Growing human organs inside pigs in Japan

January 6, 2014

(Credit: iStock)

Meiji University professor Hiroshi Nagashima is creating chimeric pigs, which carry genetic material from two different species, BBC News reports. It starts off by making what Nagashima calls “a-pancreatic” embryos. Inside the white pig embryo, the gene that carries the instructions for developing the animal’s pancreas has been “switched off.”

The Japanese team then introduces stem cells from a black pig into the embryo. What they have discovered is that as the pig develops, it will be normal except for its pancreas, which will be genetically a black pig’s.

In a lab at Tokyo University, Professor Hiro Nakauchi is taking the next step. He takes skin cells from an adult brown rat. He then uses gene manipulation to change these adult skin cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) cells, which can develop into any part of the animal’s body.

Nakauchi has succeeded in using these iPS cells to grow a brown rat pancreas inside a white mouse. He is hoping to develop a technique to take skin cells from a human adult and change them in to iPS cells. Those iPS cells can then be injected into a pig embryo.

Island of Dr. Moreau or the end to organ shortage?

The result, he hopes, will be a pig with a human pancreas or kidney or liver, or maybe even a human heart. Not only that, the organ would be genetically identical to the human from which the skin cells were taken.

This is one of the holy grails of medical research: the ability to reproduce a human organ that is genetically identical to the person who needs it. It could mean an end to donor waiting lists, and an end to problems of organ rejection.

But there are many potential obstacles ahead. The first is that pigs and humans are only distantly related. The other problem is getting approval. In Japan, it is illegal to make human-animal hybrids. And animal rights activists object to the idea of pigs, sheep or goats being used as human organ factories. Many more feel uncomfortable about the idea of pig-human hybrids. It brings to mind H.G. Wells’ sci-fi classic, The Island of Dr Moreau.

Prof Nakauchi said his research is completely different. The pigs would still be pigs; they would just be carrying some human tissue inside them. He said there has always been resistance to new scientific breakthroughs. He points to widespread objections to In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) when it was invented in Britain the 1970s. Today, IVF is used across the world, and no one thinks it is strange or unethical.

comments 21

Whether the pig is killed for their meat, or for a specific organ grown inside them, serves the same purpose: extending the life of humans, on a daily basis, or radically b/c of a disease.
Thus, I agree with castiel: if you want to complain about ethics, first tell this
to the billions of people eating meat every day. See if they agree with you. That’s it.
Back to research…

… And according to this report, they actually did not test yet whether that pancreas will not be rejected by the body in which it is meant to be transplanted eventually. There might be some molecules/ markers from the surrogate body, that may trigger rejection in the new host body, even though they are genetically the same.
Dear Editor, could you please ask them about this?

Of course this is an interesting step, and I don’t think we should jump to it too quickly without careful consideration and an ethics debate. Consider if the “inserted” organ is a human brain. That changes things quite a bit, does it not?

I can understand the opposition to eating meat – we could live without it.
But opposing this or animal research in general?
Our lives are at a stake, we are merely doing what most animals do: prolonging our lives at someone else’s extent.

Likely it’s splitting hairs somewhat, but is it fair to say most animals do not have a concept of ethics either? Does this make a difference to how humans should behave compared to animals in general?

Except I do appreciate that more successful animals including humans naturally (i.e., naturally as in behaviour shaped by natural selection for survival, via path of least action or energy) – that successful animals exploit less successful ones even to the point of becoming critically dependent on that ‘exploitative resource hierarchy’ or food chain, or more generally ‘well-being resource chain’ if we want to include extended lifespan for example (as indeed we are dependent upon the exploitation inherent in the current food/resource chain honed during millennia of natural and artificial selection)

But on the other hand, as long as we end up with a viable biosphere, then exploitation may be the wrong word, and species will only be ‘called into existence and positioned in the hierarchy’ according to their merit towards that biosphere. So then of all possible biospheres, is it correct to moot some as more ethical than others, or simply call them all equivalent and so strive without compromise for a humanity-supportive biosphere at all costs?

History tells us a lots of medical progress has been achieved through animal experimentation and sacrifices. Dr. Banting sacrificed a dog to find out about insulin secreting pancreas. While the cry is not new, any attempt to not harm them is welcome. If animals can help extend human life, they do anyway, why not pursue this line of research. A good example is the IVF that was indicated. The world feels it is normal, nothing unethical about that.

Rather than the killing per se. I think the big deal comes into it when asking how much animal suffering during farming and processing is necessary for extending lifespans or quality of life of some humans when humans at as a whole are relatively in no danger of dying out. The killing part is incidental because that can be instant and as stress-free as flicking a light switch.

But you make a telling point: it’s easy for me elevate the human species as a whole above other people making ‘noble sacrifice’ of themselves for the sake of animal welfare, but it’d be a different matter if I was the one needing an organ transplant!

Perhaps considering upon a ‘case by case’ basis is the only justifiable approach (whatever that means).

I agree with Vin that the act of killing an animal is minimal compared to the killing of a human. The loss of a human life is unmeasurable because of that particular persons lack of existence and the potential future societal contributions that person could have made.

Additionally, the capacity for pain is likely correlated with the complexity of that species brain along with the capacity of consciousness, self awareness and empathy. For example if an average person was forced at gunpoint to either kill a dog or a human child the person would likely choose the dog. If the choice was between a rodent and a dog the person would likely choose the rodent. Finally I suspect if the person was given the choice to kill a human child or himself or herself many people would choose themselves.

Our ability to experience pain outside ourselves (empathy) is not unique to humans. Monkeys have been witnessed saving other species from certain death. This example is consistent with the brain complexity / empathy capacity correlation.

Technology is increasingly solving the problem of animal and human suffering which is driven partly (if not mostly) by human empathy. Interestingly, technology is created from the most complex minds on earth. Lab grown beef and “lab on a chip” are two examples that are making the utility of animals obsolete for humans, other than the utility of owning a pet which is a mutual utility.

I believe one day animals will be owned as pets and nothing else. Until that day we must continue on the path that we are on and trust in our ethical nature as a society.

We only recently descended from swinging from the trees. It may take a little more time.

Interesting response, bringing on another rambling response coming up by me (apologies if I am way off topic. Busy or serious people stop reading now!).

“I agree with Vin that the act of killing an animal is minimal compared to the killing of a human”. I didn’t mean to say this exactly, more that the sacrifice of an animal for my benefit is what I prefer while I shall simultaneously advocate other people suffer for the sake of animal welfare since humanity as a whole isn’t going extinct any time soon (i.e it is a hypocritical position of personal selfishness only).

” the capacity for pain is likely correlated with the complexity of that species brain … [also] … consciousness, self awareness and empathy”. I don’t think that is so clear cut. If my brain is complex and i am in pain, I could still have a sense of past present and future: i can mitigate the pain by action and employ knowledge or investigation of the cause, and also endure the pain informed by prognosis, therapy, monitoring, feedback etc.

A less complex brain may have no such recourse or perspective, it lives in the moment and the moment is full of perplexing uncontrollable pain as is the next moment too and meanwhile the not knowing and lack of perspective is exacerbating or even intensifying the perception of pain and generating panic etc.

Also societal behaviour selecting for empathy (or vice versa) likely precedes humans since pack or flocking animals (e.g like wolves, birds even fish) existed before human society? (Could be humans may have learnt teamwork and therefore become societal by observing or taming such animals. OK that’s a silly thought, but it seems remiss to assume animals don’t experience deep empathy when we cannot ‘mindmeld’ with that animal to confirm it (but this may have promise: http://www.kurzweilai.net/first-direct-brain-to-brain-interface-between-two-animals )

But I think there is also another aspect of empathy and self-awareness to consider: that which exists among the same species or related family group compared to that mooted to exist amongst heterogeneous groupings (e.g human and pet dog).

Fact is natural selection over geological time scales will have tweaked and tuned behaviours. empathy and sense of self appropriately according to what is conducive to survival of the members of the same species or particular isolated population of a species per their hosting environment and in comparison the relatively more recent ‘dislocated transplant’ relationship between human and dog is arguably based more upon ‘side effect’ where the dog regards the human as another dog and the human in turn tending to anthropomorphise the pet which is surely an interaction on a shallower level then the depth of empathy possible between those of the same species (so this actually becomes a general argument against keeping pets in the first place).

How can we know the depth of empathy between animals of the same species? If i am a simple animal that basically eats, excretes. sleeps and reproduce then how does that make a member of my own species difficult to empathise with? If my brain has no ‘theory of mind’ capability, I can still anticipate the other animal of my kind since we are so basically alike with basically the same lifestyle and decision making anyway.

But empathising with a complex mind like another human: Well, can we really know another human mind? Many may attest being surprised even after living with someone in intimate proximity for a significant part of a lifetime.

Having a complicatedly wired brain might even distract the owner from being able to focus on basic empathy and self-awareness (cf savant syndrome). So this is counter to the brain complexity/empathy capacity correlation we might reasonably advocate and that is unsettling to me somewhat.

At what cost do we avoid the suffering of animals? The journey to a world that has no animal exploitation is an on going process. Ultimately (and rapidly) we are creating a world in which there will be no exploitation of any animals. Denying the extended lives of hundreds or thousands of humans while on this journey is ethically immoral.

Yes you seem to be defining exploitation of animals for extending human life as ethically moral as long as humans simultaneously work towards decreasing exploitation of animals. I wouldn’t say that is ethically moral, more a pragmatic approach that somewhat ameliorates guilt associated with that approach. Humans can survive and have done for millenia even without any lifespan extension so we can’t say it’s ethically moral to cause suffering in animals in order to extend our lifespans. It’s more like we are programmed via natural selection to want increased lifespan and animal exploitation is necessary at least currently to do so?

(editor please feel free to moderate or not publish any of my comments whenever i make them, i gladly defer to your absolute authority without rancour ;)).

Your view that humans are more deserving of life and freedom from suffering than other lifeforms is but another form of bigotry. The insidious nature of bigotry causes infection among those who are often unaware of its presence. I am certain you feel your words are moral and ethical, but that is only true from a self serving, self righteous perspective.

This planet is better off without the exploitation of animals by humans. We better hope that no advanced alien life comes here and decides we’d be perfect for experiments, it would be difficult to argue against based on our history.

Good point except there’d probably be no defence against advanced aliens who wanted to exploit us even if we were the most moral species in the universe? Best thing is just to be ourselves and take our chances, perhaps be increasingly ‘humane’ when ‘exploiting’ other life if that’s not a paradox.

But you do make an interesting point about exploitation. If I lived in a virtual world which was as effective as the real one while my body was being exploited (e.g something like the film ‘the matrix’) and the virtual world was an independent paradise from my point of view, would I actually be being exploited?

Now consider the needs of animals, and someone like Temple Grandin who purportedly can see their point of view. In the animal’s pov as livestock in that case, it can be paradise and then an ending which is painless and instant as a switch being turned off.

Course the argument for vivisection and such like isn’t so clear cut. But even the need for that is decreasing exponentially with new tech and techniques for research being developed all the time?

How about lions and others? I think it’s a shared right of all animal species, including humans, to exploit other species to their success. It’s evolution and natural selection in progress. And when you think that there is no clear-cut distinction between life and non-life, then you will realize refusing to exploit animals/plants of all sorts is equivalent to doing nothing. To dying.

But if the animals demonstrably don’t notice any relative difference in their quality of life then what’s the big deal?

Or if tissue compatibility between distantly related species is a problem, I can imagine the richer echelons of human society contracting (either openly, covertly, voluntarily or even coercively) their fellow humans to surrogate host organs: if I am rich and there are a few hundred poor people of various generations hosting my organs, then there’s a good chance of a spare part ‘being available’ when I need it?

Perhaps it’s possible to host multiple organs that are normally singular (e.g I carry two livers, one is an old rich person’s liver with massive payoff potential for me)?

Or my surrogates don’t even have to know they are carriers if i can make a deal with the maternity or IVF unit (cf the 70′s film ‘coma’). Also reminded of the ‘Tleilaxu axlotl tank’ of sci-fi introduced ethical dilemma.

Course, there’s already a problem with sustaining livestock for meat production, so what will happen with the added pressure of this new demand? My Sunday joint will probably cost a fortune!