A summary on Nature news at the times: https://archive.ph/Xnx5n
And of course, even if you don't agree with the necessity for ethics statements, because it is just one more thing that takes up time you could otherwise spend on your actual job (doing research), you certainly don't want to risk having your paper rejected just because you don't meet whatever ethics standards the conference or journal seeks to uphold.
But remember, I'm talking natural language processing here.
In that light, it is a complete mystery to me how research like the one described in the article could have possibly, ever made it past an ethics review. Unless, of course, completely different standards are applied - which in itself would be rather questionable.
(your comments are a bit obscure, in a way that suggests you aren't familiar with how modern biological research is evaluated)
I suppose what I was trying to get at was a suspicion that ethics reviews in today's research landscape (not only in the medical field, but others as well) seem to me more like a lip service. And don't get me wrong, that's just an opinion, I'm sure a lot of you think otherwise.
These guys have established processes and justifications to do these experiments. It was always just wrong that Web has none, and it also makes no sense to assume that just because the process look substantial judged by norms of other industries they must have ignored it.
While an artificial womb could be very useful as a medical device to save the life of the child, in vitro/ex vivo methods of reproduction only entrench human alienation. Support for them bespeaks an absence of a sound philosophical anthropology. And I mean not just the alienation of the children, but the alienation of men and women from their own humanity as well. And this is because it attacks the very core of what it means to be human.
But as they say, experience is an expensive school, but fools will learn in no other. Often, nothing short of catastrophe is needed to lead men to pause and reflection, and even then, there are no guarantees.
I absolutely disagree with your view. Infertility is a medical condition much like cataract or myocardial infarction.
In my view, it is profoundly unethical to deny unhealthy people efficient treatment of their disease for philosophical reasons. You are straying dangerously close to the "life unworthy of life" eugenics that is, fortunately, overcome. Trying to ban other people from procreating because your personal opinion on the necessary means is "phew, icky" (and for all the grand words in your comment, you basically say "phew, icky"), sounds like it is you who hasn't taken any lessons from the experience of the collective West.
We have ChatGPT for that.
warring super-solider arms race: {added to jira board}
As opposed to governments, which are famously cautious about deploying destructive technology, and scrupulously avoid civilian casualties.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37018392
This was a busy summer for developmental biology, full disclosure that I am an author on one of these papers and my thesis work is in embryo models/early development. The Hanna group was unfortunately scooped by some unethical behavior but their model is superior to the other one in Nature by Zernicka-Goetz.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Doesn't Israel have any bio-ethics rules in place? If not, they should have and this abomination shouldn't have received the green light.
The most fun stuff to mess with is of course parts that controls how other stuff works. Figuring out what makes stem cells want to grow into shapes will lead us to more of these control switches.
China is a bigger risk factor, but it's not like they would care about the direction of western ethics anyway.
The research isn't about reducing human suffering. No research is. All research is about attaining new knowledge.
> I would rather have western world make giant leaps in this field and also set the direction of ethics here rather than just banning it and leaving it up to Russia and China to conduct this sort of research in their secret facilities.
Why? Given the history of the western world in biological, chemical and nuclear genocides, why is it better that the west make sets the directin of ethics than russia or china. The west has proven it hasn't a ethical bone in our body.
Research should happen because humans want to learn and advance. The west ain't saints. The russians and chinese certainly aren't monsters, especially compared ot the west.
It is certainly not a simulation, and although it apparently started with different components they manipulated those to behave the way the normal versions do.
What would happen if they implanted it in a womb?
For one thing human embryos would have already been implanted in a womb for a week at that point and a great deal of signaling occurs between embryo and the uterus.
