• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Scientists bring some functions in a pig's BRAIN ‘back to life’ - four hours after the farm animal died

CyberPanda

Banned
Scientists have been able to partially revive the brains of decapitated pigs that died four hours earlier in a groundbreaking study.


Experts used tubes that pumped a chemical mixture designed to mimic blood into the decapitated heads of 32 pigs to restore circulation and cellular activity.

Echoing Mary Shelley's classic novel Frankenstein, billions of neurons began acting normally and the deaths of other cells was reduced over the course of six hours.

Electrical brain activity across the brain associated with awareness, perception and other high level functions were not observed, however.

While the find is an exciting breakthrough, it is still a long way from proof that a person's consciousness can be recovered after they die, experts caution.

But it may open the door to salvaging mental powers in stroke patients, however, as well as new treatments that boost recovery of neurons after brain injury.

A research team led by Yale School of Medicine obtained the pigs' brains from abattoirs and placed them in a system they created called BrainEx.
Bringing a person back from the dead may have moved a step closer after scientists were able to restore the cells in the brains of pigs that died four hours earlier. Experts uses tubes that pumped a chemical mixture designed to mimic blood into the decapitated heads of 32 pigs to restore circulation and cellular activity

Echoing Mary Shelley's classic novel Frankenstein, billions of neurons began acting normally and the deaths of other cells was reduced over the course of six hours. This image shows inactive brain cells ten hours after death (left) and cells that were active after the same duration having been hooked up to the system (right) HOW DOES BRAINEX WORK?
BrainEx involves connecting a brain to a closed loop of tubes and reservoirs.

These circulate a red perfusion fluid, which is able to mimic bloody by carrying oxygen around the brain.

That includes to the brain stem, the cerebellar artery, and areas deep in the centre of the brain.

The system can regulate circulation of the synthetic blood around a mammalian brain.

In this case researchers were working with pigs, but they have previously stated any species could be hooked up to the machine - including primates.

Past studies saw the machine used to keep hundreds of pig brains alive outside of their bodies for up to 36 hours.

It mimics pulsating blood flow - known medically as perfusion - at normal human body temperatures of 37°C (98.6°F).

The team saw a reduction in the death of the brain cells over the course of six hours.

There was also revival of some cellular functions, including the firing of synapses - vital connections between neurons that transport signals.

The study suggests some brain activities have the capacity to be restored at least partially - even a few hours after death.

It also challenges long-held assumptions about the timing and irreversible nature of death, say the researchers.


Senior author Professor Nenad Sestan described the results as 'mind-boggling' and 'unexpected' but believed the technique could work on humans.

Professor Sestan, a neuroscientist at Yale, said: '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.'

 

Thurible

Member


Looks like Futurama predicted yet another facet of our soon-to-be future.

ae82b106daa2d447a011f91de2e22039.gif
 

#Phonepunk#

Banned
pumping fake blood through an organ =/= bringing that organ back to life. but LOL at scientists cosplaying like they are Frankenstein.

it does remind me of the time the US army bought 700+ pigs and tested how they would fare in an atomic blast
 
Last edited:

Hellblueboy

Member
"hUmAnS aRe aNimAls toO". Imagine thinking that we're the same as animals.
Human are part of Animal Kingdom, we are a part of "Hominidae" Genus, Kingdom Animalia.
The idea of human are higher or exclude from animal kingdom is Creationism bullshit and unscientific.

Some human even eat shit (They exist), filthy and useless, so.....
 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Banned
You make it seem like those two factors are just small differences. You can believe we are animals but at the end of the day, we all know what's the real truth: we are the one.

they are small differences, consciousness is becoming increasingly stupefied by modern biologists, concepts within extended evolutionary synthesis (such that even ants seem to pass the mirror test, for example)

and monkeys already be making tools

hell coconut octupus use tools

we're not special, but we are unique
 
Last edited:
they are small differences, consciousness is becoming increasingly stupefied by modern biologists, concepts within extended evolutionary synthesis (such that even ants seem to pass the mirror test, for example)

and monkeys already be making tools

hell coconut octupus use tools

we're not special, but we are unique

Come talk to me when animals create 1% of today's modern technology. Scratch that, I'll make it 0.01% of modern technology.
 

Tesseract

Banned
Come talk to me when animals create 1% of today's modern technology. Scratch that, I'll make it 0.01% of modern technology.

we are animals tho, this is what i'm trying to say

you make it sound like some aliens came here and dropped some black goop in a waterfall to create us
 
Last edited:
we are animals tho, this is what i'm trying to say

you make it sound like some aliens came here and dropped some black goop in a waterfall to create us

You do know that the theory of macro-evolution is contested in the field of science. The only reason why scientific dissident of the theory is shunned is because of the tragic history between religious institutions and scientific institutions when religion was used to dismiss science. I find it extremely hard to blindly believe in macro-evolution just because it's taught in schools and universities. This may sound ignorant to say but perhaps a certain agenda is pushing this theory down our throats and telling us not to have any objections to it. Sounds kind of like the opposite of scientific inquiry, don't you agree?
 

Tesseract

Banned
You do know that the theory of macro-evolution is contested in the field of science. The only reason why scientific dissident of the theory is shunned is because of the tragic history between religious institutions and scientific institutions when religion was used to dismiss science. I find it extremely hard to blindly believe in macro-evolution just because it's taught in schools and universities. This may sound ignorant to say but perhaps a certain agenda is pushing this theory down our throats and telling us not to have any objections to it. Sounds kind of like the opposite of scientific inquiry, don't you agree?

you're not wrong, but that's why i specifically laid out EES, which seeks to mend the somewhat failed darwinian model with the stupidity of creationism

but that's a good point, honestly
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
You do know that the theory of macro-evolution is contested in the field of science. The only reason why scientific dissident of the theory is shunned is because of the tragic history between religious institutions and scientific institutions when religion was used to dismiss science. I find it extremely hard to blindly believe in macro-evolution just because it's taught in schools and universities. This may sound ignorant to say but perhaps a certain agenda is pushing this theory down our throats and telling us not to have any objections to it. Sounds kind of like the opposite of scientific inquiry, don't you agree?
It is proven that the process (evolution) does work in principle, intermediate steps between various animals were found and the development of humans from other primates is well documented. What do you propose instead?
 
Top Bottom