Human Head Transplant

Yes. Exactly as it sounds. Most experts don’t think it can be done, but not Italian neurosurgeon Dr. Sergio Canavero. For 10 million euros, he will chop off your head and attach it to a new body. He is planning to attempt it this year in 2017 in China along with orthopedic surgeon Dr. Ren Xiaoping. They even have a willing candidate, a Chinese citizen. The transplanted body will come from a recently diseased individual. Dr. Canavero claims he has successfully done the procedure on rats and a monkey though none of the test subjects lasted more than 36 hours.

The spinal cord would have to be attached using the Gemini spinal cord fusion protocol. The blood vessels and muscles would have to be stitched together. The patient would then be put into a coma for a month. Modern medicine has not yet figured out a way to fix serious spinal cord injuries. Canavero says that this operation would be different than a spinal cord injury because in the surgery the spinal cord would be cut cleanly and evenly with much less blunt force than an injury. Canavero explains that the spinal cord has a bundle of a million fibers that look like spaghetti. He says only 10 to 20% of the fibers need to attach to the spinal cord of the donor body for full mobility.

Dr. Canavero is very confident about this whole thing…perhaps too confident…a bit cocky, a bit of a salesman. It’s hard to think that ego is not playing a role in the decision making process here. Though I guess if a surgeon is going to cut your head off and attach it to another person’s body, you want him to be confident. I assume anyone willing to undergo this procedure would have very serious health issues with their current body but just imagine all the things that could go wrong. There are worse consequences than death.

Dr. Canavero says that he will remove the head of the patient, drain the blood and then cool the head to 10C. He predicts that when he re-attaches the head, the patient’s consciousness will still be intact. He says he belongs to a group of scientists that believe that the brain is a filter that doesn’t generate consciousness. There is evidence that this may not be the case. Look at brain damaged individuals. They suffer many different malfunctions of the brain including not being able to remember names of animals but they can remember names of tools. The brain is fragmented. Damage to any one part can affect a specific function. Consider split-brain experiments. There is a surgery to ameliorate the symptoms of epilepsy. The corpus callosum is the main broad band of nerve fibers that connects the hemispheres of the brain. In corpus callosotomy surgery, this connection between the two sides of the brain is severed. Experiments on patients afterwards have shown that in certain scenarios one side of the brain does not have access to information that the other side has. Do we really think that cutting off someone’s head, draining the blood and then attaching it to another body will result in the individual having an intact consciousness with the ability to speak and drive and logon to Facebook and remember their password?

There are endless questions with no answers. What if this really did work? Let’s say a guy named Harry has his head transplanted onto the body of Bob. Let’s call the new person Harry Bob. What if Harry Bob likes to go to bars to get into fights? Let’s say Harry Bob punches Jimmy. Jimmy then takes Harry Bob to court. Jimmy says: “Harry punched me!”. Harry could say: “No, I didn’t! Bob did!”. What now? Is Harry the Head to blame? Or Bob the Body? Or Harry Bob? If Harry Bob did throw a punch, it wasn’t Harry’s fist that punched Jimmy, it was Bob’s. Can Jimmy sue Bob? Well, Bob’s dead. His original brain is in a jar somewhere. That meets the legal definition of dead. Taking that into consideration, how did Bob’s fist end up knocking out Jimmy’s teeth?

Figuring out who is who is a little hazy here. Check out this thought experiment: A surgeon removes one cell from me and one cell from you and then replaces your cell with my cell and my cell with your cell. He keeps doing this one at a time. At what point do I officially become you and you become me?

Now what about the soul? First of all, does it exist? Let’s just assume it does for this discussion. Does Harry the Head’s soul now belong to Harry Bob? What about Bob the Body’s soul? Did it go to heaven/hell/die when Bob’s brain stop functioning? Or maybe the soul is associated with the body, not the head. The Head usually weights around 12 lbs or 6% of the average person’s body weight. Wouldn’t the soul be associated with the majority of the body? Or perhaps Harry Bob now has a soul blended from two souls into one.

Scientists are finding more and more that the mind and body are one, not two separate entities. The heart sends far more messages to the brain than vice versa. The heart has been seen for centuries by many people as the center for love and emotion in humans. Some scientists today believe that might be literally true. Could the soul be attached to the heart? There are people out there now walking around with transplanted hearts. I doubt they think they have a new soul.

Others believe that emotions are located in the synapses between neurons. You hear people talking about old emotions or stress being stored in different parts of the body. Is the soul related to your emotions? What is it that makes us who we are? Is it our brain/mind? Our emotions? Our body? Our everything together? Being in the moment is talked about a lot these days. Proponents say your thoughts and even your behaviors are not the true you. There is something deeper than that in regards to who we really are.

Dr. Canavero and Dr. Xiaoping have performed this operation on a monkey, however they have been less than completely transparent with evidence, though they have provided some video. Having only performed this procedure with mice and one monkey does not seem enough to try this potential horror show on a human. However, can we really justify performing more of these procedures on non-consenting monkeys? Scientists are finding more evidence of how our primate cousins are very similar to us. Some chimpanzees live in caves. Recently, some were spotted using spears to kill prey. Chimps have been studied that appear to be using plants as medicine! Examining chimp feces, scientists (who says studying hard for biology class will pay off!?) discovered that certain plants with medicinal properties are occasionally found swallowed whole. This is unusual because doing this would have no nutritional benefit. Are our closest animal relatives that different from us? Do we really want to perform more Frankenstein experiments on them?

The majority of people are in favor of kidney transplants. There is something different about transplanting the body of one human to another. It hits you in the gut. There seems to be something wrong about it. I guess adding a spare part to replace a failing one sounds like a great idea. The difference with this procedure, is that it seems to blend one person with another. A hybrid being. Is there something inherently wrong with this? I’m not sure if this is a rational complaint or not.

In the wildly unlikely event that this becomes a new viable surgical option, what if some old rich guy wants a new and improved body? What if an old Saudi billionaire wants a body like a professional NFL football player? Assuming no NFL players would be interested in such an opportunity, there are potentially other options out there. Somewhere in the world, there would be someone willing to find a recently deceased, young, athletic male corpse to affix to some old rich dude’s noggin. Or perhaps, targeting an ideal candidate and, ummm, appropriating his body below the neck.

Keeping in mind that I am not an expert, in, well, anything, I can’t imagine this working. However, if this ambitious project actually goes ahead, it might answer some questions about surgery, spinal cords, consciousness and human craziness. Stay tuned.

Evolution, Intelligent Design and …

There is a bitter intellectual war going on involving Intelligent Design and Darwinian evolutionists. Both sides dislike each other much like Trump supporters versus Hillary supporters. Each side delights in ridiculing the other. I’ve explored what both sides have to say. I don’t believe either of ‘em. Well, not all of it. The theory of evolution states that genetic mutations and natural selection account for the development of species. I think they only have part of the story.

Intelligent Design is pooh-poohed by most scientists. Many of its proponents are Christian Fundamentalists who are trying to use science in a desperate attempt to backup their religious beliefs. The Discovery institute that funds much of the research on Intelligent Design is a little questionable from a scientific viewpoint. A review of the 1997 tax year found that among the donors for the Discovery Institute were 22 foundations. More than two-thirds of the foundations explicitly state religion missions. Those who don’t believe in ID are very suspicious of the motivation behind the funding of this research, for good reason. Many of the backers of ID don’t have a scientific agenda but a religious one. However, this does not mean that ID scientists do not have something to offer, they do.

I read Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution“. He came up with the term Intelligent Design. His book is scientific and doesn’t contain creationist dogma. This guy is a true scientist. He is not a young-earth-creationist. Behe admits that gene mutations and natural selection play a part in the development of species and believes in common descent. He says evolution explains the appearance of new organisms including antibiotic-resistant bacteria and that it can account for new species including humans. That being said, his book points out serious flaws in the theory of evolution.

Michael Behe writes about the biological cell and its mind boggling complexities. He coined the term “irreducible complexity”. It states that for an organism to develop, certain systems have to be formed as one functioning system without going through intermediate steps. If one part is taken away, the system will not function. This conflicts with the theory of evolution which says for components to develop, each part has to evolve one step at a time.

I think both sides of this debate make legitimate arguments in some areas. I just don’t buy the whole package either side is selling. I believe natural selection and gene mutations account for part of what is going on but it doesn’t explain everything. For example, how does evolution explain insect metamorphosis? A butterfly goes through 4 stages – egg, larva, pupa and adult. How did this remarkably complex process come about by random selection? A caterpillar is incredibly complex. A butterfly is incredibly complex. A caterpillar does not have sex organs and cannot reproduce. How did the caterpillar pass on its genes? How did the caterpillar change step by step into a butterfly? It would be thousands or maybe millions of changes. It couldn’t pass on its genes until it developed into a functioning organism that could survive long enough to reproduce. Now, I’m not a scientist but the Darwinian explanation for this makes as much sense to me as a talking snake. Darwinists do not have sufficient evidence or even a plausible explanation for this process. Google it. The answer is not there.

In many ways it does look like there was some sort of design involved in creating creatures such as ourselves. But if there was a designer, why would there be such obvious design flaws? In Richard Dawkins’ book: “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution”, Dawkins gives the example of the recurrent laryngeal nerve which travels from the brain to the larynx. As it heads south from the brain, the laryngeal nerve comes within a couple of inches of the larynx but instead of taking the obvious route it descends to the bottom of the neck, takes a u-turn around a major artery in the chest and heads back up to attach to the larynx. In a giraffe, this could mean as much as a 15 foot detour! In other mammals the neck is not as long, but the path of the laryngeal nerve is the same. This suggests horribly poor design if there was any and makes more sense from an evolutionary perspective. The ancestors of mammals were fish. The vagus nerve of fish attaches to the gills. Mammals lost the gills and grew necks (fish do not have necks). This caused the nerves and blood vessels to migrate and grow in length with no regard to plotting the most direct path. It doesn’t make sense that a designer would plan for the laryngeal nerve to take such a circuitous route, at least, not an “intelligent” designer.

Non-scientific questions arise regarding a designer. If there was a designer why would he/she/they/it create the influenza virus? Why create something and then create something else to kill it? Turkeys might be asking the same question. Why didn’t the designer give the poor caterpillar mentioned earlier any sex organs? I shake my head at the purported planned cruelty.

Intelligent design proponents use a false dichotomy, saying if evolution doesn’t account for the development of species, then an intelligent designer must have done it. I think that something else is going on here. I just don’t know what. Let’s pretend for a moment that what I am saying is correct, that there is something else that is involved in the development of species. Now that is freaky! Perhaps there is something we don’t understand or maybe something that we don’t even know exists. Quite fascinating, me thinks.

Psssst….If you know the answer and you’ve been holding out on us, please send it to me.