November 17, 2017

expert reaction to media reports* that a human head (/body) transplant has reportedly been carried out on a corpse in China (no published paper yet)

Some media are reporting that a human head transplant has been carried out on a corpse in China.

Prof. Roger Lemon, Sobell Chair of Neurophysiology, Institute of Neurology, UCL, said:

“Canavero has making these claims for many years.  It’s impossible to know what has been done and whether these claims stand up until the paper, which will presumably be peer-reviewed, has actually appeared.”

Dr James Fildes, NHS Principal Research Scientist at the Transplant Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, and Principal Investigator at the Manchester Collaborative Centre for Inflammation Research, University of Manchester, said:

“Aside from the complete fantasy of Canavero’s reported statement, that the natural course of life and death represents ‘genocide on a mass scale’, he presents no evidence that he can improve the quality of life of a human being, or an animal for that matter, by performing a head transplant.

“To surgically attach a dead head onto a dead body warrants no publicity and is not a head transplant.  His next goal, to transplant the head from a brain dead donor onto the body of a brain dead donor, again will not be a head transplant.

“Unless Canavero or Ren provide real evidence that they can perform a head, or more appropriately, a whole body transplant on a large animal that recovers sufficient function to improve quality of life, this entire project is morally wrong.  Perhaps far more worryingly, this endeavour appears to revolve around immortality, but in each case a body is needed for the transplant, and therefore a human needs to die as part of the process.  Where does Canavero propose to get the donor body from if the goal is to tackle the laws of nature?  And finally, if body transplantation becomes a reality, has Canavero considered how he will tackle acute rejection of the constituent parts of the head?  What will rejection of the skin, muscles, eyes, and brain manifest as?  I hope this is not just egotistical pseudoscience.”

Prof. Jan Schnupp, Professor of Neuroscience, City University of Hong Kong, said:

“These human head transplant stories keep coming up and it appears that their interest stems mostly from the gory, Frankenstein imagery they conjure up.  Their scientific or clinical value is, at present, essentially zero.  Note that the case reported here was carried out on cadavers, and is therefore little more than a skill practice session for a surgeon, which is perfectly fine.  But we are a long way from the point where attempting such a thing on living human beings would have any scientific or clinical value.

“It is essential to remember that, both in established medical practice and in state of the art animal experiments, spinal cord regeneration remains extremely difficult.  Consequently, the chances that a person who has their head transplanted onto another body will be able to gain any control over, or benefit from, that grafted body are completely negligible.  At the current state of the art, the expected therapeutic value for the patient would be minimal, while the risks of graft rejection related side effects, or simply death as a consequence of a mishap during the operation, are huge.  Such a procedure would be an experiment on a human guinea pig, and one of very limited scientific value, because it is not obvious what data one would wish to collect, what hypothesis would be tested, what control experiments would be carried out, and how the experiment could be replicated often enough to obtain reliable results, given that each experiment would require the beheading of a living human being.  Indeed, I frankly find it disturbing that Prof Canavero seems to be proposing such a thing on human subjects if there aren’t even any proof of concept pilot studies that have successfully achieved this in anaesthetised mice or sheep or pigs.

“We still don’t know nearly enough about how to make spinal nerves regenerate properly.  Consequently, Prof Canavero’s enthusiasm notwithstanding, I find it inconceivable that ethics committees in any reputable research or clinical institutions would give a green light to living human head transplants in the foreseeable future.  Indeed, attempting such a thing given the current state of the art would be nothing short of criminal, and as a neuroscientist, I would really quite like the general public to be reassured that neither I nor any of my colleagues think that beheading people for extremely long shot experiments is acceptable.  It is not!”

Prof. Frances Edwards, Professor of Neurodegeneration, UCL, said:

“I’m very sceptical about this and it’s impossible to know what has been done because there is no publish paper.  But surely, if this were possible, it would be a whole body transplant rather than a head transplant – after all who would the person be afterwards?”

Prof. Stafford Lightman, Director and Professor of Medicine, University of Bristol, said:

“Even if this was practically or ethically feasible – which we just don’t know – it would be a total body transplant, not a head transplant.”

Prof. Catherina Becker, Professor of Neural Development and Depute Director of the Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, said:

“In a full head transplant, the spinal cord and all nerves running through the neck would have to be fully transected and the patient would be paralysed.  While there have been very encouraging developments in the regenerative medicine field, in humans and all other mammals, spinal cord injury can currently not be repaired and after a complete transection – function below the injury never returns.

“Actual success of a head transplant must be measured by long term survival of head and body with the head controlling motor function.  This can obviously not be assessed in a corpse and for all we know, would also not occur in a living human.  Therefore, extreme caution is advised in the interpretation of the current reported human head transplant experiment.”

Declared interests

Dr James Fildes: “Paid employment – paid by MUFT as NHS scientist.  Grant funding – none related to this issue.  Voluntary appointments – none.  Memberships – ISHLT, TTS.  Decision-making positions – none of relevance.  Other financial interest – none.”

Prof. Catherina Becker: “Catherina Becker is Professor of Neural Development and Depute Director of the Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh.  She investigates successful spinal cord repair in the zebrafish.  She declares no interests.”

None others received.