Hide table of contents

Original title: Ethically sourced “spare” human bodies could revolutionize medicine

Human “bodyoids” could reduce animal testing, improve drug development, and alleviate organ shortages.

By Carsten T. Charlesworth, Henry T. Greely, Hiromitsu Nakauchi

Summary 

The article proposes the development of human "bodyoids" – human bodies grown from stem cells without neural components that enable consciousness or the ability to feel pain - i.e. without much of a brain at all. They argue that this technology could address critical shortages in medicine by 

  • providing an unlimited supply of organs for transplantation
  • offering more effective models for drug testing than animal studies, and
  • potentially eliminating the need for clinical trials that risk harm to patients. 

While acknowledging the technical challenges and ethical concerns around human dignity and personhood, the authors suggest that bodyoids could revolutionize medicine by allowing for personalized drug screening, perfect-match organ transplantation, and reduced animal testing. They call for research into the technology's feasibility and proactive discussion about the implications before it becomes a reality, recommending initial exploration with non-human subjects.

Full article here.

Some thoughts

Some of my notes, many reframed by Claude 3.7 and edited by me.

Highest-Impact Applications

No particular order

Disease Research Acceleration

Currently, drug development is extremely inefficient (poor predictive models, many failed drugs), costly (>$1B/successfully developed drug), time-consuming (15+ years from in silico to drug approval), and risk-averse (hard to get investments for new strategies or new indications that don't yet have any approved treatments)

  •  With non-sentient human models, we could directly test interventions for nearly all non-neurological diseases, potentially accelerating cure development by decades
  • This represents an enormous multiplier on existing medical research investments. Costs for drug development could drop 1, potentially 2 orders of magnitude. Time to approval could shorten to a year.

Pandemic Preparedness

  • Human bodyoids would enable rapid testing of vaccines, antivirals, and other countermeasures on actual human physiology
  • This could reduce pandemic response time from years to months
  • May be the single most tractable way to address pandemic tail risk

Suffering-free Animal Agriculture

  • Represents a technically simpler first step than human applications while addressing enormous suffering scales
  • Could provide proof-of-concept while raising fewer ethical objections
  • Most immediately feasible for smaller organisms (shrimp, insects) where consciousness boundaries are already ambiguous

Genetic human enhancement & life extension

Moral purity

  • Perhaps a niche worry, but I've been concerned that "aligned" AI will find animal experimentation morally acceptable because humans currently find the inflicted suffering worthwhile for human medical advancements. As a consequence, AI (and humans) would generalize and find nonhuman suffering for other reasons also acceptable. Alternatively, a very consistently moral AI with some deontology might stop animal research, slowing down medical advancements. Non-conscious living bodies would be a solution, making experimentation on sentient animals unnecessary

 

Technical challenges

The technical challenges are very large. 

  • Developing selective neural engineering that maintains physiological regulation while preventing consciousness
  • Creating artificial gestation environments that support not only fetal development, but complete development to "18-year old" mature bodies
  • Ensuring system-wide developmental coordination without full neural orchestration
  • Validating the absence of consciousness
  • Achieving long-term physiological stability without normal neural regulation

However, various intermediate achievements would in themselves be valuable, such as nonhuman animals at a scale for medical research and experimentation, and artificial wombs.

Economic and Funding Dynamics

  • Government healthcare systems bear enormous costs for organ failure treatments (~$28B/year in the US for dialysis)
  • Despite clear long-term incentives, existing institutional structures are poorly suited to fund paradigm-shifting, weird , and controversial technology with long time-horizons
  • Philanthropic funding could play a crucial catalytic role by supporting the foundational research too risky for traditional funding mechanisms. Ideally, government funding and eventually corporate funding would eventually take over

Risks

  • Accidentally creating sentient human-like beings. I don't think this is likely, if the research is iterated starting with small animals
  • PR risks to EA as "creepy utilitarian heartless crazy people"

 

Strategic Priorities

1. Technical Foundations: Funding research on minimal neural requirements for physiological maintenance. Majority of the funding.


2. Ethical and regulatory groundwork: Supporting 1-3 top bioethicists to develop frameworks before negative media narratives, similar to GMOs and genetic human enhancement. One of the authors is a bio-ethicist.


3. Public Perception: Developing communication strategies that address the "uncanny valley" reaction most people will experience (even I was initially pretty creeped out by this! Maybe certain changes can be made to make the bodies look less real/human?)

 

Comparative Advantage for EA

EA is uniquely positioned to fund high-risk, high-reward, weird, and controversial research that falls between institutional funding gaps while navigating the complex ethical terrain with nuance other funders might lack.

The expected value proposition is compelling enough that even a small probability of success warrants serious consideration for targeted funding. I like this research as part of the portfolio of cultured meat, growing individual organs, and genetically modifying farmed animals to reduce their suffering. Not all of these may pay off, but the more varied the strategies, the higher the odds of success.

16

1
0

Reactions

1
0

More posts like this

Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

This is really interesting. I feel like I want to see more surprising ideas, and I think this scores very well in that front. 

This doesn't stand out to me as incredibly strong, at this point. But that's often the case for out-there ideas. As such it seems like one of many interesting ideas I'd like to see be investigated/considered further.

Thanks for bringing this up!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Epistemic status: This post — the result of a loosely timeboxed ~2-day sprint[1] — is more like “research notes with rough takes” than “report with solid answers.” You should interpret the things we say as best guesses, and not give them much more weight than that. Summary There’s been some discussion of what “transformative AI may arrive soon” might mean for animal advocates. After a very shallow review, we’ve tentatively concluded that radical changes to the animal welfare (AW) field are not yet warranted. In particular: * Some ideas in this space seem fairly promising, but in the “maybe a researcher should look into this” stage, rather than “shovel-ready” * We’re skeptical of the case for most speculative “TAI<>AW” projects * We think the most common version of this argument underrates how radically weird post-“transformative”-AI worlds would be, and how much this harms our ability to predict the longer-run effects of interventions available to us today. Without specific reasons to believe that an intervention is especially robust,[2] we think it’s best to discount its expected value to ~zero. Here’s a brief overview of our (tentative!) actionable takes on this question[3]: ✅ Some things we recommend❌ Some things we don’t recommend * Dedicating some amount of (ongoing) attention to the possibility of “AW lock ins”[4]  * Pursuing other exploratory research on what transformative AI might mean for animals & how to help (we’re unconvinced by most existing proposals, but many of these ideas have received <1 month of research effort from everyone in the space combined — it would be unsurprising if even just a few months of effort turned up better ideas) * Investing in highly “flexible” capacity for advancing animal interests in AI-transformed worlds * Trying to use AI for near-term animal welfare work, and fundraising from donors who have invested in AI * Heavily discounting “normal” interventions that take 10+ years to help animals * “Rowing” on na
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
About the program Hi! We’re Chana and Aric, from the new 80,000 Hours video program. For over a decade, 80,000 Hours has been talking about the world’s most pressing problems in newsletters, articles and many extremely lengthy podcasts. But today’s world calls for video, so we’ve started a video program[1], and we’re so excited to tell you about it! 80,000 Hours is launching AI in Context, a new YouTube channel hosted by Aric Floyd. Together with associated Instagram and TikTok accounts, the channel will aim to inform, entertain, and energize with a mix of long and shortform videos about the risks of transformative AI, and what people can do about them. [Chana has also been experimenting with making shortform videos, which you can check out here; we’re still deciding on what form her content creation will take] We hope to bring our own personalities and perspectives on these issues, alongside humor, earnestness, and nuance. We want to help people make sense of the world we're in and think about what role they might play in the upcoming years of potentially rapid change. Our first long-form video For our first long-form video, we decided to explore AI Futures Project’s AI 2027 scenario (which has been widely discussed on the Forum). It combines quantitative forecasting and storytelling to depict a possible future that might include human extinction, or in a better outcome, “merely” an unprecedented concentration of power. Why? We wanted to start our new channel with a compelling story that viewers can sink their teeth into, and that a wide audience would have reason to watch, even if they don’t yet know who we are or trust our viewpoints yet. (We think a video about “Why AI might pose an existential risk”, for example, might depend more on pre-existing trust to succeed.) We also saw this as an opportunity to tell the world about the ideas and people that have for years been anticipating the progress and dangers of AI (that’s many of you!), and invite the br
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
Hi all, This is a one time cross-post from my substack. If you like it, you can subscribe to the substack at tobiasleenaert.substack.com. Thanks Gaslit by humanity After twenty-five years in the animal liberation movement, I’m still looking for ways to make people see. I’ve given countless talks, co-founded organizations, written numerous articles and cited hundreds of statistics to thousands of people. And yet, most days, I know none of this will do what I hope: open their eyes to the immensity of animal suffering. Sometimes I feel obsessed with finding the ultimate way to make people understand and care. This obsession is about stopping the horror, but it’s also about something else, something harder to put into words: sometimes the suffering feels so enormous that I start doubting my own perception - especially because others don’t seem to see it. It’s as if I am being gaslit by humanity, with its quiet, constant suggestion that I must be overreacting, because no one else seems alarmed. “I must be mad” Some quotes from the book The Lives of Animals, by South African writer and Nobel laureate J.M. Coetzee, may help illustrate this feeling. In his novella, Coetzee speaks through a female vegetarian protagonist named Elisabeth Costello. We see her wrestle with questions of suffering, guilt and responsibility. At one point, Elisabeth makes the following internal observation about her family’s consumption of animal products: “I seem to move around perfectly easily among people, to have perfectly normal relations with them. Is it possible, I ask myself, that all of them are participants in a crime of stupefying proportions? Am I fantasizing it all? I must be mad!” Elisabeth wonders: can something be a crime if billions are participating in it? She goes back and forth on this. On the one hand she can’t not see what she is seeing: “Yet every day I see the evidences. The very people I suspect produce the evidence, exhibit it, offer it to me. Corpses. Fragments of