What does this remind you of? In what ways is it different, such that it can be published in a high status journal? Are those differences informative in any way?
It does not touch on religious or personal issues of personal identity and theory of mind and is aimed at 'victims' (endangered species); as well, it stays very close to existing applications and technology.
Yes, I agree both of these matter. I wonder which one is more important?
Interesting recent article from Ben-Nun et al. (doi:10.1038/nmeth.1706) in the high-impact journal Nature Methods.
As I understand it, they express reprogramming factors in the adult cells (e.g., fibroblasts) of two endangered species (here and here) to convert them into induced pluripotent stem cells.
They then cryopreserve these pluripotent stem cells, in the hopes that they can eventually be used to increase the number and genetic diversity of these two species.
However, this will require two additional technologies which, crucially, are still in development:
1) the generation of germ cells from pluripotent stem cells, and
2) the development of assisted reproductive technologies for related monkeys and rhinos.
In the meantime, these pluripotent stem cells will simply remain in cryopreservation.
What does this remind you of? In what ways is it different, such that it can be published in a high status journal? Are those differences informative in any way?