top | item 46813682

(no title)

ngriffiths | 1 month ago

Because research on real humans and real diseases is exceptionally difficult. Clinical research is notoriously expensive, results are likely to differ from non-human (preclinical) models, and trials take forever to get started, gather enough data, and get a drug actually reviewed and approved. So even when everyone is excited by the preclinical data, there are so many barriers (both scientific and non-scientific) that getting to an approved drug is pretty unlikely.

discuss

order

dyauspitr|1 month ago

We really should be able to grow human bodies without a brain for testing purposes. It’s gruesome but realistically victimless at the end of the day.

dekhn|1 month ago

This sounds ethically questionable to me. I wouldn't rule it out entirely, but I'd want to see a well-reasoned argument, both technical and moral, that it was likely to lead to greatly reduced suffering for patients. Even then.... growing a body without a brain likely would not produce a model organism with predictive ability for human diseases.

ngriffiths|1 month ago

I don't think the biology is there, let alone consensus on the major ethical questions involved

namuol|1 month ago

> human bodies without a brain for testing

I think the way a drug impacts the brain is kind of important

giardini|1 month ago

Can you imagine the political/religious push-back were you to do that?!

Growth of single human organs or organ tissue is easier, cheaper and less fraught with political peril.

Tade0|1 month ago

We have the next best thing: organoids.

kens|1 month ago

A more practical option is using brain-dead humans for medical testing. This was discussed recently in the journal Science, using the term "physiologically maintained deceased". As they say, this "traverses complex ethical and moral terrain". (I've seen enough zombie movies to know how this ends up :-)

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt3527