Remember cryonics, the idea that you could hit pause on human life? This relies on the super-cold power of liquid nitrogen or some other ultra-freezing method.
Apparently cryonics is still a thing and there are people with even just their heads frozen. A new story claims a different way to hit the pause button on “human life”. Unfortunately, the news story and its headline have some issues.
Diapause as a way to hit pause on human life
Here’s the story: Scientists Have Figured Out How to Hit the ‘Pause Button’ on Human Life, Prevention via AOL. Here’s the source Cell paper: mTOR activity paces human blastocyst stage developmental progression. The research paper itself seems solid and interesting to me, but the Prevention piece not so much. The science is about diapause, which is a cool phenomenon. One issue with it is that human embryos are not seen as actual human life by most people.
Yes, some people view fertilization as the start of human life (and I expect a comment on this post from one of them I know), but I believe news articles should be more precise and not make such assumptions.
When most readers take in that headline, they are going to think perhaps about cryonics or some other way for actual people to go into suspended animation. They won’t be bringing to mind the microscopic balls of cells that are human embryos.
What is diapause? It’s a phenomenon where organismal development temporarily stops and is on hold.
I wish we could hit pause on human life for kids or adults in certain situations like for those facing potentially fatal health crises. Maybe diapause research could be one key element on the path in that direction. What if cryonics was shown to work and we could then bring people back in healthy form? But for you sci-fi nerds out there like me, would we end up shouting “Khan!” like Captain Kirk at some point?
More recommended reads
- Speaking of pauses: Temporary Pause for New Applications, CIRM. CIRM will pause most grant applications. “To ensure future applications align with the updated SAF priorities, CIRM is implementing a temporary pause on accepting applications. This pause applies to all programs, except for DISC0, which will accept new applications through the deadline of February 6, 2025.”
- UC Merced Announces New Facility Will Expand Groundbreaking Stem Cell Research, Sierra Sun Times.
- 23andMe is on the brink. What happens to all its DNA data? NPR. Like millions of other people, I did 23andMe years ago. The uncertainty about all of our data is pretty unsettling.
- They Were Made Without Eggs or Sperm. Are They Human? The Atlantic. This piece from Kristen V. Brown covers human embryo models including work by Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz and Jacob Hanna. I wonder if these two researchers are getting along these days. There’s been some tension between the two related to credit for human embryo model research. I first wrote about embryo model research from her lab in 2007. Years ago Hanna seemed to have had a skirmish with one of his own past mentors, Rudy Jaenisch too.
- Her Face Was Unrecognizable After an Explosion. A Placenta Restored It, The New York Times. Placental material can act like a reparative sheet and be very helpful for healing in some cases. Keep in mind that this story is not about placental cell preparations, which are tissue drugs. The FDA has not approved any placental cell therapy but they are widely offered by unproven clinics anyway.
- Effective regulatory responses to predatory stem cell markets in Australia and Canada, Cell Stem Cell. Maybe the U.S. can do a more effective job too in coming years.
Blast from the past: 10 years ago on Duke & autism EAP
Duke Launches Large, Debated Stem Cells for Autism Trial. This was a post I did a decade ago. The trial was unsuccessful but as best as I can tell the Duke team kept infusing many autistic kids, perhaps hundreds, through their EAP even after they had the discouraging data.
Stay tuned for more on this still-active Duke EAP, which is “treating” (they say) kids with other neurological conditions with cord blood material. It’s unproven but expensive.
Please remember that the paradigm one chooses to determine “human life” vs “non human life” at the beginning-point of such life, has the potential to produce unanticipated results, and impose requirements, when said paradigm is logically and necessarily applied to the end-point of such life. As gran’ma would say, “What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”.
@Dr. Meyer. Can you say more about what you mean here? Also, what kind of results/requirements?
Dr.Knoepfler,
This is a discussion of an immense, complex, potentially divisive topic. To what end? Presumably it is in order to make a determination of whether or not a given biologic entity is defined as “human being”, “human”, “person”, in order to provide special status to said entity. Let us call that status “personhood”. I believe it is self-evident (this is always a tricky statement in any argument of significance) that personhood establishes societal rights, obligations, and duties; it is encoded in legal norms. We look to the State to maintain and enforce these norms. Constitutional law frequently addresses this issue.
Several criteria have been noted in this discussion forum to determine the above noted “personhood”. To cite a few … unique genetic code (fertilization), destiny (becoming human), intuition(egg/bird (or is it bird/egg?), caterpillar/butterfly), independence of function (survivability ex-utero). If one’s paradigm of “personhood” is grounded on one or more of the above criterion(ia), what is the expected, and logical, response of the State? And what does one then anticipate at the “end of life”?
At the far end of human life, are we not required to apply the same paradigm of personhood? If the paradigm one constructs determines what biologic entity is “personhood”, would it not also determine what is “not personhood”? (Unless of course there is an “indeterminate” category.) What then, if the State looks to “maintain and enforce these norms” of personhood?
If the paradigm that is used to determine when “personhood” begins is logically applied to determine when “personhood” ends, how might that affect end of life decision making and applicable law? What are the unanticipated effects of codifying a given paradigm? Will my spouse be free of State influence to execute withdrawal of life support for me or will the State be called upon to independently defend my personhood. Will the State be compelled to dissolve any concept of DPOA in its defense of personhood?
The life-paradigm one chooses for the beginning of life must be adequate for the end of life as well. Unanticipated effects should be anticipated.
Dr. David Meyer
As a scientist, I appreciate the fact that you are asking such questions and using logic here. I wonder if faith or religion plays a role for you in thinking about this?
While I respect the fact that for some their faith plays the major and sometimes almost only role in defining what constitutes a person, the challenge with using such a definition is that there are billions of people around the world (and many millions just here in the US) of different faiths or even no particular faith who may view it totally differently. Hence, using a faith-based definition makes it impossible to come up with a fairly unifying approach to this question that could be used for crucial policy matters in a diverse, democratic society.
Questions about personhood at the end of life are interesting too.
Jeanne and Admin,
Turn in your biologist cards, your debate cards, or both.
FERTILIZED birds’ eggs are birds, though they develop through hatchlings, which are baby birds.
FERTILIZED frogs’ eggs are frogs, though they develop through tadpoles, which are baby frogs.
And, yes, Jeanne, caterpillars are butterflies too, just like you used to be a younger and a different looking human being. Your decision to make this obtuse analogy is quite amazing, since it is irrelevant to the issue of the significance of fertilization for the initiation of the life of a human being.
Admin, for the glossary, “a human person is a human being.” When will you drop this tired old specious diversion?
And Jeanne, giving birth to a live baby or a dead baby has nothing to do with the discussion that Admin aimed to provoke.
James @ Asymmetrex®, amused and laughing!
James, please calm down. Most zygotes fail to implant and gross genomic abnormalities seldom make it to term. I’m arguing that ethically we cannot define those as suicides of human beings. You know I’m an embryologist, right?
James, it’s a zygote. It isn’t a human being until it develops in a uterus long enough to survive outside a uterus. This time period may be as short as 6 months, with the best of neonatal care.
Is a bird’s egg a bird? Are the eggs laid in puddles frogs? Is a caterpillar a butterfly?
Did I make my point? There’s a precarious journey after fertilization for every animal and birth, be it hatching, metamorphosis, or delivery, it can’t be called an animal until it finishes embryonic development.
I couldn’t have said it better than Jeanne. One cell (or even a 100-cell embryo) is not a person scientifically or by simple common sense.
“Yes, some people view fertilization as the start of human life…”
If fertilization is not the start of human life then, then what is? The operative phrase in this statement is “START of human life”. And yes, a bird’s life starts with an egg, which is not a bird (yet). Both things are true.
By the way, if a fetus that can survive outside the uterus is a human being, then aborting it is murder. Jeanne Loring might want to stick with “A fetus is not a human being”.
That’s why third trimester abortions are only done under extreme medically necessary circumstances- like when when the fetus is grossly deformed and won’t survive. Can you imagine being a woman who is forced to give birth to a dead fetus?
Dear Dr. Knoeplfer, I believe that there are many scientists, myself included, who read your blog and do not share your perspective. Sometimes silence is a reflection of simple common sense – after all, one doesn’t bring a ruler to measure the flatness of the earth.
@stemcelllady, even if we don’t agree on everything, I’m glad you comment here sometimes. Part of the point of The Niche is to spark discussion.
Since we are debating about time, using your logic, Dr. Loring, at which time point would you say the “not-human” becomes a human? 6 months? That’s 24 weeks – 26 weeks of gestation which is 168-182 days. The youngest human to survive outside the womb is Curtis Zy-Keith Means, born July 2020 at 148 days. What should the cutoff be? What if neonatal technology improves and we can save even younger premature lives. Certainly you wouldn’t consider those to be non-humans or would you?
Dear Admin:
“One issue with it is that human embryos are not seen as actual human life by most people.
Yes, some people view fertilization as the start of human life (and I expect a comment on this post from one of them I know), but I believe news articles should be more precise and not make such assumptions.”
Here’s my comment: Really?! Let me ask you the following question. Perhaps you can craft a specious response for your readers. “If a human zygote, the initial single live cell formed by the productive fertilization of a live human ovum by a live human spermatocyte, is not a living human being, then what, pray tell, is it?
James @ Asymmetrex®
I am not a cell biologist, but by definition, wouldn’t that be a unique “omni-potent stem cell”?
But I am an obstetrician, and by your logic it would be a “twin gestation” after the first cell division.