Posted on 07/15/2019 5:28:59 AM PDT by null and void
Scientists at Yale University have developed a device that can restore circulation and cellular activity in a pig’s brain four hours after death, raising ethical questions about the possibilities of one day applying it to humans.
BrainEx is an open-source device originally based on CaVESWave, a system developed by Biomed Innovations of North Carolina to preserve donated organs for research or transplantation.
The scientists perfused the pig’s brain with a specially designed chemical solution to restore circulation and cellular activity, challenging long-held assumptions about the timing and irreversible nature of the cessation of some brain functions after death. Their study was published April 17 in the journal Nature, and a detailed report on their work appeared July 2 in the New York Times Magazine.
The Times article described BrainEx as “roughly eight feet wide and mounted on the shelves of a long metal hospital-style cart… less a single machine than a bristling collection of individual machines, each connected to the next, in a simulacrum of the human body.” A pulse generator mimics the heart, filters work as mechanical kidneys. Another portion works like lungs to add oxygen to the perfusate.
The research, funded primarily by the National Institutes of Health Brain Initiative, has raised ethical concerns about the possibilities for future studies — including those on the human brain.
The Yale scientists said they harbor no such plans, and have not published photos or exact descriptions of the BrainEx device. They also stressed that the treated brain lacked any recognizable global electrical signals associated with normal brain function.
“The intact brain of a large mammal retains a previously underappreciated capacity for restoration of circulation and certain molecular and cellular activities multiple hours after circulatory arrest,” senior author Nenad Sestan, professor of neuroscience, comparative medicine, genetics, and psychiatry, said in a Yale news release.
“At no point did we observe the kind of organized electrical activity associated with perception, awareness, or consciousness,” added co-first author Zvonimir Vrselja, an associate research scientist in neuroscience. “Clinically defined, this is not a living brain, but it is a cellularly active brain.”
The researchers never aimed to restore consciousness to a brain, according to co-author Stephen Latham, director of Yale’s Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics.
“The researchers were prepared to intervene with the use of anesthetics and temperature-reduction to stop organized global electrical activity if it were to emerge,” Latham said. “Everyone agreed in advance that experiments involving revived global activity couldn’t go forward without clear ethical standards and institutional oversight mechanisms.”
The researchers said that it is unclear whether this approach can be applied to a recently deceased human brain. The chemical solution used lacks many of the components natively found in human blood, such as the immune system and other blood cells, which makes the experimental system significantly different from normal living conditions. However, the researchers stressed any future study involving human tissue or possible revival of global electrical activity in postmortem animal tissue should be done under strict ethical oversight.
The Yale researchers’ work prompted Stanford University law professor Hank Greely, Duke University legal scholar and ethicist Nita Farahany and Duke scientist Charles Giattino to write an essay for Nature that accompanied Sestan’s findings.
“New guidelines are needed for studies involving the preservation or restoration of whole brains, because animals used for such research could end up in a gray area — not alive, but not completely dead,” they wrote. “We’re reminded of a line from the 1987 film ‘The Princess Bride’: ‘There’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive.’ ”
On a more positive note, the new system could help studies into the roots of brain disorders, as well as neuronal connectivity in both healthy and abnormal conditions. It could even help doctors find ways to help salvage brain function in stroke patients or test the efficacy of novel therapies targeting cellular recovery after injury, according to the researchers.
“Previously, we have only been able to study cells in the large mammalian brain under static or largely two-dimensional conditions utilizing small tissue samples outside of their native environment,” said co-first author Stefano G. Daniele, an M.D./Ph.D. candidate. “For the first time, we are able to investigate the large brain in three dimensions, which increases our ability to study complex cellular interactions and connectivity.”
“This line of research holds hope for advancing understanding and treatment of brain disorders and could lead to a whole new way of studying the postmortem human brain,” added Andrea Beckel-Mitchener, chief of functional neurogenomics at the NIH’s National Institute of Mental Health, which co-funded the research.
There is an ethical imperative to use tools developed by the Brain Initiative to unravel mysteries of brain injuries and disease, said Christine Grady, chief of the Department of Bioethics at the NIH Clinical Center.
“It’s also our duty to work with researchers to thoughtfully and proactively navigate any potential ethical issues they may encounter as they open new frontiers in brain science,” she said.
Imagine a super computer powered by thousands and thousands of Monkey brains as its CPU.
I wouldn’t want to be the tech support.
Will it work on Democrats brains?
:D
Good one!
“I got it from a woman named Abby Normal.”
Just say the magic words ‘Klaatu barada nikto and you can be brought back to life too.
An Abby Normal brain.
NEVER stop perfuming the brain!
I prefer the Beach, myself.
There may be hope for demonrat voters yet.
What big eyes he had!
Ahhh, first thing I thought of: “Oh, Abbey something-or-other - Abbey Normal”
The Yale scientists said they harbor no such plans,...
Yeah. O.K. If you say so... (smh)
Wasn't there a movie like that some time back?
New Rat voters. Now in jars.
“Clinically defined, this is not a living brain, but it is a cellularly active brain.”
_________________
Doesn’t that describe the political class??
It could testify against bill or hillery
“And yet there are people who are proclaimed “brain dead” yet live on without machines. So no hope for advancement of recovery for them?”
the only hope is that of the doctor, hoping the patient can stay “brain dead” long enough for the organ harvesters to do their work.
Three weeks ago, I returned to a dentist I had 3 years before. I needed a tooth filled and could not get in touch with this guy so I found someone else. I did not know he was in a coma. I learned from him that he’d had a heart attack, followed by a stroke, and then some diabetes episode that put him into a coma. 53 years old. 3-1/2 weeks into his coma he had no brain activity and was declared brain dead and the doctors started making arrangements for organ recipients. 3 days after being declared brain dead they wheeled him into an operating room with the intention of harvesting his organs.
He sat up and got off the operating table only a few minutes before they were going to carve him up.
3 weeks ago, I got my teeth cleaned and a small cavity filled by the formerly dead dentist.
So, what the Hell is brain death? Is it just some legal mechanism to allow doctor off the hook on murder if they carve you up for parts?
Let’s try to stop aborting and euthanizing before we concentrate on re-animating, ‘k?
“What is the point of reviving a brain outside the body?”
These guys know: https://youtu.be/V_0Giz3R4_s
Best,
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.