Love or immortality: A short story

1.

Sophie and Martin are at the 2012 Gordon Research Conference on the Biology of Aging in Ventura, California. It is a foggy February weekend. Both are disappointed about how little sun there is on the California beach.

They are two graduate students—Sophie in her sixth and final year, Martin in his fourth—who have traveled from different East Coast cities to present posters on their work. Martin’s shows health data collected from supercentenarians compared with the general Medicare population, capturing the diseases that are less and more common in the populations. Sophie is presenting on her recently accepted first-author paper in Aging Cell on two specific genes that, when activated, extend lifespan in C. elegans roundworms, the model organism of her research. 

2.

Sophie walks by Martin’s poster after she is done presenting her own. She is not immediately impressed by his work. It is not published, for one thing. But she sees how it is attention-grabbing and relevant, even necessary. He has a little crowd listening to him. He notices her—a frowning girl—standing in the back and begins to talk louder, hoping she hears.

“Supercentenarians are much less likely to have seven diseases,” he says, pointing to his poster. “Alzheimer’s, heart failure, diabetes, depression, prostate cancer, hip fracture, and chronic kidney disease. Though they have higher instances of four diseases, which are arthritis, cataracts, osteoporosis, and glaucoma. These aren’t linked to mortality, but they do affect quality of life.”

What stands out to Sophie is the confidence in Martin’s voice, despite the unsurprising nature of the findings. She admires that sound, its sturdiness. She makes note of his name and plans to seek him out. 

3.

They find one another in the hotel bar among other graduate students. The students are talking about the logistics of their futures: Who is going for a postdoc, who will opt for industry, do any have job offers already, where will their research have the most impact, is it worth spending years working toward something so uncertain? They stay up too late, dissecting journal articles they’ve read as if they were debating politics. They enjoy the freedom away from their labs and PIs. 

Martin says, again with that confidence, that he will become a professor. Sophie says she likely won’t go down that path. She has received an offer to start as a scientist at an aging research startup called Abyssinian Bio, after she defends. Martin says, “Wouldn’t your work make more sense in an academic setting, where you have more freedom and power over what you do?” She says, “But that could be years from now and I want to start my real life, so …” 

4-18.

Martin is enamored with Sophie. She is not only brilliant; she is helpful. She strengthens his papers with precise edits and grounds his arguments with stronger evidence. Sophie is enamored with Martin. He is not only ambitious; he is supportive and adventurous. He encourages her to try new activities and tools, both in and out of work, like learning to ride a motorcycle or using CRISPR.

Martin visits Sophie in San Francisco whenever he can, which amounts to a weekend or two every other month. After two years, their long-distance relationship is taking its toll. They want more weekends, more months, more everything together. They make plans for him to get a postdoc near her, but after multiple rejections from the labs where he most wants to work, his resentment toward academia grows. 

“They don’t see the value of my work,” he says.

19.

“Join Abyssinian,” Sophie offers.

The company is growing. They want more researchers with data science backgrounds. He takes the job, drawn more by their future together than by the science.

20-35.

For a long time, they are happy. They marry. They do their research. They travel. Sophie visits Martin’s extended family in France. Martin goes with Sophie to her cousin’s wedding in Taipei. They get a dog. The dog dies. They are both devastated but increasingly motivated to better understand the mechanisms of aging. Maybe their next dog will have the opportunity to live longer. They do not get a next dog.

Sophie moves up at Abyssinian. Despite being in industry, her work is published in well-respected journals. She collaborates well with her colleagues. Eventually, she is promoted to executive director of research. 

Martin stalls at the rank of principal scientist, and though Sophie is technically his boss—or his boss’s boss—he genuinely doesn’t mind when others call him “Dr. Sophie Xie’s husband.”

40.

At dinner on his 35th birthday, a friend jokes that Martin is now middle-aged. Sophie laughs and agrees, though she is older than Martin. Martin joins in the laughter, but this small comment unlocks a sense of urgency inside him. What once felt hypothetical—his own death, the death of his wife—now appears very close. He can feel his wrinkles forming.  

First come the subtle shifts in how he talks about his research and Abyssinian’s work. He wants to “defeat” and “obliterate” aging, which he comes to describe as humankind’s “greatest adversary.” 

43.

He begins taking supplements touted by tech influencers. He goes on a calorie-restricted diet. He gets weekly vitamin IV sessions. He looks into blood transfusions from young donors, but Sophie tells him to stop with all the fake science. She says he’s being ridiculous, that what he’s doing could be dangerous.  

Martin, for the first time, sees Sophie differently. Not without love, but love burdened by an opposing weight, what others might recognize as resentment. Sophie is dedicated to the demands of her growing department. Martin thinks she is not taking the task of living longer seriously enough. He does not want her to die. He does not want to die. 

Nobody at Abyssinian is taking the task of living longer seriously enough. Of all the aging bio startups he could have ended up at, how has he ended up at one with such modest—no, lazy—goals? He begins publicly dismissing basic research as “too slow” and “too limited,” which offends many of his and Sophie’s colleagues. 

Sophie defends him, says he is still doing good work, despite the evidence. She is busy, traveling often for conferences, and mistakenly misclassifies the changes in Martin’s attitude as temporary outliers.

44.

One day, during a meeting, Martin says to Jerry, a well-­respected scientist at Abyssinian and in the electron microscopy imaging community at large, that EM is an outdated, old, crusty technology. Martin says it is stupid to use it when there are more advanced, cutting-edge methods, like cryo-EM and super-resolution microscopy. Martin has always been outspoken, but this instance veers into rudeness. 

At home, Martin and Sophie argue. Initially, they argue about whether tools of the past can be useful to their work. Then the argument morphs. What is the true purpose of their research? Martin says it’s called anti-aging research for a reason: It’s to defy aging! Sophie says she’s never called her work anti-aging research; she calls it aging research or research into the biology of aging. And Abyssinian’s overarching mission is more simply to find druggable targets for chronic and age-related diseases. Occasionally, the company’s marketing arm will push out messaging about extending the human lifespan by 20 years, but that has nothing to do with scientists like them in R&D. Martin seethes. Only 20 years! What about hundreds? Thousands? 

45-49.

They continue to argue and the arguments are roundabout, typically ending with Sophie crying, absconding to her sister’s house, and the two of them not speaking for short periods of time.

50.

What hurts Sophie most is Martin’s persistent dismissal of death as merely an engineering problem to be solved. Sophie thinks of the ways the C. elegans she observes regulate their lifespans in response to environmental stress. The complex dance of genes and proteins that orchestrates their aging process. In the previous month’s experiment, a seemingly simple mutation produced unexpected effects across three generations of worms. Nature’s complexity still humbles her daily. There is still so much unknown. 

Martin is at the kitchen counter, methodically crushing his evening supplements into powder. “I’m trying to save humanity. And all you want to do is sit in the lab to watch worms die.”

50.

Martin blames the past. He realizes he should have tried harder to become a professor. Let Sophie make the industry money—he could have had academic clout. Professor Warwick. It would have had a nice sound to it. To his dismay, everyone in his lab calls him Martin. Abyssinian has a first-name policy. Something about flat hierarchies making for better collaboration. Good ideas could come from anyone, even a lowly, unintelligent senior associate scientist in Martin’s lab who barely understands how to process a data set. A great idea could come from anyone at all—except him, apparently. Sophie has made that clear.

51-59.

They live in a tenuous peace for some time, perfecting the art of careful scheduling: separate coffee times, meetings avoided, short conversations that stick to the day-to-day facts of their lives.

60.

Then Martin stands up to interrupt a presentation by the VP of research to announce that studying natural aging is pointless since they will soon eliminate it entirely. While Jerry may have shrugged off Martin’s aggressiveness, the VP does not. This leads to a blowout fight between Martin and many of his colleagues, in which Martin refuses to apologize and calls them all shortsighted idiots. 

Sophie watches with a mixture of fear and awe. Martin thinks: Can’t she, my wife, just side with me this once? 

61.

Back at home:

Martin at the kitchen counter, methodically crushing his evening supplements into powder. “I’m trying to save humanity.” He taps the powder into his protein shake with the precision of a scientist measuring reagents. “And all you want to do is sit in the lab to watch worms die.”

Sophie observes his familiar movements, now foreign in their desperation. The kitchen light catches the silver spreading at his temples and on his chin—the very evidence of aging he is trying so hard to erase.

“That’s not true,” she says.

Martin gulps down his shake.

“What about us? What about children?”

Martin coughs, then laughs, a sound that makes Sophie flinch. “Why would we have children now? You certainly don’t have the time. But if we solve aging, which I believe we can, we’d have all the time in the world.”

“We used to talk about starting a family.”

“Any children we have should be born into a world where we already know they never have to die.”

“We could both make the time. I want to grow old together—”

All Martin hears are promises that lead to nothing, nowhere.  

“You want us to deteriorate? To watch each other decay?”

“I want a real life.”

“So you’re choosing death. You’re choosing limitation. Mediocrity.”

64.

Martin doesn’t hear from his wife for four days, despite texting her 16 times—12 too many, by his count. He finally breaks down enough to call her in the evening, after a couple of glasses of aged whisky (a gift from a former colleague, which Martin has rarely touched and kept hidden in the far back of a desk drawer). 

Voicemail. And after this morning’s text, still no glimmering ellipsis bubble to indicate Sophie’s typing. 

66.

Forget her, he thinks, leaning back in his Steelcase chair, adjusted specifically for his long runner’s legs and shorter­-than-average torso. At 39, Martin’s spreadsheets of vitals now show an upward trajectory; proof of his ability to reverse his biological age. Sophie does not appreciate this. He stares out his office window, down at the employees crawling around Abyssinian Bio’s main quad. How small, he thinks. How significantly unaware of the future’s true possibilities. Sophie is like them. 

67.

Forget her, he thinks again as he turns down a bay toward Robert, one of his struggling postdocs, who is sitting at his bench staring at his laptop. As Martin approaches, Robert minimizes several windows, leaving only his home screen behind.

“Where are you at with the NAD+ data?” Martin asks.

Robert shifts in his chair to face Martin. The skin of his neck grows red and splotchy. Martin stares at it in disgust.

“Well?” he asks again. 

“Oh, I was told not to work on that anymore?” The boy has a tendency to speak in the lilt of questions. 

“By who?” Martin demands.

“Uh, Sophie?” 

“I see. Well, I expect new data by end of day.” 

“Oh, but—”

Martin narrows his eyes. The red splotches on Robert’s neck grow larger. 

“Um, okay,” the boy says, returning his focus to the computer. 

Martin decides a response is called for …

70.

Immortality Promise

I am immortal. This doesn’t make me special. In fact, most people on Earth are immortal. I am 6,000 years old. Now, 6,000 years of existence give one a certain perspective. I remember back when genetic engineering and knowledge about the processes behind aging were still in their infancy. Oh, how people argued and protested.

“It’s unethical!”

“We’ll kill the Earth if there’s no death!”

“Immortal people won’t be motivated to do anything! We’ll become a useless civilization living under our AI overlords!” 

I believed back then, and now I know. Their concerns had no ground to stand on.

Eternal life isn’t even remarkable anymore, but being among its architects and early believers still garners respect from the world. The elegance of my team’s solution continues to fill me with pride. We didn’t just halt aging; we mastered it. My cellular machinery hums with an efficiency that would make evolution herself jealous.

Those early protesters—bless their mortal, no-longer-­beating hearts—never grasped the biological imperative of what we were doing. Nature had already created functionally immortal organisms—the hydra, certain jellyfish species, even some plants. We simply perfected what evolution had sketched out. The supposed ethical concerns melted away once people understood that we weren’t defying nature. We were fulfilling its potential.

Today, those who did not want to be immortal aren’t around. Simple as that. Those who are here do care about the planet more than ever! There are almost no diseases, and we’re all very productive people. Young adults—or should I say young-looking adults—are naturally restless and energetic. And with all this life, you have the added benefit of not wasting your time on a career you might hate! You get to try different things and find out what you’re really good at and where you’re appreciated! Life is not short! Resources are plentiful!

Of course, biological immortality doesn’t equal invincibility. People still die. Just not very often. My colleagues in materials science developed our modern protective exoskeletons. They’re elegant solutions, though I prefer to rely on my enhanced reflexes and reinforced skeletal structure most days. 

The population concerns proved mathematically unfounded. Stable reproduction rates emerged naturally once people realized they had unlimited time to start families. I’ve had four sets of children across 6,000 years, each born when I felt truly ready to pass on another iteration of my accumulated knowledge. With more life, people have much more patience. 

Now we are on to bigger and more ambitious projects. We conquered survival of individuals. The next step: survival of our species in this universe. The sun’s eventual death poses an interesting challenge, but nothing we can’t handle. We have colonized five planets and two moons in our solar system, and we will colonize more. Humanity will adapt to whatever environment we encounter. That’s what we do.

My ancient motorcycle remains my favorite indulgence. I love taking it for long cruises on the old Earth roads that remain intact. The neural interface is state-of-the-art, of course. But mostly I keep it because it reminds me of earlier times, when we thought death was inevitable and life was limited to a single planet. The future stretches out before us like an infinity I helped create—yet another masterpiece in the eternal gallery of human evolution.

71.

Martin feels better after writing it out. He rereads it a couple times, feels even better. Then he has the idea to send his writing to the department administrator. He asks her to create a new tab on his lab page, titled “Immortality Promise,” and to post his piece there. That will get his message across to Sophie and everyone at Abyssinian. 

72.

Sophie’s boss, Ray, is the first to email her. The subject line: “martn” [sic]. No further words in the body. Ray is known to be short and blunt in all his communications, but his meaning is always clear. They’ve had enough conversations about Martin by then. She is already in the process of slowly shutting down his projects, has been ignoring his texts and calls because of this. Now she has to move even faster. 

73.

Sophie leaves her office and goes into the lab. As an executive, she is not expected to do experiments, but watching a thousand tiny worms crawl across their agar plates soothes her. Each of the ones she now looks at carries a fluorescent marker she designed to track mitochondrial dynamics during aging. The green glow pulses with their movements, like stars blinking in a microscopic galaxy. She spent years developing this strain of C. elegans, carefully selecting for longevity without sacrificing health. The worms that lived longest weren’t always the healthiest—a truth about aging that seemed to elude Martin. Those worms taught her more about the genuine complexity of aging. Just last week, she observed something unexpected: The mitochondrial networks in her long-lived strains showed subtle patterns of reorganization never documented before. The discovery felt intimate, like being trusted with a secret.

“How are things looking?” Jerry appears beside her. “That new strain expressing the dual markers?”

Sophie nods, adjusting the focus. “Look at this network pattern. It’s different from anything in the literature.” She shifts aside so Jerry can see. This is what she loves about science: the genuine puzzles, the patient observation, the slow accumulation of knowledge that, while far removed from a specific application, could someday help people age with dignity.

“Beautiful,” Jerry murmurs. He straightens. “I heard about Martin’s … post.”

Sophie closes her eyes for a moment, the image of the mitochondrial networks still floating in her vision. She’s read Martin’s “Immortality Promise” piece three times, each more painful than the last. Not because of its grandiose claims—those were comically disconnected from reality—but because of what it’s revealed about her husband. The writing pulsed with a frightening certainty, a complete absence of doubt or wonder. Gone was the scientist who once spent many lively evenings debating with her about the evolutionary purpose of aging, who delighted in being proved wrong because it meant learning something new. 

74.

She sees in his words a man who has abandoned the fundamental principles of science. His piece reads like a religious text or science fiction story, casting himself as the hero. He isn’t pursuing research anymore. He hasn’t been for a long time. 

She wonders how and when he arrived there. The change in Martin didn’t take place overnight. It was gradual, almost imperceptible—not unlike watching someone age. It wasn’t easy to notice if you saw the person every day; Sophie feels guilty for not noticing. Then again, she read a new study out a few months ago from Stanford researchers that found people do not age linearly but in spurts—specifically, around 44 and 60. Shifts in the body lead to sudden accelerations of change. If she’s honest with herself, she knew this was happening to Martin, to their relationship. But she chose to ignore it, give other problems precedence. Now it is too late. Maybe if she’d addressed the conditions right before the spike—but how? wasn’t it inevitable?—he would not have gone from scientist to fanatic.

75.

“You’re giving the keynote at next month’s Gordon conference,” Jerry reminds her, pulling her back to reality. “Don’t let this overshadow that.”

She manages a small smile. Her work has always been methodical, built on careful observation and respect for the fundamental mysteries of biology. The keynote speech represents more than five years of research: countless hours of guiding her teams, of exciting discussions among her peers, of watching worms age and die, of documenting every detail of their cellular changes. It is one of the biggest honors of her career. There is poetry in it, she thinks—in the collisions between discoveries and failures. 

76.

The knock on her office door comes at 2:45. Linda from HR, right on schedule. Sophie walks with her to conference room B2, two floors below, where Martin’s group resides. Through the glass walls of each lab, they see scientists working at their benches. One adjusts a microscope’s focus. Another pipettes clear liquid into rows of tubes. Three researchers point at data on a screen. Each person is investigating some aspect of aging, one careful experiment at a time. The work will continue, with or without Martin.

In the conference room, Sophie opens her laptop and pulls up the folder of evidence. She has been collecting it for months. Martin’s emails to colleagues, complaints from collaborators and direct reports, and finally, his “Immortality Promise” piece. The documentation is thorough, organized chronologically. She has labeled each file with dates and brief descriptions, as she would for any other data.

77.

Martin walks in at 3:00. Linda from HR shifts in her chair. Sophie is the one to hand the papers over to Martin; this much she owes him. They contain words like “termination” and “effective immediately.” Martin’s face complicates itself when he looks them over. Sophie hands over a pen and he signs quickly.  

He stands, adjusts his shirt cuffs, and walks to the door. He turns back.

“I’ll prove you wrong,” he says, looking at Sophie. But what stands out to her is the crack in his voice on the last word. 

Sophie watches him leave. She picks up the signed papers and hands them to Linda, and then walks out herself. 

Alexandra Chang is the author of Days of Distraction and Tomb Sweeping and is a National Book Foundation 5 under 35 honoree. She lives in Camarillo, California.

A new biosensor can detect bird flu in five minutes

Over the winter, eggs suddenly became all but impossible to buy. As a bird flu outbreak rippled through dairy and poultry farms, grocery stores struggled to keep them on shelves. The shortages and record-high prices in February raised costs dramatically for restaurants and bakeries and led some shoppers to skip the breakfast staple entirely. But a team based at Washington University in St. Louis has developed a device that could help slow future outbreaks by detecting bird flu in air samples in just five minutes. 

Bird flu is an airborne virus that spreads between birds and other animals. Outbreaks on poultry and dairy farms are devastating; mass culling of exposed animals can be the only way to stem outbreaks. Some bird flu strains have also infected humans, though this is rare. As of early March, there had been 70 human cases and one confirmed death in the US, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The most common way to detect bird flu involves swabbing potentially contaminated sites and sequencing the DNA that’s been collected, a process that can take up to 48 hours.

The new device samples the air in real time, running the samples past a specialized biosensor every five minutes. The sensor has strands of genetic material called aptamers that were used to bind specifically to the virus. When that happens, it creates a detectable electrical change. The research, published in ACS Sensors in February, may help farmers contain future outbreaks.

Part of the group’s work was devising a way to deliver airborne virus particles to the sensor. 

With bird flu, says Rajan Chakrabarty, a professor of energy, environmental, and chemical engineering at Washington University and lead author of the paper, “the bad apple is surrounded by a million or a billion good apples.” He adds, “The challenge was to take an airborne pathogen and get it into a liquid form to sample.”

The team accomplished this by designing a microwave-­size box that sucks in large volumes of air and spins it in a cyclone-like motion so that particles stick to liquid-coated walls. The process seamlessly produces a liquid drip that is pumped to the highly sensitive biosensor. 

Though the system is promising, its effectiveness in real-world conditions remains uncertain, says Sungjun Park, an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at Ajou University in South Korea, who was not involved in the study. Dirt and other particles in farm air could hinder its performance. “The study does not extensively discuss the device’s performance in complex real-world air samples,” Park says. 

But Chakrabarty is optimistic that it will be commercially viable after further testing and is already working with a biotech company to scale it up. He hopes to develop a biosensor chip that detects multiple pathogens at once. 

Carly Kay is a science writer based in Santa Cruz, California.

Game of clones: Colossal’s new wolves are cute, but are they dire?

Somewhere in the northern US, drones fly over a 2,000-acre preserve, protected by a nine-foot fence built to zoo standards. It is off-limits to curious visitors, especially those with a passion for epic fantasies or mythical creatures.

The reason for such tight security? Inside the preserve roam three striking snow-white wolves—which a startup called Colossal Biosciences says are members of a species that went extinct 13,000 years ago, now reborn via biotechnology.

For several years now, the Texas-based company has been in the news for its plans to re-create woolly mammoths someday. But now it’s making a bold new claim—that it has actually “de-extincted” an animal called the dire wolf.

And that could be another reason for the high fences and secret location—to fend off scientific critics, some of whom have already been howling that the company is a “scam” perpetrating “elephantine fantasies” on the public and engaging in “pure hype.”

Dire wolves were large, big-jawed members of the canine family. More than 400 of their skulls have been recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits in California. Ultimately they were replaced by smaller relatives like the gray wolf.

In its effort to re-create the animal, Colossal says, it extracted DNA information from dire wolf bones and used gene editing to introduce some of those elements into cells from gray wolves. It then used a cloning procedure to turn the cells into three actual animals. 

The animals include two males, Romulus and Remus, born in October, and one female, Khaleesi, whose name is a reference to the TV series Game of Thrones, in which fictional dire wolves play a part.

Two dire wolves are seen at 3 months old.
Two of the “dire wolves” at three months old.
COLOSSAL BIOSCIENCES

Each animal, the company says, has 20 genetic changes across 14 genes designed to make them larger, change their facial features, and give them a snow-white appearance.

Some scientists reject the company’s claim that the new animals are a revival of the extinct creatures, since in reality dire wolves and gray wolves are different species separated by a few million of years of evolution and several million letters of DNA.

“I would say such an animal is not a dire wolf and it’s not correct to say dire wolves have been brought back from extinction. It’s a modified gray wolf,” says Anders Bergström, a professor at the University of East Anglia who specializes in the evolution of canines. “Twenty changes is not nearly enough. But it could get you a strange-looking gray wolf.”

Beth Shapiro, an expert on ancient DNA who is now on a three-year sabbatical from the University of California, Santa Cruz, as the company’s CSO, acknowledged in an interview that other scientists would bristle at the claim.

“What we’re going to have here is a philosophical argument about whether we should call it a dire wolf or call it something else,” Shapiro said. Asked point blank to call the animal a dire wolf, she hesitated but then did so.

“It is a dire wolf,” she said. “I feel like I say that, and then all of my taxonomist friends will be like, ‘Okay, I’m done with her.’ But it’s not a gray wolf. It doesn’t look like a gray wolf.”

Dire or not, the new wolves demonstrate that science is becoming more deft in its control over the genomes of animals—and point to how that skill could help in conservation. As part of the project, Colossal says, it also cloned several red wolves, an American species that’s the most endangered wolf in the world.

But that isn’t as dramatic as the supposed rebirth of an extinct animal with a large cultural following. “The motivation really is to develop tools that we can use to stop species from becoming extinct. Do we need ancient DNA for that? Maybe not,” says Shapiro. “Does it bring more attention to it so that maybe people get excited about the idea that we can use biotechnology for conservation? Probably.”

Secret project

Colossal was founded in 2021 after founder Ben Lamm, a software entrepreneur, visited the Harvard geneticist George Church and learned about a far-out and still mostly theoretical project to re-create woolly mammoths. The idea is to release herds of them in cold regions, like Siberia, and restore an ecological balance that keeps greenhouse gases trapped in the permafrost.

Lamm has unexpectedly been able to raise more than $400 million from investors to back the plan, and Forbes reported that he is now a multibillionaire, at least on paper, thanks to the $10 billion value assigned to the startup.

Ben, Beth, and George of Colossal Biosciences pose with dire wolf pups.
From left to right: Beth Shapiro, George Church, and Ben Lamm pose with the pups.
COLOSSAL BIOSCIENCES

As Lamm showed he could raise money for Colossal’s ideas, it soon expanded beyond its effort to modify elephants. It publicly announced a bid to re-create the thylacine, a marsupial predator hunted to extinction, and then, in 2023, it started planning to resurrect the dodo bird—the effort that brought Shapiro to the company.

So far, none of those signature projects have actually resulted in a live animal with ancient genes. 

Each faces dire practical issues. With elephants, it was that their pregnancies last two years, longer than those in any other species. Testing out mammoth designs would be impossibly slow. With the dodo bird, it was that no one has ever figured out how to genetically modify pigeons, the family of birds to which the dodo belonged and from which a new dodo would have to be crafted. One of Lamm’s other favorite targets—the Steller’s sea cow, which disappeared around 1770—has no obvious surrogate of any kind.   

But creating a wolf was feasible. Over 1,500 dogs had been cloned, primarily by one company in South Korea. Researchers in Asia had even used dog eggs and dog mothers to produce both coyote and wolf clones. That’s not surprising, since all these species are closely enough related to interbreed.

“Just thinking about surrogacy for the dire wolf … it was like ‘Oh, yeah,’” recalls Shapiro. “Surrogacy there would be really straightforward.”

Dire wolves did present some new problems. One was the lack of any clear ecological purpose in reviving animals that disappeared during the Pleistocene epoch and are usually portrayed as ferocious predators with slavering jaws. “People have weird feelings about things that, you know, may or may not eat people or livestock,” Shapiro says.

The technical challenge was there was still no accurate DNA sequence of a dire wolf. A 2021 effort to obtain DNA from old bones had yielded only a tiny amount, not enough to accurately decode the genome in detail. And without a detailed gene map, Colossal wouldn’t be able see what genetic differences they would need to install in gray wolves, the species they intended to alter.

Shapiro says she went back to museums, including the Idaho Museum of Natural History, and eventually got permission to cut off more bone from a 72,0000-year-old skull that’s on display there. She also got a tooth from a 13,000-year-old skull held in another museum. which she drilled into herself.

This time the bones yielded far more DNA and a much more complete gene map. A paper describing the detailed sequence is being submitted for publication; its authors include George R.R. Martin, the fantasy author whose books were turned into the HBO series Game of Thrones, and in which dire wolves appear as the characters’ magical companions.

In addition to placing dire wolves more firmly in the Canidae family tree (they’re slightly closer to jackals than to gray wolves, but more than 99.9% identical to both at a genetic level) and determining when dire wolves split from the pack (about 4 to 5 million years ago), the team also located around 80 genes where dire wolves seemed to be most different. If you wanted to turn a gray wolf into a dire wolf, this would be the obvious list to start from.

Crying wolf

Colossal then began the process of using base editing, an updated form of the CRISPR gene-modification technique, to introduce some of those exact DNA variations into blood cells of a gray wolf kept in its labs. Each additional edit, the company  hoped, would make the eventual animal a little more dire-wolf-like, even it involved changing just a single letter of a gene.

Shapiro says all the edits using information from the ancient dire wolf were made to “genetic enhancers,” bits of DNA that help control how strongly certain genes are expressed. These can influence how big animals grow, as well as affecting the shape of their ears, faces, and skulls. This tactic was not as dramatic as intervening right in the middle of a gene, which would change what protein is made. But it was less risky—more like turning knobs on an unfamiliar radio than cutting wires and replacing circuits.

That left the scientists to engineer into the animals what would become their showstopper trait—the dramatic white fur. Shapiro says the genome code indicated that dire wolves might have had light coats. But the specific pigment genes involved are linked to a risk of albinism, deafness, and blindness, and they didn’t want sick wolves.

That’s when Colossal opted for a shortcut. Instead of reproducing precise DNA variants seen in dire wolves, they disabled two genes entirely. In dogs and other species, the absence of those genes is known to produce light fur.

The decision to make the wolves white did result in dramatic photos of the animals. “It’s the most striking thing about them,” says Mairin Balisi, a paleontologist who studies dire wolf fossils. But she doubts it reflects what the animals actually looked like: “A white coat might make sense if you are in a snowy landscape, but one of the places where dire wolves were most abundant was around Los Angeles and the tar pits, and it was not a snowy landscape even in the Ice Age. If you look at mammals in this region today, they are not white. I am just confused by the declaration that dire wolves are back.”

Bergström also says he doesn’t think the edits add up to a dire wolf. “I doubt that 20 changes are enough to turn a gray wolf to a dire wolf. You’d probably need hundreds or thousands of changes—no one really knows,” he says. “This is one of those unsolved questions in biology. People argue [about] the extent to which many small differences make a species distinct, versus a small number of big-effect differences. Nobody knows, but I lean to the ‘many small differences’ view.”

Some genes have big, visible effects—changing a single gene can make a dog hairless, for instance. But it might be many more small changes that account for the difference in size and appearance between, say, a Great Dane and a Chihuahua. And that is just looks. Bergström says science has much less idea which changes would account for behavior—even if we could tell from a genome how an extinct animal acted, which we can’t.

“A lot of people are quite skeptical of what they are doing,” Bergström says of Colossal. “But I still think it’s interesting that someone is trying. It takes a lot of money and resources, and if we did have the technology to bring species back from extinction, I do think that would be useful. We drive species to extinction, sometimes very rapidly, and that is a shame.”

Cloning with dogs

By last August, the gray wolf cells had been edited, and it was time to try cloning those cells and producing animals. Shapiro says her company transferred 40 to 50 cloned embryos apiece into six surrogate dogs. That led to three pregnancies, from which four dogs were born. One of the four, Khaleesi’s sister, died 10 days after birth from an intestinal infection, deemed unrelated to the cloning process. “That was the only puppy that didn’t make it,” says Shapiro. Two other fetal clones were reabsorbed during pregnancy, which means they disintegrated, a fairly common occurrence in dogs.

These days the white wolves are able to freely roam around a large area. They don’t have radio collars, but they are watched by cameras and are trained to come to their caretakers to get fed, which offers a chance to weigh them as they cross a scale in the ground. The 10 staff members attending to them can see them up close, though they’re now too big to handle the way the caretakers could when they were puppies.

The pups are being monitored through the different stages of their development but will not be put on public display.
COLOSSAL BIOSCIENCES

Whatever species these animals are, it’s not obvious what their future will be. They don’t seem to have a conservation purpose, and Lamm says he isn’t trying to profit from them.

“We’re not making money off the dire wolves. That’s not our business plan,” Lamm said in an interview with MIT Technology Review. He added that the animals would also not be put on display for the public, since “we’re not in the business of attractions.”

At least not in-person attractions. But every aspect of the project has been filmed, and in February, the company inked a deal to produce a docuseries about its exploits. That same month it also hired as its marketing chief a Hollywood executive who previously worked on big-budget “monster movies.”

And there are signs that de-extinction, in Colossal’s hands, has the potential to generate nearly out-of-control of attention, much like that scene in the original King Kong when the giant ape—captured by a filmmaker—breaks its chains under the flashes of the cameras.

For instance company’s first creation, mice with shaggy, mammoth-like hair, was announced only five weeks ago, yet there are already unauthorized sales of throw pillows and T-shirts (they read “Legalize Woolly Mice”), as well as some “serious security issues” involving unannounced visitors, Lamm says.

“We’ve had people show up to our labs because they want the woolly mouse,” Lamm says. “We’re worried about that from a security perspective [for] the wolves, because you’re going to have all the Game of Thrones people. You’re going to have a lot of people that want to see these animals.”  

Lamm said that in light of his concerns about unruly fans, diagrams of the ecological preserve provided to the media had been altered so that no internet “sleuths” could use them to guess its location.

Brain-computer interfaces face a critical test

Tech companies are always trying out new ways for people to interact with computers—consider efforts like Google Glass, the Apple Watch, and Amazon’s Alexa. You’ve probably used at least one.

But the most radical option has been tried by fewer than 100 people on Earth—those who have lived for months or years with implanted brain-computer interfaces, or BCIs.

Implanted BCIs are electrodes put in paralyzed people’s brains so they can use imagined movements to send commands from their neurons through a wire, or via radio, to a computer. In this way, they can control a computer cursor or, in few cases, produce speech.  

Recently, this field has taken some strides toward real practical applications. About 25 clinical trials of BCI implants are currently underway. And this year MIT Technology Review readers have selected these brain-computer interfaces as their addition to our annual list of 10 Breakthrough Technologies, published in January.

BCIs won by a landslide to become the “11th Breakthrough,” as we call it. It beat out three runners-up: continuous glucose monitors, hyperrealistic deepfakes, and methane-detecting satellites.

The impression of progress comes thanks to a small group of companies that are actively recruiting volunteers to try BCIs in clinical trials. They are Neuralink, backed by the world’s richest person, Elon Musk; New York–based Synchron; and China’s Neuracle Neuroscience. 

Each is trialing interfaces with the eventual goal of getting the field’s first implanted BCI approved for sale. 

“I call it the translation era,” says Michelle Patrick-Krueger, a research scientist who carried out a detailed survey of BCI trials with neuroengineer Jose Luis Contreras-Vidal at the University of Houston. “In the past couple of years there has been considerable private investment. That creates excitement and allows companies to accelerate.”

That’s a big change, since for years BCIs have been more like a neuroscience parlor trick, generating lots of headlines but little actual help to patients. 

Patrick-Krueger says the first time a person controlled a computer cursor from a brain implant was in 1998. That was followed by a slow drip-drip of tests in which university researchers would find a single volunteer, install an implant, and carry out studies for months or years.

Over 26 years, Patrick-Krueger says, she was able to document a grand total of 71 patients who’ve ever controlled a computer directly with their neurons. 

That means you are more likely to be friends with a Mega Millions jackpot winner than know someone with a BCI.

These studies did prove that people could use their neurons to play Pong, move a robot arm, and even speak through a computer. But such demonstrations are of no practical help to people with paralysis severe enough to benefit from a brain-controlled computer, because these implants are not yet widely available. 

“One thing is to have them work, and another is how to actually deploy them,” says Contreras-Vidal. “Also, behind any great news are probably technical issues that need to be addressed.” These include questions about how long an implant will last and how much control it offers patients.

Larger trials from three companies are now trying to resolve these questions and set the groundwork for a real product.

One company, Synchron, uses a stent with electrodes on it that’s inserted into a brain vessel via a vein in the neck. Synchron has implanted its “stentrode” in 10 volunteers, six in the US and four in Australia—the most simultaneous volunteers reported by any BCI group. 

The stentrode collects limited brain signals, so it gives users only a basic on/off type of control signal, or what Synchron calls a “switch.” That isn’t going to let a paralyzed person use Photoshop. But it’s enough to toggle through software menus or select among prewritten messages.

Tom Oxley, Synchron’s CEO, says the advantage of the stentrode is that it is “as simple as possible.” That, he believes, will make his brain-computer interface “scalable” to more people, especially since installing it doesn’t involve brain surgery. 

Synchron might be ahead, but it’s still in an exploratory phase. A “pivotal” study, the kind used to persuade regulators to allow sales of a specific version of the device, has yet to be scheduled. So there’s no timeline for a product.  

Neuralink, meanwhile, has disclosed that three volunteers have received its implant, the N1, which consists of multiple fine electrode threads inserted directly into the brain through a hole drilled in the skull. 

More electrodes mean more neural activity is captured. Neuralink’s first volunteer, Noland Arbaugh, has shown off how he can guide a cursor around a screen in two dimensions and click, letting him play video games like Civilization or online chess.

Finally, Neuracle says it is running two trials in China and one in the US. Its implant consists of a patch of electrodes placed on top of the brain. In a report, the company said a paralyzed volunteer is using the system to stimulate electrodes in his arm, causing his hand to close in a grasp. 

But details remain sparse. A Neuracle executive would only say that “several” people had received its implant.

Because Neuracle’s patient count isn’t public, it wasn’t included in Patrick-Krueger’s tally. In fact, there’s no information at all in the medical literature on about a quarter of brain-implant volunteers so far, so she counted them using press releases or by e-mailing research teams.

Her BCI survey yielded other insights. According to her data, implants have lasted as long as 15 years, more than half of patients are in the US, and roughly 75% of BCI recipients have been male. 

The data can’t answer the big question, though. And that is whether implanted BCIs will progress from breakthrough demonstrations into breakout products, the kind that help many people.

“In the next five to 10 years, it’s either going to translate into a product or it’ll still stay in research,” Patrick-Krueger says. “I do feel very confident there will be a breakout.”

“Spare” living human bodies might provide us with organs for transplantation

This week, MIT Technology Review published a piece on bodyoids—living bodies that cannot think or feel pain. In the piece, a trio of scientists argue that advances in biotechnology will soon allow us to create “spare” human bodies that could be used for research, or to provide organs for donation.

If you find your skin crawling at this point, you’re not the only one. It’s a creepy idea, straight from the more horrible corners of science fiction. But bodyoids could be used for good. And if they are truly unaware and unable to think, the use of bodyoids wouldn’t cross “most people’s ethical lines,” the authors argue. I’m not so sure.

Either way, there’s no doubt that developments in science and biotechnology are bringing us closer to the potential reality of bodyoids. And the idea is already stirring plenty of ethical debate and controversy.

One of the main arguments made for bodyoids is that they could provide spare human organs. There’s a huge shortage of organs for transplantation. More than 100,000 people in the US are waiting for a transplant, and 17 people on that waiting list die every day. Human bodyoids could serve as a new source.

Scientists are working on other potential solutions to this problem. One approach is the use of gene-edited animal organs. Animal organs don’t typically last inside human bodies—our immune systems will reject them as “foreign.” But a few companies are creating pigs with a series of gene edits that make their organs more acceptable to human bodies.

A handful of living people have received gene-edited pig organs. David Bennett Sr. was the first person to get a gene-edited pig heart, in 2022, and Richard Slayman was the first to get a kidney, in early 2024. Unfortunately, both men died around two months after their surgery.

But Towana Looney, the third living person to receive a gene-edited pig kidney, has been doing well. She had her transplant surgery in late November of last year. “I am full of energy. I got an appetite I’ve never had in eight years,” she said at the time. “I can put my hand on this kidney and feel it buzzing.” She returned home in February.

At least one company is taking more of a bodyoid-like approach. Renewal Bio, a biotech company based in Israel, hopes to grow “embryo-stage versions of people” for replacement organs.

Their approach is based on advances in the development of “synthetic embryos.” (I’m putting that term in quotation marks because, while it’s the simplest descriptor of what they are, a lot of scientists hate the term.)

Embryos start with the union of an egg cell and a sperm cell. But scientists have been working on ways to make embryos using stem cells instead. Under the right conditions, these cells can divide into structures that look a lot like a typical embryo.

Scientists don’t know how far these embryo-like structures will be able to develop. But they’re already using them to try to get cows and monkeys pregnant.

And no one really knows how to think about synthetic human embryos. Scientists don’t even really know what to call them. Rules stipulate that typical human embryos may be grown in the lab for a maximum of 14 days. Should the same rules apply to synthetic ones?

The very existence of synthetic embryos is throwing into question our understanding of what a human embryo even is. “Is it the thing that is only generated from the fusion of a sperm and an egg?” Naomi Moris, a developmental biologist at the Crick Institute in London, said to me a couple of years ago. “Is it something to do with the cell types it possesses, or the [shape] of the structure?”

The authors of the new MIT Technology Review piece also point out that such bodyoids could also help speed scientific and medical research.

At the moment, most drug research must be conducted in lab animals before clinical trials can start. But nonhuman animals may not respond the same way people do, and the vast majority of treatments that look super-promising in mice fail in humans. Such research can feel like a waste of both animal lives and time.

Scientists have been working on solutions to these problems, too. Some are creating “organs on chips”—miniature collections of cells organized on a small piece of polymer that may resemble full-size organs and can be used to test the effects of drugs.

Others are creating digital representations of human organs for the same purpose. Such digital twins can be extensively modeled, and can potentially be used to run clinical trials in silico.

Both of these approaches seem somehow more palatable to me, personally, than running experiments on a human created without the capacity to think or feel pain. The idea reminds me of the recent novel Tender Is the Flesh by Agustina Bazterrica, in which humans are bred for consumption. In the book, their vocal cords are removed so that others do not have to hear them scream.

When it comes to real-world biotechnology, though, our feelings about what is “acceptable” tend to shift. In vitro fertilization was demonized when it was first developed, for instance, with opponents arguing that it was “unnatural,” a “perilous insult,” and “the biggest threat since the atom bomb.” It is estimated that more than 12 million people have been born through IVF since Louise Brown became the first “test tube baby” 46 years ago. I wonder how we’ll all feel about bodyoids 46 years from now.

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

Ethically sourced “spare” human bodies could revolutionize medicine

Why do we hear about medical breakthroughs in mice, but rarely see them translate into cures for human disease? Why do so few drugs that enter clinical trials receive regulatory approval? And why is the waiting list for organ transplantation so long? These challenges stem in large part from a common root cause: a severe shortage of ethically sourced human bodies. 

It may be disturbing to characterize human bodies in such commodifying terms, but the unavoidable reality is that human biological materials are an essential commodity in medicine, and persistent shortages of these materials create a major bottleneck to progress.

This imbalance between supply and demand is the underlying cause of the organ shortage crisis, with more than 100,000 patients currently waiting for a solid organ transplant in the US alone. It also forces us to rely heavily on animals in medical research, a practice that can’t replicate major aspects of human physiology and makes it necessary to inflict harm on sentient creatures. In addition, the safety and efficacy of any experimental drug must still be confirmed in clinical trials on living human bodies. These costly trials risk harm to patients, can take a decade or longer to complete, and make it through to approval less than 15% of the time. 

There might be a way to get out of this moral and scientific deadlock. Recent advances in biotechnology now provide a pathway to producing living human bodies without the neural components that allow us to think, be aware, or feel pain. Many will find this possibility disturbing, but if researchers and policymakers can find a way to pull these technologies together, we may one day be able to create “spare” bodies, both human and nonhuman.

These could revolutionize medical research and drug development, greatly reducing the need for animal testing, rescuing many people from organ transplant lists, and allowing us to produce more effective drugs and treatments. All without crossing most people’s ethical lines.

Bringing technologies together

Although it may seem like science fiction, recent technological progress has pushed this concept into the realm of plausibility. Pluripotent stem cells, one of the earliest cell types to form during development, can give rise to every type of cell in the adult body. Recently, researchers have used these stem cells to create structures that seem to mimic the early development of actual human embryos. At the same time, artificial uterus technology is rapidly advancing, and other pathways may be opening to allow for the development of fetuses outside of the body. 

Such technologies, together with established genetic techniques to inhibit brain development, make it possible to envision the creation of “bodyoids”—a potentially unlimited source of human bodies, developed entirely outside of a human body from stem cells, that lack sentience or the ability to feel pain.

There are still many technical roadblocks to achieving this vision, but we have reason to expect that bodyoids could radically transform biomedical research by addressing critical limitations in the current models of research, drug development, and medicine. Among many other benefits, they would offer an almost unlimited source of organs, tissues, and cells for use in transplantation.

It could even be possible to generate organs directly from a patient’s own cells, essentially cloning someone’s biological material to ensure that transplanted tissues are a perfect immunological match and thus eliminating the need for lifelong immunosuppression. Bodyoids developed from a patient’s cells could also allow for personalized screening of drugs, allowing physicians to directly assess the effect of different interventions in a biological model that accurately reflects a patient’s own personal genetics and physiology. We can even envision using animal bodyoids in agriculture, as a substitute for the use of sentient animal species. 

Of course, exciting possibilities are not certainties. We do not know whether the embryo models recently created from stem cells could give rise to living people or, thus far, even to living mice. We do not know when, or whether, an effective technique will be found for successfully gestating human bodies entirely outside a person. We cannot be sure whether such bodyoids can survive without ever having developed brains or the parts of brains associated with consciousness, or whether they would still serve as accurate models for living people without those brain functions.

Even if it all works, it may not be practical or economical to “grow” bodyoids, possibly for many years, until they can be mature enough to be useful for our ends. Each of these questions will require substantial research and time. But we believe this idea is now plausible enough to justify discussing both the technical feasibility and the ethical implications. 

Ethical considerations and societal implications

Bodyoids could address many ethical problems in modern medicine, offering ways to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. For example, they could offer an ethical alternative to the way we currently use nonhuman animals for research and food, providing meat or other products with no animal suffering or awareness. 

But when we come to human bodyoids, the issues become harder. Many will find the concept grotesque or appalling. And for good reason. We have an innate respect for human life in all its forms. We do not allow broad research on people who no longer have consciousness or, in some cases, never had it. 

At the same time, we know much can be gained from studying the human body. We learn much from the bodies of the dead, which these days are used for teaching and research only with consent. In laboratories, we study cells and tissues that were taken, with consent, from the bodies of the dead and the living.

Recently we have even begun using for experiments the “animated cadavers” of people who have been declared legally dead, who have lost all brain function but whose other organs continue to function with mechanical assistance. Genetically modified pig kidneys have been connected to, or transplanted into, these legally dead but physiologically active cadavers to help researchers determine whether they would work in living people

In all these cases, nothing was, legally, a living human being at the time it was used for research. Human bodyoids would also fall into that category. But there are still a number of issues worth considering. The first is consent: The cells used to make bodyoids would have to come from someone, and we’d have to make sure that this someone consented to this particular, likely controversial, use. But perhaps the deepest issue is that bodyoids might diminish the human status of real people who lack consciousness or sentience.

Thus far, we have held to a standard that requires us to treat all humans born alive as people, entitled to life and respect. Would bodyoids—created without pregnancy, parental hopes, or indeed parents—blur that line? Or would we consider a bodyoid a human being, entitled to the same respect? If so, why—just because it looks like us? A sufficiently detailed mannequin can meet that test. Because it looks like us and is alive? Because it is alive and has our DNA? These are questions that will require careful thought. 

A call to action

Until recently, the idea of making something like a bodyoid would have been relegated to the realms of science fiction and philosophical speculation. But now it is at least plausible—and possibly revolutionary. It is time for it to be explored. 

The potential benefits—for both human patients and sentient animal species—are great. Governments, companies, and private foundations should start thinking about bodyoids as a possible path for investment. There is no need to start with humans—we can begin exploring the feasibility of this approach with rodents or other research animals. 

As we proceed, the ethical and social issues are at least as important as the scientific ones. Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done. Even if it looks possible, determining whether we should make bodyoids, nonhuman or human, will require considerable thought, discussion, and debate. Some of that will be by scientists, ethicists, and others with special interest or knowledge. But ultimately, the decisions will be made by societies and governments. 

The time to start those discussions is now, when a scientific pathway seems clear enough for us to avoid pure speculation but before the world is presented with a troubling surprise. The announcement of the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep back in the 1990s launched a hysterical reaction, complete with speculation about armies of cloned warrior slaves. Good decisions require more preparation.

The path toward realizing the potential of bodyoids will not be without challenges; indeed, it may never be possible to get there, or even if it is possible, the path may never be taken. Caution is warranted, but so is bold vision; the opportunity is too important to ignore.

Carsten T. Charlesworth is a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine (ISCBRM) at Stanford University.

Henry T. Greely is the Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law and director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University.

Hiromitsu Nakauchi is a professor of genetics and an ISCBRM faculty member at Stanford University and a distinguished university professor at the Institute of Science Tokyo.

Ethically sourced “spare” human bodies could revolutionize medicine

Why do we hear about medical breakthroughs in mice, but rarely see them translate into cures for human disease? Why do so few drugs that enter clinical trials receive regulatory approval? And why is the waiting list for organ transplantation so long? These challenges stem in large part from a common root cause: a severe shortage of ethically sourced human bodies. 

It may be disturbing to characterize human bodies in such commodifying terms, but the unavoidable reality is that human biological materials are an essential commodity in medicine, and persistent shortages of these materials create a major bottleneck to progress.

This imbalance between supply and demand is the underlying cause of the organ shortage crisis, with more than 100,000 patients currently waiting for a solid organ transplant in the US alone. It also forces us to rely heavily on animals in medical research, a practice that can’t replicate major aspects of human physiology and makes it necessary to inflict harm on sentient creatures. In addition, the safety and efficacy of any experimental drug must still be confirmed in clinical trials on living human bodies. These costly trials risk harm to patients, can take a decade or longer to complete, and make it through to approval less than 15% of the time. 

There might be a way to get out of this moral and scientific deadlock. Recent advances in biotechnology now provide a pathway to producing living human bodies without the neural components that allow us to think, be aware, or feel pain. Many will find this possibility disturbing, but if researchers and policymakers can find a way to pull these technologies together, we may one day be able to create “spare” bodies, both human and nonhuman.

These could revolutionize medical research and drug development, greatly reducing the need for animal testing, rescuing many people from organ transplant lists, and allowing us to produce more effective drugs and treatments. All without crossing most people’s ethical lines.

Bringing technologies together

Although it may seem like science fiction, recent technological progress has pushed this concept into the realm of plausibility. Pluripotent stem cells, one of the earliest cell types to form during development, can give rise to every type of cell in the adult body. Recently, researchers have used these stem cells to create structures that seem to mimic the early development of actual human embryos. At the same time, artificial uterus technology is rapidly advancing, and other pathways may be opening to allow for the development of fetuses outside of the body. 

Such technologies, together with established genetic techniques to inhibit brain development, make it possible to envision the creation of “bodyoids”—a potentially unlimited source of human bodies, developed entirely outside of a human body from stem cells, that lack sentience or the ability to feel pain.

There are still many technical roadblocks to achieving this vision, but we have reason to expect that bodyoids could radically transform biomedical research by addressing critical limitations in the current models of research, drug development, and medicine. Among many other benefits, they would offer an almost unlimited source of organs, tissues, and cells for use in transplantation.

It could even be possible to generate organs directly from a patient’s own cells, essentially cloning someone’s biological material to ensure that transplanted tissues are a perfect immunological match and thus eliminating the need for lifelong immunosuppression. Bodyoids developed from a patient’s cells could also allow for personalized screening of drugs, allowing physicians to directly assess the effect of different interventions in a biological model that accurately reflects a patient’s own personal genetics and physiology. We can even envision using animal bodyoids in agriculture, as a substitute for the use of sentient animal species. 

Of course, exciting possibilities are not certainties. We do not know whether the embryo models recently created from stem cells could give rise to living people or, thus far, even to living mice. We do not know when, or whether, an effective technique will be found for successfully gestating human bodies entirely outside a person. We cannot be sure whether such bodyoids can survive without ever having developed brains or the parts of brains associated with consciousness, or whether they would still serve as accurate models for living people without those brain functions.

Even if it all works, it may not be practical or economical to “grow” bodyoids, possibly for many years, until they can be mature enough to be useful for our ends. Each of these questions will require substantial research and time. But we believe this idea is now plausible enough to justify discussing both the technical feasibility and the ethical implications. 

Ethical considerations and societal implications

Bodyoids could address many ethical problems in modern medicine, offering ways to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. For example, they could offer an ethical alternative to the way we currently use nonhuman animals for research and food, providing meat or other products with no animal suffering or awareness. 

But when we come to human bodyoids, the issues become harder. Many will find the concept grotesque or appalling. And for good reason. We have an innate respect for human life in all its forms. We do not allow broad research on people who no longer have consciousness or, in some cases, never had it. 

At the same time, we know much can be gained from studying the human body. We learn much from the bodies of the dead, which these days are used for teaching and research only with consent. In laboratories, we study cells and tissues that were taken, with consent, from the bodies of the dead and the living.

Recently we have even begun using for experiments the “animated cadavers” of people who have been declared legally dead, who have lost all brain function but whose other organs continue to function with mechanical assistance. Genetically modified pig kidneys have been connected to, or transplanted into, these legally dead but physiologically active cadavers to help researchers determine whether they would work in living people

In all these cases, nothing was, legally, a living human being at the time it was used for research. Human bodyoids would also fall into that category. But there are still a number of issues worth considering. The first is consent: The cells used to make bodyoids would have to come from someone, and we’d have to make sure that this someone consented to this particular, likely controversial, use. But perhaps the deepest issue is that bodyoids might diminish the human status of real people who lack consciousness or sentience.

Thus far, we have held to a standard that requires us to treat all humans born alive as people, entitled to life and respect. Would bodyoids—created without pregnancy, parental hopes, or indeed parents—blur that line? Or would we consider a bodyoid a human being, entitled to the same respect? If so, why—just because it looks like us? A sufficiently detailed mannequin can meet that test. Because it looks like us and is alive? Because it is alive and has our DNA? These are questions that will require careful thought. 

A call to action

Until recently, the idea of making something like a bodyoid would have been relegated to the realms of science fiction and philosophical speculation. But now it is at least plausible—and possibly revolutionary. It is time for it to be explored. 

The potential benefits—for both human patients and sentient animal species—are great. Governments, companies, and private foundations should start thinking about bodyoids as a possible path for investment. There is no need to start with humans—we can begin exploring the feasibility of this approach with rodents or other research animals. 

As we proceed, the ethical and social issues are at least as important as the scientific ones. Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done. Even if it looks possible, determining whether we should make bodyoids, nonhuman or human, will require considerable thought, discussion, and debate. Some of that will be by scientists, ethicists, and others with special interest or knowledge. But ultimately, the decisions will be made by societies and governments. 

The time to start those discussions is now, when a scientific pathway seems clear enough for us to avoid pure speculation but before the world is presented with a troubling surprise. The announcement of the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep back in the 1990s launched a hysterical reaction, complete with speculation about armies of cloned warrior slaves. Good decisions require more preparation.

The path toward realizing the potential of bodyoids will not be without challenges; indeed, it may never be possible to get there, or even if it is possible, the path may never be taken. Caution is warranted, but so is bold vision; the opportunity is too important to ignore.

Carsten T. Charlesworth is a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine (ISCBRM) at Stanford University.

Henry T. Greely is the Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law and director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University.

Hiromitsu Nakauchi is a professor of genetics and an ISCBRM faculty member at Stanford University and a distinguished university professor at the Institute of Science Tokyo.

Autopsies can reveal intimate health details. Should they be kept private?

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been following news of the deaths of actor Gene Hackman and his wife, pianist Betsy Arakawa. It was heartbreaking to hear how Arakawa appeared to have died from a rare infection days before her husband, who had advanced Alzheimer’s disease and may have struggled to understand what had happened.

But as I watched the medical examiner reveal details of the couple’s health, I couldn’t help feeling a little uncomfortable. Media reports claim that the couple liked their privacy and had been out of the spotlight for decades. But here I was, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, being told what pills Arakawa had in her medicine cabinet, and that Hackman had undergone multiple surgeries.

It made me wonder: Should autopsy reports be kept private? A person’s cause of death is public information. But what about other intimate health details that might be revealed in a postmortem examination?

The processes and regulations surrounding autopsies vary by country, so we’ll focus on the US, where Hackman and Arakawa died. Here, a “medico-legal” autopsy may be organized by law enforcement agencies and handled through courts, while a “clinical” autopsy may be carried out at the request of family members.

And there are different levels of autopsy—some might involve examining specific organs or tissues, while more thorough examinations would involve looking at every organ and studying tissues in the lab.

The goal of an autopsy is to discover the cause of a person’s death. Autopsy reports, especially those resulting from detailed investigations, often reveal health conditions—conditions that might have been kept private while the person was alive. There are multiple federal and state laws designed to protect individuals’ health information. For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects “individually identifiable health information” up to 50 years after a person’s death. But some things change when a person dies.

For a start, the cause of death will end up on the death certificate. That is public information. The public nature of causes of death is taken for granted these days, says Lauren Solberg, a bioethicist at the University of Florida College of Medicine. It has become a public health statistic. She and her student Brooke Ortiz, who have been researching this topic, are more concerned about other aspects of autopsy results.

The thing is, autopsies can sometimes reveal more than what a person died from. They can also pick up what are known as incidental findings. An examiner might find that a person who died following a covid-19 infection also had another condition. Perhaps that condition was undiagnosed. Maybe it was asymptomatic. That finding wouldn’t appear on a death certificate. So who should have access to it?

The laws over who should have access to a person’s autopsy report vary by state, and even between counties within a state. Clinical autopsy results will always be made available to family members, but local laws dictate which family members have access, says Ortiz.

Genetic testing further complicates things. Sometimes the people performing autopsies will run genetic tests to help confirm the cause of death. These tests might reveal what the person died from. But they might also flag genetic factors unrelated to the cause of death that might increase the risk of other diseases.

In those cases, the person’s family members might stand to benefit from accessing that information. “My health information is my health information—until it comes to my genetic health information,” says Solberg. Genes are shared by relatives. Should they have the opportunity to learn about potential risks to their own health?

This is where things get really complicated. Ethically speaking, we should consider the wishes of the deceased. Would that person have wanted to share this information with relatives?

It’s also worth bearing in mind that a genetic risk factor is often just that; there’s often no way to know whether a person will develop a disease, or how severe the symptoms would be. And if the genetic risk is for a disease that has no treatment or cure, will telling the person’s relatives just cause them a lot of stress?

One 27-year-old experienced this when a 23&Me genetic test told her she had “a 28% chance of developing late-onset Alzheimer’s disease by age 75 and a 60% chance by age 85.”

“I’m suddenly overwhelmed by this information,” she posted on a dementia forum. “I can’t help feeling this overwhelming sense of dread and sadness that I’ll never be able to un-know this information.”

In their research, Solberg and Ortiz came across cases in which individuals who had died in motor vehicle accidents underwent autopsies that revealed other, asymptomatic conditions. One man in his 40s who died in such an accident was found to have a genetic kidney disease. A 23-year-old was found to have had kidney cancer.

Ideally, both medical teams and family members should know ahead of time what a person would have wanted—whether that’s an autopsy, genetic testing, or health privacy. Advance directives allow people to clarify their wishes for end-of-life care. But only around a third of people in the US have completed one. And they tend to focus on care before death, not after.

Solberg and Ortiz think they should be expanded. An advance directive could specify how people want to share their health information after they’ve died. “Talking about death is difficult,” says Solberg. “For physicians, for patients, for families—it can be uncomfortable.” But it is important.

On March 17, a New Mexico judge granted a request from a representative of Hackman’s estate to seal police photos and bodycam footage as well as the medical records of Hackman and Arakawa. The medical investigator is “temporarily restrained from disclosing … the Autopsy Reports and/or Death Investigation Reports for Mr. and Mrs. Hackman,” according to Deadline.

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

HIV could infect 1,400 infants every day because of US aid disruptions

Around 1,400 infants are being infected by HIV every day as a result of the new US administration’s cuts to funding to AIDS organizations, new modeling suggests.

In an executive order issued January 20, President Donald Trump paused new foreign aid funding to global health programs, and four days later, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a stop-work order on existing foreign aid assistance. Surveys suggest that these changes forced more than a third of global organizations that provide essential HIV services to close within days of the announcements. 

Hundreds of thousands of people are losing access to HIV treatments as a result. Women and girls are missing out on cervical cancer screening and services for gender-based violence, too. A waiver Rubio later issued in an attempt to restore lifesaving services has had very little impact. 

“We are in a crisis,” said Jennifer Sherwood, director of research, public policy, at amfAR, the Foundation for AIDS Research, at a data-sharing event on March 17 at Columbia University in New York. “Even funds that had already been appropriated, that were in the field, in people’s bank accounts, [were] frozen.” 

Rubio approved a waiver for “life-saving” humanitarian assistance on January 28. “This resumption is temporary in nature, and with limited exceptions as needed to continue life-saving humanitarian assistance programs, no new contracts shall be entered into,” he said in a statement at the time.

The US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which invests millions of dollars in the global AIDS response every year, was also granted a waiver February 1 to continue “life-saving” work. 

Despite this waiver, there have been devastating reports of the impact on health programs across the many low-income countries that relied on the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which oversees PEPFAR, for funding. To get a better sense of the overall impact, amfAR conducted two surveys looking at more than 150 organizations that rely on PEPFAR funding in more than 26 countries. 

“We found really severe disruptions to HIV services,” said Sherwood, who presented the findings at Columbia. “About 90% of our participants said [the cuts] had severely limited their ability to deliver HIV services.” Specifically, 94% of follow-up services designed to monitor people’s progress were either canceled or disrupted. There were similarly dramatic disruptions to services for HIV testing, treatment, and prevention, and 92% of services for gender-based violence were canceled or disrupted.

The cuts have plunged organizations into a “deep financial crisis,” said Sherwood. Almost two-thirds of respondents said community-based staff were laid off before the end of January. When the team asked these organizations how long they could stay open without US funding, 36% said they had already closed. “Only 14% said that they were able to stay open longer than a month,” said Sherwood. “And … this data was collected longer than a month ago.”

The organizations said tens of thousands of the people they serve would lose HIV treatment within a month. For some organizations, that figure was over 100,000, said Sherwood. 

Part of the problem is that the stop-work order came at a time when these organizations were already experiencing “shortages in commodities,” Sherwood said. Typically, centers might give a person a six-month supply of antiretroviral drugs. Before the stop-work order, many organizations were only giving one-month supplies. “Almost all of their clients are due to come back and pick up [more] treatments in this 90-day freeze,” she said. “You can really see the panic this has caused.”

The waiver for “life-saving” treatment didn’t do much to remedy this situation. Only 5% of the organizations received funds under the waiver, while the vast majority either were told they didn’t qualify or had not been told they could restart services. “While the waiver might be one important avenue to restart some services, it cannot, on the whole, save the US HIV program,” says Sherwood. “It is very limited in scope, and it has not been widely communicated to the field.”

AmfAR isn’t the only organization tracking the impact of US funding cuts. At the same event, Sara Casey, assistant professor of population and family health at Columbia, presented results of a survey of 101 people who work in organizations reliant on US aid. They reported seeing disruptions to services in humanitarian responses, gender-based violence, mental health, infectious diseases, essential medicines and vaccines, and more. “Many of these should have been eligible for the ‘life-saving’ waivers,” Casey said.

Casey and her colleagues have also been interviewing people in Colombia, Kenya, and Nepal. In those countries, women of reproductive age, newborns and children, people living with HIV, members of the LGBTQI+ community, and migrants are among those most affected by the cuts, she said, and health workers, who are primarily women, are losing their livelihoods.

“There will be really disproportionate impacts on the world’s most vulnerable,” said Sherwood. Women make up 67% of the health-care workforce, according to the World Health Organization. They also make up 63% of PEPFAR clients. PEPFAR has supported gender equality and services for gender-based violence. “We don’t know if other countries or other donors … can or will pick up these types of programs, especially in the face of competing priorities about keeping people on treatment and keeping people alive,” said Sherwood.

Sherwood and her colleagues at amfAR have also done some modeling work to determine the potential impact of cuts to PEPFAR on women and girls, using data from last year to create their estimates. “Each day that the stop-work order is in place, we estimate that there are 1,400 new HIV infections among infants,” she said. And every day, over 7,000 women stand to miss out on cervical cancer screenings.

The funding cuts have also had a dramatic effect on mental-health services, said Farah Arabe, who serves on the advisory board of the Global Mental Health Action Network. Arabe presented the preliminary findings of an ongoing survey of mental-health organizations from 29 countries that receive US aid. “Unfortunately, this is a very grim picture,” she said. “Only 5% of individuals who were receiving services in 2024 will be able to receive services in 2025.” 

The same goes for children and adolescents. “This is a particularly sad picture because children … are going through brain development,” she said. “Impacts … at this early stage of life have lifelong impacts on academic achievement, economic productivity, mental health, physical health … even the ability to parent the next generation.” 

For now, nonprofits and aid and research organizations are scrambling to try to understand, and potentially limit, the impact of the cuts. Some are hoping to locate new sources of funding, independent of the US. 

“I am deeply concerned that progress in disease eradication, poverty reduction, and gender equality is at risk of being reversed,” said Thoai Ngo of Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, who chaired the event. “Without urgent action, preventable deaths will rise, more people will fall into poverty, and as always, women and girls will bear the heaviest burden.”

On March 10, Rubio announced the results of his department’s review of USAID. “After a 6 week review we are officially cancelling 83% of the programs at USAID,” he shared via the social media platform X

This annual shot might protect against HIV infections

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

Every year, my colleagues and I put together a list of what we think are the top 10 breakthrough technologies of that year. When it came to innovations in biotech, there was a clear winner: lenacapavir, a drug that was found to prevent HIV infections in 100% of the women and girls who received it in a clinical trial.

You never hear “100%” in medicine. The trial was the most successful we’ve ever seen for HIV prevention. The drug was safe, too (it’s already approved to treat HIV infections). And it only needed to be injected twice a year to offer full protection.

This week, the results of a small phase I trial for once-yearly lenacapavir injections were announced at a conference in San Francisco. These early “first in human” trials are designed to test the safety of a drug in healthy volunteers. Still, the results are incredibly promising: All the volunteers still had the drug in their blood plasma a year after their injections, and at levels that earlier studies suggest will protect them from HIV infections.

I don’t normally get too excited about phase I trials, which usually involve just a handful of volunteers and typically don’t tell us much about whether a drug is likely to work. But this trial seems to be different. Together, the lenacapavir trials could bring us a significant step closer to ending the HIV epidemic.

First, a quick recap. We’ve had effective pre-exposure prophylactic (PrEP) drugs for HIV since 2012, but these must be taken either daily or just before a person is exposed to the virus. In 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first long-acting injectable drug for HIV prevention. That drug, cabotegravir, needs to be injected every two months.

But researchers have been working on drugs that offer even longer-lasting protection. It can be difficult for people to remember to take daily pills when they’re sick, let alone when they’re healthy. And these medicines have a stigma attached to them. “People are concerned about people hearing the pills shake in their purse on the bus … or seeing them on a medicine cabinet or bedside table,” says Moupali Das, vice president of HIV prevention and virology, pediatrics, and HIV clinical development at Gilead Sciences.

Then came the lenacapavir studies. The drug is already approved as a treatment for some cases of HIV infection, but two trials last year tested its effectiveness at prevention. In one, over 5,000 women and adolescent girls in Uganda and South Africa received either twice-yearly injections of lenacapavir or a daily PrEP pill. That trial was a resounding success: There were no cases of HIV among the volunteers who got lenacapavir.

In a second trial, the drug was tested in 3,265 men and gender-diverse individuals, including transgender men, transgender women, and gender nonbinary people. The twice-yearly injections reduced the incidence of HIV in this group by 96%.

In the most recent study, which was also published in The Lancet, Das and her colleagues tested a new formulation of the drug in 40 healthy volunteers in the US. The participants still got lenacapavir, but in a slightly different formulation, and at a higher dose. And whereas the previous trials involved injections under the skin, these participants received injections into their glute muscles. Half the volunteers in this trial received a higher dose than the others.

The drug appeared to be safe. It also appears likely to be effective. These individuals weren’t at risk of HIV. But the levels of the drug in their blood plasma remained high, even in the people who got the lower dose.

A year after their injection, the levels of the drug were still higher than those seen in people who were protected from HIV in last year’s trials. This suggests the new annual shot will be just as protective as the twice-yearly shot, says Renu Singh, a senior director in clinical pharmacology at Gilead Sciences, who presented the findings at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in San Francisco.

“I was just so excited [to hear the results],” says Carina Marquez, an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who both studies infectious disease and treats people with HIV.

Annual shots would make things easier—and potentially cheaper—for both patients and health-care providers, says Marquez. “It will be a game changer if it works, which looks promising from the phase I data,” she says.

The drug works by interfering with the virus’s ability to replicate. But it also seems to have some very unusual properties, says Singh. It can be taken daily or yearly. Small doses can stay in the blood for days rather than hours. And bigger doses form what’s known as a depot, which gradually releases the drug over time.

“I previously worked at the FDA, and looked at many, many different molecules and products, but I’ve never seen [anything] like this,” Singh adds. She and her colleagues have come up with nicknames for the drug, including “magical,” “the unicorn,” and “limitless len.”

Once a phase I trial is successfully completed, researchers will typically move on to a phase II trial, which is designed to test the efficacy of a drug. That’s not necessary for lenacapavir, given the unprecedented success of last year’s trials. The team at Gilead is currently planning a phase III trial, which will involve testing annual shots in large numbers of people at risk of HIV infection.

The drug isn’t approved yet, but the researchers at Gilead have submitted twice-yearly lenacapavir for approval by the FDA and the European Medicines Agency and hope to have it approved by the FDA in June, says Das. The drug is also being assessed under the EU-Medicines for all (EU-M4all) procedure, which is a collaboration between the EMA and the World Health Organizations to fast-track the approval of drugs for countries outside Europe.

With any new medicine for an infection that affects low- and middle-income countries, there are always concerns about cost. The existing formulations of lenacapvir (used for treating HIV infections) can cost around $40,000 for a year’s supply. “There’s no price for the twice-yearly [formulation] yet,” says Das.

Gilead has signed licensing agreements with six generic drug manufacturers that will sell cheaper versions of the drug in 120 low- and middle-income countries. In December, the Global Fund and other organizations announced plans to secure access to twice-yearly lenacapavir for 2 million people in such countries.

But this was an effort coordinated with the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program whose very existence has come under threat following an executive order issued by the Trump administration to pause foreign aid.

“We are looking at the political situation right now and evaluating our possible options,” says Singh. “We are committed to working with the government to see what’s next and what can be done.”

The pause on US foreign aid will have devastating consequences for the health of people around the globe. And the idea that it might interfere with access to a drug that could help bring an end to the HIV epidemic—which has already claimed over 40 million lives—is a heartbreaking prospect. It is estimated that 630,000 people died from HIV-related causes in 2023. That same year, another 1.3 million people acquired HIV.

“We’re in such a good place to end the epidemic,” says Marquez. “We’ve come so far … we’ve got to go the last mile and get the product out there to the people that need it.”


Now read the rest of The Checkup

Read more from MIT Technology Review‘s archive

You can read more about why twice-yearly lenacapavir made our 2025 list of the top 10 breakthrough technologies here. (It’s also worth checking out the full list, here!)

The pharmaceutical company Merck has explored a different approach to delivering PrEP drugsvia a matchstick-size plastic tube implanted in a person’s arm

In 2018, Antonio Regalado broke the news that He Jiankui and his colleagues in Shenzen, China, had edited the genes of human embryos to create the first “CRISPR babies.” The team claimed to have done the procedure to ensure that the resulting children were resistant to HIV.

The first approved mRNA vaccines were for covid-19. But Moderna, the pharmaceutical company behind some of those vaccines, is now working on a similar approach for HIV.

AIDS denialism is undergoing a resurgence thanks to conspiracy-theory-promoting podcasts and books, one of which was authored by the newly appointed US secretary of health and human services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 

From around the web

Last week, I covered the creation of the “woolly mouse,” an animal with woolly-mammoth-like features. Its creators think they’re a step closer to bringing the mammoths back from extinction. But the woolly mammoth is just one of a list of animals scientists have been trying to “de-extinct.” The full list includes dodos, passenger pigeons, and even a frog that “gives birth” by vomiting babies out of its mouth. (Discover Wildlife)

The biotechnology company Beam Therapeutics claims to have corrected a DNA mutation in people with an incurable genetic disease that can affect the liver and lungs. It is the first time a mutated gene has been restored to normal, the team says. (New York Times)

In the peak covid-19 era of 2020, Jay Bhattacharya was considered a “fringe epidemiologist” by Francis Collins, then director of the US National Institutes of Health. Now, Collins is out and Bhattacharya may soon take his place. What happens when the “fringe” is in charge? (The Atlantic)

The Trump administration withdrew the nomination of Dave Weldon to run the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Weldon has a long track record of criticizing vaccines. (STAT

Mississippi became the third US state to ban lab-grown meat. The state’s agriculture commissioner has written that he wants his steak to come from “farm-raised beef, not a petri dish from a lab.” (Wired)