Labs Grow Synthetic Human Embryos

[Occams Barber]

20 JUNE 2023


Lab-grown synthetic human embryos lead to calls for regulation



Scientists have used stem cells to create structures that resemble human embryos in the lab, in a first that has prompted calls for stricter regulation in the rapidly advancing stem cell research.

Several different labs around the world have released pre-print studies in the past seven days describing their research, which experts said should be treated with caution as the research has not yet been peer-reviewed.

The labs used different techniques to encourage human embryonic stem cells, which can become any type of cell, to self-assemble into a structure that resembles an embryo – without needing sperm, an egg or fertilisation.

Researchers have pushed back against media reports calling the clumps of cells “synthetic embryos”, saying they are neither strictly synthetic, having grown from stem cells, nor should they be considered embryos.

[Both] Two labs said they had developed their embryo models for 14 days, the legal limit for growing human embryos in the lab in many countries.

After 14 days, embryos start organising cells to form organs including the brain, a period called the “black box” because little is known about human embryos beyond that point.

An embryo model implanted in a female macaque as part of earlier research did induce some signs of pregnancy, but did not survive,


More
Lab-grown synthetic human embryos lead to calls for regulation | News | Al Jazeera
'Synthetic human embryos' were created using stem cells. What are they, and why were they made? - ABC News

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me see if I got this right:

1. Synthetic human embryos lead to calls for regulation.

2. They are neither synthetic, nor embryos.

Is that about right?

 

[DragonFox91]

Interesting. So, are they still growing? If not, why not?

Have they done this experiment w/ animals? If the ‘human embryos’ aren’t still growing, did they let the animal ‘embryos’ grow more? It looks like they’ve done it on mice some, how come they didn’t let the 'mouse embryos' grow completely?

" But when they were implanted into the wombs of female mice, they did not develop into live animals." From the article

 

[Occams Barber]

Let me see if I got this right:

1. Synthetic human embryos lead to calls for regulation.

2. They are neither synthetic, nor embryos.

Is that about right?

When I selected the bits of the article to be copied into the post I made sure that all the ifs, ands and buts were included. Both of your points are more or less right.

Point 1 comes from suggestions in the article that the embryos should be treated as if they are normal human embryos and not allowed to develop beyond 14 days. This is a bit awkward since it amounts to an admission that humans can be created in a test tube without benefit of sperm or eggs.

Point 2 could be seen as either semantic or scientific. While the material for the embryos is human the process of converting it to an embryo could be described as artificial (i.e. synthetic) since it was done without sperm or egg.

This science is a potential major breakthrough and carries a lot of ethical baggage.

Perhaps Huxley was a prophet?

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Interesting. So, are they still growing? If not, why not?

Have they done this experiment w/ animals? If the ‘human embryos’ aren’t still growing, did they let the animal ‘embryos’ grow more? It looks like they’ve done it on mice some, how come they didn’t let the 'mouse embryos' grow completely?

" But when they were implanted into the wombs of female mice, they did not develop into live animals." From the article

My info comes from the same place yours does - the article - so I don't have all the answers.

The reason I posted the thread was to make people aware of where things may be headed. While there seem to be limitations in embryonic growth using this process, there is (according to the article) significant competition to push forward on this.

This topic is a potential ethical minefield and may also have religious connotations for some people.

Watch this space.

OB

 

[AV1611VET]

This science is a potential major breakthrough and carries a lot of ethical baggage.

Okay, as I read it now:

1. Synthetic human embryos lead to calls for regulation.

2. They are neither synthetic, nor embryos.

3. This is a potential major breakthrough.

 

[Occams Barber]

Okay, as I read it now:

1. Synthetic human embryos lead to calls for regulation.

2. They are neither synthetic, nor embryos.

3. This is a potential major breakthrough.

Point 2 is still awkward. They would normally be classified as embryos but the process by which they were created is 'unnatural' (no sperm or egg). It also isn't clear if they (the embryos) are capable of becoming a foetus/baby.

This confuses both the semantics and the science - hence 'synthetic embryos' is probably a reasonable interim description. It's one of those grey areas some Christians have a lot of trouble dealing with like the definitions of life or species.

By the way - since they are an embryo the Pro-Life folk may regard their termination at day 14 as an abortion

On the other hand, the Pro-life folk may not see them as an embryo because they were 'unnaturally' created outside the body therefore their termination at day14 is not an abortion.

OB

 

[jayem]

To me, the most exciting property of stem cells is that they're pluripotent. Theoretically, they can develop into any type of tissue. Imagine if heart muscle, or kidney, or even spinal cord could be grown in vitro from stem cells modified so that they don't express the human leukocyte antigens (HLA) that trigger rejection of transplanted organs. No more waiting for the most compatible organ donor. And no need for a lifetime of anti-rejection medication with all the attendant side effects. How uber-cool would this be? But it's probably a pipe dream.

 

[Jipsah]

Let me see if I got this right:

1. Synthetic human embryos lead to calls for regulation.

2. They are neither synthetic, nor embryos.

Is that about right?

Researchers have pushed back against media reports calling the clumps of cells “synthetic embryos”, saying they are neither strictly synthetic, having grown from stem cells, nor should they be considered embryos.

So, apart from not being synthetic, and not being embryoes, the title was spot on. This should be followed up by "Korean American Engineer Produces Cold Fusion In Jelly Jar" , which is does contain some factual information (i.e., it was a Korean American Engineer who didn't create cold fusion in a jelly jar).

 

[Jipsah]

the embryos should be treated as if they are normal human embryos

Except they're not embryos.

it amounts to an admission that humans can be created in a test tube without benefit of sperm or eggs.

Uh, that would be no.

Point 2 could be seen as either semantic or scientific. While the material for the embryos is human the process of converting it to an embryo could be described as artificial (i.e. synthetic)

Except that it isn'y an embryo. Some cells replicating in a petri dish isn't an embyo any more than it's a football.

This science is a potential major breakthrough

Not all that much.

Perhaps Huxley was a prophet?

Huxley was talking about actual human embryos.

 

[Jipsah]

Point 2 is still awkward. They would normally be classified as embryos

Except they ain't.

It also isn't clear if they (the embryos) are capable of becoming a foetus/baby.
It's clear that they can't.

'synthetic embryos' is probably a reasonable interim description.

If you're trying to make up a sensationalist headline and have no regard for the truth.

It's one of those grey areas

Not in this case. They're cells in a dish, end of.

some Christians have a lot of trouble dealing with like the definitions of life or species.

Some Christians are easily manipulated.

By the way - since they are an embryo

Nope.

the Pro-Life folk may regard their termination at day 14 as an abortion

On the other hand, the Pro-life folk may not see them as an embryo because they were 'unnaturally' created

They're not embryos at all.

 

[FireDragon76]

Let me see if I got this right:

1. Synthetic human embryos lead to calls for regulation.

2. They are neither synthetic, nor embryos.

Is that about right?

"Synthetic embryos" sounds cooler, or more disturbing, depending on your point of view. Such is the way of clickbait.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Synthetic embryos" sounds cooler, or more disturbing, depending on your point of view. Such is the way of clickbait.

I go with "disturbing."

 

[Psalm 27]

I go with "disturbing."

Hi av, how are you? Fight the good fight dear brother

 

[bèlla]

Out of all the things they could do they've decided to make synthetic embryos. They've created centers with pods that eliminate the womb as well. I thought we were over populated?

The obvious problem is what is it? They're not going to tell us the truth. They'll market it as human. But if they built it you'd better believe they control it and that's a bigger problem than it seems.

After awhile you won't know what's real.

~bella

 

[Occams Barber]

After awhile you won't know what's real alive/life.

One of the major disadvantages of a Christian viewpoint is a need for a black and white view of life vs non-life. Scientifically speaking the line is not clear cut - it's fuzzy. There is no agreed universal definition of what constitutes life and where the boundary with not-life lies.

For Christians this is inconsistent with the concept of being God created and concepts like spirit and/or soul. Since I understand that the line between life and not-life is arbitrary I have no difficulty in accepting the idea that the shift from non-life to life (aka abiogenesis) was basically a chemical process. While the details of this process are still under scientific investigation the concept of life coming into existence as part of a chemical process is scientifically valid.

In short, Christians are always going to have difficulty in accepting life as simply the culmination of a sophisticated chain/combination of chemical processes. As a non-Christian I don't need to factor God into abiogenesis.

Anything which seems to support the idea of chemical abiogenesis will, automatically meet Christian resistance since it can be interpreted as directly conflicting with basic Christian concepts.

OB

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi av, how are you? Fight the good fight dear brother

Thank you! God bless you, brother!

 

[bèlla]

One of the major disadvantages of a Christian viewpoint is a need for a black and white view of life vs non-life. Scientifically speaking the line is not clear cut - it's fuzzy. There is no agreed universal definition of what constitutes life and where the boundary with not-life lies.

A tool can be a force or good or evil depending on the bearer. Most of the tools are in the wrong hands that's the problem. Their intentions aren't benevolent.

When you want to know how something will be used you have to follow the money. Dig into the company finances and see who's discussing them outside of the mainstream. Look for industry events and gatherings like WEF. That's where you'll hear the truth. The news is scrubbed.

~bella

 

[FireDragon76]

One of the major disadvantages of a Christian viewpoint is a need for a black and white view of life vs non-life. Scientifically speaking the line is not clear cut - it's fuzzy. There is no agreed universal definition of what constitutes life and where the boundary with not-life lies.

I don't think all Christians are so committed to a particular definition of life or sentience. I certainly am not.

 

[Occams Barber]

I don't think all Christians are so committed to a particular definition of life or sentience. I certainly am not.

Do you believe that life is necessarily God created?

Science would say that life came about through a natural process of chemical evolution.

If you accept the broad scientific explanation for life there is the issue of deciding at what point God became involved and what process was put in train. Did he influence molecules to form the precursors of life and then allow things to proceed naturally or did He intervene at an earlier or later stage?

Did God create a universe which inevitably led to life.? If so how is this different to an explanation without God or some vague version of deism?

From the point of view of a Christian who, broadly, accepts the scientific explanation - at what point did life become alive and what does alive mean?

OB