The Not-So-Mad Science of Head Transplants

We may soon be able to successfully graft a human head onto a different body, but is it worth the cost in terms of dollars and ethics?

Illustration by Tyler Hoehne and Addision Eaton

Last year, when Sergio Canavero of Italy’s Turin Advanced Neuromodulation Group announced that in the near future he’d be able to transplant a human head onto another body, people didn’t call him mad (MAD!) at the universities. And instead of setting upon Canavero with pitchforks and torches, the medical establishment seemed content to just write him off as idealistic and impractical.

But as radical as splicing heads sounds, we’ve known for decades how to keep a head and brain alive and functional long enough to graft it onto another body. We’ve just never been very good at fusing the spine back together, which would allow the newly transplanted head to communicate with the host body. Last year, scientists demonstrated that substances called fusogens could partially repair severed spines in rats, and Canavero claims his Head Anastomosis Venture with Cord Fusion surgery can use these proteins to solve the spinal problem in humans. But critics point out that the operation would most likely only be effective at repairing clean, surgical cuts to the spinal cord (if that) rather than reliably fixing real-world injuries. And with each surgery requiring 100 surgeons for 36 hours at a potential cost of $12.8 million, even the most optimistic were forced to dismiss Canavero’s vision as a pipe dream. Yet what seemed like a pipe dream just last year seems less mad every day as new discoveries push this kind of surgery from the realm of impossibility to mere ethical quandary.

The modern head transplant dates back to 1970, when an American Dr. Robert J. White grafted a monkey’s head onto another body. By moving swiftly, cauterizing arteries as they were severed to prevent blood loss, putting the donor body into cardiac arrest, and using fast artery-stitching technology, he was able to revive a head that could taste, smell, hear, and see. But the monkey, say those who were present (like Dr. Jerry Silver, whose research to his chagrin has inspired Canavero), had a look of pain, confusion, and anxiety for the short and miserable time it was alive on the paralyzed host body. To many, the surgery seemed like a reckless, horrifying, and inhumane Frankensteinian folly that ought never to be repeated.

Photo by Weiß, Günter/Wikimedia Commons

But even back in 1970, the monkey transplant experiment wasn’t completely novel. We’ve been working on head graft technology since at least 1908, when American Dr. Charles Guthrie managed to attach a dog’s head (after 20 minutes of death) onto the body of another living dog, creating a two-headed beast whose transplanted head could still focus its pupils and twitch its tongue before death. In the 1950s, Soviet Dr. Vladimir Demikhov improved the process, making at least 20 two-headed dogs. The second heads actually functioned normally, staying alive for about a week before the host immune systems rejected them. The experiment was repeated on monkeys in 2001 and rats in 2002.

Since last year, there have been a few optimistic developments for head transfers. Recent work in the United States and Germany has advanced our knowledge on how to fuse and more fully restore function in the spine, meaning those who scoffed at Canavero and his fusogens might have less of a critical leg to stand on. Spine repair is still in its infancy, and there’s still work to be done to make sure a host body doesn’t reject the head transplant. But even without a fully functional spine, the surgery may still have practical uses right now (if we can get the costs down) for quadriplegics suffering organ failure and others who’d rather live with impairment than die.

With many disabled patients who might be willing to take the risk, the hurdle stopping us from seeing human head transplants may be more about ethics than ability. How does one reconcile, for instance, using a whole body whose organs could save many individuals to only save one person? A possible solution could come from a series of mid-1990s experiments in the United States and England, which developed headless mice and frog bodies by manipulating the genes in eggs, potentially creating uncomplicated donor bodies. But creating headless human bodies for transplant is far off in the sci-fi future and certainly carries its own ethical morass. So while for now we’re stuck with the impractical dreams of Dr. Canavero, it would be foolish to write off the possibility that transferring a head may one day be as feasible as transplanting hearts, lungs, or kidneys—all once medical pipe dreams or futuristic fantasies. With each tweak and successful repetition, hopes grow that the procedure could become a common clinical reality within the century.

via Douglas Muth / Flickr

Sin City is doing something good for its less fortunate citizens as well as those who've broken the law this month. The city of Las Vegas, Nevada will drop any parking ticket fines for those who make a donation to a local food bank.

A parking ticket can cost up to $100 in Las Vegas but the whole thing can be forgiven by bringing in non-perishable food items of equal or greater value to the Parking Services Offices at 500 S. Main Street through December 16.

The program is designed to help the less fortunate during the holidays.

Keep Reading Show less

For more than 20 years. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has served the citizens of Maine in the U.S. Senate. For most of that time, she has enjoyed a hard-fought reputation as a moderate Republican who methodically builds bridges and consensus in an era of political polarization. To millions of political observers, she exemplified the best of post-partisan leadership, finding a "third way" through the static of ideological tribalism.

However, all of that has changed since the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Voters in Maine, particularly those who lean left, have run out of patience with Collins and her seeming refusal to stand up to Trump. That frustration peaked with the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Keep Reading Show less
via / Flickr and Dimitri Rodriguez / Flickr

Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign looks to be getting a huge big shot in the arm after it's faced some difficulties over the past few weeks.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a leading voice in the Democratic parties progressive, Democratic Socialist wing, is expected to endorse Sanders' campaign at the "Bernie's Back" rally in Queens, New York this Saturday.

Fellow member of "the Squad," Ilhan Omar, endorsed him on Wednesday.

Keep Reading Show less
Photo by HAL9001 on Unsplash

The U.K. is trying to reach its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, but aviation may become the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.K. by that same year. A new study commissioned by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) and conducted at the Imperial College London says that in order for the U.K. to reach its target, aviation can only see a 25% increase, and they've got a very specific recommendation on how to fix it: Curb frequent flyer programs.

Currently, air travel accounts for 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, however that number is projected to increase for several reasons. There's a growing demand for air travel, yet it's harder to decarbonize aviation. Electric cars are becoming more common. Electric planes, not so much. If things keep on going the way they are, flights in the U.K. should increase by 50%.

Nearly every airline in the world has a frequent flyer program. The programs offer perks, including free flights, if customers get a certain amount of points. According to the study, 70% of all flights from the U.K. are taken by 15% of the population, with many people taking additional (and arguably unnecessary) flights to "maintain their privileged traveler status."

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet