Obviously this is a long, long way from a functional brain being grown. But I have to wonder where the moral line is drawn when you're talking about growing an organ that (may-or-may-not) hold the ability to form a level of consciousness.
If I may be so bold, I think that line will get pushed farther out every generation - who will simply accept past work as the then status quo ante. Just a hundred years back, cloning would have been considered morally reprehensible. Today, many people accept it as fact. Each generation only pushes the boundary just a bit (in the grand scheme of things) further; and only things far beyond the immediate realm of practical possibility seem thoroughly abominable.
There’s also the possiblity that the distaste that a culture/era has for such things is based on the extent to which it has been raised with religious values - which typically tend to deem the work of creation to be in the domain of the divine, not the mortal. As either distance from organized religion grows, or religions adapt their values, future generations exposed to such teachings may find such things to be acceptable as long as they’re not used for “bad” purposes.
There no explicit need for a "Complete brain".
Here is example of functional network with 25k neurons:
Rat brain cells organize, learn to control electrodes and fly a fighter jet in a simulation.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022104658.h...
The same question should be asked about research animals today then, as detailed in a sibling thread. “Brain grown on a dish” sounds preferable to “rat with a drilled skull.”
The quick answer is to say it's not ethical. But what if the brain is given full autonomy and ability to communicate with others and then let the brain decide if it wants an organic or machine body?
> Several of these differences mirror what Muotri has found studying neuronal development in the brains of children with autism. "I don't want families to conclude that I'm comparing autistic kids to Neanderthals, but it's an important observation," says Muotri, who has a stepson with autism. "In modern humans, these types of changes are linked to defects in brain development that are needed for socialization. If we believe that's one of our advantages over Neanderthals, it's relevant."
Future home of The Island of Doctor Moreau or a Four-Assed Monkey (s01e05). Srsly: At some point, a sizable-enough brain develops a degree of consciousness. Are we really going to test the mad scientist hypothesis that your brain might be in a Petri dish somewhere and that your senses are artificial? NM: https://nypost.com/2015/08/19/scientist-creates-99-complete-...
Could you elaborate? What part do you find to be unethical and for what reasons? What alternate ethical studies do you recommend to gain the same information being gained here?
>>> "We're trying to recreate Neanderthal minds," Muotri says."
Get the pitchforks. This scientist has gone too far. Really. I'm a totally against growing "minds" in jars. I'd be against doing this with any animal brain, let alone something functionally equivalent to human. There are ethical lines that shouldn't be crossed. The concept of a non-corporeal mind living a non-sensory existence in a jar of goo is too horrible to be allowed. This nightmare should live only in the pages of science fiction.
How exactly do you think scientists investigate which areas of animal (and human) brains are responsible for which functional area ?
With humans it comes from papers describing the treatment of "brain trauma". Within animals, where the majority of research is done, depending on the animal, they just nail them to a board, or nail a board or a wire into their skull, cut out half the brain, insert some sensors, and record data in the few hours that the pain does not totally immobilise the animals, usually while making the animal perform some trick, like navigating a maze, or looking at prey, or ...
[+] [-] King-Aaron|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alfredallan1|7 years ago|reply
There’s also the possiblity that the distaste that a culture/era has for such things is based on the extent to which it has been raised with religious values - which typically tend to deem the work of creation to be in the domain of the divine, not the mortal. As either distance from organized religion grows, or religions adapt their values, future generations exposed to such teachings may find such things to be acceptable as long as they’re not used for “bad” purposes.
[+] [-] FrozenVoid|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] filoeleven|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dqpb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] everdev|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vinchuco|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pickpuck|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TimMurnaghan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] senectus1|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] himom|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlebrech|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikaelgyth|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wintorez|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itchyjunk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vinchuco|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dqpb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|7 years ago|reply
Get the pitchforks. This scientist has gone too far. Really. I'm a totally against growing "minds" in jars. I'd be against doing this with any animal brain, let alone something functionally equivalent to human. There are ethical lines that shouldn't be crossed. The concept of a non-corporeal mind living a non-sensory existence in a jar of goo is too horrible to be allowed. This nightmare should live only in the pages of science fiction.
[+] [-] candiodari|7 years ago|reply
With humans it comes from papers describing the treatment of "brain trauma". Within animals, where the majority of research is done, depending on the animal, they just nail them to a board, or nail a board or a wire into their skull, cut out half the brain, insert some sensors, and record data in the few hours that the pain does not totally immobilise the animals, usually while making the animal perform some trick, like navigating a maze, or looking at prey, or ...
[+] [-] aarongough|7 years ago|reply