Human-on-a-Chip: Medical Breakthrough or a Violation of Human Dignity?
Kevin Voss, DVM, Ph.D., Director, Concordia Center for Bioethics and Associate Professor of Philosophy, Concordia University, Wisconsin
Valid research on human subjects is a cornerstone of the current scientific approach to medicine. The Nuremberg Code states, “The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.” In order to avoid human suffering, medical research has historically been carried out on animals before humans; however, animal research has come under intense scrutiny. In 1959, Russell and Burch examined how decisions should be made about the ethical use of animals in research. They developed the concept of the Three R’s— replacement, reduction, and refinement. The first principle, replacement, calls upon researchers to substitute higher-order animals, such as non-human primates, with lower-order animals like mice, rats, or non-vertebrates. In some studies, computer models or cell cultures could replace animals altogether. A problem with those alternatives is that they do not provide the researcher with a comprehensive model of how the body functions. Enter organs-on-chips. It is now feasible to grow tissues on a 3-D microfluidic cell culture chip that realistically simulates the physiology of organs or organ systems. If taken further, this technology could possibly replace animal testing entirely, evolve into a complete “human-on-a-chip” grown for study, and even lead to the industrial production of tissues and organs for profit. The speaker will begin by giving an overview of biochip technology. Next, benefits and risks of the research will be described based on the presenter’s experiences serving on both an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and as Chair of an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Finally, philosophical and religious arguments will be made that strict control of this technology must be maintained or a holistic vision of what it means to be human may be lost. This is one issue in which the historical foundations of medicine and religion can join together to raise a word of caution.
Valid research on human subjects is a cornerstone of the current scientific approach to medicine. The Nuremberg Code states, “The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.” In order to avoid human suffering, medical research has historically been carried out on animals before humans; however, animal research has come under intense scrutiny. In 1959, Russell and Burch examined how decisions should be made about the ethical use of animals in research. They developed the concept of the Three R’s— replacement, reduction, and refinement. The first principle, replacement, calls upon researchers to substitute higher-order animals, such as non-human primates, with lower-order animals like mice, rats, or non-vertebrates. In some studies, computer models or cell cultures could replace animals altogether. A problem with those alternatives is that they do not provide the researcher with a comprehensive model of how the body functions. Enter organs-on-chips. It is now feasible to grow tissues on a 3-D microfluidic cell culture chip that realistically simulates the physiology of organs or organ systems. If taken further, this technology could possibly replace animal testing entirely, evolve into a complete “human-on-a-chip” grown for study, and even lead to the industrial production of tissues and organs for profit. The speaker will begin by giving an overview of biochip technology. Next, benefits and risks of the research will be described based on the presenter’s experiences serving on both an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and as Chair of an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Finally, philosophical and religious arguments will be made that strict control of this technology must be maintained or a holistic vision of what it means to be human may be lost. This is one issue in which the historical foundations of medicine and religion can join together to raise a word of caution.