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

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.