3 ms·

Is this ethical. I know there are other people who are growing mini(should call them micro, by their size) brains, but considering the fights against abortion i

Is this ethical. I know there are other people who are growing mini(should call them micro, by their size) brains, but considering the fights against abortion in US, I wonder if law makers approve of this.

tluyben2 10y ago
I am wondering that as well. More like is it considered ethical than is it ethical though: the bacon on your plate comes from an animal with more brain power than a fetus and the religious people their ideas that one creature from is more important than another is interesting.
patall 10y ago
Well, its just another example why the eSC = human argumentation is BS. A human is a fully developed nervous system, not some cells. Given some vectors, we could create iPS from pretty much any body cell and then probably a human from that (if we had a sufficient bioreactor). You can also let them divide, seperate them and now you have 2 - (some big number) humans. Cells or organs are no humans. People that think that cells are the same as a grown human may have a ethical problem here, but honestly, thats their problem.
protomyth 10y ago
> but considering the fights against abortion in US, I wonder if law makers approve of this. Probably some law maker since nothing is really immune from them on any subject, but I don't think the anti-arbortion crowd is really going to care. Taking the comments from an article link[1] The advent of human induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, which allow researchers to ultimately transform any cell into a neuron, has opened a new avenue for the study of complex neuropsychiatric disorders, including autism. In principle, iPS cells can be derived from cells anywhere in the body, and maintain the individual’s unique genetic background. This is important, as complex diseases are caused by mutations in multiple genes, which would be reflected in the iPS model. Since, its not embryonic stem cells, it should go over fine and has nothing really to do with the pro-life agenda. I tend to start with the example of skin grafting when describing this type of thing to give the context of starting with existing non-embryonic cells and working your way to treatments. I guess there might be those opposed to using your own cells to research or fix you, but I think that's a very, very small sliver of the population. 1) https://spectrumnews.org/opinion/viewpoint/promise-and-pitfalls-of-induced-stem-cells-for-autism/ https://spectrumnews.org/opinion/viewpoint/promise-and-pitfa...

tluyben2 10y ago

I am wondering that as well. More like is it considered ethical than is it ethical though: the bacon on your plate comes from an animal with more brain power than a fetus and the religious people their ideas that one creature from is more important than another is interesting.

patall 10y ago

Well, its just another example why the eSC = human argumentation is BS. A human is a fully developed nervous system, not some cells. Given some vectors, we could create iPS from pretty much any body cell and then probably a human from that (if we had a sufficient bioreactor). You can also let them divide, seperate them and now you have 2 - (some big number) humans. Cells or organs are no humans. People that think that cells are the same as a grown human may have a ethical problem here, but honestly, thats their problem.

protomyth 10y ago

> but considering the fights against abortion in US, I wonder if law makers approve of this. Probably some law maker since nothing is really immune from them on any subject, but I don't think the anti-arbortion crowd is really going to care. Taking the comments from an article link[1] The advent of human induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, which allow researchers to ultimately transform any cell into a neuron, has opened a new avenue for the study of complex neuropsychiatric disorders, including autism. In principle, iPS cells can be derived from cells anywhere in the body, and maintain the individual’s unique genetic background. This is important, as complex diseases are caused by mutations in multiple genes, which would be reflected in the iPS model. Since, its not embryonic stem cells, it should go over fine and has nothing really to do with the pro-life agenda. I tend to start with the example of skin grafting when describing this type of thing to give the context of starting with existing non-embryonic cells and working your way to treatments. I guess there might be those opposed to using your own cells to research or fix you, but I think that's a very, very small sliver of the population. 1) https://spectrumnews.org/opinion/viewpoint/promise-and-pitfalls-of-induced-stem-cells-for-autism/ https://spectrumnews.org/opinion/viewpoint/promise-and-pitfa...