunday April 09, @03:25AM
Eldon Tyrell is on it!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Username on Sunday April 09, @12:44PM
Harvesting stem cells from an aborted fetus just to create an embryo seems kind of moot to me.