An artificial womb successfully grew baby sheep
theverge.com
theverge.com
It's not quite a total replacement for a natural womb (and the Nature article only uses the word "womb once, in the abstract), as it can't grow a fetus from an embryo; you have to start with a pre-incubated fetus that already has an umbilical ford to plug into and a strong enough heart. But even though we won't be growing test-tube babies 100% in-vitro with this thing, it is a major advance that could significantly push back the earliest time at which a premature baby could remain viable with artificial incubation.
(Eventually, I realise this technology is not there yet).
All the pro-life people i know that have seen it though think it's a disturbing, godless or unnatural...
I'm pro-life and in the circles where I travel, this is being hailed.
To be honest, 'nature' is that thing that constantly tries to kill us. I think its hilarious that folks pursue 'natural' foods and lifestyles, thinking its somehow better.
You're not in traffic. You are traffic.
This is a brand-new procedure that just a couple years ago would be written about in a sci-fi novel. Perhaps you can understand how someone might think it's a little strange.
I'm worried we might end up with sociopathic kids. It's been shown in many animals that the mother does not bond with the newborn without oxytocin release from childbirth.
1. Citation needed.
2. Not relevant to humans unless you are also going to assert that fathers and adopted mothers fail to bond.
Is there an obligation to bag and try to save every single fertilized egg?
- Why should the safeguards against child-abuse that are present for contemporary adoption be lifted for cases of adoption ex vitro? What, are abusive parents suddenly going to refrain from abusing in vitro babies?
I don't see how this line of reasoning holds up. It's little more than shoe-horning the present debate into the abortion debate.
Anecdotal, but I'd have no feelings about being grown in a bag. I'd be rather happy to know my mother didn't have to suffer through 9 months of pregnancy.
I feel that strong feelings towards these things are a product of culture. Some did some good, like saying the pregnancy is a blessing to make it easier for women to pull through. But with developments like the one described in the article, these cultural norms stop being useful and can be safely dropped.
I think being born from a bag, is preferabl to not being born at all, any time.
Shit life vs a (sentient) life that never begins? Sign me up for the latter.
I'm joking, of course. Just wanted to apply some of your cold logic. By the way, our planet isn't overpopulated either. You are offering an opinion.
A few decades ago, when I used to enjoy wasting more time debating, I always liked to throw in "someday you'll be able to grow a child outside of the womb" to get people think a little more. I'm glad to see we're here.
The pro-life/pro-choice argument is two different polarized groups, who's minds are unlikely to change. Personally, I wouldn't have the debate on HN.
What number would it have to reach before you concede it is?
Some will, of course, claim that we consume too much – but at that point, it's a matter of opinion. I call it overpopulation for the current level of technology.
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/21/bill-gates-they-will-be-no-po...
If we can't figure out how to generate electricity by means other than coal, for example, we will have a problem. However, technology is increasing rapidly and increasing the quality of life for the majority of people is happening on a large scale.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-middle-class-is-explod...
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/11/13/middle-c...
I get a knock on the door... "Hello, it's me your long lost child..."
"Wait, what? I thought we aborted you?"
"Nope! Mom secretly put me in a bag and I was raised by Mormons. Would you like me to tell you about Joseph Smith?"
"Oh cool, yeah... this is exactly the outcome I hoped for when I paid for her to get an abortion 20 years ago... come on in!"
Foothold technologies like this generally improve over time.
For example, this system is pumpless, while the rest of the system evolved in the presence of a pump. In mammals the vascular system is continuously monitoring and optimizing blood-vessel diameter as a function of the waves of blood flowing through them. You don't get that if you have an artificial heart.
I bet movement also plays a role in fetal brain development too.
Therefore ideally the bag should be hung from a robot arm programmed to move like a sheep moves (maybe from recordings of an actual sheep), including sleeping at night etc. And the bag should gently pulse as though there's a heart and lungs. Also the miserable factory where these clones develop should play sounds of open pasture and birds, sheep bleating etc. That way they will be properly developed lambs ready to go to the abattoir. (edit: sorry for the sad ending)
Not to mention the influence of everything else that the mother provides (hormone levels, immune system, ...).
I mean there are people that research whether c-sections vs. natural birth has a measurable impact on human children (and believe it has), for example. In that context, this would seem like a big diffrence.
And unlike things like sounds and mechanics these are things that are quite poorly understood. How humans develop their immune systems, get autoimmune diseases and allergies etc is tricky stuff. What this will do is at least help figure out what comes from where, because you can use identical twin animals where one is born naturally and one artificially.
Why not genetically engineer them to not have a brain? No brain, no chance it might suffer. The bare minimum of neurons needed for staying alive — pump heart, breathe, digest food — is tiny compared to a mamillian brain.
although, when I go vegan, I don't like taking supplements. If we could engineer some foods to provide all the B12, Zinc & Iron etc we need that are hard to get from vegetables (without a a lot of effort) that would be nice.
I predict that within 50 years (which may be overly conservative), killing animals for meat will be all but extinct, and we'll be eating artificially-grown meat.
That is, I sort of doubt that the first attempts are 100% successful.
Because of course a one month old baby is ready to work, right?
Sorry, but humans are social animals. We don't come ready-to-use; it takes a lot of training (about 9-18 months for basic language alone). Worse, we're born — by the standards of most mammals — prematurely: if we weren't, the maternal death rate would be unsustainable (big skulls don't pass easily through gaps in the mother's pelvis). Our immune systems are primed by the mother via colostrum ("first milk") after delivery: we can't walk for months, we don't even have full bowel control for a year or two. And then there's socialization and interaction and play and all the other panoply of human developmental requirements — which you might think are unimportant, but a quick look at the history of Romania's Ceaucescu-era orphanages and their survivors (the Ceaucescu dictatorship banned abortions) will give you a grisly tour of the failure modes.
The least-bad outcome of your proposal is that it would enable parents to rapidly raise a family with 2-20 children without inflicting direct physical damage on the female population (but don't underestimate the exigencies of raising children as a full-time job, specially on that scale). But it's not a colony-in-a-can gadget that will making planetary (or interstellar) colonization easy; someone's got to be there first, to prepare a safe and healthy environment for the kids to grow up in.
(If you say "yes but AI!" then I submit that you don't have any clear idea what you're asking for or you're a believer in the singularity, aka the rapture of the nerds.)
This colonization idea needs to wait until we can figure out the genetic basis of sociopathy, and then we can genetically engineer it out of the fertilized embryos, and instead GE them to be much more interdependent and social than we are.
Creating real A.I. robots that are close to humans (intelligence-wise) is just complicating the process and pushing us a bit further from the ethical questions. I say let's face them now and push A.I. through biotechnology.
I mean there is a limit how long we can preserve living humans and multi generational ships are very fragile ecosystems.
This story is just as interesting as when it was first submitted, yet this submission is way more popular.
This is an area I find fascinating. One thing I've pondered is with merely a genome could you construct the organism it's from?
The first problem is creating a fertilized egg. Having that, it's not clear to me (again, as a layman) whether or not you could gestate that to an independent organism.
To put it in computing terms, imagine the genome as "source code" and the host (gestating) organism as, for lack of a better word, a "compiler". Now imagine that a lot of the complexity of life comes from these successive generations, which is to say that an organism isn't simply a function of its genome, it's essentially a function of every ancestor.
If you think about it, some organisms are born with some ingrained characteristics and behaviour. Humans have the moro reflex. Bear cubs manage to find way to their mother's milk when the mother is barely conscious. Some ducks are capable of swimming, eating and surviving from the day they're born.
How much of this is part of the genome and how much is "communicated" from mother to child in the womb?
Obviously only applies to a subset of animals. Birds, for example, are born in eggs and--unless I'm missing something--the only interaction between parent and egg once the egg is laid is incubation so it's easy to imagine that there is no "communication" in this phase.
But maybe this is what makes mammals (particularly primates) seemingly special? How much of what we do is hardwired or "software"?
So there have been two important developments in the last year or so. The first is hatching chicks without a shell [1]. The second is this and this is far more impressive.
If nothing else, this limits potential interactions between mother and unborn child. At least for sheep. I think this is a really important development.
[1]: https://www.cnet.com/news/video-shows-how-to-incubate-an-egg...
The fetus may be listening to the outside environment or hearing his or her mother talk, but if this was a prerequisite to the "specialness" of humans/primates you are referring to, then we would see significant differences in the immediate post-natal behaviour of congenitally deaf children. I haven't searched the literature for this topic, but I personally have never seen that mentioned.
An easier explanation is that these are genetically encoded. The ducks are a good example. Ducks hatched from eggs that are artificially incubated seem to have the same core instincts as those hatched from natural incubation.
That said, there are still important forms of communication between mother and child: chemicals. An extreme example is the disastrous and tragic affect of alcohol on fetal development.
Craig Venter already did that with a bacterial. He synthesized the entire genome, then inserted it a cell. I assume that cell already had the other machinery (translation enzymes, etc).
I expect the pictures look so gross that they don't want to publish it, afraid for public outcry. And thus settle with drawings instead :)
It reminded me of the scene in the Matrix with Neo coming out of his tank.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170221-reviving-woolly-mamm...
In parallel example, we have not managed to find an artificial replacement for egg shells which is required for avian embryos to develop. Some techniques do exist, but none of the them were able to ensure survival past the first 2 weeks. Considering that humans have been breeding chicken for centuries, there is still plenty we don't know about our favourite bird, let alone fellow humans.
There's also the whole "cycle" thing that's apparantley gone on for 6 iterations, allowing humans who reject the matrix to leave and periodically cull them was a solution to widespread rejection of the system that would have affected entire crops of humans. It's hard to do that if they don't have physical bodies to escape the system in the real world.
What really bugged me about their scheme, was the suggestion that a human might make a decent power source. Perhaps that was all misdirection, and the humans are actually the computing substrate of the entire system? Maybe the machines were never able to compute at the power efficiency of a human brain? Maybe they suck at nanotech altogether, and can't even design a decent microchip without human assistance? All their stuff is big and bulky.
(5 minutes later) Lol, I can't believe I guessed it. Thanks to deegles for the background info.
Awesome who cares about animals if we can help humans.
And yeah downvote me because I do not embrace this unhuman future.