Trond ([info]aigantighe) wrote,
@ 2008-05-18 13:44:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Bioethics - Question of the week

At the Museum of Modern Art in New York, a rather macabre exhibit has been on display. Entitled 'Victimless Leather', it's a miniature 'leather' jacket made from living mouse stem cells growing on a polymer matrix.

As art, one interpretation could be that it shows how artifacts currently made from dead animal bits can instead be grown from tissue cultures; another might be that it illustrates the incredibly weird implications of modern biology.

Unfortunately, given unlimited nutrients and a lack of other constraints, tissue cultures have a tendency to keep on growing, which this one did. After a week or two, it clogged several of its nutrient feeds, making it necessary that it be put down. "I felt cruel when I turned it off," said Paola Antonelli, the senior curator responsible for killing it.

There's been a lot of coverage of this; here's a few articles:

A related issue is 'test tube meat' - meat grown from cell cultures in a laboratory. Intriguingly, PETA, a sometimes radical animal rights group, have stumped up a $1,000,000 reward for its development.. Clearly this is because this approach would alleviate the suffering of a great many farm animals. It may well also reduce the environmental burden caused by industrial scale animal husbandry.

I find both of these items really intriguing, as it brings up many interesting questions. If you're game, please leave a comment with your opinions in answer to these questions..

  1. Is the use of tissue cultures more or less ethical than the use of parts taken from dead animals? Are concerns of dignity relevant here?
  2. Is it ethical to use human tissue cultures in art?
  3. Is it ethical to use human tissue cultured from human induced pluripotent stem cells?
  4. For those who aren't against the use of embryonic stem cells in research, how would you feel about tissue cultured from such a line being used in art, remembering that this wouldn't necessitate the destruction of additional embryos - once created, the cell line can be grown and divided effectively indefinitely.
  5. What other uses of human tissue cultures are ethical? If it's more ethical to use tissue cultures than animal parts, what uses of human parts cross the line into acceptable? Transplant organ growth? Regenerative therapies? Long Pig?
  6. Is forming an emotional relationship with an object made from live cells more or less strange than forming emotional relationships with animals? With non-living organisms? With plants? Would you love your living leather coat more or less than your regular leather coat

(x-posted to meme-hazard)



(Post a new comment)

I'll make a serious reply later.
[info]confusiontempst
2008-05-18 02:08 am UTC (link)
But right now, I'm more interested in the question:
How long before I can wear Communist paraphenalia made from 100% genuine lenin leather?

(Reply to this)


[info]slothphil
2008-05-18 02:23 am UTC (link)
In (very) brief:

1) There are fewer ethical issues to consider, but in general no more nor less ethical. I can't conceive of how there could be rational issues about "dignity" (and if there are, then the dignity of plants and bacteria must clearly be considered).

2) Yes, though there might be issues about informed consent.

3) Seems to be the same situation as 2), though I may be overlooking something.

4) Ditto

5) I might skip this one rather than write an essy...

6) Depends what "Emptional relationship" involves. People can get very attached to all sorts of items and concepts. Wanting to marry your living leather coat would be equivalent in strangeness to wanting to marry your houseplants, I think.

(I'm assuming in these answers that the tissue culture is not endowed with some level of sentience.)

(Reply to this)


[info]blackfenris
2008-05-18 03:57 am UTC (link)
Briefly as I should very much be working :P

1) More ethical. Provided you don't grow any nerve tissue you can guarantee no conscious and no suffering.

2) In general no, however the person who the cell line originally came from should have some say over its use. One possible problem would be frivolous use if the cells could be put to better use. For instance, if a burn victim needs skin you shouldn't be able to use suitable skin in an art installation instead.

3) No, but again see 2.

4) I agree with embryonic stem cell research but original owner ship of them cell line is tricker here. However if full concent is given, I see no problems beyond those in 2.

5) I think all these are fine, again provided the original person or persons have given consent and no suffering occurs. Ie growing full clones and cutting them up for parts would be bad. (just like in the island :P howver, even if they never gain conscious I'm still not comftable with it)
Lastly if people want to eat tank grown people meat, fine. (as long as they don't get a prion disease or something)

6) I don't think it's strange to form an emotional attachment to live cells. People form attachments to soft toys and things all the time, they're not even alive. (I would feel very uncomfortable turning off the 'Victimless Leather' thing too)

Lastly even though I think it would be totally fine to eat tank grown meat, I still probably wouldn't do it :P

Ok, that was longer than I planned :P

(Reply to this)


[info]basal_surge
2008-05-18 06:07 am UTC (link)
Not really bothered with the ethics, of it, because we do lots of other unethical things anyway. I wouldn't have a problem with eating vat grown long pig, I suppose.

I am interested in the whole PETA thing, because most animal rights activists I've come across don't seem to have thought the consequences of success of their activism right through, vis: the near complete extinction of most of the currently domesticated animal breeds, because if we don't farm 'em, most of them are currently badly maladapted to life in the wild, and face a really steep evolutionary learning curve, with a lot of death, to get back to a viable phenotype.

(Reply to this)


[info]cthulhu_dream
2008-05-18 11:00 am UTC (link)
1) On the face of it, I would say it's more ethical to use cultured cells because there is no living thing has to suffer for it. However, there could be unintended consequences from industrial scale meat culturing, which should be considered.

2) As long as it is provided voluntarily.

3) No one is getting hurt here, so yes. However, I agree with what [info]blackfenris said - if the tissue could be put to use for someone who needs it medically, it should take precedence over art.

4) As long as it's not being grown into a conscious being.

5) I would say most medical uses would be ethical. In fact, I think not doing so when you can is unethical. Not sure about long pig! I guess it's not hurting anybody so it's okay, though it could be a health risk. Cannibalism creeps me out though.

6) It's not any more strange. People have emotional attachments to inanimate objects all the time - kids with toys especially. With this leather jacket, it was their project. I think most people have attachments to their creations, and would feel bad having to throw them out.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]aleph_naught
2008-05-18 10:42 pm UTC (link)
What yardstick would we use to establish #4?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]aleph_naught
2008-05-18 10:37 pm UTC (link)
We're entering quite an ambiguous moral space with this sort of thing, aren't we? It's reaching the point where our moral language simply isn't equipped to deal with these instances; moral questions, more and more, start to sound vacuous and irrelevant.

Fundamentally, without any kind of consensus on what makes an action ethical or unethical, I don't think it's possible to usefully answer these kinds of questions.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…