Pre-embryos made in lab could spur research, ethics debates

Hence the sci-fi term, "Tank"...

I recommend watching the film Gattaca if you want to see where this could go

The research in the article is very different from the problems of that movie.

This is not about having designers babies, with the exact genes the parents want, in order to produce "perfect" humans, (nor it is about instant genetic sequencing to provide proof of identity). The ethical problems here would be more like cloning. Getting stem cells from an existing individual and produce something resembling the structures that will originate embryos.

It is good to have an ethical discussion about the possible problems now, before it is actually possible to produce embryos, but it is also important to recognize that the level of technology is not even near enough to actually produce a new individual from the cells.

There are ethical hurdles to conduct research on human embryos, and this technology allows for a surrogate (imperfect and limited as it is) to side step these problems, there is no problem if the research never advances towards more complicated structures because that is not the purpose, so the important part is just make sure this continues to be the focus.

These balls, called blastocysts, form a few days after an egg has been fertilized but before the cells attach to the uterus to become an embryo.

Hmmm, for those who consider a human life to start at conception, this may be problematic.

Hmmm, for those who consider a human life to start at conception, this may be problematic.

Read the article, there is no "conception" for this research. The blastocytes are mentioned for comparison but the structures being used here come from stem cells or reprogrammed skin cells, no fertilization whatsoever so for those who consider a human life to start at conception this would mean the structures are NOT human life.

These balls, called blastocysts, form a few days after an egg has been

fertilized but before the cells attach to the uterus to become an

embryo.

Hmmm, for those who consider a human life to start at conception, this may be problematic.

Read the article, there is no "conception" for this research.

Yes, but the blastocysts have developed to a stage that is normally reached days after an egg has been fertilized. So if a fertilized egg is considered a human life by some, what do they consider blastocysts?

You could technically create a fully functional human being without "conception". Up to what stage of development should we go?

You could technically create a fully functional human being without "conception". Up to what stage of development should we go?

That is a completely different matter, your comment was in reference to blastocysts, that are NOT used on this research, and you gave a personal consideration not based on science, according to that consideration the structures that ARE used in the research mentioned in this article would not be human because they are not product of conception. So if you define what a human is depending of "conception", even if a full formed organism were developed from those structures (something that could not happen according to the results presented) this organism would not be human (and have no human rights, so not unethical to produce them).

The only logical conclusion from that theoretical production of humans in total and absolute absence of "conception" would obviously not be that they are not human, instead the conclusion could only be that the personal belief in "conception" is not related to the quality of "human" of a life form.

share

www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/12/china-covid-misinformation-li-meng-yan/