What is Digg?53 Comments
- streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9This is HUGE.
The accomplishment of constructing a working transplant organ from a patient's cells is a major step towards the day when those who need transplants won't have that horrible "she really needs a new heart but someone somewhere's gonna have to get themselves killed first" dilemma.
That day isn't here yet, and it won't be for some time to come. Hearts are much, much trickier to frame out and populate than bladders. But today will be looked upon as the beginning of the end of that tragic need for organ donors. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7There's nothing to politicize here. This is pure and unadulterated science. The bladder was grown from the patients own bladder stem cells. The only possible way this will devolve into a political slug-fest is if people don't read the article before posting.
No embryonic stem cells were used in the construction of this post. - jimr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I was about to post this. Guess I'll settle for first comment. Pretty amazing stuff. The reference to possibly using the same concept for arteries and hearts is interesting. That said, growing a bladder or artery would seem to be nowhere near the complexity of growing a heart. Unless it just doesn't matter and the DNA takes over, given the right environment..
- LacY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The bladder is basically a muscular sac--it doesn't really *do* anything other than hold liquid. A Heart, however, has a lot of interior structure, making their method of "putting in a bladder-shaped mold" and letting the cells grow around it sort of difficult. The heart also has a much bigger function, and different parts have to do different functions, whereas the bladder really just has to sit there. For a heart, you'd have to grow not only the musculature, but also the SA node, etc, which tell the heart to do it's job.
Also, you have to take into account that these are NOT stem cells of any sort--they are mature, differentiated bladder cells. That means that if you had a diseased bladder/major bladder cancers/etc, they couldn't do this. You can't take dying cells (or cancerous cells) and make a healthy new organ. So if someone has congenital heart failure and this procedure were applicable to hearts, then they'd have to find a large enough population of healthy heart tissue--which can be a big issue.
Since people just *had* to bring the stem cell debate into it, this is a key point... if you needed a new bladder, but your current one was not healthy enough (or you were born without one? it happens), you'd be SOL. Stem cells, however, (adult or embryonic) would allow you to take cells from an entirely different part of the body (an ostensibly healthy part) and directed to grow into the organ of choice. So what these doctors have done is amazing and a real breakthrough, but it's very disease/organ specific, and isn't a cure for everyone needing an organ. - dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5 lmao me too dammit.
Interesting story though. Although growing isn't really what I would call it, more like constructing from cells. You don't grow a car you construct it using parts.
A good first step towards growing from our own cells though. I would be very happy if I needed a new Liver and one was made for me.
- CoffeeCup, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Want 3 to 4 inches added to your penis size? haha. Just wait...
- jnorris441, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Just waiting to see how Christians are going to complain about yet another scientific breakthrough...
- noGoodNamesLeft, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Pancreas, eyes, hearts, livers..... penis, more like. I foresee this technology being commercially driven by the money of people who want a 14" monster schlong.
Sorry, but if I hadn't said it, someone else would have. And joking aside, if people remain as narcisstic as they are at present, it almost certainly *will* be used for things like that at some stage. - diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3what was the point of that?
- boredofthesane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Damn ye sinners who want working bladders! We shall surely rot in hell!
- urbanaut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Does this mean that we won't have to worry about "The Island" anytime soon?
- Xiol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@diggnate
Probably that "we're playing God" and we can't be doing that.
Fundies. Let 'em die while we have the organs. - Thor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hopefully they'll be able to use the same tech to produce pancrease, eye lens, hearts, livers, etc.
Now the question I have is which is biologiacally older? The patient or the organ? I suspect the organs. - FLarsen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't think it's a very long time until that is possible too. One organ grown is one big step towards any other organ, with an exception of the brain of course.
- dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They didn't use any stem cells, they used muscle and bladder cells taken from her bladder.
From the article:
"We're not using any type of stem cell population or cloning techniques, but mainly the patient's own cells that we're using to create these organs and put them back into the patient," Atala told CNN. - geojessb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And I'm not trying to bring politics into this at all, becuase honestly I'm not one that stands out with a picket sign or anything, but givin' that this technology is available to use adult stems cells from donors own cells, what would the benifit of embreanic stem cells? Seems like this can seal the deal. But I'm just saying. I'm glad the technology is there. for sure.
- diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2excellent points. these are not stem cells, or at the very most these are targeted stem cells that could not be used inter-organally(?).
I was confused by the wording of the article and assumed that they were somehow organ-produced stem cells, but after reading your post and the article again, i see what you are saying.
Although, you have to admit, this is one step closer to the ability to grow new organs, and that is very promising. - Scytle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2very very interesting, I wonder what it is about the bladder that makes it so easy to grow, or perhaps these guys have figured out a new system and they are being shy about it because they are going to make some serious cash when they get this technique to grow lungs and hearts. either way its a good thing.
- stokestack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Bladder or artery? What about scalp? This should cure baldness.
- Beanlover, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2With the history of heart disease in my family this is a wonderful and much needed advancement in science. Sure would be nice to extend people's lives by creating "new" organs for them to replace failing ones with.
Truely amazing stuff! - The_Decryptor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"it is for this very reason that many on the right didn't want embryonic stem cell research done."
This has got nothing to do with stem-cells though. - jetta421, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have this vision of newborns having cells stored in a cryotube for the eventual day that their organs start giving out. Then they will be growing organs from newborn cells, and not the cells of a 40-something. This is absolutely amazing to think of. Sign me up! Maybe in our lifetime we'll see the end of cancer, the first person to live to 200, and the end of all Republicans!
- Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Care to define what you mean by "enlightenment"? It seems to have become a term that means "in agreement with me" rather than describing any particular set of beliefs.
- FLarsen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you say that God means this is bad, then don't use the technology. Don't say that every person who is dying or have a problem should not do it. This doesn't affect the environment in any way, I think, therefore don't bother.
I didn't quite understand what your point was but if it was positive instead of negative, ignore this comment. I just needed to say it. - jetta421, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Didn't God say we have "Free Will?" I agree with you, that religious right is more than likely formulating their case against great science. I'll stay out of that argument though, it's usually one no one can "win".
- kodekitten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Personally, I would opt for preventative care. It is more reasonable to maintain a healthy diet and lifestyle than to expect new organs to be grown whenever we disregard our bodies.
All in all, organs on a whim won't be dolled out for quite awhile anyhow, considering doctors usually make a judgment as to the priority of the needy individual. If they had a malformed heart or organ upon birth, they have higher priority for transplant than someone who made it a habit to enjoy the Denny's Grand Slam every other morning and now wants science to "fix" them. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2...Then there was the line from one of the Star Trek movies with Dr. McCoy, visiting 20th century earth, where the old woman in the hospital says:
"the doctor gave me a pill and I grew a new kidney" - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Harmony and enlightenment cannot come without immortality.
Or rather... If you still die, then all other social problems are a moot point.
Secondly, if people didn't die from old age, people would be more careful about the earth and each other in general because we are in it for the long run and actually have the time to become educated and retain humanities knowledge without having to retrain our children over and over again.
Every time someone dies... All their knowledge and memories are lost forever. Not to mention the suffering usually involved when dying. Some people cite over population or regime changes as benefits of terminal life, but I think with the right technology advances we can overcome those problems...
Either way... As long as capitalism is around we will progress towards making our self immortal because rich selfish people will of course be the early adopters on said technology. Hopefully, I'll live long enough to have a plastic body in 2030. - diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2exactly. there is absolutely no need to continue to do research in embryonic SCR. this seems to be much more promising.
- alphamerik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1/Now the question I have is which is biologiacally [sic] older? The patient or the organ? I suspect the organs./
Patients with liver transplants from old(er) donors have shown that the donated organ actually regenerates to a younger youthful state. An interesting question posed: if you were to continue to transplant the same organ (in this case a liver) through many years and patients (100s) would the liver retain still be viable or eventually die off? I suspect there is a specific system effecting the age of organs and the entire body. Mmmmm maybe the endocrine system. - nugget, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, that is pretty neat. I like posts like this on Digg.
- jayf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just tell them this is how Jesus will be reborn and they'll sit quietly.
- jayf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If this could be used to create one's own blood ideally we wouldn't need blood donors anymore.
And the fact that stem cells aren't needed shuts the gate on conservative type people. - zonk3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1heh, i was thinking more along the lines of 'Parts: The Clonus Horror' which The Island was a blatant ripoff of... but same idea yeah. ;p
- Eccles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This operation is very delicate, though, and they must have someone specifically assigned to fetching the new organ from the laboratory and bringing it to the operating room. This person is the lab bladder retriever.
/exit stage left - streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Meat Sheets!
http://angryflower.com/meatsh.html
Eeew... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this is a LONG shot from growing a heart.
- jayf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah............. I think I'll side with science on this one.
I'll agree that people should value their lives a bit more but some elements are out of our control like being hit by a car or getting cancer just because of a genetic disposition.
As for overpopulation, educate the developing nations on the value having 1 or 2 children, not 12. That may sound un-PC but their sacrifice will have the greatest effect to solve this problem. - xhadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0well looks like we are just a few years off from paying someone to grow backup organs... just in case, and if they aren't used those same organs being donated, or sold, depending on what happens with the law, because once doctors can grow organs specifically made for you why keep a donation system around?
- logic11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wonder if this same technique could be used to grow general flesh, say cow flesh, in a cost effective way...
Vat grown meat will probably be needed in order to feed all the people who live so much longer due to organ transplants (although there is nothing in this article to indicate that it affects cell death cycles so we still die, just maybe a few decades older and in better health) - diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2it is for this very reason that many on the right didn't want embryonic stem cell research done. Science had not investigated other forms of stem cells, and just jumped on the embryonic kind. I'm glad we didn't go overboard back in 03-04 and we finally came up with a morally acceptable way to do research on a possibly revolutionary discovery. props to science.
- kodekitten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It could very well be that I don't understand your question properly, but if you ask which is "biologically" older between the patient and the organ, my first response is the organ of course. The organ's development was initiated by the patient's own tissue, and thus, all cells that make up the organ would be new developments. Although one could make the arguement that all cells within the body are constantly being regrown, and thus, the body is never comprised of cells much older than about 7 years or so, let's ignore that for now. In this case, the organ was developed relatively quickly, and thus, the tissue that comprises it is more youthful than the individual themselves.
- 3lite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1omg, is this for real? Wow, I didn't think you could already do that. I read some articles about this some time ago. This is great.
- diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Xiol said:
"Probably that "we're playing God" and we can't be doing that."
Look at his "scripture" reference: Rik 6:23AM.
He was obviously poking fun at some people. as far as I can tell, there were no right-wingers on here saying that this was bad, but he took a cheap shot anyway. pointless.
I agree that there are many religious fundamentalists that for some reason think that medical science is wrong, but the vast majority of religious types believe that God can use medical science, and is in no way opposed to it. - CaptBrowncoat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, heck - I wonder how hard it would be to create a properly functioning pancreas. Can you say "G'bye, diabetes?!?" On behalf of my wife's slowly deteriorating body (Type 1 diabetic, injecting herself at least 4 times a day with insulin since she was 11), I say this can't happen fast enough.
Screw all the holier-than-thou right-wing zealots who think they have the right to play God with the rest of us and dictate what our beliefs and behaviors will be. They can't seem to grasp the irony of their own contradictory beliefs (stop abortions at any cost - life is too precious - BUT don't you dare take away our death penalty!). - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1And all Democrats.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1If 'science' doesn't take major steps to somehow control the severe over-populating/over-birthing that is STILL going on all over, then this new thing will only exacerbate the problem and speed up our eventual destruction, simply from an excess of people using the planet.
'Overpopulating' is the sociological equivalent of what, among cells and tissues, is called.....you guessed it CANCER!
Wouldn't it be better if people learned to value their lives, and live them well, and then not try to avoid the natural transition meant to happen, usually at old age?
But apparently, scientists are still fighting against nature, instead of discovering harmony and enlightenment! - forger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Christians oppose to some science breakthroughs, because they can be broadened to abuse, not because they hate new stuff.
- forger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Other than stem cells? I'd like to see this people in a few years, like Dolly's arthritis. (I mean I hope it doesn't happen to them)
- breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Imagine how much money they'd make if they grow and sell boobies in a box!
-
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is