SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From an ethical perspective, there is little reason to consider human stem cell–derived tissue constructs as more problematic than human tissue explants—brain slices, for instance—maintained in vitro. But the situation is somewhat different for provocative new studies exploring the ability of pluripotent stem cells to organize into structures that have features of the early embryo, however poor the resemblance at present.
Two papers published in the past year—one focused on the mouse and the other on humans—report that embryonic stem cells differentiated under certain conditions can give rise to structures in which the three embryonic germ layers are reproducibly patterned (van den Brink et al., 2014; Warmflash et al., 2014). Furthermore, in the study on the human system, the biological pathways involved are proposed to be similar to those functioning in vivo. Though more characterization is needed, patterned human cell colonies with embryo-like germ layers may therefore be potential models for research on early human development; such work is otherwise difficult or entirely unfeasible to carry out and could be hugely informative about human developmental disorders. Research both to understand patterned embryo-like structures and to improve them as models for human biology should therefore continue.
But should we be concerned from an ethical or regulatory perspective about growing embryo-like structures from pluripotent stem cells in a dish? Could such structures be seen, now or in the future, as violating current regulations on human embryo culture? Conversely, should such regulations be revisited when considering structures that are derived not from the union of gametes but rather from cells in a dish?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday October 12 2015, @06:19AM
Ethics are problematic.
Not really. Ethics are in fact very simple. We can take things like the Golden Rule, positive or negative, and create an entire ethical system. The whole thing is to put yourself into the position of the subject of your ethical scenario. Imagine, if you will, that you were created merely to provide cellular tissue to an already existing person. What does that make you?
We have a classic example where a couple intentionally conceived a second child to be a bone marrow donor to their first child. I have always imagined the conversations going something like this: "You wouldn't be alive, if it wasn't for me!" And: "You wouldn't even exist, if it wasn't for me!" Ah, who wins? But that is the point, once we start treating humans as means to our ends, as Immanuel Kant said lo these many years ago, we are treating persons as things, something we would not want done to ourselves.
So, you see, ethics are simple. Is it a person? If yes, let it make it's own decisions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12 2015, @09:56AM
>Imagine, if you will, that you were created merely to provide cellular tissue to an already existing person. What does that make you?
A brainless blob, obviously. No higher brain functions are needed for this simple a purpose, and neurophysiology is already quite knowledgeable about how to destroy them without killing the body.
And anyone who is all bleeding-heart for undeveloped embryos while still eating meat, is a hypocrite. Food animals do have a brain and a consciousness, you know. More of both than an embryo has, until it grows a comparable brain of its own.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12 2015, @05:18PM
That requires the child to be born, so its not analogous to harvesting fetal tissues for medical purposes.