6 ms·

It seems they cut up frog embryos and stitched the pieces back together to move in a certain way through involuntary muscle contractions. Maybe I'm being short

by 1e-9 7y ago

It seems they cut up frog embryos and stitched the pieces back together to move in a certain way through involuntary muscle contractions. Maybe I'm being shortsighted, but I have a hard time thinking of this as anything but a rather nauseating bit of Frankensteinian experimentation.

blaeks 7y ago
is current breakthrough this: "The big question in biology is to understand the algorithms that determine form and function," ?
colordrops 7y ago
How far removed would this have to be from an embryo for you to no longer have an emotional reaction? What if they only used proteins? Do you wear leather?
- cmroanirgo 7y ago
  The article itself is claiming 'Living', which is to state that it is something more than a simple protein chain reaction. However to conflate what's been done here and compare it to wearing leather, just doesn't compute. I don't think anyone would reasonably compare a leather jacket to a Hannibal Lecter style 'skin suit'. I think the parent post's comment is very astute, as the article mentions how it's taking frog cells and passing electricity through them and calling it alive. How is that not Frankensteinian? It's kind of the definition of it. There is also the argument of making the assumption that there's an emotional reaction... Morals and ethics classes are taught in nearly all university degrees these days to try and highlight the issues around this stuff, and I think it unfair to bluntly force it into black and white. For some people it's a question of how deep into the murky quagmire one goes, whereas for others "it's just science" is completely sufficient. But, it's clear that the latter will never have complete approval, nor will the former ever have its way entirely. For me, I look at this experiment as such: Were any frogs killed in doing this experiment? If so, how is the destruction of a life-form comparable to making a laboratory made one? Do the two actually have the same 'life' in them? Philosophically speaking, I'd say not, and as such I call this experimentation a 'dark pattern' and should be avoided: no matter the perceived marketing benefit.
  - colordrops 7y ago
    I don't have a coherent theory on this subject. My questions were direct and not rhetorical, designed to spur discussion and provide more context and nuance, which you have. Thanks.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    I'm curious what part of the experiment you find objectionable and why. Is it the destruction of a life-form? Is it the creation of a different life form? Why does it matter if they are equivalent?
- 1e-9 7y ago
  For me, it would need to not involve the unjustified sacrifice of intelligent life. I believe this is a viewpoint that increases the longterm survival probability of humankind.
taneq 7y ago
Makes me think more of The Island of Dr Moreau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_of_Doctor_Moreau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_of_Doctor_Moreau) but yeah. Sounds useful, but ghoulish.
pavlov 7y ago
“Cut up embryos and stitched back together” seems like an uncharitable description of a multi-stage microsurgical process where the starting point was only stem cells. This is the description from the article: ” Then the team at Tufts, led by Levin and with key work by microsurgeon Douglas Blackiston—transferred the in silico designs into life. First they gathered stem cells, harvested from the embryos of African frogs, the species Xenopus laevis. (Hence the name "xenobots.") These were separated into single cells and left to incubate. Then, using tiny forceps and an even tinier electrode, the cells were cut and joined under a microscope into a close approximation of the designs specified by the computer.”
- 1e-9 7y ago
  > ...where the starting point was only stem cells. According to the article, the starting point was embryos. "Now a team of scientists has repurposed living cells—scraped from frog embryos—and assembled them into entirely new life-forms." I don't see much difference between "scraped" and "cut up"... perhaps a nuance of scale.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    Because they didn't take "pieces" a la Frankenstein. Just single cells. If the stem cells had been harmlessly extracted from living frogs would you still use the same terms? The experiment itself would be 99% the same in that case, it would just have a more complicated resource gathering step.
    - 1e-9 7y ago
      The parts were skin cells and heart cells. I concede that they were very tiny parts. > If the stem cells had been harmlessly extracted from living frogs would you still use the same terms? That would be perfectly fine in my view. I have no qualms about using living tissue. It's the unnecessary sacrifice of intelligent life that I find objectionable.
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
fsloth 7y ago
We can't really yet design organisms on a genetic level to fully control their phenotype. But if we would - and wanted to - something like this seems like a step to that direction. I'm not sure what you find nauseating about this. If you want muscle and skin cells frog embryos are as fine source as any, I suppose.
- 1e-9 7y ago
  > If you want muscle and skin cells frog embryos are as fine source as any, I suppose. There's the issue. I prefer to see us pursue technologies that don't require the harvesting of parts from intelligent life, even if we deem that intelligence to be low or embryonic. Yes, I am aware that we are omnivores, but I believe we can make ourselves into something better. I see this kind of experimentation as a step backwards.
  - elfexec 7y ago
    > I prefer to see us pursue technologies that don't require the harvesting of parts from intelligent life, even if we deem that intelligence to be low or embryonic. How do you define "intelligent life"? If frogs and embryos are considered intelligent life, then you really are painting yourself into a corner. > Yes, I am aware that we are omnivores, but I believe we can make ourselves into something better. What's better than omnivores? Evolutionarily speaking, that's the best out there. Not sure we can do better, but I'd love to hear what you had in mind.
    - 1e-9 7y ago
      > How do you define "intelligent life"? Currently, my simplest definition is "any self-aware organism capable of predicting the future to some degree." > What's better than omnivores? Previous omnivores. I think we are rapidly getting to the point where we will be able to sustain ourselves effectively with non-animal foods in a way that will be more nutritious, more sustainable, and more environmentally friendly. I want humankind to prosper longterm and I think our most immediate challenge to that is our violence towards each other and towards our environment; either one of which may very well destroy us in the next 100 years. If the majority of us adopted a view that intelligent life at all levels should be protected, I believe that our violence towards each other and towards our environment will abate. I hope this will allow us to address the next major challenge, which I see as a mass extinction event similar to one of the many we see written in Earth's geological record. To overcome this, we will need to become more intelligent, we will need to dramatically advance our technologies, and we will probably need to populate other worlds. But first, we need to not destroy ourselves.

by 1e-9 7y ago

blaeks 7y ago

is current breakthrough this: "The big question in biology is to understand the algorithms that determine form and function," ?

colordrops 7y ago

How far removed would this have to be from an embryo for you to no longer have an emotional reaction? What if they only used proteins? Do you wear leather?

cmroanirgo 7y ago
The article itself is claiming 'Living', which is to state that it is something more than a simple protein chain reaction. However to conflate what's been done here and compare it to wearing leather, just doesn't compute. I don't think anyone would reasonably compare a leather jacket to a Hannibal Lecter style 'skin suit'. I think the parent post's comment is very astute, as the article mentions how it's taking frog cells and passing electricity through them and calling it alive. How is that not Frankensteinian? It's kind of the definition of it. There is also the argument of making the assumption that there's an emotional reaction... Morals and ethics classes are taught in nearly all university degrees these days to try and highlight the issues around this stuff, and I think it unfair to bluntly force it into black and white. For some people it's a question of how deep into the murky quagmire one goes, whereas for others "it's just science" is completely sufficient. But, it's clear that the latter will never have complete approval, nor will the former ever have its way entirely. For me, I look at this experiment as such: Were any frogs killed in doing this experiment? If so, how is the destruction of a life-form comparable to making a laboratory made one? Do the two actually have the same 'life' in them? Philosophically speaking, I'd say not, and as such I call this experimentation a 'dark pattern' and should be avoided: no matter the perceived marketing benefit.
- colordrops 7y ago
  I don't have a coherent theory on this subject. My questions were direct and not rhetorical, designed to spur discussion and provide more context and nuance, which you have. Thanks.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  I'm curious what part of the experiment you find objectionable and why. Is it the destruction of a life-form? Is it the creation of a different life form? Why does it matter if they are equivalent?
1e-9 7y ago
For me, it would need to not involve the unjustified sacrifice of intelligent life. I believe this is a viewpoint that increases the longterm survival probability of humankind.

taneq 7y ago

Makes me think more of The Island of Dr Moreau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_of_Doctor_Moreau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_of_Doctor_Moreau) but yeah. Sounds useful, but ghoulish.

pavlov 7y ago

“Cut up embryos and stitched back together” seems like an uncharitable description of a multi-stage microsurgical process where the starting point was only stem cells. This is the description from the article: ” Then the team at Tufts, led by Levin and with key work by microsurgeon Douglas Blackiston—transferred the in silico designs into life. First they gathered stem cells, harvested from the embryos of African frogs, the species Xenopus laevis. (Hence the name "xenobots.") These were separated into single cells and left to incubate. Then, using tiny forceps and an even tinier electrode, the cells were cut and joined under a microscope into a close approximation of the designs specified by the computer.”

1e-9 7y ago
> ...where the starting point was only stem cells. According to the article, the starting point was embryos. "Now a team of scientists has repurposed living cells—scraped from frog embryos—and assembled them into entirely new life-forms." I don't see much difference between "scraped" and "cut up"... perhaps a nuance of scale.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  Because they didn't take "pieces" a la Frankenstein. Just single cells. If the stem cells had been harmlessly extracted from living frogs would you still use the same terms? The experiment itself would be 99% the same in that case, it would just have a more complicated resource gathering step.
  - 1e-9 7y ago
    The parts were skin cells and heart cells. I concede that they were very tiny parts. > If the stem cells had been harmlessly extracted from living frogs would you still use the same terms? That would be perfectly fine in my view. I have no qualms about using living tissue. It's the unnecessary sacrifice of intelligent life that I find objectionable.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago

fsloth 7y ago

We can't really yet design organisms on a genetic level to fully control their phenotype. But if we would - and wanted to - something like this seems like a step to that direction. I'm not sure what you find nauseating about this. If you want muscle and skin cells frog embryos are as fine source as any, I suppose.

1e-9 7y ago
> If you want muscle and skin cells frog embryos are as fine source as any, I suppose. There's the issue. I prefer to see us pursue technologies that don't require the harvesting of parts from intelligent life, even if we deem that intelligence to be low or embryonic. Yes, I am aware that we are omnivores, but I believe we can make ourselves into something better. I see this kind of experimentation as a step backwards.
- elfexec 7y ago
  > I prefer to see us pursue technologies that don't require the harvesting of parts from intelligent life, even if we deem that intelligence to be low or embryonic. How do you define "intelligent life"? If frogs and embryos are considered intelligent life, then you really are painting yourself into a corner. > Yes, I am aware that we are omnivores, but I believe we can make ourselves into something better. What's better than omnivores? Evolutionarily speaking, that's the best out there. Not sure we can do better, but I'd love to hear what you had in mind.
  - 1e-9 7y ago
    > How do you define "intelligent life"? Currently, my simplest definition is "any self-aware organism capable of predicting the future to some degree." > What's better than omnivores? Previous omnivores. I think we are rapidly getting to the point where we will be able to sustain ourselves effectively with non-animal foods in a way that will be more nutritious, more sustainable, and more environmentally friendly. I want humankind to prosper longterm and I think our most immediate challenge to that is our violence towards each other and towards our environment; either one of which may very well destroy us in the next 100 years. If the majority of us adopted a view that intelligent life at all levels should be protected, I believe that our violence towards each other and towards our environment will abate. I hope this will allow us to address the next major challenge, which I see as a mass extinction event similar to one of the many we see written in Earth's geological record. To overcome this, we will need to become more intelligent, we will need to dramatically advance our technologies, and we will probably need to populate other worlds. But first, we need to not destroy ourselves.